Aggressive Approach4RG
Sorcery R
Affinity for tapped creatures (This spell costs 1 less to play for each tapped creature you control.)
You may put a creature card from your hand into play. That creature gains haste until end of turn. Sacrifice the creature at end of turn.
After this main phase, there is an additional combat phase followed by an additional main phase. Beware the smile of a blade raised in greeting.
Artist: Alexandru Sabo
Sackcloth and Ashes :3mana::symuw::symuw::symuw:
Enchantment
Exalted
Affinity for creature tokens
Whenever a creature deals damage to a player, put a penance counter on it. Creatures with penance counters are 1/1 creatures with no abilities. "His atrocity has scarred his reputation forever, but when I see him apologize to the people he once belittled, I can't help but think that his penance is a start back to honor."
About Frox: for nearly 10 years, Frox has been helping women look good and feel great in easy-fit, mix-and-match, and work-to-weekend with just a few pieces by helping them make the right choices when it comes to clothing and accessories.
I have have compared the rubrics of other judges and have modified the rubric a little bit to this: Design - X/10:
Elegance and Flavor - X/3 - How does the card look and read? Does the flavor click with the mechanics? Does it feel clunky or wordy? The card name, subtype, and flavor text are all looked at here.
Creativity - X/4 - How creative is your card? Is it completely new or is it an old idea with a new twist?
Viability - X/3 - Does the card fit into the color wheel? Does it break or bend rules of the game? Development - X/10:
Balance - X/3 - Will the card break or warp a format? Constructed, limited, and multiplayer formats will be judged here.
Power Level - X/3 - How powerful is the card alone or with other cards? Does the card's cost match its power?
Templating - X/3 - Is the card phrased right? Are the rules placed in their correct area?
Rarity - X/1 - Is the card the right rarity? Polish - X/5:
Bonus - X/2 - Does the card meet the round's bonus requirements.
Quality - X/3 - Deductions for spelling/grammar/syntax and other mistakes. Does the whole of the card fit together? This includes the art and flavor of the card. Total - X/25
No Show
BlackBull Edit: Fixed the double deduction Design – 6.5/10:
Elegance and Flavor – 2/3 – The name Maze of Memories fits with the theme of different card types in the graveyard and creatures lost in a maze. One problem with the name is that the word “memories” also corresponds with the wizard’s mind, meaning his hand or his library.
Creativity – 2.5/4 – The idea of stopping or slowing down an agro deck has been done before: Ghostly Prison and Ensnaring Bridge. This, however, is a twist by using Tarmogoyf's ability.
Viability - 2/3 – This card allows colors, which should not be as defensive as others, the ability to slow down aggro. Development – 6.5/10:
Balance - 2/3 – This card will be good in any format. Constructed control decks would love it, in a limited game this card would be a top pick and it is a multiplayer bomb. Because it can come out too early, this could reshape standard by forcing players to play artifact destruction.
Power Level – 1/3 – This card will, on average, be played on turn five and as early as turn three. By using lands that kill themselves, like Terramorphic Expanse, plus instants or sorceries that kill opponent’s early creatures will cut this card’s cost by a lot. With multiple copies of this card in play, aggro decks will be paying their whole mana each turn just to attack.
Templating – 2.5/3 – Instead of combat “step”, it should be combat “phase”. A step would be part of a phase, like the blocking step.
Rarity - 1/1 – The rarity is perfect. Polish – 4/5:
Bonus - 1/2 – The card is not multicolored.
Quality – 3/3 – The art fits the card. There is no room for flavor text and the name can be confused with the mind of a wizard. There are signs of the dashed boxes in the text area; I’m not taking points off for that because something might have went wrong. Total – 17/25
CheeseStickLightsaber Design – 6.5/10:
Elegance and Flavor - 3/3 – The name and idea fits in with Grixis, as there are tons of Zombies in its shard. Flavor text was not needed because of space issues and the card explains itself.
Creativity – 2.5/4 – Forecast has been done before but not with affinity. This has good synergy between the card and the forecast ability.
Viability - 1/3 – Forecast, so far, has been a white and blue thing. Black and red mechanic’s are opposite: hellbent and madness. Development – 6/10:
Balance - 2/3 – This is a powerful spell. It would be a high pick at a draft. I could see this as a staple card in zombie decks. This was designed for zombie deck, but I think non-zombie decks would use it like a Bitterblossom.
Power Level – 2/3 – This card can be used as a controlled Bitterblossom and therefore it might be used like a token generator for a zombie deck (using the Death Baron) instead of turning them into flaming corpses. Why kill them when you can pump more out?
Templating - 2/3 – From previous cards, the forecast ability should be last and there shouldn’t be a period after zombies in the affinity ability.
Rarity - 1/1 – The rarity is perfect. Polish – 5/5:
Bonus - 2/2 - Check.
Quality – 3/3 – I think the art and ability of the card explain enough and so you don’t need flavor text on this card. Total – 17.5/25
elathel trom EDIT: I made a mistake, you did have a come into play effect for X, Original grade put back. Design – 6/10:
Elegance and Flavor – 2/3 – I like the whole feel of these card except for one thing: I don’t like the word brats, maybe something like amateurs.
Creativity – 2/4 – This is just a twist on Qasali Ambusher, by making him block more creatures and making him bigger.
Viability - 2/3 – This is perfect for green and white; combat tricks that are defensive. I don’t think green and white should get big creatures that flash. Development – 5.5/10:
Balance – 1.5/3 – I could see this card played in all formants. I think he would be too powerful in limited.
Power Level – 1/3 – This card will become bigger for each attacker but at the same time he can not kill every attacker or even block them all. I think this card’s flash ability should be restricted so that you could only flash him when you are being attacked or the X should be restricted. You could flash him at any time and because of his blocking ability makes him a little bit too powerful.
Templating – 2.5/3 – You don’t need a period after attackers in the affinity rule. Rarity - 1/1 – Because of the flash issue he seems to powerful. Polish - 5/5: Bonus - 2/2 - Check. Quality - 3/3 – Everything fits well together. Total – 17/25
enLight Design – 7/10:
Elegance and Flavor – 2/3 – Everything fits well. Flavor text wasn’t needed due to the name, art, and ability of the card. I think the card could have been a colored artifact to fit with its name.
Creativity - 2/4 – This is exactly what green and white does but with a little twist. Nothing too original.
Viability - 3/3 – Green and white are both heavy on enchantment synergy and creature buff. Development - 8/10:
Balance - 2/3 – The card fits perfectly in all formants but it will be used only in creature heavy decks. Mostly tokens decks.
Power Level – 2/3 – On average this card should be played for 4 or 3 mana. In a token deck it could be played for 2 mana and then it might be used like a “seal” card and be broken the turn it is played for an attack. Players will have to decide on using a card like this or a card like Glorious Anthem. Cards like Glorious Anthem can’t be broken like yours for the charge but if the charge fails at least the enchantment is still there. Also Glorious Anthem is always 3 mana.
Templating - 3/3 – No errors that I can spot.
Rarity - 1/1 – The rarity is fine. Polish - 5/5:
Bonus - 2/2 - Check.
Quality - 3/3 – Everything’s fine. Total – 19.5/25
falknir
Side note: Some cards don’t need text because there is no space and that ok, but since you posted it on the text version I have to grade it. Also you can't make notes about your card. The bonus card is cool and would have been the better card. Design – 7.5/10:
Elegance and Flavor – 1.5/3 – I think that name is a little bit too confusing. Not everyone knows what Psychosomatic means. The flavor helps explain the creature. I wouldn’t use the word “pump”, maybe strengthen.
Creativity - 3/4 – Green and blue get big gets big creatures with wacky abilities. I like how he relies on other creatures but at the same time he helps them.
Viability – 3/3 – This is exactly what green and blue likes; creatures and the size of your hand. Development - 5/10:
Balance – 1.5/3 – This guy is powerful but it seems like it will be very hard to cast him most of the time. When he does come into play he will make you win the game if he lives for just a few turns. He would be a last pick in a limited game, due to his cost, but I could see a deck centered around him for multiplayer.
Power Level – 1.5/3 – This creature has powerful pump up effects but the problem is his cost. At times he could be played on turn three, thanks to llanowar elves. But also, at times, this guy will cost too much. Flying is makes this guy too powerful if he gets played early.
Templating – 1/3 – Instead of “cards in hand” for the affinity rule, it should be the “hand size”. The third ability should be written out like: Psychosomaticon gets +1/+1 for each other creature you control.
Rarity - 1/1 – Mythic rare is perfect. Polish – 2.5/5:
Bonus - 1/2 – Costs over 6.
