It's virtually impossible to create a 6/6 mythic for 6 which is not timmytastic. Everyone got points there.
End-Raze Titan4RG
Creature - Giant {M}
Menace
Whenever End-Raze Titan enters the battlefield or attacks, destroy target noncreature, nonland permanent an opponent controls. "Every available man" may not be enough to stop it.
6/6
Design - (2/3) Appeal: Spike sees a powerful finisher, and Johnny sees nothing for them. (2.5/3) Elegance: I always feel multicolor designs with a keyword from one color and long ability from the other, but otherwise correct.
Development - (3/3) Viability: No problems in color, rarity or rules. (2/3) Balance: The fact that this doesn't kill creatures makes it manageable in both limited and constructed, but still immediate AND repeatable destruction is dangerous, and shouldn't cost 6.
Creativity - (2/3) Uniqueness: Combination of several cards, not unique effets, but correctly combined. (2.5/3) Flavor: If "every available man" is one, you did something wrong I can get behind this card representing End-Raze, though.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: No problems (2/2) Main Challenge: OK (2/2) Sub-challenges:OK
Total: 21/25
Shipsnatcher4UR
Creature - Giant Pirate (Mythic Rare)
Haste
When Shipsnatcher enters the battlefield or attacks, gain control of target nonland permanent with converted mana cost X or less for as long as Shipsnatcher remains on the battlefield, where X is Shipsnatcher's power. Untap that permanent. It gains haste until end of turn.
Shipsnatcher gets +1/+1 for each permanent you control but don't own.
6/6
Design - (2.5/3) Appeal: Spike likes the possibilites and choices, Johnny may try to increase power, but that's a very minor challenge. (0.5/3) Elegance: Long, complicated and filled with a bland trinket text. Additionally, the creature you take on ETB can attack, but the one you take on attack can't, which adds to the confusion.
Development - (3/3) Viability: No problems in color, rarity or rules. (0.5/3) Balance: If you can lose when you are on 14 life with two untapped 6/6, then you know something went wrong with the design.
Creativity - (2.5/3) Uniqueness: Repeatable Mind Control was never done this way rather because it's OP, not because nobody ever thought about it. The combination is fin (2/3) Flavor: Giant collecting ships? I don't feel the rules text shows it perfectly. It's interesting, though.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: OK (2/2) Main Challenge:OK (2/2) Sub-challenges: OK
Total: 18/25
Reaver Titan 4BR
Creature - Giant (M)
Haste
Whenever Reaver Titan attacks, sacrifice another creature. If you do, create an X/1 red and black Giant creature token, where X is equal to Reaver Titan's power, then put a +1/+1 counter on Reaver Titan.
6/6 Those reclaimed to shadows are half fire, half smoke, corporeal only at his whimsy.
Design - (2/3) Appeal: OK, your Timmy is still happy, but somewhat confused, as sometimes they don't want to sacrifice their creatures. Johnny and Spike understand it, but for Spike one turn of delay for tokens is a huge downside. (0.5/3) Elegance: First, someone may not know if the tokens are changing with Titan's power (they don't). Then, you have multiple similar tokens, each with different power. Additionally, tokens have non-squared stats. As their toughness is 1, that's not a big deal normally, but gets quite annoying with anthems/counters. Furthermore, the fact that the attack trigger creates aggresive creatures that don't attack is strange, especially if you are forced to sacrfice the tokens each turn. Finally, when creating a card related to a cycle, especially in name, you have to either break it (Erebos's Titan) or fully embrace it. If you create a 6/6 mythic rare Giant for 6 with a keyword and attack trigger, you have to give it the same ETB as well, and haste doesn't help here I think. A lot of small problems.
Development - (2.5/3) Viability: No rules problem (unless I'm wrong about not changing power). Mythic mainly for being pushed, as it could be rare with this rule text. I can fathom this card being monored, but indeed it feels Rakdos enough. (2.5/3) Balance: Quite powerful if you replace goblins with 6/1 and more, but probably fair.
Creativity - (2.5/3) Uniqueness: Repeatable Hellion Eruption is interesting. (2.5/3) Flavor: The flavor is interesting, but X/1 seems quite corporeal, just frail.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: OK (2/2) Main Challenge: OK (2/2) Sub-challenges: OK
Total: 19.5/25
Syndicate TitanWWWBBB
Creature — Giant (MR)
Lifelink
Whenever Syndicate Titan enters the battlefield or attacks, you may exile another target nonland permanent. If you do, target creature you control gets +X/+X until end of turn, where X is the exiled permanent's converted mana cost. "He might have deceived you, but don't worry: the Orzhov know how to make someone pay."
—Teysa Karlov, to Kaya
6/6
Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: Johnny doesn't have anything to do with this card. Spike sees its power, and plays it whenever mono-Orzhov is doable, but it's too easy. Everyone can just cast this, attack, and inevitably win, so Spike isn't that happy about it. (2.5/3) Elegance: A little too long text for me to get full points. The choice of the target is weak, as you were probably targeting the most expensive permanent anyway.
