Quote from Rai Kerensky »Quote from Clebballfan »Catalog has been around more than once before. Does the author just like the art? (It's not good art btw.)
In Standard. I am glad to see it in Standard.
We have a strictly better version of it in standard right now?
Artificer's Epiphany
Sorcery (U)
Create three 1/1 white Farmer creature tokens.
Cultivate (To cultivate, add one mana of any color to your mana pool for each farmer creature you control, then tap those creatures.)
The work of our forefathers, and the work of our offspring bring us together upon these grand fields.
Tilled Ground
Land (C)
T: Add 1 to your mana pool.
1, T: Cultivate.
The product of the hard work from generations.
Bloodthirsty Herder 3RG
Creature - Human Farmer Warrior (U)
Trample
Whenever Bloodthirsty Herder deals combat damage to a player, cultivate.
Whenever Bloodthirsty Herder deals combat damage to a creature, draw a card.
4/4
Reverent Harvester 1WW
Creature - Human Farmer (R)
Lifelink
Whenever you cultivate, return target creature with converted mana cost X or less from your graveyard to your hand, where X is the number of farmer creatures you control.
Let us not forget those who worked the land before us.
2/3
IIW: Make a mechanic that represents music majors.
Also, here's a list of all the pre-8th keywords I can find:
Fading
Horsemanship
Phasing
Provoke
These were all I could find for it.
Overzealous Spiritcaller 1RUG
Creature - Spirit Shaman (R)
When Bringer of Mysteries enters the battlefield, manifest the top two cards of your library.
Face-down creatures you control have Fading 3. (Those creatures enter the battlefield with 3 fade counters on it. At the beginning of your upkeep, remove a fade counter from it. If you can't, sacrifice it. When they're turned face up, they lose fading.)
2/4
DESIGN
Appeal (2/3): Johnny likes this in voltron style decks and token decks, whilst Tammy likes the rather big effect this can have.
Elegance (2/3): Having the two tokens enter the battlefield in different states will add a lot of unneeded complexity for newer players.
DEVELOP
Viability (2.5/3): Giving effects like flying and such on colorless cards can be dangerous, but the tokens are fine.
Balance (2/3): The effect is powerful, but a bit unreasonably overcosted. 4+ mana equips are often reserved for effects that are much too powerful unattended to, like losing half your life. Making a 3/2 flier isn't quite there imo. Haste will also almost always be irrelevant, though, with an equip cost so high.
CREATE
Uniqueness (2.5/3): The closest I could find was Captain's Claws and Moonsilver Spear, but choosing which one does set it apart.
Flavor (3/3): I have no qualms here.
POLAND
Quality (3/3): All good here.
Main (2/2): Done.
Sub (2/2): Done and Done.
Total: 21/25
DESIGN
(2.5/3) Appeal: Timmy likes the potentially big things, Johnny likes big sacrifice shenanigans, and Spike likes the sheer power of a sac outlet.
(1/3) Elegance: Jitte showed us that counters on equipment is a bad idea.
DEVELOP
(3/3) Viability: All good here.
(2/3) Balance: An exceptionally efficient sacrifice outlet is always dangerous.
CREATE
(2/3) Uniqueness: This reminds me heavily of Lyzolda, and Butcher's Cleaver, but does a fair amount to change it.
(.5/3) Flavor: I honestly feel like this was a wasted opportunity. This has such similarity to Lyzolda and Dissension's Rakdos that I feel it should have been imperative to hearken back to that flavor rather than the genericism that exists in the card you made.
POLAND
(2/3) Quality: Use spaces instead of dashes for equip, and the p/t boost comes before the menace.
(2/2) Main
(2/2) Sub
TOTAL: 17/25
DESIGN
Appeal (1.5/3): Timmy likes how this can make things bigger, although this doesn't do much. Spike likes the double strike and effect unique in red and white.
Elegance (2.5/3): I firmly believe it's more in red/white's color pie if it said you control, and I feel many players will read it that way, which is problematic and what causes issues in elegance.
DEVELOP
Viability (1/3): Giving players double strike at a cheap equip cost is dangerous, and leaving out a "you control" means this could end up as sideboard tech against some decks, which I don't feel is the intent. If you added you control and made it cost RW or 1(R/W), it would be fine. This also feels like a rare, not an uncommon.
Balance (2/3): A high equip cost is kind of pivotal to high impact equipment, otherwise it has the potential to be broken.
CREATE
Uniqueness (2/3): The double strike is something new, but making a creature death effect colorless is to my knowledge.
Flavor (3/3): This is the flavor I love to see in this contest. References to a plane we know, but unique and genius flavor for the concept that proves that you've done your research.
POLAND
Quality (3/3): No issues
Main (2/2)
Sub (2/2)
TOTAL: 19/25
NOTE: I'm not giving you a penalty directly for not including a statement of the last round's colors, but please do so in future competitions that rely on other rounds.
