September MCC, Round 1: The Monster Rises
I dropped out of the competition to judge this month. @void_nothing took the time to judge my submission anyway.
JUDGMENTS ARE DONE
slimytrout
Show
Hide
Design
(2.5/3) Appeal – Timmy probably isn't enthused by sacrificing a creature for +1 power. Johnny loves this for graveyard/sacrifice shenanigans. Spike likes seeing a recursive presence on the board.
(3/3) Elegance – Perfectly legible.
Development
(3/3) Viability – This enables a fun little sacrifice archetype and fits well as a signpost uncommon, and definitely belongs in the golgari side of the color pie.
(2.5/3) Balance – This is a card whose power fluctuates depending on how it interacts with other cards in a set. It works well with death triggers and aristocrats-style decks, since this can be a sacrifice outlet that's very hard to kill (in case you didn't know, you can still use the monstrosity activation even if it's become monstrous). In the right decks this can be a problem, but its stats aren't too big for it to cause any other problem.
Creativity
(3/3) Uniqueness – We've never seen a monstrosity card not be a mana cost, and death triggers checking for monstrousness hasn't been done before.
(3/3) Flavor – It took me a minute to get the flavor text, but I assume that Arvin's been gobbled by the Ooze. The Innistrad setting makes this interesting, and I can picture monstrosity being a returning mechanic for that plane.
Polish
(2/3) Quality – Mana cost should be , not
(2/2) Main Challenge (*) – It's a creature with Monstrosity.
(2/2) Subchallenges – It's a multicoloured uncommon.
Total: 23/25
(2.5/3) Appeal – Timmy probably isn't enthused by sacrificing a creature for +1 power. Johnny loves this for graveyard/sacrifice shenanigans. Spike likes seeing a recursive presence on the board.
(3/3) Elegance – Perfectly legible.
Development
(3/3) Viability – This enables a fun little sacrifice archetype and fits well as a signpost uncommon, and definitely belongs in the golgari side of the color pie.
(2.5/3) Balance – This is a card whose power fluctuates depending on how it interacts with other cards in a set. It works well with death triggers and aristocrats-style decks, since this can be a sacrifice outlet that's very hard to kill (in case you didn't know, you can still use the monstrosity activation even if it's become monstrous). In the right decks this can be a problem, but its stats aren't too big for it to cause any other problem.
Creativity
(3/3) Uniqueness – We've never seen a monstrosity card not be a mana cost, and death triggers checking for monstrousness hasn't been done before.
(3/3) Flavor – It took me a minute to get the flavor text, but I assume that Arvin's been gobbled by the Ooze. The Innistrad setting makes this interesting, and I can picture monstrosity being a returning mechanic for that plane.
Polish
(2/3) Quality – Mana cost should be , not
(2/2) Main Challenge (*) – It's a creature with Monstrosity.
(2/2) Subchallenges – It's a multicoloured uncommon.
Total: 23/25
netn10
Show
Hide
Design
(2/3) Appeal – Timmy love how big this can get. Johnny likes how many counters this can get but doesn't see a way to break it. Spike sees a vanilla beater that loses you a creature.
(1/3) Elegance – There's no indication as to what X refers to. That's a huge issue as it confuses people as to what you intended this card to do. Do you choose the value? Does the opponent you choose do it? Without that specification it's hard to evaluate the card's power.
Development
(1/3) Viability – A five mana 6/6 that can only get bigger is definitely in rare territory, not uncommon. Hydras are also primarily green creatures but have been monored, gruul and golgari so I'm not too put off by it. This card's power and viability really depend on who chooses the value of X. I feel like it has to be the opponent, right? You cast the spell, they see what creatures they might want you to lose to the hydra in exchange for a bigger hydra and then pay tribute or not. In that case, if they choose five as the tribute value and you don't control another CMC 5 creature, your opponent can then just make the hydra sacrifice itself and you've wasted a card. Because the alternative is you choosing the value of X and making an offer to an opponent they can freely refuse (since there's no downside to not paying tribute). Either way you cut it, it doesn't seem like it fully works the way you want it to.
(2/3) Balance – It's hard to see if this is balanced without really understanding how it's supposed to work. I'm sure there are casual decks that would love this for it being a five mana 6/6, but it's too clunky to fit in any kind of constructed format despite its huge size.
Creativity
(3/3) Uniqueness – Tribute X isn't something we've seen before, and neither has a tribute ability checking if tribute WAS paid rather than it not being paid.
(3/3) Flavor – Ever-Hungry Hydra is a very fitting name, since even if tribute was paid it still wants to gobble on one of your own creatures.