Development - (3/3) Viability: How well does the card fit into the color wheel? Does it break or bend the rules of the game? Is it the appropriate rarity? (0.5/3) Balance: It's impossible to win if you are attacked by this even once, and for six mana. Hard casting cost is not a proper explanation for this.
Creativity - (2/3) Uniqueness: Has a card like this ever been printed before? Does it use new mechanics, ideas, or design space? Does it combine old ideas in a new way? Overall, does it feel “fresh”? (2/3) Flavor: Is it a Bolas reference? Honestly, I don't see how this card is supposed to be related to him. In general, this card doesn't feel that Orzhovy. It feels just like generic WB titan.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: OK (2/2) Main Challenge: OK (2/2) Sub-challenges: OK
Total: 18.5/25
RaikouRider 21 vs 18 Subject16
Cantripmancer 19.5 vs 18.5 StonerOfKruphix
I'm quite afraid to do it now, as the only people that vote him are the ones that are the second and third most dangerous to me... But I Vote ztdsd, as it seems to be the most probable Bolas to me. I didn't want to do it before to not just waste my vote.
To clarify - I don't say void should never be exiled now. If he's Bolas, and we accidentally exile a town, then we don't lose immediately, but we are in 3v2 situation, which is still very dangerous if the trap is triggered next turn.
I'm going to assume that 2v2 is a lose for Guilpact, as we still didn't receive confirmation what happens if there is a tie in voting. For instance, if no one is exiled, then both Bolas may vote for the same person indefinitely until they trap someone and it's 1v2.
I'd like you to reconsider voting for zdtsd. We may lose this turn, but only if 1 is a trap AND we banish a Guildpact. If 1 is indeed a trap, then probably void is Guildpact, as he probably knew the quest. So we just lose. I feel like voting him now may be very dangerous.
On the other hand, I don't understand why Subject16 is the second option right now. As I told before, he is the most probable person from the blue players, but I'd give him 50/50 chance to be Bolas at worst. Notice he is one of the 3 blue players. Between zdtsd and void, I feel like zdtsd is a bit worse. He is more probable than Subject16.
Also, voting zdtsd may lose the game this round only if void is Bolas AND he didn't know quest 3, so it's not very probable. Of course, the same is true for Subject16.
I'm going to hold my vote for several hours, hopefully receiving confirmation what happens if there is a tie in votes and in game, and some more arguments why zdtsd shouldn't be banished this turn. I will write before 6 PM CET.
Misdirecting one? To gain trust? That was a minor miracle all those people changed their minds, and obviously you would have to keep the appearances when they did.
Man, I'd like you to be guildpact, but your designs for first three rounds were too sneaky for me. For now, I feel zdtsd is more Bolasy than you, and as I say, you can't be both Bolas. I wanted to let everyone know what I think, though, because just assuming you are guildpact may potentially doom this game.
On the MELO situation, what happens if noone votes, so everyone votes themselves; or there is otherwise a draw?
First, to answer why we shouldn't speak between rounds - during that time, WE have the power, not Bolas. We know quests, they need to figure them out. Every word we say then may give them some info, if not about what the quests are about, then about the strategy for the next round. "We received a card from this person, they may have a hunch on us, we need to use their card and blame them." I don't know how big the effect may be, probably not that big, but I don't think we should give them this opportunity. Enough time to talk during day.
I feel bad about the results of the last round. I thought that M_J was Bolas from the first round, and was happy that everyone else noticed it eventually - but then it turned out to be wrong. Ouch. Sorry about that.
From my perspective, two players look most like Bolas - zdtsd and void.
I don't think anyone here doubts why I think this way about zdtsd. His designs were repeatedly weird (Orzhov will'o'wisp? RLY?), and not very convincing.
I don't understand, though, why nobody mentioned void yet. His two first rounds were as long, kitchensinky and general as humanly possible. This would give him more chances that some part of the card would be fitting to the quest, and that part may be later enlarged by directing flavor text at it. Notice the first round "name a card. ANY card.", and second round basically everything. In the third round, sure, he had a very specific antiblue mechanic - but M_J (Guildpact) had it as well. It's scary to me he is the one with Cantripmancer driving this game.
The problem with those two being Bolas is a very serious one - this round. They both very noticeably designed for their quests, zdtsd naming a trap and void being the only one with an artifact. I feel they cannot be both Bolas at the same time. That means that one of the blue players is Bolas, and I don't get that vibe from any of them. That's scary, as that means you can be such a good Bolas for such a long time.
If I had to guess right now who of them is Bolas, I would point to Subject16. His designs were the most strange for their quests of this group, and the unclear quest last round is at least suspicious. I don't feel that certain about that, though, and definitely won't vote for him this round.
This game makes me anxious now, and I don't know if it's a bug or a feature
JuanCu, can Bolas decide not to kill anyone from trap quest to throw us off guard?
