MTG Salvation

End Game 4B
Sorcery (R)
Each player may bid permanents. You start the bidding with a bid of any number. In turn order, each player may top the high bid. The bidding ends if the high bid stands. The high bidder sacrifices permanents equal to the high bid and each other player loses life equal to the number of permanents sacrificed this way.

---

Ok, I'll be honest: at first I didn't even know how to judge this card. Then I found the three similar existing cards on Gatherer: Illicit Auction, Mages' Contest, and Pain's Reward. I expect to reference these cards a lot of times in this judgment, so I'll just autocard them here so that it'll be easier to reference them. I've also checked the CR, and you know what I've discovered? The action of bidding isn't even defined in the CR! It technically doesn't even exist, but that's certainly not your fault. You've actually just discovered a bug in the CR! It doesn't happen everyday! Anyway, I'll try to do the best I can, just as usual. Let's go!

Design
(2/3) Appeal - Timmy just loves the idea of having an auction during a black border game, but doesn't like either of the options for how the bidding ends. Sacrificing permanents and losing life himself aren't things he likes. I'm left wondering how Johnny could use this card. Maybe as a mega-sac outlet? But how can he be sure that he won't end up losing life instead? I think this is just too risky for Spike. She wants to have control herself over what her cards do.
(2/3) Elegance - Luckily, the text explains itself what you're supposed to do, step by step. If you pass the initial stupor that this kind of card will inevitably cause you if you have never seen the three cards I mentioned at the beginning, you'll probably be fine. The text is still very long though.

Development
(2.5/3) Viability - This kind of reminds me of annihilator, and this is both good and bad at the same time. Good because it feels at home in black if it has to be on a colored card, bad because it's not exactly the most fun of abilities. Also, one of the three similar existing cards is black, so this kind of effect can and has been done in black. I'll be honest: I have big problems with those cards from a modern color pie point of view, but luckily that's not the case with your card. Gaining permanent control of a creature in monored (Illicit Auction)? Just no, thanks, red should only gain control of creatures temporarily. A monored counterspell (Mages' Contest)? Seriously? That's worse than Guttural Response, a known color pie break! At least, Pain's Reward is something monoblack can do just fine, drawing cards with life loss. Anyway, back to this card. Rare is the very least this can be. For today's standards, I could very easily see a card like this just be mythic by default.
(2/3) Balance - I'm relatively sure you can bid more permanents than you actually have, just like you can bid more life than you actually have for Illicit Auction (it's in the card rulings). What happens if you win the bid with a higher bid than the number of permanents you have, notably including lands? I guess you'd do as much as you can, that is sacrificing all your permanents, with your opponents losing life equal to the number of permanents that you've actually sacrificed, not equal to the winning bid. I'm glad that the last three words here are "sacrificed this way" and not "equal to the winning bid" or something like that. Otherwise, you could just bid, let's say, a million permanents, and you would have sacrificed everything you had but your opponents would have lost a million life each, straight up losing the game unless they had some kind of instant speed infinite life combo. The way you did it is much more balanced. It's hard for me to say more, not having any kind of direct experience with similar cards, I admit. My best guess is that this is not a card for limited, but for constructed, possibly including older formats. I can't see this as a fun card in competitive tournaments, I think that where it shines is the kitchen table, and it also looks quite interesting in multiplayer, where you will have more players to bid against. Somebody starting a huge auction in a multiplayer casual game looks like it can be very fun. But again, as with many other things in life, and trust me, I know a lot about that, this is only theoretical reasoning. If you don't actually try, you won't really know what it feels like.

