May MCC Round 3 - Family secrets

[bravelion83]

(This month's banner is my own elaboration on the art of Meeting of the Five by Dominik Mater.)


May MCC Round 3

Family secrets

As is tradition by now, this month we will celebrate the latest set, in this case Streets of New Capenna, by exploring its mechanics and themes, as usual in this kind of MCC months.


Main Challenge

Choose one of the five SNC families. (You can choose the same one you chose in the previous round or a different one. Your choices in this and the previous round will not influence your choices in future rounds.) Please write your choice in your submission post, especially if it's not obvious just by looking at your card (for example if you make a two-colored ally gold card that could fit in two families, or a monocolored one that could fit in three, or if you give up subchallenge 2). This is extremely important for Subchallenge 2. If it's not clear which family you chose, Subchallenge 2 might be impossible to judge and thus automatically failed. BEWARE: This round it's mandatory to state your chosen family! Don't make your judge have to guess which one you picked. This is the only exception to the "no design notes" rule for this month. You still cannot write anything else in your submission post, just name your chosen family and post your text card with the optional render. Nothing more.

Design a nonland, nonenchantment card with hideaway whose color identity is within the colors of your chosen family.

Subchallenge 1 - The hideaway number is NOT 4 or 5.

Subchallenge 2 - Your card has flavor text that mentions a family OTHER THAN your chosen one by name (Brokers, Obscura, Maestros, Riveteers, or Cabaretti).

Clarifications

Show

Hide

Main Challenge

• To pass the Main Challenge, you have to mention your chosen family in your submission post and your card has to meet ALL the following requirements:

- It has the "hideaway" keyword ability.
- It does NOT have the "Enchantment" card type on its type line.
- It does NOT have the "Land" card type on its type line.
- Its color identity is included within your chosen family's colors, totally or only partially.

• If you don't mention your chosen family in your submission post, it's an automatic DQ for this round. You've been warned, and I'm writing this while I'm typing this round in Word even before I'm posting the thread, so I'm fine with my conscience, but still, please don't make me do that.

Other causes of automatic DQ follow. (I'm also typing these in Word before I even post the round, so my conscience is clean, but again, please don't make me actually do that.)

• A card that doesn't have the "hideaway" keyword ability natively in its rules text automatically fails the Main Challenge and is thus DQ'ed, even if it can somehow grant it to other things.

• A card that has the "Enchantment" and/or the "Land" card type natively on its type line automatically fails the Main Challenge and is thus DQ'ed, even if it can somehow lose one or both of them or turn into a different card type.

• The last requirement doesn't just care about color, but it takes into account the whole color identity of the card. The color identity of a card is the sum of all the colors found in the card's mana cost and in the card's rules text.

• Cards with a monocolored, two-colored (both ally and enemy), or three-colored color identity are all allowed as long as that color identity is contained within the colors of your chosen family. If you use any colors anywhere on the card outside of your chosen family's ones, the Main Challenge is automatically failed and thus your card DQ'ed.


Subchallenge 1

• For once, there shouldn't be too much to add here. Now hideaway has a numeric parameter equal to the number of cards you look at when resolving the ETB trigger. So far, that number has always been 4 in Lorwyn and 5 in SNC. Here you have to choose a different one to pass this Subchallenge. As long as it's an actual positive integer number (so no zero, no negatives, no fractions, etc...) that's different from both 4 and 5, you're fine.

• Entering tapped is no longer a part of the rules for hideaway, but it's its own separate ability. If you want your card to enter tapped, remember to say that in a separate ability. If you don't, it will be assumed that it enters untapped.

• Also, remember that now the cards are put on the bottom in a RANDOM order, not in ANY order, as it was back in Lorwyn.


Subchallenge 2

• Obviously, if your card doesn't even have flavor text, this Subchallenge is automatically failed.

• The name of the required family can be used in any context. As long as the exact name is there, you're fine.

• The flavor text CAN also contain the name of your chosen family, as long as the name of at least one different family is ALSO there.

• The flavor text CAN contain the name of more than one families that aren't your chosen one. You could even find a way to name all five. All that matters is that there is AT LEAST one family name that's different from your chosen one.


If you have any more questions, post them in the MCC discussion thread.

DEADLINES

Design deadline: Tuesday, June 7th 23:59 EDT

Judging deadline: Friday, June 10th 23:59 EDT


RUBRIC

MCC Rubric

Show

Hide

Design
(X/3) Appeal - Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card?
(X/3) Elegance - Is the card easily understandable at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?