Quality – 1.5/3 – The card has a lot to say and it is microtexted. The art fits the creature. You didn’t have room for the flavor text you provided. Total – 15/25
Homee1212
Side note: You can turn off the reminder text by using Ctrl + r, then write your own in Italics. Your not suppose to edit after the deadline. Luckily I looked at the card the night it was due. Other Judges might disqualify you for that. Design – 6.5/10:
Elegance and Flavor - 2/3 – When I think of a spellweaver, I think of someone who casts spells or adds effects to spells.
Creativity - 2/4 – Creature have been made in the past with flash and countering abilities. This one, however, can be reused.
Viability – 2.5/3 – This fits blue really good, but blue very rarely gets reusable counter spells. Development – 6.5/10:
Balance – 1.5/3 – This card is good in both limited and multiplayer but it will tear up constructed.
Power Level - 1/3 – This is very powerful and can be abused. For six mana each turn you can counter a spell and buy it back. I can see a constructed deck in extended using this with Stonybrook Banneret and Vedalken Æthermage. This would be no fun on the opposite side. The opponent could slip in a shock when this card comes into play, but even then only certain colors can deal with it.
Templating - 3/3 – Everything is ok.
Rarity - 1/1 – Yes, this would merit mythic rare. Polish – 2.5/5:
Bonus - 1/2 – It is not multicolored.
Quality – 2/3 – The first render did not have flash and because you changed it you lose a point in quality. Total – 15.5/25
Hyral Design – 8.5/10:
Elegance and Flavor - 3/3 – Everything ties in together.
Creativity – 2.5/4 – Putting -1/-1 counters on a mass scale has been done before but not like this. Cards similar to this are: Lockjaw Snapper and Soul Snuffers. This is an interesting way of selective mass removal.
Viability - 3/3 – This card fits perfectly into black and red. Development – 7.5/10:
Balance - 2/3 – It’s hard to say since there are a few cards in the whole game that use -1/-1 counters. I could see constructed decks in multiplayer and standard deck using this, but in limited this card might be skipped due to its limitations.
Power Level - 2/3 – This card has to rely on other card to put -1/-1 counters on creatures. The best thing about this card is that most of the time your creatures will live and not your opponents.
Templating – 2.5/3 – There should be a comma after creature.
Rarity - 1/1 – Perfect. Polish - 5/5:
Bonus - 2/2 - Check.
Quality - 3/3 – Everything’s fine. Total - 21/25
Lanxal Design – 6.5/10:
Elegance and Flavor – 1.5/3 – The name is cool but the flavor text doesn’t match it. This guy, with his fellow warmongers, are not “unstoppable”.
Creativity - 2/4 – Cards have relied on other copies of themselves in the past to help them. This is just another twist on it.
Viability – 3/3 – This fits red and white. Development - 5/10:
Balance - 1/3 – This guy isn’t too powerful to break any game and I think other creature that share his mana cost would be picked over him. Red and white decks are usually fast and this guy would slow down the deck.
Power Level - 1/3 – The first creature you play for 5 mana is just a 2/4. After that it’s a four mana 3/4. Even then the chances of getting more of him later that game are slim. I could see this guy gaining some other ability to make him more powerful.
Templating – 2.5/3 – Instead of a gold card background it should be the artifact background: Glassdust Hulk
Rarity - 0/1 – Too weak to be rare. I could see this guy as a common. Polish - 5/5:
Bonus – 2/2 - Check.
Quality - 3/3 – Everything’s fine. Total – 16/25
MagicProfessor28 Design – 5.5/10:
Elegance and Flavor – 1/3 – I think the name could have been more interesting and the fluff talks about others wanting his high position but his name doesn’t match that position.
Creativity – 1.5/4 – This is just a new twist to the Nayan mechanic.
Viability - 3/3 – This is what I’d expect a Nayan creature to do. Development - 8/10:
Balance - 2/3 – This card will be a strong creature for a Naya deck. I can see decks centered around him, as he is like a lord creature for Naya. I don’t think he would be a high pick in limited.
Power Level - 2/3 – This guys affinity will bring him out a little bit early. He doesn’t help himself but makes your beasts nastier enough to make your opponent want to kill him.
Templating - 3/3 – Perfect.
Rarity - 1/1 – This merits rare quality. Polish - 5/5:
Bonus - 2/2 - Does the card meet the round's bonus requirements.
Quality - 3/3 – Nothing wrong. Total – 18.5/25
Affinity for exile ( This spell costs 1 less to play for each card you own that is removed from the game.)
Flash
When you play Alluvium Guardian you may remove target non-land permanent with converted mana cost of three or less from the game and/or return target card with converted mana cost of three or less removed from the game to it's owners hand.
Lifebloom5(W/G)
Instant (R)
Affinity for Life (This spell costs Xless to play, where X is your life total)
Gain 3 life for each mana spent to play Lifebloom. Its energies seemed most powerful at the precipice of doom.No one knew why it worked like that, But it was the bloom that saved them from certain peril.
Still trying to find a better pic, although this is beautiful.
Round 1: Make a card with affinity for something other than artifacts or a land type. (Feel free to make a card that counts something other than permanents you control, as long as it makes sense.)
Bonuses:
Multicolored
CMC 6 or less
Chromavore4GU
Creature - Lhurgoyf [R]
Affinity for graveyards (This spell costs 1 less to play for each card in your graveyard.)
Chromavore's power and toughness is equal to the number of different colors among cards in all graveyards. "It hungers not for flesh, but for the essence within."
*/*
Jonas of Everwar4WR
Legendary Creature - Human Warrior
Affinity for opponents. (Jonas of Everwar costs 1 less for each opponent you have.)
First Strike, Vigilance
For each opponent beyond the first, you gain an extra combat phase and an extra main phase during your turn. Only Jonas of Everwar can attack on these extra combat phases, and it can only attack opponents that it hasn't attacked yet this turn.
4/4
Done. If you want to contest your judgment, you're welcome. After all, I'm not perfect.
Design - */10:
Elegance - */2 - How does the card look and read? Are there any awkwardly phrased sections? Does the flavour click with the mechanics? Does it feel clunky or wordy?
Creativity - */5 - Is this just the next logical step for an existing ability or archetype or is this something innovative? How well is the innovation executed as a playable card?
Potential - */3 - Who would play this card? Would it be good in draft or sealed? Does the rarity fit? Would the flavour geeks like it? Development - */10:
Viability - */2 - Does this bend or break any rules? Does the card even work? Is it phrased correctly?
Balance - */6 - How strong is the card? Will it break or warp a format? Is it utter garbage?
Creative Writing - */2 - How good/evocative are the name and flavour text? Do they match each other and what the card does? Polish - */5:
Bonus - */2 - See each round's bonus requirements.
Quality - */3 - Deductions for spelling/grammar/syntax and other mistakes. Does this read/look like something WotC would print? Total - */25
Design - 6.5/10:
Elegance 2/2: When it comes to burn spells, the simpler the better. This card hits the right spot.
Creativity 3/5: A simple card that does what red does best. The card feels dull though since this red X burn sorcery concept has been hammered to a pulp (Banefire, Demonfire, Titan's Revenge).
Potential 1.5/3: This would definitely be a first pick for any deck in limited running red. In constructed not so much, as there are far better options. Development - 5/10:
Viability 1/2: A wizard spell in Red? I don't think so. Shaman or goblin is a far better choice.
Balance 3/6: As is, the card is too powerful for limited. It would guarantee an unfun format for a while as players will first pick the card and definitely think of splashing red for its sake. In constructed formats, it's actually too weak. I'd rather go with demonfire. For a game finisher, at least Demonfire is dependable against troublesome decks. Finally, This card is definitely in the wrong rarity. Just look at the cards mentioned above.
Creative Writing 1/2: Although the name and flavor text are in harmony, I'm not sure how this burn effect fits into that. The word "Improvised" suggests something sudden, and since your card is a sorcery, i'm not sure how that is accomplished Polish - 3.5/5:
Bonus 1/2: cmc 6 or less is ok. the card is monocolored so no points for that.
Quality 2.5/3: Affinity should say "for wizards" with lower case. Otherwise, It will look for permanents with the name "Wizard". Total - 15/25
Design - 8.25/10:
Elegance 1.75/2: It feels like you jammed the flavor text in there. The card has 3 abilities, so you could have done without it
Creativity 4/5: We've already seen a goat engine before in Springjack Shepherd and Springjack Pasture, so I was definitely looking for something new here and you delivered. The synergy between the three abilities is what makes this card playable. Now why did you have to go and make 1/1 goats, I have no idea! Goats are timid creatures, so create them accordingly i.e. 0/1.
Potential 2.5/3: This is a decent card in limited, although it feels weak for a 4cc white creature. On the other hand, it's definitely a build around card in constructed (at least casually) as we have the shepherd and pasture around. Development - 8/10:
Viability 1/2: The only thing I'm worried about here is the voluntary bounce ability. I think this ability reeks of blue magic and although there is a lot of common ground between white and blue, I don't think it extends to this.
