Actually, this makes sense. It makes each round last 5 official days.
Zero thought was given to July's deadlines when posting August's Round 1. At the time Round 1 was posted, July's Top 4 hadn't been judged, and there was a possibility I'd make the finals, myself. So, definitely no penalization was intended. (Honestly, August's scheduling was straight copypasta from July)
Isn't that the reason why Round 1 is posted early in the first place? In case the previous finals run into the current month?
Anyway, I wouldn't mind extending the round 1 deadline to Saturday instead of Friday in this case, especially since the challenge is a bit more in-depth than usual. The second round can afford to lose a day.
New August Round 1 deadline: Saturday, 8/5, 23:59 EST
Regarding my July top 4 entry... Now that it's been soundly defeated, let me explain. It's a ridiculous card, and I know it. It was very much a draft of an idea that just never got updated due to time constraints. Everyone was unnecessarily kind in their critiques, which I appreciate.
@doomfish: The combined version of the two triggered abilities of your card would look like this: "Whenever you cast an artifact spell, if ~ is tapped, untap all artifacts you control."
Except for fringe cases, it would function the same.
IcariiFA
Both abilities are strong and flavorful. In most cases I prefer my 6-drops to make an immediate splash, or at least have an imminent effect on the boardstate. This one only REALLY comes online if you untap with it, but then it's pretty unstoppable. It's an incidental creature sweeper that fuels itself. Crazy. I think the high CMC and the lack of impact it has when played are necessary to keep it from being downright oppressive. In limited, it will mostly amount to winmore, since any game where you can afford to do nothing with 6 mana for a turn is likely a game you were winning anyway. Maybe it would fit into some control decks, but how many limited control decks are comfortable paying double red? But in constructed, I would fully expect this to get brewed around, and probably broken wide open. Mythic is definitely the correct rarity. I don't think the word "genesis" is used correctly in the flavor text.
Challenge-wise, this is super-duper good. The name and both abilities each individually evoke all three elements without the effort being obvious.
JamBlock Ripscale Preadator meets Repercussion meets Mugging on-a-stick. Definitely a lively card. I like it, though it's got so much going on, I feel it should be a mythic rare. It's strong, to be sure, but not totally imbalanced, since it requires that additional spells be cast. The trouble is that burn decks curve out at 3, maybe 4. This thing is out of reach for much of its intended audience. Opposite of IcariiFA's card, this will see much more use in limited than constructed, as 6 mana is no big deal for any limited deck. It turns even mediocre damage-based removal into serious threats. Magma Spray becomes Lunge, which is obviously pretty good.
Challenge-wise, very solid. The name covers all the bases. The mechanics clearly feature all three elements, and the flavor text is pretty darn decent.
doomfish
At first glance, it looks like this card could easily be made to go infinite with the help of a twiddle artifact, but after searching for a bit, I can't find a two-card infinite combo after all. I'm still suspicious of it,
but it's not exploitable to the degree I thought it cold be.
The rules are easy enough to understand, but it seems a little redundant to have the second ability trigger off of the first. They could be combined into a single triggered ability without changing how the card works 99% of the time.
Challenge-wise, magnetism and metal-themed designs are tough to distinguish from each other in general. I see the magnetism, and I see the potential energy, but metal seems to have been glossed over. Some metallic reference in the card's name or flavor text would have helped here.
I'm honored to make my 20,000th post in my beloved CCL. Thanks for hosting, Rocco.
Well that worked out nicely! I'm happy to help.
To anyone who is frustrated rather than excited by this challenge, know that the rest of the rounds won't demand so much research or have so many stipulations. I know there are a lot of rules to digest, so please double check both your choices for reference cards and your entries to make sure all requirements are met.
Story Circle, taken from MTG Art by Alan Pollack and Wizards of the Coast
Welcome to the Card Creation League! Everyone is free to participate in either or both of the first two rounds. Come join us!
Theme
Card cycles have been a mainstay of Magic design since the very beginning. They accomplish many varied goals, from highlighting the themes and flavor of an expansion set to exploring different approaches to a new mechanic. Card cycles call our attention to the form and function of cards in ways that wouldn't be possible without them.