I think that it's strange. It seems quite obvious to me that Subject16 Anglercrocodile is for 1., and he says it's for 3. A similar situation happened last round. How should we decide what quest cards are for? In similar situations, two Bolas agents could go for the same quest, and then just one swears they are not trying to do this quest... Or the other way around, Guildpact could try to swear they are trying to do a quest no one did to make sure they are not trapped. Shouldn't we add some official indication of what we are trying to fulfill with our submissions?
I run for 1. of course. I didn't want for Bolas to know immediately that the quest is underwater, but it seems not everyone thought that way.
There are two probable things that happened this round, and we may know which one only after the round ends.
a) 1. is a trap quest. That means they knew exactly what it was and one of them easily made a card for it. It also automatically means Cardz is Bolas (or not? If Subject16 is also on 3. One of them is Bolas then.)
b) (a little guesswork, but I think reasonable assumptions, looking at what happened) 1. isn't a trap. The serious problem of this round is that at least one Guildpact was VERY obvious with a part of a quest (specifically antiblue mechanic) and, I presume, was presented to Bolas so they had basically free pass and could create their own antiblue card/s. "Look, I can't be Bolas, I specifically said in rules text what is in the quest, I knew it from the start!"
It's very possible to me that two cards with antiblue (Rakdos, Boros and Izzet) are Bolas, and 1 isn't a trap. For now, I stick to my guns. Vote M_J
Multani's Teachings1GG
Enchantment — Saga (M) (As this Saga enters and after your draw step, add a lore counter. Sacrifice after III.)
I, II — Search your library for an creature card, reveal it, and put it into your hand. Then shuffle your library.
III — Until end of turn, creature spells you cast cost X less to cast, where X is equal to the number of lands and creatures you control.
Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: Timmy and Spike both somewhat enjoy creature search and discount for their own reasons. You overdid it for Johnny. What's fun in a combo that tutors and casts itself? (2.5/3) Elegance: III is a nearly full generic discount for the majority of cases (maybe except Eldrazi). Counting is basically a trinket text and nuisance.
Development - (2/3) Viability: Those are green effects and such blatant OP card needs to be mythic for sure. Double tutor for 3 mana definitely breaks design rules. (0/3) Balance: Combo that tutors and casts itself.
Creativity - (2/3) Uniqueness: Has a card like this ever been printed before? Does it use new mechanics, ideas, or design space? Does it combine old ideas in a new way? Overall, does it feel “fresh”? (1/3) Flavor: How are the teachings a saga? Is Multani a storyteller now? How are the mechanics of this card related to Multani at all? They are all very generic green and quite explosive, while Multani always had a theme of growing with resources.
Polish - (2/3) Quality:An creature (2/2) Main Challenge:OK (2/2) Sub-challenges:OK
Total: 15/25
Intellectual Domination 2UUU
Enchantment (M)
Whenever you cast an instant spell, you may counter target spell. I don't believe that "No" quite covers it.
Design - (2/3) Appeal: Timmy isn't happy to play reactively and not impact the battlefield. One exception would be griefer Timmy probably, which likes counterspells. Spike isn't happy to play 5 mana enchantment and be vulnerable for whole turn, but loves what waits just after it. Johnny is quite happy to try and break it fully. (3/3) Elegance: Short, elegant text.
Development - (2.5/3) Viability: Very blue and mythic. Repeatable counterspell, especially at 5 mana, is a break of design rules. (1/3) Balance: You may be quite fragile the turn you cast this, but if you untap, you basically already won. This is too much.
Creativity - (3/3) Uniqueness: This feels very unique. (2.5/3) Flavor: The flavor text doesn't fit this card for me. You don't counter stronger, you counter with more ease and more reliably.
I shouldn't... But I have alternative flavor text for this Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Polish - (2.5/3) Quality: Why is name blue? You deliberately added something that hurts your score. (2/2) Main Challenge: OK (2/2) Sub-challenges: OK
Total: 18.5/25
Lingering Devastation5BB
Legendary Enchantment (M)
When Lingering Devastation enters the battlefield, destroy all creatures.
Creatures get -2/-2. When Boltan realized he would fail to conquer all of Zanbae, he unleashed a spell so powerful that its affect would be felt for centuries.
Design - (2/3) Appeal: This card "does nothing" (Null Rod), so Timmy is not happy. Johnny and Spike both like symmetric effects to break them. (2.5/3) Elegance: When I read "Lingering Devastation", I think about something like Engineered Plague or Abyss. I wouldn't say that it starts with Wrath of God. Also, having Wrath of God on ETB effect is a little odd.
Development - (3/3) Viability: Black mythic with acceptable rules. (2/3) Balance: Doing nothing is a dangerous thing, this could easily be a I WIN button against some decks.
Creativity - (2.5/3) Uniqueness: Symmetric Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite is new and interesting. (2/3) Flavor: This card has an affect? that's sweet.
I get what this spell is about, as mechanics and flavor text tells me, but the name tells a little different story. Also, I don't care about Boltan or Zanbae, I need some more info on them to get attached.
