July MCC -- Round 3 -- Third: Rising Action

[Rithaniel]

(This month's banner is made from an image found on Wikimedia Commons, and ran through Blender for a little extra style.)

July MCC

Third: Rising Action

So the stuff we've established so far in the lore give us a decent base to work from. First, we got the general idea or vibe for the world and then we added in some possible tension, with forces pitted against each other. This is good for a beginning, but any good lore will have some momentum in it.

Now, momentum can take many forms. It can be a passive thing like what the rakdos and gruul provide to Ravnica. It can be a sudden, massive event like the return of Avacyn in the original Innistrad block. It can be the whole set, like with March of the Machines. These things all provide a sense of change and turmoil. Last round, we had the idea of implying a conflict. This round, we're making the conflict real.

However, the ways things come down can add to a story. Avacyn going crazy and needing to be killed is an example of this. Heliod falling to the phyrexians after being a bit of a bad sun-god is another interesting turn. Defeats can make for great momentum.


Main Challenge -- Make a battle card set in the world you have been assigned in the clarifications below.


Subchallenge 1 -- Your battle is not a siege.


Subchallenge 2 -- Your card depicts a defeat of the legendary creature from round 2 that you have been assigned.

Clarifications

Show

Hide

Main Challenge -- You have each been assigned cards from the previous two rounds. Refer to the list below to find your assigned world. You are free to discuss ideas involved in the setting with the original creators of the cards, but, ultimately, the reigns are in your hands, and you can take the lore in whatever direction you would like.

bravelion83 - Tapestry of Dirae, by Ink-Treader and Diana, Deathweave Hieromancer, by Riria
Ink-Treader - Albium, Blade of Joah, by Henlock and Vramira, Light of Rebellion, by bravelion83
Henlock - The End-Seed, by slimytrout and Jendar, the Cultivator, by Ink-Treader
slimytrout - Her Cruel Intent Upon Them, by Freyleyes and Cesia, the Caregiver, by Henlock
Riria - Genesis, Pernicious Tyrant, by netn10 and Ynara, the Last Fabricator, by slimytrout


Subchallenge 1 -- People in the custom-card world have been making all sorts of non-siege battles. You can copy someone else's format, or make a new type of battle of your own.

In your entry, you can include reminder text for the battle card, and it will be disregarded for the purpose of microtext.


Subchallenge 2 -- This challenge can be subjective. The judges will need to evaluate whether your card effective depicts a defeat. The defeat need not be literal. Moral or philosophical defeat is valid. Pyrrhic victories can also count as defeats. The only requirement is that the card depicts a blow against the character.

Flavor text would likely be useful here. If you are concerned about having too little space on the battle card frame to include flavor text, you can also specify a different kind of card frame to be used.

DEADLINES

Design deadline: Saturday, August 5th 2023 at 23:59 Eastern Time

Judging deadline: Tuesday, August 8th 2023 at 23:59 Eastern Time


RUBRIC

MCC Rubric

Show

Hide

The MCC Rubric is given below, in an easily "copy and pasted" form.

---

Code: Select all

[b]Design[/b]
[b](X/3) Appeal[/b] - Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card?
[b](X/3) Elegance[/b] - Is the card easily understandable at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
 
[b]Development[/b]
[b](X/3) Viability[/b] - 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?
[b](X/3) Balance[/b] - 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?
 
[b]Creativity[/b]
[b](X/3) Uniqueness[/b] - 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"?
[b](X/3) Flavor[/b] - 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?
 
[b]Polish[/b]
[b](X/3) Quality[/b] - Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
[b](X/2) Main Challenge (*)[/b] - Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
[b](X/2) Subchallenges[/b] - One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
 
[b]Total: X/25[/b]
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.