Creativity
(3/3) Uniqueness - In modern MTG card design, this kind of effect is unheard of. The most recent of those three cards is from Kamigawa, 15 years ago. I myself have never played with them as I started playing in original Ravnica, the following year. To even newer players, this card will feel groundbreaking and highly memorable. I just have to give you full points here. Yes, it's something we've already seen, but we haven't seen anything similar for the last 15 years. Not days. Years!
(3/3) Flavor - You will certainly reach the end of the game if the bid is high enough. Someone will have to sacrifice a lot of permanents, possibly including lands, and if the game isn't over because of the life loss from this card, it will be very soon anyway. So the name feels very appropriate for what this card does. MSE tells me a short flavor text could technically fit, but the card does look much better without it, so it's not a problem.

Polish
(3/3) Quality - The three cards I mentioned at the beginning tell me that the wording is right.
(2/2) Main Challenge - "End Game" and "the bidding ends". Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.

Total: 21.5/25

End It Now W
Instant (R)
End the current phase. Cast End It Now only during a combat phase. (Player's mana pools empty. Attacking creatures are no longer attacking and blocking creatures are no longer blocking. Combat damage that has not yet been dealt is not dealt. It becomes the active player's main phase.)
Is there no greater irony than peace at swordpoint?

---

Design
(2/3) Appeal - If anything, I can see Timmy desperately hating this card. He wants to attack with his creatures! This is a really strange card, and Johnny loves those. Spike also likes the strategic challenges this kind of card can give her.
(3/3) Elegance - No problems here. The reminder text helps comprehension a lot. I would have deducted points in this area for it not being there, not for it being there. Yes, that pun is totally intended.

Development
(3/3) Viability - Hard to judge here without precedent. The effect does make sense in white to me. I wouldn't want to see this at less than rare. I think it could have been mythic very easily if Subchallenge 2 hadn't been there, but I have no problems with this card being at regular rare either.
(2/3) Balance - This just has to have the timing restriction to be able to only cost one mana. I wonder how different this card would be without the restriction but with a higher mana cost. I see this as a purely constructed card, you kinda have to build around it to properly use it (Johnny is still listening), and maybe even there just as a sideboard card. I don't see much difference in actual play value between this effect and Fog, and this isn't exactly the most exciting of comparisons. If casual players understand what this does, and I think they will if they read the reminder text, they should have no problems with this card. In multiplayer, this card gets much more interesting, as you can end a combat phase that you're not even involved in. Why would you do that? Politics. You might have established an alliance with the player that's being attacked, or you might want to do it now, something like: "I saved you, how about you saving me when I need it?" This is the part of multiplayer that both Maro and I do not like, but that doesn't mean we can ignore it. There are players who love multiplayer formats exactly because of that, and there is no right or wrong in personal preferences. Me not liking it just means that it's not for me.

Creativity
(3/3) Uniqueness - We have "end the turn" cards, but no cards that end a specific phase. The closest we come to that is skipping a phase (Moment of Silence, Fatespinner), or stealing a phase in silver border (Clocknapper), but neither of those options lets you end the current phase, only skip a future one. I haven't been able to find any more similar precedent in Gatherer.
(2.5/3) Flavor - I'm not sure you would have used the same card name if the Main Challenge hadn't asked for it, but I'm sure you would have used the same flavor text, which is just perfect for this card.

Polish
(2/3) Quality - As I said, I haven't been able to find any real precedent, so it's hard to judge this card in this area. I think the wording is realistic enough, and I can easily see it on a printed card, so I'll say that it's good. You also clearly need reminder text to explain what "ending a combat phase" means, as it's a new concept, and that looks quite realistic too, and it looks to me that there's nothing you have left out of it. So I'll just deduct no points for that. I will for the grammar mistake in the reminder text ("Players' mana pools...", -0.5), and Savage Beating also says that the wording of the restriction is wrong: it should be "Cast End It Now only during combat" (-0.5), even though specifying that combat is a phase is nice for less experienced or more casual players that might not know the rules as well as an experienced player, a judge, or just a player (such as, say, me) that's a fan of the logical system that the CR define up to the point of spending days to fully read the CR just for fun and that could very probably just become a real judge if it were compatible with other things in his life... And obviously, Wizards removes the Rules Advisor test exactly while that specific player is finally considering actually taking it... But I digress. Just as usual.
(2/2) Main Challenge - "End It Now" and "End the phase". Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.

