MTG Salvation

Bonus: (5/5) Meets all round and bonus requirements.
Balance: (7/10) As worded, you get an extra beginning phase step at the cost of not being able to play sorcery speed spells after combat. I'm not sure that is a good trade-off for most decks, though in a mono-blue control deck, getting to draw an extra card each turn or having the ability to untap everything you control a second time each turn is rather powerful.
F/Q/C: (8/10) Adding extra phases ans steps isn't anything totally new to the game, but taking a step instead of a phase is new, and problematic. You can't add a step to a turn without it being inside a phase. I'm fairly certain that you can't take a step instead of a phase,. I'm not totally sure how to reword the card, but it needs a bit of wording help. Otherwise the card is good.
Score: (20/25)

Bonus: (4/5) Meets all the bonus parameters, though I dislike the art very much. Try to keep real world things out of Magic Art.
Balance: (6/10) As worded, this card is overpowered. This gives red a card they can play in response to any damage prevention card that has just been activated to make it go away. Yes they could pump more mana into their Circle of Protection: Red, but having the ability to make them do it more than once is quite powerful. As just a blue card, I like it (though it still doesn't cost nearly enough). As a red card it just seems abusable. Up the mana cost, lose the red and make it a rare.
F/C/Q: (8/10) This card is very creative, though quite a concept to wrap your head around. Firstly, I don't believe this card is worded correctly. Ending an 'until end of turn' effect is fine (for example, is takes away Giant Growth's effect). In order to end a 'this turn' effect, you would need to play it in response to the effect triggering, and then it would be removed. I judged the balance score for how you have it worded, but feel free to get back to me and we can talk about if that was the way you wanted it to work. What expedition is the guy in your flavor text from?
Total: (18/25)

Bonus: (5/5) Within all the parameters, and great art to boot.
Balance: (7.75/10) For 4 mana, you're giving green a card that says 'At they end of your turn, I get some form of card advantage. It's a gamble though, due to the fact that you could pull a Llanowar Elves on the first try. Of course, you could get a Giant Growth, or a land and still have the ability to play it again. It just seems a bit too good.
Flavor/Creativity/Quality: (9.5/10) Everything about this card is great, except for the flavor text. I have to take the 1/4 point for not capitalizing the M in Master summoner. Also (though you're not losing points for this, but as a suggestion for next time), when writing flavor text if you're using a comma, check to see if you could separate the sentience into two sentiences. The way the flavor text is written, with a 'but' and an 'and,' disrupts the flow of the statement. So either make it into two sentiences, or get rid of the 'and.'
Score: 22.25/25

Bonus: (5/5) Meets the bonus parameters. I don't believe I've seen art like that on a Magic card before, but it's a good piece, so full marks awarded.
Balance: (9.5/10) 2 mana for a 1/1 flying is actually overpriced (Suntail Hawk). Blinking Spirit, a card with the same ability, gets a +1/+1 buff and a 2 mana cost boost. So a 1/1 flier with the blinking ability should be costing 2W. Tagging Incorporeal on there (great name for the keyword, by the way) allows for the reduction to 1W because of the loss of being a combat damage threat. The only issue I can foresee is with the bounce ability. Anything that costs 0 mana is an outlet to be broken (comes into play abilities, leaves play abilities, etc).
Flavor/Creativity/Quality: (9/10) My inner English major is coming through again, and I'm going to have to take some points for the flavor text. Firstly, you don't need the comma. The sentience will flow better without it. Also, where's 'here?' I can only assume that you're referring to him being at his lovers side, but if that is the case, your repeating yourself and that's not needed. Otherwise the card is excellent.
Score: 23.5/25

Bonus: (5/5) The art itself is good, though the sender seems to have turned out a bit blurry. That may be due to the program used, or just getting it up to the internet (photobucket does that sometimes). Full marks, but try to make it look better next time.
Balance: (7.5/10) This card is very red. In doing so, it's high risk to use. Sure I'll get another chance to throw a direct damage spell at your head, but what will I be losing from my had to do so. What helps with the balance score is the fact that this effects your opponents' cards as well. You could drop it, and give your opponent a hand full of reusable counterspells. It's high risk, but also high rewards.
Flavor/Creativity/Quality: (8/10) There should be quotations around "Buyback—Discard a card at random." Also, your flavor text confuses me a bit. I don't see why you have it broken into two sentiences like you do. This is one of the few times that you can get away with using a semicolon. "The Institute of Arcane Studies has a large collection of books; It has a large collection of lots of things that burn easily." And I'd say don't use the word lots. Try dropping the 'lots of' and using 'many' instead.
Score: 20.5/25