JUDGES

Rithaniel
void_nothing


PLAYERS

@bravelion83
@Henlock
@Ink-Treader
@Riria
@slimytrout

[bravelion83]

Unstitching of the Deathweave 3WBG
Battle — Bounty (M)
(As a Bounty enters, you choose an opponent to become its protector and a creature they control to be the Enemy. Each other player can attack this battle. For as long as this battle is on the battlefield, the Enemy can't block and can't leave the battlefield. When this battle is defeated, the player who defeated it gains life equal to the Enemy's total power and toughness, then put the Enemy into its owner's graveyard.)
Creatures you control get +1/+1 for each enchantment you control.
Whenever a creature an opponent controls attacks alone, destroy it.
"The Deathweave's selfishness itself will be the needle that unravels them."
—Giterre, Keeper of the Tapestry
6

[slimytrout]

Fall of the Heavens WB
Battle (U)
Whenever you cast a creature spell with flying, put a defense counter on Fall of the Heavens and you gain 1 life.
Whenever a creature you control with flying dies, you draw a card and you lose 1 life.
Remove four defense counters from Fall of the Heavens: Create a 4/4 white Angel creature token with flying. Activate only as a sorcery.
2

[Riria]

Technological Reclamation 1UW
Battle — Gauntlet (R)
(A Gauntlet enters the battlefield protected by its caster, but any player can attack it, including its caster. When it's defeated, the controller of the source that last damaged it wins the gauntlet.)
Artifact spells you cast cost 1 less to cast.
When a player wins the gauntlet, that player may create a token that's a copy of any artifact on the battlefield.
"One can unmake the creation, but not the craft."
—Dulloth, Fabrial Historian
6

[void_nothing]

Plenty of time left before the deadline, but bumping for access.

[Ink-Treader]

Sundering Rebellion BR
Battle — Rebellion (U)
(You protect this battle from other players. They can attack it. It is incited as long as the condition is met.)
Incite — An opponent controls two or more Auras and/or Equipment than you.
If Sundering Rebellion is incited or it entered the battlefield this turn, creatures your opponents control can't block during your turn.
Whenever one or more creatures you control deal combat damage to a player, destroy target artifact or enchantment that player controls. You must choose an Aura or Equipment if able.
3

[Rithaniel]

Alright, round is closed and we're moving on to judgings. I've randomized the players and gotten the following pairings. If Henlock gets a card in before either void or myself do our judging, the second pairing will become a trio. Top person from each collection goes on to the last round.

Pairings
bravelion83 vs. Riria
Ink-Treader vs. slimytrout (vs. Henlock)

[Henlock]

Defense of Vinehaven bg
Battle - Defense (u)
(You defend this battle. When it is defeated, exile it. The owner of the source that last removed counters from it may cast it transformed.)
When Defense of Vinehaven enters the battlefield, return any number of target creature cards with total mana value 4 or less from your graveyard to the battlefield. They are Plants in addition to their types.
2
//
Withering Miasma
Instant {}
Destroy all Plants and exile all graveyards.

[Rithaniel]

Judgements

Show

Hide

bravelion83 vs Riria

Show

Hide

bravelion83

Show

Hide

Unstitching of the Deathweave 3WBG
Battle — Bounty (M)
(As a Bounty enters, you choose an opponent to become its protector and a creature they control to be the Enemy. Each other player can attack this battle. For as long as this battle is on the battlefield, the Enemy can't block and can't leave the battlefield. When this battle is defeated, the player who defeated it gains life equal to the Enemy's total power and toughness, then put the Enemy into its owner's graveyard.)
Creatures you control get +1/+1 for each enchantment you control.
Whenever a creature an opponent controls attacks alone, destroy it.
"The Deathweave's selfishness itself will be the needle that unravels them."
—Giterre, Keeper of the Tapestry
6

Design
(2/3) Appeal - Timmy likes the big anthem effect. Johnny would combo this with enchantment creatures or with Dueling Grounds. Spike is underwhelmed.
(1/3) Elegance - The Bounty mechanics make sense, I suppose, but I suspect they wouldn't be very intuitive. There are so many moving parts to them that attempt to work towards a flavor idea, but which aren't immediately natural. For example, the Enemy can't block, but can't leave the battlefield, making it into a really good creature for attacking. There's also the fact that you don't want to necessarily attack this card, so that you can keep the non-reminder-text abilities, but the reminder text abilities strongly encourage you to attack the Bounty. Things are working at cross-purposes.

