Design
Creativity /4
Is this a unique solution to constraints that shows cleverness and individuality? This is inherently difficult to read, and is much easier to say where it isn't than where it is. Full marks in this category would be next to impossible to get from me.
Elegance /3
Does the card accomplish much mechanically without much text? Does the flavor pop out with more story than the lines of text on the card? It is simple to get full marks in this; much more difficult to get full marks in this and good marks in other areas of design.
Identity /3
Does this card make sense in some context? I do have to imagine the context, yes, but that tends to work in your favor. This includes whether or not the rarity fits and how sensical the mechanics are (not, mind you, whether the mechanics explicitly function). If I can't imagine any realistic setting where the card could work, expect a 0 here. For most cards this is an easy 3.
Development
Viability /4
Will the mechanics on the card follow the existing rules of magic, or otherwise create logical, functional new ones? Not much wiggle room on this one.
Balance /3
You all know what this means. A card does not need to be playable in competitive Magic to get full marks here.
Execution /3
How is the card as a total package? I didn't want to call this "flavor" as the flavor factors in strongly here and partially elsewhere. You can think of this as flavor if you like, though.
Polish /5
Two of these points (I presume) will always be for the bonus, and from there I have three points to mince about concerning whether you made any spelling errors, typos, or general omissions. I will allow some "-0" stuff to creep in here if I think the existing feature in question is minor enough to ignore, but meaningful enough to call attention to. Those may turn into real minuses in later rounds, and often concern very easy-to-fix things.
This is easily the most convoluted giant growth I have ever seen. Except it is rather more than that, so let's get cracking.
Design
Creativity 2/4
Green has a hefty pedigree of sorceries that make tokens, and more recently, token-making spells have been able to make french vanilla dudes. While this exact form has yet to be trod upon, it is an entirely safe design. Both green and white get spells that make the little dudes, and both get exalted, so there you have it.
Elegance 2.5/3
I had a hard time initially thinking of anything with 8 lines of text as "elegant," and yet, there's not exactly anything with the versatility that this offers. It is, at times, a Spectral Procession, a Divine Transformation, a Holy Day. Where this wins out in elegance is its ability to play into itself; even if you pay full price for the first one, it is unlikely that you'll have to do so for the second one.
Identity 2.5/3
This clearly fits in some imagined Alara setting, really at any point in the sequence of shards coming together or breaking apart. I could easily see this as the Bant member of a cycle of affinity for shard keywords, or as a hole-filler for a set that needs an uncommon token maker.
Development
Viability 4/4
This is where the safe play gets you points. Affinity could work this way exactly. Token producers work this way exactly. You may have even been able to stretch the affinity line to read "Affinity for exalted" and really reward deckbuilders looking to make their exalted deck tick.
Balance 3/3
At full price, this would be playable in a limited environment. At five, with an Akrasan Squire on the board, say, this looks like a better version of a lot of other spells. At four, I could see this in extended Bant off the back of two Noble Heirarchs. Much beyond that we're getting into scarily-board-commited territory where you may walk into a Pyroclasm at your peril, and manifestly the opponent would be getting more milage out of their two mana sorcery than you did with yours. Scrupulously balanced, I'd say, moreso for the fact that you didn't allow it to get cheaper from non-creatures. Full marks.
Execution 1/3
This is where the card is weakest. The name is a slave to the mechanics of the card, rather than a keen interpretation of them. The flavor text is a watery soup: the words of a nameless fallen knight, presumably fallen because he was sitting on the sidelines taking notes (is that how someone has exalted adds a bonus maybe?) rather than fighting, making a journal of every random thought that pops into his soon-to-be-bashed-in head. I can imagine there are knights in Bant who think this way, even some of them who take notes or die trying. Even if they earn a sigil, they don't earn a memorial in flavor text on a Magic card.
Polish 4/5
It is multicolored, and 6 is less than or equal to 6. Full bonus.
Top line is clean, illustration fits, type line and set symbol is fine.
-0 Your copyright info is a little outdated. Check out JqlGirl's post or any card from ARB.
-0.5 You have a line break between the quote and the attribution line that shouldn't be there. You can do a shift-enter in MSE instead of an enter to get rid of that (awful habit of MSE if you ask me).
-0.5 I feel the word "elves" should be no more capitalized than the word "humans."
Total:19/25
Creativity 2.5/4
I'm sure the day will come when red finally gets to have creatively designed cards and mechanics that aren't burn. Or maybe it never will. This card is simply more red than any of them, as the only thing more red than an uncounterable Flame Wave for 9 would be kicker'd Molten Disaster for 10, which oddly costs the same on the front end. You get half of your points here for the sheer hugeness of this effect, the same marks I would give Shivan Meteor, for instance. The rest comes from the sweet Future Sight smell I get from the blending of Affinity and Chroma mechanics. That is rather clever.
Elegance 2.5/3
I find myself according elegance to the oddest things (in this case an elegant explosion). And yet, you count up each R on your board, tap your mountains for the rest, and then Flame Wave the other guy for 9. The whole package uses maybe five lines of text, and that's a rarity in this contest. Less-than-perfect score because of the brain damage you're likely to cause when people read "Chroma -- Affinity..." for the first time.
Identity 3/3
For this round, I imagine Affinity as fitting in any setting. Chroma, however, can only really show up in a hybrid block. You can expect to see Demigods and Primalcruxen in such a setting, and as such, this can't really be the poster-child of such a set, as splashy as it is. Rare fits for this. I would accept this at Mythic (I know others who wouldn't). It probably isn't part of a cycle, being the big burn spell of the set, probably the block, possibly the format. This is perfect for that.
Development
Viability 3.5/4
We're giving affinity a little stretching room for this round. I'm pretty sure this wouldn't explicitly work, but it isn't far off, either. The difference is between counting objects you have versus counting properties of those objects. The other stretch is whether or not players would accept something with 12 in the mana cost, but hell, there's Blinkmoth Infusion already so clearly I have no room to complain about this card, and you get full marks. I will note that whatever you lost from creativity works in your favor here, as the spell's effect is entirely safe.
Ah, make that almost full marks. Spells that have targets can be countered by the game rules as well as by other spells, so it should read "can't be countered by spells or abilities," or else some really weird stuff happens when someone casts Gilded Light in response to this.
Balance 0/3
Here's the 'cracker of this particular card. At full price, this is almost playable. A Lavalanche for 9 would cost you 12, and for one more mana here it's uncounterable. That's a fair cost. This doesn't scale the way an X spell would...except it does scale down. If you've committed a few Boggart Ram-Gangs then we're almost in Lava Axe territory. That worries me. If you play Demigod of Revenge and he fetches one buddy, you get this spell for 2R, and if he fetches two buddies you get this for R. I grant you that if you're swinging with three Demigods you probably don't need another spell in a duel, but multiplayer? I'm not worried about the Johnny who Mirrorweaves his Kher Keep tokens into Blood Knights so he can Flame Wave on the cheap. But getting this spell for R thanks to the work of a single card without really any other juking is way beyond the pale.
Execution 2.5/3
Good execution. I'm taking off half a point for the coupling of the "th" and "sh" in the name. I think those kids should be kept a hyphen's length away from each other.
The rest of it is simply a spicy meatball. Gorgeous. And an actual Chandra quote to boot, one that I could see fitting on no other card. Except that Chandra knows a boom that's exactly one damage bigger? Oh well. Can't have mere mortal players slinging around greater burn spells than Chandra, now can we?
Polish 1/5
Is not multicolored, and is not 6 cmc or less. No bonus points.
-1 Missing the card type scraps a point. I pretended this was a sorcery for the rest of the discussion. I could have even sworn that I saw the word somewhere there, alas no.
-1 All the small things, each little thing. The word "cannot" should be "can't." The double hyphen should be an em dash or other dash (you may borrow this em dash {—}). And in this case the words "all creatures" should be "each creature." It can be difficult to decide between "all" and "each," but in your case, there are threehigh-profileexamples to pull from. Finally, you're missing quote marks around the quote from Chandra.
Can't wait for the set this comes in, as long as it's in a cycle with Fair Play.
Design
Creativity 3/4
A five mana sorcery kill spell is nothing new at uncommon. There's one in every set, usually at 3BB. From there we have elements of elvish-ness, -1/-1 counters, and lifegain. To wit, Eyeblight's Ending, Cone of You Lose Target Two-Headed Giant Game, and Weed Strangle. All trod upon. None quite the same way. That's pretty much what I expect of cards in the MCC, meaning you get "B" marks.
Elegance 1.5/3
I'm sure there's a way to streamline this effect. Black gets damage to creatures sometimes, so maybe do it that way and give the spell Wither? Within your wording, you could say "up to 3" and have next door to the same function (who would choose zero creatures?) and save a little mental space. As for the elegance of the design: more elves makes it easier to poison guys, check. The poison is crippling, check. You eat them when they die and they're tasty...erm. Zuh? It feels like an arranged marriage of the "kill some guys" spell and the "gain life when guys die" spell. Would have been more elegant to simply say "You gain 6 life" on it, and be very little different.
(Edit: I hadn't considered the "one, two, or three" wording precedent in Shambling Swarm. I don't feel I took off points for that wording explicitly, but some of what I said here implies that it is an incorrect wording. It is a functional and correct wording.)
Identity 2/3
Not bad not bad. Elves are BG in Lorwyn, also tribal there. Enrya being a Dark Elf means this isn't explicitly Lorwyn, but clearly we're in some tribal setting like it, enough to support the creature type on the sorcery. Also -1/-1 counters are a theme here (which was almost Lorwyn itself, by the way). This is all known stuff and a doable setting, so you're fine there. As far as making limited function, the 3BB kill spell really should use the word "destroy." What you get for spending that much to kill something is the certainty that you're ripping its heart out, so really this is trying to be more of a Nameless Inversion or Last Gasp, each of which really wants to be a common, and an instant, and much simpler, so you've missed the mark a little. Doesn't quite fit.
Development
Viability 2/4
The only subtype that a sorcery gets is "Arcane," and I know you're going to kick yourself for this, but missing the word "Tribal" on the type line is the difference between this being a functional card and not. For all other considerations I'm thinking of it as being a Tribal Sorcery, but here you're losing points for the clear mistake.
As for the abilities, the word "distribute" is actually fine to print even though I was complaining earlier about saying "put" or "damage"+wither and so on. The second sentence is a little shakier. As phrased it is a replacement effect that replaces an event with...you never say. Another judge might consider this a polish point, changing "would be" to "is" and stratching off the "in," but for the sake of a possible lingering "instead" that I keep hearing at the end of that sentence, I need to take off points here. I'm sure you didn't mean to replace binning a creature with lifegain, but you almost did so (hint: never do this).
The heart of this card is actually a fine and printable spell, and for that you get halfway there.
Balance 3/3
Conditional, sorcery speed kill with conditional upside and conditional cost reduction. Okay, enough constraints! Highly balanced (maybe even too much). I've stuck you for the complexity of the effect elsewhere. The resulting balance is A-OK.
Execution 2/3
Complexity by contrast is your worst enemy here. There are certainly options to simplify this card, and you're aching to use them so you can fit the flavor text properly in place. The name is fine (better than fine, honestly), and while the flavor text is fitting, even the same idea could be much more terse (and save yourself some space, thus). Incidentally, I don't know which old falbes Enrya reads, but the ones I read are nowhere near as interesting as watching someone die from my poisons. Clever and fitting illustration: who is to say those aren't elf ears under the turban?
Polish 3.5/5
Is multicolored, and is 6 cmc or less. Full Bonus.
-1 Attribution needs the em dash and it's own line. Yes this would bump you to 9 lines. Yes that is too many. Yes that is a constraint to be worked around.
