Before Rule 0 discussion begins, players name their commanders as well as the rough total cost of their decklist (including the commander). For the sake of organization, players might aim for their decks to cost roughly $100, $200, $400, $800, or $1600+.
Cards are priced by the cheapest available version of those cards. In other words, replacing a card with a foil or promo version of itself doesn’t increase your deck price.
Fetchlands are treated as if they cost $5. This is because of their ubiquity and because compared to their price tag, the in-game benefit they provide is relatively small.
For the same reason, nonbasic lands that have no activated abilities other than those that provide at most a single mana have a maximum cost of $1. In other words, if a land can tap for more than one mana and/or has an activated ability that doesn’t add mana, it doesn’t enjoy this benefit.
Basic lands, including snow-covered basics, are treated as if they cost $0.
It is understood by all players that simply comparing deck budgets is not sufficient for providing an ideal play experience. Questions such as “How long have you been playing Magic,” “What kind of game do we want to play,” and “What turn does your deck aim to execute its game plan by” are still instrumental in helping players find decks that are well suited for each other.
WHAT DOES THIS ACCOMPLISH?
The largest benefit of deck budget discussions is the establishment of tangible standards for power level. Asking players if they want to play a “power level 7” game means almost nothing. Asking players if they want to play a game with a $400 deck budget means something.
For each budget, there will emerge a tier list of optimized decks for that budget. These decks will provide the signposts for what the power level of that budget is, and help people get a gauge for how powerful their decks are by comparison. For example, a relatively untuned $400 deck with an average commander might end up being about as powerful as a $200 Tier 2 deck. The details aren’t critical; what matters is that by having unified points of comparison, people will eventually be able to accurately talk about the power levels of their decks.
The secondary benefit, of course, is not to be ignored: by having agreed-upon budget tiers, players will more easily be able to find games with appropriate power levels.
Third, budget tiers reduce price pressure on the format as a whole because now there is a drawback to playing the most expensive cards (outside of the $1600+ tier).
Lastly, explicitly setting budgetary expectations on the format should allow players with fewer financial resources to find games that will be entertaining.
OBJECTIONS:
This makes deckbuilding more annoying.
There is joy to be found in design constraints. Having to figure out how to best manage one’s deck budget adds another wrinkle to deckbuilding that a lot of people (myself included) would actually enjoy. It also lets players build “optimized” decklists without having to buy (or lament their lack of) a dozen Mana Crypts.
As for the annoyance of keeping track of your decks’ budgets, using a deckbuilding website will make the process relatively painless. A minor amount of math is necessary to account for fetches and mana-fixing lands, but it is very minor.
People will hide their deck’s power level behind their deck price.
People already can hide their deck’s power level behind their commander. Making people reveal both their commander and their deck price during Rule 0 makes it harder for such people to operate.
Some commanders can be overwhelmingly powerful, even on a budget.
That’s why I said price shouldn’t be the only factor when discussing decks. If players recognize that a commander is potentially Tier 1 for its budget, that can and should be part of the Rule 0 discussion. Aside: If a person wants to bring a tuned Selvala list to a $100 game (for example), they can experiment with cutting their deck budget to $35.
This just turns Commander into cEDH, but with multiple formats.
No it doesn’t; cEDH is a culture rather than a ruleset. People will always have the option to play more casually, and because competitive players will now be better able to find each other, there will be less mismatches.
This splits the format.
No it doesn’t, because the banlist remains the same. It splits the format as much as discussions of power level do; that is to say, only to the degree that players at the table actually want the format to be split.
As always, Rule 0 comes back into play here. Knowing that a Jorn deck’s budget is $100 instead of $1000 helps people get a feel for its power level. How they decide to act on that information is up to the group. The Jorn player might even have a “sideboard” that they use to adjust the deck’s budget/power level up or down.
This makes putting expensive cards in my deck a “feel-bad.” I want to put whatever I want into my deck and not have to worry about it.
It’s good for the ecosystem as a whole if there are reasons not to play the most expensive cards. Expensive staples are bad for the format, and the less they feel like an auto-include the better.
In addition, nobody is forcing you to build your deck a certain way. You can still play expensive cards if you want. Just expect your opponents’ decks to be similarly expensive.
In addition, is it a bigger feel-bad than playing games where decks have wildly different power levels? My answer is an emphatic no.
This is a huge indirect buff to nonbasic lands with passive abilities such as Urza’s Saga, Field of the Dead and Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth. It also indirectly nerfs lands with activated abilities.
I’m okay with that. Increasing and decreasing the in-game frequency of the aforementioned lands is unlikely to damage the Commander metagame in any disastrous way.
In addition, the ruleset that these buffs and nerfs originate from will greatly reduce both price spikes and the negative effect of price spikes on the format. This is because with budget tiers, expensive cards (excluding Urza’s saga et al.) are less effective overall. So on the whole, it’s a minor downside compared to a massive upside.
This is an indirect buff to 1 and 2-color decks because their manabases are less expensive.
This has been largely mitigated by the rules I proposed. But to the degree that it is a minor buff (if it is at all; remember that lands with activated abilities are now worse), I’m fine with it because those decks are weak in Commander regardless.