Polish
(1.5/3) Quality – The type line should have an EM dash (—) rather than a hyphen (-). The lack of a clear determinant for the value of X is a big issue.
(2/2) Main Challenge – It's a creature with Tribute.
(1/2) Subchallenges – It's multicolor, but it doesn't belong at uncommon.
Total: 16.5/25
(2/3) Appeal – Timmy love how big this can get. Johnny likes how many counters this can get but doesn't see a way to break it. Spike sees a vanilla beater that loses you a creature.
(1/3) Elegance – There's no indication as to what X refers to. That's a huge issue as it confuses people as to what you intended this card to do. Do you choose the value? Does the opponent you choose do it? Without that specification it's hard to evaluate the card's power.
Development
(1/3) Viability – A five mana 6/6 that can only get bigger is definitely in rare territory, not uncommon. Hydras are also primarily green creatures but have been monored, gruul and golgari so I'm not too put off by it. This card's power and viability really depend on who chooses the value of X. I feel like it has to be the opponent, right? You cast the spell, they see what creatures they might want you to lose to the hydra in exchange for a bigger hydra and then pay tribute or not. In that case, if they choose five as the tribute value and you don't control another CMC 5 creature, your opponent can then just make the hydra sacrifice itself and you've wasted a card. Because the alternative is you choosing the value of X and making an offer to an opponent they can freely refuse (since there's no downside to not paying tribute). Either way you cut it, it doesn't seem like it fully works the way you want it to.
(2/3) Balance – It's hard to see if this is balanced without really understanding how it's supposed to work. I'm sure there are casual decks that would love this for it being a five mana 6/6, but it's too clunky to fit in any kind of constructed format despite its huge size.
Creativity
(3/3) Uniqueness – Tribute X isn't something we've seen before, and neither has a tribute ability checking if tribute WAS paid rather than it not being paid.
(3/3) Flavor – Ever-Hungry Hydra is a very fitting name, since even if tribute was paid it still wants to gobble on one of your own creatures.
Polish
(1.5/3) Quality – The type line should have an EM dash (—) rather than a hyphen (-). The lack of a clear determinant for the value of X is a big issue.
(2/2) Main Challenge – It's a creature with Tribute.
(1/2) Subchallenges – It's multicolor, but it doesn't belong at uncommon.
Total: 16.5/25
BaconCatBug
Show
Hide
Design
(2/3) Appeal – Timmy likes board buffs and going wide. Johnny likes the idea of toughness matters shenanigans. Spike doesn't care.
(3/3) Elegance – Perfectly legible.
Development
(3/3) Viability – Toughness matters lingers about in Bant's colors but is primarily Selesnya. The creature can pack a punch and provide needed stat boosts for limited, but without being overpowered. Solid uncommon.
(3/3) Balance – In casual decks revolving around defenders/'deal damage with toughness instead of power' this can be a big threat, but not an oppressive one in any shape or form. It definitely helps enable that archetype. In the right niche it's a solid inclusion, but it doesn't belong in every deck.
Creativity
(2/3) Uniqueness – Surprisingly there aren't any monstrosity cards that boost the whole team when it resolves, but it's an ability that we've seen in various forms throughout the years.
(2/3) Flavor – I'm getting huge Ixalan vibes from this card, even though I don't think Monstrosity would be a great fit for that plane (although now I think of it it could work). I feel like there's a flavour disconnect with a dryad becoming a monster to help protect others.
Polish
(2/3) Quality – Unfortunately, I have to evaluate the text portion of your submission instead of your image submission (I'm not going to deduct points for it though), and in the former you forgot to include power and toughness. Everything else is fine.
(2/2) Main Challenge – It's a creature with Monstrosity.
(2/2) Subchallenges – It's multicolor and uncommon.
Total: 21/25
(2/3) Appeal – Timmy likes board buffs and going wide. Johnny likes the idea of toughness matters shenanigans. Spike doesn't care.
(3/3) Elegance – Perfectly legible.
Development
(3/3) Viability – Toughness matters lingers about in Bant's colors but is primarily Selesnya. The creature can pack a punch and provide needed stat boosts for limited, but without being overpowered. Solid uncommon.
(3/3) Balance – In casual decks revolving around defenders/'deal damage with toughness instead of power' this can be a big threat, but not an oppressive one in any shape or form. It definitely helps enable that archetype. In the right niche it's a solid inclusion, but it doesn't belong in every deck.
Creativity
(2/3) Uniqueness – Surprisingly there aren't any monstrosity cards that boost the whole team when it resolves, but it's an ability that we've seen in various forms throughout the years.