This month you'll be reimagining existing cards as part of new cycles as well as designing custom cycles from the ground up (or from the top-down, whatever suits your fancy). The choices you make in the first two rounds will determine some of your design stipulations if you advance to the Top 8 and beyond.
Best of luck!
Challenge
Choose two monocolored cards of different colors from different modern-legal sets that are not already part of any cycle. Imagine that they are part of the same monocolored horizontal cycle, and design a monocolored card that is one of the three other cards in that cycle.
The two cards you choose must be:
Monocolored
Different colors from each other
Printed in two different sets than each other that are both modern-legal
(The cards themselves don't have to be modern-legal)
Your contest submission must be:
Monocolored
A different color than either of your chosen cards
Similar enough in mechanics, power, and/or flavor to your chosen cards that they could all three be part of the same horizontal cycle.
(Select an expansion, then click "Cycles" under the Mythic Spoiler banner)
Stay tuned for July's CCL Final Poll. Anyone who votes will receive 2 bonus points for August's CCL, divided between the first two rounds.
PLEASE NOTE: This month we will continue with the mandatory Top 3 rule. Your card will receive NO POINTS in any round you fail to submit a Top 3 by the judging deadline. Submitting critiques will still be optional (but encouraged!), and will be worth 2 bonus points per round on its own.
Your round 1 submissions are due before Friday, August 4, 23:59 EST.
Schedule
Round 1 — Open to Everyone (July 28th – Aug 5th) *EXTENDED*
Round 2 — Open to Everyone (Aug 6th-10th)
Rounds 1 and 2 Critiques (Due Aug 15th)
Top 8 — Open to top 8 finishers (Aug 16th–20th)
Top 8 Critiques (Due Aug 22nd)
Top 4 — Open to top 4 finishers from last round (Aug 23rd–27th)
Top 4 Critiques (Due Aug 29th)
Final (End of month, winner determined by public poll)
The confusion only lasted a moment. I retracted my comment shortly after making it.
I'll be posting August's Round 1 soonishly. Gotta scavenge for some dinner first, then I'll finish it up. It's up. If anyone would like more clarification, or just has a question, lemme know.
Since I'm requiring a Top 3 in order to grant any points for the round, I think it'd be redundant to add the extra point for those who did vote. They're the only ones getting points anyway, right? (If I understand it correctly)
Copy that. I'll post it as soon as I've written out the challenge for Round 1.
I'll use this month's threads as templates if that's OK. And as for scoring, tell me if I'm missing anything:
1st place = 3 pts
2nd place = 2 pts
3rd place = 1 pt
Critiques = 2 pts
Finals vote = 2 pts
Top 8 combined averaged scores from first two rounds advance
Top 4 averaged scores from third round advance
Top 2 scores from the fourth found make the finals
Finals are decided by public poll
Am I correct in my understanding that the only cut made using cumulative totals is going into round 3? Also, can we continue the mandatory Top 3 this month, or is that just up to me?
Finished — Subject to change prior to the deadline
Simoom Invoker2W
Creature - Human Wizard (U)
Vigilance
Deserts you control have "t: This land deals 1 damage to target attacking creature. Activate this ability only during the end of combat step". It wasn't long until Naktamun survivors had developed a use for deadly desert winds.
2/3
Design - (2/3) Appeal: Lands left untapped are lands that can't be used to cast stuff. Deserts aren't really Timmy's thing anyway, and this isn't the way to get him interested in them. There are lots of ways to exploit this, so Johnny's on-board. To Spike, this just reads "Value value value, value value." (2/3) Elegance: You get clever points for working in the Oracle text from the original Desert. However, that wording only exists to make an awkward ability fit the rules-text template. Wizards doesn't like referencing nuts & bolts game terms like "end of combat step" on printed cards — it's cumbersome and requires too much thought to figure out how it's supposed to work. Of course, to anyone who is familiar with the details of the steps and phases, this wording sounds perfectly fine, so it's not a total bust. I'm taking a full point here, instead of Viability or Quality, as there are technically no mistakes, and the effect is fully supported by the rules.
