January MCC Round 1 - Farewell to the past

[Ryder]

(This month's banner is my own elaboration on the art of the card Learn from the Past by Chase Stone.)
(Most of the formatting by @bravelion83, taken from the December '23 MCC)


January MCC Round 1

Farewell to the past

It's the new year! This month's theme is time. Let the first round be our farewell to 2023, it's ups and downs, the great victories and losses to learn from.


Main Challenge - Design a card of a single color identity with the word "previous" or "previously" in its rules text.

Subchallenge 1 - The card uses time counters.

Subchallenge 2 - The card has the lowest rarity among all entries of this round.

Clarifications

Show

Hide

Main challenge:
Color identity
The card may not be colorless, its color identity must be exactly White, Blue, Black, Red or Green.

The only existing cards that I'm aware of meeting the "previous" or "previously" requirement are Liesa, Shroud of Dusk and Diseased Vermin.
Reminder texts of new mechanics also work here.

Subchallenge #1
Examples include, but are not limited to: Suspend, Vanishing, The Millennium Calendar.

Subchallenge #2
This is relative to other contestants' entries. If there is a tie (ex. three entries at the common rarity), each of the tied entries gets a full point.

DEADLINES

Design deadline: Saturday, January 6th 2024, 23:59 Eastern Time

Judging deadline: Tuesday, December 9th 2024, 23:59 Eastern Time


RUBRIC

MCC Rubric

Show

Hide

The MCC Rubric is given below, in an easily "copy and pasted" form. (Courtesy of Rithaniel.)

---

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

Ryder
bravelion83

PLAYERS

Everyone can enter this round. Just reply to this thread posting a card that meets the Main Challenge and any number (that includes zero) of Subchallenges. Future rounds will only be open to those who advance. Come join us!

Please check out the MCC Guidelines and FAQ if you have the will and time. 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.

EDIT1: Added bravelion83 as the second judge.
EDIT2: Added clarification that reminder texts of new mechanics also satisfy the wording part of the Main Challenge

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.

BRACKETS

Judge: Ryder
Caspernicus
netn10
Freyleyes
MonoRedMage
Raptorchan

Judge: bravelion83
Subject16
haywire
Komandon
AnotherAlias
Yan_MTG

The top 4 from each bracket advance.

[AnotherAlias]

Blood Curd
Artifact — Blood Food (U)
Blood Curd enters the battlefield tapped.
, , Discard a card, Sacrifice Blood Curd: You gain 3 life and draw a card.
Escape—, Exile three other cards from your graveyard, Pay for each previous time you've cast this spell from your graveyard this game. (You may cast this card from your graveyard for its escape cost.)

[OneAndOnly]

withdrawn

[Freyleyes]

Time Tinkerer U
Artifact Creature — Construct (R)
At the beginning of your upkeep, if you did not activate an ability of Time Tinkerer during the previous turn, put a time counter on Time Tinkerer.
Remove a time counter from Time Tinkerer: The next activated or triggered ability you control this turn functions as if it had split second. (As long that ability is on the stack, players can't cast spells or activate abilities that aren't mana abilities.)
"Let's make the time for it."
1/3

[Komandon]

Temporal Imprisonment 2W
Enchantment — Aura (common)
Enchant creature or planeswalker
If you cast Temporal Imprisonment from your hand, it enters the battlefield with an additional time counter from each previous time you cast a card named Temporal Imprisonment this game.
Vanishing 1 (This enchantment enters the battlefield with one time counter on it. At the beginning of your upkeep, remove a time counter from it. When the last is removed, sacrifice it.)
Enchanted permanent can't attack, block, and it's activated abilities can't be activated.
When you sacrifice Temporal Imprisonment, you may pay 1. If you do put it into its owner's library third from the top.

[Caspernicus]

Haunting Misfortune 1u
Instant (C)
Counter target spell unless its controller pays plus an additional for each time you have previously casted a spell named Haunting Misfortune this game. Exile Haunting Misfortune with four time counters on it.
Whenever a spell is cast, if Haunting Misfortune is exiled, remove a time counter from it. When the last time counter is removed, cast it without paying its mana cost.

[Raptorchan]

Capricious Cerberus 3r
Creature - Dog (C)
Haste
Capricious Cerberus attacks each combat if able and attacks a player, planeswalker or battle that wasn't previously dealt damage by it if able.
His heads have different tastes in meat despite sharing the same stomach.
4/4

[Yan_MTG]

Time Sieve 2U

Enchantment (U)

At the beginning of your upkeep, scry X, were X is one plus the number of time counters on all permanents and suspended cards.
When Time Sieve enters the battlefield, add or remove X time counter from target permanent or target suspended card, where X is one plus the number of times you've previously cast Time Sieve this game.

"Time is a construct, in reality everything flows, no past or present, only the now"

[bravelion83]

JUDGE PSA: please check out Ryder's post and mine in the discussion thread about a few changes to how we judge cards that we are going to test this month. You all might want to be aware of that before designing or reviewing your submissions (remember to do so before the design deadline).