Polish - (2.5/3) Quality: I'm quite sure it should be "all creatures", that's what my search tells me. (2/2) Main Challenge: OK (2/2) Sub-challenges: OK
Total: 20/25
One As All3GG
Enchantment (M)
Each land is a Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, and Forest in addition to its other land types.
Creatures you control are lands in addition to their other types. On that day in the face of annihilation, Dominaria unleashed it's full potential.
Design - (1/3) Appeal: Timmy is kinda OK with the ramp and fixing. Johnny quite likes the change of the rules, but there isn't much to do afterward. There's nothing here for Spike. (1.5/3) Elegance: TBH, I'm not exactly sure if this card works as you want it to (and I'm not going to study rules for layers to make sure). I think it does, though. Either way, if the order of the abilities was switched, it would be much easier to understand what you wanted it to do.
Development - (2.5/3) Viability: This is green. I assume rules work, they are just confusing. I don't believe this is a mythic effect, though, it feels much more like a rare. (2/3) Balance: This is very weak. This is basically Cryptolith Rite. Adding Chromatic Lantern effect isn't worth 2G, even if it also works with Cabal Coffers or something similar.
Creativity - (1.5/3) Uniqueness: Making Cryptolith Rite stranger and slapping Chromatic Lantern on it doesn't feel that fresh to me. (2/3) Flavor: I would get Spirit Bomb style flavor for this... But creatures becoming lands are very strange. Did Dominaria devour them all so they became a part of the plane? Again, Cryptolith Rite would make much more sense.
Polish - (2/3) Quality: It's instead of its. It's probably technically correct, but I feel "On that day, in the face of annihilation" would sound much better. (1.5/2) Main Challenge: Enchantment, but to rare for me. (2/2) Sub-challenges: OK
Total: 16/25
Reflection of Destiny2UUU
Enchantment (M)
Players play with the top card of their library revealed.
As long as the top card of the active player's library is not an instant or sorcery, Reflection of Destiny is a copy of that card, except its name is Reflection of Destiny, it retains its abilities, and it's an enchantment in addition to its other types.
Reflection of Destiny gets +2/+2 as long as it's a creature.
Design - (2/3) Appeal: Too random for Spike. Timmy likes it for this, and Johnny can try to use some additional cards to make it even better. (1.5/3) Elegance: Even if it's understandable what this card does, the text is very long, and using non-standard words. "Retains" is only on reminder text, and "active player" is only in Oracle text for old cards. Self-boost seems a little tacked on.
Development - (3/3) Viability: This is a blue mythic. Using forbidden words was already mentioned. I thought about a situation where there is no card in a library or no active player, but then it's just not copying anything, so we are clear. (2/3) Balance: Very swingy, and potentially dangerous on your turn where you have the most use of it and most control on it. Probably fine in general though.
Creativity - (2.5/3) Uniqueness: Natural progression on recent clones from library, but feels fresh and interesting. (2/3) Flavor: Buff doesn't fit this card to me, and isn't explained in any way why the reflection is more powerful than the real thing.
Polish - (2.5/3) Quality: their libraries (2/2) Main Challenge: OK (2/2) Sub-challenges: OK
Total: 19.5/25
Verdant WellspringGG
Legendary Enchantment {M}
Whenever a land enters the battlefield tapped under your control, add one mana of any type that land could produce.
Sacrifice Verdant Wellspring: Untap all lands you control. Design - (2/3) Appeal: Timmy and Spike are lukewarm, rituals and slight mana increase are OK for them, Johnny is quite happy. (2/3) Elegance: There is a gigantic mismatch between the power level of triggered and sacrifice ability. The triggered is basically trinket when you look at super ritual. The connection between them is quite weak.
Development - (2/3) Viability: This is mythic, and green would be the color for it. Untap all lands is not an effect for two mana, though. (0/3) Balance: 2 mana to untap all lands? Even better, it can be paid on a previous turn to get even more mana on that turn? It's not even close to being correct.
Creativity - (2/3) Uniqueness:Amulet of Vigor/Lotus Cobra variant with OP Rude Awakening. (1.5/3) Flavor: Very generic but correct green card. The name doesn't suggest at all that this is legnedary.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: OK (2/2) Main Challenge: OK (2/2) Sub-challenges: OK
Total: 17.5/25
Isareth's Mastery1BB
Enchantment (M)
When Isareth's Mastery enters the battlefield, put target creature card from a graveyard onto the battlefield under your control with a corpse counter on it. If that creature would leave the battlefield, exile it instead of putting it anywhere else.
At the beginning of each end step, if you control no creatures with a corpse counter on them, return Isareth's Mastery to its owner's hand. "A good necromancer never runs out of servants."
Design - (3/3) Appeal: Reanimation is nice for all psychographics. Repeatable reanimation is even better. (3/3) Elegance: At the first glance, this card looks like it should be an aura, but then I noticed that there are major differences, and reanimating auras are extremely wordy. In the end, there is a lot of words here, but they are all quite important and understandable.