Small changes to formats are inevitable and the upside of giving players another way to talk about power level is worth some small buffs and debuffs to some decks.
Discussing price is awkward. Budget players will feel embarrassed at having to reveal the price of their decks. Rich players might feel embarrassed or nervous to name their deck budget.
It’s difficult for me to see this argument as valid. A deck’s price gets revealed as the game is played, so it’s not information that a person could easily hide.
The bottom line is that only the most unreasonable people are going to shame others for how much their deck is worth, especially if they are building with a specific budget in mind. And to the extent that these people exist, better to find out during Rule 0 so that you can choose not to play with them.
My feeling is that if I were a budget player, I would feel more comfortable with budget tiers than without them. If there are any players (budget or otherwise) who’d like to voice their opinions regarding this issue, I’d love to hear them.
People will still game the system by lying about their budget, playing an $1100 deck in an $800 tier, etc.
People acting in bad faith will always be an issue. But unlike in the current system, players will have some risk of being held accountable (especially if people play cards like Praetor’s Grasp). Budget discussion means there is a tangible standard that players can be expected to adhere to.
Price fluctuations will constantly drive decks in and out of tiers.
I would argue that this is relatively rare, since price spikes and reprints to some extent balance each other out. Even when it happens, making an adjustment isn’t much work, especially if you keep a “sideboard” as in the Jorn example above.
I expect most players will be forgiving if a person’s deck is $20–30 above their tier level due to recent fluctuations. I don’t see fluctuations preventing any games of Commander from firing.
This all sounds great but how do we convince people to get on board?
I see three main methods:
When your LGS starts doing Commander nights again, talk to the owner about posting this flyer somewhere in the store. If you can convince them to designate a table or run some mini-tournaments using these rules, even better!
Share this article with your friends, both IRL and online. Many people consider word of mouth the most effective form of marketing. And when you set up a game night with friends, mention budget right off the bat so people can adjust their deck budgets accordingly.
When you sit down with strangers to play Commander, mention your deck’s budget! If people respond with curiosity, tell them about this idea or tell them to visit tinyurl.com/StructuredCommander.
That’s my argument! I’ve done my best to address any arguments people might come up with; if you think of any new ones please let me know in the comments. And if you want to help spread the movement, start building budgeted decks! It will lead to a lot of interesting discussions at the very least.
NZB2323: As a theme deck I think it's fun, but if the only tribal payoff is Swarm of Rats, I don't think it's superior in terms of overall power level. If only Swarmyard was a common.. I have a playset at home I'm dying to use!
I've been researching this deck in the past week or so and I have formed some opinions about some of the conventional cards for MBC.
Cuombajj Witches: This card is cool. And versus tokens, elves, and delver it's quite good. But in most matchups it's not much better than a 2/2 that only attacks for 1. It's especially mediocre against the heavier control decks like Tron and UB, where monoblack has to go beatdown. I stumbled upon Ghoulcaller's Accomplice, which as a 2/2 with flashback fits perfectly into Monoblack's midrange card advantage game.
Geth's Verdict/Chainer's Edict: There are many tokens and small creatures these days, which really makes these depressing to play. Grasp of Darkness is just more reliable.
Disfigure: There are a ton of pump effects that counter Disfigure, including the 0-mana Mutagenic growth. When you add in it's value against larger creatures, I think Dead Weight is just the better card right now.
Planeswalker - Wimaya [Mythic rare]
+1: Put a 2/1 blue Illusion creature token on to the battlefield. It has "When this creature becomes the target of a spell or ability, sacrifice it."
-2: Exile target creature. Its controller scry 1, then draws a card.
-6: Search target player's library for a permanent card, put that card and a token that's a copy of it onto the battlefield under you control. Then that player shuffles his or her library.
{3}
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Timmy likes planeswalkers, Spike will play this card. Johnny senses are not tingling.
(2.5/3) Elegance: Wordy, but it's hard for a planeswalker not to be.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Pretty aggro for blue, but otherwise no issues.
(2.5/3) Balance: This card is exceedingly dirty if played on turn 3 in limited, but it's a mythic. Plays great in lots of formats.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Not incredibly unique, but pretty good considering the constraints.
(3/3) Flavor: Artist of THE Unreal? Eh, its sort of iffy.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 23/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Arresting Officer 2W
Creature - Human Soldier (R)
Whenever one or more creatures attacks you or a planeswalker you control, investigate. T, Sacrifice three Clues: Exile target creature.
2/3
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: Not truly appealing to any of the psychographics.
(3/3) Elegance: Easy.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: No issues.
(1/3) Balance: I would never play this card in constructed.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Not unique, but a new spin on an old theme which is appreciated.
(2/3) Flavor: 'Arresting Officer' sounds sort of bland. A name that implies hunting or tracking would have been appreciated.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 19.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
The Cycle of ViolenceBB
Sorcery (R)
Destroy target creature.
While The Cycle of Violence is in your graveyard, any opponent may pay 4 and exile it. If he or she does, that opponent exiles target creature you control and you may search your library for a card named The Cycle of Violence, reveal it to all players, put it into your hand, then shuffle your library. "Revenge only begets more revenge."
- Garruk Restored
Design -
(3/3) Appeal: Powerful and tricksy, everyone likes it.
