0.5 for each psychographic? Yes, I can see it but it makes 1.5, not 1. If it's 0.5 for each of only two of the psychographics, I'd probably specify which two.Appeal ... 1/3 (0.5 for each)
I think this belongs in Flavor, not Elegance. Elegance is more about the card from a holistic point of view.Elegance ... It's a Legendary Orc ... I don't get it.
This also makes 1.5, not 1. Anyway, it's not wrong, but you're not required to list all the specific reasons when you give the points. What you said for the specific point of the rubric (pun unintended) should be enough. But don't misunderstand me, I love the detailed explanations you give so far. I hope it continues. Let's go on.Elegance ... 1/3 (0.5 for Glitterblade + Treasure being a connection, 0.5 for good generic orc name, 0.5 for double strike and the name blade going together.)
It's just a detail, but subtypes should be always capitalized. As I always say to all judges on my months, let's not make the same mistakes we're supposed to punish (in Quality in this case).Development ... they are almost always god creatures
Power level is more of a Balance issue. Also, they look like ordinary keywords to me. "Incredibly powerful" almost looks like marketing speech to create hype during preview season to me. They're powerful if the card they are on is, not inherently by themselves. Only my thoughts, of course. Mana cost counts a lot here, but for Balance, not Viability.Viability ... incredibly powerful keywords
All this belongs in Balance, not Viability, but again, I love the details.Wotc usually never puts double strike, indestructible, and haste together (if ever) because such creatures would be overpowered and tacky. Even just two of these three keywords on creature might be unacceptable for power reasons, even if they are dependent on the player possessing a Treasure.
Nothing to say about Balance, it's good to me. A full zero might be a little too harsh but I can't say you don't justify it. The only thing I can say is that I like to specifically mention how the card does in different formats (limited, Standard, Modern, multiplayer, etc...), but it's not mandatory, and every judge has their own way to look at things.
Uniqueness is good too to me.
Flavor too, but as I said before, things you say in Elegance belong here. I'd also mention the lack of flavor text and I'd check in MSE to see if there is room for it or not. If there is room, the absence of flavor text is a problem here. If there is no room, it's not a problem instead.
Wordiness belongs in Elegance, not here unless it's microtext. Again, always check cards you judge in MSE. I consider the limit for small font ten lines plus two breaks (Animate Dead|Eternal Masters in EMA).Quality - No big issues, just a little wordy in a couple places.
There is one Quality mistake you didn't notice. I'd like you to guess what it is rather than telling you explicitly here. Hint: it's a very common mistake that you see often in custom cards, but that doesn't make it less of a mistake. It's right before your eyes, and I've kinda already hinted at it before right here in these comments. What is it?
I count 10.5 if you give 1/3 in Appeal and Elegance, or 11.5 if you give 1.5/3 in both of those. Always double check the math if you do it yourself, or let Excel or your favorite spreadsheet program do it for you (like I usually do). Anyway, it's a really low score.Total: 10/25
Overall, I love the detail here, even if there are a few comments in wrong places. If it depended on me, I'd probably accept your sample judgment provided that you pay attention to writing the right things in the right points for real judgments. I'd also really like for you to at least find the one Quality mistake you missed. If you have any questions, you know where to find me. If you need an in-depth explanation of the rubric or any other aspect of the contest, check the guidelines. I wrote the document and void_nothing approved it as moderator. Link in my signature.