Development
(1.5/3) Viability - So, a topic that we don't usually get to talk about is "what makes good reminder text?" Now, as has been discussed in the discussion thread, reminder text should be discounted as far as microtext on the card is concerned. However, if the reminder text is so long that it almost always pushes the card into microtext range, that's going to be an issue. Some cards are going to need to actually display the reminder text. This is why reminder text can so often change up wordings. The reminder text for Bounty cards, however, has too much going on. The nexus battle frame can't fully display all of it, and it would take up five to six lines, when battles have at most six lines to give. Compare to the reminder text for Sieges, which only give two or three lines of reminder text. As stated, this card could forego the reminder text, but, because it's so long, the reminder text itself likely wouldn't be used. Also, I don't really know if this card's mechanics really qualify it as a mythic, but that's a softer criticism.
(1/3) Balance - Six mana for a battle that turns one of your opponent's creatures into an unkillable attacker, but also allows you to safely "attack the creature directly," while effectively replacing its toughness with 6. If that unkillable attacker remains for a few turns, the controller of the Bounty gets enchantment-based anthem effects, and the opponent is encouraged to attack with either just the unkillable attacker or with multiple creatures at once. I can't see this being worth six mana. The Bounty effects seem halfway decent (if they were on a cheaper card), but the non-Bounty effects are a conditional anthem and an attacking restriction that amounts to nothing when you consider it in conjunction with the Bounty effects. If a creature attacks alone, you destroy it, unless it's a creature that can't leave the battlefield and can't block anyways. Then, if one creature (an Enemy, perhaps) is safely attacking, attacking with more creatures just turns the ability off. The anthem effect meanwhile, can be big, but can also be +0/+0 with no keywords.

Creativity
(3/3) Uniqueness - The series of words "can't leave the battlefield" is new space. The idea of it being in reminder text is intriguing, too. Also, punishing single attackers is something I don't know that I've seen before.
(3/3) Flavor - Yeah, this flavor is good. It's not fully fleshed out, but it's doing enough right. It's drawing me in and making me want to know more. That's what card flavor should do.

Polish
(3/3) Quality - Yep, seems good.
(2/2) Main Challenge - Yep, it's a battle in the World of Tapestries.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Yep, it's not a Siege and it depicts some Deathweave being unstitched.

Total: 18.5/25

Riria

Show

Hide

Technological Reclamation 1UW
Battle — Gauntlet (R)
(A Gauntlet enters the battlefield protected by its caster, but any player can attack it, including its caster. When it's defeated, the controller of the source that last damaged it wins the gauntlet.)
Artifact spells you cast cost 1 less to cast.
When a player wins the gauntlet, that player may create a token that's a copy of any artifact on the battlefield.
"One can unmake the creation, but not the craft."
—Dulloth, Fabrial Historian
6

Design
(2.5/3) Appeal - Timmy is split, loving both the competition of racing against their opponent to finish off the Gauntlet, and disliking the fact that they have to give up the discount ability. Johnny loves anything that can potentially let them cast artifacts for . Spike also loves anything that can potentially let them cast artifacts for .
(3/3) Elegance - Yeah, this makes intuitive sense. It effectively conveys that there is something of a "gold rush" for the technology that went into making Genesis in the first place. I must mention that I'm enjoying the Genesis world, at this point.

Development
(2/3) Viability - So, I think the Gauntlet design might be a little flawed. The player protecting it can attack it the turn it enters the battlefield, without blockers getting in the way. The idea of battles is to expand combat, but the form of preferential treatment a Gauntlet provides instead removes the combat. What is preventing a player from making use of the cost reduction ability over the course of one main phase and then just finishing it off with the 6 power of creatures they made sure they had ahead-of-time? That's essentially the only issue I see with this idea, however. I think the reminder text is good. It fits on the battle frame and only uses up three lines. Rare and the colors feel appropriate.
(3/3) Balance - I have a tendency to judge cards as too strong fairly often, and part of me wants to say that this card might be too strong, but, comparing it to Cloud Key and Etherium Sculptor makes me second-guess that. I can't assert that the cost reduction effect is too powerful. If anything, it's at the right cost. The Gauntlet effects are asymmetric, favoring the caster, but I also can't find major fault with that side of the card, either. Sure, it's possible for the caster to just immediately attack and win the Gauntlet, but that requires 6 power, which is non-trivial. I think I'd make that number even higher, at 8 or 9, but I can see it being viable at 6, too. I think this card is good.