Development - (3/3) Viability:Black mythic. No problems with rules. (1/3) Balance: Reanimation at 3 is probably too much for today standards. Repeatable reanimation for 3 is just wrong.
Creativity - (1.5/3) Uniqueness: Basically reanimation spell that reanimates itself. (2.5/3) Flavor: I find it strange that this card doesn't follow original Isareth's reanimation style.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: OK (2/2) Main Challenge: OK (2/2) Sub-challenges: OK
Whenever they talk about Modern Horizons, they say that all the cards will be new to Modern, EXCEPT BASIC LANDS. Let's be honest, no one would bat an eye if the Plains was reprinted and it didn't fit this description. Also, this set isn't supposed to be set on a plane, so a theme for basics would be tricky. So maybe they mean Wastes or Snow-covered are here? It would be additionally interesting, as both colorless and snow have some support in Modern, but not really a good deck in a moment, even though they were powerful in the past.
Oh. Oh... I really thought that the first quest suggesting a threat I can fight with wasn't a trap. And it seems I am immediately suspicious because I was on that quest. Well, hope you see that was a coincidence, and two Bolas agents were lucky enough to kill without going for their quest.
Creature - Giant {M}
Menace
Whenever End-Raze Titan enters the battlefield or attacks, destroy target noncreature, nonland permanent an opponent controls.
"Every available man" may not be enough to stop it.
6/6
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Spike sees a powerful finisher, and Johnny sees nothing for them.
(2.5/3) Elegance: I always feel multicolor designs with a keyword from one color and long ability from the other, but otherwise correct.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: No problems in color, rarity or rules.
(2/3) Balance: The fact that this doesn't kill creatures makes it manageable in both limited and constructed, but still immediate AND repeatable destruction is dangerous, and shouldn't cost 6.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Combination of several cards, not unique effets, but correctly combined.
(2.5/3) Flavor: If "every available man" is one, you did something wrong
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: No problems
(2/2) Main Challenge: OK
(2/2) Sub-challenges:OK
Total: 21/25
Creature - Giant Pirate (Mythic Rare)
Haste
When Shipsnatcher enters the battlefield or attacks, gain control of target nonland permanent with converted mana cost X or less for as long as Shipsnatcher remains on the battlefield, where X is Shipsnatcher's power. Untap that permanent. It gains haste until end of turn.
Shipsnatcher gets +1/+1 for each permanent you control but don't own.
6/6
Design -
(2.5/3) Appeal: Spike likes the possibilites and choices, Johnny may try to increase power, but that's a very minor challenge.
(0.5/3) Elegance: Long, complicated and filled with a bland trinket text. Additionally, the creature you take on ETB can attack, but the one you take on attack can't, which adds to the confusion.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: No problems in color, rarity or rules.
(0.5/3) Balance: If you can lose when you are on 14 life with two untapped 6/6, then you know something went wrong with the design.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: Repeatable Mind Control was never done this way rather because it's OP, not because nobody ever thought about it. The combination is fin
(2/3) Flavor: Giant collecting ships? I don't feel the rules text shows it perfectly. It's interesting, though.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: OK
(2/2) Main Challenge:OK
(2/2) Sub-challenges: OK
Total: 18/25
Creature - Giant (M)
Haste
Whenever Reaver Titan attacks, sacrifice another creature. If you do, create an X/1 red and black Giant creature token, where X is equal to Reaver Titan's power, then put a +1/+1 counter on Reaver Titan.
6/6
Those reclaimed to shadows are half fire, half smoke, corporeal only at his whimsy.
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: OK, your Timmy is still happy, but somewhat confused, as sometimes they don't want to sacrifice their creatures. Johnny and Spike understand it, but for Spike one turn of delay for tokens is a huge downside.
(0.5/3) Elegance: First, someone may not know if the tokens are changing with Titan's power (they don't). Then, you have multiple similar tokens, each with different power. Additionally, tokens have non-squared stats. As their toughness is 1, that's not a big deal normally, but gets quite annoying with anthems/counters. Furthermore, the fact that the attack trigger creates aggresive creatures that don't attack is strange, especially if you are forced to sacrfice the tokens each turn. Finally, when creating a card related to a cycle, especially in name, you have to either break it (Erebos's Titan) or fully embrace it. If you create a 6/6 mythic rare Giant for 6 with a keyword and attack trigger, you have to give it the same ETB as well, and haste doesn't help here I think. A lot of small problems.
Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: No rules problem (unless I'm wrong about not changing power). Mythic mainly for being pushed, as it could be rare with this rule text. I can fathom this card being monored, but indeed it feels Rakdos enough.
(2.5/3) Balance: Quite powerful if you replace goblins with 6/1 and more, but probably fair.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: Repeatable Hellion Eruption is interesting.
