Embrace the PainB
Sorcery (R)
Join forces — Starting with you, each player may pay any amount of mana. Each player draws X cards and loses X life, where X is the amount of mana paid this way. "Hurt with me. Dream with me. Scream with me. Die alone."
- Hagan the Fatespinner
Design - (2/3) Appeal: Johnny can easily see a good double-edged sword here. Spike does like the value but also a bit about giving an opportunity to harm him to opponents. Timmy likes cards, but doesn't like the pain. (3/3) Elegance: This card is simple and totally makes sense.
Development - (3/3) Viability: The color is correct and the rarity is appropriate, nothing much to say for a simple card like this here. (3/3) Balance: It looks weaker than Minds Aglow from the first glance because draw > pay life to draw, but actually this is not true because all players will suffer, you just need to use it in the right situation. It can be a simple killing spell if you/your opponents want to seize an opportunity to kill someone.
Creativity - (1,5/3) Uniqueness: Join forces direct damage/life loss for X surprisingly wasn't done yet but card draw here is too close to Minds Aglow with a black "pay to draw" tweak. (3/3) Flavor: Black. Fits the mechanic. Very nice. That's all.
Polish - (2,5/3) Quality: Join forces should be italized. (2/2) *Main Challenge: Yes. (1/2) Subchallenges: Your card is a sorcery.
Total: 21/25
Sycophant’s Lanturn2
Artifact {R}Will of the Counsel — At the beginning of your upkeep, starting with you, each player votes for a color. Until your next turn, at the beginning of each player’s precombat main phase, that player adds one mana of a color with the most votes or tied for the most votes. T: Target player gets an additional vote. Activate this ability only while voting.
Design - (2/3) Appeal: Additional vote is something Johnny can be interested in. Other than that, this is a grouphug mana rock that can only mildly interest Timmy and Spike. (2/3) Elegance: This is not very elegant due to memory issues but maybe this plays better than reads.
Development - (3/3) Viability: No problems here. The card itself is complex and impactful enough to be a rare and being a mana rock artiact, of course, makes it colorless. (2,5/3) Balance: Fair but not groundbreaking card, probably something that won't attract any interest outside of Conspiracy format thanks to voting.
Creativity - (2,5/3) Uniqueness: This definetely wasn't printed before as is but the additional voice isn't something completely new. (2,5/3) Flavor: Sycophant belongs to Conspiracy and lanterns are known for producing mana of any color. But I am not sure about lantern being able to collect additional votes. Lack of flavor text doesn't help.
Polish - (1,5/3) Quality: Two mistakes in "Will of the council" here. Also I am not sure about "Lanturn", was it supposed to be a pun or just a typo? Let me know if possible. (2/2) *Main Challenge: Yes. (2/2) Subchallenges: Both yes.
Total: 20/25
Agramor the Two-Faced3(W/B)(W/B)
Legendary Creature- Human Knight
Will of the Council- When Agramor the Two-Faced enters the battlefield, starting with you, each player votes for hero or villain. If hero gets more votes, sacrifice Agramor and create The Hero's Blade, a Legendary Equipment token with "Equipped creature gets +5/+5 and has vigilance, lifelink and protection from black." and "Equip 3". If villain gets more votes or the vote is tied, destroy target creature and put a number of +1/+1 counters on Agramor equal to that creature's power.
Deathtouch, menace, protection from white You know the saying...
3/3
Design - (3/3) Appeal: I guess all players would like a play this card. (1/3) Elegance: This is wordy and very far from elegant.
Development - (1/3) Viability: It doesn't have a rarity. Also, hybrid mana allows this card to be monowhite which makes straight killing ability at least questionable. (2/3) Balance: Borderline if not completely broken but at least the choice between hero and villain is tough.
Creativity - (3/3) Uniqueness: No matter how do I look at it, cards like this weren't done before. (1/3) Flavor: Looks like I don't know the saying. Also, there is't any free space for a flavor text.
Polish - (0,5/3) Quality: The name is not bold, council shouldn't be capitalized, rarity is missing, some spaces are skipped, the templating for legendary Equipment named The Hero's Blade is wrong. (2/2) *Main Challenge: Yes. (1/2) Subchallenges: Two colors identity.
Total: 14,5/25
Queen’s Strategist1WW
Creature — Human Advisor (R) Join forces — When Queen’s Strategist enters the battlefield, each player starting with you may pay any amount of mana. Destroy all other creatures with converted mana cost X or less, where X is the total amount of mana paid this way. “My Queen, it’s simple. If you want to get rid of the opposition, the best way is allying with their other enemies and going for a joint attack.”