Development
(X/3) Viability - How well does the card fit into the color wheel? Does it break or bend the rules of the game? Is it the appropriate rarity?
(X/3) Balance - Does the card have a power level appropriate for contemporary constructed/limited environments without breaking them? Does it play well in casual and multiplayer formats? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype? Does it create an oppressive environment?

Creativity
(X/3) Uniqueness - Has a card like this ever been printed before? Does it use new mechanics, ideas, or design space? Does it combine old ideas in a new way? Overall, does it feel "fresh"?
(X/3) Flavor - Does the name seem realistic for a card? Does the flavor text sound professional? Do all the flavor elements synch together to please Vorthos players?

Polish
(X/3) Quality - Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(X/2) Main Challenge (*) - Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(X/2) Subchallenges - One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.

Total: X/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.

JUDGES

bravelion83
void_nothing

PLAYERS

@Ink-Treader
@kwanyeegor-ii
@MonoRedMage
@RaikouRider


A reminder to everyone:
In the MCC, putting rarity on cards is mandatory! If you don't put a rarity on your card, expect huge deductions in both Viability AND Quality.
Please check out the MCC Guidelines and FAQ if you have the will and time. Link in my signature. Among the many things you can find there are a detailed explanation of the rubric (section 6.2) and the recommended card formatting (section 4) that you should use to format your text cards. Expect deductions in Quality otherwise.


BRACKETS

This is the versus round. Both judges will judge all entries, and the top scorer from each pair will advance to the final round.

Ink-Treader vs. RaikouRider
kwanyeegor-ii vs. MonoRedMage

Let the judging begin!

[MonoRedMage]

Cabaretti

Revelry Elemental XRR
Creature - Elemental {R}
Hideaway X
Haste
Revelry Elemental enters the battlefield with X +1/+1 counters on it.
2GW, T: Put a +1/+1 counter on each other creature you control. Those creatures attack this combat if able. Activate only during your beginning of combat step.
At end of combat on your turn, if you control five or more tapped creatures, you may play the exiled card without paying its mana cost.
1/1

[kwanyeegor-ii]

Obscura

Voice of Things Unknown 1WUB
Creature - Avatar (Rare)
Hideaway 7
Lifelink
Whenever Voice of Things Unknown attacks, draw a card. Then, if you have seven or more cards in hand, you may reveal your hand. If you have only land cards or only nonland cards in hand, you may cast the exiled card without paying its mana cost.
2/4

[Ink-Treader]

Maestros

Answergetter 1B
Artifact - Equipment (R)
Hideaway X, where X is the number of creature cards in your graveyard (When this artifact enters the battlefield, look at the top X cards of your library, exile one face down, then put the rest on the bottom in a random order.)
Whenever equipped creature attacks, defending player loses 2 life. Then, if that player's life total is less than or equal to half their starting life total, cast the exiled card without paying its mana cost.
Equip B
Riveter bravado tends to diminish as they lose fingers.

[bravelion83]

Less than a day left before the deadline and we're still missing @RaikouRider's submission.

[RaikouRider]

Obscura

Thought Trafficker 1UB
Creature - Human Rogue {R}
Hideaway 3, hideaway 3, hideaway 3 (When this creature enters the battlefield, look at the top three cards of your library, exile one face down, then put the rest on the bottom in a random order. Then repeat this process two more times.)
Menace, ward 3
Whenever Thought Trafficker deals combat damage to a player, you may put a card exiled with it into its owner's hand.
1/4

[bravelion83]

The round is closed.

BRACKETS

This is the versus round. Both judges will judge all entries, and the top scorer from each pair will advance to the final round.

Ink-Treader vs. RaikouRider
kwanyeegor-ii vs. MonoRedMage

Let the judging begin! I will probably start tomorrow.

---

Judgments complete. Sorry for the delay.

Ink-Treader

Show

Hide

Maestros

Answergetter 1B
Artifact - Equipment (R)
Hideaway X, where X is the number of creature cards in your graveyard (When this artifact enters the battlefield, look at the top X cards of your library, exile one face down, then put the rest on the bottom in a random order.)
Whenever equipped creature attacks, defending player loses 2 life. Then, if that player's life total is less than or equal to half their starting life total, cast the exiled card without paying its mana cost.
Equip B
Riveter bravado tends to diminish as they lose fingers.