-0.5 For the things I mentioned in Viability. Some of that goes here, too, as a little spruce wording is called for that simply didn't come through. This includes mistakenly leaving Tribal off.
The hungerborne identity: Matt Damon stars as a 40ft. monster hungry for his friends' flesh.
Design
Creativity 2.5/4
The implicit safety of this card's design belies the subtle game it will have you play. No one wants to play it and get a Gray Ogre. And no one really wants to wipe their board for any reason. But Hungerborne Thoctar asks a rather compelling question with two simple abilities: wanna get huge?
Elegance 3/3
More guys makes him cheaper. More guys makes him bigger. Get guys, get pumped! You just can't get much more elegant than this. The Thoctar certainly creates a more complex gameplay state than he reads.
Identity 2/3
A fine flavor fit for the reborn alara. As far as having a Thoctar (Nayan Gargantuan) with devour (Jund cycle of life mechanic) you maybe could have picked off the black mana symbol from that cost to show more of the Jund-Naya overlap. It isn't too hard to imagine Jund having Thoctars of its own, though, and this would be a poster child of them if it did indeed have any. The point you're missing is for the fact that I don't know where this fits in limited, because I don't know what rarity you want it to be. My guess is common or uncommon. Either is justifiable. But I can't put it into the set for you and then judge on what I think.
Development
Viability 3.5/4
Safe design means everything is just plain going to work. I couldn't imagine this seeing print with no flavor text, though. You've purchased yourself a comparative novel's worth without making a strictly french vanilla guy.
Balance 3/3
I felt bad enough laying Gray Ogres on the field knowing they were going to Time Ebb someone else. This would be horrid beyond belief for the guy who's looking to peel his way back into the game with an empty board. Six mana 2/2? Gross.
The opposite extreme is clearly what you more had in mind when you were setting a cost (well, and the round bonus I guess). A BRG 8/8 who eats your board is powerful, but also dangerous. Sure, maybe you only ate a Spectral Procession (-1 card) or a couple Faerie tokens (-3 life), but this guy had some added investment in him: even as an 8/8 for 3, he isn't an 8/8 for 3. What I mean to say is that in the ideal play scenario, he is fair.
I guess I could go further and have him eat more than the three creatures he requires in order to reach his minimum cost, or discuss him as a means of leveling-up an outclassed Tattermunge Maniac, but the fact that I need to even consider these varied scenarios before I can say whether or not the balance is right probably means the balance is right. I was going to shave off a point or a half for him being too weak, but skip it. He's perfect. Any complaints I have with him I'll have to take to the Devour mechanic instead.
Execution 3/3
This is a fine example of execution of the idea "cheap dude gets huge." Having no room to wiggle about your phrasing means I have little else to say about it, save that the one can almost hear the word "delicious" between "for" and "creatures" in the affinity line.
Polish 3.5/5
Is multicolored, and is 6 cmc or less. Full Bonus.
-0.5 Superflous fullstop after the word "creatures." Look at any card with affinity for this.
-1 Rarity is missing.
-0 Really? No flavor text? None at all? Actually I can't justify requiring a card to have flavor text, so this time you get off with a stern finger-wagging. And for your consideration, something born of hunger could maybe have been a 0/0, and an elemental-beast for cross tribal synergy and more distinctive flavor, then juggle the numbers a bit and give it the flavor text "It is what it ate." Maybe I just want a Dracoplasm reprint.
Boy, what you don't know about the land of Everwar could fill one big book.
Design
Creativity 4/4
I cackled when I read "affinity for opponents," just be honest with yourself and pay the full 6 for him when you're goldfishing, yah? Or I guess when you're in some bizarre emperor variant. Combining safe design elements with new ones is the only way to full marks here (or if something completely new is somehow also completely reasonable). At any rate, the intent is clear: play this dude in multiplayer and attack each opponent with him every turn. Simply splendid.
Elegance 1/3
Having as many opponents never felt so good, eh? Okay, it also felt as good saying "plains, Soul Warden, go." What's missing from the equation is a simpler way of giving you all those extra combat phases and sending the everwarrior into everyone else's red zone. Or maybe scrapping the whole personal relentless assault thing altogether? As it stands it is rather clunky.
Identity 2/3
Any set can use legends, and at their heart, they're all multicolored (maybe I'm being too nostalgic with that claim). And legends with cool combat abilities will always be welcome. Putting extra phases on a creature, though, will only fit in a setting that has a lot to do with time. Delays, counters, time as a weapon, extra turns, extra phases. We've had that once and it was the poster child of complexity creep. But he does fit in that set, and anyway a creature will always be a welcome addition to the game of Magic. I'm guessing he fits in that set as mythic rare, given his type line, but you didn't say so I can't really know for sure.
Development
Viability 1.5/4
Oh dear. First, I want to put forth that I feel "affinity for opponents," while a little oxymoronic sounding, is perfectly viable, and may even appear—in spirit or in fact—on a real card someday.
This guy sorta wants to be Godo, Bandit Warlord, but more than that, he wants to be a Kusari-Gama that hits opponents. But he isn't either of those things: when do those phases you're getting happen exactly? Do the extra main phases also happen when you may expect? Could I take them all before my draw step instead? It doesn't say, and it would have to. What you have is a static ability that really needs to be a triggered one. I took a crack at changing it to a triggered one, and the resulting microtext was probably what made you change your mind when you were thinking this up. The point I'm making is that the ability can't exist because it requires all this extra language, and your viability score really suffers for it.
Balance 3/3
Considering the extra phases you get only allow Jonas to fight on, and considering he's only really cheap in the format where there's four or more other guys with possible kill spells for him, I'd say the balance is spot on. He'd be rather excellent in 2HG sealed, but not at all broken. Good work. I'm guessing he'd be nightmarish as an EDH general, but no more than Rafiq.
Execution 1.5/3
I'm guessing the "attacks each turn if able" line would have been pushing it, though it feels like he has that anyway. He just loves going to war, and his mechanics reflect that. The clumsy wording for the extra combat Jonas wants to go do costs you points here, too. A better execution may have been to simply crib off of Godo, or give him haste and Relentless Assault as a 187. There are cleaner ways of making a critter that scales to multiplayer.
Polish 3.5/5
Is multicolored, and is 6 cmc or less. Full Bonus.
-1 Rarity is missing.
-0.5 Superfluous fullstop after the word "opponents." Vigilance should be lower case. Already spoken my peace about the vaguery in the combat phase ability.
-0 Warning for microtext (any way I tried it).
Creativity 4/4
What we have here is an abstract Lava Axe variant that...oh wait it says cards...hold on.
What we have here is an abstract Brainstorm variant. It isn't technically card draw, so isn't monoblue, and it isn't technically Mindmoil, so it isn't monored. It is a little familiar and a little out there at the same time. Full marks.
Elegance 2.5/3
When you finally realize what this spell does, you may be a little dissappointed. If you're name is Johnny, though, you may be reallyfreaking pleased. The half point you're missing is for the disconnect between what a player initially expects of the spell and what he gets. He expects a six mana card drawing sorcery. He gets an offbeat cantrip. Also for making players do math (okay, yes, easy math, read on).
Identity 2/3
For something like this to appear at common, I would expect card drawing or hand manipulation to play a big part in the set. It is sophisticated enough for an uncommon. Enough that I'm calling mismatched rarity.
The name and illustration jive. The illustration freakishly well, as if it had been waiting 11 years to go on this exact card.
Development
Viability 3.5/4
This card carves out its own space in magic by having you shuffle the cards in rather than put them on the bottom. You could, in theory, end up exactly where you started, making this more of a minigame. What I don't like for the sake of viability here is the phrase "one cards" in English prose. I would reword this "Shuffle etc., then draw that many cards. Draw a card." to be in line with the cantrip theme of the block that you're in, and let's be honest, this is a glorified cantrip. My suggested revision would spare your players the math I griped about earlier.
In another dimension, maybe this should target a player instead? I feel this could be a much more interesting card if it could trip up a control deck who spent five turns sculpting her hand. That would also justify the bump to uncommon and make the cantrip version feel more natural. With that many tweaks, though, I'm talking about another card. So I'll end with viable, but not at common.
Balance 1/3
Honestly? A little weak. Almost "bad card" weak. Ideally, I have five cards in hand, then I cast this with my mountain and end up with a random six? Any other version of this scenario is downright daunting. Give Johhny a break, man. I don't wanna peel a six mana do-nothing cantrip, and can't imagine a player who does. I've already suggested some ways to fix this.
Execution 3/3
Without reading in any more of my own idea about the spell, your execution of your idea is excellent. Again kudos for the name and pic: cool stuff like this is what makes Magic popular. Anything I would take off here would involve the wording, and really I've sniped that away elsewhere already.
Polish 5/5
Is multicolored, and is 6 cmc or less. Full Bonus. Did I read the bonus criteria differently than everyone else? You're allowed the bonus with a cmc 5 card, you know. Or 0 for that matter, but I'd like to see you justify "affinity" on that.
Speaking of which: another judge may have cracked down on you for not using the word "affinity" in your text box. Under the current rules, your wording is more correct, and you have certainly kept to the spirit of the round, so I won't dock points. I'll even go as far as praising you for your perspicacity: satisfactory.
-0 This card really wants a one-liner. Also the copyright line is a little outdated: Wizards is an LLC now instead of an Inc
I accept 'dis charge with no moral reservation, nor mental evasion.
Design
Creativity 2/4
So it's a burn spell, but not exactly. It's a library manipulator, but not exactly. It's a targeted Aether Snap, but...you get where I'm going with this. This spell is trying to do too many things, and what you end up with is twins more painfully conjoined than Suffocating Blast, or more aptly, Prophetic Bolt. Your spell does care about counters in ways I haven't seen, and for that and for the sake of the half of this spell that is a good card trapped in there, you get half points here.
Elegance 1.5/3
Cheaper with more counters. Cares about counters. That's pretty good, but that's also where the elegance ends. Why do I scry X? Just for grins? Because the name is "mantic," or is the name that way because you wanted to tack on scry? I grant you that scry is an upside, but here it is taking away more than it is adding. Burying a potential spell target further down in the main ability is none too pleasing either, but we'll get to that later.
Identity 2.5/3
Clearly this belongs in a set where counters play a central role, either in a Mirrodin-like place or a setting that cares about time and using time as a resource (counters being an ideal way of keeping track of this). It could also make a Standard format overrun with planeswalkers a little more livable (or a little more Izzet-heavy depending).
And burn+upside doesn't need to work terribly hard to carve out a place for itself, so this spell is well identified on the whole, if a little oddly shaped.
Development
Viability 2/4
I have no problem with affinity for counters, ruleswise. We run into a snag with the second sentence of the second ability, where you've buried the word "target." It reads like a spell, but also like a spell with a triggered ability that triggers off of you resolving that spell. The second target word gives the spell as a whole a second target that depends on something happening to the first target earlier in the resolution of the spell, and the prospect frankly terrifies me. I had to go as far back as Chain Lightning to come up with something similar, only to find it errata'd out.
The problem is this: when you play a spell, you need to select all targets for it (if it has any). Okay, but with this wording, you would need to have knowledge that the game won't let you have in order to do that, so we have a dangling target, and I can't say for certain if your spell will resolve or not.
Balance 0.5/3
This is the closest I've yet seen to "destroy target planeswalker," and it cheerfully costs less to kill the other guy's 'walker if you have one of your own. If you're determined to play fair with this, then it is a fair card. A card's balance shouldn't hinge on the players' sense of fair play (outside of un-land), so I can imagine myself casting this for two mana targeting my own Dark Depths, stacking my next ten draws and dealing half of my opponent's life total in damage to him at the end of his turn 3. Then finishing the job with a Hidetsugu's Second Rite, or maybe simply bashing his brain in with an indestructable token. Even outside that somewhat circumstantial scenario, I get a huge discount on a rather weighty effect if I simply control two vivid lands? Or Mirrodin's Core. Or Gemstone Mine.