(2.5/3) Flavor: The flavor is interesting, but X/1 seems quite corporeal, just frail.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: OK
(2/2) Main Challenge: OK
(2/2) Sub-challenges: OK
Total: 19.5/25
Creature — Giant (MR)
Lifelink
Whenever Syndicate Titan enters the battlefield or attacks, you may exile another target nonland permanent. If you do, target creature you control gets +X/+X until end of turn, where X is the exiled permanent's converted mana cost.
"He might have deceived you, but don't worry: the Orzhov know how to make someone pay."
—Teysa Karlov, to Kaya
6/6
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: Johnny doesn't have anything to do with this card. Spike sees its power, and plays it whenever mono-Orzhov is doable, but it's too easy. Everyone can just cast this, attack, and inevitably win, so Spike isn't that happy about it.
(2.5/3) Elegance: A little too long text for me to get full points. The choice of the target is weak, as you were probably targeting the most expensive permanent anyway.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: How well does the card fit into the color wheel? Does it break or bend the rules of the game? Is it the appropriate rarity?
(0.5/3) Balance: It's impossible to win if you are attacked by this even once, and for six mana. Hard casting cost is not a proper explanation for this.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Has a card like this ever been printed before? Does it use new mechanics, ideas, or design space? Does it combine old ideas in a new way? Overall, does it feel “fresh”?
(2/3) Flavor: Is it a Bolas reference? Honestly, I don't see how this card is supposed to be related to him. In general, this card doesn't feel that Orzhovy. It feels just like generic WB titan.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: OK
(2/2) Main Challenge: OK
(2/2) Sub-challenges: OK
Total: 18.5/25
Cantripmancer 19.5 vs 18.5 StonerOfKruphix
Vote ztdsd, as it seems to be the most probable Bolas to me. I didn't want to do it before to not just waste my vote.
I'd like you to reconsider voting for zdtsd. We may lose this turn, but only if 1 is a trap AND we banish a Guildpact. If 1 is indeed a trap, then probably void is Guildpact, as he probably knew the quest. So we just lose. I feel like voting him now may be very dangerous.
On the other hand, I don't understand why Subject16 is the second option right now. As I told before, he is the most probable person from the blue players, but I'd give him 50/50 chance to be Bolas at worst. Notice he is one of the 3 blue players. Between zdtsd and void, I feel like zdtsd is a bit worse. He is more probable than Subject16.
Also, voting zdtsd may lose the game this round only if void is Bolas AND he didn't know quest 3, so it's not very probable. Of course, the same is true for Subject16.
I'm going to hold my vote for several hours, hopefully receiving confirmation what happens if there is a tie in votes and in game, and some more arguments why zdtsd shouldn't be banished this turn. I will write before 6 PM CET.
Man, I'd like you to be guildpact, but your designs for first three rounds were too sneaky for me. For now, I feel zdtsd is more Bolasy than you, and as I say, you can't be both Bolas. I wanted to let everyone know what I think, though, because just assuming you are guildpact may potentially doom this game.
On the MELO situation, what happens if noone votes, so everyone votes themselves; or there is otherwise a draw?
I feel bad about the results of the last round. I thought that M_J was Bolas from the first round, and was happy that everyone else noticed it eventually - but then it turned out to be wrong. Ouch. Sorry about that.
From my perspective, two players look most like Bolas - zdtsd and void.
I don't think anyone here doubts why I think this way about zdtsd. His designs were repeatedly weird (Orzhov will'o'wisp? RLY?), and not very convincing.
I don't understand, though, why nobody mentioned void yet. His two first rounds were as long, kitchensinky and general as humanly possible. This would give him more chances that some part of the card would be fitting to the quest, and that part may be later enlarged by directing flavor text at it. Notice the first round "name a card. ANY card.", and second round basically everything. In the third round, sure, he had a very specific antiblue mechanic - but M_J (Guildpact) had it as well. It's scary to me he is the one with Cantripmancer driving this game.
The problem with those two being Bolas is a very serious one - this round. They both very noticeably designed for their quests, zdtsd naming a trap and void being the only one with an artifact. I feel they cannot be both Bolas at the same time. That means that one of the blue players is Bolas, and I don't get that vibe from any of them. That's scary, as that means you can be such a good Bolas for such a long time.
If I had to guess right now who of them is Bolas, I would point to Subject16. His designs were the most strange for their quests of this group, and the unclear quest last round is at least suspicious. I don't feel that certain about that, though, and definitely won't vote for him this round.
This game makes me anxious now, and I don't know if it's a bug or a feature
I think that it's strange. It seems quite obvious to me that Subject16 Anglercrocodile is for 1., and he says it's for 3. A similar situation happened last round. How should we decide what quest cards are for? In similar situations, two Bolas agents could go for the same quest, and then just one swears they are not trying to do this quest... Or the other way around, Guildpact could try to swear they are trying to do a quest no one did to make sure they are not trapped. Shouldn't we add some official indication of what we are trying to fulfill with our submissions?
I run for 1. of course. I didn't want for Bolas to know immediately that the quest is underwater, but it seems not everyone thought that way.
