Arid Arroyo
Land - Desert [U] T: Add W.
When Arid Arroyo is put into a graveyard from anywhere, you gain 2 life.
Islandcycling 1W(1W, Discard this card: Search your library for an Island card, reveal it, put it into your hand, then shuffle your library.) Design - (2/3) Appeal: Timmy and Johnny are not opposed to a dual land, Spike admires it's elasticity. (2.5/3) Elegance: This card does a lot, and missing that it gives you life is easy.
Development - (1.5/3) Viability: A land that is strictly better than Plains is forbidden. I also believe dual lands should come in a cycle, and I don't see how to extend this one. Finally, such a land would probably be rare (compare Amonkhet lands). (1/3) Balance: Of course a land would not break any format in half, but this is definitely too powerful in too many ways.
Creativity - (2.5/3) Uniqueness: This is still a dual land, but executed in an interesting way. (3/3) Flavor: I must admit that the issues this card has are all mainly due to the fact that it has perfect flavor due to them.
Polish - (2.5/3) Quality: I believe cycling should be before lifegain. (2/2) Main Challenge: OK (2/2) Subchallenges: OK
Total: 19/25
Flourishing Landscape3GG
Enchantment (R)
Whenever you tap a land for mana, add one mana of any type that land produced.
Mountaincycling 2, plainscycling 2
When you cycle Flourishing Landscape, you may pay G. If you do, search your library for a Forest card, put it onto the battlefield tapped, then shuffle your library. (Do this before and in addition to searching for the mountain or plains to put into your hand.) The Naya sun touches intricate canopies and sharp peaks.
Design - (2.5/3) Appeal: Timmy likes mana doubling, Spike the choices and advantages. Johnny is not that interested, but may use as a help. (2/3) Elegance: Landcycling demands reminder text, while the reminder text you created seems unnecessary and doesn't sound well.
Development - (3/3) Viability: No issues in rules, color and rarity. (1.5/3) Balance: So... this is an instant speed, a little limited Kodama's reach with additional possiblity of doubling mana and even land cycling in the pinch. This is definitely too much.
Creativity - (2/3) Uniqueness: Mana reflection/Kodama's reach split card, but in not obvious way. (1.5/3) Flavor: This is a very generic Naya-aligned green card.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: OK (2/2) Main Challenge: OK (2/2) Subchallenges: OK
Total: 19.5/25
Earthdiver3RR
Creature - Elemental Wurm(u)
Dash1R(You may cast this spell for its dash cost. If you do, it gains haste, and it's returned from the battlefield to its owner's hand at the beginning of the next end step.)
Mountaincycling1R (1R, discard this card: Search your library for a Mountain card, reveal it, and put it into your hand. Then shuffle your library.)
When you cycle Earthdiver, destroy target land if you attacked with a creature named Earthdiver this turn.
3/4 Design - (2/3) Appeal: Spike admires choices. Only Griefer Timmy likes land destruction, and Johnny somewhat admires a minigame. (2.5/3) Elegance: You need to read this card quite carefully to understand it, but when you do it starts to make sense.
Development - (3/3) Viability: I can see this design as an uncommon. No problems with color or rules. (1/3) Balance: Land destruction has low power level for a reason. This card is not only much better than acceptable LD, but also too powerful for a dash creature (compare Alesha's Vanguard and Hellspark Elemental). And Lay of the Land in the pinch, really?
Creativity - (3/3) Uniqueness: The combination is very unique. (2/3) Flavor: I can see Elemental Wurms being related to LD, but I don't see how this is specifically supposed to work.
Polish - (2.5/3) Quality: Barely different reminder text for mountaincycling. (2/2) Main Challenge: OK (1/2) Subchallenges: Not other colors.
Total: 19/25
Hayami, the Eternal4WW
Legendary Creature - Dragon Spirit {M}
Flying, lifelink
Swampscycling 2
When you cycle Hayami, the Eternal, you may exile it instead of discarding it. If you do, return all cards named Hayami, the Eternal from your graveyard to your hand. Between the fall of the evening star and the rise of the morning star, eternity awaits.
5/5 Design - (2.5/3) Appeal: Spike admires card advantage and possibility of different usages, Johnny is trying to abuse the additional copies. Paradoxically, Timmy is the one not that interested in this Dragon, as it isn't that exciting for them. (2.5/3) Elegance: Quite some text, and it seems a little disjointed.
Development - (1/3) Viability:Eternal Dragon returning itself from graveyard is a serious bend, note that Swampcycling is not helping at all (you can have no Swamps in deck to make this card work like this). This is a very strange way of cycling ability, which I think doesn't work in current rules (it triggers even before the card hits the graveyard, which I believe is impossible or at least quite questionable). Rarity OK, but barely, it could be a rare. Finally, multiple copies of this card make for a better land generation than green in WB, or even mono-B, which is absurd. (1.5/3) Balance: As in Viability, and also a wincon if you need it. This is not a healthy way to do a card.
Creativity - (3/3) Uniqueness: Interesting riff on Eternal Dragon, the card could be interesting. (2.5/3) Flavor: Eternal Dragon reference, fine flavor text, looks fine, but I'm not amazed.
Polish - (2.5/3) Quality:"Swampscycling" (2/2) Main Challenge: OK (2/2) Subchallenges: OK
There's still time to change your decision. I really don't understand why you insist on punishing my first design, when nobody knew how this game will be played and I'm going to say there were many much more open designs this game from confirmed (dead) Guildpact. I feel that much more weight should be put on later rounds, as by then, everybody had a chance to get a feel of this game. As I try to look objectively and from each person's point of view, I try to understand why you think of me as a Bolas to address any doubts, and I feel that many more doubts were raised and should be raised for other people, and they were never addressed properly, but apparently Bolas players were able to steer the conversation away from them.
Did you notice that for each banish, void and/or Subject16 were an important factor in it? Void called Ragnarok; then Subject16 was the first person voting Selesnya with void switching from M_J without any comment; then they switched to M_J as they've seen I suspected M_J all this time and was loud about him; then when I was pointing on the 3 of void, Subject16, and Orzhov, they decided to both push for exiling Orzhov before someone followed that lead; the push against me was very loud after that, so void is joining the wagon (first creating some turmoil) when Subject16 is trying to distance himself. And I'm even ignoring their individual scummy tells in design and behavior now. I'd say this pattern is much more telling than my first round.
Well, I don't agree with Subject16's judgment at all. I know I'm Guildpact (yeah, I know, very strong argument), and I am nearly 100% sure that Cantripmancer can't be Bolas due to his non-trap quest design. It looks that Subject16 is still trying to leave himself a door to blame Cantripmancer a round or two ahead, even though he's confirmed good. I'm positive he's Bolas now.
I'm not sure who is Bolas between void and Cardz, but I'm starting to think more and more that Cardz might have just lucked in some solo quests, including first, or be on traps, while he's waiting to join the most useful bans to win now or in the next round if it's 2v2. In the meantime, void's reasoning is rather sound and quite guildpacty, even if he's mistaken about me. Well, I'm not going to try to solve this now, when I have an obvious scum already voted. (still) vote Subject16
Yes, it's quite generic, I agree. I imagined the flavor of findbrokers would carry me, and the card itself was supposed to be elegant. Refer to 3 to know why. It is wrong, if you think about it now and how we design now, and I didn't even copy the findbroker text. I would design this card in a different way now, when I know how this game looks, but it made sense to me then.