Bonus: (5/5) Very nice art. Meets all bonus parameters.
Balance: (7.5/10) It's a tad bit overpriced for a 4/4 Flier, mainly because of the double white and black in the casting cost. The cost on the recursion ability seems a bit low. Just being able to get him back in your hand for WB whenever he dies, gets removes, gets milled, etc is a bit overpowered for just 2 mana. It might have been helpful to add a life payment to the cost as well, or even make it not optional.
Flavor/Creativity/Quality: (7/10) This card is original, as this exact kind of recursion hasn't been done before on an angel. There isn't, however, a wow factor that usually comes with angels like this one. It seems a little bland without abilities other than the recursion and flying. I think a boost in cost and the addition of another ability would have helped the wow factor of this card. Also, drop the comma in the flavor text. It's not needed.
Score: 19.5/25

Bonus: (4.5/5) All there great art. I'm taking 1/2 a point, however, because you didn't supple a normal card render. Don't get me wrong, I think it looks great, but I need to see what a normal card would look like with the art in order to judge how a non-promo card would look.
Balance: (6.5/10) What you have here is a giant evasion shield in a rebel deck. The ability is really cool, but it just gives you so much power, epically in a rebel deck, to control where and how your creatures die. Also, why does she have double strike (just wondering, because you lost some points due to it)? Having 4 damage on a 2 body with evasion for 4 mana (that you can search for) seems a lot undercosted.
Flavor/Creativity/Quality: (10/10) I honestly don't think I can award anything other than full marks here. Everything about this card oozes flavor. The art choic is great, the ability original and useful and the reasoning behind the ability match with why the card exists. Great job.
Score: 21/25

Bonus: (4/5) I'm taking a full point for the art choice on the card. It looked very CG to me, so I looked it up on the artist's website (which is a reason why some people take off for not including an artist's name on a card). The picture itself was defiantly something that I don't think would ever be seen on a magic card. Otherwise the card fits the bonus parameters.
Balance: (8/10) The basic white recursion card costs 3W or 2WW. Tacking the 2 extra mana on there for the buyback ability and additions to the creature is logical and works well. I don't believe, however, that you'll see the Buyback cost being paid for often. There's more efficient recursion spells in black (if you're playing a black/white deck) and 6 mana for a recursion spell in a red/white deck doesn't seem efficient enough. An addition, the creature you get back can't be sacrificed to the card again, because it isn't white in addition to it's other colors. I'm not sure if that was intentional or not, so I figured I would bring it up.
Flavor/Creativity/Quality: (9/10) White recursion is nothing new, though throwing the spin of sacrificing another creature to get the spell back is a nice twist. I love the flavor of the creature coming back as an angel. It fits with the card very well. Well written flavor text!
Score: 21/25

Bonus (5/5): All bonus points are there. Art is good as well.
Balance (7/10): It's a gating/saving/rescue creature, but it also has the ability to either Momentary Blink a creature you control or to remove a creature you control until it leaves play. The cost seems a little low, as Momentary Blink is one W less, and you only get to use it twice as opposed to this card where you could have an almost unlimited number of uses.
Flavor/Creativity/Quality (9/10): Great idea, or new twist on an idea. I can't give you full points because you're just thowing Momentary Blink onto a body. Sorry. Art choice is good though, no wording issues and the flavor is there, even lacking flavor text.
Score: 21/25

Bonus (3/5): No rendered card, loses both art points. Otherwise fine.
Balance (6/10): a 1/2 Flash for UU is fine. It's ability is where some problems start to arise. The ability itself is new, interesting and a good spin on cards with suspend. The first thing that popped into my head was 'combos with Ancestral Vision.' It also combos with every card with flashback in the game as well. Call of the Herd is good enough already, and I'm betting people don't want Dralnu, Lich Lord to actually have purpose (I joke, I joke).
Flavor/Creativity/Quality (7/10): Great idea, just needed a bit more thought put into it (perhaps make the cost x,T, or make it actually cost what the card costs).
No wording issues, though you lost an additional point here for not submitting a render. Flavor is fine, no points lost there.
Score: 16/25

Unfortunately Black Megatog couldn't join us this month.

Because you didn't sumit a creature card, you've been disqualified from this round. I will pm you your judging later.

Because of editing after the deadline, you've been disqualified from this round. I will pm you your judging later.