Design
Appeal 2.5/3 - Timmy likes making his opponent lose additional life on his attacks and casting spells for free, but he won't like when he looks at his top X cards, sees two or more cards he wants, like his big fat monsters, and has to only choose one and put the others on the bottom. Johnny can dig for combo pieces or try to come up with some kind of combo copying the life loss trigger or making it trigger multiple times. He can also combine this version of hideaway X with self mill. Spike likes the low costs.
Elegance 1/3 - This is microtext. MSE shows me it's ten lines and three breaks. Just one more break than Animate Dead, but it's still beyond the current limits. The easiest way to correct this would be to remove the flavor text, which would bring this card within limits even with the reminder text for hideaway. Saying "cast" the exiled card instead of "play" doesn't let you play lands that have been hidden away, unlike most existing hideaway cards. Players, especially less experienced and/or more casual ones, might not even realize there is a difference, let alone a functional one. (Also see Balance.)
Development
Viability 3/3 - I see no problems with the color pie, rarity, or the rules.
Balance 2/3 - Notice that playing the hidden card for free isn't optional. This has never happened among all 12 existing hideaway cards: the cycle from Lorwyn, the one from the main SNC set, Smuggler's Buggy in the SNC Commander set, which is the only one with the functional difference of not letting you play the exiled card if it's a land due to it saying "cast" and not "play" like all the other ones, and Watcher for Tomorrow, which doesn't even let you play the exiled card at all. I'm not sure if the deviation from the ordinary optional free casting is intentional or just an oversight. I'm personally leaning towards oversight both here and on the real Buggy. The low costs make this look more playable, but I wouldn't want them to be too low. I can see this both getting played in limited, but also being cut if you have too many noncreature spells. Other effects would probably get priority over this in that case. I can see this in some constructed decks as a card to build your whole deck around, but here too I can see other things getting priority over this. I see no problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity
Uniqueness 2.5/3 - Hideaway X is new. We've just seen the "Dead Three" cycle from CLB (for example Myrkul, Lord of Bones, which all have an indestructible clause very similar to the condition for casting the hidden card for free here.
Flavor 2/3 - I like the flavor here, especially the detail of each finger lost accounting for 2 life mechanically, so you have a total of 10 fingers to lose, which is 20 life, just like your starting life total in a normal game of Magic. Too bad that flavor text doesn't actually fit in the frame (see Elegance) and contains a typo (see Quality).
Polish
Quality 2/3 - An extra comma between "Then" and "if" in the second ability. It's always been the case that there should be no comma in such cases, I guess it's to avoid confusion with "intervening if" clauses, which this is not, but you can see Rabble Rousing for a relevant very recent example. (-0.5) The Riveteers family name is misspelled in the flavor text. (-0.5) Hyphen instead of em dash in the type line, but no deduction for that.
Main Challenge 2/2 - Good.
Subchallenges 1.5/2 - Ok, I didn't expect hideaway X when I came up with Subchallenge 1. It can be 4 or 5 but it doesn't have to be, so I'm still giving it to you. I'm giving you only half points for Subchallenge 2 because it's clear what you mean but you misspelled the name of the family, it's "Riveteers".
TOTAL 18.5/25

RaikouRider

Show

Hide

Obscura

Thought Trafficker 1UB
Creature - Human Rogue {R}
Hideaway 3, hideaway 3, hideaway 3 (When this creature enters the battlefield, look at the top three cards of your library, exile one face down, then put the rest on the bottom in a random order. Then repeat this process two more times.)
Menace, ward 3
Whenever Thought Trafficker deals combat damage to a player, you may put a card exiled with it into its owner's hand.
1/4