Yes, I pushed for M_J since the first round, and I was wrong. On my defense, it means in round 2 I was not voting for Amuzet, and in round 3 I was joined by the majority of players when M_J basically gave up, too soon, if you ask me - in hindsight, of course.
Yes, the strategy was unproven - as this whole game is, especially then. I didn't think about indirectly adding quests (like Cantripmancer's District 5) yet, so this was the best ground I could think of. In fact, I believe the invocation of quests like this makes for quite ugly cards sometimes, so my designer side is not happy when it sees many of the designs here. If it wasn't for this, I believe my line of thinking would be quite solid.
This is definitely my weak side in games like this - when I try to find out who's bad, I sometimes make some assumptions, and the try to find a confirmation for them. Unfortunately, you can prove anything to yourself, if you try hard enough. But still, when I look into it now, it may have been a try to guess a quest, not a specific mechanic needed, so it is still possible that Catripmancer's card was shown to Bolas, and Ragnarok used it to design his.
They were generic AND looking as they tried to fit any possible challenge that could be thought of. I believe mine was designed with a specific aspect of the guild in mind, which perfectly fits the challenge. As I said, I would design my card differently now, but it would be a subtle change, to more mimic Golgari Findbroker. For Amuzet, I believe it was a bad design and I would blame him again at that point, for Raptorchan... Well, now when I look at it, I think I was too much inspired by the lynchtrain and incorrectly saw what they saw.
Well, I concluded that it was a triangle of inspiration, so probably your or M_J's card was given to Ragnarok, and I suggested at least one of you is Guildpact. Believe me, this game makes me quite anxious and I don't know what and who I should believe, and it was a beginning of this.
Well, I started it, thankfully it wasn't listened to. Boars still feel quite lucky to me, though
55. not anyone, but Amuzet or M_J. I explained why I didn't believe them, and why I believed Ragnarok (Boars). Sure, I was wrong, but I had my reasons which were presented to everyone.
And, as you noticed, I was pro clarity and sharing information from the beginning, as it makes the game much easier for Guildpact as they can compare their info freely, while Bolas can do it anyway.
I'm afraid that you do to me exactly what I do definitely too often - you assume something and try to find confirmation for your assumption, even if subconsciously. I probably karmically deserve that, but, as you are basically confirmed Guildpact, it's crucial that you don't make such mistake. I don't understand why do you try to show so many examples of my bad early decisions, but then write off void's as early game and elements not being clear. And why you still ignore all Subject's disinformation as misunderstandings.
For now, I'm not entirely sure if Cardz or void is the second Bolas (void really gained in my eyes after Subject16's sudden turn on Cantripmancer), but I'm quite sure Subject16 is Bolas.
Filigree Lance1GW
Artifact - Equipment (Uncommon)
Equipped creature gets +2/+0 and has first strike.
Whenever equipped creature attacks alone, it gets +1/+1 until end of turn. If it's an artifact creature, put a +1/+1 counter on it instead.
Equip 2 The Esperites always knew how to combine elegance with efficiency. Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: Spike will play this, but not be happy. Timmy is happy due to amassing of counters and being able to attack safely. It isn't interesting challenge for Johnny. (1.5/3) Elegance: Despite its flavor text, this card is not that elegant. Two different checks on trigger and two different additions, out of which one is not square, make for a taxing card. I appreciate subtle way of making controller attack with equipped creature instead of defending with this, though.
Development - (2/3) Viability: Rules and rarity are fine. This card could easily be white, or even colorless. (2/3) Balance: Have you ever tried to attack continously into a comparable or even weaker board when the opponent has a 3+power first strike creature in Limited? It's definitely not fun. 2 colors and being optimal only when attacking save this card though.
Creativity - (1/3) Uniqueness: Quite generic equipment. (2/3) Flavor: This card does very little at all to justify being green. Very slight exalted nod is not enough for me, especially that Bant is 3 color and you chopped the most Esper one. You could at least mention that they are travelling Esperites.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: OK (2/2) Main Challenge: OK (1/2) Subchallenges: This has no reason to be green.
Total: 16/25
Carnival Bandwagon
Artifact - Vehicle [U]
Menace
Whenever Carnival Bandwagon becomes a creature, it gets +1/+0 until end of turn for each creature crewing it.
Crew 1 (Tap any number of creatures you control with total power 1 or more: This Vehicle becomes an artifact creature until end of turn.)
0/1 Design - (2/3) Appeal: Timmy and Johnny are dreaming about all the tokens they will cram into this bandwagon. Spike is looking at them with irritation. (3/3) Elegance: Perfectly understandable with easy math.
Development - (3/3) Viability: Rules and rarity all right. Good use of hybrid mana vehicle. (3/3) Balance: This is banding done right. On one hand, it makes attacking with small creatures into bigger board easier, but on the other hand they can be stopped if needed.
Creativity - (2.5/3) Uniqueness: Using vehicles to combine small creatures' power to attack easier is the main use case of this card type. This is done interestingly in this case, though. (2/3) Flavor: I like an image of cramming Goblins, Serfs and Thrulls into this just to have it easily toppled. I could use some flavor text, though.
Polish - (2.5/3) Quality: I believe it should be: Whenever Carnival Bandwagon becomes an artifact creature, it gets +1/+0 until end of turn for each creature that crewed it this turn. (2/2) Main Challenge:OK (2/2) Subchallenges: OK
Total: 22/25
Strix Foundry
Artifact (R) 2, : Create a 1/1 blue and black Bird artifact creature token with flying and deathtouch. 2GG, Sacrifice Strix Foundry: For each creature you control, choose a target creature an opponent controls. Those creatures fight each other. Design - (3/3) Appeal: Everyone likes tokens like this. (2.5/3) Elegance: Two keywords on a token is the limit. The multitude of costs is strange, but I appreciate how elegantly this A/B+C cost card is contructed.
Development - (3/3) Viability: Rules OK. Repeatable token creation of this kind is rare. Perfectly in the color pie of both BG and GU. (1/3) Balance: This is madly unbeatable in Limited and very annoying in Constructed.
Creativity - (2/3) Uniqueness: OP Whirlermaker. The fight is quite fresh, though. (1.5/3) Flavor: What is green about strixes? Why does sacrificing their foundry triggers a team deatchmatch? Why is there no flavor text explaining all this? So many questions...
Polish - (3/3) Quality:OK (2/2) Main Challenge:OK (2/2) Subchallenges: OK
Total: 20/25
Sacrilegious Relic1BR
Artifact - Equipment (R) T: Add B or R. If that mana is spent to cast a creature spell with haste or menace, attach Sacrilegious Relic to that creature.
Equipped creature is a Demon with flying in addition to its other types and abilities, and has base power and toughness 5/5. Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: This card is hard. I think it would receive good reception from Timmy, but lukewarm at best from others. (1.5/3) Elegance: So... This is a colored equipment without equip ability, which taps even when attached? Yeah, I don't buy it.
