Design (2.5/3) Appeal: Mostly a Txmmy/Jxnny thing although Spike does like it for Limited. (2.5/3) Elegance: Definite elegance problem as worded; see below.
Development (2.5/3) Viability: I'm pretty sure you want the second half of this to read "exile target permanent if it's a creature" - that's assuming you wanna do one of those clever "fuse third mode" deals, because as written you have to choose something that's a creature at the time you cast for Animus's target. (3/3) Balance: Looks fine to me; assuming this is the intent you should be able to exile any permanent at instant speed for 2GWUB.
Creativity (1.5/3) Uniqueness: Neither half of the effect is particularly unique but putting them together in this way is novel. (3/3) Flavor: A clever name pair that reminds me of... something NSFW, but that's immaterial.
Design (3/3) Appeal: Destiny feels like a real Jxnny/Spike thing, and Txmmy of course wants to deal 20 damage and gain 20 life. (1.5/3) Elegance: There are rules hurdles to a permanent/nonpermanent split but at least it's obvious which half is happening (if it's on the battlefield it's the enchantment).
Development (3/3) Viability: No complaints here. (2/3) Balance: Hard to evaluate, especially considering it's a self-fueling alt win. I must say that tutoring for X cards, no matter the restrictions, seems scary.
Creativity (3/3) Uniqueness: Hard to say this isn't unique. (1.5/3) Flavor: "Destiny" and "Fate" are neither opposites nor really a thematic pair, they're just near-synonyms. Fate being legendary is frankly bizarre.
Polish (2/3) Quality: "With converted mana cost", not "a" and numbers of counters get number words, not numerals. (2/2) *Main Challenge: Done. (2/2) Subchallenges: And done.
Total: 20/25
Design (1/3) Appeal: Not much here for Jxnny, Txmmy likes a hasty vigilant token horde and Spike might be willing to pay a restrictive cost for 8 power across four bodies but asking for four colors is beyond the pale. (2.5/3) Elegance: Something definitely feels... off about one half letting you immediately use the tokens to attack and the other half not so. It's just sliiiightly asymmetrical for a card that seems focused on symmetry.
Development (3/3) Viability: Colors are right, I suppose, and so is rarity. (3/3) Balance: Perfectly fine, even a bit safe imho.
Creativity (1.5/3) Uniqueness: Both halves of the card are pretty well-trod effects and furthermore are almost exactly the same save for colors, types, and one functional difference in the granted keyword. (1/3) Flavor: Those names are surely too long for the space afforded to split card names.
Polish (2.5/3) Quality: Uses a "2" that should be a "two." (2/2) *Main Challenge: Done. (1/2) Subchallenges: Mentions "creature."
Total: 17.5/25
Design (2/3) Appeal: Txmmy likes pump, (conditional) evasion, and saving duders from removal. Not much for Jxnny to look at but Spike would love the flexibility of such a combat trick particularly in Limited. (3/3) Elegance: Two simple effects that mesh nicely.
Development (3/3) Viability: Red half is red, blue half is blue, and neither effect is more complex than uncommon. (3/3) Balance: Simply a strong draft uncommon; efficiency like that could make a little bit of a Constructed splash.
Creativity (1.5/3) Uniqueness: Pump split cards are nothing new, but these particular effects have never quite been done before although variants certainly have. (2.5/3) Flavor: Two-word names, but they form a natural pair and are each short, so you get something of a pass.
Design (3/3) Appeal: All-rounder with Spike mostly being interested in the Grinding half. (3/3) Elegance: Sure, these effects go together well.
Development (1.5/3) Viability: Ethereal Form doesn't feel black at all, and as worded Grinding doesn't feel green at all. (1.5/3) Balance: On its own Ethereal Form is quite bad (I can't imagine solo-casting a mass sorcery blink unless it would somehow result in comboing out to win the game entirely) and Grinding is undercosted.
Creativity (2/3) Uniqueness: Several unique elements but the general idea has precedent. (1/3) Flavor: Names don't mesh with each other and one of them is even two words long.
Polish (2/3) Quality: A few grammar mistakes plus I'm sure "destroys" is meant to be "sacrifices", otherwise it results in each player choosing which of their opponents' permanents get removed instead of their own. (2/2) *Main Challenge: Done. (2/2) Subchallenges: And done.
(2.5/3) Appeal: Mostly a Txmmy/Jxnny thing although Spike does like it for Limited.