Design
Appeal 2/3 - Three times hideaway 3 is very splashy and will certainly catch Timmy's attention. He also likes this being hard to block and hard to be removed. I think he'd like a bit more power though, even if it came at the cost of less toughness. Johnny might use this to dig for combo pieces, but I don't see this as an actual part of his combo. Of course, my Johnny part is the smallest of the three by far, so maybe it's just me not seeing it. Spike sees a variation on Shadowmage Infiltrator that's maybe even better in some cases, and she loves that.
Elegance 2.5/3 - The text is not the shortest I've ever seen, but still easy enough to understand for sure. The "three" theme also helps a lot here. Mana value 3, three instances of hideaway 3, ward 3, three non-hideaway abilities as well, etc... Too bad it's not a 3/3! Of course, if it was a 3/3 with all these abilities for just three mana it wouldn't have been balanced, like, at all, but it would have been even more elegant.
Development
Viability 3/3 - Menace is the black part, and the pseudo-curiosity ability the blue one. All colors can have ward, but black is supposed to pay life as a cost (red too) and Bant/Brokers (you choose) colors are the ones that pay mana instead, so ward 3 is blue and not black. All this goes to say that both colors are needed and thus this card's colors are correct. Yes, I could have said that in a single sentence, but it wouldn't have been me, would it? Rarity is fine and I see no problems with the rules.
Balance 2.5/3 - As I've already mentioned, a rather obvious comparison, and one that immediately comes to mind, is Shadowmage Infiltrator. The mana cost is exactly the same. This has one more point of toughness but doesn't let you draw cards forever every time this connects for the rest of the game. In theory, you will do it at most three times, but unlike the Infiltrator it won't be a random card you draw, but the best card out of three. That might be a reasonable comparison, but then we get to additional upside in the form of menace and ward, and that's not irrelevant or minor. Maybe that should have caused the mana cost to raise by one mana, but then would that make this unplayable? It's not an easy comparison actually. I can see this both in limited and constructed rather easily. No problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity
Uniqueness 2.5/3 - Multiple instances of hideaway on a single card are definitely new, even though it reminds me of how cascade has already been used (Maelstrom Wanderer, Apex Devastator). Also new is having hideaway on a multicolored card, but Watcher for Tomorrow does the same trick of putting the hidden card into your hand instead of letting you play it for free. Ok, it does it in a different way, but I'm still convinced that was clearly the inspiration for this card. Well, that and "How many three's can I fit on a single card?" (see Elegance). The result is indeed a new interesting card that feels like its own thing, but those inspirations are evident.
Flavor 2.5/3 - Without reminder text, flavor text technically fits according to MSE, but the card still does look better without it, so that's just a minor thing. I think this name fits the mechanics of the card very well.
Polish
Quality 3/3 - Hyphen instead of em dash in the type line, but no deduction for that.
Main Challenge 2/2 - Good.
Subchallenges 1/2 - No flavor text at all, so Subchallenge 2 is automatically failed.
TOTAL 21/25

kwanyeegor-ii

Show

Hide

Obscura

Voice of Things Unknown 1WUB
Creature - Avatar (Rare)
Hideaway 7
Lifelink
Whenever Voice of Things Unknown attacks, draw a card. Then, if you have seven or more cards in hand, you may reveal your hand. If you have only land cards or only nonland cards in hand, you may cast the exiled card without paying its mana cost.
2/4