2/2
Design - (1,5/3) Appeal: This card is tricky for Johnny, questionable for Spike and doesn't look appealing for Timmy. (2/3) Elegance: You have to read it at least twice to understand it. Also, "all other creatures with converted mana cost" is clunky as is.
Development - (3/3) Viability: Board wipes based on CMC are white no less. Rarity seems appropriate. (2/3) Balance: This is cheaper than classic straight boardwipe. But this is also much more situational and political. So not perfect.
Creativity - (2,5/3) Uniqueness: Different yet simple board wipes and quirky multiplayer board wipes are well known but I can't remember anything working exactly like this. (3/3) Flavor: It captures the white aspect of Fiora politics quite nice if I know anything about it.
Polish - (2,5/3) Quality: Just one extra space between creature type and rarity. (2/2) *Main Challenge: Yes. (2/2) Subchallenges: Both yes.
Total: 20,5/25
Psionic Dismantler2BB
Creature - Aetherborn Rogue (Rare)
Lifelink Join Forces - When Psionic Dismantler enters the battlefield, starting with you, each player may pay any amount of mana. Each player reveals their libraries, and each player starting with you, may exile X cards from the libraries, where X is the total amount of mana paid this way. Shuffle each library. The New Consul cannot be corrupted, because the dismantlers ensure the corrupted cannot become consuls.
4/2
Design - (2/3) Appeal: Timmy doesn't care. Spike and Johnny most likely do. (0,5/3) Elegance: Allowing multiple players to perform a lobotomy for any number of libraries (libraries revealed to everyone!) which means each player will be able to see all these cards and choose which to exile, where the number of cards to do so for each player is equal to total paid amount of mana... Hoo boy. This card is as far from elegant as I can imagine. How much time would it take? Wouldn't it turn Magic into some totally different game?
Development - (2,5/3) Viability: Exiling cards from libraries can be blue or black, I guess. Rare is maybe even underwhelming, this effect gives me serious mythic vibes. (2/3) Balance: Oppresive environment? Sure. Feels fair because very player can be hurtm but less fair if you keep in mind that multiple players can do it to one player or multiple players without any equality.
Creativity - (3/3) Uniqueness:Cranial Extraction? Bitter Ordeal much? Sure. But the way tou performed it is just unique enough. (3/3) Flavor: I can feel it.
Polish - (2/3) Quality: Forces should not be capitalized. "Their libraries" also feels wrong since players aren't allowed to have multiple libraries outside of Un-format. (2/2) *Main Challenge: Yes. (2/2) Subchallenges: Both met.
Man-Hunt 2GG
Enchantment (R) Will of the concil-At the beginning of your upkeep, starting with you, each player votes for a player. Each player with the most votes or ties for the most votes gets a Bounty counter. Then, all players with bounty counters sacrifice a number of permanents equal to the number of bounty counters they have
Design .:. (2/3) Appeal: Voting cards are Txmmy cards by design. Messing with counters is a Jxnny thing. (3/3) Elegance: The card is easy to understand and makes sense.
Development .:. (2/3) Viability: This feels like a rare, but this being a green card seems pretty weird. Hunting is green, yes, but forced sacrificing of any permanent is mostly white. Green can let people sacrifice artifacts, enchantments and nonbasic lands. (2,5/3) Balance: This is a powerful tool to control the board state and team up against players that are ahead. The problem I see is, that once this card starts punishing the top player, it will punish them each turn, wheter or not they're still ahead. For them the game might turn unfun as they'll lose more and more cards. Good that it also allows player to punish you if necessary. If we assume that this card currently is indeed problematic one could put a counter on the enchantment each turn and then force the chosen player/s to sacrifice that many things.
Creativity .:. (2,5/3) Uniqueness: There's only one vothing card that allows the group to really direct its effect to one player, that is Council's Judgment. Other voting cards would "spread the love" or do something different. The again, it's kind of an even meaner Smokestack, a pretty iconic card. (2/3) Flavor: Having bounty counters for me indicates that you get something if you catch/kill the thing with a bounty counter, see Mathas, Fiend Seeker. Here it's downright punishment, without any direct gain for others. The effect feels more like repressions.
Polish .:. (0,5/3) Quality: So there are a few things: It's "council", not "concil". There should be a space before and after the dash that separates the ability word and the effect. In this case it's "tied", not "ties". Names of counters aren't written in capitals. No comma after "Then". "Then all players" is used on one card, Goblin Game, there it comes right before a physical action all players do at the same time. More often used is the phrase "Then each player". The ability could simply read "Then each player sacrifices a permanent for each bounty counter they have." This should end with a dot anyways. (2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge satisfied! (2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges satisfied!
