@Legend...Your card was DQed by the organizer for not meeting the main challenge. I see no reason to take that out on your judge, or anybody else for that matter.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
Design Appeal (1/3): Johnny wants to do all sorts of combos with this. Timmy doesn't care, and spike sees too much work for too little reward. Elegance (0/3): Your card has several moving parts. The part about this that I like the least is that if you play this in any format, including limited, you are likely to have different kinds of counters on the same permanent, which is poor design. Lastly, the fact that this has charge counters that act as +1/+1 counters is a little confusing.
Development Viability (3/3): Rare is correct, and all of the abilities present are fitting for an artifact creature. Balance (1.5/3): This card is fine and well balanced when you're just moving around your counters for value. However, the fact that you can remove all counters from your opponent's creature and give your myr that many charge counters is a little too powerful.
Creativity Uniqueness (3/3): Yeah, this is new. Flavor (1.5/3):You didn't come up with a 'new' intro deck for your card. Also, the name is highly uninspired. Other than "this is a myr and myr deal with electricity", there isn't any flavor here, and the name and mechanics only somewhat help.
Polish Quality (1/3): The second ability should be worded "...from target creature onto another target nonland permanent.", and the third ability should be worded "If one or more..." Main Challenge (1/2): You didn't come up with a new intro deck, so I can only give you half points here. Sub Challenges (2/2):
Total: 14/25
Design Appeal (1/3): This is definitely a combo card. Spike and Timmy don't care. Elegance (2/3): It's a little confusing, but it's not too bad.
Development Viability (3/3): Blue rare is correct. Balance (3/3): This one seems well balanced. It's a powerful effect, but if you aren't making use of the synergy you've got an overcosted body with vanishing. I'd prefer to have a larger body and a smaller vanishing body, but your iteration is acceptable.
Creativity Uniqueness (2/3): So you proliferate time counters when you cast a spell. Remniscient of Inexorable Tide, but different enough. Flavor (1.5/3): The name is generic. The mechanics are fine, but some flavor text would have gone a long way.
Polish Quality (3/3): The wording is clunky, but Proliferate says yours is correct. Main Challenge (2/2): Sub Challenges (2/2):
Total: 19.5/25
Design Appeal (2/3): Johnny wants to make this massive, spike loves how powerful it is. Elegance (3/3): It's very easy to understand.
Development Viability (3/3): This is at the right rarity, and I believe that the card's abilities are suitable for (B/P). Balance (1.5/3): This is undercosted. Alone, for 2 and 2 life, you have a 3/3. While that's fine, if you combine it with other life-paying cards such as Gitaxian Probe, fetchlands, and shocklands, you can power out a 6/6 or bigger on turn 2. I feel like that's fine, as it comes at a massive cost in terms of life points, but not at such a cheap cost. I think that 3(B/P) would be fair.
Creativity Uniqueness (3/3): It's like a reverse Cryptborn Horror, but it's much more interesting. Flavor (2/3): The name of the into deck isn't quite there for me. The name of the card itself is also a miss; this doensn't really feel like a card that ambushes you, but rather is a blood-fueled juggernaut. The flavor text is, however, quite excellent, and a redeeming factor for your card.
Polish Quality (2/3): It should be "Phyrexian Ambusher enters the battlefield with X +1/+1 counters on it, where X is the amount of life you've lost this turn." Main Challenge (2/2): Sub Challenges (2/2):
Total: 20.5/25
Design Appeal (1/3): Spike is the only one who sees value here. Elegance (3/3): It's easy to understand.
Development Viability (1.5/3): This effect is so powerful I'd put it at mythic. Balance (0/3): The thing that balanced exalted was that sending in one creature a turn limited the damage output that was otherwise created by each of your exalted triggers. This card takes away that aspect, and for three mana! While unimpressive on its own, this card is incredibly powerful and difficult to interact with outside of removal spells on its own. This card is completely imbalanced in limited.
Creativity Uniqueness (2/3): This is a new variant of the "Exalted+" triggers that were seen on many cards in the bant shard. Flavor (1/3): The name is bland and the card needs flavor text. The name is fine.
Polish Quality (3/3): Main Challenge (2/2): Sub Challenges (2/2):
Total: 15.5/25
Design Appeal (0/3): This is too small for timmy to care, there isn't enough payout for johnny to try to combo with it, and spike dislikes how, even after delving, he has to spend BGU. Elegance (3/3): It's clean.
Development Viability (3/3): It checks out. Balance (1/3): This is too weak for what it does. Reducing the cost of your delve spells is nice, and is a synergy that makes the card more powerful, but as a 3/2 with deathtouch, all it's likely to do in combat is trade with a bigger threat. Hexproof helps ensure that you trade with what you want to, and also makes the cost-reduction better, but there's a reason no delve spell costs three colors of mana.
Creativity Uniqueness (3/3): The cost-reduction is new, and the deathtouch + hexproof combo is also relatively untouched. Flavor (1/3): The name of the intro deck is highly bland, and the name of the card is mediocre at best. There could have been some flavor text, but you neglected to add any.