Execution 2/3
This is going to be difficult for me considering my substantial dislike of Wayne Reynold's illustration in general. Despite the fact that I hate it and the fact that it's lifted from World of Warcraft, it is a fitting piece of illustration for the effect, so I'll focus on that. The flavor text sounds like a page out of a spark mage owner's manual or nature documentary: mundane, lacking pizzaz.
Now to hope that my friend doesn't proxy this up for use in his Ambiguity deck. (shudders)
Polish 4/5
Is multicolored, and is 6 cmc or less. Full Bonus.
-1 Text card has reminder text that render does not.
Also a warning about including explanations with your card: I simply ignored you this time, and I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to include anything in the submission post except the card itself and links to illustrators and such. I'll ask the organizers about it later. I don't think I should take off any points for it, but I do want to discourage anyone else from doing it.
Total: 15.5/25
Overall this card feels like a slave to the bonus points.
Creativity 4/4
Black and a horror, check. Devours the dead, check. This is the second card I've reviewed that wants to come into play and easily eat the things that helped it do so, and they actually combo curiously well, too. In a vacuum, I wouldn't be surprised to see this pop up in an actual set. It feels familiar but isn't quite anything else.
Elegance 3/3
At first I didn't like that it could remove any creature but only benefit from eating the robots. There isn't commonly call to exile your own dead guys, but for that sake of sometimes, I'll allow it. Especially because it paints a picture of this horror as eating indescriminantly from the garbage heaps, and growing more powerful from eating the stuff that the setting cares about. It tells a story without flavor text. Well done.
Identity 3/3
This is the finest way to allow black to care about artifacts. It feels right at home in Mirrodin, but could work in any setting that sports a higher-than usual overall robot count. An uncommon, topheavy black creature who plays a minigame with you feels fitting. Name, abilities, type, and cost all click.
Development
Viability 3.5/4
The affinity line is getting a little crowded, and you're bristling against Delve a little with this mechanic, but it all works no problem. I could also see a phrasing that goes "...from the game, and put a +1/+1 counter on ~ for each artifact creature card removed this way." It's practically the same thing and I can't think of a good reason to use one in place of the other. You may also have bumped the artifact creature restriction into the first half and then said "that many +1/+1 counters," altering the function almost not at all.
Balance 1.5/3 Sutured Ghoul comes to mind. As does Salvage Slasher. One the one hand, you may pay BB and get a 3/2. That's pretty good, but not broken. Then you eat your entire graveyard, and he gets to the 8/7 or 10/9 range without too much difficulty, and really, the sky's the limit. Ravager affinity can already pony up BB to equip Cranial Plating, and I fear the Extended-worthy robots would be more than happy to have Mephidross Abomination pick over the Ravager's leavings. Or Atog's leavings. Or the fallout of a Shattering Spree or better yet, Kataki, because Kataki can't bust this horror. It's just too easy to get this guy really huge without actually giving anything up (i.e. mana, life, cards in hand, or your board). Tombstalker is already very good, and this guy has the stones to possibly blow him right out. Half marks because while this isn't criminally busted, he's in the company of some very powerful cards without apologies (and because I would gladly take it all back when they print him and he goes into my own Ravager affinity deck).
Execution 3/3
Here's a guy who bulks up off of the thin fare of expired ornithopters and myr exoskeletons, weird as that is, it is equally cool, and as I said before, it tells a story even without flavor text (or room for any, I checked). The transparent attempt of putting beef on the board for cheap comes through with splendid execution, a whole that is more than the sum of his abilities.
Polish 4/5
Is not multicolored, and is 6 cmc or less. Half Bonus.
-0 Again could be done as one ability instead of linked abilities, but I'm sure enough that this works that I can't bring myself to take points off.
Total: 22/25
You guys are making me hungry with all these cards about eating.
Thanks for visiting the red zone, here is your complimentary humiliating burden.
Design
Creativity 2/4
Human creativity is one of the most difficult things to comprehend, let alone evaluate; so let me begin by saying how difficult this is for me to understand. You are doing something new, that is certain. It contains some familiar elements. I can't say what exactly it is doing, so I have no idea if it is doing it well, or successfully filling a hole in a set.
Elegance 1/3
Huge rare enchantments are already behind the curve for elegance, and this card doesn't make up the difference. The three abilities do not mesh, and actively fight each other for control of the card's intent: exalted wants you to fight with one guy, token armies want to rush, creatures you attack with don't want to get hosed by your own enchantment. The point that remains is in favor of some kind of deck that produces loads of token creatures with exalted, for which this is the sole support card.
Identity 0.5/3
The exalted ability is generic enough to tack onto things, and could exist at any rarity in pretty much any set. Tokens could one day be a big enough theme to have support cards all over the place, and this is one of those, at rare.
For the sake of it advertising many uses and only really having one, that is, ignoring the exalted thing and attacking with loads of 1/1 tokens that don't care about being 1/1 or losing abilities, all that built up identity is torn away. This card simply does not know what it wants.
Development
Viability 3/4
Each of these abilities works and could exist in a limited form together, certainly not all on the same card. The point I'm extracting here is for the fact that a real implementation of this card would have some way of keeping creatures from having loads and loads of penance counters piled up on them, sortof like how Aurafication worked. Until they implement the "strike" ability that allows creatures to deal combat damage, this enchantment isn't going to stop a humbled Progenitus from attacking you again and again for 1, making him seem something less than penitent, honestly.
Balance 1.5/3
Again, difficult to say whether or not this is performing at its best. The cheaper cost is easy to obtain, and it really needs to be cheap for as little as it is doing. We can already get exalted+random other cheap spell for about that cost, so in this case the extra is a mincing Propaganda effect. Oh and it may randomly be expensive. I am not inclined to cast Spectral Procession one turn and this the next, so the balance rests at half for the lack of "oomph."
Execution 3/3
Best part of the card. "You dare attack me? Apologize!" At some level, an enchantment that possibly casts humble on the entire board rocks, and if I can somehow get a dozen or so token copies of Tatterkite into play, then I have a deck that is the poem Hollow Men(warning, poetry). The illustration is exceptionally unique for a Magic card, and fits with the name and (one third of) the effect. Flavor text is a little wordy and loaded, but high-fantasy loves loaded, so that doesn't take away from the card. Any mechanical execution is points I've taken from elsewhere already.
Polish 3/5
Is multicolored, and is 6 cmc or less. Full Bonus.
-1 Render has reminder text that text card does not.
-1 Quote lacks attribution. Either this or you get the microtext penalty: I consider it the same polish point lost.
Total: 14/25
All the revisions I could recommend involve removing parts of this card.
The first fez-capped planeswalker I make will, thanks to you and this card, be named "Shriners of the Walk."
Design
Creativity 3.5/4
There is a brewing discontent among players who want more out of their walkers. Sick of seeing Chandra act like a six mana sorcery burn spell for one before eating a Rootgrapple. Indeed, players wish their walkers to work harder. Stop running from your charge! Stand and fight! For them, there is this and only one of this.
This card satisfies a need using the available tools of design. An engineer couldn't be more satisfied.
The half point off is for this not quite being a creative solution to the design criterion for the round.
Elegance 2/3
The whole package feels rather well assembled. Except that affinity feels shoved into place, bringing two other needless abilities along for the ride. Players as a rule don't like being told they can't do things, so every time you tell them that, there should be some significant upside in store. The upside you get here is a non-sequitur by comparison. Altogether dextrous application of rules-speak for the functional part of the card, though.
Identity 2.5/3
I honestly hope Alara is the closest we ever come to having a "planeswalker block." As a card that cares about walkers in two dimensions, this still doesn't necessarily need to be in a planeswalker block to be any good. Man would I hate to open it in my first draft pack, but that's not where this belongs. It belongs to Timmy for the added fun it will give him, and Johhny (a little less so) for the rules it lets him bend. Finely crafted identity, flavor and all. Half a point off for rarity: I usually don't mince between rare and mythic rare, but a legendary enchantment that supports planeswalkers is about as textbook mythic as you can get.
Development
Viability 3/4
This card stretches what I feel is viable as a printed card in two ways. First, the more common way of setting a card's colors and restricting the number of mana of some color you may pay to play it is to simply give it a casting cost that includes the number of mana symbols you require. This is no good for affinity unless you're the Reaper King, and I don't blame you for not wanting to step on that mana cost either. Each line technically works, but it really wants to be a WUBRG and scratch the affinity line altogether.
Second, saying the word "planeswalker" three times in the text box feels like pushing it. You know how a word starts to lose its meaning when you say it a bunch? We don't want that to happen to "planeswalker." So a half point for each stretch.
Balance 2/3
Well, I was all set to call it a strictly worse Rings of Brighthearth and move on, but that wouldn't be a fair and complete consideration, and it would be downright clumsy of me to stop that habit now, so short of the finish line. If you actually control five planeswalkers, getting this thing for free shouldn't make a damn bit of difference in the outcome of the game: you have all the power rangers on your side, you can't stop whatever megazord they form anyway. You're safe from being a busted card. On the other hand, I can only get one of these in play without a dirty trick, at which point I have to wait a turn to get a second untap out of Garruk or whatever. The balance comes with the same incrimental cadence that all the walkers have, and different vulnerabilities. This feels not nearly good enough for a card with as much built-in granduer and reverence.
Execution 2/3
The other half of what I was saying about the mana cost and superfluous abilities factors in here. You eschewed a direct means for the sake of satisfying the round requirement. That probably means it was the wrong design for the round. In this case it also gets in the way of the (rather good) flavor of the card, too. The other good part of this whole idea is how you've executed the design of "copy target planeswalker" in a more subtle way than I had previously imagined possible.
Polish 4.5/5
Is (sneakily) multicolored, and is 6 cmc or less. Full Bonus.
-0.5 Planeswalker is a card type and not a proper name: no caps.
Total: 19.5/25
How many other ways might you say "copy target planeswalker" I wonder?
I hope I left enough time for everyone to air out complaints. I have to muse about the curious synergies present among some of the cards in my bracket here, almost as if planned.
For those of you who pay attention, i changed Development so more points are awarded to those whose cards seem like they are fun to play with, rather than just spike ammunition.
Originality 2.5/4
Reanimation has bee done before. Goblin Silliness has been done before. A interesting twist on both though
Flavor 2.5/4
Vestige means a very small amount, or the little remains of a sample. To me, while your card does grab the deadly remains, it seems like your have quite a large remainder or goblins leftover. Random or not.
Rare Smart? 2/2
Good spot though for a reincarnation spell.
Development 8.25/10
Standard 2.25/3
Without the affinity, it is a Debtors' Knell for 1 less, but can only grab goblins, randomly... But throw in the affinity, we now have a very cost effective recursion spell. I believe the draw back of being random, only targeting goblins, justifies its strength. I think it may be a little bit on the strongside, however.
Limited 1.5/2
Depends on the block, but this would not be a very good pick unless you had goblins galore. That being said, very few sets have a lot of decent goblins to choose from (not including Legions :))
Casual/Fun Card 4.5/5
Randomness is something that has fun written all over it. Way to think of the casual golbin player out there.
Polish 4.5/5
Bonus 2/2
Yep.
Quality 2.5/3
Instead of using put a creature card, i would have chosen "return target Goblin creature card at random" At least, that's what i am think you mean. Random still means the target needs to be announced before the opponent receives priority.
Originality 2.5/4
Affinity for power? Sounds cool. Wither and First strike is not a common thing, but a potient one.