Design
Appeal 2.5/3 - Hideaway 7 is very splashy and catches Timmy's attention, but he doesn't like how hard it actually is to get to cast the card he hid away. Johnny is already brewing to find the most unusual and creative way to reach that "all land or no land" condition, that by the way also reminds me of the very first mulligan rule at the beginning of the game. Spike likes the rate here, which looks quite high, and she will play whatever the best deck Johnny comes up with is.
Elegance 2.5/3 - Saying "cast" the exiled card instead of "play" doesn't let you play lands that have been hidden away, unlike most existing hideaway cards. Players, especially less experienced and/or more casual ones, might not even realize there is a difference, let alone a functional one.
Development
Viability 2.5/3 - I won't make the usual premise about what I'm looking for in a three-colored card again, you can check it out in my judgments from the previous rounds if you want. The last ability is obviously something only blue can do and hideaway is in all colors, but lifelink can be both white and/or black. This is perfectly fine in Esper/Obscura (you choose) colors, but it could have been two-colored, either white-blue or blue-black, there is no need for all three colors here. This is a perfect example of that premise I mentioned. This is a three-colored card that has no problems in the color pie but it doesn't HAVE to be three-colored. The minimum number this card could be is not 3, it's 2. I see no problems with rarity or the rules.
Balance 3/3 - Among all 12 existing hideaway cards (the cycle from Lorwyn, the one from the main SNC set, Smuggler's Buggy in the SNC Commander set, and Watcher for Tomorrow), the Buggy is the only one with the functional difference of not letting you play the exiled card if it's a land due to it saying "cast" and not "play" like all the other ones, and it might have just been an oversight on their end, just like I think this was one on yours. The Watcher doesn't even let you play the exiled card at all, so it doesn't really count for this argument. Also, looking at seven cards for four mana feels like a lot, but this card needs the help of other effects to reach the hideaway condition. You need to sculpt your hand carefully to only contain lands or nonlands, which doesn't look easy at all to me. You can use blue tools like scry or looting and/or black tools like discard, but you will have to put some work into it, maybe enough to actually balance you being able to see so many cards from hideaway. Asking for three colored mana of three specific different colors in the mana cost also helps keeping this in check if need be. Maybe there could be some kind of Standard deck revolving around that concept hidden here. Obviously playable in limited if you're in the right colors. I see no problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity
Uniqueness 3/3 - Hideaway has never been on a multicolored card yet. I haven't been able to find any existing cards that care about you having all lands or nonlands in your hand, not just hideaway cards, but ANY existing cards, with or without hideaway. Hideaway 7 is also obviously very splashy.
Flavor 2.5/3 - Without reminder text, flavor text technically fits according to MSE, but the card still does look better without flavor text, so that's just a minor thing. Very nice touch that the "things unknown" are the cards in your hand, which are unknown to your opponent until you reveal your hand because of this card's triggered ability resolving.
Polish
Quality 2/3 - Hideaway is not an evergreen keyword and MSE shows me that its reminder text does fit in the frame if you put it in (it becomes nine lines and two breaks, still acceptable), so it should have been there. (-0.5) An extra comma between "Then" and "if" in the third ability. It's always been the case that there should be no comma in such cases, I guess it's to avoid confusion with "intervening if" clauses, which this is not, but you can see Rabble Rousing for a relevant very recent example. (-0.5) The "only land or nonland" part of the wording is new, there is no precedent for it, I checked, but it looks plausible enough to me. Hyphen instead of em dash in the type line, but no deduction for that.
Main Challenge 2/2 - Good.
Subchallenges 1/2 - No flavor text at all, so Subchallenge 2 is automatically failed.
TOTAL 21/25

MonoRedMage

Show

Hide

Cabaretti

Revelry Elemental XRR
Creature - Elemental {R}
Hideaway X
Haste
Revelry Elemental enters the battlefield with X +1/+1 counters on it.
2GW, T: Put a +1/+1 counter on each other creature you control. Those creatures attack this combat if able. Activate only during your beginning of combat step.
At end of combat on your turn, if you control five or more tapped creatures, you may play the exiled card without paying its mana cost.
1/1