Balance 6/6: The card is perfectly balanced for any format. Not broken, yet not complete waste of cardboard.
Creative Writing 1/2: Name fits the card, but the flavor text basically rewords the abilities into a quote. Polish - 3/5:
Bonus 1/2: it's a mono-colored card so you only get points for 6 cmc or less.
Quality 2/3: If you're gonna submit a render, at least make sure that the art matches the creature type. How is that a human? Other than that, syntax looks fine. Total - 19.25/25
Design - 6/10:
Elegance 2/2: Card is not too wordy, just enough flavor text to add some oumph to it.
Creativity 1/5: Nothing original here. You basically combined white's creature destruction with red's land destruction and the result is not flattering. I'm not saying the card is not playable. It's definitely a staple in most decks and most formats but it doesn't bring anything new to the table.
Potential 3/3: This card is a bomb in limited and as i said will be a staple in other formats. Having a one sided Wrath of God is always welcome. But we keep dreaming. Development - 3/10:
Viability 2/2: No problem in this area. As worded, the card works fine with the current rules.
Balance 0/6: What the hell were you thinking? There are so many problems with this card that it's making me cry. I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and say you were trying something original, but you failed so miserably that you came out with an broken card. Your card basically says "on turn 4 (even earlier in some decks), destroy up to 4 targets (creatures and non-basic lands)", assuming you're playing 2 colors only. Doesn't that spell extremely powerful to you? And I wish you targeted creatures only, but you also included lands, non-basic nonetheless. Can you imagine what this card does to zoo decks? Urzatron? You name it.
Creative Writing 1/2: Name makes sense, but it does not fit with card's ability. It suggests destroying lands, so why are you destroying creatures? I like the flavor text though. It fits perfectly on a land destruction spell. Polish - 4.5/5:
Bonus 2/2: cmc 6 or less and multicolored, so full points here.
Quality 2.5/3: Ability should say "amount of mana spent". Total - 13.5/25
Note: if i can give it less, i would. But i have to stick to the rubric.
Design - 8/10:
Elegance 1/2: This card is a mess and there is no need for it. Even if the reminder text for Affinity is dropped, it would still be an eye sore. A lot of rewording needed for the removal/recovery ability to be understood at first glance.
Creativity 4/5: Removing a permanent from the game is a concept that cannot be tread on lightly, especially if those cards never return to play or anywhere else. I love how this cards work against early game threats like Bitterblossom. The only issue I have here is why does the affinity count the RFG cards that you own but the other ability can target any card removed from game? You need to be consistent across all abilities.
Potential 3/3: This could definitely see play in limited as it's at least a removal spell at instant speed. It's a perfect early game card for slow decks as it's a 2 for 1 solution. It provides a blocker and removes a critter. This applies for all formats. Development - 7/10:
Viability 1/2: Two issues here. One is that you can play this card for one of the colors: blue, white, black. I could see the removal ability in white and black, but not in blue. Two is returning removed cards, that's definitely a green ability (Riftsweeper) and does not belong here.
Balance 4/6: I'm glad you put this card at rare, because it is definitely a powerful card, a bit overpowered too. Even oblivion ring has a drawback, and it's at common. Not only you gave the ability instant speed, but you also basically allow the player to play it for free in some decks with heavy removal especially in black as it has graveyard RFG too. And if you add in blue's bouncing, then you' basically take care of all small threats and use your counter spells for the big ones.
Creative Writing 2/2: Definitely an interesting name for an artifact creature. I had to lookup alluvium to know what it means. I'm glad you didn't include flavor text, you got points for that. Polish - 3/5:
Bonus 2/2: Full points for bonus requirements.
Quality 1/3: Some grammar mistakes here: "converted mana cost three or less" instead of "converted mana cost of three or less". "its" instead of "it's". a comma after "when you play alluvium gaurdian". I honestly think that wizards might actually make two cards out of this, one in black and one green, rather than print this card. Total - 18/25
Design - 9/10:
Elegance 2/2: a straight to the point card that is neither wordy, nor complex, which what you need for a counter spell.
Creativity 4.5/5: I love the idea of combining counterspells with other abilities; I don't know if I've seen a spell that counters a spell and destroys a land at the same time. I don't think that choosing tapped lands here makes a difference since 99.9% of the time you're countering your opponent's spell and he tapped his land to play that spell. Although targeting your opponents hand is probably not viable for affnity in the current magic world, but it's certainly an exciting approach.
Potential 2.5/3: It's a definitely a staple in constructed control decks. Not so much in limited, although its double-edged sword could be a bomb in certain archtypes. Development - 4.75/10:
Viability 1/2: I don't like the fact that you can play this spell using 1 blue source since it's a hard counter. A 4UUR cost would have been more befitting of this card and its mechanic.
Balance 2/6: I'm very worried about the power level on this card. Getting to counter a spell and destroy a land for three mana is definitely broken. And as early as turn 3? In early game, this is a very destructive spell that will cripple your opponent. On the other hand, it's a decent card in late game.
Creative Writing 1.75/2: Awesome name for this card, but I feel that the flavor text could have done it more justice. Polish - 2/5:
Bonus 1/2: cmc greater than 6. multicolor is ok.
Quality 1/3: There is an issue with the wording here. Whose land do u get to destroy, the spell's controller or the opponent you targeted for the affinity? Affinity is a static ability, and you cannot have a static ability with a target. Total - 15.75/25
Design - 5/10:
Elegance 1.5/2: Dragons usually are feeders, not magicians. So since this dragon has the ability mess with the dead, I think it should be a dragon wizard, or an elder dragon rather than just a dragon.
Creativity 2/5: I can't for the life for me understand why a crypt dragon would get weaker if you had more dead creatures, or how it gets stronger reviving them. Isn't it the other way around? Aren't dragons supposed to feed on other creatures, dead ones in this case? Also, I don't think a dragon's power and toughness should be going down at all. Up is alright. It suggests the idea of feeding on other creatures to become stronger. Another issue is why it counts all cards in your graveyard for affinity and its -1/-1 ability, but you can only return creature cards .The last issue here is that the dragon actually dies when you have 9 cards in your graveyard. I'd love if you explained this one to me.
Potential 1.5/3: This has potential in limited as libraries are not filled up that fast, so most of the time you'll have a 3/3 to 5/5 dragon that can get you back critters from the grave. In constructed though, I don't think this will ever see play as there are a million better choices. Development - 4/10:
Viability 0/2: Dragons are usually formidable creatures that are accompanied with serious abilities. Unfortunately, I don't see this in your card.
Balance 2/6: This card is definitely weaker than Nezumi Graverobber and that card is an uncommon. A card with cmc of 11 in black suggests a monster beyond all monsters. Something that this card does not have. Another problem is that this card is unplayable early game and late game, and if a card is that narrow, why would I include it in a deck?
Creative Writing 2/2: A very fitting name for the card and its mechanics. Flavor text would not fit here so it was a good thing not to include it. Polish - 2.75/5:
Bonus 0/2: cmc more than 6, monocolored.
Quality 2.75/3: No need for the dot after the affinity ability. Total - 11.75/25
Design - 8/10:
Elegance 1/2: The mana cost is really ugly. A much better one would be 3RU. Also I don't get how you can play an Elemental Horror for 6, such intense magic is full of color and should be costed accordingly.
Creativity 4/5: I love this idea. It's something I haven't seen before and it looks like something wizards should be looking to exploit. The only issue I have is that is this card is definitely not a horror. An elemental definitely but not a horror. All horrors are black (as far as i know) but the card doesn't even have black in its mana cost.
Potential 3/3: An early pick in limited that would play well in blue/red decks. Also in a blue control deck, this card can be deadly as you keep your opponents board clear and attack for up to 10 damage a turn, even more if you want. Development - 6/10:
Viability 1.5/2: Elemental Horror is one of those creature types that do not make any sense (there's only one of them in the multiverse Woodwraith Corrputer so i'll let it pass). I repeat, the mana cost is terrible. I just hope wizards does not print one like that.
Balance 3/6: I'm very concerned with the power level of this card. a 4/1 instant flyer for 4 or less is not that big of a deal as it can be dealt with pretty easily. But if this guy sticks around, its basically game over. Play it at your opponent's end turn, add an Enrage, and some other spell and you basically finish the game right then and there. In limited, this could easily deal 10 damage the turn after it comes into play, which is preposterous. In constucted, there are a lot of ways to deal with it so it loses a bit of that power.
Creative Writing 1.5/2: I love the name and the flavor text. The only problem is that legendary creatures usually have an identity, which this name lacks. Polish - 3.5/5:
Bonus 2/2: bonus requirements ok.