Total: 21.5/25

Molten End 1RR
Instant (R)
Multikicker: Sacrifice a creature. (You may sacrifice any number of creatures in addition to any other costs as you cast this spell.)
Exile the top X+1 cards of your library, where X is the number of times Molten End was kicked. Until the end of your next turn, you may play those cards.
The Quiet Furnace must be fed to be quiet.

---

Design
(3/3) Appeal - Timmy would like to use this in a burn deck, but he would very probably prefer to pay some other cost for the multikicker, even just more mana rather than having to sacrifice his own creatures. Johnny really likes that multikicker cost instead, it just lets him use this card as a sac outlet. Spike likes impulsive draw and I think she'd have no big problems with this particular variation. Being able to play the cards on her next turn is also a huge plus to her.
(3/3) Elegance - Not too long and very easy to understand. I see no problems here.

Development
(2.5/3) Viability - Impulsive draw is red, no problem. The "sacrifice a creature" cost might push this towards Rakdos, but it's still something that red can do by itself just fine. This is clearly fine at rare, but I actually wonder if it could be uncommon.
(3/3) Balance - Comparing this to other impulsive draw cards, I think the costs are fine. I saw this card as you first submitted it, and the "plus one" wasn't there. I'm very glad you added it. If it weren't there and you chose not to use multikicker, you'd impulsively draw a grand total of zero cards! Now it's good. Now the card does something even if you don't kick it, and that's exactly how kicker and multikicker cards should work. Giving you the chance to play the cards on your next turn is a huge upside for red, and part of what makes Light Up the Stage so good. I also really like that if don't consider tokens, this card will never be card advantage. At most, it will be card parity: you get the first card for the base spell, then for each time you kick it you get one more card but have to give up one (the nontoken creature). As I said, tokens might allow this to turn into actual card advantage, but I love this auto-balancing aspect from a Mel point of view. Definitely playable in limited, especially if there is some archetype like Aristocrats in BR, and I could see this in Standard monored and BR decks rather easily. I see no problems in casual and multiplayer.

Creativity
(2.5/3) Uniqueness - While searching Gatherer for Quality, I've discovered that there are no multikicker cards with non-mana multikicker costs. That's good in this area. Multikicker is from before when red got impulsive draw, so pairing those two elements is also technically new. Not giving full points here because both of those feel like very easy places to go to, but I'll say that this card combines old elements into something new. That's not perfect but still pretty good in this area.
(2.5/3) Flavor - The only remark I have in this area is that the flavor text feels a little bland to me, but it does make a lot of sense with the mechanics. I have no problems with the name or the card concept.

Polish
(1.5/3) Quality - After the word multikicker there should be an em dash in the place of the colon (I've only been able to find a kicker example with "sacrifice a creature", but multikicker is just templated in the same way: Primal Growth). The presence of a colon implies that is an activated ability, which it isn't, so -1 for functional mistake. If I check the reminder text of any card with multikicker (example: Comet Storm) and the aforementioned Primal Growth, and I make the sum of those I get "You may sacrifice a creature any number of times in addition to..." but that looks like it allows you to sacrifice the same creature repeatedly, which is not what this card actually does (luckily). I think the way you worded it here is much clearer and avoids the potential confusion, so I'll deduct no points for that. The "plus one" after X should be spelled out, like I've just written it (-0.5).
(2/2) Main Challenge - "Molten End" and "until the end of your next turn". Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.

Total: 22/25

slimytrout: 22
IcariiFA: 21.5
Jimmy Groove: 21.5

Main Challenge
• NEW: synonyms (like "cease") do NOT count, neither in card name or rules text.

• NEW: You can repeat the card name in the rules text, but it will NOT count as the instance of "end" in the rules text. If you do that, you will need to put an additional instance of "end" in the rules text that's different from the card name for it to count.