[netn10]

Parole W
Enchantment - Aura (Common)
Enchant creature
When Parole enters the battlefield, put two time counters on enchanted creature.
Enchanted creature has vanishing.
At the end of your turn, put a time counter on enchanted creature for each good deed it previously did this turn, and remove a time counter from it for each bad deed. (Good deeds are targeting their owner and not attacking or blocking. Bad deeds are killing creatures, fighting and attacking or blocking.)

[Subject16]

Psychic Torrent 1U
Instant (C)
When you cast this spell, copy it for each previous time you've cast a spell from anywhere other than your hand this turn. You may choose new targets for the copies.
Target player mills three cards.
Deluge U (You may cast this spell from your graveyard by paying its deluge cost if you cast a spell from anywhere other than your hand this turn. Then exile it.)
The first loss is memory, the second is certainty. Lastly comes self, the most delectable of all.

[haywire]

Unshakeable Burden 2B
Enchantment — Aura {C}
Enchant creature an opponent controls
Vanishing 1
When you sacrifice Unshakeable Burden, return it to the battlefield attached to target creature an opponent controls. If that creature is the same creature previously enchanted by this card, its controller loses 2 life and you scry 1. (Only the creature most recently enchanted by this card counts.)
Try as you might, some loads are not easily shed.

[MonoRedMage]

Furnace Layer Nibbler R
Creature - Phyrexian Gremlin {C}
At the beginning of your upkeep, target opponent previously dealt damage by Furnace Layer Nibbler sacrifices an artifact.
2RR, T: Furnace Layer Nibbler deals 2 damage to target player.
1/1

[Ryder]

Judging time, brackets will be up soon
Edit: Done

Caspernicus

Show

Hide

Haunting Misfortune 1u
Instant (C)
Counter target spell unless its controller pays plus an additional for each time you have previously casted a spell named Haunting Misfortune this game. Exile Haunting Misfortune with four time counters on it.
Whenever a spell is cast, if Haunting Misfortune is exiled, remove a time counter from it. When the last time counter is removed, cast it without paying its mana cost.

Design
(1/3) Appeal - Johnny would love to tinker with the counters to maximize the Misfortune. Not splashy enough for Timmy and not reliable enough for Spike, especially given that it can backfire on you.
(1/3) Elegance - Tracking how many times you cast it would be an issue (-1). This could have been much cleaner as an Enchantment (-1).

Development
(1.5/3) Viability - This is far too complex for a Common. Imagine having multiple copies exiled with time counters. Would make the game go haywire (pun not intended). I wouldn't even feel entirely comfortable with it at Uncommon. (-1) Mono-U wouldn't semi-randomly disrupt itself, this should probably be UR (-0.5).
(1/3) Balance - This card completely disrupts the flow of the game, making it either winning or losing. It would be recast every odd turn on average, crazy (-2).

Creativity
(2.5/3) Uniqueness - A returning counterspell is quite unique, I give you that. Slightly reminiscent of Rune Snag, though.
(3/3) Flavor - The name fits well, and that must be enough - no room for flavor text.

Polish
(1.5/3) Quality - "casted" → "cast" (-1), "When the last time counter is removed" → "when the last is removed" (-0.5), reference: Vanishing reminder text.
(1/2) Main Challenge - All good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.

Total: 14/25

netn10

Show

Hide

Parole W
Enchantment - Aura (Common)
Enchant creature
When Parole enters the battlefield, put two time counters on enchanted creature.
Enchanted creature has vanishing.
At the end of your turn, put a time counter on enchanted creature for each good deed it previously did this turn, and remove a time counter from it for each bad deed. (Good deeds are targeting their owner and not attacking or blocking. Bad deeds are killing creatures, fighting and attacking or blocking.)

Design
(0/3) Appeal - Can't really judge the intended functionality, only what's there. As-is, it does absolutely nothing. The check is performed on your turn only, and on your turn, the opponent's creatures don't attack = a good deed oops!. They always gain 1 time counter on your turn and lose one on their controller's upkeep. Vanishing's sacrifice clause never triggers.
(0/3) Elegance - At Common you would have to include the reminder text of Vanishing, which would make it unprintable due to the amount of text. (-3) Tracking good AND bad deeds for multiple cards would be a nightmare (-2). What is "killing"? (-1).

Development
(3/3) Viability - No issues here.
(0/3) Balance - As mentioned in Appeal, the card does nothing.

Creativity
(3/3) Uniqueness - Deeds are definitely unique. So is granting vanishing without a number.
(2/3) Flavor - One major issue, with Vanishing being unconditional, this is technically a death sentence and you can only prolong the wait with good deeds. Not exatly a "parole".

Polish
(1.5/3) Quality - "end of your turn" → "beginning of your end step" (-0.5), ", and remove" → ", then remove" (-0.5), "it ... did" → "it ... has done" (-0.5)
(0.5/2) Main Challenge - "previously" is completely forced here and does nothing.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.