DESIGN
Appeal (3/3): Johnny and Spike like the deathtouch + trample. Tammy likes the larger p/t boost.
Elegance (1/3): The mechanics make sense, but the formatting makes it horrid.
DEVELOP
Viability (2/3): Mythic is definitely not the spot for this. Rare might not even be the spot for it, depending on the format.
Balance (1.5/3): This can provide a very large boost, and is rather broken in a bg standard deck. I'd be rather worried in some standard formats.
CREATE
Uniqueness (1/3): This is the cycle of hybrid enchantments from lorwyn block on an equipment. That's a neat twist, but it isn't much.
Flavor (1/3): Wait, there's flavor here? You only have the name, and that does not do much.
POLAND
Quality (1/3): Should be, "as long as equipped creature is _____, it has _______." It also should be worded as 4 separate abilities, not 1.
Main (2/2)
Sub (2/2)
TOTAL: 14.5/25
So, I'll be giving up to 20 points for the bonding mechanic, and 5 points for the actual card. Only the first card listed will be judged, but the mechanic as a whole will be judged across all cards.
Megatroid_Jones: This is the better nemesis, but it has the issue of feeling too much like soulbond, just being soulbond but enemies, hur hur. That's not too interesting, but luckily provides a large amount of new design space that you barely explored. 17pts The Card itself is fine, being slow and complicated removal but ok at uncommon. Being a 2 mana really slow flame lash is... odd at best. 2pts. 19/25
iphanx: So, this mechanic is haunt 2.0. That's not a good thing. Both mechanics are confusing as hell, especially to newer players, and are rather unituitive to remembering. This has more space than haunt, but it still has a lot of underlying problems. 8pts. Your card is too weak for a rare 2 drop. 2pts. Total: 10/25
Winterspring: The lesser nemesis mechanic is obviously meant for conspiracy, but makes the game much more like a 1 on 1 and kind of takes away from the spirit of the format. On another note, the nemesis commander is really weird and should not be a thing. 12pts. The first card is even more for conspiracy, has formatting issues, and is really cornercase. 3pts. Total: 15/25
Forestguy: MY GOD IS THIS TOO COMPLICATED. I almost vomitted before finishing the reminder text. 6. The second card is weak unless there's about 452 tapping effects in the format. 2. Total: 8/25
Ruki: This mechanic is... odd. It raises a lot of questions, and will often remain confusing with additions. This also closes a lot of the design space in the format, disallowing a lot of upkeep or end step triggers. 13 The card is odd as well and often times acts as a hundred handed one, but it way easier to disrupt. 3 Total: 16/25
Flatline: This format is much like the better nemesis mechanic that megatroid made, but has the same problem where it's too close to soulbond. 17. The card is a bit more intresting, acting as a contditional pacifism if your opponent doesn't want you to have value. 4. 21/25
RyuumiGarokumi: So, this mechanic is haunt 2.0. That's not a good thing. Both mechanics are confusing as hell, especially to newer players, and are rather unituitive to remembering. This has more space than haunt, but it still has a lot of underlying problems. 8. The card is a bit intresting, making this particular card a reverse bestow. 4. 12/25
The winner is Flatline, so y'all have to make thieves as creature types.
DESIGN
(1/3) Appeal: Tammy likes the quick progression into larger creatures, but quickly realizes that this doesn't actually accelerate you one bit in mana.
Spike would rarely care about this, even in Eldrazi Tron. Johnny likes the synergy and potential protection it affords to a colorless combo, but it's still a rare sight.
(3/3) Elegance: If I was to make any notions here, I would say that you could arguably make the card a bit more complex, to fall in line with the other commands, but overall it still does work well in terms of complexity.
DEVELOP
(3/3) Viability: Rare is the spot for most commands, and all of these make sense for colorless and rare.
(1/3) Balance: There are two main problems with this card. First, though, we need to look at modal spells. Modal spells usually cost about as much as the most expensive mode(s). In Cryptic Command, countering a spell costs 2-3 mana, and bouncing a permanent costs 1-2 mana. Usually, that will cost a total of 4. However, a considerably worse Gruesome Slaughter (which is already overcosted) and everything else costs about 1. So, this is often just bad, especially since you will always, at best, come out with parity in mana if you choose either of the mana based modes.
CREATE
(2/3) Uniqueness: The card seems just like a bigger version of Warping Wail, with a few slight changes.
(1/3) Flavor: I dinged you on effort and uniqueness here, both for a full point. I feel that the flavor wasn't really taken into account much here, and was just half assed. This also just feels a lot like Titan's Presence and the commands, especially when it comes to a flavor perspective.
POLAND
(2/3) Quality: "Choose 2" Should be "Choose two" (-.5) and "it's" should be "its" (-.5).
(0/2) Main Challenge: Sorry, but colorless is not a color, and thus I sadly have to DQ you for it.
(2/2) Sub: Done and Done.
Total: 15/25* - DQ'd.