Creativity
(3/3) Uniqueness - A battle that can be attacked by its controller is new, for sure. That's pretty much the newest thing on this card, but I feel it's enough.
(3/3) Flavor - This is good stuff. The idea of a Ynara beating Genesis, but then the technology that made Genesis being stolen by those who wanted to weaponize it is good flavor.

Polish
(2.5/3) Quality - Should be and not .
(2/2) Main Challenge - Yep, it's a battle in the World of Genesis.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Yep, it's not a Siege and it depicts a philosophical defeat of Ynara.

Total: 23/25

Henlock vs Ink-Treader vs slimytrout

Show

Hide

Henlock

Show

Hide

Defense of Vinehaven bg
Battle - Defense (u)
(You defend this battle. When it is defeated, exile it. The owner of the source that last removed counters from it may cast it transformed.)
When Defense of Vinehaven enters the battlefield, return any number of target creature cards with total mana value 4 or less from your graveyard to the battlefield. They are Plants in addition to their types.
2
//
Withering Miasma
Instant {}
Destroy all Plants and exile all graveyards.

Design
(2/3) Appeal - This isn't quite splashy enough for Timmy, who sees the flipside and low defense counters as major drawbacks. Johnny would use the reanimation to get creatures that they don't intend to keep on the battlefield. Spike sees the flipside as a drawback they might never need to pay.
(3/3) Elegance - This is simple and effective, mechanically. Flavorwise, I see that Jendar is summoning up some dead creatures to sacrifice to The End-Seed. The fact that this card does nothing to artifacts or to lands means that it's mainly just hosing Jendar, but that's fine. Maybe The End-Seed wins in the end?

Development
(0.5/3) Viability - So, the counters on a battle are called "defense counters," and a battle type also called a Defense is therefore not good. Defense is also too general of a word. A Siege is a type of defense. I can see where you're coming from, of course, because there are direct connections between Defenses and Sieges. Beyond that, you don't want to have a card that has one side that is nothing but drawback. It has a chance to make the player view the card in a negative light. A mechanic that is going to be everywhere in a set shouldn't be so easily viewed as negative. Also, with Jendar being a demigod and The End-Seed being an apocalypse, I don't know if uncommon is the right place for this battle, but mechanically it works.
(2/3) Balance - This card is cheap to cast and can reanimate multiple creatures at once, but it is also easy to undo. It's a little swingy, giving 4 mana of creatures for only 2 mana of investment, but an opponent just needs to hit it with 2 damage and those creatures go away. The issue is that that 4 mana of creatures can then block and prevent the 2 damage from making it through. A player will block with every Plant they have because not doing so will just mean that they lose all their Plants. Red has the best ability to circumvent this, but, in most situations, players never really have to deal with the Withering Miasma side of that card.

Creativity
(3/3) Uniqueness - Battles are fairly new space. One that transforms into a spell is also new. Uniqueness is good.
(1.5/3) Flavor - So, I guess Vinehaven is the place where Jendar is growing The End-Seed? Why is it called Vinehaven? What is the source of the miasma? I get that this is an attack against Jendar which fails to take out The End-Seed, but there's so little flavor to work with, here, and what is there is a little general. I also wasn't expecting Jendar to be one for reanimation.

Polish
(3/3) Quality - Yep, seems good.
(2/2) Main Challenge - Yep, it's a battle in the World of The End-Seed.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Yep, it's not a Siege and it depicts a defeat of Jendar.