Development - (1.5/3) Viability: Rarity OK. Design rules are heavily bent by equipment without equip. BR mana stone is OK, but only in cycles, and I don't see how this card can be a part of the cycle. Otherwise, BR doesn't ramp like this. Also, this card could easily be monored if it was a Dragon not a Demon. (2/3) Balance: This card is quite weak outside dedicated deck, but becomes quite dangerous if you have many small creatures that receive up to +4/+4 and flying for a small cost of playing 3-cost mana stone.
Creativity - (2/3) Uniqueness: Ideas from Path of Mettle and Dominaria equipments. I don't consider an equipment with a tap ability as an upside here, because it's not being done for a reason. (1.5/3) Flavor: It doesn't speak to me that well. So the relic transforms someone with "demonic" traits (and I don't see haste being that demonic usually), but it still looks for someone other with those traits and if it finds such creature, it leaves th original one transforming it back to normal form? This REALLY needs flavortexty explanation.
Polish - (2/3) Quality: I believe it should "to the creature this spell becomes" or as a separate ETB, and it should just get flying, or be a 5/5 Demon with flying. (2/2) Main Challenge:OK (2/2) Subchallenges: OK
Total: 16/25
Augustal Scepter2WU
Legendary Artifact (r) T: Spells you cast this turn cost 1 less to cast. T: Spells your opponents cast this turn cost 1 more to cast. The Augustal Scepter is regarded with all the respect History had bestowed upon it, as if the very hand of Augustin IV is still holding it. Design - (3/3) Appeal: Choices and some power for Spike, twiddling for Johnny and griefer Timmy, and ramp for everyone. (2.5/3) Elegance: This card for sure will raise questions about increasing cost of a spell after casting it.
Development - (2.5/3) Viability: Well, if Augustin was printed, it's hard to blame this, but it's still a bend (the discount part). Rarity and rules OK. (2.5/3) Balance: For 4 mana, it shouldn't break anything, even as some part of untap engine. It isn't perfectly safe, though.
Creativity - (2/3) Uniqueness: Well, this IS Grand Arbiter Augustin IV as a stick. This feels fresh nonetheless, as the play pattern is different. (2/3) Flavor: That was only 4th Augustin, and the scepter is probably related to the title, not name. Also, I don't believe Azorius card would refer to this person without proper title in the flavor text. Why is History capitalized?
Polish - (3/3) Quality: OK (2/2) Main Challenge: OK (1/2) Subchallenges: Only in Esper.
Total: 20.5/25
Nekusar's Puzzle Box2UR
Artifact (R)
At the beginning of each player’s end step, that player shuffles the cards from their hand into their library, then draws that many cards.
Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: Only Johnny has really fun with this card, Spike likes seeing new options each round, but doesn't admire being down a card and not being able to plan anything. (3/3) Elegance: Short, understandable text.
Development - (3/3) Viability: Everything OK. (2/3) Balance: This card is basically only for casual Johnnies or very fringe strategies, so while it wouldn't break anything, it wouldn't be affecting anything positively either.
Creativity - (0/3) Uniqueness: This is basically exactly Teferi's Puzzle Box. Differences are irrelevant for design, even if you moved it to UR. (1.5/3) Flavor: Sure, it's a Puzzle Box, and it would be powerful if you control Nekusar, but why would Nekusar have a puzzle box? Nothing in his character tells he should have one. Lack of flavor text doesn't help.
Polish - (2.5/3) Quality: Shuffles their hand. (2/2) 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? (2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 17.5/25
Etherium Dragonforge 2UR
Artifact (R)
When Etherium Dragonforge enters the battlefield, sacrifice any number of artifacts. Put that many charge counters on Etherium Dragonforge.
At the beginning of your upkeep, create a 1/1 red Dragon Replica artifact creature token with flying and devour 2 for each charge counter on Etherium Dragonforge. After years of trying to gain an edge in quality , the artificers gave up and turned to quantity . With no broodmother to protect, this new flying scourge proved even more devastating than the original.
Design - (2.5/3) Appeal: Spike is afraid of being blown up by Naturalize, but others like this card whole. (2/3) Elegance: Multiple nonstandard tokens make it a little taxing, especially when resolving the ability with multiple counters. Also, even though I don't like compromising paper magic to improve digital, there's no reason to allow sacrificing this to itself.
Development - (3/3) Viability: Rules and rarity ok. This card could be monored, but feels more correct in blue as well due to multiple fliers. (2/3) Balance: Dragon Broodmother was 6 hard mana for only one hatchling a turn. This is any number, and notice that this kind of tokens gains a lot for creating many of itself at the same time. Still, it does still nothing or worse if it gets destroyed quickly enough. This card isn't OP by itself, but may create a warped environment where you either have artifact removal in hand or you die very quickly.
Creativity - (2.5/3) Uniqueness: Artifact Broodmother feels fresh to me. (2/3) Flavor: I don't see why Esper artificers would create something like this, Esper was never about "whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should", but about perfecting all living things in their way. I also don't understand why creating Replica Creature type.
Polish - (2.5/3) Quality: "For each" should be before "create", to not be confused with devour 2. (2/2) Main Challenge: OK (2/2) Subchallenges: OK
Total: 20.5/25
Izzet Steamfactory2UR
Artifact {R}
Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery spell, untap Izzet Steamfactory. U, T: Create a 1/1 blue Elemental creature token with flying. R, T: Create a 3/1 red Elemental creature token with haste.
Design - (3/3) Appeal: Everyone likes tokens like this, and it even has additional knobs for Johnny and Spike. (3/3) Elegance: Very elegant, easy to understand card.
Development - (3/3) Viability: No problems here. (1.5/3) Balance: This card has internal balance problem, because 1/1 flyer costs one mana, and 3/1 haste usually 3. I believe the red elemental should get sacrificed EOT to make it even and interesting choice. Like this, it also gets very powerful on defense, because you can easily ambush any 3 or even 6 toughness creature.
Creativity - (2.5/3) Uniqueness: Repeatable token making is not groundbreaking, but this combination of abilities works here. (2.5/3) Flavor: Could use some flavor text to get full points.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: OK (2/2) Main Challenge: OK (2/2) Subchallenges: OK
RaikouRider, bravelion83: This is speculation on my part, but looking at cards and rules, I think Laboratory Maniac and new Jace wording don't correspond to what should be used on your cards, and it should be "attempting to draw" as in 704.5b. Notice that on Maniac the actual draw never happens, as there's replacement effect, so you never draw or even attempt to draw nonexisting card.
Limitless InsightUUUU
Enchantment {M}
Hexproof
You can't lose the game except by drawing a card while your library has no cards in it.
At the beginning of your upkeep, exile all cards from your hand, then draw seven cards.
You can't cast more than one spell each turn.
When Limitless Insight leaves the battlefield, exile all cards from your library.
Design - (2/3) Appeal: Johnny is very happy. Spike is fine with that card, as it gives them choices how to finish the game while giving them a challenge, but may be a little too dangerous for them. Timmy is confused, as they see all those enticing cards, but can't do anything with them. (2.5/3) Elegance: Long text, but needed to convey mechanics and flavor, and combining them very well. Notice that with this card you draw 8 cards a turn, and 7 would be much more elegant number, as Magic's magic number (especially if you want to play instants, you need to discard).