Quality 1.5/3: Flying should be on a separate line. No dot after the affinity ability. The affinity ability should say "Affinity for spells". No need to mention the stack here (a taboo in my dictionary). Total - 17.5/25
Design - 8.5/10:
Elegance 2/2: Nothing to say here. Well done.
Creativity 4.5/5: This is just what control decks need. As if card advantage isn't enough, you provided a way to double that card advantage. This is not necessarily bad, but it's concerning.
Potential 2/3: This card will rarely be picked up in limited, but I think it will see a lot of play in constructed control decks. Development - 7.5/10:
Viability 1.5/2: One issue here is that I don't think I've ever seen a white card that returns instants or sorceries. I think this card could have done better without the white in its mana cost.
Balance 4/6: At first I thought this card was definitely an uncommon, not a rare. But then it came to my mind that if you control 2 changelings, this card is free, which is not such a hard thing to accomplish. The ability to play this card easily in mono-blue controls decks is scary, as you'll be able to replenish your hand with all the right counterspells you need. I still think this should be an uncommon though, as it's a still a card that doesn't present an immediate threat in the game. I doubt this card will ever be played in limited so nothing to worry about in that format. But I'm very worried about what this card can do in a red/blue control deck running Turean Mauler and others.
Creative Writing 2/2: I absolutely love the name and flavor text and how they tie to the mechanic of this card. Especially how the more spell casters you have the easier the spell gets, or reconjuring the spell is. Polish - 4.5/5:
Bonus 2/2: bonus requirements ok
Quality 2.5/3: Affinity should day "Affinity for clerics, shamans, and wizards". In its current wording, it only looks at cards with those names, not types. Total - 20.5/25
Design - 7.5/10:
Elegance 1/2: The card is a bit crowded. I understand that the mechanics of the card require that much, but if you remove the flavor text and reword the vanishing ability to say " ~ comes into play with X time counters on it, where X is the six minus the number of other spells played this turn. It gains Vanishing."
Creativity 3.5/5: Another variation of Blastoderm. This is definitely more powerful than its predecessors, as it has evasion, but it's still an existing idea and nothing new or tricky has been added.
Potential 3/3: A bomb in limited. As soon as you drop this guy, it's basically game over, as most limited decks tend to go with non-black creatures annd have black for removal. It's also very playable in constructed decks as a game finisher in control decks although a flier is sometimes preferable. Development - 9.5/10:
Viability 1.5/2: I don't like to see Shroud on black cards. It seems like you added the blue mana cost just for that.
Balance 6/6: At most, a 5/4 fear, shroud, vanishing 4 for 2UB. Strictly better than Calciderm, which warrants the gold rarity. I love how this guy is built for all formats. Definitely a rare to look forward to see and first pick in a pack. Definitely a card worth adding to black/blue aggro decks in standard and extended, not so much in legacy.
Creative Writing 2/2: Name is perfect. Even flavor text is awesome. Too bad it would be thrown out after thr rules guru have their way with the wording. Polish - 3.5/5:
Bonus 2/2: bonus ok.
Quality 1.5/3: The comes into play ability should precede the Vanishing keyword. There is a white line in the image which really destroys the quality of this card. Total - 20.5/25
War-Torn MachinationXX
Artifact (Rare)
Affinity for damage dealt this turn.
War-Torn Machination comes into play with X charge counters.
Whenever damage is dealt, put a charge counters on War-Torn Machination.
Remove 2 charge counters from ~: Put a 1/1 homunculus artifact creature token into play.
Remove 3 charge counters from ~: War-Torn Machination deals 1 damage to target creature or player. The only limitless force in the world is sorrow.
Goblin Arson 3BR Tribal Sorcery - Goblin {U}
Affinity for goblins.
Deal damage to target creature equal to the number of goblins in play. You gain life equal to the damage dealt.
“Ooooo...I wonder if that burns too?”
Alliance Sliver4GU
Creature - Sliver {R}
Alliance Sliver costs 1 less for each sliver in play.
Sliver spells cost 1 less for each sliver in play. “The hive was already large when this variant appeared, but within hours of the arrival the swarm was beyond counting.” —Rukarumel, field journal
2/2
Urborg's Reclamation (2/G)(2/U)(2/B)
Sorcery {R}
Affinity for lands you don't own
Spend only mana produced by basic lands to play Urborg's Reclamation.
If you control no tapped lands, you may return any number of target lands to their owner’s hands. Otherwise, gain control of target nonbasic land for each tapped land you control.
Reminder text would read (This spell costs 1 less to play for each land you control but don't own.)
Battle Cry March 3RW
Instant (U) Chroma - Affinity for red mana symbols (This Spell costs 1 less to play for each red mana symbol in the mana cost of permanents you control)
Creatures you control get +4/+2 and gain first strike until end of turn. Barbaric brutality can be dealt with. Organized brutality cannot.
Mantic Discharge4UR
Instant (U)
Affinity for counters (This spell costs 1 less to play for each counter on permanents you control.)
Remove all counters from target permanent. If you do, scry X, then Mantic Discharge deals X damage to target creature or player, where X is equal to the number of counters removed this way. Spark mages need to periodically release built-up energy to prevent blowing themselves up.
That's a load of text! Also, the original card only worked with charge counters for flavor, but I decided to change it to any sort of counter so that it was more usable.
Terror of the Storm 2(2/U)(2/R)
Legendary Creature - Elemental Horror (R)
Affinity for spells on the stack
Flash, Flying
Whenever a player plays a spell, Terror of the Storm gets +3/+0 until end of turn. It came out of nowhere, eyes glowing banefully, its skin twisted in a visage of horrors. I can no longer sleep, for my dreams are filled by it. - Xaren, citizen confined to the lunatic asylum.
Forging Lake 4WU
Legendary Enchantment R
You may pay 12 rather than pay Forging Lake mana cost. If you do, Forging Lake comes into play with 12 forge counters.
Affinity for counters on permanents
:symwu:, Remove two counters from a permanent you control: Choose one — Put a counter of any type on target permanent; or remove a counter from target permanent.
Affinity for Dragon cards in your graveyard
Flying
When Dragon of the Hunt comes into play, if you played it from your hand, you may return target Dragon creature card from your graveyard to play.
Failure Harvester4BR
Creature - Horror (R)
Affinity for power (This spell cost X less to play, where X is the total power of creatures in play.)
Failure Harvester comes into play with X +1/+1 counters on it, where X is the amount of mana used to pay its mana cost. BR, discard Reaper of the Lonely Blade: Target creature gains wither and first strike until end of turn. His strength comes from everyone else’s fails.
1/0
art by blackpoint
Blacker's Note: Sorry to say that... But, man, "Affinity for power" sounds so flavourfull!!! I hope it fits the rules
Primrose Standard4GW
Enchantment (U)
Affinity for creatures (This spell costs 1 less to play for each creature you control.)
Creatures you control get +1/+1.
Sacrifice Primrose Standard: Creatures you control get +1/+1 and gain trample until end of turn.
Okay, I've got my entry:
Improvised Firestorm XRR
Tribal Sorcery - Wizard
Affinity for Wizards
Improvised Firestorm deals X damage to target creature or player. When pyromancers are in a rush, no amount of knowledge can anticipate the explosive results.
Top 16 - 2012 Indiana State Championships Currently Playing: GBStandard - Golgari Safari MidrangeBG RBWModern - Mardu PyromancerWBR RLegacy - Good Old Fashioned BurnR
Dryad's Ariaxx(G/W)(G/W)
Sorcery {R}
Affinity for tokens.
Gain X life for each creature you control. The Conclave's choir can be heard all across Ravnica, and for those who listen, there lies reward in the sweet cadenza.
Earthshattering Explosion 12R (R) Chroma -- Affinity for R(This spell costs 1 less to play for every R in the casting cost among permanents you control.)
Earthshattering Explosion cannot be countered.
Earthshattering Explosion does 9 damage to target player and all creatures that player controls.
When in doubt, unleash the biggest boom you know.
--Chandra Nalaar
Mental Misstep Hysteria sweeps the nation! Legacy format to never be the same! Wizards releases new card made of space-age polymers and Tang, infused with the DNA of Ramses II, Alexander the Great, and Joe Montana! Every Legacy deck to begin “4 Mental Misstep and 56 other, less exciting cards” forever more!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Aggressive Approach 4RG
Sorcery R
Affinity for tapped creatures (This spell costs 1 less to play for each tapped creature you control.)
You may put a creature card from your hand into play. That creature gains haste until end of turn. Sacrifice the creature at end of turn.
After this main phase, there is an additional combat phase followed by an additional main phase.
Beware the smile of a blade raised in greeting.
Artist: Alexandru Sabo
Sackcloth and Ashes :3mana::symuw::symuw::symuw:
Enchantment
Exalted
Affinity for creature tokens
Whenever a creature deals damage to a player, put a penance counter on it. Creatures with penance counters are 1/1 creatures with no abilities.