Development - (2/3) Viability: White has no problem with this effect, and no rules are broken. Because this grants the ping ability to ALL deserts you control, the potential for obscenity is high enough that I think this should have been balanced to be rare instead of uncommon. Depending on the density of deserts in the draft format, it might be OK in limited, at least. (1.5/3) Balance: This won't be super good very often in limited, but at least it's still a 2/3 with vigilance for 2W, so it's always at least playable. But when that second ability becomes more than just incidental value, some pretty degenerate limited decks will result. There's a reason Desert didn't see a reprint in Amonkhet or HOU. If it didn't have vigilance, this wouldn't be as much an issue in my mind. But it can attack AND block, making your deserts that much more capable of finishing off blocked creatures. A common result, in both limited and constructed, will be opponents afraid of attacking, and gummed-up boardstates. Not fun in limited, but it would easily slot into control decks for that reason.
Creativity - (1/3) Uniqueness: So... it makes all of your deserts Deserts. Certainly fun and cheeky, but not especially unique. Pairing it with a vigilance creature makes it a bit more interesting, though. (2/3) Flavor: I don't like that this has vigilance. "Invoker" implies that he is stirring up the simooms himself, not keeping a watchful eye on the desert weather. The name and flavor text are fine, otherwise. Neither is offensive, nor inspired. Besides vigilance, the mechanics all seem to work towards the stated flavor of the card.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: All good. (2/2) *Main Challenge: Yes, it cares about deserts. (2/2) Subchallenges: Nonland and nongreen (+2)
Total: 17.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Buried Beneath the Sands3B
Sorcery (U)
Destroy target creature. Its controller loses X life and you gain X life, where X is equal to the number of Deserts you control.
Design - (2.5/3) Appeal: Timmy says yes, please. Johnny is already planning a mono-desert deck with this as a finisher. Spike doesn't like how obvious it is, but will definitely play it. (3/3) Elegance: Very straightforward and uncomplicated.
Development - (3/3) Viability: Very black, and no rules issues. The effect does feel uncommon, even if it should cost more (See Balance). (1/3) Balance: In some decks, that second clause could easily end the game, or at least seal your opponent's fate. I wouldn't normally complain about a CMC4 removal spell with an upside, but 4 mana is already about the going rate for no-strings creature removal in black, and that life swing has the potential to be really, really good (See: Siege Rhino). It wouldn't matter much in multiplayer, given the higher starting life totals of most formats, but this would define and probably warp any limited or constructed format where it was legal.
Creativity - (1/3) Uniqueness: Nothing new is happening here, except for the required desert reference. I understand that at uncommon it's tough to really blaze new trails, but there was no restriction on rarity to blame this time. (2.5/3) Flavor: Name works fine. The name and mechanical flavor work well enough together that flavor text isn't necessary. My only gripe is that the life swing doesn't make too much sense here. Flavor-wise, it would have made more sense to limit how big a creature you could destroy based on the number of deserts you control. Not a huge deal. I'm only mentioning it because there was a better flavor option.
Polish - (2.5/3) Quality: "equal to" is extraneous (-0.5). That wording hasn't been used since Unglued. (2/2) *Main Challenge: Yes, it cares about deserts. (2/2) Subchallenges: Nonland and nongreen (+2)
Total: 19.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Banished into the WastesW
Instant (U)
Shuffle target creature with toughness less than or equal to the number of Desert you control. It doesn’t always take a wall to make a labyrinth.
Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: Timmy isn't interested in packing his deck full of deserts just to make this deece. Spike will wait to see if a Mono-Deserts deck ends up being worth the effort, and Johnny will be the one to eagerly brew that deck up. (3/3) Elegance: Simple and interesting. Great combo.