Development - (3/3) Viability: Color wheel and rarity correct. Rules are being broken in exactly the right way for the right reason. (1/3) Balance: If cast on turn 4, it gives 6 turns in which you cannot be killed, and in which you see all your library and can cast whatever you want. This warps the game very significantly and it may be impossible to lose.
Creativity - (3/3) Uniqueness: Very unique and interesting design. (2.5/3) Flavor: This card could really use some flavor text to round it out, but otherwise very good.
Polish - (2.5/3) Quality: This is speculative, but it should be "attempting to draw" instead of "drawing". (2/2) Main Challenge: OK (2/2) Sub-challenges: OK
Total: 20.5/25
Laboratory Research2GU
Enchantment (M)
If you would draw a card while your library has no cards in it, instead shuffle your graveyard into your library, draw a card, then exile Laboratory Research. 5(G/U)(G/U): For the rest of the game, you can’t lose the game due to drawing a card while your library has no cards in it. Activate this ability only if you own Laboratory Research and only if it is in exile. (If you would draw a card from an empty library, you just don’t draw that card but continue to play.)
Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: Johnny is quite happy to try to abuse it with some fringe self mill (maybe self exile) strategy with existing or not yet existing cards, Spike may use it as a sideboard option at best, Timmy yawns audibly. (1.5/3) Elegance: Very long text for relatively small gain. I'm not sure reminder text is actually that helpful, and it makes the rules text even longer. (The reminder text on this card repeats and rephrases the ability but doesn't explain it.)
Development - (2/3) Viability: Rules and colors are correct. The card is not mythic, though. This is just reactionary, sideboard card, and those are much better suited to be rare. You don't lose doesn't need to be mythic, as already existing cards show us. (2.5/3) Balance: Quite a powerful answer for a deck that rarely is relevant (mill). Would be good to have it in Magic history, just in case, though.
Creativity - (2/3) Uniqueness: This feels more like worse Laboratory Maniac than anything else. It's different, though. (1/3) Flavor: Other than a callback to Laboratory Maniac I don't see what the flavor is here. The thing is, this ability is I think more related to the maniac part, not laboratory.
Polish - (2.5/3) Quality: This is speculative, but it should be "attempting to draw" instead of "drawing" (in second ability, not in first). (1.5/2) Main Challenge: Not that mythic. (2/2) Sub-challenges:OK
Total: 16.5/25
Parchment Paradigm2GU
Enchantment (M)
Whenever a player would lose life, that player puts that many cards from the top of their library into their graveyard instead.
When Parchment Paradigm is put into a graveyard from anywhere, you may exile it. If you do, shuffle your graveyard into your library. Want true love? Riches beyond imagination? Triple your lifespan? Books are the way!
Design - (2/3) Appeal: It does nothing for Timmy, but is very interesting for others. (2.5/3) Elegance: Non-standard trigger is easily missable/misunderstood.
Development - (1.5/3) Viability: I don't feel green at all (Gaia's Blessing is not that unique for green), this is barely mythic, and rules may become dangerous in combination with other cards. (1/3) Balance: So it takes only 4 mana to gain 40 life, or much more if you can shuffle back your library (for example with another copy of this?) Neat, I'm going to stop worrying about this "damage" and "creature" thing I was told exists in this combo-only game. Also, instawin with Bloodchief Ascension.
Creativity - (2.5/3) Uniqueness: Quite fresh, but I feel very Lich-y flavor from this. (2.5/3) Flavor:I don't see neither love nor riches in this card
Polish - (3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating. (2/2) Main Challenge: Barely mythic, but let's say good enough (2/2) Sub-challenges: OK
It's very probable I won't have much time in next hours and days (especially that I'm behind on judging MCC already ) so even if in a perfect world I'd prefer to unvote like void, I'm going to do the next best thing.
Given all designs, not adhering to rules and later trying to pretend he doesn't know them, previous behavior and especially last situation, it's hard for me to imagine a scenario where Subject16 is NOT Bolas. unvote void, vote Subject16
JuanCu, how long until end of round?
I'll try to look here again, but I promise nothing. I hope they fixed internet in my place already :/
I... am very surprised and confused right now. I'd agree with void that Cantripmancer is good, and I don't understand why two blue players suddenly decided to go against him. I'd say I believe Cantripmancer is one of the most Guildpact out of non-Golgari players here, on par with Cardz. This... just doesn't make sense to me, even if they'd be both Bolas (as Cardz could have piled on me with ease, or they could have easily just start by blaming void with me). Argh... This game just went even more confusing and I feel even more anxious.
OK, I admit my card is like this in this round, but if I was Bolas, then I would know to not look like Bolas, and not accuse other of doing what I do, so that's my subjectiveness, not Bolasness As I said, this is I think my first card that could be said that it was made this way. I was thinking of special fungi like here, planted on a rat because it seems like a good, unsuspicious creature to carry spores AND AVATAR IS AWESOME and about a scene from X-Men 2 with fungi growing and being moved out of the creature instead of metal. I feel fungi may make affected person venomous, menacing or more powerful (maybe only for limited time, but w/e )
I was on a quest which was a trap and I was not killed. That increases chances that I am Bolas, I agree with that. I know it's not true, but I agree that it can be suspicious.
OK, so... if I am Bolas, and 1 is not a trap, then which card have I seen? Sure, number three is on all cards, but why did I choose the rest of abilities like this? I am in BG, I could easily go for returning own creatures to hand (G), returning from graveyard, maybe sacrificing beforehand to be even closer to returning from battlefield to hand, maybe giving hexproof or indestructible if I saw Void's card. Did I? No, because I didn't see your designs, and had my own idea. Now ask yourself the same about Void's card. The first part is quite similar for me to your returning to hand (mechanic that makes creatures not die to removal or be pacified)(In theory, it could have gone the other way around. I doubt so, considering the history of this game). The second part makes basically no sense neither for quest nor for the flavor of the card (how is +1/+0 and haste help in escape, and why is it on defensive, evacuating teleport?)
I now took one more look on last card void designed. Just take a look at it, removing flavor. Take control of an equipment, and prevent damage from attacker. For me, it doesn't sound like armory... It sounds much more like some kind of confiscation and pacification! This card could have been easily a hedge against a trap and artifact, as damage prevention could have been easily taken from me, or even inspired by orzhov card. Or, trap design was indeed a Bolas trap, and void lucked out using design tool that didn't show up yet when it was a quest. However, they figured out if it the trap trap is sprung the game is basically a coin toss or very hard for Bolas (2v2, Void is confirmed Bolas, then either everyone votes void and it's 2v1 next turn, assuming no further traps, or another Bolas votes as void and confirms their identity while Juan chooses the winner at random). I admire that you took more interesting scenario in that situation
I still don't understand why you so admire void's designs, with regard to this game. His history is mess, mess, copy, probably trap, and now yet unknown if copy or trap. Look again on the first card - that's you who name Ftlthp, not him in this design! If the original idea for this card was search, it should have been looking at all decks. The design suggests rather conscription, apropriated for search afterwards.
https://avatar.fandom.com/wiki/The_Puppetmaster
Here. The best animated series in history (fight me on this ). Rat as an inconspicuous mean of escape for a skilled mage, of course, golgarized. Also, I was thinking something like Magneto from X-Men 2 escape, growing deadly fungi from the planted rat. Either way, I wanted to make sure the escape part is not obvious from the text itself, but obvious if you look when the quests are revealed. Flavor text is more to polish the card, and make sure it's obvious which quest my card fits. Notice all my designs were like this, to not make Bolas work too easy if my card is revealed to them. As we can see, they circumvented it with throwing everything at their cards and hoping something would stick in multiple rounds, and sometimes they had it too easy with some obvious parts of other people cards to plagiarize (like antiblue mechanics).