Flavor 2/4
Seems very self-explanatory. A horror that feeds on failure and mistakes. Not unheard of, but very unique. What I don't like here is that while affinity should not necessarily come with a bonus, it should not punish a player who pays less with a weaker creature. While you are not the only one to do this, it is a miss for me, and i had to take a point and a half here.
Rare Smart? 1.5/2
This seems like uncommon at best, both for its ability, and its overall strength.
Development 7.5/10
Standard 2.5/3
While the spell itself may not be played very often, the fact that you can discard it from your hand to play, OR play it when needed is a helpful ability. As stated about, getting first strike and wither is very useful as a combat trick.
Limited 2/2
Again, has the power to be bomby, high pick, in some cases, even if your not those colors..
Casual/Fun Card 3/5
It has a unique power, but again, people who try and maximize the affinity shouldn't get a lesser creature, so to speak...
Polish 3.5/5
Bonus 2/2
Quality 1.5/3
-.5 Your card has two names: Failure Harvester, and Reaper of the Lonely Blade
-.5 "Discard" should be capitalized.
-.5 In flavor text, it would make more sense to used the word "failure" instead of "fails"
Originality 1.5/4
ehhh, dragon that destroys other creatures in white and black...Needs a bit more...
Flavor 2.25/4
I feel like i am missing a portion of the story here. My guess would be that this dragon is hungry and can be lured to you easiar if you have a lot of snow territory. The drawback is if that the opponent does not have enough feed, he will snack on your creatures, if not, himself. White black dragons are rare, even in snow enviorments. This also feels like it should be legendary and that the dragon, itself, should be a snow permenant.
Rare Smart? 2/2
Oh yes...
Development 8/10
Standard 1.5/3
Rare occasion, but, you lose points for this being too strong (usally, the card is too weak). With snow covered lands playing white black, 95% of the time, you get a cheaper Wrath of God or Damnation if you prefer. There is even a chance that it can act like an even better removal spell if both you and your opponent have lots of creatures. Needs another colored mana in there....
Limited 1.5/2
As wrath effects are rare, and cheap wraths even rarer, this would be a guarenteed 1st-3rd pick, reguardless of color(s).
Casual/Fun Card 5/5
Yes, yes, GOD YES. Winter Dragons are always fun, especially when they don't ruin the fun by being red, like Rimescale Dragon.
Originality 1.5/4
I will flat out say it, Elspeth. In white and blue and unblockable instead of angelic blessing. Even her loyalties pumps and cost of ultimate are the same.
Flavor 2/4
She looks like she belongs in Lord of the Rings, but she is a creator of life. Her abilities, and just her affinity in general seem to lean her more towards green than blue. Even her artwork scream forest elf. I also don't like how her ailities kind of contradict each other. She supports tokens, but you need regular, nontoken permenants to make her ulti any good.
Rare Smart? 1.5/2
Acording to Wizards, all planewalkers are considered Mythic Rare...
Development 9.5/10
Standard/Legacy 3/3
This definitly replaces Elspeth in Landstill and may convince stax players to splash blue. In standard, BW tokens might add a color just for the ublockable clause. The affinity isn't even necessary, but definitly is something that could be abused.
Limited 1.5/2
High pick just for the planeswalker clause, and the realization that she is a win condition all on her own...
Casual/Fun Card 5/5
Although her tokens swing to the spike, her ability to be played cheaper and create masses of unblockable tokens will please all table players alike.
Polish 4/5
Bonus 2/2
Quality 2/3
-.5 "Soldier" should be capatalized.
-.5 it should read in the first ability: "token creatures you control..." or All token creatures are....
Originality 1/4
This feels like an almost exact replica of Enlisted Wurm. THe fact that it would have affinity for each colors allies is the only twist.
Flavor 2.5/4
While your story implies that this gargantuam would be against the green force here, and not be cheaper to cost if it has green creatures. This also looks like a diffrent world in your render than naya...
Rare Smart? 2/2
Yep, uncommon level.
Development 6.5/10
Standard 1.5/3
This can be really redonkolous. Cascade wurm was decent, but this blows it right out the flippin window. In a very likely case with nayans, you can have 4 creatures, cast this, and then get a spell that costs 5. Cascade spells are usally bad on their own, but get a power boost from having the keyword cascade on them. Your card would be the awesome, at uncommon level, or even rare level, even if it didn't have cascade.
Limited 1/2
Assuming that this is still shards limited, this would be a first pick draft, reguardless of colors. Too good to passup if nayan, and too good to let anyone else have it if your not...
Casual/Fun Card 4/5
Cascade will always be a fun spell, but in terms of casual players, this feel a bit on the bland side..
Polish 4.5/5
Bonus 2/2
Quality 2.5/3
-.5 Any card with a nongeneric keyword should have reminder text if the rarity is less than rare...
Originality 3/4
This is the fsecond time i have seen a creature morph into a planeswalker, (the first being in the form of a split card planeswalker) and it has a uniqueness value all its own.
Flavor 2.75/4
The planeswalker giving rampage is ok, but i think trample or even haste would have been more appropriate. Also, a berserker that would care about creatures with a legendary status does not make a whole lot of sense to me.
Rare Smart? 2/2
You have Mythic in the text version, but i will deduct in quality since render has rare symbol.
Development 5/10
Standard .5/3
I think this may have been overlooked, but the way it is worded, there is nothing wrong with paying 0 for X and getting a 3/4 with haste for RG. Who cares about the fact that it can morph into a planeswalker, it can just beat face as creature. As a planeswalker, his ulti being an exact copy of Savage Frenzy Seems like a disappointment as a planeswalker's best trick...
Limited 1/2
For the same reasons stated above, way too overpowerd for what it does. 1st pick, reguardless, may even change the colors of whoever grabs it in a draft
Casual/Fun Card 3.5/5
Being a planeswalker and a creature, sure would be fun, but this may be offset due to how wordy the card is. I do realize that is the price of turning into a completely new card type, but i still feel the it could have been less wordy for what it does.
Polish 4/5
Bonus 2/2
Quality 2/3
-.5 First line, haste should have its own line after affinity.
-.5 Rarities don't match from text and render.
Originality 2.75/4
The concept of an elvish champion has been seen before, but nice new twist on abilities.
Flavor 2.5/4
Your name is kind of ironic, but drawing cards is in neither green or red, so i don't like the first ability. The second ability has the potential to be really good, but this seems ok just playing, even if you have no other elf warriors since this will still trigger for itself.
Rare Smart? 2/2
Good here
Development 8.75/10
Standard 2.25/3
In the current standard, i think this would create the green/red warrior deck that we have all been working on so greatly. Even though the card drawing puts it a little over the top, it may over set on how fragile elfs and a good portion of the warriors are. The fact that it can cost two less if you control an elf warrior, such as Wren's Run Vanquisher may put it a bit over the edge. For 3 mana, you get a 2/2, 2 cards and a shock
Limited 2/2
Good balance here. 1st-9th pick depending on the build and what has been opened.
Casual/Fun Card 4.5/5
Another fun toy to play with in casual elf decks. Elves will always have a place in my heart, but will have to get in line behind merfolk :))
Originality 1.5/4
Another Rampant Growth variant. A bit of a twist in affinity and the hybrids, but nothing too special
Flavor 3.5/4
Simple enough to follow, an eager fellow that searches for new villages/cities, and has more expirence if you control more basics. Little flavor goes a long way. I do like that it can find nonbasics, but i think that flavorwise, it should stick to basics...
Rare Smart? 1.75/2
I think it should be at common level, but considering Sylan Scrying is an uncommon, i won't penalize as hard.
Development 6.25/10
Standard 2.25/3
At uncommon level, this feels like a rampant growth that gets better late game, when usually, it should be the other way around. I do keep in mind that despite the colors, it can be played for free if you run enough basics, but the colored symbols almost seem unnecessary, but do help if you play with a decent amount of nonbasics as well.
Limited 1/2
I have seen better mana fixing in limited and this is a pretty dead pick unless a player is really desperate (or missed the first batch of fixing).
Casual/Fun Card 3/5
ehhh, it fetches land.....not very fun, and sylan scrying, fertile ground, and rampant growth already exist in the format.
Polish 4.5/5
Bonus 2/2
Quality 3/3
-.5 Last line should be: "shuffle your library afterwards" EDIT: I was playing too much yu-gi-oh and apologize for making the above mistake.
Originality 1.5/4
Rakdos had some better cards that cared about having 0 cards (i.e Dread Slag, and there isn't too much of a twist here....
Flavor 1.5/4
When, I first saw the name, i thought that this card would be a sorcery or instant. I raised an eyebrow when i found out it was a creature. Honestly, not sure why it is a creature, or why it is the name it is. Same with blacker lotus, i do not like how this punishes the player who plays this card cheaper.....
Rare Smart? 1.5/2
Its an uncommon at best.
Development 7.5/10
Standard 1.5/3
I would like to compare this to demigod of revenge as you get its casting cost worth of power, plus flying and another ability (haste for demigod, trample for this one), although it lacks the ability to recur. It does have the potential to see play, but i personally have my bet on Malfegor seeing play before this does. The 1 less to play doesn't really affect the playability of this card at all.
Limited 2/2
This card could still be casted at 4-6 and playable as a bomb in limited.
Casual/Fun Card 4/5
Creature that could make a timmy very happy, but their are bombier rares out there than this....
Polish 4.5/5
Bonus 2/2
Quality 3/3
-.5 Neither in your render, nor text do i see "affinity" EDIT: I missed the conversation as to what you had posted was fine.
Originality 2.5/4
Poison and azorious mechanics really don't mix, but i like the creation that came out of it...
Flavor 3.25/4
A horrid creature that is dangerous just to be around. It is feared by all, but i feel that it should punish creatures a little bit. Since we are mixing diffrent block mechanics anyway, wither or deathtouch may have been a nice touch instead or in addition to fear.
Rare Smart? 2/2
Development 7.25/10
Standard 1.75/3
This card is very meta dependant and justding from some of the other cards, may find a home if poison gets good. I do find it a bit amusing that you can force a draw if it forecasts 10 turns =). Works well in muiltiples..
Limited 1.5/2
Again, meta dependant, but may be a top draw as it forces poison counters..
Casual/Fun Card 4/5
While killing other players has its fun, this seems like it would be a heck on a mana investment just to get ahead by a single poison counter..
Oh and one quick thing about how i will consider judging:
If i feel that your card may be awful in this current standard (LRW, SHA, and ALA), but your card would be great in legacy or vintage, i will apply my 4 points in standard towards seeing its impact in one of the above formats. Cards that i would do this for would probably be cards like Tezzeret where he isn't played in standard or legacy, but heavily played in vintage, and a bit in extended.
Sorry, this is my first competition, and I've never judged before.
But I can't see the connection between constructed-format impact, and how good the design is. I think many of the best-designed cards are sub-par for constructed.
Just my two cents.
Design
Creativity /4
Is this a unique solution to constraints that shows cleverness and individuality? This is inherently difficult to read, and is much easier to say where it isn't than where it is. Full marks in this category would be next to impossible to get from me.
Elegance /3
Does the card accomplish much mechanically without much text? Does the flavor pop out with more story than the lines of text on the card? It is simple to get full marks in this; much more difficult to get full marks in this and good marks in other areas of design.
Identity /3
Does this card make sense in some context? I do have to imagine the context, yes, but that tends to work in your favor. This includes whether or not the rarity fits and how sensical the mechanics are (not, mind you, whether the mechanics explicitly function). If I can't imagine any realistic setting where the card could work, expect a 0 here. For most cards this is an easy 3.
Development
Viability /4
Will the mechanics on the card follow the existing rules of magic, or otherwise create logical, functional new ones? Not much wiggle room on this one.