• This time, it has to be specifically the word "end" in both places. Any meaning of the word is allowed, as long as the spelling doesn't change. If a verb, it has to be in a conjugation that doesn't change the spelling of the word either.

For example, all of the following DO count as card names (just examples, I'm not implying they are good card names):
Wit's End (singular noun)
Glorious End (singular noun, and also contains "end" in its rules text)
End of the World (singular noun)
The End Justifies the Means (singular noun, different meaning but same spelling)
At the End of the Rope (singular noun, another slightly different meaning but still the same spelling)
Civilizations End (verb, present tense, plural third person)
Civilizations Can End (following a modal verb)
Civilizations Would End (conditional verb)
End This Game! (imperative verb)
This Needs to End (infinitive verb)

Some examples of things in rules text that DO count for the Main Challenge:
An effect lasting "until end of turn".
An effect lasting "until the end of your next turn". - This would also pass subchallenge 1 (see below).
An ability triggering "at the beginning of your end step".
An effect lasting "until end of combat".
An ability triggering "at end of combat".
"End the turn." (imperative verb, see Time Stop and Glorious End) - This would also pass subchallenge 1 (see below).
"You may pay (cost) to end this effect." (infinitive verb) - This would also pass subchallenge 1 (see below).

• The word "ends" as a plural noun or as the third person of the verb "to end" is allowed, but it's the only exception to the previous point. Any other declination, form, or conjugation does NOT count.

For example, all of the following DO count as card names (just examples, I'm not implying they are good card names):
The World Ends (verb, present tense, singular third person)
The Two Ends of the Rope (plural noun)

• Derived words like "ended", "ending", or "endgame" do NOT count.

• Other words containing the "E-N-D" character sequence that are not the word "end" itself also do NOT count.

• Essentially, your card has to meet all three of the following requirements to pass the Main Challenge:
- It has to be an instant or sorcery. If it's a split card, a flip card (those from Kamigawa) or a DFC (those from Innistrad), then both halves or sides must be instant or sorcery.
- It has to have the word "end" in its rules text. If it's a split card, a flip card, or a DFC, then having it on only one half or side is enough.
- It has to have the word "end" in its card name. If it's a split card, a flip card, or a DFC, then having it on only one half or side is enough.
If even just one of the three requirements isn't met, your card fails the Main Challenge, and it will thus be DQ'ed.

• The word "end" can be there in flavor text too, but that's not required. If it's there in flavor text, that does NOT count for the Main Challenge requirements.

• The word "end" can be repeated any number of times. Just make sure that it doesn't feel forced, especially if you want to abuse this point and just spam your card with "end"s. If a judge feels it is forced, you will certainly lose points in multiple areas of the rubric, though NOT in Main Challenge this time, as the Main Challenge specifically asks for that word to be there.

Subchallenge 1
• Only the literal quoted expressions are forbidden. Variations like "until the end of your next turn" are allowed (see examples above).

Subchallenge 2
• Regular rare is fine, as well as common and uncommon of course.

If you have any other question, feel free to ask in the discussion thread.

Design -
(X/3) Appeal: Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card?
(X/3) Elegance: Is the card easily understandable at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?

Development -
(X/3) Viability: How well does the card fit into the color wheel? Does it break or bend the rules of the game? Is it the appropriate rarity?
(X/3) Balance: Does the card have a power level appropriate for contemporary constructed/limited environments without breaking them? Does it play well in casual and multiplayer formats? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype? Does it create an oppressive environment?

Creativity -
(X/3) Uniqueness: Has a card like this ever been printed before? Does it use new mechanics, ideas, or design space? Does it combine old ideas in a new way? Overall, does it feel “fresh”?
(X/3) Flavor: Does the name seem realistic for a card? Does the flavor text sound professional? Do all the flavor elements synch together to please Vorthos players?

Polish -
(X/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(X/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(X/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.

Total: X/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.