Total: 12/25

Freyleyes

Show

Hide

Time Tinkerer U
Artifact Creature — Construct (R)
At the beginning of your upkeep, if you did not activate an ability of Time Tinkerer during the previous turn, put a time counter on Time Tinkerer.
Remove a time counter from Time Tinkerer: The next activated or triggered ability you control this turn functions as if it had split second. (As long that ability is on the stack, players can't cast spells or activate abilities that aren't mana abilities.)
"Let's make the time for it."
1/3

Design
(0.5/3) Appeal - Not impactful enough for Timmy to care, Johnny might look at it to add a layer of security to his ability-based combos, which doesn't impress Spike at all.
(1/3) Elegance - "Previous turn" isn't too obvious whether it means the factual last turn, which is most commonly an opponent's turn (how it functions) or "your previous turn" which comes to mind first (-1). This could have been done using a well-known "beginning of the end step" trigger (-1).

Development
(3/3) Viability - No issues here. This is definitely a Rare effect and Blue is an okay color to do it in.
(2.5/3) Balance - 1/3 without defender with an upside for 1 in Blue is a bit too much, being Rare doesn't fully justify it (-0.5)

Creativity
(2.5/3) Uniqueness - Split second for abilities is cool, even if putting this "ability gains another ability" into CR would be a nightmare!
(1.5/3) Flavor - A Construct that is a Tinkerer himself? Both the name and the flavor text would suggest a Human (or any living humanoid). My inner Vorthos is not happy.

Polish
(1.5/3) Quality - "during the previous turn" should simply be "last turn" as demonstrated on Afflicted Deserter and Ephara, God of the Polis (-1). "functions as if it had split second" → "as though": Biomancer's Familiar, Thousand-Year Elixir etc (-0.5)
(1/2) Main Challenge - "Previous" was incorrectly forced here, but I won't penalize you twice for it.
(1/2) Subchallenges - Time counters used

Total: 14.5/25

MonoRedMage

Show

Hide

Furnace Layer Nibbler R
Creature - Phyrexian Gremlin {C}
At the beginning of your upkeep, target opponent previously dealt damage by Furnace Layer Nibbler sacrifices an artifact.
2RR, T: Furnace Layer Nibbler deals 2 damage to target player.
1/1

Design
(1/3) Appeal - Too situational for Timmy, nothing for Johnny, Spikes loves a strong hoser.
(3/3) Elegance - All clear!

Development
(2/3) Viability - Free repeatable artifact edicts don't belong at Common (-1).
(1/3) Balance - Free repeatable artifact edicts don't belong anywhere really. This 1 mana 1/1 critter says "kill me or you can't play artifacts" to your opponents. (-2)

Creativity
(3/3) Uniqueness - A cool variation on a pinger for 2 that trades high mana value and low activation cost for low mana value and high activation cost. And yes, that edict effect is unique.
(2.5/3) Flavor - Perfect. I wish there also was some flavor text, there is room for it!

Polish
(3/3) Quality - All good!
(1/2) Main Challenge - Diseased Vermin's effect, good.
(1/2) Subchallenges - It's a Common.

Total: 17.5/25

Raptorchan

Show

Hide

Capricious Cerberus 3r
Creature - Dog (C)
Haste
Capricious Cerberus attacks each combat if able and attacks a player, planeswalker or battle that wasn't previously dealt damage by it if able.
His heads have different tastes in meat despite sharing the same stomach.
4/4

Design
(1.5/3) Appeal - Timmy would probably enjoy slamming this early and dominating the board. Spike would love it.
(2.5/3) Elegance - That forced attack ability is well-worded. Still, might cause some memory issues if several Battles / PWs are on the 'field (-0.5).

Development
(2.5/3) Viability - One could argue it's against New World Order, as Commons are not allowed to influence more than one card on the 'field. This forces everyone to track all Battles and PWs against it (-0.5).
(2/3) Balance - This is pushed, and that's bad (in my book balanced cards are good, but not pushed). Take a look at this query. Your card is much closer to Flameborn Hellion than to Reckless Brute (-1).

Creativity
(2.5/3) Uniqueness - This ability is something quite unique and would be fun to play around given proper Limited environment.
(3/3) Flavor - Nice work on the flavor text and the overal feeling on the card, I dig the doggy.

Polish
(3/3) Quality - No problems here.
(1/2) Main Challenge - "previously" is a riff off Diseased Vermin. Nothing wrong with it, but nothing to write home about either.
(1/2) Subchallenges - Common rarity gets it.

Total: 19/25

Results (bold advance)

Show

Hide

Raptorchan 19
MonoRedMage 17.5
Freyleyes 14.5
Caspernicus 14
netn10 12

[bravelion83]

Judgments complete. I've also finished to reread everything and fix any typos I could find. As usual, sorry for any ones that I might have not caught and that might still be there..