"His atrocity has scarred his reputation forever, but when I see him apologize to the people he once belittled, I can't help but think that his penance is a start back to honor."
Many thanks from spiderboy at Highlight Studios
(Click to enter the Frox Experience)
About Frox: for nearly 10 years, Frox has been helping women look good and feel great in easy-fit, mix-and-match, and work-to-weekend with just a few pieces by helping them make the right choices when it comes to clothing and accessories.
Design - X/10:
Elegance and Flavor - X/3 - How does the card look and read? Does the flavor click with the mechanics? Does it feel clunky or wordy? The card name, subtype, and flavor text are all looked at here.
Creativity - X/4 - How creative is your card? Is it completely new or is it an old idea with a new twist?
Viability - X/3 - Does the card fit into the color wheel? Does it break or bend rules of the game?
Development - X/10:
Balance - X/3 - Will the card break or warp a format? Constructed, limited, and multiplayer formats will be judged here.
Power Level - X/3 - How powerful is the card alone or with other cards? Does the card's cost match its power?
Templating - X/3 - Is the card phrased right? Are the rules placed in their correct area?
Rarity - X/1 - Is the card the right rarity?
Polish - X/5:
Bonus - X/2 - Does the card meet the round's bonus requirements.
Quality - X/3 - Deductions for spelling/grammar/syntax and other mistakes. Does the whole of the card fit together? This includes the art and flavor of the card.
Total - X/25
Edit: Fixed the double deduction
Design – 6.5/10:
Elegance and Flavor – 2/3 – The name Maze of Memories fits with the theme of different card types in the graveyard and creatures lost in a maze. One problem with the name is that the word “memories” also corresponds with the wizard’s mind, meaning his hand or his library.
Creativity – 2.5/4 – The idea of stopping or slowing down an agro deck has been done before: Ghostly Prison and Ensnaring Bridge. This, however, is a twist by using Tarmogoyf's ability.
Viability - 2/3 – This card allows colors, which should not be as defensive as others, the ability to slow down aggro.
Development – 6.5/10:
Balance - 2/3 – This card will be good in any format. Constructed control decks would love it, in a limited game this card would be a top pick and it is a multiplayer bomb. Because it can come out too early, this could reshape standard by forcing players to play artifact destruction.
Power Level – 1/3 – This card will, on average, be played on turn five and as early as turn three. By using lands that kill themselves, like Terramorphic Expanse, plus instants or sorceries that kill opponent’s early creatures will cut this card’s cost by a lot. With multiple copies of this card in play, aggro decks will be paying their whole mana each turn just to attack.
Templating – 2.5/3 – Instead of combat “step”, it should be combat “phase”. A step would be part of a phase, like the blocking step.
Rarity - 1/1 – The rarity is perfect.
Polish – 4/5:
Bonus - 1/2 – The card is not multicolored.
Quality – 3/3 – The art fits the card.
There is no room for flavor text and the name can be confused with the mind of a wizard. There are signs of the dashed boxes in the text area; I’m not taking points off for that because something might have went wrong.Total – 17/25
Design – 6.5/10:
Elegance and Flavor - 3/3 – The name and idea fits in with Grixis, as there are tons of Zombies in its shard. Flavor text was not needed because of space issues and the card explains itself.
Creativity – 2.5/4 – Forecast has been done before but not with affinity. This has good synergy between the card and the forecast ability.
Viability - 1/3 – Forecast, so far, has been a white and blue thing. Black and red mechanic’s are opposite: hellbent and madness.
Development – 6/10:
Balance - 2/3 – This is a powerful spell. It would be a high pick at a draft. I could see this as a staple card in zombie decks. This was designed for zombie deck, but I think non-zombie decks would use it like a Bitterblossom.
Power Level – 2/3 – This card can be used as a controlled Bitterblossom and therefore it might be used like a token generator for a zombie deck (using the Death Baron) instead of turning them into flaming corpses. Why kill them when you can pump more out?
Templating - 2/3 – From previous cards, the forecast ability should be last and there shouldn’t be a period after zombies in the affinity ability.
Rarity - 1/1 – The rarity is perfect.
Polish – 5/5:
Bonus - 2/2 - Check.
Quality – 3/3 – I think the art and ability of the card explain enough and so you don’t need flavor text on this card.
Total – 17.5/25
EDIT: I made a mistake, you did have a come into play effect for X, Original grade put back.
Design – 6/10:
Elegance and Flavor – 2/3 – I like the whole feel of these card except for one thing: I don’t like the word brats, maybe something like amateurs.
Creativity – 2/4 – This is just a twist on Qasali Ambusher, by making him block more creatures and making him bigger.
Viability - 2/3 – This is perfect for green and white; combat tricks that are defensive. I don’t think green and white should get big creatures that flash.
Development – 5.5/10:
Balance – 1.5/3 – I could see this card played in all formants. I think he would be too powerful in limited.
Power Level – 1/3 – This card will become bigger for each attacker but at the same time he can not kill every attacker or even block them all. I think this card’s flash ability should be restricted so that you could only flash him when you are being attacked or the X should be restricted. You could flash him at any time and because of his blocking ability makes him a little bit too powerful.
Templating – 2.5/3 – You don’t need a period after attackers in the affinity rule.
Rarity - 1/1 –
Because of the flash issue he seems to powerful.Polish - 5/5:
Bonus - 2/2 - Check.
Quality - 3/3 – Everything fits well together.
Total – 17/25
Design – 7/10:
Elegance and Flavor – 2/3 – Everything fits well. Flavor text wasn’t needed due to the name, art, and ability of the card. I think the card could have been a colored artifact to fit with its name.
Creativity - 2/4 – This is exactly what green and white does but with a little twist. Nothing too original.
Viability - 3/3 – Green and white are both heavy on enchantment synergy and creature buff.
Development - 8/10:
Balance - 2/3 – The card fits perfectly in all formants but it will be used only in creature heavy decks. Mostly tokens decks.
Power Level – 2/3 – On average this card should be played for 4 or 3 mana. In a token deck it could be played for 2 mana and then it might be used like a “seal” card and be broken the turn it is played for an attack. Players will have to decide on using a card like this or a card like Glorious Anthem. Cards like Glorious Anthem can’t be broken like yours for the charge but if the charge fails at least the enchantment is still there. Also Glorious Anthem is always 3 mana.
Templating - 3/3 – No errors that I can spot.
Rarity - 1/1 – The rarity is fine.
Polish - 5/5:
Bonus - 2/2 - Check.
Quality - 3/3 – Everything’s fine.
Total – 19.5/25
Side note: Some cards don’t need text because there is no space and that ok, but since you posted it on the text version I have to grade it. Also you can't make notes about your card. The bonus card is cool and would have been the better card.
Design – 7.5/10:
Elegance and Flavor – 1.5/3 – I think that name is a little bit too confusing. Not everyone knows what Psychosomatic means. The flavor helps explain the creature. I wouldn’t use the word “pump”, maybe strengthen.
Creativity - 3/4 – Green and blue get big gets big creatures with wacky abilities. I like how he relies on other creatures but at the same time he helps them.
Viability – 3/3 – This is exactly what green and blue likes; creatures and the size of your hand.
Development - 5/10:
Balance – 1.5/3 – This guy is powerful but it seems like it will be very hard to cast him most of the time. When he does come into play he will make you win the game if he lives for just a few turns. He would be a last pick in a limited game, due to his cost, but I could see a deck centered around him for multiplayer.
Power Level – 1.5/3 – This creature has powerful pump up effects but the problem is his cost. At times he could be played on turn three, thanks to llanowar elves. But also, at times, this guy will cost too much. Flying is makes this guy too powerful if he gets played early.
Templating – 1/3 – Instead of “cards in hand” for the affinity rule, it should be the “hand size”. The third ability should be written out like: Psychosomaticon gets +1/+1 for each other creature you control.
Rarity - 1/1 – Mythic rare is perfect.
Polish – 2.5/5:
Bonus - 1/2 – Costs over 6.
Quality – 1.5/3 – The card has a lot to say and it is microtexted. The art fits the creature. You didn’t have room for the flavor text you provided.
Total – 15/25
Side note: You can turn off the reminder text by using Ctrl + r, then write your own in Italics. Your not suppose to edit after the deadline. Luckily I looked at the card the night it was due. Other Judges might disqualify you for that.
Design – 6.5/10:
Elegance and Flavor - 2/3 – When I think of a spellweaver, I think of someone who casts spells or adds effects to spells.
Creativity - 2/4 – Creature have been made in the past with flash and countering abilities. This one, however, can be reused.
Viability – 2.5/3 – This fits blue really good, but blue very rarely gets reusable counter spells.
