Technically the deadline has passed, but I see a couple of entries that could use some proofreading. I'll officially close the round from work tomorrow morning at about 9:00 AM EST to give the opportunity for some final touches.
Cylian Behemoth1GW
Creature - Beast {C}
At the beginning of combat on your turn, you may pay 5. If you don't, prevent all damage that Cylian Behemoth would deal to players. Humans see Gargantuan destruction as wanton. Cylia's inner elven circle see it as incidental.
5/5
Design - (2.5/3) Appeal: Timmy REALLY wants to like this. He might try to build around it, especially in this set, but it's going to leave him wanting in limited because of the drawback. There are plenty of ways for Johnny to abuse this, and Spike will surely find a way to capitalize on the undercosted-ness. (2.5/3) Elegance:(I think I've been too harsh in my Elegance scores thus far. Consider my elegance-meter recalibrated going forward.)
It's pretty clear what the card it supposed to do, though the missing "this turn" clause makes it impossible to know for sure (See Quality). This particular trigger, "at the beginning of combat on your turn" always risks confusing some players as to precisely how and when it should trigger, and what effect responses to it will have. It's a totally viable trigger, just not the most elegant one available.
Development - (1.5/3) Viability: Solid color adherence. Definitely not common. This thing blocks for DAYS, and can come down as absurdly early as turn 2 (Remember, Noble Hierarch is in this block). As it's balanced now, I could maybe see it at uncommon, but I think it should have been balanced for rare instead. (3/3) Balance:(Since I've already deducted points for the rarity issue, I'll pretent it's an uncommon or rare while rating its balance) Both ramp/aggro and control strategies can use this. The former will usually be able to negate its drawback, and the latter will use it defensively to great effect. The read I'm getting from it is that it will be played differently and often in limited and constructed, which is really cool. With an appropriate rarity, I don't think it's too dangerous to any limited format, and even some commander strategies might be able to take advantage of a 5/5 for CMC3.
Creativity - (3/3) Uniqueness: I'm not aware of a card that uses this combination of low cost, high power, and drawback before. Very neat. (2/3) Flavor: The card itself fits its set's flavor very well. The flavor text is pretty well-written, and sounds good out of context, but I'm having trouble reconciling the "incidental" line with how gargantuans are depicted in other flavor texts in this block. Also, I just can't seem to wrap my head around how paying its trigger cost causes it to be MORE destructive, but the race that would be most thematically able to pay it (elves) seem to see it as LESS destructive. Both of these are fairly nit-picky quibbles, so only -0.5 for each.
Polish - (1.5/3) Quality: First ability needs "...this turn" added to it (-1). "Gargantuan" in the flavor text should not be capitalized, as it's not a proper noun (-0.5). (See Spearbreaker Behemoth from the same set) (2/2) *Main Challenge: It's undercosted for 5 power, making the drawback a situational benefit in the given set. Very nice. (1/2) Subchallenges: I know there's C on the card, but this isn't really a common, for reasons already covered.
Total: 19/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Kaladesh - Crew
Crash-Test Construct3
Artifact Creature – Construct (C)
At the beginning of each end step, if Crash-Test Construct is tapped, untap it. In the Builder's School, one of the first lessons a novice tinkerer is taught is that they should never test drive their own inventions.
2/2
Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: This lets Timmy more easily crew up his awesome vehicles, but he doesn't like having to fit puzzle pieces together. Johnny will be interested in exploting this thing's untap trigger, but it's not an obvious combo enabler. Spike might play it if he's already drafted some good vehicles, but he's otherwise not excited about a 2/2 for 3 with pseudo vigilance. (3/3) Elegance: Super elegant, and not at the expense of being interesting.
Development - (2.5/3) Viability: It's fine being colorless. Having it trigger at each end step is a little much for a common, but the resulting power level doesn't warrant an upgrade to uncommon. (3/3) Balance: In a vacuum, it's limited filler and nothing more. Given a format where vehicles are a thing, it gets a little better, but certainly not game-breaking. It supports vehivles in a way that makes IT a little more versatile, rather than making your vehicles better (unless the vehicle has vigilance), and there is definitely a little bit of headroom for it to get a tiny bit better before having too great a versatility for common. So... all good here. Creativity - (2/3) Uniqueness: Without the context of Kaladesh, this effect wouldn't feel very special at all. With vehicles in the mix, the intended use of the effect renders it somewhat cleverer of a design. (1.5/3) Flavor: The name is cute. Perfectly fine for a semi-serious card like this. The flavor text doesn't sound childish or unprofessional, though it's a little bulky. It could do without, "In the Builder's School" entirely. Also, I don't understand how the untap effect plays into the test-dummy flavor. It it were an undercosted creature with defender, it would make more sense (and be more useful outside of vehicle strategies, too, but that's a different thing).
Polish - (3/3) Quality: It could be argued that the pessessive apostrophe in "Builder's" should come after the final S, but I don't think it's strictly incorrect (enough) to have it be a singular possessive. No points deducted. (1.5/2) *Main Challenge: As mentioned in Balance, the support this card provides is actually in reverse. If you control a vehicle for this to crew, IT becomes more versatile as a creature more than it enables your other vehicles. Yes, it lets you crew one to attack, and crew a different one to block, but that requires that you control multiple vehicles that you can't all crew at the same time. It's not exactly a fringe scenario, but with only a single vehicle, there's not a very good reason to play this thing. If there were more vehicles with vigilance, it would be a better support card, but there's only one. (2/2) Subchallenges: Yep and yep.
Total: 20/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Gatecrash - Evolve
Cloud ThreadersUG
Creature - Bird Spider (C)
Flying
Whenever Cloud Threaders blocks or becomes blocked, return it to it's owners hand. "And you said we couldn't make them weave webs from cumulus to cumulus!"
—Simic Biomancer
1/5
Design - (2/3) Appeal: Timmy loves him some evolve, but big-butt blockers aren't really his thing. He'll try this out, but it doesn't excite him. It isn't obviously exploitable, but Johnny sees enough potential to keep an eye out for cool synergies. Spike won't care much about the evolve angle, but will be happy to use this as a repeatable, "indestructible" anything-blocker. (3/3) Elegance: The rules text is perfectly clear. While unprecedented and a tad contrived, this card actually does seem very elegant in its execution.
Development - (2.5/3) Viability: No problem with the color wheel or rarity. I could see this being printed, but I personally dislike the fact that this dodges combat damage despite having a high toughness. It doesn't break any rules, I guess, but it's an awkward implementation. (2/3) Balance: It's not over- or under-powered in any format, even without evolve. It's actually balanced quite well as far as power level goes. One small gripe I have with it is that between a) its common rarity, b) its blocking effectiveness and resilience, and c) the fact that you're potentially reserving 2 mana every turn to replay it, it will either drastically slow down limited or be totally ignored. It can also be used as a pretty bad attacker in an evolve-heavy aggro deck, but I definitely see it playing a more defensive role by design. I wouldn't ever be happy to play this or play against this, as it has the power to turn games very slow and grindy.