First, a general note. Common traits of submissions this round, at least in my bracket but maybe in general too, include the following: high complexity, high word count, microtext, forgetting NWO is a thing, marking cards as commons only for the purposes of meeting Subchallenge 2 but ending up losing in other areas more than the one point gained by meeting that Subchallenge, and not just one but two examples just in this bracket that the contrary is actually true: you CAN give up Subchallenges, even both of them, and actually end up gaining points because you have a good and strong design (note that the highest scoring player in this bracket gave up BOTH Subchallenges yet ended up on top anyway). None of these things are good. That's not a problem to me as a judge though, but maybe the players who are advancing might want to keep these things in mind for the next round. This was indeed a round that highly rewarded creativity, but not at the expense of making unrealistic design choices. The scores are very low this round, but that's not just because of the scores we are testing in Main Challenge (and Uniqueness for me). There is more than just that going on here this round.

---

Reminder of the test about Main Challenge scores (and Uniqueness for me)

Show

Hide

Added to the Clarifications section.

Also, as agreed with my co-judge, there will be some minor experimental changes to how we judge cards this month.

Main Challenge scoring guidelines:
0.0/2: MC not met / letter of the challenge not met / DQ.
0.5/2: Spirit of the challenge not met (should only be the case if somebody ignores finer details in the Clarifications section).
1.0/2: Letter and spirit of the challenge are met.
1.5/2 and 2/2: Bonus for creative approach completely subject to the judge.

Additionally, in the 3rd round, the "versus round", pairings will be determined by scores accumulated in rounds 1 & 2. Contestants with the most points will be paired against those with the least points.

As mentioned above, these changes are experimental and we are looking to hearing your feedback after this month is done.

(...)

This is just a test for January, nothing has officially changed in the MCC rules or in the guidelines document yet.
(...)
As a separate note, but this is only related to me personally as a judge (and I will mention it again at the beginning of all of my judging posts in January), I'm going to try a new way to judge the Uniqueness area of the rubric, starting with a default of 1.5 and going above or below it as needed. It will be harder to get a 3/3 in that area, but it allows me as a judge to prize more the cards that really deserve it. I'm going to see how I feel about this, and if I feel good about it, I don't exclude to apply a similar system in other areas too, just maybe with a slightly higher default. For now, I'll try this new approach only in Uniqueness on January, continuing to judge as I've always done in other areas for now, except the Main Challenge section of course, where I will apply Ryder's scoretable in the post right above this one.

Microtext limits (for reference)

Show

Hide

In the M15 frame, you can have:
• Up to eight lines with however many breaks you want.
• Nine lines with up to four breaks. If you have more than four breaks, it's microtext.
• Ten lines with up to two breaks. If you have more than two breaks, it's microtext.
• Eleven lines and a single break. If you have more than one break, it's microtext.
• If you have twelve lines of more, it's microtext regardless of breaks.

In the MSE M15 frame you can have at most:
• Eight lines or fewer with any number of paragraph breaks.
• Nine lines with at most four breaks.
• Ten lines with at most two breaks.
• Eleven lines with a single break.
• Everything that is twelve lines or more is microtext regardless of breaks.

---

Subject16

Show

Hide

Psychic Torrent 1U
Instant (C)
When you cast this spell, copy it for each previous time you've cast a spell from anywhere other than your hand this turn. You may choose new targets for the copies.
Target player mills three cards.
Deluge U (You may cast this spell from your graveyard by paying its deluge cost if you cast a spell from anywhere other than your hand this turn. Then exile it.)
The first loss is memory, the second is certainty. Lastly comes self, the most delectable of all.

Design
Appeal 2/3 - Timmy likes milling opponents but the effect reads a bit too small for him. This is no Glimpse the Unthinkable. This card is Johnny's paradise, every little detail is aimed at him, and he loves it. Spike doesn't like milling too much, after all it's like having to deal twice or three times the damage she needs to deal normally, but if Johnny finds some "immediately milling your opponent's whole library" combo or something like that, it's then that she will become very interested in it.
Elegance 1.5/3 - The text looks shorter than it actually is. I didn't think it would have been, but I've tried in the MSE M15 frame and this is actually microtext: ten lines and three breaks. Even if it weren't microtext it would have been way too wordy for a common anyway, after all they made NWO for a reason. At least the text looks easy enough to understand at the first reading and there are no memory issues as you're only checking how many times you did the thing this turn. That helps, but it's not enough to fully make up for the microtext problem.
Development
Viability 1/3 - This, like several other cards this round, is not a common. If it is, it's clearly just to meet Subchallenge 2, but that makes you lose more in this area than the one point you gain for artificially meeting the Subchallenge. Why? Word count, complexity, potential for cheap card advantage, all of that can be found here. They made NWO for a reason, and this pretty much goes against it in every possible way. No problems with the color pie, and I can't see any rules issues either. That helps, but this is just unprintable as a common.
Balance 2/3 - Disregarding rarity, the rate and costs look good. I'm fine with the deluge cost being low because I think that turning it on is actually more difficult than it might look at first glance. I can't really see this in limited, milling isn't usually a viable strategy there. In constructed instead you can build your deck all around it, even if it's easier to do it in older formats rather than Standard in cases like milling. Not that it's necessarily a bad thing. Milling is a casual favorite, and I don't see any particular changes in multiplayer.
Creativity
Uniqueness 1.5/3 - The first ability is clearly inspired by the storm mechanic. I'd like to give you a bonus for the deluge mechanic, but unfortunately it just feels too similar to the paradox mechanic from the recent Doctor Who Commander decks, at least in spirit, and it's also very close to the flashback mechanic. I feel like the default score is the most appropriate one here given that.
Flavor 3/3 - Just perfect. Name, mechanical flavor, and especially the flavor text. All the flavor elements of this card feel printable as is to me, and the resulting package feels very good. Excellent job here!
Polish
Quality 3/3 - All good.
Main Challenge 1/2 - The word "previous" is there and the wording is correct. Both the letter and the spirit of the challenge are met. Essentially a variation on storm, so no bonuses for creativity.
Subchallenges 1/2 - No time counters, but lowest rarity of the round.
TOTAL 16/25