Total: 19/25

Ink-Treader

Show

Hide

Sundering Rebellion BR
Battle — Rebellion (U)
(You protect this battle from other players. They can attack it. It is incited as long as the condition is met.)
Incite — An opponent controls two or more Auras and/or Equipment than you.
If Sundering Rebellion is incited or it entered the battlefield this turn, creatures your opponents control can't block during your turn.
Whenever one or more creatures you control deal combat damage to a player, destroy target artifact or enchantment that player controls. You must choose an Aura or Equipment if able.
3

Design
(3/3) Appeal - Timmy likes swinging through to deal lots of damage and destroying their opponent's stuff. Johnny is going to use Bazaar Trader to give Equipments to the opponent. Spike likes swinging through to deal lots of damage and destroying their opponent's stuff.
(3/3) Elegance - I can't fault you on elegance. Everything here makes sense and is easily understood.

Development
(2/3) Viability - With Albium and Vramira being rares, I wonder if the main conflict surrounding them should be a rare instead of an uncommon. This could also mechanically pass for rare, since preventing blocking is a powerful effect. The Rebellion card type is good, with reminder text that is unobtrusive and intuitive.
(1.5/3) Balance - So, presumably, this is an "Auras and Equipment matter" set, so I should assume that the incite ability will be activated with reasonable frequency. Maybe one out of four or five turns it might be activated? With that in mind, I think this card is overpowered. The closest cards to this that I can find are Ember Gale and Seismic Stomp, and both seem to indicate that an across-the-board "creatures can't block" effect should cost a little more than two mana, and be a one-time effect. There's also Aragorn, King of Gondor, which indicates that such an effect being repeatable is worthy of a mythic with mana value 4 spread across three colors. Sure, your opponent has to have Auras and Equipments to get this effect to repeat, but you still always get it at least once, and then you get benefits of destroying artifacts and enchantments on top of that. Now, destroying artifacts and enchantments has never been a "premiere" ability, but still, you're getting it for free on top of a potentially repeatable "creatures your opponents control can't block" ability, for two mana. This is too strong.

Creativity
(3/3) Uniqueness - New type of battle, new text in "You must choose an Aura or Equipment if able," and just a general new idea of combat damage destroying artifacts and enchantments. Uniqueness is good.
(1/3) Flavor - So, this is essentially just Vramira's rebellion. All the mechanics point in the direction of "destroy Auras and Enchantments," and the flavor just amounts to repeating the word "rebellion" a few times. I think this would have been a lot more fun had you gone the other direction of trying to defeat Vramira instead of just repeating the already-established point of "Vramira is breaking stuff."

Polish
(3/3) Quality - Yep, seems good.
(2/2) Main Challenge - Yep, it's a battle in the World of King Joah.
(1/2) Subchallenges - It's not a Siege, but it's not clear how this amounts to a defeat of Vramira.

Total: X/25

slimytrout

Show

Hide

Fall of the Heavens WB
Battle (U)
Whenever you cast a creature spell with flying, put a defense counter on Fall of the Heavens and you gain 1 life.
Whenever a creature you control with flying dies, you draw a card and you lose 1 life.
Remove four defense counters from Fall of the Heavens: Create a 4/4 white Angel creature token with flying. Activate only as a sorcery.
2

Design
(2/3) Appeal - Timmy doesn't want to have his creatures die, doesn't want to lose life, and doesn't like how slow the activate ability looks. Johnny sees an engine in the making. Spike sees only upsides.
(3/3) Elegance - Yeah, I can't find fault on the elegance front.

Development
(2/3) Viability - The fall of heaven should surely be a mythic, right? Mechanically, I can see this as an uncommon, but the flavor should surely bump it up a little bit. Everything else seems fine.
(1/3) Balance - Comparing this card to Harvester of Souls, Murder of Crows, and Species Specialist, I think it's fair to say that two mana for "draw a card when a creature dies" is a bit undercosted. Granted, it's on a battle with only 2 defense counters, but Species Specialist has a comparable effect, but on a creature with toughness 3, and this battle can heal itself. Not only do you draw extra cards, but this two-mana uncommon can facilitate life gain and potentially give multiple 4/4 flying tokens. It's nontrivial to get these things to work, since creature spells with flying can be a little expensive to cast, but I think it's clear that this card is too strong for two mana. I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's broken, but I would say "definitely too strong."