Total: 18,5/25
Etherium Phylactery2W
Artifact [Rare]
Etherium Phylactery enters the battlefield tapped. T: Join Forces - Starting with you, each player may pay any amount of mana. Put that many charge counters on Etherium Phylactery. 2WW,T, Exile Etherium Phylactery: Each player's life total becomes the amount of charge counters on Etherium Phylactery. Activate this ability only if there are at least five charge counters on Etherium Phylactery.
- Eternity is best spent in good company.
Design .:. (2/3) Appeal: Txmmy likes multiplayer cards. I can Jxnny doing weird things with this. (3/3) Elegance: The card is easy to understand and makes sense.
Development .:. (3/3) Viability: This type of life total change feels white. Rare seems appropriate. (2,5/3) Balance: At the very least this card forces each player to not spend their mana on other things, if they want to prevent them from losing too much life. If you time this accordingly or manipulate the board state, you can set each player's life total to five on turn four upwards. I'd compare this to Repay in Kind as making each player lose a bunch of life seems like a good plan with this phylactery and usually more attractive than the group hug alternative. Repay in Kind comes down on turn seven and needs a lot of life lost in the first place. While having the phylactery come into play tapped helps balancing it, it still feels pretty powerful.
Creativity .:. (2,5/3) Uniqueness: There are only a few cards that set each player's life total. This is a good addition. (3/3) Flavor: When used as described this will lead to everyone's death faster than to an eternity spent together. But the flavor is still good.
Polish .:. (1,5/3) Quality: There should be a space between "2WW," and "T". The life becomes the number of charger counters, e.g. Eternity Vessel. It should probaby be "Activate this ability only if there are five or more counters on ~." "At least" is used when a number is compared to another number, appears on two cards this way, see Isolated Watchtower and Ayli, Eternal Pilgrim. "Or more" is used on 50 cards, generally when things are counted, e.g. Argent Sphinx. (2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge satisfied! (2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges satisfied!
Total: 21,5/25
Judge of the Indentured Soul 2W
Creature - Spirit (Rare)
Flying
Will of the council - When Judge of the Dead enters the battlefield, starting with you, each player votes for Servitude or Doom. If Servitude gets more votes, Exile target creature card from a graveyard. Create a token that's a copy of card exiled this way except it is spirit in addition to its other types. If Doom gets more votes or the vote is tied, destroy target creature. "the Orzhov collect the debts of those who died in the afterlife or punish them eternally."
2/2
Design .:. (1/3) Appeal: Voting cards are Txmmy cards by design. (3/3) Elegance: The card is easy to understand and makes sense.
Development .:. (2,5/3) Viability: Creatures that destroy any creatures upon entering the battlefield usually are black. White creatures usually exile creatures. While white never unconditionally destroys single creatures, it can deal with them so this can probably considered a bend. That said, exiling the creature instead of destroying it would not make the card a lot more powerful as it already is. (2/3) Balance: From the batch I judged this card comes nearest to a multiplayer Spike card. It's cheap and pretty good either way and can be abused with flicker effects. It's basically a less controllable Karmic Guide on steroids. Then again, if graveyards are empty, this is just a flier and this uncertainty might turn Spike off. Creatures that reanimate when they enter battlefield cost at least five. Creatures that destroy mostly four or more. This thing probably should not be this cheap.
Creativity .:. (2/3) Uniqueness: A séanceing Karmic Guide or [/card]Ravenous Chupacabra[/card]. This is a nice mashup. (3/3) Flavor: Flavor text and effect blend well together.
Polish .:. (0,5/3) Quality: "Will of the council" has to be in italics. The name of the card and the first reference to it in the rules text are different. The names of the modes must not be written in capitals. Like most words in English "Exile" is not capitalized either if it appears not at the beginning of a sentence. I think the exile effect and the token effect can be simply connected by "and". The way it is it's missing an "a" before "card exiled this way". So it could read ". . . graveyard and creature a token that's a copy of it, except . . . " There comes a comma before this kind of exception, e.g. Séance. The flavor text should start capitalized. (2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge satisfied! (2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges satisfied!
Total: 18/25
Nationalism3WW
Enchantment (R) Council's dilemma — When Nationalism enters the battlefield, starting with you, each player votes for pride or prejudice. When they do, put a pride counter on Nationalism for each pride vote and exile target nonland permanent for each prejudice vote.
Creatures you control get +1/+1 for each pride counter on Nationalism.