(2/3) Elegance: Words. Also, you destroying but them exiling is a bit unintuitive (although I understand why it's that way).
Development -
(3/3) Viability: No issues.
(3/3) Balance: Incredibly strong in monoblack creatureless control, if that exists in said hypothetical format. It could easily not, so no negative points.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: Coolio.
(3/3) Flavor: I prefer "Cycle of Violence." 'The' makes it sound legendary or something.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 24/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
PsycharchetecturingXUB
Sorcery (R)
Search target opponent’s library for up to X cards, half of which, rounded down, must be lands and the rest of which must be nonlands, and reveal them to that player. He or she shuffles his or her library, then puts those cards on top of his or her library in any order. “A nightmare for you, from you, by me.”
-Ashiok
Design -
(0/3) Appeal: I'm not seeing who likes playing this card. Maybe Johnny, but it's generally not much more than a strange and weak finisher.
(1.5/3) Elegance: I had to reread it.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: No issues.
(0/3) Balance: This card is painfully weak in almost any format I can imagine. I'm tempted to say the best value for X is 0, just so you can see your opponent's deck.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: Very unique.
(3/3) Flavor: Very flavorful. I might make the placement on top of the library either random or the caster's choice.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 17.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Dowsing Rod3
Artifact (U)
As Dowsing Rod enters the battlefield, name a card. 2, T: Look at the top two cards of your library. You may reveal a card with the chosen name from among them and put it into your hand. Put the rest on the top or bottom of your library in any order.
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: If this card was cheaper then combo players might have a reason to be interested. As is, it's too weak for constructed.
(2.5/3) Elegance: Slightly long-winded.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: No issues.
(2/3) Balance: Weak in constructed, interesting in Limited.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 22.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Judge's Note: My version would be:
Dowsing Rod
Artifact [U]
As Dowsing Rod enters the battlefield, name a nonland card. T: Reveal the top 2 cards of your library. Put all cards with a name matching the chosen name into your hand. Put the rest into your graveyard.
Judgmental Crowd1WB
Creature - Human (U)
Whenever Judgmental Crowd enters the battlefield, you may look at the top three cards of target opponent's library and put them on the bottom of her or her library in any order, then choose a creature type.
Whenever a creature of the chosen type enters the battlefield, each opponent loses one life and you gain life equal to the amount of life lost this way. "Oh, you're one of those."
3/3
Design -
(1/3) Appeal: Not really? Except in a tribal block, where Spike would use it obviously.
(2/3) Elegance: I understand the whole "looking at then bottoming the top three cards" mechanic but it feels like it's a meaningless ability in a lot of games.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: No issues.
(3/3) Balance: No issues.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: Despite my earlier criticism, I do appreciate the uniqueness of the first mechanic.
(1/3) Flavor: The name doesn't sound fantastical, nor does the flavor text. Not sure why each opponent loses life as opposed to just the controller.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 20/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Brilliant Idea
Instant (R)
Search your library for an instant or sorcery card with converted mana cost X or less, exile that card, then shuffle your library. You may cast that card without paying its mana cost. "If you just dig deep enough, I'm sure you'll come up with something."
Design -
(3/3) Appeal: Yes to all.
(3/3) Elegance: Very easy to understand.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: No issues.
(0/3) Balance: Living End and Ancestral Visions make this card incredibly overpowered in modern.
Creativity -
(1/3) Uniqueness: Wargate, Teachings, etc. The part that's unique is also the part that makes it broken.
(2.5/3) Flavor: Fun concept.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 19.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Haphazard FriskingGUR
Enchantment (R)
Whenever a creature enters the battlefield, put the top card of your library into your graveyard.
Whenever a creature dies, put another target card from your graveyard on top of your library.
At the beginning of your upkeep, exile a random card from your graveyard. If you do, Haphazard Frisking deals damage equal to that card's converted mana cost to target creature. If they don't have what you want, try shaking them down harder.
Design -
(3/3) Appeal - Timmy gets his stuff back. Johnny and Spike get value with proper play.
(0.5/3) Elegance - This is a ton of stuff to remember, and it takes a lot of stretching for me to understand how the mechanics fit the flavor.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: No color pie, rules or rarity issues.
(2/3) Balance: Having a meaningful ability that triggers off every creature death is really going to bog down some multiplayer games. The number of rules is also somewhat unpalatable in multiplayer.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: This card is unique, but some of that is simply due to having a ton of rules.
(0.5/3) Flavor: Haphazard Frisking sounds like a red sorcery. I am not sold at all on the mechanic-flavor connection.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 18/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Spirit Channeler2B
Creature - Human Wizard (R) T, Exile a creature card from your graveyard: Spirit Channeler becomes a copy of the exiled card until end of turn. In a murder investigation, the most valuable witness is the victim.
2/3
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Maybe johnny or spike can break this, but timmy cant.
(3/3) Elegance: very elegant.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: black doesn't copy stuff.
(2.5/3) Balance: generally bad in limited, outside of specific environments.
Creativity -
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: Its been done.
(3/3) Flavor: very flavorful.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 21/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Seize the Suspect1UW
Enchantment - Aura (R)
Flash (You may cast this spell any time you could cast an instant.)