There are two probable things that happened this round, and we may know which one only after the round ends.
a) 1. is a trap quest. That means they knew exactly what it was and one of them easily made a card for it. It also automatically means Cardz is Bolas (or not? If Subject16 is also on 3. One of them is Bolas then.)
b) (a little guesswork, but I think reasonable assumptions, looking at what happened) 1. isn't a trap. The serious problem of this round is that at least one Guildpact was VERY obvious with a part of a quest (specifically antiblue mechanic) and, I presume, was presented to Bolas so they had basically free pass and could create their own antiblue card/s. "Look, I can't be Bolas, I specifically said in rules text what is in the quest, I knew it from the start!"
It's very possible to me that two cards with antiblue (Rakdos, Boros and Izzet) are Bolas, and 1 isn't a trap. For now, I stick to my guns.
Vote M_J
Enchantment — Saga (M)
(As this Saga enters and after your draw step, add a lore counter. Sacrifice after III.)
I, II — Search your library for an creature card, reveal it, and put it into your hand. Then shuffle your library.
III — Until end of turn, creature spells you cast cost X less to cast, where X is equal to the number of lands and creatures you control.
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: Timmy and Spike both somewhat enjoy creature search and discount for their own reasons. You overdid it for Johnny. What's fun in a combo that tutors and casts itself?
(2.5/3) Elegance: III is a nearly full generic discount for the majority of cases (maybe except Eldrazi). Counting is basically a trinket text and nuisance.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: Those are green effects and such blatant OP card needs to be mythic for sure. Double tutor for 3 mana definitely breaks design rules.
(0/3) Balance: Combo that tutors and casts itself.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Has a card like this ever been printed before? Does it use new mechanics, ideas, or design space? Does it combine old ideas in a new way? Overall, does it feel “fresh”?
(1/3) Flavor: How are the teachings a saga? Is Multani a storyteller now? How are the mechanics of this card related to Multani at all? They are all very generic green and quite explosive, while Multani always had a theme of growing with resources.
Polish -
(2/3) Quality:An creature
(2/2) Main Challenge:OK
(2/2) Sub-challenges:OK
Total: 15/25
Enchantment (M)
Whenever you cast an instant spell, you may counter target spell.
I don't believe that "No" quite covers it.
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Timmy isn't happy to play reactively and not impact the battlefield. One exception would be griefer Timmy probably, which likes counterspells. Spike isn't happy to play 5 mana enchantment and be vulnerable for whole turn, but loves what waits just after it. Johnny is quite happy to try and break it fully.
(3/3) Elegance: Short, elegant text.
Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: Very blue and mythic. Repeatable counterspell, especially at 5 mana, is a break of design rules.
(1/3) Balance: You may be quite fragile the turn you cast this, but if you untap, you basically already won. This is too much.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: This feels very unique.
(2.5/3) Flavor: The flavor text doesn't fit this card for me. You don't counter stronger, you counter with more ease and more reliably.
I shouldn't... But I have alternative flavor text for this
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: Why is name blue? You deliberately added something that hurts your score.
(2/2) Main Challenge: OK
(2/2) Sub-challenges: OK
Total: 18.5/25
Legendary Enchantment (M)
When Lingering Devastation enters the battlefield, destroy all creatures.
Creatures get -2/-2.
When Boltan realized he would fail to conquer all of Zanbae, he unleashed a spell so powerful that its affect would be felt for centuries.
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: This card "does nothing" (Null Rod), so Timmy is not happy. Johnny and Spike both like symmetric effects to break them.
(2.5/3) Elegance: When I read "Lingering Devastation", I think about something like Engineered Plague or Abyss. I wouldn't say that it starts with Wrath of God. Also, having Wrath of God on ETB effect is a little odd.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Black mythic with acceptable rules.
(2/3) Balance: Doing nothing is a dangerous thing, this could easily be a I WIN button against some decks.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: Symmetric Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite is new and interesting.
(2/3) Flavor: This card has an affect? that's sweet.
I get what this spell is about, as mechanics and flavor text tells me, but the name tells a little different story. Also, I don't care about Boltan or Zanbae, I need some more info on them to get attached.
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: I'm quite sure it should be "all creatures", that's what my search tells me.
(2/2) Main Challenge: OK
(2/2) Sub-challenges: OK
Total: 20/25
Enchantment (M)
Each land is a Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, and Forest in addition to its other land types.
Creatures you control are lands in addition to their other types.
On that day in the face of annihilation, Dominaria unleashed it's full potential.
Design -
(1/3) Appeal: Timmy is kinda OK with the ramp and fixing. Johnny quite likes the change of the rules, but there isn't much to do afterward. There's nothing here for Spike.
(1.5/3) Elegance: TBH, I'm not exactly sure if this card works as you want it to (and I'm not going to study rules for layers to make sure). I think it does, though. Either way, if the order of the abilities was switched, it would be much easier to understand what you wanted it to do.
Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: This is green. I assume rules work, they are just confusing. I don't believe this is a mythic effect, though, it feels much more like a rare.
(2/3) Balance: This is very weak. This is basically Cryptolith Rite. Adding Chromatic Lantern effect isn't worth 2G, even if it also works with Cabal Coffers or something similar.
Creativity -
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: Making Cryptolith Rite stranger and slapping Chromatic Lantern on it doesn't feel that fresh to me.
(2/3) Flavor: I would get Spirit Bomb style flavor for this... But creatures becoming lands are very strange. Did Dominaria devour them all so they became a part of the plane? Again, Cryptolith Rite would make much more sense.
Polish -
(2/3) Quality: It's instead of its. It's probably technically correct, but I feel "On that day, in the face of annihilation" would sound much better.
(1.5/2) Main Challenge: Enchantment, but to rare for me.
(2/2) Sub-challenges: OK
Total: 16/25
Enchantment (M)
Players play with the top card of their library revealed.
As long as the top card of the active player's library is not an instant or sorcery, Reflection of Destiny is a copy of that card, except its name is Reflection of Destiny, it retains its abilities, and it's an enchantment in addition to its other types.
Reflection of Destiny gets +2/+2 as long as it's a creature.
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Too random for Spike. Timmy likes it for this, and Johnny can try to use some additional cards to make it even better.
(1.5/3) Elegance: Even if it's understandable what this card does, the text is very long, and using non-standard words. "Retains" is only on reminder text, and "active player" is only in Oracle text for old cards. Self-boost seems a little tacked on.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: This is a blue mythic. Using forbidden words was already mentioned. I thought about a situation where there is no card in a library or no active player, but then it's just not copying anything, so we are clear.
(2/3) Balance: Very swingy, and potentially dangerous on your turn where you have the most use of it and most control on it. Probably fine in general though.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: Natural progression on recent clones from library, but feels fresh and interesting.
(2/3) Flavor: Buff doesn't fit this card to me, and isn't explained in any way why the reflection is more powerful than the real thing.
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: their libraries
(2/2) Main Challenge: OK
(2/2) Sub-challenges: OK
Total: 19.5/25
Legendary Enchantment {M}
Whenever a land enters the battlefield tapped under your control, add one mana of any type that land could produce.
Sacrifice Verdant Wellspring: Untap all lands you control.
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Timmy and Spike are lukewarm, rituals and slight mana increase are OK for them, Johnny is quite happy.
(2/3) Elegance: There is a gigantic mismatch between the power level of triggered and sacrifice ability. The triggered is basically trinket when you look at super ritual. The connection between them is quite weak.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: This is mythic, and green would be the color for it. Untap all lands is not an effect for two mana, though.
(0/3) Balance: 2 mana to untap all lands? Even better, it can be paid on a previous turn to get even more mana on that turn? It's not even close to being correct.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Amulet of Vigor/Lotus Cobra variant with OP Rude Awakening.
(1.5/3) Flavor: Very generic but correct green card. The name doesn't suggest at all that this is legnedary.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: OK
(2/2) Main Challenge: OK
(2/2) Sub-challenges: OK
Total: 17.5/25
Enchantment (M)
When Isareth's Mastery enters the battlefield, put target creature card from a graveyard onto the battlefield under your control with a corpse counter on it. If that creature would leave the battlefield, exile it instead of putting it anywhere else.
At the beginning of each end step, if you control no creatures with a corpse counter on them, return Isareth's Mastery to its owner's hand.
"A good necromancer never runs out of servants."
Design -
(3/3) Appeal: Reanimation is nice for all psychographics. Repeatable reanimation is even better.
(3/3) Elegance: At the first glance, this card looks like it should be an aura, but then I noticed that there are major differences, and reanimating auras are extremely wordy. In the end, there is a lot of words here, but they are all quite important and understandable.
Development -
(3/3) Viability:Black mythic. No problems with rules.
(1/3) Balance: Reanimation at 3 is probably too much for today standards. Repeatable reanimation for 3 is just wrong.
Creativity -
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: Basically reanimation spell that reanimates itself.
(2.5/3) Flavor: I find it strange that this card doesn't follow original Isareth's reanimation style.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: OK
(2/2) Main Challenge: OK
(2/2) Sub-challenges: OK
Total: 21.5/25
TheDrB 15/25
Apellosine 18.5
Flatline 20.5
IcariiFA 17
Cantripmancer 19.5/25
L0ng5h0t 17.5/25
StonerOfKruphix 22/25
Whenever they talk about Modern Horizons, they say that all the cards will be new to Modern, EXCEPT BASIC LANDS. Let's be honest, no one would bat an eye if the Plains was reprinted and it didn't fit this description. Also, this set isn't supposed to be set on a plane, so a theme for basics would be tricky. So maybe they mean Wastes or Snow-covered are here? It would be additionally interesting, as both colorless and snow have some support in Modern, but not really a good deck in a moment, even though they were powerful in the past.