Balance /3
You all know what this means. A card does not need to be playable in competitive Magic to get full marks here.
Execution /3
How is the card as a total package? I didn't want to call this "flavor" as the flavor factors in strongly here and partially elsewhere. You can think of this as flavor if you like, though.
Polish /5
Two of these points (I presume) will always be for the bonus, and from there I have three points to mince about concerning whether you made any spelling errors, typos, or general omissions. I will allow some "-0" stuff to creep in here if I think the existing feature in question is minor enough to ignore, but meaningful enough to call attention to. Those may turn into real minuses in later rounds, and often concern very easy-to-fix things.
This is easily the most convoluted giant growth I have ever seen. Except it is rather more than that, so let's get cracking.
Design
Creativity 2/4
Green has a hefty pedigree of sorceries that make tokens, and more recently, token-making spells have been able to make french vanilla dudes. While this exact form has yet to be trod upon, it is an entirely safe design. Both green and white get spells that make the little dudes, and both get exalted, so there you have it.
Elegance 2.5/3
I had a hard time initially thinking of anything with 8 lines of text as "elegant," and yet, there's not exactly anything with the versatility that this offers. It is, at times, a Spectral Procession, a Divine Transformation, a Holy Day. Where this wins out in elegance is its ability to play into itself; even if you pay full price for the first one, it is unlikely that you'll have to do so for the second one.
Identity 2.5/3
This clearly fits in some imagined Alara setting, really at any point in the sequence of shards coming together or breaking apart. I could easily see this as the Bant member of a cycle of affinity for shard keywords, or as a hole-filler for a set that needs an uncommon token maker.
Development
Viability 4/4
This is where the safe play gets you points. Affinity could work this way exactly. Token producers work this way exactly. You may have even been able to stretch the affinity line to read "Affinity for exalted" and really reward deckbuilders looking to make their exalted deck tick.
Balance 3/3
At full price, this would be playable in a limited environment. At five, with an Akrasan Squire on the board, say, this looks like a better version of a lot of other spells. At four, I could see this in extended Bant off the back of two Noble Heirarchs. Much beyond that we're getting into scarily-board-commited territory where you may walk into a Pyroclasm at your peril, and manifestly the opponent would be getting more milage out of their two mana sorcery than you did with yours. Scrupulously balanced, I'd say, moreso for the fact that you didn't allow it to get cheaper from non-creatures. Full marks.
Execution 1/3
This is where the card is weakest. The name is a slave to the mechanics of the card, rather than a keen interpretation of them. The flavor text is a watery soup: the words of a nameless fallen knight, presumably fallen because he was sitting on the sidelines taking notes (is that how someone has exalted adds a bonus maybe?) rather than fighting, making a journal of every random thought that pops into his soon-to-be-bashed-in head. I can imagine there are knights in Bant who think this way, even some of them who take notes or die trying. Even if they earn a sigil, they don't earn a memorial in flavor text on a Magic card.
Polish 4/5
It is multicolored, and 6 is less than or equal to 6. Full bonus.
Top line is clean, illustration fits, type line and set symbol is fine.
-0 Your copyright info is a little outdated. Check out JqlGirl's post or any card from ARB.
-0.5 You have a line break between the quote and the attribution line that shouldn't be there. You can do a shift-enter in MSE instead of an enter to get rid of that (awful habit of MSE if you ask me).
-0.5 I feel the word "elves" should be no more capitalized than the word "humans."
Total:19/25
Die planet! DIE!
Design
Creativity 2.5/4
I'm sure the day will come when red finally gets to have creatively designed cards and mechanics that aren't burn. Or maybe it never will. This card is simply more red than any of them, as the only thing more red than an uncounterable Flame Wave for 9 would be kicker'd Molten Disaster for 10, which oddly costs the same on the front end. You get half of your points here for the sheer hugeness of this effect, the same marks I would give Shivan Meteor, for instance. The rest comes from the sweet Future Sight smell I get from the blending of Affinity and Chroma mechanics. That is rather clever.
Elegance 2.5/3
I find myself according elegance to the oddest things (in this case an elegant explosion). And yet, you count up each R on your board, tap your mountains for the rest, and then Flame Wave the other guy for 9. The whole package uses maybe five lines of text, and that's a rarity in this contest. Less-than-perfect score because of the brain damage you're likely to cause when people read "Chroma -- Affinity..." for the first time.
Identity 3/3
For this round, I imagine Affinity as fitting in any setting. Chroma, however, can only really show up in a hybrid block. You can expect to see Demigods and Primalcruxen in such a setting, and as such, this can't really be the poster-child of such a set, as splashy as it is. Rare fits for this. I would accept this at Mythic (I know others who wouldn't). It probably isn't part of a cycle, being the big burn spell of the set, probably the block, possibly the format. This is perfect for that.
Development
Viability 3.5/4
We're giving affinity a little stretching room for this round. I'm pretty sure this wouldn't explicitly work, but it isn't far off, either. The difference is between counting objects you have versus counting properties of those objects. The other stretch is whether or not players would accept something with 12 in the mana cost, but hell, there's Blinkmoth Infusion already so clearly I have no room to complain about this card, and you get full marks. I will note that whatever you lost from creativity works in your favor here, as the spell's effect is entirely safe.
Ah, make that almost full marks. Spells that have targets can be countered by the game rules as well as by other spells, so it should read "can't be countered by spells or abilities," or else some really weird stuff happens when someone casts Gilded Light in response to this.
Balance 0/3
Here's the 'cracker of this particular card. At full price, this is almost playable. A Lavalanche for 9 would cost you 12, and for one more mana here it's uncounterable. That's a fair cost. This doesn't scale the way an X spell would...except it does scale down. If you've committed a few Boggart Ram-Gangs then we're almost in Lava Axe territory. That worries me. If you play Demigod of Revenge and he fetches one buddy, you get this spell for 2R, and if he fetches two buddies you get this for R. I grant you that if you're swinging with three Demigods you probably don't need another spell in a duel, but multiplayer? I'm not worried about the Johnny who Mirrorweaves his Kher Keep tokens into Blood Knights so he can Flame Wave on the cheap. But getting this spell for R thanks to the work of a single card without really any other juking is way beyond the pale.
Execution 2.5/3
Good execution. I'm taking off half a point for the coupling of the "th" and "sh" in the name. I think those kids should be kept a hyphen's length away from each other.
The rest of it is simply a spicy meatball. Gorgeous. And an actual Chandra quote to boot, one that I could see fitting on no other card. Except that Chandra knows a boom that's exactly one damage bigger? Oh well. Can't have mere mortal players slinging around greater burn spells than Chandra, now can we?
Polish 1/5
Is not multicolored, and is not 6 cmc or less. No bonus points.
-1 Missing the card type scraps a point. I pretended this was a sorcery for the rest of the discussion. I could have even sworn that I saw the word somewhere there, alas no.
-1 All the small things, each little thing. The word "cannot" should be "can't." The double hyphen should be an em dash or other dash (you may borrow this em dash {—}). And in this case the words "all creatures" should be "each creature." It can be difficult to decide between "all" and "each," but in your case, there are three high-profile examples to pull from. Finally, you're missing quote marks around the quote from Chandra.
Total: 15/25
Can't wait for the set this comes in, as long as it's in a cycle with Fair Play.
Design
Creativity 3/4
A five mana sorcery kill spell is nothing new at uncommon. There's one in every set, usually at 3BB. From there we have elements of elvish-ness, -1/-1 counters, and lifegain. To wit, Eyeblight's Ending, Cone of You Lose Target Two-Headed Giant Game, and Weed Strangle. All trod upon. None quite the same way. That's pretty much what I expect of cards in the MCC, meaning you get "B" marks.
Elegance 1.5/3
I'm sure there's a way to streamline this effect. Black gets damage to creatures sometimes, so maybe do it that way and give the spell Wither? Within your wording, you could say "up to 3" and have next door to the same function (who would choose zero creatures?) and save a little mental space. As for the elegance of the design: more elves makes it easier to poison guys, check. The poison is crippling, check. You eat them when they die and they're tasty...erm. Zuh? It feels like an arranged marriage of the "kill some guys" spell and the "gain life when guys die" spell. Would have been more elegant to simply say "You gain 6 life" on it, and be very little different.
(Edit: I hadn't considered the "one, two, or three" wording precedent in Shambling Swarm. I don't feel I took off points for that wording explicitly, but some of what I said here implies that it is an incorrect wording. It is a functional and correct wording.)
Identity 2/3
Not bad not bad. Elves are BG in Lorwyn, also tribal there. Enrya being a Dark Elf means this isn't explicitly Lorwyn, but clearly we're in some tribal setting like it, enough to support the creature type on the sorcery. Also -1/-1 counters are a theme here (which was almost Lorwyn itself, by the way). This is all known stuff and a doable setting, so you're fine there. As far as making limited function, the 3BB kill spell really should use the word "destroy." What you get for spending that much to kill something is the certainty that you're ripping its heart out, so really this is trying to be more of a Nameless Inversion or Last Gasp, each of which really wants to be a common, and an instant, and much simpler, so you've missed the mark a little. Doesn't quite fit.
Development
Viability 2/4
The only subtype that a sorcery gets is "Arcane," and I know you're going to kick yourself for this, but missing the word "Tribal" on the type line is the difference between this being a functional card and not. For all other considerations I'm thinking of it as being a Tribal Sorcery, but here you're losing points for the clear mistake.
As for the abilities, the word "distribute" is actually fine to print even though I was complaining earlier about saying "put" or "damage"+wither and so on. The second sentence is a little shakier. As phrased it is a replacement effect that replaces an event with...you never say. Another judge might consider this a polish point, changing "would be" to "is" and stratching off the "in," but for the sake of a possible lingering "instead" that I keep hearing at the end of that sentence, I need to take off points here. I'm sure you didn't mean to replace binning a creature with lifegain, but you almost did so (hint: never do this).
The heart of this card is actually a fine and printable spell, and for that you get halfway there.
Balance 3/3
Conditional, sorcery speed kill with conditional upside and conditional cost reduction. Okay, enough constraints! Highly balanced (maybe even too much). I've stuck you for the complexity of the effect elsewhere. The resulting balance is A-OK.
Execution 2/3
Complexity by contrast is your worst enemy here. There are certainly options to simplify this card, and you're aching to use them so you can fit the flavor text properly in place. The name is fine (better than fine, honestly), and while the flavor text is fitting, even the same idea could be much more terse (and save yourself some space, thus). Incidentally, I don't know which old falbes Enrya reads, but the ones I read are nowhere near as interesting as watching someone die from my poisons. Clever and fitting illustration: who is to say those aren't elf ears under the turban?
Polish 3.5/5
Is multicolored, and is 6 cmc or less. Full Bonus.
-1 Attribution needs the em dash and it's own line. Yes this would bump you to 9 lines. Yes that is too many. Yes that is a constraint to be worked around.
-0.5 For the things I mentioned in Viability. Some of that goes here, too, as a little spruce wording is called for that simply didn't come through. This includes mistakenly leaving Tribal off.
Total:17/25
The hungerborne identity: Matt Damon stars as a 40ft. monster hungry for his friends' flesh.
Design
Creativity 2.5/4
The implicit safety of this card's design belies the subtle game it will have you play. No one wants to play it and get a Gray Ogre. And no one really wants to wipe their board for any reason. But Hungerborne Thoctar asks a rather compelling question with two simple abilities: wanna get huge?
Elegance 3/3
More guys makes him cheaper. More guys makes him bigger. Get guys, get pumped! You just can't get much more elegant than this. The Thoctar certainly creates a more complex gameplay state than he reads.