Enchant creature
You control enchanted creature.
Enchanted creature can't attack. In contrast to the rest of the guild, the Azorius lawmages are quick in action.
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Strong card, somewhat difficult for johnny to build around.
(2.5/3) Elegance: The card gives you more than the title would imply.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: no pie, rules or rarity issues.
(0/3) Balance: This card is insanely broken. Compare this to Stasis Snare. Consider all the creatures that don't need to attack to be strong.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: stealing with a drawback has been done, but this is a flavorful incarnation.
(2/3) Flavor: It isn't clear why a seized suspect would start working for you.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 18.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Karnas, Emperor's Scepter2
Legendary Artifact - Equipment (R)
Equipped creature gets +1/+1.
Whenever equipped creature attacks, put two 1/1 white Soldier creature tokens onto the battlefield.
When equipped creature dies, transform Karnas, Emperor's Scepter and target opponent gains control of it.
Equip 2 "For millenia, the emperors of Lirial held this sacred scepter, without knowing its sinister secret." - Arsalan Dreya, History of the Rift Kingdoms
// Karnas, Conduit of Destruction
Legendary Artifact (R) 2, t, Sacrifice Karnas, Conduit of Destruction: Put a 5/5 black Demon creature token with flying onto the battlefield. "The unnamed archmage who stole the scepter managed to shred the fabric of reality, and madness oozed forth." - Arsalan Dreya, History of the Rift Kingdoms
Design
(0/3) Appeal - It feels weird to say this, but this card simply needs to be stronger. As is, the card isn't interesting to any psychographic because it's just not nearly powerful enough.
(1.5/3) Elegance - 4 lines of text isn't necessarily bad, but it's not elegant. The demon-making ability doesn't make sense until you read the flavor text.
Development
(3/3) Viability - No color pie, rule or rarity problems.
(1.5/3) Balance - I would guess that in Limited, this card is more frequently a bomb for your opponent than a good card for you. Not playable in Constructed.
Creativity
(1.5/3) Uniqueness - Not really.
(1.5/3) Flavor - It's a bit strange that a piece of equipment ceases to be equipment once it transforms. I would prefer the flip side to be a piece of equipment that you can sacrifice for a demon if the equipped creature gets through.
Polish
(3/3) Quality
(2/2) Main Challenge
(2/2) Subchallenges
Total: 16/25
Eraya the Cobbler1U
Legendary Creature — Human [M]
When Eraya the Cobbler dies, name a card. An opponent guesses whether a card with that name is in your hand. Reveal your hand. If your opponent guessed wrong, draw three cards. Though she was called the most vile criminal in imperial history, Eraya's trial was short, her execution swift. Many murders later, citizens wondered if the true Bloody Shoe Killer yet lived.
[1/1]
Design
(2/3) Appeal - Mindgames are fun for both Johnny and Spike.
(1/3) Elegance: Many people will have to reread the card text. It's not clear what a cobbler has to do with the abilities printed on this card.
Development
(3/3) Viability: No color wheel, rules, or rarity problems.
(0/3) Balance: This card is both extremely overpowered and swingy, both of which make for bad games of magic. Many games of standard will be decided when one player draws 3 cards for two mana before their third turn. And yes, some decks can afford not to attack into Eraya but plenty of decks can't.
Creativity
(1.5/3) Uniqueness - Liar's Pendulum
(1.5/3) Flavor - The flavor doesn't differentiate the world Eraya lives in from any number of worlds, including our own.
Polish
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Teysa, Ghost Outcast1WB
Legendary Creature - Spirit Advisor (R)
Flying
Whenever an opponent gains life, you gain that much life.
Whenever Teysa, Ghost Outcast attacks, you may return target card from exile to its owner's graveyard. If you do, its owner gains life equal to its converted mana cost. The Obzedat sought to silence her, but they created an enemy outside the reaches of their power.
2/2
Design
(1/3) Appeal: This is a Johnny card. The metagames where Spike would want such a card, even in the sideboard, are few.
(2/3) Elegance: The second ability is wordy, but understandable. The abilities and name fit together, but one has to think about it.
Development
(3/3) Viability - No color pie, rules or rarity issues.
(3/3) Balance: This card is decent in Limited and very strong in certain contexts, which is exactly what you want from a card in terms of balance.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness - The second ability hasn't been printed before.
(2.5/3) Flavor - The abilities and flavor text provide a hint as to Teysa's personality and her place within the world.
Polish
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Sarcophagus of the Mad Pharaoh6
Legendary Artifact (Rare) 6, T: Put a legendary 6/6 black Zombie creature token named Pharaoh Atep onto the battlefield. It has haste, first strike, and menace. The Mad Pharaoh laid dormant beneath the sands of Tet, until a band of rogues unearthed his tomb and sacked his coffers.
Design
(2/3) Appeal: Zombie is big, Johnny wants to figure out how to abuse the token. Not strong enough to interest Spike.
(3/3) Elegance: Completely obvious what's going on with this card.
Development
(3/3) Viability - No color pie, rules or rarity issues.
(2/3) Balance - Not playable in Constructed, and surprisingly weak in many Limited environments.