Development – 6.5/10:
Balance – 1.5/3 – This card is good in both limited and multiplayer but it will tear up constructed.
Power Level - 1/3 – This is very powerful and can be abused. For six mana each turn you can counter a spell and buy it back. I can see a constructed deck in extended using this with Stonybrook Banneret and Vedalken Æthermage. This would be no fun on the opposite side. The opponent could slip in a shock when this card comes into play, but even then only certain colors can deal with it.
Templating - 3/3 – Everything is ok.
Rarity - 1/1 – Yes, this would merit mythic rare.
Polish – 2.5/5:
Bonus - 1/2 – It is not multicolored.
Quality – 2/3 – The first render did not have flash and because you changed it you lose a point in quality.
Total – 15.5/25
Design – 8.5/10:
Elegance and Flavor - 3/3 – Everything ties in together.
Creativity – 2.5/4 – Putting -1/-1 counters on a mass scale has been done before but not like this. Cards similar to this are: Lockjaw Snapper and Soul Snuffers. This is an interesting way of selective mass removal.
Viability - 3/3 – This card fits perfectly into black and red.
Development – 7.5/10:
Balance - 2/3 – It’s hard to say since there are a few cards in the whole game that use -1/-1 counters. I could see constructed decks in multiplayer and standard deck using this, but in limited this card might be skipped due to its limitations.
Power Level - 2/3 – This card has to rely on other card to put -1/-1 counters on creatures. The best thing about this card is that most of the time your creatures will live and not your opponents.
Templating – 2.5/3 – There should be a comma after creature.
Rarity - 1/1 – Perfect.
Polish - 5/5:
Bonus - 2/2 - Check.
Quality - 3/3 – Everything’s fine.
Total - 21/25
Design – 6.5/10:
Elegance and Flavor – 1.5/3 – The name is cool but the flavor text doesn’t match it. This guy, with his fellow warmongers, are not “unstoppable”.
Creativity - 2/4 – Cards have relied on other copies of themselves in the past to help them. This is just another twist on it.
Viability – 3/3 – This fits red and white.
Development - 5/10:
Balance - 1/3 – This guy isn’t too powerful to break any game and I think other creature that share his mana cost would be picked over him. Red and white decks are usually fast and this guy would slow down the deck.
Power Level - 1/3 – The first creature you play for 5 mana is just a 2/4. After that it’s a four mana 3/4. Even then the chances of getting more of him later that game are slim. I could see this guy gaining some other ability to make him more powerful.
Templating – 2.5/3 – Instead of a gold card background it should be the artifact background: Glassdust Hulk
Rarity - 0/1 – Too weak to be rare. I could see this guy as a common.
Polish - 5/5:
Bonus – 2/2 - Check.
Quality - 3/3 – Everything’s fine.
Total – 16/25
Design – 5.5/10:
Elegance and Flavor – 1/3 – I think the name could have been more interesting and the fluff talks about others wanting his high position but his name doesn’t match that position.
Creativity – 1.5/4 – This is just a new twist to the Nayan mechanic.
Viability - 3/3 – This is what I’d expect a Nayan creature to do.
Development - 8/10:
Balance - 2/3 – This card will be a strong creature for a Naya deck. I can see decks centered around him, as he is like a lord creature for Naya. I don’t think he would be a high pick in limited.
Power Level - 2/3 – This guys affinity will bring him out a little bit early. He doesn’t help himself but makes your beasts nastier enough to make your opponent want to kill him.
Templating - 3/3 – Perfect.
Rarity - 1/1 – This merits rare quality.
Polish - 5/5:
Bonus - 2/2 - Does the card meet the round's bonus requirements.
Quality - 3/3 – Nothing wrong.
Total – 18.5/25
Totals:
Hyral - 21
enLight – 19.5
MagicProfessor28 – 18.5
CheeseStickLightsaber -17.5
BlackBull -17
elathel trom - 17
Lanxal – 16
Homee1212 – 15.5
falknir - 15
Autumn Willow - 0
Commander: *Five Color Fun-Stuff *Grixis Artifacts *Beast Tribal
Brawl: To Be Decided At Eldraine Release!
Artifact Creature - Golem Warrior {R}
Affinity for exile ( This spell costs 1 less to play for each card you own that is removed from the game.)
Flash
When you play Alluvium Guardian you may remove target non-land permanent with converted mana cost of three or less from the game and/or return target card with converted mana cost of three or less removed from the game to it's owners hand.
2/2
Instant (R)
Affinity for Life (This spell costs X less to play, where X is your life total)
Gain 3 life for each mana spent to play Lifebloom.
Its energies seemed most powerful at the precipice of doom.No one knew why it worked like that, But it was the bloom that saved them from certain peril.
Still trying to find a better pic, although this is beautiful.
Sig by XenoNinja of Heroes of the Plane Studios
Bonuses:
Creature - Lhurgoyf [R]
Affinity for graveyards (This spell costs 1 less to play for each card in your graveyard.)
Chromavore's power and toughness is equal to the number of different colors among cards in all graveyards.
"It hungers not for flesh, but for the essence within."
*/*
Enchantment (rare)
Affinity for enchantments
Green creatures you control get +1/+1 for each enchantment you control.
During the clear nights, even the humblest creature in the enchanted forest of Noctbul becomes a little too proud.
Illus. Joel Hoekstra
Legendary Creature - Human Warrior
Affinity for opponents. (Jonas of Everwar costs 1 less for each opponent you have.)
First Strike, Vigilance
For each opponent beyond the first, you gain an extra combat phase and an extra main phase during your turn. Only Jonas of Everwar can attack on these extra combat phases, and it can only attack opponents that it hasn't attacked yet this turn.
4/4
Elegance - */2 - How does the card look and read? Are there any awkwardly phrased sections? Does the flavour click with the mechanics? Does it feel clunky or wordy?
Creativity - */5 - Is this just the next logical step for an existing ability or archetype or is this something innovative? How well is the innovation executed as a playable card?
Potential - */3 - Who would play this card? Would it be good in draft or sealed? Does the rarity fit? Would the flavour geeks like it?
Development - */10:
Viability - */2 - Does this bend or break any rules? Does the card even work? Is it phrased correctly?
Balance - */6 - How strong is the card? Will it break or warp a format? Is it utter garbage?
Creative Writing - */2 - How good/evocative are the name and flavour text? Do they match each other and what the card does?
Polish - */5:
Bonus - */2 - See each round's bonus requirements.
Quality - */3 - Deductions for spelling/grammar/syntax and other mistakes. Does this read/look like something WotC would print?
Total - */25
Design - 6.5/10:
Elegance 2/2: When it comes to burn spells, the simpler the better. This card hits the right spot.
Creativity 3/5: A simple card that does what red does best. The card feels dull though since this red X burn sorcery concept has been hammered to a pulp (Banefire, Demonfire, Titan's Revenge).
Potential 1.5/3: This would definitely be a first pick for any deck in limited running red. In constructed not so much, as there are far better options.
Development - 5/10:
Viability 1/2: A wizard spell in Red? I don't think so. Shaman or goblin is a far better choice.
Balance 3/6: As is, the card is too powerful for limited. It would guarantee an unfun format for a while as players will first pick the card and definitely think of splashing red for its sake. In constructed formats, it's actually too weak. I'd rather go with demonfire. For a game finisher, at least Demonfire is dependable against troublesome decks. Finally, This card is definitely in the wrong rarity. Just look at the cards mentioned above.
Creative Writing 1/2: Although the name and flavor text are in harmony, I'm not sure how this burn effect fits into that. The word "Improvised" suggests something sudden, and since your card is a sorcery, i'm not sure how that is accomplished
Polish - 3.5/5:
Bonus 1/2: cmc 6 or less is ok. the card is monocolored so no points for that.
Quality 2.5/3: Affinity should say "for wizards" with lower case. Otherwise, It will look for permanents with the name "Wizard".
Total - 15/25
Design - 8.25/10:
Elegance 1.75/2: It feels like you jammed the flavor text in there. The card has 3 abilities, so you could have done without it
Creativity 4/5: We've already seen a goat engine before in Springjack Shepherd and Springjack Pasture, so I was definitely looking for something new here and you delivered. The synergy between the three abilities is what makes this card playable. Now why did you have to go and make 1/1 goats, I have no idea! Goats are timid creatures, so create them accordingly i.e. 0/1.
Potential 2.5/3: This is a decent card in limited, although it feels weak for a 4cc white creature. On the other hand, it's definitely a build around card in constructed (at least casually) as we have the shepherd and pasture around.
Development - 8/10:
Viability 1/2: The only thing I'm worried about here is the voluntary bounce ability. I think this ability reeks of blue magic and although there is a lot of common ground between white and blue, I don't think it extends to this.