Notice that there were 2 "make some noise" quests that are very easy to just do anything splashy and telling it fits. I didn't go for either of them, and Void and Subject did (one of them for each).
To Void - in the previous round, there was no trap sprung. This probably means at this stage of the game and with 5 people on the same quest that that quest wasn't a trap. If it was, it was not sprung to cover you, because it would mathematically damn you. In this round, we don't know what quest is a trap yet, so Subject telling that your card fits (ignoring for a moment that he is probably Bolas anyway) doesn't mean you are Guildpact, as you could have known this quest beforehand.
I made mistake last round asking to not vote for you. Thankfully, we were not trapped and we can still win.
I know it isn't sure they are both Bolas - but for me, there's no more probable scenario ATM, and I don't feel we can experiment anymore.
Writing from mobile, hopefully I will find time to elaborate later.
Void is definitely Bolas, especially after what happened last turn and nobody was trapped. Fitting quest in this round means nothing,as it is probably trap, and even if not, it could be created from Cantripmancer.
Subject is still the most probable second Bolas, especially that ignores voids bolasness and blames me instead. His design this turn is also very general, as was majority of void'. Also, technically, this card isn't even a valid submission (wouldn't get watermark). Panic much?
Rakdos's ScytheBR
Legendary Artifact - Equipment (R)
Whenever equipped creature attacks, it deals 2 damage to the defending player. If equipped creature is a Demon, it deals 3 damage to the defending player and each creature that player controls instead.
Equip 2 Madness infused in this giant blade gives enough strength for devils to wield it, and for demons to obliterate.
For me, it sounds much more like easier to cast, much less reliable and weaker statwise Frilled Mystic. Access to the Mystic outside heavy Simic is interesting, but I don't think this card is very powerful, as it's very easy to play around it.
Arid Arroyo
Land - Desert [U]
T: Add W.
When Arid Arroyo is put into a graveyard from anywhere, you gain 2 life.
Islandcycling 1W (1W, Discard this card: Search your library for an Island card, reveal it, put it into your hand, then shuffle your library.)
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Timmy and Johnny are not opposed to a dual land, Spike admires it's elasticity.
(2.5/3) Elegance: This card does a lot, and missing that it gives you life is easy.
Development -
(1.5/3) Viability: A land that is strictly better than Plains is forbidden. I also believe dual lands should come in a cycle, and I don't see how to extend this one. Finally, such a land would probably be rare (compare Amonkhet lands).
(1/3) Balance: Of course a land would not break any format in half, but this is definitely too powerful in too many ways.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: This is still a dual land, but executed in an interesting way.
(3/3) Flavor: I must admit that the issues this card has are all mainly due to the fact that it has perfect flavor due to them.
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: I believe cycling should be before lifegain.
(2/2) Main Challenge: OK
(2/2) Subchallenges: OK
Total: 19/25
Enchantment (R)
Whenever you tap a land for mana, add one mana of any type that land produced.
Mountaincycling 2, plainscycling 2
When you cycle Flourishing Landscape, you may pay G. If you do, search your library for a Forest card, put it onto the battlefield tapped, then shuffle your library. (Do this before and in addition to searching for the mountain or plains to put into your hand.)
The Naya sun touches intricate canopies and sharp peaks.
Design -
(2.5/3) Appeal: Timmy likes mana doubling, Spike the choices and advantages. Johnny is not that interested, but may use as a help.
(2/3) Elegance: Landcycling demands reminder text, while the reminder text you created seems unnecessary and doesn't sound well.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: No issues in rules, color and rarity.
(1.5/3) Balance: So... this is an instant speed, a little limited Kodama's reach with additional possiblity of doubling mana and even land cycling in the pinch. This is definitely too much.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Mana reflection/Kodama's reach split card, but in not obvious way.
(1.5/3) Flavor: This is a very generic Naya-aligned green card.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: OK
(2/2) Main Challenge: OK
(2/2) Subchallenges: OK
Total: 19.5/25
Creature - Elemental Wurm(u)
Dash1R(You may cast this spell for its dash cost. If you do, it gains haste, and it's returned from the battlefield to its owner's hand at the beginning of the next end step.)
Mountaincycling 1R (1R, discard this card: Search your library for a Mountain card, reveal it, and put it into your hand. Then shuffle your library.)
When you cycle Earthdiver, destroy target land if you attacked with a creature named Earthdiver this turn.
3/4
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Spike admires choices. Only Griefer Timmy likes land destruction, and Johnny somewhat admires a minigame.
(2.5/3) Elegance: You need to read this card quite carefully to understand it, but when you do it starts to make sense.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: I can see this design as an uncommon. No problems with color or rules.
(1/3) Balance: Land destruction has low power level for a reason. This card is not only much better than acceptable LD, but also too powerful for a dash creature (compare Alesha's Vanguard and Hellspark Elemental). And Lay of the Land in the pinch, really?
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: The combination is very unique.
(2/3) Flavor: I can see Elemental Wurms being related to LD, but I don't see how this is specifically supposed to work.
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: Barely different reminder text for mountaincycling.
(2/2) Main Challenge: OK
(1/2) Subchallenges: Not other colors.
Total: 19/25
Legendary Creature - Dragon Spirit {M}
Flying, lifelink
Swampscycling 2
When you cycle Hayami, the Eternal, you may exile it instead of discarding it. If you do, return all cards named Hayami, the Eternal from your graveyard to your hand.
Between the fall of the evening star and the rise of the morning star, eternity awaits.
5/5
Design -
(2.5/3) Appeal: Spike admires card advantage and possibility of different usages, Johnny is trying to abuse the additional copies. Paradoxically, Timmy is the one not that interested in this Dragon, as it isn't that exciting for them.
(2.5/3) Elegance: Quite some text, and it seems a little disjointed.
Development -
(1/3) Viability:Eternal Dragon returning itself from graveyard is a serious bend, note that Swampcycling is not helping at all (you can have no Swamps in deck to make this card work like this). This is a very strange way of cycling ability, which I think doesn't work in current rules (it triggers even before the card hits the graveyard, which I believe is impossible or at least quite questionable). Rarity OK, but barely, it could be a rare. Finally, multiple copies of this card make for a better land generation than green in WB, or even mono-B, which is absurd.
(1.5/3) Balance: As in Viability, and also a wincon if you need it. This is not a healthy way to do a card.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: Interesting riff on Eternal Dragon, the card could be interesting.
(2.5/3) Flavor: Eternal Dragon reference, fine flavor text, looks fine, but I'm not amazed.