Development - (1.5/3) Viability: Other cards that put permanents into libraries currently exist only in blue (albeit, without the shuffling clause). The only card that shuffles a target permanent into a library is Rishadan Pawnshop, and all other cards with Rishadan in their names are blue. Long story short, there's ample precedence for this effect in blue, and none for this effect in white. In a limited deck, uncommon feels fine for this. In constructed, it's possible for this to be a better Path to Exile or Swords to Plowshares, but rarity doesn't matter much for constructed. No points deducted for rarity. Wizards shies away from printing forced shuffle effects, especially on non-rares. The last two I'm aware of have been Indomitable Creativity and Primal Command (3/3) Balance: This will be pretty good in limited some of the time, very good in any standard it shares with lots of Deserts, and probably great in some eternal decks that have yet to be brewed up. To make this feel overpowered would require a critical mass of Deserts, which carries with it significant deckbuilding limitations. I don't think there's a balance issue here, despite there being plenty of growing room for power level as more deserts are printed.
Creativity - (3/3) Uniqueness: "Shuffle target [anything] into its owner's library" currently only exists on Rishadan Pawnshop. I'd call that pretty unique, and I'm surprised this effect hasn't been printed again. (2/3) Flavor: The flavor all meshes together nicely. The name would flow far better in present-tense rather than past-tense. "Banish to the Wastes" (See also: Quality). The flavor text would sound so much more professional like this: "It doesn’t always take walls to make a labyrinth." (Or even simply "A labyrinth needn't have walls.") Worth noting is that no cards with "wastes" in their name have been printed since the printing of Wastes in Oath of the Gatewatch. Possibly a coincidence, but Wizards may also have decided to retire that word for cards that don't interact with cards named Wastes. This is just an observation. No points deducted.
Polish - (1.5/3) Quality: What should I shuffle target creature into? (-1); Banishment grammar options are as follows: "Banish into [undesirable state]" or Banish to [specific place]. (-0.5) (2/2) *Main Challenge: Yes, it cares about deserts. (2/2) Subchallenges: Nonland and nongreen (+2)
Total: 19.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Remember Your Name2UU
Sorcery (R)
Draw two cards, then you may discard a Desert card. If you do, you may search your library for a Jace planeswalker, reveal it to all players, and put it into your hand. Shuffle your library. Freed from the painful thoughts of others by the isolation of the dunes, Jace Beleren wandered in search of his identity and his purpose.
Design - (2/3) Appeal: Jace isn't Timmy's FAVORITE planeswalker, but he loves casting planeswalker in general. Tutoring for walkers makes walkers more likely to hit the battlefield. Johnny doesn't like straightforward and obvious the lines of play, but the whole "value from Deserts" idea is at least a little appealing. Spike came for the draw, and stayed for the Jace. (2.5/3) Elegance: It's very elegant to my eye. The only thing that trips me up is that the name didn't prepare me for a card that cares about deserts. It's minor, but it muddies the mechanical flavor a little.
Development - (3/3) Viability: Planeswalker tutoring always needs to be rare, imo, so good job there. Should blue ever be able to get this effect, though? Maybe it works, so long as there are limits to which walkers can be tutored up. I've decided it feels OK to me on this card, but only because it's so restricted. (2/3) Balance: I love this in limited, so long as it shares a set with a Jace (obvs), as it isn't totally a dead card without anything to tutor. But that incidental walker value would be so sick to pull off! In constructed, I'm less enthusiastic. The fact that it draws and loots makes it potentially a lot better than Call the Gatewatch, even if it can only get a Jace. Four mana is not much to pay for drawing, looting, and tutoring in a single card. The Jace clause and the Desert clause help it not be obviously busted, but it's still imminently bustable. Commander players in blue are already running a million Jaces, but I'm unsure whether they care to fill their decks with Deserts just for this card. It could work, given the deck.
Creativity - (2.5/3) Uniqueness: Planeswalker tutoring HAS been done in Call the Gatewatch but it's still a very new, unexplored mechanic. I feel it should always require a heavy anchoring in a set's narrative to be done correctly, and this execution even out-does its predecessor in that regard. Creatively implemented, even if it's not breaking new ground. (3/3) Flavor: Very nice treatment of flavor. The name is formatted a little unconventionally, but it fits with the rest of the card's flavor well enough not to matter too much. I love this flavor text, as it tells a story without sounding contrived or arbitrary.