Identity 2/3
A fine flavor fit for the reborn alara. As far as having a Thoctar (Nayan Gargantuan) with devour (Jund cycle of life mechanic) you maybe could have picked off the black mana symbol from that cost to show more of the Jund-Naya overlap. It isn't too hard to imagine Jund having Thoctars of its own, though, and this would be a poster child of them if it did indeed have any. The point you're missing is for the fact that I don't know where this fits in limited, because I don't know what rarity you want it to be. My guess is common or uncommon. Either is justifiable. But I can't put it into the set for you and then judge on what I think.
Development
Viability 3.5/4
Safe design means everything is just plain going to work. I couldn't imagine this seeing print with no flavor text, though. You've purchased yourself a comparative novel's worth without making a strictly french vanilla guy.
Balance 3/3
I felt bad enough laying Gray Ogres on the field knowing they were going to Time Ebb someone else. This would be horrid beyond belief for the guy who's looking to peel his way back into the game with an empty board. Six mana 2/2? Gross.
The opposite extreme is clearly what you more had in mind when you were setting a cost (well, and the round bonus I guess). A BRG 8/8 who eats your board is powerful, but also dangerous. Sure, maybe you only ate a Spectral Procession (-1 card) or a couple Faerie tokens (-3 life), but this guy had some added investment in him: even as an 8/8 for 3, he isn't an 8/8 for 3. What I mean to say is that in the ideal play scenario, he is fair.
I guess I could go further and have him eat more than the three creatures he requires in order to reach his minimum cost, or discuss him as a means of leveling-up an outclassed Tattermunge Maniac, but the fact that I need to even consider these varied scenarios before I can say whether or not the balance is right probably means the balance is right. I was going to shave off a point or a half for him being too weak, but skip it. He's perfect. Any complaints I have with him I'll have to take to the Devour mechanic instead.
Execution 3/3
This is a fine example of execution of the idea "cheap dude gets huge." Having no room to wiggle about your phrasing means I have little else to say about it, save that the one can almost hear the word "delicious" between "for" and "creatures" in the affinity line.
Polish 3.5/5
Is multicolored, and is 6 cmc or less. Full Bonus.
-0.5 Superflous fullstop after the word "creatures." Look at any card with affinity for this.
-1 Rarity is missing.
-0 Really? No flavor text? None at all? Actually I can't justify requiring a card to have flavor text, so this time you get off with a stern finger-wagging. And for your consideration, something born of hunger could maybe have been a 0/0, and an elemental-beast for cross tribal synergy and more distinctive flavor, then juggle the numbers a bit and give it the flavor text "It is what it ate." Maybe I just want a Dracoplasm reprint.
Total: 20.5/25
Boy, what you don't know about the land of Everwar could fill one big book.
Design
Creativity 4/4
I cackled when I read "affinity for opponents," just be honest with yourself and pay the full 6 for him when you're goldfishing, yah? Or I guess when you're in some bizarre emperor variant. Combining safe design elements with new ones is the only way to full marks here (or if something completely new is somehow also completely reasonable). At any rate, the intent is clear: play this dude in multiplayer and attack each opponent with him every turn. Simply splendid.
Elegance 1/3
Having as many opponents never felt so good, eh? Okay, it also felt as good saying "plains, Soul Warden, go." What's missing from the equation is a simpler way of giving you all those extra combat phases and sending the everwarrior into everyone else's red zone. Or maybe scrapping the whole personal relentless assault thing altogether? As it stands it is rather clunky.
Identity 2/3
Any set can use legends, and at their heart, they're all multicolored (maybe I'm being too nostalgic with that claim). And legends with cool combat abilities will always be welcome. Putting extra phases on a creature, though, will only fit in a setting that has a lot to do with time. Delays, counters, time as a weapon, extra turns, extra phases. We've had that once and it was the poster child of complexity creep. But he does fit in that set, and anyway a creature will always be a welcome addition to the game of Magic. I'm guessing he fits in that set as mythic rare, given his type line, but you didn't say so I can't really know for sure.
Development
Viability 1.5/4
Oh dear. First, I want to put forth that I feel "affinity for opponents," while a little oxymoronic sounding, is perfectly viable, and may even appear—in spirit or in fact—on a real card someday.
This guy sorta wants to be Godo, Bandit Warlord, but more than that, he wants to be a Kusari-Gama that hits opponents. But he isn't either of those things: when do those phases you're getting happen exactly? Do the extra main phases also happen when you may expect? Could I take them all before my draw step instead? It doesn't say, and it would have to. What you have is a static ability that really needs to be a triggered one. I took a crack at changing it to a triggered one, and the resulting microtext was probably what made you change your mind when you were thinking this up. The point I'm making is that the ability can't exist because it requires all this extra language, and your viability score really suffers for it.
Balance 3/3
Considering the extra phases you get only allow Jonas to fight on, and considering he's only really cheap in the format where there's four or more other guys with possible kill spells for him, I'd say the balance is spot on. He'd be rather excellent in 2HG sealed, but not at all broken. Good work. I'm guessing he'd be nightmarish as an EDH general, but no more than Rafiq.
Execution 1.5/3
I'm guessing the "attacks each turn if able" line would have been pushing it, though it feels like he has that anyway. He just loves going to war, and his mechanics reflect that. The clumsy wording for the extra combat Jonas wants to go do costs you points here, too. A better execution may have been to simply crib off of Godo, or give him haste and Relentless Assault as a 187. There are cleaner ways of making a critter that scales to multiplayer.
Polish 3.5/5
Is multicolored, and is 6 cmc or less. Full Bonus.
-1 Rarity is missing.
-0.5 Superfluous fullstop after the word "opponents." Vigilance should be lower case. Already spoken my peace about the vaguery in the combat phase ability.
-0 Warning for microtext (any way I tried it).
Total: 16.5/25
Get outta my head, Charles!
Design
Creativity 4/4
What we have here is an abstract Lava Axe variant that...oh wait it says cards...hold on.
What we have here is an abstract Brainstorm variant. It isn't technically card draw, so isn't monoblue, and it isn't technically Mindmoil, so it isn't monored. It is a little familiar and a little out there at the same time. Full marks.
Elegance 2.5/3
When you finally realize what this spell does, you may be a little dissappointed. If you're name is Johnny, though, you may be really freaking pleased. The half point you're missing is for the disconnect between what a player initially expects of the spell and what he gets. He expects a six mana card drawing sorcery. He gets an offbeat cantrip. Also for making players do math (okay, yes, easy math, read on).
Identity 2/3
For something like this to appear at common, I would expect card drawing or hand manipulation to play a big part in the set. It is sophisticated enough for an uncommon. Enough that I'm calling mismatched rarity.
The name and illustration jive. The illustration freakishly well, as if it had been waiting 11 years to go on this exact card.
Development
Viability 3.5/4
This card carves out its own space in magic by having you shuffle the cards in rather than put them on the bottom. You could, in theory, end up exactly where you started, making this more of a minigame. What I don't like for the sake of viability here is the phrase "one cards" in English prose. I would reword this "Shuffle etc., then draw that many cards. Draw a card." to be in line with the cantrip theme of the block that you're in, and let's be honest, this is a glorified cantrip. My suggested revision would spare your players the math I griped about earlier.
In another dimension, maybe this should target a player instead? I feel this could be a much more interesting card if it could trip up a control deck who spent five turns sculpting her hand. That would also justify the bump to uncommon and make the cantrip version feel more natural. With that many tweaks, though, I'm talking about another card. So I'll end with viable, but not at common.
Balance 1/3
Honestly? A little weak. Almost "bad card" weak. Ideally, I have five cards in hand, then I cast this with my mountain and end up with a random six? Any other version of this scenario is downright daunting. Give Johhny a break, man. I don't wanna peel a six mana do-nothing cantrip, and can't imagine a player who does. I've already suggested some ways to fix this.
Execution 3/3
Without reading in any more of my own idea about the spell, your execution of your idea is excellent. Again kudos for the name and pic: cool stuff like this is what makes Magic popular. Anything I would take off here would involve the wording, and really I've sniped that away elsewhere already.
Polish 5/5
Is multicolored, and is 6 cmc or less. Full Bonus. Did I read the bonus criteria differently than everyone else? You're allowed the bonus with a cmc 5 card, you know. Or 0 for that matter, but I'd like to see you justify "affinity" on that.
Speaking of which: another judge may have cracked down on you for not using the word "affinity" in your text box. Under the current rules, your wording is more correct, and you have certainly kept to the spirit of the round, so I won't dock points. I'll even go as far as praising you for your perspicacity: satisfactory.
-0 This card really wants a one-liner. Also the copyright line is a little outdated: Wizards is an LLC now instead of an Inc
Total: 21/25
Ooh, I've got it: "Think again."
I accept 'dis charge with no moral reservation, nor mental evasion.
Design
Creativity 2/4
So it's a burn spell, but not exactly. It's a library manipulator, but not exactly. It's a targeted Aether Snap, but...you get where I'm going with this. This spell is trying to do too many things, and what you end up with is twins more painfully conjoined than Suffocating Blast, or more aptly, Prophetic Bolt. Your spell does care about counters in ways I haven't seen, and for that and for the sake of the half of this spell that is a good card trapped in there, you get half points here.
Elegance 1.5/3
Cheaper with more counters. Cares about counters. That's pretty good, but that's also where the elegance ends. Why do I scry X? Just for grins? Because the name is "mantic," or is the name that way because you wanted to tack on scry? I grant you that scry is an upside, but here it is taking away more than it is adding. Burying a potential spell target further down in the main ability is none too pleasing either, but we'll get to that later.
Identity 2.5/3
Clearly this belongs in a set where counters play a central role, either in a Mirrodin-like place or a setting that cares about time and using time as a resource (counters being an ideal way of keeping track of this). It could also make a Standard format overrun with planeswalkers a little more livable (or a little more Izzet-heavy depending).
And burn+upside doesn't need to work terribly hard to carve out a place for itself, so this spell is well identified on the whole, if a little oddly shaped.
Development
Viability 2/4
I have no problem with affinity for counters, ruleswise. We run into a snag with the second sentence of the second ability, where you've buried the word "target." It reads like a spell, but also like a spell with a triggered ability that triggers off of you resolving that spell. The second target word gives the spell as a whole a second target that depends on something happening to the first target earlier in the resolution of the spell, and the prospect frankly terrifies me. I had to go as far back as Chain Lightning to come up with something similar, only to find it errata'd out.
The problem is this: when you play a spell, you need to select all targets for it (if it has any). Okay, but with this wording, you would need to have knowledge that the game won't let you have in order to do that, so we have a dangling target, and I can't say for certain if your spell will resolve or not.
Balance 0.5/3
This is the closest I've yet seen to "destroy target planeswalker," and it cheerfully costs less to kill the other guy's 'walker if you have one of your own. If you're determined to play fair with this, then it is a fair card. A card's balance shouldn't hinge on the players' sense of fair play (outside of un-land), so I can imagine myself casting this for two mana targeting my own Dark Depths, stacking my next ten draws and dealing half of my opponent's life total in damage to him at the end of his turn 3. Then finishing the job with a Hidetsugu's Second Rite, or maybe simply bashing his brain in with an indestructable token. Even outside that somewhat circumstantial scenario, I get a huge discount on a rather weighty effect if I simply control two vivid lands? Or Mirrodin's Core. Or Gemstone Mine.
Execution 2/3
This is going to be difficult for me considering my substantial dislike of Wayne Reynold's illustration in general. Despite the fact that I hate it and the fact that it's lifted from World of Warcraft, it is a fitting piece of illustration for the effect, so I'll focus on that. The flavor text sounds like a page out of a spark mage owner's manual or nature documentary: mundane, lacking pizzaz.