haywire

Show

Hide

Unshakeable Burden 2B
Enchantment — Aura {C}
Enchant creature an opponent controls
Vanishing 1
When you sacrifice Unshakeable Burden, return it to the battlefield attached to target creature an opponent controls. If that creature is the same creature previously enchanted by this card, its controller loses 2 life and you scry 1. (Only the creature most recently enchanted by this card counts.)
Try as you might, some loads are not easily shed.

Design
Appeal 1.5/3 - Timmy likes the repeatable life loss and the physical card manipulation built into this card, but it doesn't look like the style of play he prefers, and I think vanishing 1 doesn't read that well to him. Johnny is... Where is he? He was here until just a few seconds ago... Oh, here is a message from him! "Sorry Leo but I had some brewing to do and I couldn't wait..." *sighs* Ok, I guess I will have to do without him for the rest of this judgment... (Yes, I like to have some fun with my judgment writing sometimes...) Spike doesn't like Auras that much due to their inherent card disadvantage, and I don't think this is an exception to that.
Elegance 1/3 - The text is long, almost at the limit of microtext. Actually, as is it's not microtext by a single break (nine lines and three breaks in the M15 frame according to MSE), but it's a common so you have to include reminder text for vanishing (also see Quality), which turns it into real microtext (it becomes ten lines and three breaks), and that's the biggest problem of this card in this area: if you do it the way you should, it becomes unprintable. I agree that the reminder text for only the most recent creature counting is indeed needed, and it helps a lot in communicating how this card is supposed to work and be played. It's still too complex for a common in my opinion. For sure, it's too wordy for a common. NWO exists for a reason. As for potential memory issues, I don't think there are any here: you're always checking for something that has happened before in the same turn, you never have to remember what happened on previous turns (pun actually unintended). That's not the problem. The problem lies in what I've detailed before the previous sentence (this time it was intentional instead, I noticed I did it before so I did it again).
Development
Viability 0.5/3 - This, like several other cards this round, is not a common. If it is, it's clearly just to meet Subchallenge 2, but that makes you lose more in this area than the one point you gain for artificially meeting the Subchallenge. Why? Word count, complexity, potential for cheap card advantage, all of that can be found here. They made NWO for a reason, and this pretty much goes against it in every possible way. No problems with the color pie. That helps, but this is just unprintable as a common. As for the rules, I'm not sure they support the check of whether "that creature is the same creature previously enchanted by this", and anyway the word "card" right afterwards is wrong. On the battlefield, there are "permanents", not "cards". A "card" is in any zone other than the battlefield, but this must be on the battlefield in the first place for it to be able to enchant anything at all, and it's not a "card" while it's on the battlefield. That's the wrong word. I would have just repeated the card name: "...previously enchanted by Unshakeable Burden." That would have worked in the rules, as when the card's name is mentioned in rules text it simply means "this object, whatever it is".
Balance 2/3 - Disregarding rarity, repeatable life loss and scry are powerful. A drawback is needed, and having to give up the ability to enchant different creatures might be a good enough one. I think this could see limited play even if it's not a creature, removal, or a combat trick, the problem is again that this is not actually a common and that impacts limited a lot. I could see some constructed combo decks involving this plus any sacrifice outlet. The last ability doesn't say that the sacrifice has to be to vanishing. The only problem I can think of in casual is the high complexity, especially if you're playing multiple copies of this at the same time. In multiplayer, you could technically move this around creatures controlled by different opponents, even though I'm not sure you actually want to do that very much.
Creativity
Uniqueness 2.5/3 - Default score is 1.5. I'm giving you a +0.5 for vanishing 1, which feels like a nice twist on vanishing to me, and an additional +0.5 for the unusual way the last ability works.
Flavor 1.5/3 - Name, mechanical flavor, and flavor text are quite good in my opinion, but if you include the reminder text for vanishing (as you should at low rarity, see Quality), then there is no longer room for flavor text, at least according to MSE. Despite how nice the flavor text is, including that instead of the reminder text for vanishing is the wrong call on a common. It would be allowed if this card were a rare or mythic, and in that case doing what you did here would be the right call. Not on a common though.
Polish
Quality 2.5/3 - Missing reminder text for vanishing. This is not a rare or mythic, so you can't omit it for lack of room, you have to adjust the rest to the card to include it. (-0.5) The condition in the last ability is new so there is no precedent, but I find it reasonable and realistic enough, so no deductions for that. All the rest looks good.
Main Challenge 2/2 - The word "previously" is there, and the wording looks correct. Both letter and spirit of the challenge are met. I'm giving you a full bonus for creativity as I can't remember any existing Aura (or Equipment, for what it's worth) cards that leave and then reenter the battlefield and care about whether the creature they enchant is the same. To me, this effect feels very original and realistic enough at the same time.
Subchallenges 2/2 - Vanishing uses time counters and it's (only technically, see Viability above) one of the cards with the lowest rarity this round.
TOTAL 15.5/25