(2/3) Flavor – I'm getting huge Ixalan vibes from this card, even though I don't think Monstrosity would be a great fit for that plane (although now I think of it it could work). I feel like there's a flavour disconnect with a dryad becoming a monster to help protect others.
Polish
(2/3) Quality – Unfortunately, I have to evaluate the text portion of your submission instead of your image submission (I'm not going to deduct points for it though), and in the former you forgot to include power and toughness. Everything else is fine.
(2/2) Main Challenge – It's a creature with Monstrosity.
(2/2) Subchallenges – It's multicolor and uncommon.
Total: 21/25
Lorn Absord Schutta
Show
Hide
Design
(2/3) Appeal – Timmy likes the idea of a two mana 3/2. Johnny doesn't see an obvious way for this to cause shenanigans. Spike likes both options of this card.
(3/3) Elegance – Perfectly legible.
Development
(3/3) Viability – Menace is primarily Rakdos, and punishing your opponents' actions with damage is very red. This a strong uncommon.
(3/3) Balance – This card can easily be a staple for aggressive decks. Menace on a cheap creature means it'll consistently hit, and the tribute choice for your opponents either turns it into ways to remove blockers or creatures for you to sustain pressure. It's not big enough to be oppressive, but it's strong enough to see play.
Creativity
(2/3) Uniqueness – Lots of old themes used in new ways, but nothing truly unique.
(3/3) Flavor – Name's a little generic, but the flavour is overall fine. The flavour text sells the tribute mechanic wonderfully.
Polish
(3/3) Quality – I see no mistakes.
(2/2) Main Challenge – We have here a creature with tribute.
(2/2) Subchallenges – It's multicolor, and it's an uncommon.
Total: 23/25
(2/3) Appeal – Timmy likes the idea of a two mana 3/2. Johnny doesn't see an obvious way for this to cause shenanigans. Spike likes both options of this card.
(3/3) Elegance – Perfectly legible.
Development
(3/3) Viability – Menace is primarily Rakdos, and punishing your opponents' actions with damage is very red. This a strong uncommon.
(3/3) Balance – This card can easily be a staple for aggressive decks. Menace on a cheap creature means it'll consistently hit, and the tribute choice for your opponents either turns it into ways to remove blockers or creatures for you to sustain pressure. It's not big enough to be oppressive, but it's strong enough to see play.
Creativity
(2/3) Uniqueness – Lots of old themes used in new ways, but nothing truly unique.
(3/3) Flavor – Name's a little generic, but the flavour is overall fine. The flavour text sells the tribute mechanic wonderfully.
Polish
(3/3) Quality – I see no mistakes.
(2/2) Main Challenge – We have here a creature with tribute.
(2/2) Subchallenges – It's multicolor, and it's an uncommon.
Total: 23/25
haywire
Show
Hide
Design
(1.5/3) Appeal – Timmy doesn't like it when the creature he plays doesn't resolve. Johnny loves being able to replay creatures and get that kind of synergy. Spike isn't in love with this because they'll often find themselves ending up with the wrong option.
(3/3) Elegance – This reads fine.
Development
(3/3) Viability – Bouncing cards back to your hand has existed in many forms in both green and simic cards so it works in the color wheel. Same goes for big cheap flyers. This could definitely exist at uncommon.
(3/3) Balance – So this is either a three mana repeatable Opt or a three mana ¾ flyer depending on what your opponent chooses. And frankly that's a good thing, because if the choice was up to you that level of flexibility would be too good. But it's up to your opponent and whether or not they'd rather deal with repeatable draw value or a mana efficient threat. Either can be dangerous, but your opponent is perfectly capable of having removal available or other ways to disrupt the Chimera.
Creativity
(3/3) Uniqueness – I'm getting echoes of cards like Greenbelt Rampager, but this card is different enough to be unique.
(2.5/3) Flavor – The flavour is interesting. The cards you draw are the gifts it gives then? And it comes down when promised power? Both of these feel at odds with tribute being your opponent's choice and not yours, since it'd be your opponent promising them power, but you getting the gifts ?
Polish
(1.5/3) Quality - Mana cost should be , not . The type line should have an EM dash (—) rather than a hyphen (-). Tribute has also historically always used reminder text even at mythic.
(2/2) Main Challenge – We have a creature with tribute.
(2/2) Subchallenges – It's a multicolor, and it's an uncommon.
Total: 21.5/25
(1.5/3) Appeal – Timmy doesn't like it when the creature he plays doesn't resolve. Johnny loves being able to replay creatures and get that kind of synergy. Spike isn't in love with this because they'll often find themselves ending up with the wrong option.