Design
Appeal 3/3 - There are a lot of things Timmy likes here. Johnny could use the +1/+1 counters somehow or try to come up with some unintended ways to trigger the last ability. He has already noticed that the five creatures just need to be tapped at end of combat, not to have attacked. They can be tapped by other means, all that matters is that they are tapped at the right moment (if it's not skipped, see Elegance). Spike likes haste here and might try this with tokens.
Elegance 0/3 - This is microtext according to what I consider the limit, which is the EMA printing of Animate Dead as everybody probably knows by now, which is ten lines and two breaks. MSE shows me that this card as is, without even adding reminder text for hideaway, is already ten lines and FOUR breaks. Also, there are several other things that don't help here besides the sheer length of the rules text. X counts twice but in different ways, on a triggered ability for hideaway and on a replacement effect for the ETB ability. You read "attack this combat" before the restriction, so you could think "But what about if I'm not in combat when I activate this ability?", as I did when first reading this card, only to realize later why that's the case. (Yes, the new "This ability only triggers once each turn" restriction has a similar problem, and that's part of why I don't like that too.) And speaking of that restriction, many less experienced or casual players don't even know there is a "beginning of combat" step before you get to declare attackers. "At end of combat" has a similar problem, those same players might think that combat ends with the combat damage step instead of being its own separate one, so they could think that when that last ability triggers, they are still in the combat damage step, only after the damage has been dealt. The fact that "end of combat" triggers like this are quite rare doesn't help either. Finally, it's not at all intuitive that the last ability, the one that lets you play the exiled card for free, doesn't even trigger if no attackers are declared, because in that case all the rest of the combat phase after the declare attackers step is just straight up skipped, including the end of combat step, so the trigger condition never actually happens. In some corner cases that might be relevant. The first one that immediately comes to my mind is if you have only five mana dorks in play as your creatures and you tap them all to do something during your first main phase, or anyway before combat. You will have no attackers, because I said those are your only creatures and they are already tapped so you can't declare them as attackers, but you might expect that the last ability still triggers in that case because you control indeed five tapped creatures even though none of them actually attacked, but actually in this case that ability won't trigger at all because the end of combat step is skipped. I usually don't give out full zeros in this category, but unfortunately I feel like this is the most I have ever written in an Elegance section in all my years of judging, it's as much as I usually write in Balance, and that's a lot! That must mean something... I'm sorry.
Development
Viability 2.5/3 - No problems with red being here, at least for haste. Entering with X +1/+1 counters feels more like a green Hydra, but I think all colors can do that. The real question is whether the colors are correct for the activated ability. Putting a +1/+1 counter on each other creature you control is something that clearly can be done by both green and white. Then there is the "must attack" part. According to the latest "Mechanical color pie" article (https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/a ... 2021-10-18), "must attack" is just primary red and "forced attack" is primary red and secondary blue. Let's just ignore blue, it doesn't belong here. I think this part of the ability is still fine on this card because the card itself is red and you must pay red mana to cast it in the first place (unless you're cheating it into play somehow, but I mean under ordinary circumstances). "Forced block" is primary green, not "forced attack". Now that I'm looking at the article, I also find confirmation about entering with X +1/+1 counters being primary green, and actually not all colors can do that. There is no secondary colors and only black and red are tertiary. You can see this under "Variable creature". Counting tapped or attacking creatures isn't mentioned in the article, but it does feel very white to me. In the end, maybe this should have been a red-green card with a white activation. The whole color identity of the card is good for sure, it's just that given what I've just mentioned, I would have put the green in the mana cost instead of the activation cost. No problems with rarity or the rules.
Balance 3/3 - Haste doesn't just mean that this can attack right away, but also that you can activate its ability right away. What I do like is that there is some kind of self-balancing here: even if you activate that ability immediately, there is a tap symbol in the cost and it will be in the beginning of combat step because of the restriction, which means before you actually declare attackers, so when you get to do that this will already be tapped and you won't be able to declare it as an attacker because it's already tapped, despite how much you might want to do that because of the haste. Actually, this will always be true even on later turns. You will always have to choose between attacking and potentially playing the hidden card by using the activated ability. Also, notice how X can be zero and you can play this as a 2/2 haste for RR that will still be able to pump your other creatures. Playable in limited. Requiring the five creatures to just be tapped for any reason, not just due to attacking, maybe induced by this same card's activated ability, makes easier for this to get at least considered in constructed. I see no particular problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity
Uniqueness 2/3 - Hideaway X is new. Restrictions like "Activate only at the beginning of combat" really feel like old-style MTG to me, and I'm not really sure how I feel about that. The condition to play the exiled card feels like some kind of middle ground between Rabble Rousing (controlling some number of creatures) and Windbrisk Heights (creatures that have attacked are presumably tapped).
Flavor 3/3 - It's not groundbreaking but without being able to add flavor text because it doesn't fit, this is as good as it can be.
Polish
Quality 3/3 - Hideaway X feels like it should definitely have reminder text for it, but you're right that it doesn't fit on the card, because, as I've already mentioned (see Elegance), it's already ten lines and four breaks all by itself. Hyphen instead of em dash in the type line, but no deduction for that.
Main Challenge 2/2 - Good.
Subchallenges 1/2 - Ok, I didn't expect hideaway X when I came up with Subchallenge 1. It can be 4 or 5 but it doesn't have to be, so I'm still giving it to you. No flavor text at all, so Subchallenge 2 is automatically failed.
TOTAL 19.5/25

Results

Show

Hide

Ink-Treader: 18.5
RaikouRider: 21

kwanyeegor-ii: 21
MonoRedMage: 19.5

[void_nothing]

Ink-Treader

Show

Hide

Design
(2.5/3) Appeal - Txmmy and Jxnny both appreciate "hideaway X", a number that can conceivably be very big. Spike likes the concept but is suspicious of Equipment that don't have that much board impact in and of themselves and is mindful of the fact that the opp can just kill you before you get them down to half their life.
(2/3) Elegance - A basically understandable card, but one with significant operational (imagine X=10 and above, a not inconceivable notion) and math complexity.

Development
(2/3) Viability - Sure, color and rarity look right.
(2.5/3) Balance - A bit of a swingy card, but that's sort of just the nature of hideaway - the swinginess is compounded by the fact that it's so cheap and can just trigger immediately, however. On the whole, though, this is not an overpowered card.