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality:"Swampscycling"
(2/2) Main Challenge: OK
(2/2) Subchallenges: OK
Total: 19.5/25
Did you notice that for each banish, void and/or Subject16 were an important factor in it? Void called Ragnarok; then Subject16 was the first person voting Selesnya with void switching from M_J without any comment; then they switched to M_J as they've seen I suspected M_J all this time and was loud about him; then when I was pointing on the 3 of void, Subject16, and Orzhov, they decided to both push for exiling Orzhov before someone followed that lead; the push against me was very loud after that, so void is joining the wagon (first creating some turmoil) when Subject16 is trying to distance himself. And I'm even ignoring their individual scummy tells in design and behavior now. I'd say this pattern is much more telling than my first round.
I'm not sure who is Bolas between void and Cardz, but I'm starting to think more and more that Cardz might have just lucked in some solo quests, including first, or be on traps, while he's waiting to join the most useful bans to win now or in the next round if it's 2v2. In the meantime, void's reasoning is rather sound and quite guildpacty, even if he's mistaken about me. Well, I'm not going to try to solve this now, when I have an obvious scum already voted.
(still) vote Subject16
- Yes, it's quite generic, I agree. I imagined the flavor of findbrokers would carry me, and the card itself was supposed to be elegant. Refer to 3 to know why. It is wrong, if you think about it now and how we design now, and I didn't even copy the findbroker text. I would design this card in a different way now, when I know how this game looks, but it made sense to me then.
- Yes, I pushed for M_J since the first round, and I was wrong. On my defense, it means in round 2 I was not voting for Amuzet, and in round 3 I was joined by the majority of players when M_J basically gave up, too soon, if you ask me - in hindsight, of course.
- Yes, the strategy was unproven - as this whole game is, especially then. I didn't think about indirectly adding quests (like Cantripmancer's District 5) yet, so this was the best ground I could think of. In fact, I believe the invocation of quests like this makes for quite ugly cards sometimes, so my designer side is not happy when it sees many of the designs here. If it wasn't for this, I believe my line of thinking would be quite solid.
- This is definitely my weak side in games like this - when I try to find out who's bad, I sometimes make some assumptions, and the try to find a confirmation for them. Unfortunately, you can prove anything to yourself, if you try hard enough. But still, when I look into it now, it may have been a try to guess a quest, not a specific mechanic needed, so it is still possible that Catripmancer's card was shown to Bolas, and Ragnarok used it to design his.
- They were generic AND looking as they tried to fit any possible challenge that could be thought of. I believe mine was designed with a specific aspect of the guild in mind, which perfectly fits the challenge. As I said, I would design my card differently now, but it would be a subtle change, to more mimic Golgari Findbroker. For Amuzet, I believe it was a bad design and I would blame him again at that point, for Raptorchan... Well, now when I look at it, I think I was too much inspired by the lynchtrain and incorrectly saw what they saw.
- Well, I concluded that it was a triangle of inspiration, so probably your or M_J's card was given to Ragnarok, and I suggested at least one of you is Guildpact. Believe me, this game makes me quite anxious and I don't know what and who I should believe, and it was a beginning of this.
- Well, I started it, thankfully it wasn't listened to. Boars still feel quite lucky to me, though
55. not anyone, but Amuzet or M_J. I explained why I didn't believe them, and why I believed Ragnarok (Boars). Sure, I was wrong, but I had my reasons which were presented to everyone.
And, as you noticed, I was pro clarity and sharing information from the beginning, as it makes the game much easier for Guildpact as they can compare their info freely, while Bolas can do it anyway.I'm afraid that you do to me exactly what I do definitely too often - you assume something and try to find confirmation for your assumption, even if subconsciously. I probably karmically deserve that, but, as you are basically confirmed Guildpact, it's crucial that you don't make such mistake. I don't understand why do you try to show so many examples of my bad early decisions, but then write off void's as early game and elements not being clear. And why you still ignore all Subject's disinformation as misunderstandings.
For now, I'm not entirely sure if Cardz or void is the second Bolas (void really gained in my eyes after Subject16's sudden turn on Cantripmancer), but I'm quite sure Subject16 is Bolas.
Artifact - Equipment (Uncommon)
Equipped creature gets +2/+0 and has first strike.
Whenever equipped creature attacks alone, it gets +1/+1 until end of turn. If it's an artifact creature, put a +1/+1 counter on it instead.
Equip 2
The Esperites always knew how to combine elegance with efficiency.
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: Spike will play this, but not be happy. Timmy is happy due to amassing of counters and being able to attack safely. It isn't interesting challenge for Johnny.
(1.5/3) Elegance: Despite its flavor text, this card is not that elegant. Two different checks on trigger and two different additions, out of which one is not square, make for a taxing card. I appreciate subtle way of making controller attack with equipped creature instead of defending with this, though.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: Rules and rarity are fine. This card could easily be white, or even colorless.
(2/3) Balance: Have you ever tried to attack continously into a comparable or even weaker board when the opponent has a 3+power first strike creature in Limited? It's definitely not fun. 2 colors and being optimal only when attacking save this card though.
Creativity -
(1/3) Uniqueness: Quite generic equipment.
(2/3) Flavor: This card does very little at all to justify being green. Very slight exalted nod is not enough for me, especially that Bant is 3 color and you chopped the most Esper one. You could at least mention that they are travelling Esperites.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: OK
(2/2) Main Challenge: OK
(1/2) Subchallenges: This has no reason to be green.
Total: 16/25
Artifact - Vehicle [U]
Menace
Whenever Carnival Bandwagon becomes a creature, it gets +1/+0 until end of turn for each creature crewing it.
Crew 1 (Tap any number of creatures you control with total power 1 or more: This Vehicle becomes an artifact creature until end of turn.)
0/1
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Timmy and Johnny are dreaming about all the tokens they will cram into this bandwagon. Spike is looking at them with irritation.
(3/3) Elegance: Perfectly understandable with easy math.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Rules and rarity all right. Good use of hybrid mana vehicle.
(3/3) Balance: This is banding done right. On one hand, it makes attacking with small creatures into bigger board easier, but on the other hand they can be stopped if needed.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: Using vehicles to combine small creatures' power to attack easier is the main use case of this card type. This is done interestingly in this case, though.
(2/3) Flavor: I like an image of cramming Goblins, Serfs and Thrulls into this just to have it easily toppled. I could use some flavor text, though.
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: I believe it should be: Whenever Carnival Bandwagon becomes an artifact creature, it gets +1/+0 until end of turn for each creature that crewed it this turn.
(2/2) Main Challenge:OK
(2/2) Subchallenges: OK
Total: 22/25
Artifact (R)
2,
2GG, Sacrifice Strix Foundry: For each creature you control, choose a target creature an opponent controls. Those creatures fight each other.
Design -
(3/3) Appeal: Everyone likes tokens like this.
(2.5/3) Elegance: Two keywords on a token is the limit. The multitude of costs is strange, but I appreciate how elegantly this A/B+C cost card is contructed.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Rules OK. Repeatable token creation of this kind is rare. Perfectly in the color pie of both BG and GU.
(1/3) Balance: This is madly unbeatable in Limited and very annoying in Constructed.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: OP Whirlermaker. The fight is quite fresh, though.