Creativity
(2/3) Uniqueness - Kaldra exists, but this feels extremely different from it.
(3/3) Flavor - Massive flavor victory.
Polish
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
The Heaviest Crown4
Legendary Artifact [M]
At the beginning of your end step and the beginning of your upkeep, exile your hand, then draw that many cards.
Sacrifice a legendary creature: Target player gains control of The Heaviest Crown. Any player may activate this ability. "I come from a long line of kings, boy. I will not be the last." - High Lord Greelix, to his betrayer, Ulmic Riverstead.
Design
(1/3) Appeal - Johnny maybe wants to make a mill deck using this. Timmy and Spike aren't interested.
(1/3) Elegance - The name and abilities don't feel attached to each other.
Development
(3/3) Viability - No color pie, rules, or rarity issues.
(1.5/3) Balance - Not sure who would play this card. Maybe a deck with tons of instants?
Creativity
(2/3) Uniqueness - Sacrificing a Legend to gain control is interesting in a set where Legends are plentiful.
(1.5/3) Flavor - The flavor isn't clear to me. The Legendary ability doesn't obviously fit the succession idea, since the taker has to sacrifice a Legend to get it. If the owner of the Crown had to give it away upon losing a legendary creature, or something to that effect, that would make sense.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Tent of the Trucebrewer4
Legendary Artifact (R) 1, T: Prevent all noncombat damage that target spell or permanent would deal this turn. That spell or permanent's controller gains life equal to the amount of damage prevented in this way. 1, T: Target creature gains defender until end of turn and can't block this turn. Put two +1/+1 counters on that creature. Some trucebrewers plied their trade for coin and others out of altruism, but all heartily contributed to peace.
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal - Johnny has an interest in self-damaging cards. A rare Timmy or Spike might like this.
(2/3) Elegance: Clear enough, although the first ability doesn't make flavor sense in my mind.
Development
(2.5/3) Viability - This is an extremely white card, considering that it's colorless.
(3/3) Balance - This card is very strong in Limited, but not to the point of me calling it overpowered.
Creativity
(2/3) Uniqueness - Well, I haven't seen a tent in MtG before.
(1.5/3) Flavor - It's not clear to me how a tent would possess the first ability this card has. The second ability, which makes creatures stronger, seems a bit antithetical to the idea of the card.
Polish
(2.5/3) Quality - "can't attack or block until end of turn."
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 18/25
Final Results
SelsenyaNewLife (22)
TheAzureSpirit (21)
Void Nothing (18)
Riliss (17)
Scrad the Wanderer (16)
Guesswork (16)
Just wanted to point out that he has some Temur potential due to becoming ferocious. With SK, Satyr and Shu Yun, plus the top of your curve, ferocious should be online almost constantly.
If you can pay for the double-strike and your opponent is tapped out, spells like Roar of Challenge, Barrage of Boulders, Icy Blast and Savage Punch are brutal.
I'm have to say I'm not convinced. If you're talking about Storm, this is no stronger and less consistent than Ideas Unbound. But the main reason I'm skeptical is that on it's own, Increasing Vengeance isn't a strong card.
My primary concern would be Courser of Kruphix. I assume that you'd prefer to save Downfall for Planeswalkers. In that case, an uncountered Courser can reasonably draw 2 or more lands and deal 4+ damage.
WHAT DOES THIS ACCOMPLISH?
The largest benefit of deck budget discussions is the establishment of tangible standards for power level. Asking players if they want to play a “power level 7” game means almost nothing. Asking players if they want to play a game with a $400 deck budget means something.
For each budget, there will emerge a tier list of optimized decks for that budget. These decks will provide the signposts for what the power level of that budget is, and help people get a gauge for how powerful their decks are by comparison. For example, a relatively untuned $400 deck with an average commander might end up being about as powerful as a $200 Tier 2 deck. The details aren’t critical; what matters is that by having unified points of comparison, people will eventually be able to accurately talk about the power levels of their decks.
The secondary benefit, of course, is not to be ignored: by having agreed-upon budget tiers, players will more easily be able to find games with appropriate power levels.
Third, budget tiers reduce price pressure on the format as a whole because now there is a drawback to playing the most expensive cards (outside of the $1600+ tier).
Lastly, explicitly setting budgetary expectations on the format should allow players with fewer financial resources to find games that will be entertaining.
OBJECTIONS:
This makes deckbuilding more annoying.
There is joy to be found in design constraints. Having to figure out how to best manage one’s deck budget adds another wrinkle to deckbuilding that a lot of people (myself included) would actually enjoy. It also lets players build “optimized” decklists without having to buy (or lament their lack of) a dozen Mana Crypts.
As for the annoyance of keeping track of your decks’ budgets, using a deckbuilding website will make the process relatively painless. A minor amount of math is necessary to account for fetches and mana-fixing lands, but it is very minor.
People will hide their deck’s power level behind their deck price.
People already can hide their deck’s power level behind their commander. Making people reveal both their commander and their deck price during Rule 0 makes it harder for such people to operate.
Some commanders can be overwhelmingly powerful, even on a budget.
That’s why I said price shouldn’t be the only factor when discussing decks. If players recognize that a commander is potentially Tier 1 for its budget, that can and should be part of the Rule 0 discussion. Aside: If a person wants to bring a tuned Selvala list to a $100 game (for example), they can experiment with cutting their deck budget to $35.