Now to hope that my friend doesn't proxy this up for use in his Ambiguity deck. (shudders)
Polish 4/5
Is multicolored, and is 6 cmc or less. Full Bonus.
-1 Text card has reminder text that render does not.
Also a warning about including explanations with your card: I simply ignored you this time, and I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to include anything in the submission post except the card itself and links to illustrators and such. I'll ask the organizers about it later. I don't think I should take off any points for it, but I do want to discourage anyone else from doing it.
Total: 15.5/25
Overall this card feels like a slave to the bonus points.
Garbage Day!
Design
Creativity 4/4
Black and a horror, check. Devours the dead, check. This is the second card I've reviewed that wants to come into play and easily eat the things that helped it do so, and they actually combo curiously well, too. In a vacuum, I wouldn't be surprised to see this pop up in an actual set. It feels familiar but isn't quite anything else.
Elegance 3/3
At first I didn't like that it could remove any creature but only benefit from eating the robots. There isn't commonly call to exile your own dead guys, but for that sake of sometimes, I'll allow it. Especially because it paints a picture of this horror as eating indescriminantly from the garbage heaps, and growing more powerful from eating the stuff that the setting cares about. It tells a story without flavor text. Well done.
Identity 3/3
This is the finest way to allow black to care about artifacts. It feels right at home in Mirrodin, but could work in any setting that sports a higher-than usual overall robot count. An uncommon, topheavy black creature who plays a minigame with you feels fitting. Name, abilities, type, and cost all click.
Development
Viability 3.5/4
The affinity line is getting a little crowded, and you're bristling against Delve a little with this mechanic, but it all works no problem. I could also see a phrasing that goes "...from the game, and put a +1/+1 counter on ~ for each artifact creature card removed this way." It's practically the same thing and I can't think of a good reason to use one in place of the other. You may also have bumped the artifact creature restriction into the first half and then said "that many +1/+1 counters," altering the function almost not at all.
Balance 1.5/3
Sutured Ghoul comes to mind. As does Salvage Slasher. One the one hand, you may pay BB and get a 3/2. That's pretty good, but not broken. Then you eat your entire graveyard, and he gets to the 8/7 or 10/9 range without too much difficulty, and really, the sky's the limit. Ravager affinity can already pony up BB to equip Cranial Plating, and I fear the Extended-worthy robots would be more than happy to have Mephidross Abomination pick over the Ravager's leavings. Or Atog's leavings. Or the fallout of a Shattering Spree or better yet, Kataki, because Kataki can't bust this horror. It's just too easy to get this guy really huge without actually giving anything up (i.e. mana, life, cards in hand, or your board). Tombstalker is already very good, and this guy has the stones to possibly blow him right out. Half marks because while this isn't criminally busted, he's in the company of some very powerful cards without apologies (and because I would gladly take it all back when they print him and he goes into my own Ravager affinity deck).
Execution 3/3
Here's a guy who bulks up off of the thin fare of expired ornithopters and myr exoskeletons, weird as that is, it is equally cool, and as I said before, it tells a story even without flavor text (or room for any, I checked). The transparent attempt of putting beef on the board for cheap comes through with splendid execution, a whole that is more than the sum of his abilities.
Polish 4/5
Is not multicolored, and is 6 cmc or less. Half Bonus.
-0 Again could be done as one ability instead of linked abilities, but I'm sure enough that this works that I can't bring myself to take points off.
Total: 22/25
You guys are making me hungry with all these cards about eating.
Thanks for visiting the red zone, here is your complimentary humiliating burden.
Design
Creativity 2/4
Human creativity is one of the most difficult things to comprehend, let alone evaluate; so let me begin by saying how difficult this is for me to understand. You are doing something new, that is certain. It contains some familiar elements. I can't say what exactly it is doing, so I have no idea if it is doing it well, or successfully filling a hole in a set.
Elegance 1/3
Huge rare enchantments are already behind the curve for elegance, and this card doesn't make up the difference. The three abilities do not mesh, and actively fight each other for control of the card's intent: exalted wants you to fight with one guy, token armies want to rush, creatures you attack with don't want to get hosed by your own enchantment. The point that remains is in favor of some kind of deck that produces loads of token creatures with exalted, for which this is the sole support card.
Identity 0.5/3
The exalted ability is generic enough to tack onto things, and could exist at any rarity in pretty much any set. Tokens could one day be a big enough theme to have support cards all over the place, and this is one of those, at rare.
For the sake of it advertising many uses and only really having one, that is, ignoring the exalted thing and attacking with loads of 1/1 tokens that don't care about being 1/1 or losing abilities, all that built up identity is torn away. This card simply does not know what it wants.
Development
Viability 3/4
Each of these abilities works and could exist in a limited form together, certainly not all on the same card. The point I'm extracting here is for the fact that a real implementation of this card would have some way of keeping creatures from having loads and loads of penance counters piled up on them, sortof like how Aurafication worked. Until they implement the "strike" ability that allows creatures to deal combat damage, this enchantment isn't going to stop a humbled Progenitus from attacking you again and again for 1, making him seem something less than penitent, honestly.
Balance 1.5/3
Again, difficult to say whether or not this is performing at its best. The cheaper cost is easy to obtain, and it really needs to be cheap for as little as it is doing. We can already get exalted+random other cheap spell for about that cost, so in this case the extra is a mincing Propaganda effect. Oh and it may randomly be expensive. I am not inclined to cast Spectral Procession one turn and this the next, so the balance rests at half for the lack of "oomph."
Execution 3/3
Best part of the card. "You dare attack me? Apologize!" At some level, an enchantment that possibly casts humble on the entire board rocks, and if I can somehow get a dozen or so token copies of Tatterkite into play, then I have a deck that is the poem Hollow Men (warning, poetry). The illustration is exceptionally unique for a Magic card, and fits with the name and (one third of) the effect. Flavor text is a little wordy and loaded, but high-fantasy loves loaded, so that doesn't take away from the card. Any mechanical execution is points I've taken from elsewhere already.
Polish 3/5
Is multicolored, and is 6 cmc or less. Full Bonus.
-1 Render has reminder text that text card does not.
-1 Quote lacks attribution. Either this or you get the microtext penalty: I consider it the same polish point lost.
Total: 14/25
All the revisions I could recommend involve removing parts of this card.
The first fez-capped planeswalker I make will, thanks to you and this card, be named "Shriners of the Walk."
Design
Creativity 3.5/4
There is a brewing discontent among players who want more out of their walkers. Sick of seeing Chandra act like a six mana sorcery burn spell for one before eating a Rootgrapple. Indeed, players wish their walkers to work harder. Stop running from your charge! Stand and fight! For them, there is this and only one of this.
This card satisfies a need using the available tools of design. An engineer couldn't be more satisfied.
The half point off is for this not quite being a creative solution to the design criterion for the round.
Elegance 2/3
The whole package feels rather well assembled. Except that affinity feels shoved into place, bringing two other needless abilities along for the ride. Players as a rule don't like being told they can't do things, so every time you tell them that, there should be some significant upside in store. The upside you get here is a non-sequitur by comparison. Altogether dextrous application of rules-speak for the functional part of the card, though.
Identity 2.5/3
I honestly hope Alara is the closest we ever come to having a "planeswalker block." As a card that cares about walkers in two dimensions, this still doesn't necessarily need to be in a planeswalker block to be any good. Man would I hate to open it in my first draft pack, but that's not where this belongs. It belongs to Timmy for the added fun it will give him, and Johhny (a little less so) for the rules it lets him bend. Finely crafted identity, flavor and all. Half a point off for rarity: I usually don't mince between rare and mythic rare, but a legendary enchantment that supports planeswalkers is about as textbook mythic as you can get.
Development
Viability 3/4
This card stretches what I feel is viable as a printed card in two ways. First, the more common way of setting a card's colors and restricting the number of mana of some color you may pay to play it is to simply give it a casting cost that includes the number of mana symbols you require. This is no good for affinity unless you're the Reaper King, and I don't blame you for not wanting to step on that mana cost either. Each line technically works, but it really wants to be a WUBRG and scratch the affinity line altogether.
Second, saying the word "planeswalker" three times in the text box feels like pushing it. You know how a word starts to lose its meaning when you say it a bunch? We don't want that to happen to "planeswalker." So a half point for each stretch.
Balance 2/3
Well, I was all set to call it a strictly worse Rings of Brighthearth and move on, but that wouldn't be a fair and complete consideration, and it would be downright clumsy of me to stop that habit now, so short of the finish line. If you actually control five planeswalkers, getting this thing for free shouldn't make a damn bit of difference in the outcome of the game: you have all the power rangers on your side, you can't stop whatever megazord they form anyway. You're safe from being a busted card. On the other hand, I can only get one of these in play without a dirty trick, at which point I have to wait a turn to get a second untap out of Garruk or whatever. The balance comes with the same incrimental cadence that all the walkers have, and different vulnerabilities. This feels not nearly good enough for a card with as much built-in granduer and reverence.
Execution 2/3
The other half of what I was saying about the mana cost and superfluous abilities factors in here. You eschewed a direct means for the sake of satisfying the round requirement. That probably means it was the wrong design for the round. In this case it also gets in the way of the (rather good) flavor of the card, too. The other good part of this whole idea is how you've executed the design of "copy target planeswalker" in a more subtle way than I had previously imagined possible.
Polish 4.5/5
Is (sneakily) multicolored, and is 6 cmc or less. Full Bonus.
-0.5 Planeswalker is a card type and not a proper name: no caps.
Total: 19.5/25
How many other ways might you say "copy target planeswalker" I wonder?
I hope I left enough time for everyone to air out complaints. I have to muse about the curious synergies present among some of the cards in my bracket here, almost as if planned.
mstieler 22
Kenaron 21
Saproking 20.5
Nevhir 19.5
snoopYah 19
MotionPicture13 17
Jimmy Groove 16.5
Kev the Walker 15.5
a-slice-of-cake 15
Catarax 14
Design 7/10
Originality 2.5/4
Reanimation has bee done before. Goblin Silliness has been done before. A interesting twist on both though
Flavor 2.5/4
Vestige means a very small amount, or the little remains of a sample. To me, while your card does grab the deadly remains, it seems like your have quite a large remainder or goblins leftover. Random or not.
Rare Smart? 2/2
Good spot though for a reincarnation spell.
Development 8.25/10
Standard 2.25/3
Without the affinity, it is a Debtors' Knell for 1 less, but can only grab goblins, randomly... But throw in the affinity, we now have a very cost effective recursion spell. I believe the draw back of being random, only targeting goblins, justifies its strength. I think it may be a little bit on the strongside, however.
Limited 1.5/2
Depends on the block, but this would not be a very good pick unless you had goblins galore. That being said, very few sets have a lot of decent goblins to choose from (not including Legions :))
Casual/Fun Card 4.5/5
Randomness is something that has fun written all over it. Way to think of the casual golbin player out there.
Polish 4.5/5
Bonus 2/2
Yep.
Quality 2.5/3
Instead of using put a creature card, i would have chosen "return target Goblin creature card at random" At least, that's what i am think you mean. Random still means the target needs to be announced before the opponent receives priority.
TOTAL SCORE 19.75/25
blacker_lotus
Design 6/10
Originality 2.5/4
Affinity for power? Sounds cool. Wither and First strike is not a common thing, but a potient one.
Flavor 2/4
Seems very self-explanatory. A horror that feeds on failure and mistakes. Not unheard of, but very unique. What I don't like here is that while affinity should not necessarily come with a bonus, it should not punish a player who pays less with a weaker creature. While you are not the only one to do this, it is a miss for me, and i had to take a point and a half here.
Rare Smart? 1.5/2
This seems like uncommon at best, both for its ability, and its overall strength.