Polish - (1/3) Quality: Corrected rules text: "Draw two cards, then you may discard a Desert card. If you do, you may search your library for a Jace planeswalker card, and reveal it to all players, put it into your hand, then shuffle your library." Reference: Trail of Mystery. (There are other, less-used ways to word this, but the version in the entry isn't one of them). One of these errors makes the card not work as intended (As worded, you will ALWAYS shuffle, regardless of discarding or not), so -1 point. The other two are -1 point total. (2/2) *Main Challenge: Yes, it cares about deserts. (2/2) Subchallenges: Nonland and nongreen (+2)
Total: 20/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Zero thought was given to July's deadlines when posting August's Round 1. At the time Round 1 was posted, July's Top 4 hadn't been judged, and there was a possibility I'd make the finals, myself. So, definitely no penalization was intended. (Honestly, August's scheduling was straight copypasta from July)
Anyway, I wouldn't mind extending the round 1 deadline to Saturday instead of Friday in this case, especially since the challenge is a bit more in-depth than usual. The second round can afford to lose a day.
New August Round 1 deadline: Saturday, 8/5, 23:59 EST
Regarding my July top 4 entry... Now that it's been soundly defeated, let me explain. It's a ridiculous card, and I know it. It was very much a draft of an idea that just never got updated due to time constraints. Everyone was unnecessarily kind in their critiques, which I appreciate.
@doomfish: The combined version of the two triggered abilities of your card would look like this: "Whenever you cast an artifact spell, if ~ is tapped, untap all artifacts you control."
Except for fringe cases, it would function the same.
Both abilities are strong and flavorful. In most cases I prefer my 6-drops to make an immediate splash, or at least have an imminent effect on the boardstate. This one only REALLY comes online if you untap with it, but then it's pretty unstoppable. It's an incidental creature sweeper that fuels itself. Crazy. I think the high CMC and the lack of impact it has when played are necessary to keep it from being downright oppressive. In limited, it will mostly amount to winmore, since any game where you can afford to do nothing with 6 mana for a turn is likely a game you were winning anyway. Maybe it would fit into some control decks, but how many limited control decks are comfortable paying double red? But in constructed, I would fully expect this to get brewed around, and probably broken wide open. Mythic is definitely the correct rarity. I don't think the word "genesis" is used correctly in the flavor text.
Challenge-wise, this is super-duper good. The name and both abilities each individually evoke all three elements without the effort being obvious.
JamBlock
Ripscale Preadator meets Repercussion meets Mugging on-a-stick. Definitely a lively card. I like it, though it's got so much going on, I feel it should be a mythic rare. It's strong, to be sure, but not totally imbalanced, since it requires that additional spells be cast. The trouble is that burn decks curve out at 3, maybe 4. This thing is out of reach for much of its intended audience. Opposite of IcariiFA's card, this will see much more use in limited than constructed, as 6 mana is no big deal for any limited deck. It turns even mediocre damage-based removal into serious threats. Magma Spray becomes Lunge, which is obviously pretty good.
Challenge-wise, very solid. The name covers all the bases. The mechanics clearly feature all three elements, and the flavor text is pretty darn decent.
doomfish
At first glance, it looks like this card could easily be made to go infinite with the help of a twiddle artifact, but after searching for a bit, I can't find a two-card infinite combo after all. I'm still suspicious of it,
but it's not exploitable to the degree I thought it cold be.
The rules are easy enough to understand, but it seems a little redundant to have the second ability trigger off of the first. They could be combined into a single triggered ability without changing how the card works 99% of the time.
Challenge-wise, magnetism and metal-themed designs are tough to distinguish from each other in general. I see the magnetism, and I see the potential energy, but metal seems to have been glossed over. Some metallic reference in the card's name or flavor text would have helped here.
2. JamBlock
3. doomfish
Well that worked out nicely! I'm happy to help.
To anyone who is frustrated rather than excited by this challenge, know that the rest of the rounds won't demand so much research or have so many stipulations. I know there are a lot of rules to digest, so please double check both your choices for reference cards and your entries to make sure all requirements are met.