Komandon

Show

Hide

Temporal Imprisonment 2W
Enchantment — Aura (common)
Enchant creature or planeswalker
If you cast Temporal Imprisonment from your hand, it enters the battlefield with an additional time counter from each previous time you cast a card named Temporal Imprisonment this game.
Vanishing 1 (This enchantment enters the battlefield with one time counter on it. At the beginning of your upkeep, remove a time counter from it. When the last is removed, sacrifice it.)
Enchanted permanent can't attack, block, and it's activated abilities can't be activated.
When you sacrifice Temporal Imprisonment, you may pay 1. If you do put it into its owner's library third from the top.

Design
Appeal 2.5/3 - Timmy likes preventing his opponent's creature from attacking, blocking, and activating abilities, but he doesn't like when such effects are played against his own creatures. There are definitely things to do for Johnny here. Spike likes a lot the recursion and especially the fact that if you want this to go on a different creature, you can just sacrifice this to vanishing, eventually redraw this and replay it on the new creature (it will even enter with an additional time counter out of this play), but in the end she might be left wondering if this is actually better than a simple Arrest.
Elegance 0.5/3 - The text is just too long, especially for a common. Not only NWO is a thing for a reason (see Viability), but this is also microtext on top of that. MSE shows me it's eleven lines and four breaks in the M15 frame. That's microtext without any doubt (feel free to check in the reference spoiler at the beginning of these judgments), and that would be a problem even on a mythic, let alone on a common. This is unprintable as is, and that's too big of a problem to ignore. Removing the reminder text for vanishing, which you can't do anyway on a common, only on a rare or mythic, wouldn't help either. The text would become ten lines and four breaks with a slightly bigger font, but still microtext. Not a full zero only because that's reserved for cases even more extreme than this one.
Development
Viability 1/3 - This, like several other cards this round, is not a common. If it is, it's clearly just to meet Subchallenge 2, but that makes you lose more in this area than the one point you gain for artificially meeting the Subchallenge. Why? Word count, complexity, potential for cheap card advantage, all of that can be found here. They made NWO for a reason, and this pretty much goes against it in every possible way. No problems with the color pie, and I can't see any rules issues either. That helps, but this is just unprintable as a common.
Balance 2/3 - Disregarding rarity, removal is always good in limited, especially one that can be recurred. There might be better options in constructed though, and I'm not sure the potential for recursion is worth eventually having to sacrifice it. Again, maybe sometimes a simple Arrest could be preferable over this. In casual, the complexity and high word count could turn off some players. I see no changes about all of this in multiplayer.
Creativity
Uniqueness 1.5/3 - An Arrest variant that uses time counters and gets better the more times you cast it. Vanishing 1 feels like a nice twist on vanishing to me and would bring the score up, but the clear inspiration and similarity in effect to Arrest is too blatant to ignore and would bring the score down, so those essentially cancel each other out and you get the default score.
Flavor 2.5/3 - The name feels slightly uninspired to me but it works. Obviously no room for flavor text, so its absence is not a problem.
Polish
Quality 0/3 - In the "if you cast..." ability, "from" should be "for" in "from each previous time". (-0.5) Right after that, "you cast" should be "you've cast" (see for example the last ability of the infamous, from a rules point of view, Henzie "Toolbox" Torre, and also Jirina Kudro and several other cards with similar abilities from various Commander decks, -0.5). In the Arrest effect there are two Quality mistakes in only four consecutive words: the comma between "attack" and "block" should not be there, and an "or" should be in its place instead. (-0.5) Also, the infamous, from a grammar point of view, eternal struggle between the possessive "its" (no apostrophe) and the verb "it's" (with the apostrophe) strikes again, and here you've chosen the wrong one. It should have been the former. This is a serious mistake because it makes the sentence completely lose its meaning (notice the lack of apostrophe here) not just in Magic templating but also in the English language, so -1 for that as usual from me for this mistake. I've seen it happen too many times in my years of involvement with the MCC, and it's just so easy to avoid (notice the use of the apostrophe here instead). In the last ability, a comma is missing right after "If you do". (-0.5) Interestingly, the "its" right after that is the correct one. Why did you get it wrong earlier and instead you got it right here? This is also microtext on top of all of this, but the score is already at zero here and I've taken care of that already in Elegance (see above), so I'm not penalizing you twice for that. Not like that matters when you're already at zero though...
Main Challenge 1/2 - Both letter and spirit are met just fine. Not giving any bonus for creativity because the use of the word "previous" here is quite reminiscent of storm, an already existing mechanic.
Subchallenges 2/2 - Vanishing uses time counters and it's (only technically, see Viability above) one of the cards with the lowest rarity this round.
TOTAL 13/25