Creativity
(3/3) Uniqueness - Battle without a subtype? A battle with an ability that allows you to pay for it with defense counters? Yeah, uniqueness is 100%.
(3/3) Flavor - This is intriguing flavor. You actually manage to tell something of a story with this. By making the card rewards you for having creatures with flying, it shows that you are on the side of the angels. By giving it low starting defense counters and a high cost of producing more angels, you indicate that the angels are struggling. You manage to get a lot of flavor across via numbers.

Polish
(3/3) Quality - Yep, seems good.
(2/2) Main Challenge - Yep, it's a battle in the World of Cruel Intent.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Yep, it's not a Siege and it depicts a fall of the angels in this world, which would also count as a defeat of the angel Cesia, who wanted to be kind.

Total: 21/25

Scores

Show

Hide

High score in each bracket is bolded.

• bravelion83 (18.5) -- vs -- Riria (23)
• Henlock (19) -- vs -- Ink-Treader (19.5) -- vs -- slimytrout (21)

[void_nothing]

bravelion83

Show

Hide

Design
(2/3) Appeal - Txmmy just likes the phrase "+1/+1 for each enchantment you control". Definitely convoluted and unique enough for Jxnny. Spike sees this as too many hoops to jump through and too little reliability even for powerful effects.
(1/3) Elegance - It's sort of funny - this card's rules text per se is quite straightforward and elegant. The reminder text for its subtype, however, is way complicated. The enemy designation has a lot of inherent complexity - preventing leaving the battlefield? - and oddly it doesn't seem to jibe with how the battle actually works; generally, it seems like the amount of mass pump you'd get from this card and the hosing of attacking alone is worth more than removing one creature and gaining some life, so you, the controller of the battle, would not want to attack it even though it's protected by an opponent. In general, that also means that in a multiplayer game your opponents have incentive to basically not make an effort to protect it at all and just have someone immediately attack and destroy it.

Development
(3/3) Viability - Colors and rarity are definitely right.
(2/3) Balance - I'm not really sure how to evaluate this, as noted above - this battle subtype strikes me as really difficult to think about. Regardless, mass Ethereal Armor/Helm of the Gods is without a doubt powerful.

Creativity
(3/3) Uniqueness - You tried something really out-there and creative with the Bounty subtype, and even both abilities of the card itself are unique.
(3/3) Flavor - This genuinely advances the storyline and I like the flavor text writing here.

Polish
(2/3) Quality - So a note about the reminder text - "Enemy" is capitalized even though it appears to be a status rather than a subtype, which is contrary to how those things are formatted. Meanwhile, the flavor text, as good as it is, would push this into serious microtext territory.
(2/2) Main Challenge (*) - Looks good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Done.

Total: 20/25

slimytrout

Show

Hide

Design
(3/3) Appeal - Txmmy wants to cast a bunch of spells with flying and generate a bunch of Angel tokens. Plenty of triggers for Jxnny to play with (alongside proliferate). Spike likes how much this does for flyers.dek for just two mana.
(2/3) Elegance - Not exactly simple, but not overly complex either. A subtypeless battle strikes me very much as a planeswalker with less choice by its controller - particularly this one.

Development
(2.5/3) Viability - Colors are right, but this seems to skirt the line between uncommon and rare with that last ability (in terms of the splashiness of "wow, Angel tokens" more than anything).
(3/3) Balance - Sure, this seems to be at signpost uncommon power level. Real good if you can build around it - it's certainly nice to get your dying creatures replaced - but you do have to do a lot of building.

Creativity
(2/3) Uniqueness - Definitely a new spin on battles, but all the abilities have something familiar about them and as mentioned before, this play dynamic resembles nothing so much as planeswalkers.
(2/3) Flavor - The name "Fall of the Heavens" feels a bit climactic for - well, a two-mana uncommon. But the effects do line up with the flavor.