This just turns Commander into cEDH, but with multiple formats.
No it doesn’t; cEDH is a culture rather than a ruleset. People will always have the option to play more casually, and because competitive players will now be better able to find each other, there will be less mismatches.
This splits the format.
No it doesn’t, because the banlist remains the same. It splits the format as much as discussions of power level do; that is to say, only to the degree that players at the table actually want the format to be split.
As always, Rule 0 comes back into play here. Knowing that a Jorn deck’s budget is $100 instead of $1000 helps people get a feel for its power level. How they decide to act on that information is up to the group. The Jorn player might even have a “sideboard” that they use to adjust the deck’s budget/power level up or down.
This makes putting expensive cards in my deck a “feel-bad.” I want to put whatever I want into my deck and not have to worry about it.
It’s good for the ecosystem as a whole if there are reasons not to play the most expensive cards. Expensive staples are bad for the format, and the less they feel like an auto-include the better.
In addition, nobody is forcing you to build your deck a certain way. You can still play expensive cards if you want. Just expect your opponents’ decks to be similarly expensive.
In addition, is it a bigger feel-bad than playing games where decks have wildly different power levels? My answer is an emphatic no.
This is a huge indirect buff to nonbasic lands with passive abilities such as Urza’s Saga, Field of the Dead and Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth. It also indirectly nerfs lands with activated abilities.
I’m okay with that. Increasing and decreasing the in-game frequency of the aforementioned lands is unlikely to damage the Commander metagame in any disastrous way.
In addition, the ruleset that these buffs and nerfs originate from will greatly reduce both price spikes and the negative effect of price spikes on the format. This is because with budget tiers, expensive cards (excluding Urza’s saga et al.) are less effective overall. So on the whole, it’s a minor downside compared to a massive upside.
This is an indirect buff to 1 and 2-color decks because their manabases are less expensive.
This has been largely mitigated by the rules I proposed. But to the degree that it is a minor buff (if it is at all; remember that lands with activated abilities are now worse), I’m fine with it because those decks are weak in Commander regardless.
Small changes to formats are inevitable and the upside of giving players another way to talk about power level is worth some small buffs and debuffs to some decks.
Discussing price is awkward. Budget players will feel embarrassed at having to reveal the price of their decks. Rich players might feel embarrassed or nervous to name their deck budget.
It’s difficult for me to see this argument as valid. A deck’s price gets revealed as the game is played, so it’s not information that a person could easily hide.
The bottom line is that only the most unreasonable people are going to shame others for how much their deck is worth, especially if they are building with a specific budget in mind. And to the extent that these people exist, better to find out during Rule 0 so that you can choose not to play with them.
My feeling is that if I were a budget player, I would feel more comfortable with budget tiers than without them. If there are any players (budget or otherwise) who’d like to voice their opinions regarding this issue, I’d love to hear them.
People will still game the system by lying about their budget, playing an $1100 deck in an $800 tier, etc.
People acting in bad faith will always be an issue. But unlike in the current system, players will have some risk of being held accountable (especially if people play cards like Praetor’s Grasp). Budget discussion means there is a tangible standard that players can be expected to adhere to.
Price fluctuations will constantly drive decks in and out of tiers.
I would argue that this is relatively rare, since price spikes and reprints to some extent balance each other out. Even when it happens, making an adjustment isn’t much work, especially if you keep a “sideboard” as in the Jorn example above.
I expect most players will be forgiving if a person’s deck is $20–30 above their tier level due to recent fluctuations. I don’t see fluctuations preventing any games of Commander from firing.
This all sounds great but how do we convince people to get on board?
I see three main methods:
- When your LGS starts doing Commander nights again, talk to the owner about posting this flyer somewhere in the store. If you can convince them to designate a table or run some mini-tournaments using these rules, even better!
- Share this article with your friends, both IRL and online. Many people consider word of mouth the most effective form of marketing. And when you set up a game night with friends, mention budget right off the bat so people can adjust their deck budgets accordingly.
- When you sit down with strangers to play Commander, mention your deck’s budget! If people respond with curiosity, tell them about this idea or tell them to visit tinyurl.com/StructuredCommander.
That’s my argument! I’ve done my best to address any arguments people might come up with; if you think of any new ones please let me know in the comments. And if you want to help spread the movement, start building budgeted decks! It will lead to a lot of interesting discussions at the very least.Printable Flyer
I've been researching this deck in the past week or so and I have formed some opinions about some of the conventional cards for MBC.
Cuombajj Witches: This card is cool. And versus tokens, elves, and delver it's quite good. But in most matchups it's not much better than a 2/2 that only attacks for 1. It's especially mediocre against the heavier control decks like Tron and UB, where monoblack has to go beatdown. I stumbled upon Ghoulcaller's Accomplice, which as a 2/2 with flashback fits perfectly into Monoblack's midrange card advantage game.
Geth's Verdict/Chainer's Edict: There are many tokens and small creatures these days, which really makes these depressing to play. Grasp of Darkness is just more reliable.