Creativity - (3/3) Uniqueness: My initial impression of the card was much more positive than this critique is coming across. If this effect has been done before, I can't find an example of it. Very fresh, and very clever in its evolve support. (1.5/3) Flavor: This is one of those cards whose flavor elements are mostly "fine" to "good" on their own, but which actually confuse the overall flavor when combined. The name is great, and it fits OK with the mechanical flavor, albeit obliquely. The flavor text sounds a little iffy, as low-floating, cottonlike cumulus clouds are the type of cloud that would make MOST sense to "weave" between, and the quote should have referenced who the biomancer was speaking to in the attribution. The big question, though, is what the connection is between a creature that spins webs in the clouds and that creature being forced back into its owner's hand pre-damage after a block. Polish - (1.5/3) Quality: "Biomancer" in the flavor text shouldn't be capitalized. There are several examples of this convention, including Adaptive Snapjaw (-0.5). The extraneous apostrophe in "it's" should be moved to "owners" to make it possessive. (-1 total) (2/2) *Main Challenge: It's definitely an evolve supporter. (2/2) Subchallenges: Doesn't have evole itself, and has the correct rarity of common.
Total: 19.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Battle for Zendikar, ingest
Geminal ProtuberanceUR
Creature - Eldrazi Drone (C)
Devoid (This card has no color.)
When Geminal Protuberance enters or leaves the battlefield, target creature gets +1/-1 or -1/+1 until end of turn. 3, Sacrifice Geminal Protuberance: Up to two target creatures gain double strike until end of turn. Kozilek's brood is ever-changing in time, space, and number.
1/2
Design - (2/3) Appeal: These are the kind of machinations Timmy can actually get behind. Not the flowstone effect, but the possibility of multiple pumped double-strikers. Johnny's not as interested in the activated ability, but an enters/leaves-the-battlefield trigger is probably exploitable enough on its own for him. Spike won't much care about this in constructed, but there's enough versatility here for him to play it in limited. (1/3) Elegance: There's a lot going on here, and it all feels jumbled rather than focused. "If X or Y, then choose A or B" will require a lot of card-reading, even after seeing it a few times. The activated ability is elegant on its own, but because of its interaction with the triggered ability (and ingest, geez), it gets pretty complicated fast. Very wordy, too. Including flavor text, it all occupies 9 lines in MSE, though a few of them are very short.
Development - (1.5/3) Viability: The three colors that have gotten variations of the "+1/-1 or -1/+1" effect are Blue, Red, and Green. The activated ability is OK in red, but blue creatures don't really get to sacrifice themselves for team-buffing effects. Blue also doesn't do double strike. I think either monored or G/R would have been more appropriate. It's also on the complicated side for a common. Uncommon would have worked OK. (2/3) Balance: I don't THINK this is dangerously exploitable but it's also pretty open-ended. There's potential for things to go crazy, and there are three elements of value going on here. I can't see any specific problems for constructed formats, but at common it's bound to make a larger-than-intended splash in limited.
Creativity - (2/3) Uniqueness: It's mostly a Taco Bell card (lots of familiar ingredients assembled differently), though the clause for "enters or leaves the battlefield" has only been done a handful of times. I'd like to see that on more cards, as it adds a different kind of value without disregarding conventional uses of existing mechanics. (1.5/3) Flavor: So "geminal" is an IRL term that describes two distinct particles or groups of particles attached to the same atom. It doesn't refer to the atom itself, but the two or more things attached to it. So you'd use the word "geminal" to describe the two creatures it gives double strike to, not the creature itself. And actually... they're only geminal as long as they're still "bonded" to the same thing. As soon as this dies, the creatures wouldn't be geminal anymore. Further, I don't understand the connection between "geminality", the Water Servant effect, and the brood constantly changing properties. But I DO like the general sciency feel of the flavor elements. I just wish they had been more focused, and less nebulous. Polish - (2/3) Quality: Its triggered ability should start, "Whenever ~ enters the battlefield or leaves the battlefield..." See this list of all cards with either wording (-0.5). The activated ability should say, "Up to two target creatures each gain doublestrike. . ." See this list of examples (-0.5). (1/2) *Main Challenge: It will only enable or support ingest some of the time, only a little bit, and there's actually more reason to play this for its other abilities than for the extra, single-use mill 2. (1/2) Subchallenges: It does not have ingest, but it isn't a common (despite being labeled as such)
Total: 14/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
On the other hand, I'm getting a little tired of being boxed in with these challenges. If your round one wasn't ideal, it's starting to become a significant disadvantage since every challenge so far requires referencing it. If the whole month is just going to be fleshing out the same cycles, it is both predictable and extremely constricting in a way that is pretty unfun, as it doesn't push creativity or provide much opportunity to fix mistakes. Creating a proper, recognizable vertical or horizontal cycle after already presenting half of either cycle kind hard locks what you can do.
It's also a little difficult to structure challenges this way in the CCL, as the first two preliminary rounds (in theory) aren't mandatory to participant in both. Having all the parts from those rounds continue forward in this way can create issues.
I think the overall structure to what you're doing might fit the MCC better, since the overall structure is mandatory step after step, but should also offer more room to maneuver and reinvent what you're doing throughout the month. If you want decisions to matter from round to round, something more thematic like what void_nothing did this July plays a lot more fun since your decisions restrict what you can pick from in the future but didn't force you to use the same mechanic over and over if it was received with mixed reviews.
Yeah - I was really scared when I'd first read the challenge. I thought I'd have to design both cycles.
Let it be known that this is the last round that makes direct callbacks to previous designs.
Before posting Round 3, I had the the benefit of knowing that all qualifying designers submitted entries for both of the first 2 rounds. If that hadn't been the case, this round's challenge wouldn't have been the same.
Yeah I can only blame myself for gaining no points in R2, that was a really dumb error. Well ok I'll blame the designer of Augury Adept for not knowing their hybrid theory, and Maro for not immediately smacking him/her over the head and telling them to start over.
That said, are you accounting for the fact that not everyone had all six people judging them? In R1 I had two judges with a no show, and poor netn10 only had three people judge his card!
Yes, that's accounted for. The formula is essentially just "Total points divided by possible points," And then I express it as a percentage for easier parsing.
PS. The designers with the fewest judges across both rounds (who entered both rounds) each had the potential for 24 total points (not counting bonus points). There were six such designers, and you weren't one of them (You had 27 possible points). The most points possible for an entrant was 30, and there were three such cases. The spread wasn't really that wide, but it was definitely accounted for.