Design .:. (1/3) Appeal: Voting cards are Txmmy cards by design. (3/3) Elegance: The card is easy to understand and makes sense.
Development .:. (2,5/3) Viability: White unconditionally and indefinitely exiling any nonland permanent has appeared seven years ago on Exclusion Ritual the first and only time. But since then usually white returns permanents if the exiling thing leaves the battlefield. I consider this a bend. (2,5/3) Balance: A nice card if you like politics, in your game, literally. Exiling four nonlands permanents for five mana is a pretty good rate. Buffing all your creatures by 4 as well. Anything in between is also still pretty good. Quarantine Field exiling four things costs ten mana. Getting +3/+3 costs six mana in two colors, see Collective Blessing. I think this card should cost a mana more or so.
Creativity .:. (2/3) Uniqueness: Hymn or multi exile makes a good dilemma. (3/3) Flavor: Name, voting options and effects make sense.
Polish .:. (3/3) Quality: No flaws detected! (2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge satisfied! (2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges satisfied!
Design - (2/3) Appeal: Definitely a Timmy/Johnny card. Spike's not very interested in such an unreliable card. (1.5/3) Elegance: Quite wordy and complex in its politics, yet still grokkable.
Development - (2.5/3) Viability: Mythic is correct. Hard-pressed to see a land without a mana ability even in a supplemental set. Brick counters are an artifact mechanic but that's not such a big deal. (3/3) Balance: Hard to see how to abuse this card without great effort.
Creativity - (1/3) Uniqueness: Obviously majorly inspired by Helix Pinnacle but the group nature of it is a new wrinkle. (2.5/3) Flavor: Name makes sense in a treaty-signing sort of flavor. Maybe could have used short flavor text.
Design - (3/3) Appeal: Absolutely wild Timmy/Johnny card; Spike appreciates the Insurrection mode. (1.5/3) Elegance: A lot of complex implications, but relatively easily understandable.
Development - (3/3) Viability: It's unclear what colors this effect is. I'll take it in red-white because Lord knows they need some kind of help in Commander. Rarity seems, well, right. (2.5/3) Balance: On one hand: Swingy, and 5RW is undercosted for Insurrection. On the other hand: Wild seven-mana card primarily meant for multiplayer shenanigans.
Creativity - (2/3) Uniqueness: The nearest possible black-border-ization of Better Than One? Definitely a quite unique main effect even if the secondary effect has a lot of precedent. (3/3) Flavor: Adore it.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: Looks fine. (2/2) *Main Challenge: Good. (0/2) Subchallenges: Multicolored, and a sorcery.
Total: 20/25
Design - (3/3) Appeal: Timmy likes burning heretics at the stake, Johnny likes discard interactions, Spike likes punishing people and denying them their finishers. (2.5/3) Elegance: A lot of steps, but an elegant process.
Development - (3/3) Viability: Color good, rarity good. (2.5/3) Balance: The version of this in two-player, seems... quite strong. But slow. In multiplayer it'll either put the hurt on someone who's going to mess up everyone else's day, or just spread the hate around equally, so.
Creativity - (2/3) Uniqueness:Bottomless Pit variant, with politics. I dig it. (3/3) Flavor: Simple. Resonant. Perfect. Return to The Dark era Terisiare Commander?
Design - (3/3) Appeal: Timmy, Johnny, and Spike all find something to like in a beater that can be removal and/or a clock and/or impulse draw your deck. (2.5/3) Elegance: Wordy by necessity but not inelegant.
Development - (3/3) Viability: Very red and very rare. (3/3) Balance: Strong stuff, but low toughness for its cost - Lightning Bolt range, in fact.
Creativity - (2/3) Uniqueness: Obviously some precedent, but a unique combination. (3/3) Flavor: Good stuff.
Polish - (2/3) Quality: D in dilemma isn't capitalized. "Opponent" should be "player". (2/2) *Main Challenge: Good. (2/2) Subchallenges: Monocolor creature.
Total: 22.5/25
Design - (2/3) Appeal: Timmy and Johnny both like the scale of the effect. Spike's not really into it; equalizing wheels just aren't competitive when you have to pay a bunch of mana into them. (3/3) Elegance: Nicely elegant, especially for a join forces card.
Development - (3/3) Viability: Color and rarity are right. (3/3) Balance: More than fair. Could probably even stand to cost less.
Creativity - (1/3) Uniqueness:Minds Aglow, but a wheel. (3/3) Flavor: This card stands out in flavor terms. The flavor text is nonsense words but excels in atmosphere.