“The Cycle Begins”
Story Circle, taken from MTG Art by Alan Pollack and Wizards of the Coast
Theme
Card cycles have been a mainstay of Magic design since the very beginning. They accomplish many varied goals, from highlighting the themes and flavor of an expansion set to exploring different approaches to a new mechanic. Card cycles call our attention to the form and function of cards in ways that wouldn't be possible without them.
This month you'll be reimagining existing cards as part of new cycles as well as designing custom cycles from the ground up (or from the top-down, whatever suits your fancy). The choices you make in the first two rounds will determine some of your design stipulations if you advance to the Top 8 and beyond.
Best of luck!
Challenge
The two cards you choose must be:
- Monocolored
- Different colors from each other
- Printed in two different sets than each other that are both modern-legal
(The cards themselves don't have to be modern-legal)
Your contest submission must be:
- Monocolored
- A different color than either of your chosen cards
- Similar enough in mechanics, power, and/or flavor to your chosen cards that they could all three be part of the same horizontal cycle.
Resources
- What is a horizontal cycle?
- Which sets are modern-legal?
- Which cards are part of a cycle?
(Select an expansion, then click "Cycles" under the Mythic Spoiler banner)
Stay tuned for July's CCL Final Poll. Anyone who votes will receive 2 bonus points for August's CCL, divided between the first two rounds.
PLEASE NOTE: This month we will continue with the mandatory Top 3 rule. Your card will receive NO POINTS in any round you fail to submit a Top 3 by the judging deadline. Submitting critiques will still be optional (but encouraged!), and will be worth 2 bonus points per round on its own.
Schedule
I'll be posting August's Round 1 soonishly. Gotta scavenge for some dinner first, then I'll finish it up.It's up. If anyone would like more clarification, or just has a question, lemme know.The Cycle Begins
Since I'm requiring a Top 3 in order to grant any points for the round, I think it'd be redundant to add the extra point for those who did vote. They're the only ones getting points anyway, right? (If I understand it correctly)Scratch that. I misunderstood.
I'll use this month's threads as templates if that's OK. And as for scoring, tell me if I'm missing anything:
- 1st place = 3 pts
- 2nd place = 2 pts
- 3rd place = 1 pt
- Critiques = 2 pts
- Finals vote = 2 pts
- Top 8 combined averaged scores from first two rounds advance
- Top 4 averaged scores from third round advance
- Top 2 scores from the fourth found make the finals
- Finals are decided by public poll
Am I correct in my understanding that the only cut made using cumulative totals is going into round 3? Also, can we continue the mandatory Top 3 this month, or is that just up to me?For reference, the actual poster is kind of buried. Here is the direct link:
https://www.rallisart.com/posters/kaya-ghost-assassin
Simoom Invoker 2W
Creature - Human Wizard (U)
Vigilance
Deserts you control have "t: This land deals 1 damage to target attacking creature. Activate this ability only during the end of combat step".
It wasn't long until Naktamun survivors had developed a use for deadly desert winds.
2/3
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Lands left untapped are lands that can't be used to cast stuff. Deserts aren't really Timmy's thing anyway, and this isn't the way to get him interested in them. There are lots of ways to exploit this, so Johnny's on-board. To Spike, this just reads "Value value value, value value."
(2/3) Elegance: You get clever points for working in the Oracle text from the original Desert. However, that wording only exists to make an awkward ability fit the rules-text template. Wizards doesn't like referencing nuts & bolts game terms like "end of combat step" on printed cards — it's cumbersome and requires too much thought to figure out how it's supposed to work. Of course, to anyone who is familiar with the details of the steps and phases, this wording sounds perfectly fine, so it's not a total bust. I'm taking a full point here, instead of Viability or Quality, as there are technically no mistakes, and the effect is fully supported by the rules.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: White has no problem with this effect, and no rules are broken. Because this grants the ping ability to ALL deserts you control, the potential for obscenity is high enough that I think this should have been balanced to be rare instead of uncommon. Depending on the density of deserts in the draft format, it might be OK in limited, at least.