Disfigure: There are a ton of pump effects that counter Disfigure, including the 0-mana Mutagenic growth. When you add in it's value against larger creatures, I think Dead Weight is just the better card right now.
4 Chittering Rats
4 Phyrexian Rager
3 Liliana’s Specter
4 Gray Merchant of Asphodel
2 Gurmag Angler
2 Unearth
4 Sign In Blood
4 Victim of Night
4 Grasp of Darkness
16 Swamp
4 Barren Moor
3 Cradle of the Accursed
1 Crypt Rats
1 Dead Weight
2 Evincar’s Justice
2 Font of Return
2 Nihil Spellbomb
4 Tendrils of Corruption
4 Choking Sands
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Timmy likes planeswalkers, Spike will play this card. Johnny senses are not tingling.
(2.5/3) Elegance: Wordy, but it's hard for a planeswalker not to be.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Pretty aggro for blue, but otherwise no issues.
(2.5/3) Balance: This card is exceedingly dirty if played on turn 3 in limited, but it's a mythic. Plays great in lots of formats.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Not incredibly unique, but pretty good considering the constraints.
(3/3) Flavor: Artist of THE Unreal? Eh, its sort of iffy.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 23/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: Not truly appealing to any of the psychographics.
(3/3) Elegance: Easy.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: No issues.
(1/3) Balance: I would never play this card in constructed.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Not unique, but a new spin on an old theme which is appreciated.
(2/3) Flavor: 'Arresting Officer' sounds sort of bland. A name that implies hunting or tracking would have been appreciated.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 19.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Design -
(3/3) Appeal: Powerful and tricksy, everyone likes it.
(2/3) Elegance: Words. Also, you destroying but them exiling is a bit unintuitive (although I understand why it's that way).
Development -
(3/3) Viability: No issues.
(3/3) Balance: Incredibly strong in monoblack creatureless control, if that exists in said hypothetical format. It could easily not, so no negative points.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: Coolio.
(3/3) Flavor: I prefer "Cycle of Violence." 'The' makes it sound legendary or something.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 24/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Jimmy (24)
Tesco (23)
Azure (19.5)
Design -
(0/3) Appeal: I'm not seeing who likes playing this card. Maybe Johnny, but it's generally not much more than a strange and weak finisher.
(1.5/3) Elegance: I had to reread it.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: No issues.
(0/3) Balance: This card is painfully weak in almost any format I can imagine. I'm tempted to say the best value for X is 0, just so you can see your opponent's deck.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: Very unique.
(3/3) Flavor: Very flavorful. I might make the placement on top of the library either random or the caster's choice.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 17.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: If this card was cheaper then combo players might have a reason to be interested. As is, it's too weak for constructed.
(2.5/3) Elegance: Slightly long-winded.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: No issues.
(2/3) Balance: Weak in constructed, interesting in Limited.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: Pretty fresh!
(2.5/3) Flavor: Nice flavor.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 22.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Judge's Note: My version would be:
Dowsing Rod
Artifact [U]
As Dowsing Rod enters the battlefield, name a nonland card.
T: Reveal the top 2 cards of your library. Put all cards with a name matching the chosen name into your hand. Put the rest into your graveyard.
Design -
(1/3) Appeal: Not really? Except in a tribal block, where Spike would use it obviously.
(2/3) Elegance: I understand the whole "looking at then bottoming the top three cards" mechanic but it feels like it's a meaningless ability in a lot of games.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: No issues.
(3/3) Balance: No issues.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: Despite my earlier criticism, I do appreciate the uniqueness of the first mechanic.
(1/3) Flavor: The name doesn't sound fantastical, nor does the flavor text. Not sure why each opponent loses life as opposed to just the controller.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 20/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Design -
(3/3) Appeal: Yes to all.
(3/3) Elegance: Very easy to understand.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: No issues.
(0/3) Balance: Living End and Ancestral Visions make this card incredibly overpowered in modern.
Creativity -
(1/3) Uniqueness: Wargate, Teachings, etc. The part that's unique is also the part that makes it broken.
(2.5/3) Flavor: Fun concept.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 19.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
theazuredrake
Jimmy Groove
Design -
(3/3) Appeal - Timmy gets his stuff back. Johnny and Spike get value with proper play.
(0.5/3) Elegance - This is a ton of stuff to remember, and it takes a lot of stretching for me to understand how the mechanics fit the flavor.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: No color pie, rules or rarity issues.
(2/3) Balance: Having a meaningful ability that triggers off every creature death is really going to bog down some multiplayer games. The number of rules is also somewhat unpalatable in multiplayer.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: This card is unique, but some of that is simply due to having a ton of rules.
(0.5/3) Flavor: Haphazard Frisking sounds like a red sorcery. I am not sold at all on the mechanic-flavor connection.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 18/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Maybe johnny or spike can break this, but timmy cant.
(3/3) Elegance: very elegant.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: black doesn't copy stuff.
(2.5/3) Balance: generally bad in limited, outside of specific environments.
Creativity -
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: Its been done.
(3/3) Flavor: very flavorful.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 21/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Strong card, somewhat difficult for johnny to build around.
(2.5/3) Elegance: The card gives you more than the title would imply.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: no pie, rules or rarity issues.