Three players from each bracket advance.
Raptorchan
Jimmy Groove
Cardz5000
TotallyHaywire
bravelion83
Forestguy
void_nothing
netn10
Subject16
Flintlock
soramaro
Hemlock
Cantripmancer
RaikouRider
StonerOfKruphix
mirrodin71
IcariiFA
Antiantiserum
InfinityDie
Clockwork Gamer
Ulka
Superbajt
Sorcery (R)
Join forces — Starting with you, each player may pay any amount of mana. Each player draws X cards and loses X life, where X is the amount of mana paid this way.
"Hurt with me. Dream with me. Scream with me. Die alone."
- Hagan the Fatespinner
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Johnny can easily see a good double-edged sword here. Spike does like the value but also a bit about giving an opportunity to harm him to opponents. Timmy likes cards, but doesn't like the pain.
(3/3) Elegance: This card is simple and totally makes sense.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: The color is correct and the rarity is appropriate, nothing much to say for a simple card like this here.
(3/3) Balance: It looks weaker than Minds Aglow from the first glance because draw > pay life to draw, but actually this is not true because all players will suffer, you just need to use it in the right situation. It can be a simple killing spell if you/your opponents want to seize an opportunity to kill someone.
Creativity -
(1,5/3) Uniqueness: Join forces direct damage/life loss for X surprisingly wasn't done yet but card draw here is too close to Minds Aglow with a black "pay to draw" tweak.
(3/3) Flavor: Black. Fits the mechanic. Very nice. That's all.
Polish -
(2,5/3) Quality: Join forces should be italized.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Yes.
(1/2) Subchallenges: Your card is a sorcery.
Total: 21/25
Artifact {R}Will of the Counsel — At the beginning of your upkeep, starting with you, each player votes for a color. Until your next turn, at the beginning of each player’s precombat main phase, that player adds one mana of a color with the most votes or tied for the most votes.
T: Target player gets an additional vote. Activate this ability only while voting.
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Additional vote is something Johnny can be interested in. Other than that, this is a grouphug mana rock that can only mildly interest Timmy and Spike.
(2/3) Elegance: This is not very elegant due to memory issues but maybe this plays better than reads.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: No problems here. The card itself is complex and impactful enough to be a rare and being a mana rock artiact, of course, makes it colorless.
(2,5/3) Balance: Fair but not groundbreaking card, probably something that won't attract any interest outside of Conspiracy format thanks to voting.
Creativity -
(2,5/3) Uniqueness: This definetely wasn't printed before as is but the additional voice isn't something completely new.
(2,5/3) Flavor: Sycophant belongs to Conspiracy and lanterns are known for producing mana of any color. But I am not sure about lantern being able to collect additional votes. Lack of flavor text doesn't help.
Polish -
(1,5/3) Quality: Two mistakes in "Will of the council" here. Also I am not sure about "Lanturn", was it supposed to be a pun or just a typo? Let me know if possible.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Yes.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both yes.
Total: 20/25
Legendary Creature- Human Knight
Will of the Council- When Agramor the Two-Faced enters the battlefield, starting with you, each player votes for hero or villain. If hero gets more votes, sacrifice Agramor and create The Hero's Blade, a Legendary Equipment token with "Equipped creature gets +5/+5 and has vigilance, lifelink and protection from black." and "Equip 3". If villain gets more votes or the vote is tied, destroy target creature and put a number of +1/+1 counters on Agramor equal to that creature's power.
Deathtouch, menace, protection from white
You know the saying...
3/3
Design -
(3/3) Appeal: I guess all players would like a play this card.
(1/3) Elegance: This is wordy and very far from elegant.
Development -
(1/3) Viability: It doesn't have a rarity. Also, hybrid mana allows this card to be monowhite which makes straight killing ability at least questionable.
(2/3) Balance: Borderline if not completely broken but at least the choice between hero and villain is tough.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: No matter how do I look at it, cards like this weren't done before.
(1/3) Flavor: Looks like I don't know the saying. Also, there is't any free space for a flavor text.
Polish -
(0,5/3) Quality: The name is not bold, council shouldn't be capitalized, rarity is missing, some spaces are skipped, the templating for legendary Equipment named The Hero's Blade is wrong.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Yes.
(1/2) Subchallenges: Two colors identity.
Total: 14,5/25
Creature — Human Advisor (R)
Join forces — When Queen’s Strategist enters the battlefield, each player starting with you may pay any amount of mana. Destroy all other creatures with converted mana cost X or less, where X is the total amount of mana paid this way.