(1.5/3) Balance: This won't be super good very often in limited, but at least it's still a 2/3 with vigilance for 2W, so it's always at least playable. But when that second ability becomes more than just incidental value, some pretty degenerate limited decks will result. There's a reason Desert didn't see a reprint in Amonkhet or HOU. If it didn't have vigilance, this wouldn't be as much an issue in my mind. But it can attack AND block, making your deserts that much more capable of finishing off blocked creatures. A common result, in both limited and constructed, will be opponents afraid of attacking, and gummed-up boardstates. Not fun in limited, but it would easily slot into control decks for that reason.
Creativity -
(1/3) Uniqueness: So... it makes all of your deserts Deserts. Certainly fun and cheeky, but not especially unique. Pairing it with a vigilance creature makes it a bit more interesting, though.
(2/3) Flavor: I don't like that this has vigilance. "Invoker" implies that he is stirring up the simooms himself, not keeping a watchful eye on the desert weather. The name and flavor text are fine, otherwise. Neither is offensive, nor inspired. Besides vigilance, the mechanics all seem to work towards the stated flavor of the card.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: All good.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Yes, it cares about deserts.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Nonland and nongreen (+2)
Total: 17.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Sorcery (U)
Destroy target creature. Its controller loses X life and you gain X life, where X is equal to the number of Deserts you control.
Design -
(2.5/3) Appeal: Timmy says yes, please. Johnny is already planning a mono-desert deck with this as a finisher. Spike doesn't like how obvious it is, but will definitely play it.
(3/3) Elegance: Very straightforward and uncomplicated.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Very black, and no rules issues. The effect does feel uncommon, even if it should cost more (See Balance).
(1/3) Balance: In some decks, that second clause could easily end the game, or at least seal your opponent's fate. I wouldn't normally complain about a CMC4 removal spell with an upside, but 4 mana is already about the going rate for no-strings creature removal in black, and that life swing has the potential to be really, really good (See: Siege Rhino). It wouldn't matter much in multiplayer, given the higher starting life totals of most formats, but this would define and probably warp any limited or constructed format where it was legal.
Creativity -
(1/3) Uniqueness: Nothing new is happening here, except for the required desert reference. I understand that at uncommon it's tough to really blaze new trails, but there was no restriction on rarity to blame this time.
(2.5/3) Flavor: Name works fine. The name and mechanical flavor work well enough together that flavor text isn't necessary. My only gripe is that the life swing doesn't make too much sense here. Flavor-wise, it would have made more sense to limit how big a creature you could destroy based on the number of deserts you control. Not a huge deal. I'm only mentioning it because there was a better flavor option.
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: "equal to" is extraneous (-0.5). That wording hasn't been used since Unglued.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Yes, it cares about deserts.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Nonland and nongreen (+2)
Total: 19.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Instant (U)
Shuffle target creature with toughness less than or equal to the number of Desert you control.
It doesn’t always take a wall to make a labyrinth.
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: Timmy isn't interested in packing his deck full of deserts just to make this deece. Spike will wait to see if a Mono-Deserts deck ends up being worth the effort, and Johnny will be the one to eagerly brew that deck up.
(3/3) Elegance: Simple and interesting. Great combo.
Development -
(1.5/3) Viability: Other cards that put permanents into libraries currently exist only in blue (albeit, without the shuffling clause). The only card that shuffles a target permanent into a library is Rishadan Pawnshop, and all other cards with Rishadan in their names are blue. Long story short, there's ample precedence for this effect in blue, and none for this effect in white. In a limited deck, uncommon feels fine for this. In constructed, it's possible for this to be a better Path to Exile or Swords to Plowshares, but rarity doesn't matter much for constructed. No points deducted for rarity. Wizards shies away from printing forced shuffle effects, especially on non-rares. The last two I'm aware of have been Indomitable Creativity and Primal Command
(3/3) Balance: This will be pretty good in limited some of the time, very good in any standard it shares with lots of Deserts, and probably great in some eternal decks that have yet to be brewed up. To make this feel overpowered would require a critical mass of Deserts, which carries with it significant deckbuilding limitations. I don't think there's a balance issue here, despite there being plenty of growing room for power level as more deserts are printed.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: "Shuffle target [anything] into its owner's library" currently only exists on Rishadan Pawnshop. I'd call that pretty unique, and I'm surprised this effect hasn't been printed again.