AnotherAlias

Show

Hide

Blood Curd
Artifact — Blood Food (U)
Blood Curd enters the battlefield tapped.
, , Discard a card, Sacrifice Blood Curd: You gain 3 life and draw a card.
Escape—, Exile three other cards from your graveyard, Pay for each previous time you've cast this spell from your graveyard this game. (You may cast this card from your graveyard for its escape cost.)

Design
Appeal 3/3 - Timmy likes repeatable life gain while Spike likes repeatable card drawing. Johnny can also easily exploit several aspects of this card and can easily build different combo engines out of them.
Elegance 1.5/3 - The text is very easy to understand, but there are memory issues here. You will have to track how many times you've cast a spell named Blood Curd from your graveyard (you actually have to word it like this, see Quality) during the whole game, not just this turn or the last one at most. That's easy to do in the early game, but not in the late game. Will you remember how many times you've done it this game on turn 10 or more in a control mirror match? You will have to track this with pen and paper, and you already have many things to track in a game of Magic, you don't need to add another one on top of them, again, especially in the late game.
Development
Viability 3/3 - This card is the demonstration that you couldn't just do any card you wanted and just call it a common to meet Subchallenge 2. This is the correct way to do things: you have a good idea for a card design and you just let it be whatever rarity it wants to be. Yes, you're giving up a Subchallenge, but if the design is actually good enough, you will gain in other areas the one point you lose for the Subchallenge and even more, actually ending up gaining points. That's the case here. I mean, just look at how many cards are in this round that are marked as commons but would never be common if they were real. I want to prize your approach here, that's the correct one. Everyone remember: only the Main Challenge is mandatory. You CAN give up Subchallenges, those are optional. Subchallenges aren't meant to be automatic, and from a host's perspective, making it so that the Subchallenges are actually meaningful and difficult enough to meet is part of the job. If players are having trouble meeting all of them, it means that the set of challenges you created is good. Subchallenges are meant to be additional obstacles you have to overcome to get the extra point, and if you force things just to meet them, you're going to be penalized. Instead you did the right thing, and you get prized compared to your opponents in this bracket. No problems with the color pie or the rules.
Balance 3/3 - I think this is playable in limited. Escape is what could make this card see some constructed play. I see no problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity
Uniqueness 3/3 - Default score is 1.5. I'm giving you a +0.5 for the combination of Blood and Food, which feels very nice to me, an additional +0.5 for the "gravestorm" part of the escape cost, which is new, and another additional +0.5 for escape on a noncreature artifact.
Flavor 3/3 - Just perfect. Every little detail contributes to make a whole package that feels very natural, from the name to the type line to the abilities. Excellent job!
Polish
Quality 2/3 - In the escape cost, "this spell" should be "a spell named Blood Curd". The game doesn't recognize that the specific piece of cardboard is the same in black border (unlike in silver border), so the most you can do is checking the card name instead. This is a functional mistake, so -1 for that. All the rest is good.
Main Challenge 1.5/2 - Both letter and spirit are met. I'm giving you a 0.5 bonus for creativity, as this is reminiscent of gravestorm, but it's different enough to be its own thing: this only checks for spells with this name while gravestorm cares about all spells and has been used on a single card ever, and futureshifted on top of that. It's also reminiscent of the commander tax, but it also works differently from that, counting the times you've cast this from the graveyard and not the command zone, and any way you couldn't use this as your commander even if you wanted. I see a bit of originality here, so I want to give you a bonus for that, but not the full bonus because its inspirations are visible anyway, it's not something never seen before. Also, I see even more originality in haywire's card in this same bracket, so I want to give the full bonus to them while still recognizing the originality I can see here, which does exist but it's not as big. I admit it does feel nice being able to make a scale of scores that reflects the fact that I see originality in both cards, but more in one than the other.
Subchallenges 0/2 - No time counters and not the lowest rarity this round. The highest total score in this bracket though. This is another demonstration of the fact I was mentioning in another judgment above: that Subchallenges CAN be given up, and sometimes that's actually the right call if you have a strong design that will more than make up for the lost points in other areas of the rubric.
TOTAL 20/25

Yan_MTG

Show

Hide

Time Sieve 2U

Enchantment (U)

At the beginning of your upkeep, scry X, were X is one plus the number of time counters on all permanents and suspended cards.
When Time Sieve enters the battlefield, add or remove X time counter from target permanent or target suspended card, where X is one plus the number of times you've previously cast Time Sieve this game.