(3/3) Elegance – This reads fine.
Development
(3/3) Viability – Bouncing cards back to your hand has existed in many forms in both green and simic cards so it works in the color wheel. Same goes for big cheap flyers. This could definitely exist at uncommon.
(3/3) Balance – So this is either a three mana repeatable Opt or a three mana ¾ flyer depending on what your opponent chooses. And frankly that's a good thing, because if the choice was up to you that level of flexibility would be too good. But it's up to your opponent and whether or not they'd rather deal with repeatable draw value or a mana efficient threat. Either can be dangerous, but your opponent is perfectly capable of having removal available or other ways to disrupt the Chimera.
Creativity
(3/3) Uniqueness – I'm getting echoes of cards like Greenbelt Rampager, but this card is different enough to be unique.
(2.5/3) Flavor – The flavour is interesting. The cards you draw are the gifts it gives then? And it comes down when promised power? Both of these feel at odds with tribute being your opponent's choice and not yours, since it'd be your opponent promising them power, but you getting the gifts ?
Polish
(1.5/3) Quality - Mana cost should be , not . The type line should have an EM dash (—) rather than a hyphen (-). Tribute has also historically always used reminder text even at mythic.
(2/2) Main Challenge – We have a creature with tribute.
(2/2) Subchallenges – It's a multicolor, and it's an uncommon.
Total: 21.5/25
rtk1357
Show
Hide
Design
(3/3) Appeal – Timmy loves how big this can get. Johnny likes messing around and giving choices to your opponents. Spikes sees how easily this could become a threat.
(2/3) Elegance – The wording on the first ability seems a little weird, but it looks like it would work.
Development
(2.5/3) Viability – This card is essentially a variant of Choice of Damnations, a black rare. There's usually a clear determinant to X other than a player's choice of value (hence why we have 'choose a number' on oracle texts), so I'd consider that a rules bend.
(2/3) Balance – This card has the potential to be a potent finisher. You as the player have a general idea of how reasonable you can make X in the number of lands your opponent has, plus a few other choice permanents. I can easily see this resolving as a 5/5 or higher. And for five mana (and only one colored pip) 'wipe your board or give me a 5/5+ flyer » seems a little too powerful.
Creativity
(2/3) Uniqueness – This is too similar to the aforementioned Choice of Damnations for me to consider this unique.
(2/3) Flavor – I feel like Wizards have shied away from referencing Hell as a particular place in their mythos, so I think this would be an odd fit.
Polish
(2.5/3) Quality – I don't think you need to refer to "the opponent you chose", but I also understant why that would make the second part of the ability clearer. The type line should have an EM dash (—) rather than a hyphen (-).
(2/2) Main Challenge (*) – We have a creature with monstrous.
(0/2) Subchallenges – This card is neither a multicolor nor is it an uncommon.
Total: 18/25
(3/3) Appeal – Timmy loves how big this can get. Johnny likes messing around and giving choices to your opponents. Spikes sees how easily this could become a threat.
(2/3) Elegance – The wording on the first ability seems a little weird, but it looks like it would work.
Development
(2.5/3) Viability – This card is essentially a variant of Choice of Damnations, a black rare. There's usually a clear determinant to X other than a player's choice of value (hence why we have 'choose a number' on oracle texts), so I'd consider that a rules bend.
(2/3) Balance – This card has the potential to be a potent finisher. You as the player have a general idea of how reasonable you can make X in the number of lands your opponent has, plus a few other choice permanents. I can easily see this resolving as a 5/5 or higher. And for five mana (and only one colored pip) 'wipe your board or give me a 5/5+ flyer » seems a little too powerful.
Creativity
(2/3) Uniqueness – This is too similar to the aforementioned Choice of Damnations for me to consider this unique.
(2/3) Flavor – I feel like Wizards have shied away from referencing Hell as a particular place in their mythos, so I think this would be an odd fit.
Polish
(2.5/3) Quality – I don't think you need to refer to "the opponent you chose", but I also understant why that would make the second part of the ability clearer. The type line should have an EM dash (—) rather than a hyphen (-).
(2/2) Main Challenge (*) – We have a creature with monstrous.
(0/2) Subchallenges – This card is neither a multicolor nor is it an uncommon.
Total: 18/25
results
Show
Hide
slimytrout: slimytrout 23/25
Lorn Absord Schutta 23/25
haywire: 21.5/25
BaconCatBug 21/25
rtk1357: 18/25
netn10 16.5/25
Lorn Absord Schutta 23/25
haywire: 21.5/25
BaconCatBug 21/25
rtk1357: 18/25
netn10 16.5/25