(2.5/3) Elegance: Definite elegance problem as worded; see below.
Development
(2.5/3) Viability: I'm pretty sure you want the second half of this to read "exile target permanent if it's a creature" - that's assuming you wanna do one of those clever "fuse third mode" deals, because as written you have to choose something that's a creature at the time you cast for Animus's target.
(3/3) Balance: Looks fine to me; assuming this is the intent you should be able to exile any permanent at instant speed for 2GWUB.
Creativity
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: Neither half of the effect is particularly unique but putting them together in this way is novel.
(3/3) Flavor: A clever name pair that reminds me of... something NSFW, but that's immaterial.
Polish
(3/3) Quality: Fine.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Done.
(1/2) Subchallenges: Mentions "creature".
Total: 22/25
(3/3) Appeal: Destiny feels like a real Jxnny/Spike thing, and Txmmy of course wants to deal 20 damage and gain 20 life.
(1.5/3) Elegance: There are rules hurdles to a permanent/nonpermanent split but at least it's obvious which half is happening (if it's on the battlefield it's the enchantment).
Development
(3/3) Viability: No complaints here.
(2/3) Balance: Hard to evaluate, especially considering it's a self-fueling alt win. I must say that tutoring for X cards, no matter the restrictions, seems scary.
Creativity
(3/3) Uniqueness: Hard to say this isn't unique.
(1.5/3) Flavor: "Destiny" and "Fate" are neither opposites nor really a thematic pair, they're just near-synonyms. Fate being legendary is frankly bizarre.
Polish
(2/3) Quality: "With converted mana cost", not "a" and numbers of counters get number words, not numerals.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Done.
(2/2) Subchallenges: And done.
Total: 20/25
(1/3) Appeal: Not much here for Jxnny, Txmmy likes a hasty vigilant token horde and Spike might be willing to pay a restrictive cost for 8 power across four bodies but asking for four colors is beyond the pale.
(2.5/3) Elegance: Something definitely feels... off about one half letting you immediately use the tokens to attack and the other half not so. It's just sliiiightly asymmetrical for a card that seems focused on symmetry.
Development
(3/3) Viability: Colors are right, I suppose, and so is rarity.
(3/3) Balance: Perfectly fine, even a bit safe imho.
Creativity
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: Both halves of the card are pretty well-trod effects and furthermore are almost exactly the same save for colors, types, and one functional difference in the granted keyword.
(1/3) Flavor: Those names are surely too long for the space afforded to split card names.
Polish
(2.5/3) Quality: Uses a "2" that should be a "two."
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Done.
(1/2) Subchallenges: Mentions "creature."
Total: 17.5/25
(2/3) Appeal: Txmmy likes pump, (conditional) evasion, and saving duders from removal. Not much for Jxnny to look at but Spike would love the flexibility of such a combat trick particularly in Limited.
(3/3) Elegance: Two simple effects that mesh nicely.
Development
(3/3) Viability: Red half is red, blue half is blue, and neither effect is more complex than uncommon.
(3/3) Balance: Simply a strong draft uncommon; efficiency like that could make a little bit of a Constructed splash.
Creativity
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: Pump split cards are nothing new, but these particular effects have never quite been done before although variants certainly have.
(2.5/3) Flavor: Two-word names, but they form a natural pair and are each short, so you get something of a pass.
Polish
(2.5/3) Quality: Missing a couple periods.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Done.
(0/2) Subchallenges: Neither fulfilled.
Total: 19.5/25
(3/3) Appeal: All-rounder with Spike mostly being interested in the Grinding half.
(3/3) Elegance: Sure, these effects go together well.
Development
(1.5/3) Viability: Ethereal Form doesn't feel black at all, and as worded Grinding doesn't feel green at all.
(1.5/3) Balance: On its own Ethereal Form is quite bad (I can't imagine solo-casting a mass sorcery blink unless it would somehow result in comboing out to win the game entirely) and Grinding is undercosted.
Creativity
(2/3) Uniqueness: Several unique elements but the general idea has precedent.
(1/3) Flavor: Names don't mesh with each other and one of them is even two words long.
Polish
(2/3) Quality: A few grammar mistakes plus I'm sure "destroys" is meant to be "sacrifices", otherwise it results in each player choosing which of their opponents' permanents get removed instead of their own.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Done.
(2/2) Subchallenges: And done.
Total: 18/25
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