(2/3) Flavor: The flavor all meshes together nicely. The name would flow far better in present-tense rather than past-tense. "Banish to the Wastes" (See also: Quality). The flavor text would sound so much more professional like this: "It doesn’t always take walls to make a labyrinth." (Or even simply "A labyrinth needn't have walls.") Worth noting is that no cards with "wastes" in their name have been printed since the printing of Wastes in Oath of the Gatewatch. Possibly a coincidence, but Wizards may also have decided to retire that word for cards that don't interact with cards named Wastes. This is just an observation. No points deducted.
Polish -
(1.5/3) Quality: What should I shuffle target creature into? (-1); Banishment grammar options are as follows: "Banish into [undesirable state]" or Banish to [specific place]. (-0.5)
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Yes, it cares about deserts.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Nonland and nongreen (+2)
Total: 19.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Sorcery (R)
Draw two cards, then you may discard a Desert card. If you do, you may search your library for a Jace planeswalker, reveal it to all players, and put it into your hand. Shuffle your library.
Freed from the painful thoughts of others by the isolation of the dunes, Jace Beleren wandered in search of his identity and his purpose.
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Jace isn't Timmy's FAVORITE planeswalker, but he loves casting planeswalker in general. Tutoring for walkers makes walkers more likely to hit the battlefield. Johnny doesn't like straightforward and obvious the lines of play, but the whole "value from Deserts" idea is at least a little appealing. Spike came for the draw, and stayed for the Jace.
(2.5/3) Elegance: It's very elegant to my eye. The only thing that trips me up is that the name didn't prepare me for a card that cares about deserts. It's minor, but it muddies the mechanical flavor a little.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Planeswalker tutoring always needs to be rare, imo, so good job there. Should blue ever be able to get this effect, though? Maybe it works, so long as there are limits to which walkers can be tutored up. I've decided it feels OK to me on this card, but only because it's so restricted.
(2/3) Balance: I love this in limited, so long as it shares a set with a Jace (obvs), as it isn't totally a dead card without anything to tutor. But that incidental walker value would be so sick to pull off! In constructed, I'm less enthusiastic. The fact that it draws and loots makes it potentially a lot better than Call the Gatewatch, even if it can only get a Jace. Four mana is not much to pay for drawing, looting, and tutoring in a single card. The Jace clause and the Desert clause help it not be obviously busted, but it's still imminently bustable. Commander players in blue are already running a million Jaces, but I'm unsure whether they care to fill their decks with Deserts just for this card. It could work, given the deck.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: Planeswalker tutoring HAS been done in Call the Gatewatch but it's still a very new, unexplored mechanic. I feel it should always require a heavy anchoring in a set's narrative to be done correctly, and this execution even out-does its predecessor in that regard. Creatively implemented, even if it's not breaking new ground.
(3/3) Flavor: Very nice treatment of flavor. The name is formatted a little unconventionally, but it fits with the rest of the card's flavor well enough not to matter too much. I love this flavor text, as it tells a story without sounding contrived or arbitrary.
Polish -
(1/3) Quality: Corrected rules text: "Draw two cards, then you may discard a Desert card. If you do, you may search your library for a Jace planeswalker card,
andreveal itto all players, put it into your hand, then shuffle your library." Reference: Trail of Mystery. (There are other, less-used ways to word this, but the version in the entry isn't one of them). One of these errors makes the card not work as intended (As worded, you will ALWAYS shuffle, regardless of discarding or not), so -1 point. The other two are -1 point total.(2/2) *Main Challenge: Yes, it cares about deserts.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Nonland and nongreen (+2)
Total: 20/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
vs.
willows 19.5
iphanx 19.5
vs.
Jimmy Groove 20