Story Circle, taken from MTG Art by Bradley Williams and Wizards of the Coast
Welcome to the Card Creation League Top 8! Everyone is free to participate in either or both of the first two rounds, but this round is open only to those who have qualified.
August's Top 8 includes the following designers:
1. bravelion
2. RaikouRider
3. Flatline
4. IcariiFA
5. Sub_Silentio
6. void_nothing
7. doomfish
8. drewdagreek
Theme
Card cycles have been a mainstay of Magic design since the very beginning. They accomplish many varied goals, from highlighting the themes and flavor of an expansion set to exploring different approaches to a new mechanic. Card cycles call our attention to the form and function of cards in ways that wouldn't be possible without them.
This month you'll be coming up with new ways to think about existing cards as well as designing custom cycles from the ground up (or from the top-down, whatever suits your fancy). The choices you make in the first two rounds will determine some of your design stipulations if you advance to the Top 8 and beyond.
Your Top 8 challenge will take you back one final time to your horizontal and vertical cycles from the first two rounds.
Best of luck!
Challenge
Design a pair of cards that finishes EITHER your Round 1 horizontal cycle OR your Round 2 vertical cycle.
Your finished horizontal cycle (Round 1) should have five monocolored cards, one of each color.
Your finished vertical cycle (Round 2) should have four cards, each of a different rarity.
Make sure your post includes a spoiler containing the other cards in your chosen cycle (including the two existing cards you picked during Round 1 if you choose your horizontal cycle).
When scoring the entries, please evaluate only this round's designs on their merits. The previous cards are referenced only for the purpose of providing thematic and/or flavor context.
Congratulations to July's CCL winner, IcariiFA! That's gotta be some kind of record.
PLEASE NOTE: This month we will continue with the mandatory Top 3 rule. Your card will receive NO POINTS in any round you fail to submit a Top 3 by the judging deadline. Submitting critiques will still be optional (but encouraged!), and will be worth 2 bonus points per round on its own.
Your round 3 submissions are due before Sunday, August 20th, 23:59 EST.
Schedule
Round 1 — Open to Everyone (July 28th – Aug 4th)
Round 2 — Open to Everyone (Aug 5th-10th)
Rounds 1 and 2 Critiques (Due Aug 15th)
Top 8 — Open to top 8 finishers (Aug 16th–20th) — This is a 4-day round, and you're designing 2 cards. Procrastination kills!
Top 8 Critiques (Due Aug 22nd)
Top 4 — Open to top 4 finishers from last round (Aug 23rd–27th)
Top 4 Critiques (Due Aug 29th)
Final (End of month, winner determined by public poll)
Here's a snippet of my scoring spreadsheet showing percentage of possible points earned. Check out bravelion's astounding score of 112.5% Way to go on that domination of the field, dude!
Also note that the Top 8 would have looked a little different if everyone had submitted their rankings. What you can't see is that it came very close to being decided by bonus points. Critiques are cash, yo.
I'm in the process of posting Round 3 currently. It will be up shortly.Round 3/Top 8 is posted.
Thank you. It was a freak dizzy spell accompanied by nausea. Probably related to stress, allergies, and sleep deprivation. It was all I could do to stumble into bed. Feeling totally normal today, so expect results and Round 3 in about 3-4 hours.
Results for Rounds 1 & 2 may be delayed until tomorrow evening. I'm experiencing a sudden medical anomaly. I don't believe it's dangerous, but I can't concentrate on scoring at all right now.
@void Crap you're right about the Augury Adept. Hybrid should have made me suspicious right out, I should have checked if maro said anything on it. My card was actually white at first (and I had a neat idea for a UW vertical) but I thought people might mistake that as another horizontal cycle entry. Ah well, Rocco I'm guessing it's too late to edit cards that drastically?
Round 2 is now closed. Please evaluate the 6 entries above yours on this list, continuing from the bottom as necessary, and submit a ranked Top 3 by replying to this thread. Critiques are optional, but will grant you 2 bonus points for this round.
Complete. Subject to change before tonight's deadline.
Amonkhet. No Exert payoff? Come on.
Martial Training1RGW
Enchantment (R)
Creatures you control have: "T: Exert this creature." (An exerted creature won't untap during your next untap step.)
Whenever you exert a creature, you may draw a card.
Whenever a creature you control becomes untapped, it gets +1/+1 until end of turn. Stop. Strategize. Strike.
Design - (2/3) Appeal:A little slow and complicated for Timmy, but he’s at least interested. Johnny’s jaw is on the floor. Spike sees sooo much value in this, but isn’t crazy about committing three colors to the cause. (2/3) Elegance: I wish it didn’t require three separate rules to get this effect. They’re all so intimately related that it comes off as wordy. The third ability affects all tapped creatures, not just the ones that were previously exerted. It definitely would not be worth specifying that, but the result is an effect that feels a tad disjointed from the rest of the card. Development - (3/3) Viability: Correct rarity, for sure. Each ability sort of lines up with one of the two-color combos in its mana cost. That’s neat. (2.5/3) Balance: My gut tells me this is powerful but fair if played as-intended, but possible to exploit and break wide open. Nothing jumps out at me, besides Twiddle shenanigans, but it still appears very precarious. Limited and constructed players of all stripes will have ample uses for this.
Creativity - (3/3) Uniqueness: A reusable payoff for “exerting” your own creatures feels pretty novel. The third ability is a team-wide Inspired without the name, which, again… novel. (2/3) Flavor: The name and flavor text do their job, but not much else. (Do I detect a Vanilla Ice reference?) Your mechanical flavor is much better. You give all your creatures an option of spending extra energy for an additional benefit — basically increasing their skill cap in combat.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: Looks good to me. (2//2) *Main Challenge: I can definitely see this in Amonkhet. Maybe moreso in HOU, but not a reason not to award full points here. (2/2) Subchallenges: Yep and yep.
Total: 21.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Great-Oak Guardian2GG
Creature - Treefolk Warrior (R)
Trample
Champion a Treefolk (When this enters the battlefield, sacrifice it unless you exile another Treefolk you control. When this leaves the battlefield, that card returns to the battlefield.)
Great-Oak Guardian gets +X/+X, where X is the converted mana cost of the card it championed.
3/3
Design - (1/3) Appeal: Timmy is willing to play your little game in order to get a hulking trampler. Far too straightforward a payoff for Johnny. Spike doesn’t like investing in big tramplers unless they’re undercosted and/or difficult to remove. (2.5/3) Elegance: Very elegant. It only suffers from Champion’s inherently confusing rules text.
