Set Theme Game

Council of Oligarchs
3U
Creature - Human Advisor
Uncommon
Whenever players finish voting, each player who voted for a choice you voted for draws a card. (This effect includes you.)
Parties were always the best way to garner power on Fiora.
2/5

So this is a highly political commander card, an encourages opponents to vote as you please. This is designed for the kind of players who love politics in commander and making deals and the like - exactly the kind of players who would be putting "Council's Dilemma" cards in their deck. Also, the stats are ok for a blue deck that just wants to sit back and stop aggro decks from proceeding, allowing for a slower game.

Had to take a few days, but I'm back. Time for judging!

ameisenmeister: Good flavour on this one. It feels very Red, and very Goblin. I appreciate that it's not really a full turn, so much as just count a turn passing, untap, attack. On the other hand, it doesn't really take advantage of anything that's unique to Take the Crown mechanically. However, the flavour text ties it into the setting perfectly.

Flo00: "Voted for" is the correct wording. Voted on would imply something was the subject of a vote, whether it won or not, which could be interpreted as destroying every creature. This seems balanced enough, as mass-removal goes, and ties in nicely to the previous card. I'm actually not even sure it needs to be rare. It's a little disappointing that it has neither a render, nor flavour text, though, as on its own it feels a bit generic.

sdfkjgh: Okay, first of all, your political commentary is on point. This also seems like a decently balanced card, though one definitely more suited to games with a larger number of players. Flavour-wise, though, this should have been silver bordered, and doesn't fit the target set at all. (Thanks for making me laugh, though.)

Jartis: Interesting choice, going for a card with monstrosity over one of the more obvious "agenda" mechanics. I think that ordinarily this might dilute the identity a bit, since monstrosity is associated a bit more with Theros, but by tying it in with becoming the monarch, you managed to sidestep that pitfall nicely. The Plainslord makes for a decent heavy-hitter, and actually elevates the mechanics it's tied to, for me. Monarch mechanics play best in bigger games, though, and I'm on the fence as to how well this card holds up in a big game. At 5CMC and with a four mana investment to get a +1/+1 that paints a bullseye on you, it feels like its asking you to stall out a bit. I think if it had been monstrosity 2, or had some kind of ability that helped you defend the crown once you take it, that would have really pushed the design over the edge for me. As stands, it's playable, but probably wouldn't be something I'd pick on the first pass.

Tesagk: This is a clever design, with a lot of versatility. It's also very reliant on having a lot of mana in two different colours to spare. The flexibility helps, but I think that it would be better if either the second ability didn't have to tap, so you could get some final use out of him if things went south, or else there were a way to pump him up again. As it stands, it feels more modal than flexible, as you pretty much have to commit to him either being a sniper, or a beatstick. It doesn't feel great, when he requires a lot of setup already. Also, with the heavy use of R/W and the guild theming, this card just feels very Ravnican. The art helps sell it for the set, but it still feels out of place, and more like this guy belongs working for the administrative arm of the Boros Legion.

Boogymanjunior: This is another card that went in an interesting direction. It's a nice cantrip that plays solidly into the multiplayer focus and political aspects of the set, and synergizes quite well with one of the set's new mechanics. This might not be a staple card in every deck, but it's a perfect example of a well-thought-out common, and would definitely be playable in the set.

somerandomtom: Well, the art is definitely out of set flavour, but works well for what it's trying to convey. Mechanically, I like what's going on here, though. Bribing the other players to vote your way is a good plan, and I've dabbled with the idea of cards designed to sway votes myself. That said, it should probably read "each other player", so that it's not giving you a free card each time a vote is called. Also, the toughness feels a little high for a card like this, even taking the CMC into account.


A lot of good entries, this time around! Even I wasn't sure who to give it to until the end. There can only be one winner, though, and I had to make a choice...

That choice is Boogymanjunior, congratulations!

Oona's Enforcer 
Creature - Faerie Rogue 
Flying
, : Tap each other creature of the creature type of your choice.
2/3

Meant to be part of a vertical cycle with Silkbind Faerie

You don't have to mention one of the creature types. In fact, the challenge is to not give one of the creature types a bonus explicitly. For example, you could have "white creatures get +1/+1" (thus affecting Kithkin), but you can't have "Kithkin get +1/+1." Though, as the challenge also states, you could design any other card that would fit in the set as well. So, put simply, the challenge is "design a card that doesn't explicitly buff (the listed creature types)."

Unless I'm way off the mark, but based on other entries, that seems to be the case.

I will judge a little bit shorter:



fluffydeathbringer
Pro: balanced; I always like global effects one must play around a little bit; impactful; boosting a theme of Shadowmoor multicolor while hosing another, name fitting with Lorwyn events

Contra: missing flavor text

gluestick248
Pro: fresh interaction (hybrid matters); while trigger not so common as per multicolored spell, reward fittingly powerful (balanced), gives room for another cycle

Contra: boosting hybrid spells while pushing towards one specific color is disturbing hybrid's variability (counterproductive); no rarity (common or uncommon?), missing flavor text

Jartis
Pro: vertical cycle theme; although narrow, fun use with your own merfolk while still feeling faerie enough

Contra: missing flavor text

somerandomtom
Pro: funny name in spirit of Goblins from Lorwyn/Shadowmoor; name fitting with fine red-green vibe
Contra: clunky while also feeling not that rewarding, only giving red and green creatures a buff a bit too focingly focused on that for my taste, missing flavor text



sdfkjgh

Pro: in spirit of tiny land-focus in Shadowmoor; using „Whimsey“ to contrast Kelpies' „normal“ behaviour/theme of graveyard recursion with graveyard filling

Contra: nevertheless very narrow and thus, weak; Beast Tribal not really fitting (I know, Kelpies are beasts); while pointing towards Kelpies, non-fitting , missing flavor text

ludvikeverviolet



Pro: balanced: little investment with huge potential, especially when the tokens of one of them feeds another Collector Pumpkin, but nevertheless needing a little bit build-around; nice flavour text, especially with the picture's transfigured arm giving me the impression that he transforms his collections into disgusting little scarecrows

Contra: not that fitting as Lorwyn/Shadowmoor doesn't have an artifact theme

kefke



Pro: smooth and balanced, flavorful shoutout to folklore's faerie rings (which lets me to let it slip that these effects are more white-blue than blue-green)

Contra: a little flavor text is missing, especially with the name's flavor implications; no tribal-spells in Shadowmoor

Tesagk

Pro: regarding smoothness, better than Deanerys (ahem, Chainbreaker) and Woeleecher, balanced, fitting, in general cool flavor text although snuffing out life isn't really represented in this card

Contra: would be better if it could also target creatures you don't control like it's brethrens so that it can also disrupt -1/-1 counter shenanigans of your opponents

mrlozano

Pro: nice flavour, gives Oona another type of ruthlessness; synergism within the card

Contra: a little bit too depending of your opponent's game, but when, way too much hosing → not balanced; also, activation costs should not be things to combine with your opponent or opponent's cards as this includes heavy timing problems (not being able to respond to an effect which affects yourself doesn't make fun gameplay)

So, apparently Invasion had a Divvy Theme (where a player separates a number of cards into multiple piles and the other player chooses what to do with them) and six of them, so I just went with that.

Five lines of text weren't enough for me to don't include a flavour text, something the others didn't have, but okay.

I also had to make a choice between using the M15 style + the flavour bar and using the original style + losing the flavour bar, so I went with what I think distracts a little bit less.

Oh shiet, how could I not see this, or rather do this in the first place? I will change it soon if there is enough time.

judging in 24, get edits/entries in

Ah, almost got it XD