(1.5/3) Flavor: What is green about strixes? Why does sacrificing their foundry triggers a team deatchmatch? Why is there no flavor text explaining all this? So many questions...
Polish -
(3/3) Quality:OK
(2/2) Main Challenge:OK
(2/2) Subchallenges: OK
Total: 20/25
Artifact - Equipment (R)
T: Add B or R. If that mana is spent to cast a creature spell with haste or menace, attach Sacrilegious Relic to that creature.
Equipped creature is a Demon with flying in addition to its other types and abilities, and has base power and toughness 5/5.
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: This card is hard. I think it would receive good reception from Timmy, but lukewarm at best from others.
(1.5/3) Elegance: So... This is a colored equipment without equip ability, which taps even when attached? Yeah, I don't buy it.
Development -
(1.5/3) Viability: Rarity OK. Design rules are heavily bent by equipment without equip. BR mana stone is OK, but only in cycles, and I don't see how this card can be a part of the cycle. Otherwise, BR doesn't ramp like this. Also, this card could easily be monored if it was a Dragon not a Demon.
(2/3) Balance: This card is quite weak outside dedicated deck, but becomes quite dangerous if you have many small creatures that receive up to +4/+4 and flying for a small cost of playing 3-cost mana stone.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Ideas from Path of Mettle and Dominaria equipments. I don't consider an equipment with a tap ability as an upside here, because it's not being done for a reason.
(1.5/3) Flavor: It doesn't speak to me that well. So the relic transforms someone with "demonic" traits (and I don't see haste being that demonic usually), but it still looks for someone other with those traits and if it finds such creature, it leaves th original one transforming it back to normal form? This REALLY needs flavortexty explanation.
Polish -
(2/3) Quality: I believe it should "to the creature this spell becomes" or as a separate ETB, and it should just get flying, or be a 5/5 Demon with flying.
(2/2) Main Challenge:OK
(2/2) Subchallenges: OK
Total: 16/25
Legendary Artifact (r)
T: Spells you cast this turn cost 1 less to cast.
T: Spells your opponents cast this turn cost 1 more to cast.
The Augustal Scepter is regarded with all the respect History had bestowed upon it, as if the very hand of Augustin IV is still holding it.
Design -
(3/3) Appeal: Choices and some power for Spike, twiddling for Johnny and griefer Timmy, and ramp for everyone.
(2.5/3) Elegance: This card for sure will raise questions about increasing cost of a spell after casting it.
Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: Well, if Augustin was printed, it's hard to blame this, but it's still a bend (the discount part). Rarity and rules OK.
(2.5/3) Balance: For 4 mana, it shouldn't break anything, even as some part of untap engine. It isn't perfectly safe, though.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Well, this IS Grand Arbiter Augustin IV as a stick. This feels fresh nonetheless, as the play pattern is different.
(2/3) Flavor: That was only 4th Augustin, and the scepter is probably related to the title, not name. Also, I don't believe Azorius card would refer to this person without proper title in the flavor text. Why is History capitalized?
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: OK
(2/2) Main Challenge: OK
(1/2) Subchallenges: Only in Esper.
Total: 20.5/25
Artifact (R)
At the beginning of each player’s end step, that player shuffles the cards from their hand into their library, then draws that many cards.
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: Only Johnny has really fun with this card, Spike likes seeing new options each round, but doesn't admire being down a card and not being able to plan anything.
(3/3) Elegance: Short, understandable text.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Everything OK.
(2/3) Balance: This card is basically only for casual Johnnies or very fringe strategies, so while it wouldn't break anything, it wouldn't be affecting anything positively either.
Creativity -
(0/3) Uniqueness: This is basically exactly Teferi's Puzzle Box. Differences are irrelevant for design, even if you moved it to UR.
(1.5/3) Flavor: Sure, it's a Puzzle Box, and it would be powerful if you control Nekusar, but why would Nekusar have a puzzle box? Nothing in his character tells he should have one. Lack of flavor text doesn't help.
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: Shuffles their hand.
(2/2) 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?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 17.5/25
Artifact (R)
When Etherium Dragonforge enters the battlefield, sacrifice any number of artifacts. Put that many charge counters on Etherium Dragonforge.
At the beginning of your upkeep, create a 1/1 red Dragon Replica artifact creature token with flying and devour 2 for each charge counter on Etherium Dragonforge.
After years of trying to gain an edge in quality , the artificers gave up and turned to quantity . With no broodmother to protect, this new flying scourge proved even more devastating than the original.
Design -
(2.5/3) Appeal: Spike is afraid of being blown up by Naturalize, but others like this card whole.
(2/3) Elegance: Multiple nonstandard tokens make it a little taxing, especially when resolving the ability with multiple counters. Also, even though I don't like compromising paper magic to improve digital, there's no reason to allow sacrificing this to itself.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Rules and rarity ok. This card could be monored, but feels more correct in blue as well due to multiple fliers.
(2/3) Balance: Dragon Broodmother was 6 hard mana for only one hatchling a turn. This is any number, and notice that this kind of tokens gains a lot for creating many of itself at the same time. Still, it does still nothing or worse if it gets destroyed quickly enough. This card isn't OP by itself, but may create a warped environment where you either have artifact removal in hand or you die very quickly.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: Artifact Broodmother feels fresh to me.
(2/3) Flavor: I don't see why Esper artificers would create something like this, Esper was never about "whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should", but about perfecting all living things in their way. I also don't understand why creating Replica Creature type.
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: "For each" should be before "create", to not be confused with devour 2.
(2/2) Main Challenge: OK
(2/2) Subchallenges: OK
Total: 20.5/25
Artifact {R}
Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery spell, untap Izzet Steamfactory.
U, T: Create a 1/1 blue Elemental creature token with flying.
R, T: Create a 3/1 red Elemental creature token with haste.
Design -
(3/3) Appeal: Everyone likes tokens like this, and it even has additional knobs for Johnny and Spike.
(3/3) Elegance: Very elegant, easy to understand card.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: No problems here.
(1.5/3) Balance: This card has internal balance problem, because 1/1 flyer costs one mana, and 3/1 haste usually 3. I believe the red elemental should get sacrificed EOT to make it even and interesting choice. Like this, it also gets very powerful on defense, because you can easily ambush any 3 or even 6 toughness creature.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: Repeatable token making is not groundbreaking, but this combination of abilities works here.
(2.5/3) Flavor: Could use some flavor text to get full points.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: OK
(2/2) Main Challenge: OK
(2/2) Subchallenges: OK
Total: 22.5/25
Enchantment {M}
Hexproof
You can't lose the game except by drawing a card while your library has no cards in it.
At the beginning of your upkeep, exile all cards from your hand, then draw seven cards.
You can't cast more than one spell each turn.
When Limitless Insight leaves the battlefield, exile all cards from your library.
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Johnny is very happy. Spike is fine with that card, as it gives them choices how to finish the game while giving them a challenge, but may be a little too dangerous for them. Timmy is confused, as they see all those enticing cards, but can't do anything with them.
(2.5/3) Elegance: Long text, but needed to convey mechanics and flavor, and combining them very well. Notice that with this card you draw 8 cards a turn, and 7 would be much more elegant number, as Magic's magic number (especially if you want to play instants, you need to discard).