Polish Quality (3/3): Main Challenge (2/2): Sub Challenges (0/2):
Total: 16/25
Design Appeal (2/3): Timmy likes the idea of stealing dragons. Johnny might be able to combo this, and spike loathes this card. Elegance (2/3): For a four-colored card, not each color feels equally represented.
Development Viability (0/3): This is a mythic rare effect, and while each color is techinically represented, this card would have been much better off as a mono-blue card. Balance (0/3): For a four-colored card, I'm expecting much more than a situational way to steal my opponent's creatures. The 3/4 body is mediocre, and one that I would expect from a monocolored four drop. The payoff is much less than the hoops you have to jump through in order to cast this card.
Creativity Uniqueness (3/3): Yeah, it's new. Flavor (1.5/3):There is so much that needs to be explained here, and your card only provides "Unseen Whisperer". It isn't connected to your card's mechanics, and your lack of flavor text doesn't help. The name of the into deck is paucious and lacks creativity.
Polish Quality (3/3): Main Challenge (2/2): Sub Challenges (2/2):
Total: 15.5/25
Well, it looks like you submitted the same card you did a few days ago in CF. I'll try to keep my opinion separate from that.
Design Appeal (1/3): Johnny wants to find a combo for this, but might struggle in doing so. Timmy and Spike don't care. Elegance (3/3): It's not hard to understand.
Development Viability (1.5/3): Blue does deal with artifice, but it still feels like red or green would be a better fit for this effect. Additionally, this is most certainly not a rare. Uncommon or perhaps even common would be a better match. Balance (1/3): This card is incredibly inefficient. For it to be better than Pyretic Ritual, you need to cast a four mana artifact, then return it to your hand with this card (where you have to cast it again). Not only is your card reliant on having a moderate-sized artifact out, yours is also reliant on having one that's worth using a Ritual to cast. This card screams mana inefficient, which is not intrinsically bad, but it poor design for a card that accelerates your mana (with a lot of setup).
Creativity Uniqueness (1/3): It's an Energy Tap for artifacts. Flavor (1/3): No flavor text hurts. The name of the card is fine and fits with the mechanics. The name of the intro deck is fine, if unexciting.
Polish Quality (2.5/3): "...where X is that artifact's converted..." Main Challenge (2/2): Sub Challenges (2/2):
Sorry, I went to edit my judgments and I don't know why but the forum posted them as a new post instead of an edit. Now I've copied them in the real judgment post (#52 of this same thread), and this post can be deleted if the mods want to.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016 DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for: "Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index.Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Design
Appeal (1/3): Johnny wants to do all sorts of combos with this. Timmy doesn't care, and spike sees too much work for too little reward.
Elegance (0/3): Your card has several moving parts. The part about this that I like the least is that if you play this in any format, including limited, you are likely to have different kinds of counters on the same permanent, which is poor design. Lastly, the fact that this has charge counters that act as +1/+1 counters is a little confusing.
Development
Viability (3/3): Rare is correct, and all of the abilities present are fitting for an artifact creature.
Balance (1.5/3): This card is fine and well balanced when you're just moving around your counters for value. However, the fact that you can remove all counters from your opponent's creature and give your myr that many charge counters is a little too powerful.
Creativity
Uniqueness (3/3): Yeah, this is new.
Flavor (1.5/3):
You didn't come up with a 'new' intro deck for your card.Also, the name is highly uninspired. Other than "this is a myr and myr deal with electricity", there isn't any flavor here, and the name and mechanics only somewhat help.Polish
Quality (1/3): The second ability should be worded "...from target creature onto another target nonland permanent.", and the third ability should be worded "If one or more..."
Main Challenge (1/2): You didn't come up with a new intro deck, so I can only give you half points here.
Sub Challenges (2/2):
Total: 14/25
Design
Appeal (1/3): This is definitely a combo card. Spike and Timmy don't care.
Elegance (2/3): It's a little confusing, but it's not too bad.
Development
Viability (3/3): Blue rare is correct.
Balance (3/3): This one seems well balanced. It's a powerful effect, but if you aren't making use of the synergy you've got an overcosted body with vanishing. I'd prefer to have a larger body and a smaller vanishing body, but your iteration is acceptable.
Creativity
Uniqueness (2/3): So you proliferate time counters when you cast a spell. Remniscient of Inexorable Tide, but different enough.
Flavor (1.5/3): The name is generic. The mechanics are fine, but some flavor text would have gone a long way.
Polish
Quality (3/3): The wording is clunky, but Proliferate says yours is correct.
Main Challenge (2/2):
Sub Challenges (2/2):
Total: 19.5/25
Design
Appeal (2/3): Johnny wants to make this massive, spike loves how powerful it is.
Elegance (3/3): It's very easy to understand.
Development
Viability (3/3): This is at the right rarity, and I believe that the card's abilities are suitable for (B/P).