Bonus (5/5): Good art, non flying, cmc of at least 2. You're good.
Balance (6/10): This card will, most or less likely be basing your opponent in the face a lot. WW for a 3/1 first strike, shadow seems a bit overpowered. Give it the ability to kill most any creature with a toughness of three or less? It all just seems too good for WW.
Flavor/Creativity/Quality (6/10): Too much reminder text. It's cluttering up the card. Put all the abilities on one line and add some flavor text. Also, there's no copyright line on the render. Points lost there too. Flavor is lacking (what are they raiding, who are they raiding?), though no wording issues, other than putting the keywords on one line.
Score: 17/25

Bonus (5/5): CMC greater than 2, non-flying...hey, is that Gerrard?
Balance (8/10): You have a great amount of versatility in this card. Five mana for a 3/4 with no abilities isn't worth playing. 2 mana for a 3/4 with no abilities, now there's something I'm all for. It's great in white weenie decks as a recovery card from wrathing; you'll more or less likely get to play him for WW the next turn and still have mana left over. I would have loved to have seen this with first strike, or some kind of keyworded ability for 5 mana, or even a power bump up to 4.
Flavor/Creativity/Quality (9/10): You lose one point for lack of the copyright line, but everything else is there. Great flavor text line, though repeating 'power' twice in four words detracts from it's elegance. perhaps a change to 'There is no greater power than the ability to start over.'
Or something like that.
Score: 22/25

Bonus (5/5):Non-flying, cmc greater than 2, good art.
Balance (7/10): He just seems so wimpy, especially for a legendary creature. His abilities are good, I like the way they work off each other (if I don't have to tap something you control this turn, I get to draw a card). It just seems for his cost his power and toughness need to be higher, or his cost needs to be lower to match his 1/3 body.
Flavor/Creativity/Quality (6/10): No artist line, no copyright line. No flavor text even. Look at all the room left on that card. I would have liked to have seen at least a line of text talking about how he does his senator job.
Score: 18/25

Bonus (5/5): CMC greater than 2, non-flying (though he's floating in the art...I'll just attribute that to being really good at jumping, though be more careful next time).
Balance (7/10): He's playable and useful in either a red or a blue deck, though without splashing his last ability is unusable. Having the ability for 2 mana to say, throw another incinerate at your opponent's dome is nice. Not being able to change the target of the copied spell (outside of blowing himself up) is a good way of balancing how the ability.
Flavor/Creativity/Quality (7/10): You have two abilities on a body that work well together for the colors they're put in. But for some reason, this card just seems boring. There are other cards out there, albeit with restrictions, with the same ability that don't blow up if you need to change targets. I mean, it's a good idea, it just didn't 'wow' me at all.
Score: 19/25

Bonus (3/5): No render (or art with the non-render), though everything else is fine.
Balance (6/10): He doesn't seem overly broken, just more annoying. I mean, yes, he'll keep everyone from playing spells as long as he's removed. On the stack, you can return him if your opponent removes him in response to you playing a spell, as long as you have the mana to do so.
Flavor/Creativity/Quality (6/10): Loss of points for not summiting a render. Loss of points for using ~ instead of it's name in the textcard. The second ability should read 'Return Master Spelltwister to play. Any player may play this ability only if Master Spelltwister is removed from the game.'
Score: 15/25

Bonus (5/5): Nice. (not much more to say)
Balance (9/10): It's not very big if you can't deal damage, and could easily be dead weight in your hand. On the same note, this guy could come out as a 50/50. Probably wouldn't happen, but you get the idea. In all likelihood he'll come out between a 2/2 and a 4/4. (I would have liked to have seen him with haste, and maybe then a boost to his mana cost, but it's fine the way it is.)
Flavor/Creativity/Quality (8/10): Oh my I love cards with flanking (that are well made and thought out, of course). Not much to say. You've created a very simple and elegant common. Well done. The only thing I'm iffy about is the flavor text. Doesn't seem very Simic, though it is a lab tech, and not lab notes. I would have liked to know more about the Cavalry through the flavor text (not just that they're bigger, badder, and better). Also, 1 point docked because Bloodthirst X exists on Petrified Wood-Kin, and it doesn't need extra rules text.
Score: 22/25

Bonus (5/5): Nice looking render.
Balance (4/10): You have a nice synergy with the abilities of the card, it just seems that they just cost too little for what you're doing. I mean, there are a lot of instants and cards with flash in the game. Having the ability to put any number of the on top of your deck for 1U seems abusive. Also, U to cantrip anything you play seems almost too good.
Flavor/Creativity/Quality (7/10): Your flavor text needs a lot of work. Have someone help you with it if English isn't your native language, because there are grammatical errors, and it doesn't flow too well the way it's written. I can work on it with you later if you'd like, just toss me a PM. Everything else is cool, and I like the flavor you've given me.
Score: 16/25

Temeraire - 22/25
thisvoid - 22/25
lgmhorus - 21/25
Quazifuji - 19/25
Darkfire - 18/25
VesuvanUS - 17/25
StClaus - 16/25
Lesurgo - 16/25
Koki - 15/25
Black Megatog - Disqualified
CobyChin - Disqualified
Twilight Kiwi - Disqualified