Polish
(3/3) Quality - Looks good.
(2/2) Main Challenge (*) - Done.
(2/2) Subchallenges - And done.

Total: 21.5/25

Riria

Show

Hide

Design
(2/3) Appeal - Txmmy likes the drama of the Gauntlet type and making tokens of their best artifacts. Jxnny has plenty of engines that can be assembled here. WAY too unreliable for Spike, and a 1 discount on artifacts is not a strong enough payoff for them to warrant it.
(3/3) Elegance - Sure, the effects are easy to understand and go together, and the subtype rules can be easily grasped.

Development
(3/3) Viability - Sure, works as a rare and in its colors (although monoblue would also be fine).
(2.5/3) Balance - Underpowered if anything given that opponents can readily both destroy it and benefit from it. I don't think it would necessarily be a problem to have this cost two mana.

Creativity
(1.5/3) Uniqueness - The Gauntlet type is new but obviously borrows quite a lot from Sieges. Both the static ability and the defeat trigger are familiar ground.
(3/3) Flavor - Good stuff. Nice pithy flavor text.

Polish
(2/3) Quality - Mana symbols in the mana cost are reversed, and that reminder text should say "controller" and not "caster", which is a long-outdated term and also might not even be accurate (what if it ETBs without having been cast?).
(2/2) Main Challenge (*) - Done.
(2/2) Subchallenges - And done.

Total: 21/25

Ink-Treader

Show

Hide

Design
(1.5/3) Appeal - Generally not big in scope enough for Txmmy. Jxnny is into the oddness here and the disruptive potential, and Spike would play this as a sideboard card if Auras and Equipment were a big problem in the meta.
(2.5/3) Elegance - That last clause is a little bit of an odd one - "must choose if able"? - but the whole thing is easy to understand.

Development
(3/3) Viability - Uncommon is fine for a low-impact niche hoser. Strange times we live in that this could be a BR card, but it checks out for the color pie - it doesn't destroy your own enchantments, after all.
(3/3) Balance - Sure - it does what it does reasonably well and would see Commander play because of the outsize impact of artifacts and enchantments in that format, but it's far from game-breaking and again, is basically a purely reactive card.

Creativity
(2.5/3) Uniqueness - Trygon Predator effects may be somewhat well-worn territory, but there are quite a few new twists here. I do like the Rebellion type and incite adding some novelty to what seems to otherwise be what a "generic" battle will be in the future.
(2.5/3) Flavor - Name is a bit generic but overall I see how this fits with the story of the prior cards you were assigned.

Polish
(3/3) Quality - Looks good.
(2/2) Main Challenge (*) - Done.
(2/2) Subchallenges - And done - I can definitely make a good case for it fitting subchallenge 2.

Total: 22/25

Henlock

Show

Hide

Design
(1/3) Appeal - The effect is rather small for Txmmy. "Any number of" are words that make Jxnny salivate. Definitely too unreliable for Spike - the creatures they resurrect could be gone, along with the rest of their graveyard-based strategy - with one Shock.
(2.5/3) Elegance - Some slight memory issues with the type-changing, but that does need to be there to tie in with the back side (i.e. the drawback).

Development
(3/3) Viability - Colors are correct. Small enough in scope that uncommon is fine.
(2.5/3) Balance - Sits in a weird place between abuseable - bring back a million bajillion zero-mana creatures you've milled for two mana to cap off a combo - and underpowered.

Creativity
(2.5/3) Uniqueness - Very unusual for what is otherwise a somewhat low-impact little uncommon. Withering Miasma in particular is an inspired idea. I'd like to see more Defense designs like this just so I can marvel at the flavor of the back halves, lol.
(3/3) Flavor - Totally fits. No complaints.

Polish
(3/3) Quality - Looks good.
(2/2) Main Challenge (*) - Done.
(2/2) Subchallenges - And done.

Total: 21.5/25