Development - (1.5/3) Viability: So green. I could see this at uncommon, though rare is OK, too. It just feels a bit less powerful than other rare dudes with Champion. No other creature with champion references the creature that gets championed, which would be fine for the set after that ability was introduced, but not for the first set it was printed in. We can’t know which set was intended, so -1. (3/3) Balance: I see no issues in power level for limited or constructed. It would be playable, but not broken, in any format it was designed for. Treefolk tribal EDH decks would probably like this thing, too.
Creativity - (1.5/3) Uniqueness: Vanilla Champion creatures exist, and this is one static ability away from being French vanilla. Doing a bad thing to one of your creatures, then gaining a benefit based on one of its attributes is old hat, but no other Champion cards have done it in this way. (3/3) Flavor: Flavor text wouldn’t have reasonably fit, so you were forced to rely on an evocative name and good interplay between it and the mechanical flavor of the card. Nailed it.
Polish - (1.5/3) Quality: OK, so no other Champion cards reference the exiled card, so it’s impossible to know what the correct wording would be for this. I personally think it should be “...where X is the converted mana cost of the creature it’s championing,” making the act of championing ongoing instead of a one-time thing. This is supported by the fact that the championed creature will eventually return.(-0.5) Also, this doesn’t champion a “card”. It champions a creature. Worded like this, the 3rd ability would have no effect. (-1) (1/2) *Main Challenge: It’s fairly obvious what set you intended to design for here, but you neglected to state which. It’s impossible to know for sure which one you picked, but I don’t think that warrants disqualification. (1/2) Subchallenges: Nonlegendary (+1), but it’s impossible to know what set you were designing for in order to match it with the abilities you chose.
Total: 15.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Fate Reforged.
Ugin's DesireB
Sorcery (Rare)
Target player reveals his or her hand. You choose a nonland card from it. That player manifest it. In the presence of Ugin, simple thoughts that doesn't matter to the grand scheme of the multiverse will simply drift away.
Design - (1/3) Appeal: Timmy doesn’t care much about targeted hand disruption, and especially dislikes giving opponents creatures. Johnny could use this as a way to protect a combo in Standard or a really janky way to sneak a creature into play, but there are better options in other formats. Spike sees this as just a much worse Thoughtseize. He likes the effect, though, and will play it in standard at least. (2.5) Elegance: Quite elegant, though manifest comes with its own complications.
Development - (0/3) Viability: In FRF, only top cards of libraries can become manifested, except for a single mythic rare. Manifesting cards in other zones is within the rules, but doing it with a non-mythic would have to wait till the set after the one manifest was first introduced. Despise had just been reprinted in KTK, and I think it unlikely Wizards would print two CMC1 targeted hand disruption spells in the same block. The first half of the effect is obviously black, but no other black cards can manifest things without a creature dying first (or they manifest cards from a graveyard). Despise and Duress (and many others like them) are uncommon and common. This card has a steep drawback instead of a limitation, but I think uncommon would still have been a better rarity. (1.5/3) Balance:Thoughtseize probably won’t see printing in a Standard set again, so a worse one is probably fine. Giving opponents creatures in limited is much worse than targeted hand disruption is good. It’ll suck in limited as often as it’ll be worth playing. Only formats where other better spells like it aren’t legal will it see any constructed play.
Creativity - (3/3) Uniqueness: Cool new use of manifest. Fresh take on an old standard. (0.5/3) Flavor: What is Ugin’s desire, though? I don’t understand the name of the card. Ugin is a colorless planeswalker. Another card bearing his name actively rewards you for NOT playing colored things. This card didn’t need to name-drop Ugin at all, I don’t think. It actually detracts from the overall flavor. The flavor text reads like a middle-schooler’s headcannon, in that it doesn’t seem fit Ugin’s character or abilities in the actual lore. Thoughts “drifting away” is also decidedly un-black. The flavor text does at least get across the mechanical flavor of ideas floating away (into other zones, har har ).
Polish - (0/3) Quality: Needs an S after “manifest” (-0.5 for simple typo). Should read “That player manifests that card, otherwise a valid interpretation would be manifesting the player’s entire hand! (-1) "Doesn't matter" should be "don't matter" for singular/plural agreement. (-0.5) Manifest needs reminder text. This is the first set it appeared in, and no other manifest cards from FRF left it out (not even mythics) (-1) (2/2) *Main Challenge: Consider two half-point deduction from Viability and Flavor to be deductions from this section. (Manifest being used unconventionally and Ugin’s character being misinterpreted) (2/2) Subchallenges: Yup and yup.
Total: 12.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Mirrodin
Memnarch's Defeat4U
Sorcery (R)
Choose one —
• Return all nonland permanents to their owners' hands.
• Each player discards his or her hand, then draws cards equal to the greatest number of cards a player discarded this way.
Entwine 2R(Choose both if you pay the entwine cost.)
Design - (2.5/3) Appeal: Big fun for Timmy. Johnny might want to try this out as a combo piece. Spike sees an undercosted Devastation Tide with an upside, so… yeah. (2.5/3) Elegance: It’s a little cumbersome, but nothing too confusing. The entwine cost ties everything together pretty well.
Development - (1.5/3) Viability: Pseudo Upheaval stitched to Pseudo Wheel of Fortune. Not sure I like that the second choice can be played with just blue mana, but at least there’s red in the entwine cost. However, it’d be the first time an entwine card didn’t have a mono color identity (ever, not just in Mirrodin). Power-level-wise, it should be mythic, but the effect isn’t especially interesting, so rare seems OK. (1/3) Balance: The going rate for the first choice alone is 3UU. It would be undercosted without the second choice or the option to entwine them. This would dominate limited environments and definitely feature prominently in standard. Global effects like this get better in multiplayer formats, so suffice it to say I think this card is far too good.
Creativity - (2/3) Uniqueness: Yes, these effects have been printed a few times before, but they fit together here like pieces of a puzzle you didn’t know were pieces of a puzzle. (1/3) Flavor: In sort of an oblique way, the mechanics of the card do kind of depict the actual defeat of Memnarch in … Fifth Dawn? Memnarch wasn’t defeated in Mirrodin, so... I don’t get it. I also don’t understand why red mana was used in the card’s design. Glissa, who was monogreen at the time, defeated Memnarch. Red seems like an arbitrary color choice.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: Looks good (2/2) *Main Challenge: I’ve already deducted points for interpretation of the challenge in other categories. (2/2) Subchallenges: Yup and yup.
Total: 17.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Return to Ravnica
Response Squad3WW
Creature - Rhino Soldier (Rare)
Flash
Whenever a creature enters the battlefield under an opponent's control, detain that creature. (Until your next turn, those creatures can't attack or block and their activated abilities can't be activated.)
3/3
"We need to get out of here! These guys are faster than I thought!"
"For rhinos?"
"No, for Azorius."
Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: Timmy appreciates a “set it and forget it” approach to board control, but it’s not his favorite thing to do, either. Johnny will only play it in limited. Nothing here for him. Spike loves him some oppression. (2.5/3) Elegance: Great elegance. Any time an effect lasts until your next turn it can get a little wonky, but it’s handled well here.
Development - (3/3) Viability: Very white, and very rare. Looks good. (2.5/3) Balance: This drops into almost any white deck. Limited bomb, and definitely constructed playable. Probably too oppressive in limited, but at rare, not too concerning. It will get you quickly hated out in commander, but that’s not enough reason not to play it.
Creativity - (1/3) Uniqueness: Cards like this are very much not new, even if it hasn’t been done with detain before. (1.5/3) Flavor: The name is pretty bland, but it at least works with the mechanics. Clever flavor text, but the idea is poorly fleshed-out. It would function better without the “We need to get out of here” line.
Polish - (1.5/3) Quality: Singular/plural mismatch between rules text and reminder text (-0.5). Extraneous line break before the flavor text. (-0.5). Power/Toughness should come after the flavor text (-0.5) (2/2) *Main Challenge: Looks good (2/2) Subchallenges: Yup and yup
Total: 17.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Gigantick1B
Creature — Insect (C) 2, T: Target creature blocking or blocked by Gigantick gets -1/-1 until end of turn. Put a +1/+1 counter on Gigantick.
0/1
Seasoned CultivatorG
Creature - Human Druid (U)
You may choose not to untap Seasoned Cultivator during your untap step. 1, T: Till target land you control (A tilled land tapped for mana produces an additional G. It remains tilled as long as the creature that tilled it remains tapped.)
"If you did not enter round 1, choose a monocolored card from a modern-legal set to use as a baseline instead. Be sure to state what card you've chosen."
Spellbook on a StickU
Creature - ___ Wizard (C)
You have no maximum hand size.
0/2
Alhammarret's Archive on a Stick4UU
Legendary Creature - Sphinx Wizard (M)
If you would gain life, you gain twice that much life instead.
If you would draw a card except the first one you draw in each of your draw steps, draw two cards instead.
4/4
Cylian Behemoth 1GW
Creature - Beast {C}
At the beginning of combat on your turn, you may pay 5. If you don't, prevent all damage that Cylian Behemoth would deal to players.
Humans see Gargantuan destruction as wanton. Cylia's inner elven circle see it as incidental.
5/5
Design -
(2.5/3) Appeal: Timmy REALLY wants to like this. He might try to build around it, especially in this set, but it's going to leave him wanting in limited because of the drawback. There are plenty of ways for Johnny to abuse this, and Spike will surely find a way to capitalize on the undercosted-ness.
(2.5/3) Elegance: (I think I've been too harsh in my Elegance scores thus far. Consider my elegance-meter recalibrated going forward.)
It's pretty clear what the card it supposed to do, though the missing "this turn" clause makes it impossible to know for sure (See Quality). This particular trigger, "at the beginning of combat on your turn" always risks confusing some players as to precisely how and when it should trigger, and what effect responses to it will have. It's a totally viable trigger, just not the most elegant one available.
Development -
(1.5/3) Viability: Solid color adherence. Definitely not common. This thing blocks for DAYS, and can come down as absurdly early as turn 2 (Remember, Noble Hierarch is in this block). As it's balanced now, I could maybe see it at uncommon, but I think it should have been balanced for rare instead.
(3/3) Balance: (Since I've already deducted points for the rarity issue, I'll pretent it's an uncommon or rare while rating its balance) Both ramp/aggro and control strategies can use this. The former will usually be able to negate its drawback, and the latter will use it defensively to great effect. The read I'm getting from it is that it will be played differently and often in limited and constructed, which is really cool. With an appropriate rarity, I don't think it's too dangerous to any limited format, and even some commander strategies might be able to take advantage of a 5/5 for CMC3.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: I'm not aware of a card that uses this combination of low cost, high power, and drawback before. Very neat.
(2/3) Flavor: The card itself fits its set's flavor very well. The flavor text is pretty well-written, and sounds good out of context, but I'm having trouble reconciling the "incidental" line with how gargantuans are depicted in other flavor texts in this block. Also, I just can't seem to wrap my head around how paying its trigger cost causes it to be MORE destructive, but the race that would be most thematically able to pay it (elves) seem to see it as LESS destructive. Both of these are fairly nit-picky quibbles, so only -0.5 for each.
Polish -
(1.5/3) Quality: First ability needs "...this turn" added to it (-1). "Gargantuan" in the flavor text should not be capitalized, as it's not a proper noun (-0.5). (See Spearbreaker Behemoth from the same set)
(2/2) *Main Challenge: It's undercosted for 5 power, making the drawback a situational benefit in the given set. Very nice.
(1/2) Subchallenges: I know there's C on the card, but this isn't really a common, for reasons already covered.
Total: 19/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Crash-Test Construct 3
Artifact Creature – Construct (C)
At the beginning of each end step, if Crash-Test Construct is tapped, untap it.
In the Builder's School, one of the first lessons a novice tinkerer is taught is that they should never test drive their own inventions.
2/2
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: This lets Timmy more easily crew up his awesome vehicles, but he doesn't like having to fit puzzle pieces together. Johnny will be interested in exploting this thing's untap trigger, but it's not an obvious combo enabler. Spike might play it if he's already drafted some good vehicles, but he's otherwise not excited about a 2/2 for 3 with pseudo vigilance.
(3/3) Elegance: Super elegant, and not at the expense of being interesting.
Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: It's fine being colorless. Having it trigger at each end step is a little much for a common, but the resulting power level doesn't warrant an upgrade to uncommon.
(3/3) Balance: In a vacuum, it's limited filler and nothing more. Given a format where vehicles are a thing, it gets a little better, but certainly not game-breaking. It supports vehivles in a way that makes IT a little more versatile, rather than making your vehicles better (unless the vehicle has vigilance), and there is definitely a little bit of headroom for it to get a tiny bit better before having too great a versatility for common. So... all good here.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Without the context of Kaladesh, this effect wouldn't feel very special at all. With vehicles in the mix, the intended use of the effect renders it somewhat cleverer of a design.
(1.5/3) Flavor: The name is cute. Perfectly fine for a semi-serious card like this. The flavor text doesn't sound childish or unprofessional, though it's a little bulky. It could do without, "In the Builder's School" entirely. Also, I don't understand how the untap effect plays into the test-dummy flavor. It it were an undercosted creature with defender, it would make more sense (and be more useful outside of vehicle strategies, too, but that's a different thing).
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: It could be argued that the pessessive apostrophe in "Builder's" should come after the final S, but I don't think it's strictly incorrect (enough) to have it be a singular possessive. No points deducted.