DESIGN
(1.5/3) Appeal: Out of any group, Johnny is the most likely to like tribal cards due to the immense synergy and such, and Spike might enjoy this if Goblins was a competitive deck anywhere.
(3/3) Elegance: This is complex enough for rare, whilst also being rather simple.
DEVELOP
(2.5/3) Viability: All but the second-to-last mode are expressly red, and it fits well in red at rare.
(2.5/3) Balance: I'd be rather worried about the second ability being rather broken with future goblins. It really limits what R&D can print in the future.
Otherwise we're fine.
CREATE
(2/3) Uniqueness: This card has two new modes and one that makes it a reprint of Hordeling Outburst.
(1/3) Flavor: Much like last round, it seems that flavor was easy to miss on this time. This time I dinged you a point for Uniqueness and Effort in your flavor, as it seems like a lot of generic goblin text that can appear anywhere that a goblin can, and doesn't separate itself from the rest.
POLAND
(2/3) Quality: The second instance of goblin in each line should not be capitalized.
(2/2) Main: Done.
(2/2) Sub: Done and done.
Total: 18.5/25
DESIGN
(2/3) Appeal: Tim doesn't really care, Johnny likes the inherent synergy. Spike likes the fact that its a Murder in black.
(1/3) Elegance: This has the same issue Beck // Call does, in that many will see the inherent synergy present, but many will be unsure as to whether it actually works or not.
DEVELOP
(1/3) Viability: So, this is essentially a green Murder. That isn't something that green should be able to do. It may technically fit the color pie, but it's a loophole that evades its spirit.
(2/3) Balance: With a good amount of -1/-1 counter synergy, I'm a little worried, but it should be fine since there are so few.
CREATE
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: Despite the allusions to Murder, this is a pretty neat effect, and has only been seen on an emblem before.
(2.5/3) Flavor: The flavor is fantastic for the card, but I'm dinging a half point for quality since I couldn't find a mention to Pits relating to Rhonas.
POLAND
(3/3) Quality: Looks all good
(2/2) Main: Done
(2/2) Sub: Done and Done.
Total: 18/25
Tesco(black)lotus - 18.5
admirableadmiral - 18
Koopa - 15 + DQ
On Question 2, giving the Reckoner protection from red means that it will not be dealt damage at all from any of pyroclasm's damage, and thus will not trigger.
Creature - Lizard Wizard (R)
When Tyrannic Beancrafter enters the battlefield, draw two cards.
2R, Discard a card: Tyrannic Beamcrafter deals 3 damage to target creature or player.
4/4
IIW: A new "pairing" mechanic that isn't soulbond.
The issue I had is that the card isn't abusable. Unlike Realm Razer, you can never use it to just straight up exile all lands or trigger landfall 6 extra times. Unlike Desolation Angel, you can't make your lands indestructible to combat it and make it one sided, and effects that untap lands are not plentiful, especially recently. Essentially, the goal of Armageddon style effects is to abuse them, and it's too hard to do so with this. A 4/4 flyer is nice, but the difference between 6 and 7 is larger than most, and if you end up ahead from this, you were probably already ahead in the game.
So, let's move to how my judging's going to be changing a bit, including what I've learned in Judge Philosophy from this round.
FLAVOR: I realized a huge opening for error in this round with the very theme: Dragons. It was very easy to make a dragon that felt like every other dragon in existence. The plus side is that it gave me a good deal of inspiration for how to deal with flavor in the future. I personally will be separating flavor into 4 subcategories. Effort, Creativity, Uniqueness, and Quality. Effort is generally a "Does the card feel like the creator took the flavor of the card into account both when designing the card and its flavor-based aspects like title and flavor text. Creativity is an extentsion of that, asking whether or not the card intuitively explored the creative space it inhabits. Uniqueness is essentially asking "Does this fit on a wide spread of other cards?" And quality simply penalizes for flavor that doesn't make sense or can't logically happen in the setting it paints (eg. Extort on a card with Amonkhetan flavor, which doesn't thematically work with the setting.) I will take off a maximum of 1 point off of flavor for each category (with an obvious floor of 0 points.)
ELEGANCE: I've always felt a little discontented with this section, and, after a lot of thought, had it pinned as mostly, "Can I read the card and not vomit?" However, I feel like this interpretation leaves out a fair bit of the design process. With that in mind, I'm going to largely be using Elegance for two things: The Balance of Simplicity and Complexity for the rarity it is, and as a sort of Quality section for Design, with the emphasis on the former.
RARITY: There's an important difference between the Rare and the Mythic Rare. However, it seems that, despite it, there were still too many mythic cards for the challenge. Mythic Rare Cards are not necessarily just better than Rare, but represent the more splashy and unique effects that will not be explored in decent rares. Cards like As Foretold, The Great Aurora, Indomitable Creativity, and Heart of Kiran are perfect examples of the uniqueness and complexity that mythics bring with them. Typically, a mythic should have a higher score in uniqueness, and is more liable to dings in elegance, for the most part.