"Time is a construct, in reality everything flows, no past or present, only the now"

Design
Appeal 1/3 - Timmy doesn't really care. Johnny likes pretty much everything here instead. Spike likes to scry for potentially big values, but I'm not sure how much she cares about the rest.
Elegance 1/3 - The text is a bit long but easy enough to understand. There are memory issues here though: you have to remember how many times you cast a spell named Time Sieve (you actually have to word it like this, see Quality) during the whole game, not just this turn or the last one at most. That's easy to do in the early game, but not in the late game. Will you remember how many times you've done it this game on turn 10 or more in a control mirror match? You will have to track this with pen and paper, and you already have many things to track in a game of Magic, you don't need to add another one on top of them, again, especially in the late game.
Development
Viability 2/3 - It's a good thing that this isn't common. I could also see this at rare, but uncommon also looks acceptable to me. No problems with the color pie or the rules, but I have a little remark though. I think that the first ability should only count your own permanents and suspended cards, not all of them. It's the same reasoning why typal lords once gave +1/+1 to all creatures of that type, even your opponents' ones, while today they only do so for creatures of that type you control. A typical example of this is Slivers. This card is designed like an old Sliver from older sets, not one like they would do it today.
Balance 2/3 - Assuming this is from a set that uses suspend as a set mechanic, this might see play in both limited and constructed for the purposes of manipulating time counters. If there is no suspend instead, there is no real point in playing this card. No particular differences in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity
Uniqueness 1.5/3 - We've already seen time counter manipulation in Time Spiral block and the second ability reminds me of the already existing time travel mechanic from the recent Doctor Who Commander decks. This doesn't really catch my attention in this area, it feels to me like the default score is the most appropriate one here.
Flavor 2.5/3 - The name works but it feels a little uninspired to me. The flavor text has a lot of Quality mistakes (see below), but I'll take care of those there, I'm not penalizing you twice for the same mistakes. If I only consider the meaning of the flavor text here instead, that's pretty good.
Polish
Quality 0/3 - The MCC is unfortunately the most formal contest here, and there is a recommended card templating that you can find in the guidelines document (link in this round's OP and in my signature) and that I have to judge this card against. That templating does not contain breaks between the different parts of the text card, so I have to count the three extra line breaks. -0.5 for each instance makes -1.5 already. On top of that, there are several other mistakes. In the first ability, "were" instead of "where". In English those are two completely different words, and the one you're looking for here is the latter. The former, without the "H", is the past tense of the verb "to be", and makes no grammatical sense in the sentence. At the contrary, it makes it completely lose its meaning, not just in Magic templating, but in the English language in general. I get that maybe English is not your native language, and that's exactly why I'm explaining why this is a serious grammar mistake in detail (-1 for serious mistake). Don't worry, you don't have to be a native English speaker to be involved in the MCC, I, for example, am not. In the second ability there is another serious mistake in the English language: the word "counter" should be plural, so with an "s" at the end: "counters" (again, -1 for serious mistake). Oh, look, you got the "where" right in that ability, so the one from before is probably actually just a typo... That doesn't make it less serious though, so the deduction stands. In black border, the physical piece of cardboard can't be tracked, that only works in silver border, so the most you can do is checking the card name: "...you've previously cast a spell named Time Sieve this game" (-1 for functional mistake). The flavor text should be in italics, and that's a very well-known fact, just check literally any Magic card that has it in the whole history of the game, so that's also a -1 for serious mistake. Two period/full stops are also missing in the flavor text: one at the end and that's for sure (-0.5), and probably another one right after the word "construct" at the beginning. If I try to pronounce it, I feel like that flavor text wants to be two separate sentences. I won't count this last one for two reasons: the comma might also work, that's probably subjective, and also it's meaningless to count it. There are already enough mistakes here for this to be a full zero. The total would actually be negative, but I can't give negative points or go below zero with the score, so that's what I have to give you in this area. I'm sorry.
Main Challenge 1/2 - Both letter and spirit are met. No creativity bonus as I essentially see this as a variation on storm, only that it looks just for spells with a specific name and during the whole game (and this last point generates memory issues, but I've already taken care of those above, so I'm not going to penalize you twice for the same thing).
Subchallenges 1/2 - Time counters are used but this is not of the lowest rarity this round.
TOTAL 12/25

Results (bold advance)

Show

Hide

AnotherAlias: 20
Subject16: 16
haywire: 15.5
Komandon: 13
Yan_MTG: 12