Balance (1.5/3): This is undercosted. Alone, for 2 and 2 life, you have a 3/3. While that's fine, if you combine it with other life-paying cards such as Gitaxian Probe, fetchlands, and shocklands, you can power out a 6/6 or bigger on turn 2. I feel like that's fine, as it comes at a massive cost in terms of life points, but not at such a cheap cost. I think that 3(B/P) would be fair.
Creativity
Uniqueness (3/3): It's like a reverse Cryptborn Horror, but it's much more interesting.
Flavor (2/3): The name of the into deck isn't quite there for me. The name of the card itself is also a miss; this doensn't really feel like a card that ambushes you, but rather is a blood-fueled juggernaut. The flavor text is, however, quite excellent, and a redeeming factor for your card.
Polish
Quality (2/3): It should be "Phyrexian Ambusher enters the battlefield with X +1/+1 counters on it, where X is the amount of life you've lost this turn."
Main Challenge (2/2):
Sub Challenges (2/2):
Total: 20.5/25
Design
Appeal (1/3): Spike is the only one who sees value here.
Elegance (3/3): It's easy to understand.
Development
Viability (1.5/3): This effect is so powerful I'd put it at mythic.
Balance (0/3): The thing that balanced exalted was that sending in one creature a turn limited the damage output that was otherwise created by each of your exalted triggers. This card takes away that aspect, and for three mana! While unimpressive on its own, this card is incredibly powerful and difficult to interact with outside of removal spells on its own. This card is completely imbalanced in limited.
Creativity
Uniqueness (2/3): This is a new variant of the "Exalted+" triggers that were seen on many cards in the bant shard.
Flavor (1/3): The name is bland and the card needs flavor text. The name is fine.
Polish
Quality (3/3):
Main Challenge (2/2):
Sub Challenges (2/2):
Total: 15.5/25
Design
Appeal (0/3): This is too small for timmy to care, there isn't enough payout for johnny to try to combo with it, and spike dislikes how, even after delving, he has to spend BGU.
Elegance (3/3): It's clean.
Development
Viability (3/3): It checks out.
Balance (1/3): This is too weak for what it does. Reducing the cost of your delve spells is nice, and is a synergy that makes the card more powerful, but as a 3/2 with deathtouch, all it's likely to do in combat is trade with a bigger threat. Hexproof helps ensure that you trade with what you want to, and also makes the cost-reduction better, but there's a reason no delve spell costs three colors of mana.
Creativity
Uniqueness (3/3): The cost-reduction is new, and the deathtouch + hexproof combo is also relatively untouched.
Flavor (1/3): The name of the intro deck is highly bland, and the name of the card is mediocre at best. There could have been some flavor text, but you neglected to add any.
Polish
Quality (3/3):
Main Challenge (2/2):
Sub Challenges (0/2):
Total: 16/25
Design
Appeal (2/3): Timmy likes the idea of stealing dragons. Johnny might be able to combo this, and spike loathes this card.
Elegance (2/3): For a four-colored card, not each color feels equally represented.
Development
Viability (0/3): This is a mythic rare effect, and while each color is techinically represented, this card would have been much better off as a mono-blue card.
Balance (0/3): For a four-colored card, I'm expecting much more than a situational way to steal my opponent's creatures. The 3/4 body is mediocre, and one that I would expect from a monocolored four drop. The payoff is much less than the hoops you have to jump through in order to cast this card.
Creativity
Uniqueness (3/3): Yeah, it's new.
Flavor (1.5/3):
There is so much that needs to be explained here, and your card only provides "Unseen Whisperer". It isn't connected to your card's mechanics, andyour lack of flavor text doesn't help. The name of the into deck is paucious and lacks creativity.Polish
Quality (3/3):
Main Challenge (2/2):
Sub Challenges (2/2):
Total: 15.5/25
Design
Appeal (1/3): Johnny wants to find a combo for this, but might struggle in doing so. Timmy and Spike don't care.
Elegance (3/3): It's not hard to understand.
Development
Viability (1.5/3): Blue does deal with artifice, but it still feels like red or green would be a better fit for this effect. Additionally, this is most certainly not a rare. Uncommon or perhaps even common would be a better match.
Balance (1/3): This card is incredibly inefficient. For it to be better than Pyretic Ritual, you need to cast a four mana artifact, then return it to your hand with this card (where you have to cast it again). Not only is your card reliant on having a moderate-sized artifact out, yours is also reliant on having one that's worth using a Ritual to cast. This card screams mana inefficient, which is not intrinsically bad, but it poor design for a card that accelerates your mana (with a lot of setup).
Creativity
Uniqueness (1/3): It's an Energy Tap for artifacts.
Flavor (1/3): No flavor text hurts. The name of the card is fine and fits with the mechanics. The name of the intro deck is fine, if unexciting.
Polish
Quality (2.5/3): "...where X is that artifact's converted..."
Main Challenge (2/2):
Sub Challenges (2/2):
Total: 15/25
PsyOp 19.5
R-Shig 20.5
RaikouRider 15.5
Riliss 16
Ryder052 15.5
Sagharri 15
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here)
CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016
DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for:
"Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index. Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)