Balance 6/6: The card is perfectly balanced for any format. Not broken, yet not complete waste of cardboard.
Creative Writing 1/2: Name fits the card, but the flavor text basically rewords the abilities into a quote.
Polish - 3/5:
Bonus 1/2: it's a mono-colored card so you only get points for 6 cmc or less.
Quality 2/3: If you're gonna submit a render, at least make sure that the art matches the creature type. How is that a human? Other than that, syntax looks fine.
Total - 19.25/25
Design - 6/10:
Elegance 2/2: Card is not too wordy, just enough flavor text to add some oumph to it.
Creativity 1/5: Nothing original here. You basically combined white's creature destruction with red's land destruction and the result is not flattering. I'm not saying the card is not playable. It's definitely a staple in most decks and most formats but it doesn't bring anything new to the table.
Potential 3/3: This card is a bomb in limited and as i said will be a staple in other formats. Having a one sided Wrath of God is always welcome. But we keep dreaming.
Development - 3/10:
Viability 2/2: No problem in this area. As worded, the card works fine with the current rules.
Balance 0/6: What the hell were you thinking? There are so many problems with this card that it's making me cry. I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and say you were trying something original, but you failed so miserably that you came out with an broken card. Your card basically says "on turn 4 (even earlier in some decks), destroy up to 4 targets (creatures and non-basic lands)", assuming you're playing 2 colors only. Doesn't that spell extremely powerful to you? And I wish you targeted creatures only, but you also included lands, non-basic nonetheless. Can you imagine what this card does to zoo decks? Urzatron? You name it.
Creative Writing 1/2: Name makes sense, but it does not fit with card's ability. It suggests destroying lands, so why are you destroying creatures? I like the flavor text though. It fits perfectly on a land destruction spell.
Polish - 4.5/5:
Bonus 2/2: cmc 6 or less and multicolored, so full points here.
Quality 2.5/3: Ability should say "amount of mana spent".
Total - 13.5/25
Note: if i can give it less, i would. But i have to stick to the rubric.
Design - 8/10:
Elegance 1/2: This card is a mess and there is no need for it. Even if the reminder text for Affinity is dropped, it would still be an eye sore. A lot of rewording needed for the removal/recovery ability to be understood at first glance.
Creativity 4/5: Removing a permanent from the game is a concept that cannot be tread on lightly, especially if those cards never return to play or anywhere else. I love how this cards work against early game threats like Bitterblossom. The only issue I have here is why does the affinity count the RFG cards that you own but the other ability can target any card removed from game? You need to be consistent across all abilities.
Potential 3/3: This could definitely see play in limited as it's at least a removal spell at instant speed. It's a perfect early game card for slow decks as it's a 2 for 1 solution. It provides a blocker and removes a critter. This applies for all formats.
Development - 7/10:
Viability 1/2: Two issues here. One is that you can play this card for one of the colors: blue, white, black. I could see the removal ability in white and black, but not in blue. Two is returning removed cards, that's definitely a green ability (Riftsweeper) and does not belong here.
Balance 4/6: I'm glad you put this card at rare, because it is definitely a powerful card, a bit overpowered too. Even oblivion ring has a drawback, and it's at common. Not only you gave the ability instant speed, but you also basically allow the player to play it for free in some decks with heavy removal especially in black as it has graveyard RFG too. And if you add in blue's bouncing, then you' basically take care of all small threats and use your counter spells for the big ones.
Creative Writing 2/2: Definitely an interesting name for an artifact creature. I had to lookup alluvium to know what it means. I'm glad you didn't include flavor text, you got points for that.
Polish - 3/5:
Bonus 2/2: Full points for bonus requirements.
Quality 1/3: Some grammar mistakes here: "converted mana cost three or less" instead of "converted mana cost of three or less". "its" instead of "it's". a comma after "when you play alluvium gaurdian". I honestly think that wizards might actually make two cards out of this, one in black and one green, rather than print this card.
Total - 18/25
Design - 9/10:
Elegance 2/2: a straight to the point card that is neither wordy, nor complex, which what you need for a counter spell.
Creativity 4.5/5: I love the idea of combining counterspells with other abilities; I don't know if I've seen a spell that counters a spell and destroys a land at the same time. I don't think that choosing tapped lands here makes a difference since 99.9% of the time you're countering your opponent's spell and he tapped his land to play that spell. Although targeting your opponents hand is probably not viable for affnity in the current magic world, but it's certainly an exciting approach.
Potential 2.5/3: It's a definitely a staple in constructed control decks. Not so much in limited, although its double-edged sword could be a bomb in certain archtypes.
Development - 4.75/10:
Viability 1/2: I don't like the fact that you can play this spell using 1 blue source since it's a hard counter. A 4UUR cost would have been more befitting of this card and its mechanic.
Balance 2/6: I'm very worried about the power level on this card. Getting to counter a spell and destroy a land for three mana is definitely broken. And as early as turn 3? In early game, this is a very destructive spell that will cripple your opponent. On the other hand, it's a decent card in late game.
Creative Writing 1.75/2: Awesome name for this card, but I feel that the flavor text could have done it more justice.
Polish - 2/5:
Bonus 1/2: cmc greater than 6. multicolor is ok.
Quality 1/3: There is an issue with the wording here. Whose land do u get to destroy, the spell's controller or the opponent you targeted for the affinity? Affinity is a static ability, and you cannot have a static ability with a target.
Total - 15.75/25
Design - 5/10:
Elegance 1.5/2: Dragons usually are feeders, not magicians. So since this dragon has the ability mess with the dead, I think it should be a dragon wizard, or an elder dragon rather than just a dragon.
Creativity 2/5: I can't for the life for me understand why a crypt dragon would get weaker if you had more dead creatures, or how it gets stronger reviving them. Isn't it the other way around? Aren't dragons supposed to feed on other creatures, dead ones in this case? Also, I don't think a dragon's power and toughness should be going down at all. Up is alright. It suggests the idea of feeding on other creatures to become stronger. Another issue is why it counts all cards in your graveyard for affinity and its -1/-1 ability, but you can only return creature cards .The last issue here is that the dragon actually dies when you have 9 cards in your graveyard. I'd love if you explained this one to me.
Potential 1.5/3: This has potential in limited as libraries are not filled up that fast, so most of the time you'll have a 3/3 to 5/5 dragon that can get you back critters from the grave. In constructed though, I don't think this will ever see play as there are a million better choices.
Development - 4/10:
Viability 0/2: Dragons are usually formidable creatures that are accompanied with serious abilities. Unfortunately, I don't see this in your card.
Balance 2/6: This card is definitely weaker than Nezumi Graverobber and that card is an uncommon. A card with cmc of 11 in black suggests a monster beyond all monsters. Something that this card does not have. Another problem is that this card is unplayable early game and late game, and if a card is that narrow, why would I include it in a deck?
Creative Writing 2/2: A very fitting name for the card and its mechanics. Flavor text would not fit here so it was a good thing not to include it.
Polish - 2.75/5:
Bonus 0/2: cmc more than 6, monocolored.
Quality 2.75/3: No need for the dot after the affinity ability.
Total - 11.75/25
Design - 8/10:
Elegance 1/2: The mana cost is really ugly. A much better one would be 3RU. Also I don't get how you can play an Elemental Horror for 6, such intense magic is full of color and should be costed accordingly.
Creativity 4/5: I love this idea. It's something I haven't seen before and it looks like something wizards should be looking to exploit. The only issue I have is that is this card is definitely not a horror. An elemental definitely but not a horror. All horrors are black (as far as i know) but the card doesn't even have black in its mana cost.
Potential 3/3: An early pick in limited that would play well in blue/red decks. Also in a blue control deck, this card can be deadly as you keep your opponents board clear and attack for up to 10 damage a turn, even more if you want.
Development - 6/10:
Viability 1.5/2: Elemental Horror is one of those creature types that do not make any sense (there's only one of them in the multiverse Woodwraith Corrputer so i'll let it pass). I repeat, the mana cost is terrible. I just hope wizards does not print one like that.
Balance 3/6: I'm very concerned with the power level of this card. a 4/1 instant flyer for 4 or less is not that big of a deal as it can be dealt with pretty easily. But if this guy sticks around, its basically game over. Play it at your opponent's end turn, add an Enrage, and some other spell and you basically finish the game right then and there. In limited, this could easily deal 10 damage the turn after it comes into play, which is preposterous. In constucted, there are a lot of ways to deal with it so it loses a bit of that power.
Creative Writing 1.5/2: I love the name and the flavor text. The only problem is that legendary creatures usually have an identity, which this name lacks.
Polish - 3.5/5:
Bonus 2/2: bonus requirements ok.
Quality 1.5/3: Flying should be on a separate line. No dot after the affinity ability. The affinity ability should say "Affinity for spells". No need to mention the stack here (a taboo in my dictionary).