“My Queen, it’s simple. If you want to get rid of the opposition, the best way is allying with their other enemies and going for a joint attack.”
2/2
Design -
(1,5/3) Appeal: This card is tricky for Johnny, questionable for Spike and doesn't look appealing for Timmy.
(2/3) Elegance: You have to read it at least twice to understand it. Also, "all other creatures with converted mana cost" is clunky as is.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Board wipes based on CMC are white no less. Rarity seems appropriate.
(2/3) Balance: This is cheaper than classic straight boardwipe. But this is also much more situational and political. So not perfect.
Creativity -
(2,5/3) Uniqueness: Different yet simple board wipes and quirky multiplayer board wipes are well known but I can't remember anything working exactly like this.
(3/3) Flavor: It captures the white aspect of Fiora politics quite nice if I know anything about it.
Polish -
(2,5/3) Quality: Just one extra space between creature type and rarity.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Yes.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both yes.
Total: 20,5/25
Creature - Aetherborn Rogue (Rare)
Lifelink
Join Forces - When Psionic Dismantler enters the battlefield, starting with you, each player may pay any amount of mana. Each player reveals their libraries, and each player starting with you, may exile X cards from the libraries, where X is the total amount of mana paid this way. Shuffle each library.
The New Consul cannot be corrupted, because the dismantlers ensure the corrupted cannot become consuls.
4/2
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Timmy doesn't care. Spike and Johnny most likely do.
(0,5/3) Elegance: Allowing multiple players to perform a lobotomy for any number of libraries (libraries revealed to everyone!) which means each player will be able to see all these cards and choose which to exile, where the number of cards to do so for each player is equal to total paid amount of mana... Hoo boy. This card is as far from elegant as I can imagine. How much time would it take? Wouldn't it turn Magic into some totally different game?
Development -
(2,5/3) Viability: Exiling cards from libraries can be blue or black, I guess. Rare is maybe even underwhelming, this effect gives me serious mythic vibes.
(2/3) Balance: Oppresive environment? Sure. Feels fair because very player can be hurtm but less fair if you keep in mind that multiple players can do it to one player or multiple players without any equality.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: Cranial Extraction? Bitter Ordeal much? Sure. But the way tou performed it is just unique enough.
(3/3) Flavor: I can feel it.
Polish -
(2/3) Quality: Forces should not be capitalized. "Their libraries" also feels wrong since players aren't allowed to have multiple libraries outside of Un-format.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Yes.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both met.
Total: 19/25
bravelion 83 20,5
Cardz5000 20
Forestguy 19
TotallyHaywire 14,5
Enchantment (R)
Will of the concil-At the beginning of your upkeep, starting with you, each player votes for a player. Each player with the most votes or ties for the most votes gets a Bounty counter. Then, all players with bounty counters sacrifice a number of permanents equal to the number of bounty counters they have
Design .:.
(2/3) Appeal: Voting cards are Txmmy cards by design. Messing with counters is a Jxnny thing.
(3/3) Elegance: The card is easy to understand and makes sense.
Development .:.
(2/3) Viability: This feels like a rare, but this being a green card seems pretty weird. Hunting is green, yes, but forced sacrificing of any permanent is mostly white. Green can let people sacrifice artifacts, enchantments and nonbasic lands.
(2,5/3) Balance: This is a powerful tool to control the board state and team up against players that are ahead. The problem I see is, that once this card starts punishing the top player, it will punish them each turn, wheter or not they're still ahead. For them the game might turn unfun as they'll lose more and more cards. Good that it also allows player to punish you if necessary. If we assume that this card currently is indeed problematic one could put a counter on the enchantment each turn and then force the chosen player/s to sacrifice that many things.
Creativity .:.
(2,5/3) Uniqueness: There's only one vothing card that allows the group to really direct its effect to one player, that is Council's Judgment. Other voting cards would "spread the love" or do something different. The again, it's kind of an even meaner Smokestack, a pretty iconic card.
(2/3) Flavor: Having bounty counters for me indicates that you get something if you catch/kill the thing with a bounty counter, see Mathas, Fiend Seeker. Here it's downright punishment, without any direct gain for others. The effect feels more like repressions.
Polish .:.
(0,5/3) Quality: So there are a few things: It's "council", not "concil". There should be a space before and after the dash that separates the ability word and the effect. In this case it's "tied", not "ties". Names of counters aren't written in capitals. No comma after "Then". "Then all players" is used on one card, Goblin Game, there it comes right before a physical action all players do at the same time. More often used is the phrase "Then each player". The ability could simply read "Then each player sacrifices a permanent for each bounty counter they have." This should end with a dot anyways.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge satisfied!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges satisfied!