Development 7.5/10
Standard 2.5/3
While the spell itself may not be played very often, the fact that you can discard it from your hand to play, OR play it when needed is a helpful ability. As stated about, getting first strike and wither is very useful as a combat trick.
Limited 2/2
Again, has the power to be bomby, high pick, in some cases, even if your not those colors..
Casual/Fun Card 3/5
It has a unique power, but again, people who try and maximize the affinity shouldn't get a lesser creature, so to speak...
Polish 3.5/5
Bonus 2/2
Quality 1.5/3
-.5 Your card has two names: Failure Harvester, and Reaper of the Lonely Blade
-.5 "Discard" should be capitalized.
-.5 In flavor text, it would make more sense to used the word "failure" instead of "fails"
TOTAL SCORE 17/25
DarienCR
Design 5.75/10
Originality 1.5/4
ehhh, dragon that destroys other creatures in white and black...Needs a bit more...
Flavor 2.25/4
I feel like i am missing a portion of the story here. My guess would be that this dragon is hungry and can be lured to you easiar if you have a lot of snow territory. The drawback is if that the opponent does not have enough feed, he will snack on your creatures, if not, himself. White black dragons are rare, even in snow enviorments. This also feels like it should be legendary and that the dragon, itself, should be a snow permenant.
Rare Smart? 2/2
Oh yes...
Development 8/10
Standard 1.5/3
Rare occasion, but, you lose points for this being too strong (usally, the card is too weak). With snow covered lands playing white black, 95% of the time, you get a cheaper Wrath of God or Damnation if you prefer. There is even a chance that it can act like an even better removal spell if both you and your opponent have lots of creatures. Needs another colored mana in there....
Limited 1.5/2
As wrath effects are rare, and cheap wraths even rarer, this would be a guarenteed 1st-3rd pick, reguardless of color(s).
Casual/Fun Card 5/5
Yes, yes, GOD YES. Winter Dragons are always fun, especially when they don't ruin the fun by being red, like Rimescale Dragon.
Polish 5/5
Bonus 2/2
Quality 3/3
TOTAL SCORE 18.75/25
KrtZer0
Design 5.5/10
Originality 1.5/4
I will flat out say it, Elspeth. In white and blue and unblockable instead of angelic blessing. Even her loyalties pumps and cost of ultimate are the same.
Flavor 2/4
She looks like she belongs in Lord of the Rings, but she is a creator of life. Her abilities, and just her affinity in general seem to lean her more towards green than blue. Even her artwork scream forest elf. I also don't like how her ailities kind of contradict each other. She supports tokens, but you need regular, nontoken permenants to make her ulti any good.
Rare Smart? 1.5/2
Acording to Wizards, all planewalkers are considered Mythic Rare...
Development 9.5/10
Standard/Legacy 3/3
This definitly replaces Elspeth in Landstill and may convince stax players to splash blue. In standard, BW tokens might add a color just for the ublockable clause. The affinity isn't even necessary, but definitly is something that could be abused.
Limited 1.5/2
High pick just for the planeswalker clause, and the realization that she is a win condition all on her own...
Casual/Fun Card 5/5
Although her tokens swing to the spike, her ability to be played cheaper and create masses of unblockable tokens will please all table players alike.
Polish 4/5
Bonus 2/2
Quality 2/3
-.5 "Soldier" should be capatalized.
-.5 it should read in the first ability: "token creatures you control..." or All token creatures are....
TOTAL SCORE 19/25
MazerPriest
Design 5.5/10
Originality 1/4
This feels like an almost exact replica of Enlisted Wurm. THe fact that it would have affinity for each colors allies is the only twist.
Flavor 2.5/4
While your story implies that this gargantuam would be against the green force here, and not be cheaper to cost if it has green creatures. This also looks like a diffrent world in your render than naya...
Rare Smart? 2/2
Yep, uncommon level.
Development 6.5/10
Standard 1.5/3
This can be really redonkolous. Cascade wurm was decent, but this blows it right out the flippin window. In a very likely case with nayans, you can have 4 creatures, cast this, and then get a spell that costs 5. Cascade spells are usally bad on their own, but get a power boost from having the keyword cascade on them. Your card would be the awesome, at uncommon level, or even rare level, even if it didn't have cascade.
Limited 1/2
Assuming that this is still shards limited, this would be a first pick draft, reguardless of colors. Too good to passup if nayan, and too good to let anyone else have it if your not...
Casual/Fun Card 4/5
Cascade will always be a fun spell, but in terms of casual players, this feel a bit on the bland side..
Polish 4.5/5
Bonus 2/2
Quality 2.5/3
-.5 Any card with a nongeneric keyword should have reminder text if the rarity is less than rare...
TOTAL SCORE 16.5/25
mitooo
Design 7.75/10
Originality 3/4
This is the fsecond time i have seen a creature morph into a planeswalker, (the first being in the form of a split card planeswalker) and it has a uniqueness value all its own.
Flavor 2.75/4
The planeswalker giving rampage is ok, but i think trample or even haste would have been more appropriate. Also, a berserker that would care about creatures with a legendary status does not make a whole lot of sense to me.
Rare Smart? 2/2
You have Mythic in the text version, but i will deduct in quality since render has rare symbol.
Development 5/10
Standard .5/3
I think this may have been overlooked, but the way it is worded, there is nothing wrong with paying 0 for X and getting a 3/4 with haste for RG. Who cares about the fact that it can morph into a planeswalker, it can just beat face as creature. As a planeswalker, his ulti being an exact copy of Savage Frenzy Seems like a disappointment as a planeswalker's best trick...
Limited 1/2
For the same reasons stated above, way too overpowerd for what it does. 1st pick, reguardless, may even change the colors of whoever grabs it in a draft
Casual/Fun Card 3.5/5
Being a planeswalker and a creature, sure would be fun, but this may be offset due to how wordy the card is. I do realize that is the price of turning into a completely new card type, but i still feel the it could have been less wordy for what it does.
Polish 4/5
Bonus 2/2
Quality 2/3
-.5 First line, haste should have its own line after affinity.
-.5 Rarities don't match from text and render.
TOTAL SCORE 16.75/25
MtGColorPie
Design 7.25/10
Originality 2.75/4
The concept of an elvish champion has been seen before, but nice new twist on abilities.
Flavor 2.5/4
Your name is kind of ironic, but drawing cards is in neither green or red, so i don't like the first ability. The second ability has the potential to be really good, but this seems ok just playing, even if you have no other elf warriors since this will still trigger for itself.
Rare Smart? 2/2
Good here
Development 8.75/10
Standard 2.25/3
In the current standard, i think this would create the green/red warrior deck that we have all been working on so greatly. Even though the card drawing puts it a little over the top, it may over set on how fragile elfs and a good portion of the warriors are. The fact that it can cost two less if you control an elf warrior, such as Wren's Run Vanquisher may put it a bit over the edge. For 3 mana, you get a 2/2, 2 cards and a shock
Limited 2/2
Good balance here. 1st-9th pick depending on the build and what has been opened.
Casual/Fun Card 4.5/5
Another fun toy to play with in casual elf decks. Elves will always have a place in my heart, but will have to get in line behind merfolk :))
Polish 5/5
Bonus 2/2
Quality 3/3
No issues.
TOTAL SCORE 21/25
Technomagus
Design 6.75/10
Originality 1.5/4
Another Rampant Growth variant. A bit of a twist in affinity and the hybrids, but nothing too special
Flavor 3.5/4
Simple enough to follow, an eager fellow that searches for new villages/cities, and has more expirence if you control more basics. Little flavor goes a long way. I do like that it can find nonbasics, but i think that flavorwise, it should stick to basics...
Rare Smart? 1.75/2
I think it should be at common level, but considering Sylan Scrying is an uncommon, i won't penalize as hard.
Development 6.25/10
Standard 2.25/3
At uncommon level, this feels like a rampant growth that gets better late game, when usually, it should be the other way around. I do keep in mind that despite the colors, it can be played for free if you run enough basics, but the colored symbols almost seem unnecessary, but do help if you play with a decent amount of nonbasics as well.
Limited 1/2
I have seen better mana fixing in limited and this is a pretty dead pick unless a player is really desperate (or missed the first batch of fixing).
Casual/Fun Card 3/5
ehhh, it fetches land.....not very fun, and sylan scrying, fertile ground, and rampant growth already exist in the format.
Polish 4.5/5
Bonus 2/2
Quality 3/3
-.5 Last line should be: "shuffle your library afterwards"
EDIT: I was playing too much yu-gi-oh and apologize for making the above mistake.
TOTAL SCORE 18/25
The letter 3
Design 4.5/10
Originality 1.5/4
Rakdos had some better cards that cared about having 0 cards (i.e Dread Slag, and there isn't too much of a twist here....
Flavor 1.5/4
When, I first saw the name, i thought that this card would be a sorcery or instant. I raised an eyebrow when i found out it was a creature. Honestly, not sure why it is a creature, or why it is the name it is. Same with blacker lotus, i do not like how this punishes the player who plays this card cheaper.....
Rare Smart? 1.5/2
Its an uncommon at best.
Development 7.5/10
Standard 1.5/3
I would like to compare this to demigod of revenge as you get its casting cost worth of power, plus flying and another ability (haste for demigod, trample for this one), although it lacks the ability to recur. It does have the potential to see play, but i personally have my bet on Malfegor seeing play before this does. The 1 less to play doesn't really affect the playability of this card at all.
Limited 2/2
This card could still be casted at 4-6 and playable as a bomb in limited.
Casual/Fun Card 4/5
Creature that could make a timmy very happy, but their are bombier rares out there than this....
Polish 4.5/5
Bonus 2/2
Quality 3/3
-.5 Neither in your render, nor text do i see "affinity"
EDIT: I missed the conversation as to what you had posted was fine.
TOTAL SCORE 17/25
Vexhel
Design 7.75/10
Originality 2.5/4
Poison and azorious mechanics really don't mix, but i like the creation that came out of it...
Flavor 3.25/4
A horrid creature that is dangerous just to be around. It is feared by all, but i feel that it should punish creatures a little bit. Since we are mixing diffrent block mechanics anyway, wither or deathtouch may have been a nice touch instead or in addition to fear.
Rare Smart? 2/2
Development 7.25/10
Standard 1.75/3
This card is very meta dependant and justding from some of the other cards, may find a home if poison gets good. I do find it a bit amusing that you can force a draw if it forecasts 10 turns =). Works well in muiltiples..
Limited 1.5/2
Again, meta dependant, but may be a top draw as it forces poison counters..
Casual/Fun Card 4/5
While killing other players has its fun, this seems like it would be a heck on a mana investment just to get ahead by a single poison counter..
Polish 5/5
Bonus 2/2
Quality 3/3
TOTAL SCORE 20/25
Moving On
Vexhel
KrtZer0
Azhur
Oh and one quick thing about how i will consider judging:
If i feel that your card may be awful in this current standard (LRW, SHA, and ALA), but your card would be great in legacy or vintage, i will apply my 4 points in standard towards seeing its impact in one of the above formats. Cards that i would do this for would probably be cards like Tezzeret where he isn't played in standard or legacy, but heavily played in vintage, and a bit in extended.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
But I can't see the connection between constructed-format impact, and how good the design is. I think many of the best-designed cards are sub-par for constructed.
Just my two cents.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=504072
Hanna, Ship's Navigator - WU Enchantments Control
Wort, the Raidmother - RG Copy ALL the Spells!
Rakdos, Lord of Riots - BR Group Murder-Hug
Reaper King - WUBRG Token Copies
Shirei, Shizo's Caretaker - B Sacrifice Engine
Grenzo, Dungeon Warden - BR Randomized Toolbox
Karametra, God of Harvests - GW Ramp