Total - 17.5/25
Design - 8.5/10:
Elegance 2/2: Nothing to say here. Well done.
Creativity 4.5/5: This is just what control decks need. As if card advantage isn't enough, you provided a way to double that card advantage. This is not necessarily bad, but it's concerning.
Potential 2/3: This card will rarely be picked up in limited, but I think it will see a lot of play in constructed control decks.
Development - 7.5/10:
Viability 1.5/2: One issue here is that I don't think I've ever seen a white card that returns instants or sorceries. I think this card could have done better without the white in its mana cost.
Balance 4/6: At first I thought this card was definitely an uncommon, not a rare. But then it came to my mind that if you control 2 changelings, this card is free, which is not such a hard thing to accomplish. The ability to play this card easily in mono-blue controls decks is scary, as you'll be able to replenish your hand with all the right counterspells you need. I still think this should be an uncommon though, as it's a still a card that doesn't present an immediate threat in the game. I doubt this card will ever be played in limited so nothing to worry about in that format. But I'm very worried about what this card can do in a red/blue control deck running Turean Mauler and others.
Creative Writing 2/2: I absolutely love the name and flavor text and how they tie to the mechanic of this card. Especially how the more spell casters you have the easier the spell gets, or reconjuring the spell is.
Polish - 4.5/5:
Bonus 2/2: bonus requirements ok
Quality 2.5/3: Affinity should day "Affinity for clerics, shamans, and wizards". In its current wording, it only looks at cards with those names, not types.
Total - 20.5/25
Design - 7.5/10:
Elegance 1/2: The card is a bit crowded. I understand that the mechanics of the card require that much, but if you remove the flavor text and reword the vanishing ability to say " ~ comes into play with X time counters on it, where X is the six minus the number of other spells played this turn. It gains Vanishing."
Creativity 3.5/5: Another variation of Blastoderm. This is definitely more powerful than its predecessors, as it has evasion, but it's still an existing idea and nothing new or tricky has been added.
Potential 3/3: A bomb in limited. As soon as you drop this guy, it's basically game over, as most limited decks tend to go with non-black creatures annd have black for removal. It's also very playable in constructed decks as a game finisher in control decks although a flier is sometimes preferable.
Development - 9.5/10:
Viability 1.5/2: I don't like to see Shroud on black cards. It seems like you added the blue mana cost just for that.
Balance 6/6: At most, a 5/4 fear, shroud, vanishing 4 for 2UB. Strictly better than Calciderm, which warrants the gold rarity. I love how this guy is built for all formats. Definitely a rare to look forward to see and first pick in a pack. Definitely a card worth adding to black/blue aggro decks in standard and extended, not so much in legacy.
Creative Writing 2/2: Name is perfect. Even flavor text is awesome. Too bad it would be thrown out after thr rules guru have their way with the wording.
Polish - 3.5/5:
Bonus 2/2: bonus ok.
Quality 1.5/3: The comes into play ability should precede the Vanishing keyword. There is a white line in the image which really destroys the quality of this card.
Total - 20.5/25
Red Angel 20.5/25
PlanesJaywalker 20.25/25
dd2k 19.25/25
Erimety 18/25
marchosius cobalt 17.5/25
.handslikeguns 15.75/25
Charm_Master3125 15/25
Dementia Summoner 13.5/25
KoolKoal 11.75/25
Froxy 0/25
Artifact (Rare)
Affinity for damage dealt this turn.
War-Torn Machination comes into play with X charge counters.
Whenever damage is dealt, put a charge counters on War-Torn Machination.
Remove 2 charge counters from ~: Put a 1/1 homunculus artifact creature token into play.
Remove 3 charge counters from ~: War-Torn Machination deals 1 damage to target creature or player.
The only limitless force in the world is sorrow.
War-Torn Machination: take two.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Tribal Sorcery - Goblin {U}
Affinity for goblins.
Deal damage to target creature equal to the number of goblins in play. You gain life equal to the damage dealt.
“Ooooo...I wonder if that burns too?”
Creature - Sliver {R}
Alliance Sliver costs 1 less for each sliver in play.
Sliver spells cost 1 less for each sliver in play.
“The hive was already large when this variant appeared, but within hours of the arrival the swarm was beyond counting.” —Rukarumel, field journal
2/2
Sorcery {R}
Affinity for lands you don't own
Spend only mana produced by basic lands to play Urborg's Reclamation.
If you control no tapped lands, you may return any number of target lands to their owner’s hands. Otherwise, gain control of target nonbasic land for each tapped land you control.
Reminder text would read (This spell costs 1 less to play for each land you control but don't own.)
Winner of the First and Fourth Double Dare Single Elimination Contests
2009 July CCL: COMING THIS JULY
2008 December CCL: The Mechinations of Fate
Double Dare to Design: The 5th Single Elimination Contest
Double Dare That Designer: The 2nd Single Elimination Contest
Instant (U)
Chroma - Affinity for red mana symbols (This Spell costs 1 less to play for each red mana symbol in the mana cost of permanents you control)
Creatures you control get +4/+2 and gain first strike until end of turn.
Barbaric brutality can be dealt with. Organized brutality cannot.
Render in both English and Japanese
Artist Credit: http://syarul.deviantart.com/art/martyrs-115662755
"Some have said there is no subtlety to destruction. You know what? They're dead."
-Jaya Ballard, task mage
ヾ(`д´)ゝI challenge you!
Current favorite decks to play:
Landfall with admonition angel Roil Elemental and Avenger of zendikar GWU
Jund Burn GRB
Creature - Beast
Affinity for creatures.
Devour 2
2/2
Instant (U)
Affinity for counters (This spell costs 1 less to play for each counter on permanents you control.)
Remove all counters from target permanent. If you do, scry X, then Mantic Discharge deals X damage to target creature or player, where X is equal to the number of counters removed this way.
Spark mages need to periodically release built-up energy to prevent blowing themselves up.
That's a load of text! Also, the original card only worked with charge counters for flavor, but I decided to change it to any sort of counter so that it was more usable.
My Sales Post!
Card:
Terror of the Storm 2(2/U)(2/R)
Legendary Creature - Elemental Horror (R)
Affinity for spells on the stack
Flash, Flying
Whenever a player plays a spell, Terror of the Storm gets +3/+0 until end of turn.
It came out of nowhere, eyes glowing banefully, its skin twisted in a visage of horrors. I can no longer sleep, for my dreams are filled by it. - Xaren, citizen confined to the lunatic asylum.
Render:
I believe in Haruhism
Legendary Enchantment R
You may pay 12 rather than pay Forging Lake mana cost. If you do, Forging Lake comes into play with 12 forge counters.
Affinity for counters on permanents
:symwu:, Remove two counters from a permanent you control: Choose one — Put a counter of any type on target permanent; or remove a counter from target permanent.
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Dragon of the Hunt 4BR
Creature - Dragon
Rare
Affinity for Dragon cards in your graveyard
Flying
When Dragon of the Hunt comes into play, if you played it from your hand, you may return target Dragon creature card from your graveyard to play.
4/3
Judge: Who knows?
Creature - Horror (R)
Affinity for power (This spell cost X less to play, where X is the total power of creatures in play.)
Failure Harvester comes into play with X +1/+1 counters on it, where X is the amount of mana used to pay its mana cost.
BR, discard Reaper of the Lonely Blade: Target creature gains wither and first strike until end of turn.
His strength comes from everyone else’s fails.
1/0
art by blackpoint
Enchantment (U)
Affinity for creatures (This spell costs 1 less to play for each creature you control.)
Creatures you control get +1/+1.
Sacrifice Primrose Standard: Creatures you control get +1/+1 and gain trample until end of turn.
Artist: Jason Engle
Commander: Gwafa Hazid, Profiteer WU
Improvised Firestorm XRR
Tribal Sorcery - Wizard
Affinity for Wizards
Improvised Firestorm deals X damage to target creature or player.
When pyromancers are in a rush, no amount of knowledge can anticipate the explosive results.
Currently Playing:
GBStandard - Golgari Safari MidrangeBG
RBWModern - Mardu PyromancerWBR
RLegacy - Good Old Fashioned BurnR
Clan Contest 3 Mafia - Mafia Co-MVP
Sorcery {R}
Affinity for tokens.
Gain X life for each creature you control.
The Conclave's choir can be heard all across Ravnica, and for those who listen, there lies reward in the sweet cadenza.
Chroma -- Affinity for R (This spell costs 1 less to play for every R in the casting cost among permanents you control.)
Earthshattering Explosion cannot be countered.
Earthshattering Explosion does 9 damage to target player and all creatures that player controls.
When in doubt, unleash the biggest boom you know.
--Chandra Nalaar
^^Thanks dantcg!