(0/3) Balance: This card is insanely broken. Compare this to Stasis Snare. Consider all the creatures that don't need to attack to be strong.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: stealing with a drawback has been done, but this is a flavorful incarnation.
(2/3) Flavor: It isn't clear why a seized suspect would start working for you.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 18.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
1. theazuredrake
2. thenoodler
Design
(0/3) Appeal - It feels weird to say this, but this card simply needs to be stronger. As is, the card isn't interesting to any psychographic because it's just not nearly powerful enough.
(1.5/3) Elegance - 4 lines of text isn't necessarily bad, but it's not elegant. The demon-making ability doesn't make sense until you read the flavor text.
Development
(3/3) Viability - No color pie, rule or rarity problems.
(1.5/3) Balance - I would guess that in Limited, this card is more frequently a bomb for your opponent than a good card for you. Not playable in Constructed.
Creativity
(1.5/3) Uniqueness - Not really.
(1.5/3) Flavor - It's a bit strange that a piece of equipment ceases to be equipment once it transforms. I would prefer the flip side to be a piece of equipment that you can sacrifice for a demon if the equipped creature gets through.
Polish
(3/3) Quality
(2/2) Main Challenge
(2/2) Subchallenges
Total: 16/25
Design
(2/3) Appeal - Mindgames are fun for both Johnny and Spike.
(1/3) Elegance: Many people will have to reread the card text. It's not clear what a cobbler has to do with the abilities printed on this card.
Development
(3/3) Viability: No color wheel, rules, or rarity problems.
(0/3) Balance: This card is both extremely overpowered and swingy, both of which make for bad games of magic. Many games of standard will be decided when one player draws 3 cards for two mana before their third turn. And yes, some decks can afford not to attack into Eraya but plenty of decks can't.
Creativity
(1.5/3) Uniqueness - Liar's Pendulum
(1.5/3) Flavor - The flavor doesn't differentiate the world Eraya lives in from any number of worlds, including our own.
Polish
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 16/25
Design
(1/3) Appeal: This is a Johnny card. The metagames where Spike would want such a card, even in the sideboard, are few.
(2/3) Elegance: The second ability is wordy, but understandable. The abilities and name fit together, but one has to think about it.
Development
(3/3) Viability - No color pie, rules or rarity issues.
(3/3) Balance: This card is decent in Limited and very strong in certain contexts, which is exactly what you want from a card in terms of balance.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness - The second ability hasn't been printed before.
(2.5/3) Flavor - The abilities and flavor text provide a hint as to Teysa's personality and her place within the world.
Polish
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 21/25
Design
(2/3) Appeal: Zombie is big, Johnny wants to figure out how to abuse the token. Not strong enough to interest Spike.
(3/3) Elegance: Completely obvious what's going on with this card.
Development
(3/3) Viability - No color pie, rules or rarity issues.
(2/3) Balance - Not playable in Constructed, and surprisingly weak in many Limited environments.
Creativity
(2/3) Uniqueness - Kaldra exists, but this feels extremely different from it.
(3/3) Flavor - Massive flavor victory.
Polish
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 22/25
Design
(1/3) Appeal - Johnny maybe wants to make a mill deck using this. Timmy and Spike aren't interested.
(1/3) Elegance - The name and abilities don't feel attached to each other.
Development
(3/3) Viability - No color pie, rules, or rarity issues.
(1.5/3) Balance - Not sure who would play this card. Maybe a deck with tons of instants?
Creativity
(2/3) Uniqueness - Sacrificing a Legend to gain control is interesting in a set where Legends are plentiful.
(1.5/3) Flavor - The flavor isn't clear to me. The Legendary ability doesn't obviously fit the succession idea, since the taker has to sacrifice a Legend to get it. If the owner of the Crown had to give it away upon losing a legendary creature, or something to that effect, that would make sense.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 17/25
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal - Johnny has an interest in self-damaging cards. A rare Timmy or Spike might like this.
(2/3) Elegance: Clear enough, although the first ability doesn't make flavor sense in my mind.
Development
(2.5/3) Viability - This is an extremely white card, considering that it's colorless.
(3/3) Balance - This card is very strong in Limited, but not to the point of me calling it overpowered.
Creativity
(2/3) Uniqueness - Well, I haven't seen a tent in MtG before.
(1.5/3) Flavor - It's not clear to me how a tent would possess the first ability this card has. The second ability, which makes creatures stronger, seems a bit antithetical to the idea of the card.
Polish
(2.5/3) Quality - "can't attack or block until end of turn."
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 18/25
Final Results
SelsenyaNewLife (22)
TheAzureSpirit (21)
Void Nothing (18)
Riliss (17)
Scrad the Wanderer (16)
Guesswork (16)
Between the monk, the 4/1 2-drop, boon satyr, SK and polukranos, you can have ferocious enabled constantly. I think that's worth looking in to.
If you can pay for the double-strike and your opponent is tapped out, spells like Roar of Challenge, Barrage of Boulders, Icy Blast and Savage Punch are brutal.
You might also consider Gift of Immortality or Zurgo Helmsmasher
Goblin Recruiter
Goblin Lackey
Goblin Piledriver
Goblin Ringleader
Goblin Matron
Goblin Warchief
..