Multiverse Design Challenge: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity
All challenges | Upcoming Challenges | Make a new design challenge! | All challenges (text)

CardName: Jace's Simulacrum Cost: 3U Type: Planeswalker Pow/Tgh: /3 Rules Text: [+1] Draw a card, then discard a card. [+0] Discard a card, then draw a card. [-6] Draw two cards. Flavour Text: Set/Rarity: Multiverse Design Challenge Common

Jace's Simulacrum
+1 Draw a card, then discard a card.
+0 Discard a card, then draw a card.
-6 Draw two cards.
Created on 08 Jun 2012 by jmgariepy

History: [-]

2012-06-08 04:56:44: jmgariepy created the card Jace's Simulacrum
2012-06-08 04:56:54: jmgariepy edited Jace's Simulacrum

For Challenge # 042. One more shot at making a three ability common planeswalker. I think the folly of Chandra's Simulacrum is that I tried to get too much accomplished on one card. Common, even if it is cluttered and confusing, is still supposed to tell a simple story. I think this one works much better. The abilities are straightforward, and, when summed up, tell a simple story. The conflict in the [-0] is straight-forward as well, telling players that they have the choice of stopping to draw a card, or moving forward and potentially drawing more/protect the Simulacrum.

Should the [+1] and [0] abilities maybe be switched? I figure drawing first gives you more options, making it more powerful.

The [0] can be abused, since, if you can't discard a card, you don't. You just draw a card. That's tricky for new player's to understand, but I'm okay with them not getting it immediately, using the card for a while, then picking up on how they can take advantage of the [+0] later. Though it does raise a question of whether it would be better to just say "If you have no cards in hand, draw a card". Not as pleasing symmetrically, but easier to process. Don't know.

Since you'd only ever use the +0 when you have no cards in hand, I think it should just say that. Although that's not very blue. I don't think either way quite makes the "single story" concept, which I agree is the right way to make a 3-ability walker.

On Young Chandra (at uncommon) I nearly separated "1 damage to cr" and "1 dmg to player" into 2 ablties to make 3 total, but decided it just looked messy. Hmmm, Jace's simalcrum is pretty good, I wonder if there's anything else that would make a good 3-ability common?

I think it's possible, but it is tough to fit your head in that box. Chandra's Simulacrum could have instead said:

[+1] Deal 1 damage to up to one target creature.
[-1] Deal 1 damage to all creatures.
[-6] Deal 4 damage to target player.

I got too fancy, and it backfired. It was a good backfire, mind you. It got me to focus on what was important here.


Add your comments:

(formatting help)
Enter mana symbols like this: {2}{U}{U/R}{PR}, {T} becomes {2}{u}{u/r}{pr}, {t}
You can use Markdown such as _italic_, **bold**, ## headings ##
Link to [[[Official Magic card]]] or (((Card in Multiverse)))
Include [[image of official card]] or ((image or mockup of card in Multiverse))
Make hyperlinks like this: [text to show](destination url)
How much damage does this card deal? Lightning Bolt
(Signed-in users don't get captchas and can edit their comments)