(1.5/2) *Main Challenge: As mentioned in Balance, the support this card provides is actually in reverse. If you control a vehicle for this to crew, IT becomes more versatile as a creature more than it enables your other vehicles. Yes, it lets you crew one to attack, and crew a different one to block, but that requires that you control multiple vehicles that you can't all crew at the same time. It's not exactly a fringe scenario, but with only a single vehicle, there's not a very good reason to play this thing. If there were more vehicles with vigilance, it would be a better support card, but there's only one.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Yep and yep.
Total: 20/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Cloud Threaders UG
Creature - Bird Spider (C)
Flying
Whenever Cloud Threaders blocks or becomes blocked, return it to it's owners hand.
"And you said we couldn't make them weave webs from cumulus to cumulus!"
—Simic Biomancer
1/5
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Timmy loves him some evolve, but big-butt blockers aren't really his thing. He'll try this out, but it doesn't excite him. It isn't obviously exploitable, but Johnny sees enough potential to keep an eye out for cool synergies. Spike won't care much about the evolve angle, but will be happy to use this as a repeatable, "indestructible" anything-blocker.
(3/3) Elegance: The rules text is perfectly clear. While unprecedented and a tad contrived, this card actually does seem very elegant in its execution.
Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: No problem with the color wheel or rarity. I could see this being printed, but I personally dislike the fact that this dodges combat damage despite having a high toughness. It doesn't break any rules, I guess, but it's an awkward implementation.
(2/3) Balance: It's not over- or under-powered in any format, even without evolve. It's actually balanced quite well as far as power level goes. One small gripe I have with it is that between a) its common rarity, b) its blocking effectiveness and resilience, and c) the fact that you're potentially reserving 2 mana every turn to replay it, it will either drastically slow down limited or be totally ignored. It can also be used as a pretty bad attacker in an evolve-heavy aggro deck, but I definitely see it playing a more defensive role by design. I wouldn't ever be happy to play this or play against this, as it has the power to turn games very slow and grindy.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: My initial impression of the card was much more positive than this critique is coming across. If this effect has been done before, I can't find an example of it. Very fresh, and very clever in its evolve support.
(1.5/3) Flavor: This is one of those cards whose flavor elements are mostly "fine" to "good" on their own, but which actually confuse the overall flavor when combined. The name is great, and it fits OK with the mechanical flavor, albeit obliquely. The flavor text sounds a little iffy, as low-floating, cottonlike cumulus clouds are the type of cloud that would make MOST sense to "weave" between, and the quote should have referenced who the biomancer was speaking to in the attribution. The big question, though, is what the connection is between a creature that spins webs in the clouds and that creature being forced back into its owner's hand pre-damage after a block.
Polish -
(1.5/3) Quality: "Biomancer" in the flavor text shouldn't be capitalized. There are several examples of this convention, including Adaptive Snapjaw (-0.5). The extraneous apostrophe in "it's" should be moved to "owners" to make it possessive. (-1 total)
(2/2) *Main Challenge: It's definitely an evolve supporter.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Doesn't have evole itself, and has the correct rarity of common.
Total: 19.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Geminal Protuberance UR
Creature - Eldrazi Drone (C)
Devoid (This card has no color.)
When Geminal Protuberance enters or leaves the battlefield, target creature gets +1/-1 or -1/+1 until end of turn.
3, Sacrifice Geminal Protuberance: Up to two target creatures gain double strike until end of turn.
Kozilek's brood is ever-changing in time, space, and number.
1/2
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: These are the kind of machinations Timmy can actually get behind. Not the flowstone effect, but the possibility of multiple pumped double-strikers. Johnny's not as interested in the activated ability, but an enters/leaves-the-battlefield trigger is probably exploitable enough on its own for him. Spike won't much care about this in constructed, but there's enough versatility here for him to play it in limited.
(1/3) Elegance: There's a lot going on here, and it all feels jumbled rather than focused. "If X or Y, then choose A or B" will require a lot of card-reading, even after seeing it a few times. The activated ability is elegant on its own, but because of its interaction with the triggered ability (and ingest, geez), it gets pretty complicated fast. Very wordy, too. Including flavor text, it all occupies 9 lines in MSE, though a few of them are very short.
Development -
(1.5/3) Viability: The three colors that have gotten variations of the "+1/-1 or -1/+1" effect are Blue, Red, and Green. The activated ability is OK in red, but blue creatures don't really get to sacrifice themselves for team-buffing effects. Blue also doesn't do double strike. I think either monored or G/R would have been more appropriate. It's also on the complicated side for a common. Uncommon would have worked OK.
(2/3) Balance: I don't THINK this is dangerously exploitable but it's also pretty open-ended. There's potential for things to go crazy, and there are three elements of value going on here. I can't see any specific problems for constructed formats, but at common it's bound to make a larger-than-intended splash in limited.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: It's mostly a Taco Bell card (lots of familiar ingredients assembled differently), though the clause for "enters or leaves the battlefield" has only been done a handful of times. I'd like to see that on more cards, as it adds a different kind of value without disregarding conventional uses of existing mechanics.
(1.5/3) Flavor: So "geminal" is an IRL term that describes two distinct particles or groups of particles attached to the same atom. It doesn't refer to the atom itself, but the two or more things attached to it. So you'd use the word "geminal" to describe the two creatures it gives double strike to, not the creature itself. And actually... they're only geminal as long as they're still "bonded" to the same thing. As soon as this dies, the creatures wouldn't be geminal anymore. Further, I don't understand the connection between "geminality", the Water Servant effect, and the brood constantly changing properties. But I DO like the general sciency feel of the flavor elements. I just wish they had been more focused, and less nebulous.
Polish -
(2/3) Quality: Its triggered ability should start, "Whenever ~ enters the battlefield or leaves the battlefield..." See this list of all cards with either wording (-0.5). The activated ability should say, "Up to two target creatures each gain doublestrike. . ." See this list of examples (-0.5).
(1/2) *Main Challenge: It will only enable or support ingest some of the time, only a little bit, and there's actually more reason to play this for its other abilities than for the extra, single-use mill 2.
(1/2) Subchallenges: It does not have ingest, but it isn't a common (despite being labeled as such)
Total: 14/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
void_nothing — 14
RaikouRider — 19
IcariiFA — 19.5
Sub_Silentio — 20
Let it be known that this is the last round that makes direct callbacks to previous designs.
Before posting Round 3, I had the the benefit of knowing that all qualifying designers submitted entries for both of the first 2 rounds. If that hadn't been the case, this round's challenge wouldn't have been the same.
Yes, that's accounted for. The formula is essentially just "Total points divided by possible points," And then I express it as a percentage for easier parsing.