Creativity
(2/3) Uniqueness - Nothing all that unprecedented - hideaway is just a series of minigames that all have the same reward - but some interesting ideas here, like hideaway X and the attack trigger deal.
(2.5/3) Flavor - This is supposed to be a... dagger? Flavor text is great, but it's not 100% clear what kind of weapon this is supposed to be (maybe it's something for breaking fingers rather than severing them? Unpleasant to think about).

Polish
(2.5/3) Quality - Hideaway cards usually use the clause "you may play" rather than a non-optional "cast".
(2/2) Main Challenge (*) - Done.
(2/2) Subchallenges - And done.

Total: 20/25

RaikouRider

Show

Hide

Design
(2/3) Appeal - Txmmy is teased by triple hideaway, but then has their joy kind of snatched away by not being able to play the hidden cards for free. Jxnny and Spike, however, are all over this card.
(2.5/3) Elegance - Doing the three exiles could take a while if you're faced with multiple option, but all in all this card is very understandable.

Development
(3/3) Viability - Spot-on colors and rarity.
(3/3) Balance - About what I'd want out of a multicolor rare. The ceiling for this is high, but to get all three cards into your hand you do need to hit three times, and 1 power is tiny; the floor involves one multiblock that's not even a trade.

Creativity
(2.5/3) Uniqueness - In what seems to be an intentional Shadowmage Infiltrator reference, this card takes hideaway and uses it in an almost entirely new way (although gated behind the familiar saboteur trigger).
(3/3) Flavor - Name's a little boilerplate, but this is perfect for the Obscura.

Polish
(3/3) Quality - Looks good.
(2/2) Main Challenge (*) - Done.
(1/2) Subchallenges - No flavor text.

Total: 22/25

kwanyeegor-ii

Show

Hide

Design
(2.5/3) Appeal - Txmmy appreciates both lifelink and card draw on the attack but doesn't necessarily want to hold a grip of seven cards in order to freecast. Jxnny and Spike, however, both love the sheer depth that is hideaway 7.
(2.5/3) Elegance - Attack trigger condition is a little complicated to read and perform.

Development
(3/3) Viability - Can't argue those colors or rarity.
(2.5/3) Balance - Sure - while the attack trigger's first part is rather good, it's also a tricolor card with relatively low p/t for its cost and the hideaway trigger condition is particularly difficult imho.

Creativity
(1.5/3) Uniqueness - Built in a new way, but nothing all that innovative is going on here. Trigger even resembles Wiretapping.
(3/3) Flavor - Good name for an Obscura card. No other notes really.

Polish
(2.5/3) Quality - Almost all hideaway cards say "play" rather than "cast" and there seems no reason for this to differ.
(2/2) Main Challenge (*) - Done.
(1/2) Subchallenges - No flavor text.

Total: 20.5/25

MonoRedMage

Show

Hide

Design
(3/3) Appeal - All-rounder - Txmmy loves their X creatures, turning stuff sideways, and putting +1/+1 counters on. Jxnny has plenty of tricks here. Spike appreciates the v a l u e and the secondary possibility of just dumping +1/+1 counters on their attackers.
(0.5/3) Elegance - This is a really wordy card - overly so imho - with a ton going on. All of it interesting gameplay-wise and comprehensible on its own, mind!

Development
(3/3) Viability - Colors and rarity are correct.
(2.5/3) Balance - High floor and ceiling. This is a toolbox card that probably does a bit too much for its own good, even if some of those things are expensive.

Creativity
(2.5/3) Uniqueness - Sure, lots of new stuff going on here. Hideaway condition seems to draw from Windbrisk Heights.
(2/3) Flavor - Name feels rather on-the-nose for the Cabaretti but it does feel pretty sensible to make this an Elemental.

Polish
(3/3) Quality - Looking good.
(2/2) Main Challenge (*) - Done.
(1/2) Subchallenges - No flavor text.

Total: 19.5/25

[bravelion83]

Final results

Ink-Treader: 18.5 + 20 = 38.5
RaikouRider: 21 + 22 = 43

kwanyeegor-ii: 21 + 20.5 = 41.5
MonoRedMage: 19.5 + 19.5 = 39

Our finalists are RaikouRider and kwanyeegor-ii. Final round will come in a few hours at most.