Total: 18,5/25
Artifact [Rare]
Etherium Phylactery enters the battlefield tapped.
T: Join Forces - Starting with you, each player may pay any amount of mana. Put that many charge counters on Etherium Phylactery.
2WW,T, Exile Etherium Phylactery: Each player's life total becomes the amount of charge counters on Etherium Phylactery. Activate this ability only if there are at least five charge counters on Etherium Phylactery.
-
Eternity is best spent in good company.
Design .:.
(2/3) Appeal: Txmmy likes multiplayer cards. I can Jxnny doing weird things with this.
(3/3) Elegance: The card is easy to understand and makes sense.
Development .:.
(3/3) Viability: This type of life total change feels white. Rare seems appropriate.
(2,5/3) Balance: At the very least this card forces each player to not spend their mana on other things, if they want to prevent them from losing too much life. If you time this accordingly or manipulate the board state, you can set each player's life total to five on turn four upwards. I'd compare this to Repay in Kind as making each player lose a bunch of life seems like a good plan with this phylactery and usually more attractive than the group hug alternative. Repay in Kind comes down on turn seven and needs a lot of life lost in the first place. While having the phylactery come into play tapped helps balancing it, it still feels pretty powerful.
Creativity .:.
(2,5/3) Uniqueness: There are only a few cards that set each player's life total. This is a good addition.
(3/3) Flavor: When used as described this will lead to everyone's death faster than to an eternity spent together. But the flavor is still good.
Polish .:.
(1,5/3) Quality: There should be a space between "2WW," and "T". The life becomes the number of charger counters, e.g. Eternity Vessel. It should probaby be "Activate this ability only if there are five or more counters on ~." "At least" is used when a number is compared to another number, appears on two cards this way, see Isolated Watchtower and Ayli, Eternal Pilgrim. "Or more" is used on 50 cards, generally when things are counted, e.g. Argent Sphinx.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge satisfied!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges satisfied!
Total: 21,5/25
Creature - Spirit (Rare)
Flying
Will of the council - When Judge of the Dead enters the battlefield, starting with you, each player votes for Servitude or Doom. If Servitude gets more votes, Exile target creature card from a graveyard. Create a token that's a copy of card exiled this way except it is spirit in addition to its other types. If Doom gets more votes or the vote is tied, destroy target creature.
"the Orzhov collect the debts of those who died in the afterlife or punish them eternally."
2/2
Design .:.
(1/3) Appeal: Voting cards are Txmmy cards by design.
(3/3) Elegance: The card is easy to understand and makes sense.
Development .:.
(2,5/3) Viability: Creatures that destroy any creatures upon entering the battlefield usually are black. White creatures usually exile creatures. While white never unconditionally destroys single creatures, it can deal with them so this can probably considered a bend. That said, exiling the creature instead of destroying it would not make the card a lot more powerful as it already is.
(2/3) Balance: From the batch I judged this card comes nearest to a multiplayer Spike card. It's cheap and pretty good either way and can be abused with flicker effects. It's basically a less controllable Karmic Guide on steroids. Then again, if graveyards are empty, this is just a flier and this uncertainty might turn Spike off. Creatures that reanimate when they enter battlefield cost at least five. Creatures that destroy mostly four or more. This thing probably should not be this cheap.
Creativity .:.
(2/3) Uniqueness: A séanceing Karmic Guide or [/card]Ravenous Chupacabra[/card]. This is a nice mashup.
(3/3) Flavor: Flavor text and effect blend well together.
Polish .:.
(0,5/3) Quality: "Will of the council" has to be in italics. The name of the card and the first reference to it in the rules text are different. The names of the modes must not be written in capitals. Like most words in English "Exile" is not capitalized either if it appears not at the beginning of a sentence. I think the exile effect and the token effect can be simply connected by "and". The way it is it's missing an "a" before "card exiled this way". So it could read ". . . graveyard and creature a token that's a copy of it, except . . . " There comes a comma before this kind of exception, e.g. Séance. The flavor text should start capitalized.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge satisfied!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges satisfied!
Total: 18/25
Enchantment (R)
Council's dilemma — When Nationalism enters the battlefield, starting with you, each player votes for pride or prejudice. When they do, put a pride counter on Nationalism for each pride vote and exile target nonland permanent for each prejudice vote.
Creatures you control get +1/+1 for each pride counter on Nationalism.
Design .:.
(1/3) Appeal: Voting cards are Txmmy cards by design.
(3/3) Elegance: The card is easy to understand and makes sense.