PS. The designers with the fewest judges across both rounds (who entered both rounds) each had the potential for 24 total points (not counting bonus points). There were six such designers, and you weren't one of them (You had 27 possible points). The most points possible for an entrant was 30, and there were three such cases. The spread wasn't really that wide, but it was definitely accounted for.
“The Cycle Continues”
Story Circle, taken from MTG Art by Bradley Williams and Wizards of the Coast
August's Top 8 includes the following designers:
1. bravelion
2. RaikouRider
3. Flatline
4. IcariiFA
5. Sub_Silentio
6. void_nothing
7. doomfish
8. drewdagreek
Theme
Card cycles have been a mainstay of Magic design since the very beginning. They accomplish many varied goals, from highlighting the themes and flavor of an expansion set to exploring different approaches to a new mechanic. Card cycles call our attention to the form and function of cards in ways that wouldn't be possible without them.
This month you'll be coming up with new ways to think about existing cards as well as designing custom cycles from the ground up (or from the top-down, whatever suits your fancy). The choices you make in the first two rounds will determine some of your design stipulations if you advance to the Top 8 and beyond.
Your Top 8 challenge will take you back one final time to your horizontal and vertical cycles from the first two rounds.
Best of luck!
Challenge
Congratulations to July's CCL winner, IcariiFA! That's gotta be some kind of record.
PLEASE NOTE: This month we will continue with the mandatory Top 3 rule. Your card will receive NO POINTS in any round you fail to submit a Top 3 by the judging deadline. Submitting critiques will still be optional (but encouraged!), and will be worth 2 bonus points per round on its own.
Schedule
Congratulations to those advancing to the round of Top 8:
1. bravelion
2. RaikouRider
3. Flatline
4. IcariiFA
5. Sub_Silentio
6. void_nothing
7. doomfish
8. drewdagreek
Here's a snippet of my scoring spreadsheet showing percentage of possible points earned. Check out bravelion's astounding score of 112.5% Way to go on that domination of the field, dude!
Also note that the Top 8 would have looked a little different if everyone had submitted their rankings. What you can't see is that it came very close to being decided by bonus points. Critiques are cash, yo.
I'm in the process of posting Round 3 currently. It will be up shortly.Round 3/Top 8 is posted.Apologies.
Indeed. Sorry about that. Best of luck, anyhow.
Flatline
JamBlock
Sub_Silentio
Subject16
netn10
ManyCookies
void_nothing
bravelion83
doomfish
RaikouRider
mirrodin71
drewdagreek
IcariiFA
The deadline for Top 3s and Critiques for Rounds 1 & 2 is Tuesday, 8/15, 23:59 EST.
Martial Training 1RGW
Enchantment (R)
Creatures you control have: "T: Exert this creature." (An exerted creature won't untap during your next untap step.)
Whenever you exert a creature, you may draw a card.
Whenever a creature you control becomes untapped, it gets +1/+1 until end of turn.
Stop. Strategize. Strike.
Design -
(2/3) Appeal:A little slow and complicated for Timmy, but he’s at least interested. Johnny’s jaw is on the floor. Spike sees sooo much value in this, but isn’t crazy about committing three colors to the cause.
(2/3) Elegance: I wish it didn’t require three separate rules to get this effect. They’re all so intimately related that it comes off as wordy. The third ability affects all tapped creatures, not just the ones that were previously exerted. It definitely would not be worth specifying that, but the result is an effect that feels a tad disjointed from the rest of the card.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Correct rarity, for sure. Each ability sort of lines up with one of the two-color combos in its mana cost. That’s neat.
(2.5/3) Balance: My gut tells me this is powerful but fair if played as-intended, but possible to exploit and break wide open. Nothing jumps out at me, besides Twiddle shenanigans, but it still appears very precarious. Limited and constructed players of all stripes will have ample uses for this.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: A reusable payoff for “exerting” your own creatures feels pretty novel. The third ability is a team-wide Inspired without the name, which, again… novel.
(2/3) Flavor: The name and flavor text do their job, but not much else. (Do I detect a Vanilla Ice reference?) Your mechanical flavor is much better. You give all your creatures an option of spending extra energy for an additional benefit — basically increasing their skill cap in combat.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Looks good to me.
(2//2) *Main Challenge: I can definitely see this in Amonkhet. Maybe moreso in HOU, but not a reason not to award full points here.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Yep and yep.
Total: 21.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Creature - Treefolk Warrior (R)
Trample
Champion a Treefolk (When this enters the battlefield, sacrifice it unless you exile another Treefolk you control. When this leaves the battlefield, that card returns to the battlefield.)
Great-Oak Guardian gets +X/+X, where X is the converted mana cost of the card it championed.
3/3
Design -
(1/3) Appeal: Timmy is willing to play your little game in order to get a hulking trampler. Far too straightforward a payoff for Johnny. Spike doesn’t like investing in big tramplers unless they’re undercosted and/or difficult to remove.
(2.5/3) Elegance: Very elegant. It only suffers from Champion’s inherently confusing rules text.
Development -
(1.5/3) Viability: So green. I could see this at uncommon, though rare is OK, too. It just feels a bit less powerful than other rare dudes with Champion. No other creature with champion references the creature that gets championed, which would be fine for the set after that ability was introduced, but not for the first set it was printed in. We can’t know which set was intended, so -1.
(3/3) Balance: I see no issues in power level for limited or constructed. It would be playable, but not broken, in any format it was designed for. Treefolk tribal EDH decks would probably like this thing, too.
Creativity -
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: Vanilla Champion creatures exist, and this is one static ability away from being French vanilla. Doing a bad thing to one of your creatures, then gaining a benefit based on one of its attributes is old hat, but no other Champion cards have done it in this way.
(3/3) Flavor: Flavor text wouldn’t have reasonably fit, so you were forced to rely on an evocative name and good interplay between it and the mechanical flavor of the card. Nailed it.
Polish -
(1.5/3) Quality: OK, so no other Champion cards reference the exiled card, so it’s impossible to know what the correct wording would be for this. I personally think it should be “...where X is the converted mana cost of the creature it’s championing,” making the act of championing ongoing instead of a one-time thing. This is supported by the fact that the championed creature will eventually return.(-0.5) Also, this doesn’t champion a “card”. It champions a creature. Worded like this, the 3rd ability would have no effect. (-1)
(1/2) *Main Challenge: It’s fairly obvious what set you intended to design for here, but you neglected to state which. It’s impossible to know for sure which one you picked, but I don’t think that warrants disqualification.
(1/2) Subchallenges: Nonlegendary (+1), but it’s impossible to know what set you were designing for in order to match it with the abilities you chose.
Total: 15.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Ugin's Desire B
Sorcery (Rare)
Target player reveals his or her hand. You choose a nonland card from it. That player manifest it.