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Color wheel and rarity correct. Rules are being broken in exactly the right way for the right reason.
(1/3) Balance: If cast on turn 4, it gives 6 turns in which you cannot be killed, and in which you see all your library and can cast whatever you want. This warps the game very significantly and it may be impossible to lose.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: Very unique and interesting design.
(2.5/3) Flavor: This card could really use some flavor text to round it out, but otherwise very good.
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: This is speculative, but it should be "attempting to draw" instead of "drawing".
(2/2) Main Challenge: OK
(2/2) Sub-challenges: OK
Total: 20.5/25
Enchantment (M)
If you would draw a card while your library has no cards in it, instead shuffle your graveyard into your library, draw a card, then exile Laboratory Research.
5(G/U)(G/U): For the rest of the game, you can’t lose the game due to drawing a card while your library has no cards in it. Activate this ability only if you own Laboratory Research and only if it is in exile. (If you would draw a card from an empty library, you just don’t draw that card but continue to play.)
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: Johnny is quite happy to try to abuse it with some fringe self mill (maybe self exile) strategy with existing or not yet existing cards, Spike may use it as a sideboard option at best, Timmy yawns audibly.
(1.5/3) Elegance: Very long text for relatively small gain. I'm not sure reminder text is actually that helpful, and it makes the rules text even longer. (The reminder text on this card repeats and rephrases the ability but doesn't explain it.)
Development -
(2/3) Viability: Rules and colors are correct. The card is not mythic, though. This is just reactionary, sideboard card, and those are much better suited to be rare. You don't lose doesn't need to be mythic, as already existing cards show us.
(2.5/3) Balance: Quite a powerful answer for a deck that rarely is relevant (mill). Would be good to have it in Magic history, just in case, though.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: This feels more like worse Laboratory Maniac than anything else. It's different, though.
(1/3) Flavor: Other than a callback to Laboratory Maniac I don't see what the flavor is here. The thing is, this ability is I think more related to the maniac part, not laboratory.
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: This is speculative, but it should be "attempting to draw" instead of "drawing" (in second ability, not in first).
(1.5/2) Main Challenge: Not that mythic.
(2/2) Sub-challenges:OK
Total: 16.5/25
Enchantment (M)
Whenever a player would lose life, that player puts that many cards from the top of their library into their graveyard instead.
When Parchment Paradigm is put into a graveyard from anywhere, you may exile it. If you do, shuffle your graveyard into your library.
Want true love? Riches beyond imagination? Triple your lifespan? Books are the way!
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: It does nothing for Timmy, but is very interesting for others.
(2.5/3) Elegance: Non-standard trigger is easily missable/misunderstood.
Development -
(1.5/3) Viability: I don't feel green at all (Gaia's Blessing is not that unique for green), this is barely mythic, and rules may become dangerous in combination with other cards.
(1/3) Balance: So it takes only 4 mana to gain 40 life, or much more if you can shuffle back your library (for example with another copy of this?) Neat, I'm going to stop worrying about this "damage" and "creature" thing I was told exists in this combo-only game. Also, instawin with Bloodchief Ascension.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: Quite fresh, but I feel very Lich-y flavor from this.
(2.5/3) Flavor:I don't see neither love nor riches in this card
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Barely mythic, but let's say good enough
(2/2) Sub-challenges: OK
Total: 19/25
Given all designs, not adhering to rules and later trying to pretend he doesn't know them, previous behavior and especially last situation, it's hard for me to imagine a scenario where Subject16 is NOT Bolas.
unvote void, vote Subject16
JuanCu, how long until end of round?
I'll try to look here again, but I promise nothing. I hope they fixed internet in my place already :/
I was on a quest which was a trap and I was not killed. That increases chances that I am Bolas, I agree with that. I know it's not true, but I agree that it can be suspicious.
OK, so... if I am Bolas, and 1 is not a trap, then which card have I seen? Sure, number three is on all cards, but why did I choose the rest of abilities like this? I am in BG, I could easily go for returning own creatures to hand (G), returning from graveyard, maybe sacrificing beforehand to be even closer to returning from battlefield to hand, maybe giving hexproof or indestructible if I saw Void's card. Did I? No, because I didn't see your designs, and had my own idea. Now ask yourself the same about Void's card. The first part is quite similar for me to your returning to hand (mechanic that makes creatures not die to removal or be pacified)(In theory, it could have gone the other way around. I doubt so, considering the history of this game). The second part makes basically no sense neither for quest nor for the flavor of the card (how is +1/+0 and haste help in escape, and why is it on defensive, evacuating teleport?)
I now took one more look on last card void designed. Just take a look at it, removing flavor. Take control of an equipment, and prevent damage from attacker. For me, it doesn't sound like armory... It sounds much more like some kind of confiscation and pacification! This card could have been easily a hedge against a trap and artifact, as damage prevention could have been easily taken from me, or even inspired by orzhov card. Or, trap design was indeed a Bolas trap, and void lucked out using design tool that didn't show up yet when it was a quest. However, they figured out if it the trap trap is sprung the game is basically a coin toss or very hard for Bolas (2v2, Void is confirmed Bolas, then either everyone votes void and it's 2v1 next turn, assuming no further traps, or another Bolas votes as void and confirms their identity while Juan chooses the winner at random). I admire that you took more interesting scenario in that situation
I still don't understand why you so admire void's designs, with regard to this game. His history is mess, mess, copy, probably trap, and now yet unknown if copy or trap. Look again on the first card - that's you who name Ftlthp, not him in this design! If the original idea for this card was search, it should have been looking at all decks. The design suggests rather conscription, apropriated for search afterwards.
Here. The best animated series in history (fight me on this
Notice that there were 2 "make some noise" quests that are very easy to just do anything splashy and telling it fits. I didn't go for either of them, and Void and Subject did (one of them for each).
To Void - in the previous round, there was no trap sprung. This probably means at this stage of the game and with 5 people on the same quest that that quest wasn't a trap. If it was, it was not sprung to cover you, because it would mathematically damn you. In this round, we don't know what quest is a trap yet, so Subject telling that your card fits (ignoring for a moment that he is probably Bolas anyway) doesn't mean you are Guildpact, as you could have known this quest beforehand.
I made mistake last round asking to not vote for you. Thankfully, we were not trapped and we can still win.
I know it isn't sure they are both Bolas - but for me, there's no more probable scenario ATM, and I don't feel we can experiment anymore.
Void is definitely Bolas, especially after what happened last turn and nobody was trapped. Fitting quest in this round means nothing,as it is probably trap, and even if not, it could be created from Cantripmancer.
Subject is still the most probable second Bolas, especially that ignores voids bolasness and blames me instead. His design this turn is also very general, as was majority of void'. Also, technically, this card isn't even a valid submission (wouldn't get watermark). Panic much?
Vote void
Legendary Artifact - Equipment (R)
Whenever equipped creature attacks, it deals 2 damage to the defending player. If equipped creature is a Demon, it deals 3 damage to the defending player and each creature that player controls instead.
Equip 2
Madness infused in this giant blade gives enough strength for devils to wield it, and for demons to obliterate.