Development .:.
(2,5/3) Viability: White unconditionally and indefinitely exiling any nonland permanent has appeared seven years ago on Exclusion Ritual the first and only time. But since then usually white returns permanents if the exiling thing leaves the battlefield. I consider this a bend.
(2,5/3) Balance: A nice card if you like politics, in your game, literally. Exiling four nonlands permanents for five mana is a pretty good rate. Buffing all your creatures by 4 as well. Anything in between is also still pretty good. Quarantine Field exiling four things costs ten mana. Getting +3/+3 costs six mana in two colors, see Collective Blessing. I think this card should cost a mana more or so.
Creativity .:.
(2/3) Uniqueness: Hymn or multi exile makes a good dilemma.
(3/3) Flavor: Name, voting options and effects make sense.
Polish .:.
(3/3) Quality: No flaws detected!
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge satisfied!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges satisfied!
Total: 21/25
Superbajt 21,0
InfinityDie 18,5
Ulka 18,0
(2/3) Appeal: Definitely a Timmy/Johnny card. Spike's not very interested in such an unreliable card.
(1.5/3) Elegance: Quite wordy and complex in its politics, yet still grokkable.
Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: Mythic is correct. Hard-pressed to see a land without a mana ability even in a supplemental set. Brick counters are an artifact mechanic but that's not such a big deal.
(3/3) Balance: Hard to see how to abuse this card without great effort.
Creativity -
(1/3) Uniqueness: Obviously majorly inspired by Helix Pinnacle but the group nature of it is a new wrinkle.
(2.5/3) Flavor: Name makes sense in a treaty-signing sort of flavor. Maybe could have used short flavor text.
Polish -
(2/3) Quality: Couple of spelling errors; also, join forces needs italics.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Colorless land, check.
Total: 18.5/25
(3/3) Appeal: Absolutely wild Timmy/Johnny card; Spike appreciates the Insurrection mode.
(1.5/3) Elegance: A lot of complex implications, but relatively easily understandable.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: It's unclear what colors this effect is. I'll take it in red-white because Lord knows they need some kind of help in Commander. Rarity seems, well, right.
(2.5/3) Balance: On one hand: Swingy, and 5RW is undercosted for Insurrection. On the other hand: Wild seven-mana card primarily meant for multiplayer shenanigans.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: The nearest possible black-border-ization of Better Than One? Definitely a quite unique main effect even if the secondary effect has a lot of precedent.
(3/3) Flavor: Adore it.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Looks fine.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Good.
(0/2) Subchallenges: Multicolored, and a sorcery.
Total: 20/25
(3/3) Appeal: Timmy likes burning heretics at the stake, Johnny likes discard interactions, Spike likes punishing people and denying them their finishers.
(2.5/3) Elegance: A lot of steps, but an elegant process.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Color good, rarity good.
(2.5/3) Balance: The version of this in two-player, seems... quite strong. But slow. In multiplayer it'll either put the hurt on someone who's going to mess up everyone else's day, or just spread the hate around equally, so.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Bottomless Pit variant, with politics. I dig it.
(3/3) Flavor: Simple. Resonant. Perfect. Return to The Dark era Terisiare Commander?
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Seems fine.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Monocolor enchantment.
Total: 23/25
(3/3) Appeal: Timmy, Johnny, and Spike all find something to like in a beater that can be removal and/or a clock and/or impulse draw your deck.
(2.5/3) Elegance: Wordy by necessity but not inelegant.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Very red and very rare.
(3/3) Balance: Strong stuff, but low toughness for its cost - Lightning Bolt range, in fact.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Obviously some precedent, but a unique combination.
(3/3) Flavor: Good stuff.
Polish -
(2/3) Quality: D in dilemma isn't capitalized. "Opponent" should be "player".
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Monocolor creature.
Total: 22.5/25
(2/3) Appeal: Timmy and Johnny both like the scale of the effect. Spike's not really into it; equalizing wheels just aren't competitive when you have to pay a bunch of mana into them.
(3/3) Elegance: Nicely elegant, especially for a join forces card.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Color and rarity are right.
(3/3) Balance: More than fair. Could probably even stand to cost less.
Creativity -
(1/3) Uniqueness: Minds Aglow, but a wheel.
(3/3) Flavor: This card stands out in flavor terms. The flavor text is nonsense words but excels in atmosphere.
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: Missing a period.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Good.
(1/2) Subchallenges: Monocolor sorcery.
Total: 20.5/25
soramaro 22.5
Hemlock 20.5
Subject16 20
netn10 18.5
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