In the presence of Ugin, simple thoughts that doesn't matter to the grand scheme of the multiverse will simply drift away.
Design -
(1/3) Appeal: Timmy doesn’t care much about targeted hand disruption, and especially dislikes giving opponents creatures. Johnny could use this as a way to protect a combo in Standard or a really janky way to sneak a creature into play, but there are better options in other formats. Spike sees this as just a much worse Thoughtseize. He likes the effect, though, and will play it in standard at least.
(2.5) Elegance: Quite elegant, though manifest comes with its own complications.
Development -
(0/3) Viability: In FRF, only top cards of libraries can become manifested, except for a single mythic rare. Manifesting cards in other zones is within the rules, but doing it with a non-mythic would have to wait till the set after the one manifest was first introduced. Despise had just been reprinted in KTK, and I think it unlikely Wizards would print two CMC1 targeted hand disruption spells in the same block. The first half of the effect is obviously black, but no other black cards can manifest things without a creature dying first (or they manifest cards from a graveyard). Despise and Duress (and many others like them) are uncommon and common. This card has a steep drawback instead of a limitation, but I think uncommon would still have been a better rarity.
(1.5/3) Balance: Thoughtseize probably won’t see printing in a Standard set again, so a worse one is probably fine. Giving opponents creatures in limited is much worse than targeted hand disruption is good. It’ll suck in limited as often as it’ll be worth playing. Only formats where other better spells like it aren’t legal will it see any constructed play.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: Cool new use of manifest. Fresh take on an old standard.
(0.5/3) Flavor: What is Ugin’s desire, though? I don’t understand the name of the card. Ugin is a colorless planeswalker. Another card bearing his name actively rewards you for NOT playing colored things. This card didn’t need to name-drop Ugin at all, I don’t think. It actually detracts from the overall flavor. The flavor text reads like a middle-schooler’s headcannon, in that it doesn’t seem fit Ugin’s character or abilities in the actual lore. Thoughts “drifting away” is also decidedly un-black. The flavor text does at least get across the mechanical flavor of ideas floating away (into other zones, har har
Polish -
(0/3) Quality: Needs an S after “manifest” (-0.5 for simple typo). Should read “That player manifests that card, otherwise a valid interpretation would be manifesting the player’s entire hand! (-1) "Doesn't matter" should be "don't matter" for singular/plural agreement. (-0.5) Manifest needs reminder text. This is the first set it appeared in, and no other manifest cards from FRF left it out (not even mythics) (-1)
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Consider two half-point deduction from Viability and Flavor to be deductions from this section. (Manifest being used unconventionally and Ugin’s character being misinterpreted)
(2/2) Subchallenges: Yup and yup.
Total: 12.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Memnarch's Defeat 4U
Sorcery (R)
Choose one —
• Return all nonland permanents to their owners' hands.
• Each player discards his or her hand, then draws cards equal to the greatest number of cards a player discarded this way.
Entwine 2R (Choose both if you pay the entwine cost.)
Design -
(2.5/3) Appeal: Big fun for Timmy. Johnny might want to try this out as a combo piece. Spike sees an undercosted Devastation Tide with an upside, so… yeah.
(2.5/3) Elegance: It’s a little cumbersome, but nothing too confusing. The entwine cost ties everything together pretty well.
Development -
(1.5/3) Viability: Pseudo Upheaval stitched to Pseudo Wheel of Fortune. Not sure I like that the second choice can be played with just blue mana, but at least there’s red in the entwine cost. However, it’d be the first time an entwine card didn’t have a mono color identity (ever, not just in Mirrodin). Power-level-wise, it should be mythic, but the effect isn’t especially interesting, so rare seems OK.
(1/3) Balance: The going rate for the first choice alone is 3UU. It would be undercosted without the second choice or the option to entwine them. This would dominate limited environments and definitely feature prominently in standard. Global effects like this get better in multiplayer formats, so suffice it to say I think this card is far too good.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Yes, these effects have been printed a few times before, but they fit together here like pieces of a puzzle you didn’t know were pieces of a puzzle.
(1/3) Flavor: In sort of an oblique way, the mechanics of the card do kind of depict the actual defeat of Memnarch in … Fifth Dawn? Memnarch wasn’t defeated in Mirrodin, so... I don’t get it. I also don’t understand why red mana was used in the card’s design. Glissa, who was monogreen at the time, defeated Memnarch. Red seems like an arbitrary color choice.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Looks good
(2/2) *Main Challenge: I’ve already deducted points for interpretation of the challenge in other categories.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Yup and yup.
Total: 17.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Response Squad 3WW
Creature - Rhino Soldier (Rare)
Flash
Whenever a creature enters the battlefield under an opponent's control, detain that creature. (Until your next turn, those creatures can't attack or block and their activated abilities can't be activated.)
3/3
"We need to get out of here! These guys are faster than I thought!"
"For rhinos?"
"No, for Azorius."
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: Timmy appreciates a “set it and forget it” approach to board control, but it’s not his favorite thing to do, either. Johnny will only play it in limited. Nothing here for him. Spike loves him some oppression.
(2.5/3) Elegance: Great elegance. Any time an effect lasts until your next turn it can get a little wonky, but it’s handled well here.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Very white, and very rare. Looks good.
(2.5/3) Balance: This drops into almost any white deck. Limited bomb, and definitely constructed playable. Probably too oppressive in limited, but at rare, not too concerning. It will get you quickly hated out in commander, but that’s not enough reason not to play it.
Creativity -
(1/3) Uniqueness: Cards like this are very much not new, even if it hasn’t been done with detain before.
(1.5/3) Flavor: The name is pretty bland, but it at least works with the mechanics. Clever flavor text, but the idea is poorly fleshed-out. It would function better without the “We need to get out of here” line.
Polish -
(1.5/3) Quality: Singular/plural mismatch between rules text and reminder text (-0.5). Extraneous line break before the flavor text. (-0.5). Power/Toughness should come after the flavor text (-0.5)
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Looks good
(2/2) Subchallenges: Yup and yup
Total: 17.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
StonerOfKruphix — 21.5
Jimmy Groove — 15.5
netn10 — 12.5
Raptorchan — 17.5
LnGrrrR — 17.5
Gigantick 1B
Creature — Insect (C)
2, T: Target creature blocking or blocked by Gigantick gets -1/-1 until end of turn. Put a +1/+1 counter on Gigantick.
0/1
Seasoned Cultivator G
Creature - Human Druid (U)
You may choose not to untap Seasoned Cultivator during your untap step.
1, T: Till target land you control (A tilled land tapped for mana produces an additional G. It remains tilled as long as the creature that tilled it remains tapped.)
"If you did not enter round 1, choose a monocolored card from a modern-legal set to use as a baseline instead. Be sure to state what card you've chosen."