My Universe, My Rules: Recent Activity
| My Universe, My Rules: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Recent updates to My Universe, My Rules: (Generated at 2026-07-29 18:36:13)
| My Universe, My Rules: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Recent updates to My Universe, My Rules: (Generated at 2026-07-29 18:36:13)
Fair enough; I'll keep this as it is, for playing with rules, and migrate the jokes out into "Silver bordered and/or joke cards"
(I migrated the mashups out a while ago)
Hm. Thanks for asking the question. I guess as Multiverse grows it is good to reexamine things.
My feeling is that this set does have its own feel to it. jmgariepy thought it had enough feeling to it to nominate it for Challenge # 100 :)
The cards in here seem to fall into two categories. One the one hand there's the ones that are obviously jokes and are meaningless as cards, such as Greatest Card and Anything, and the cards that only exist to be joke references to things, like Giant Growth and Bootch. And on the other there's the rule-breaking or rule-setting cards like Loyalty Pact and Thumbs Down, and explorations of innovative mechanics like Faithless Sword and Swords to Generals.
So I might suggest splitting the cardset into two: one called "Silliness" or something, for the jokes and throwaway references that'll be meaningless in a week's time, if you want to keep making those; make that one editable by all. The second one is pretty close to the current idea of "My universe, my rules", and so I'd say the second category can stay here and this can be a cardset for "Pushing the rules in strange ways". Some people use Cards With No Home for that, but this lets this set be more focused with more of an identity. Up to you whether you want to throw it open to all or leave it as Vitenkan explorations of the rules.
So this cardset was, at first, intended to be me attempting to base a set on "More power than you can safely handle" as the key theme.
Didn't happen. Turned into "All my random stuff and jokey ideas" - the actual cardsets went off on their own.
So.. what should I do with this repo?
Similar questions have occasionally come up on the judges list. You can get situations like where a player has an unbounded mana combo, a Whetstone and a single Limestone Golem, and the opponent has an Emrakul, the Aeons Torn in their library and an odd number of total cards in library-and-graveyard (say 41). So each time through the opponent's library, it will trigger a reshuffle when the Emrakul is hit. The infinite-mill player can win as long as they can force the opponent to draw the Emrakul, but they can only do that if they mill all 40 other cards. They would like to shortcut the mill-and-reshuffle as many times as they'd like, each time Emrakul is in position 1-40, and skip to the situation where Emrakul is in position 41. I believe the last ruling I saw on that was that nondeterministic shortcuts are not allowed, so tough luck Mr Infinite-Mill, you should have played a Braingeyser.
I assume you could roll a whole series under 705.3, as in substituting each flip for the corresponding virtual d2.
You might not technically be allowed to simulate them with a single result value, since theoretically the result of each individual die is public knowledge. But assuming there aren't any "care about how many flips you win" cards in play, I think it would be OK in practice.
Interestingly, the CR allows for the coin not being a coin - "705.3 ... Other methods of randomization may be substituted for flipping a coin as long as there are two possible outcomes of equal likelihood and all players agree to the substitution..."
What's not clear is whether you can substitute for the whole series. Am I allowed, for instance, to ask random.org or invisiblecastle.com to roll that many 2-sided dice? Or Wolfram Alpha to "sample binomial(1000,0.5)"?
yeah, 3 is too low. Let's double that.
Alternate title: "Table Flip".
10/10 would play.
flavour text provided by AK
Mmm; that would be a vaguely plausible card; given they already did "ETB triggers don't". This one was just for the silly.
I assume this would need to have an increased cost as an enchantment. Wouldn't this double trigger cards like Angel of Mercy? Actually... I'd rather like to see that card.
since this is an instant, when do you actually play it? during all that business when a permanent is entering the battlefield, no one has priority and so can't cast spells.
now if it was an enchantment, then it might let you get around ETB costs, e.g. Lotus Vale , Mox Diamond.
Context:
MaxDymond: [16:33] I like this article: http://blogs.magicjudges.org/articles/2013/12/31/enter-the-arena/
AlexChurchill: [16:41] Scarwood Treefolk being Zombifyed ETBs tapped even if there's both Humility and a Yixlid Jailer (that's dodging the Humility somehow)
Edwin: [16:49] Wow, that's confusing. I've just got to the bit about Conspiracy, where it seems that a creature coming into play isn't in play, and also isn't not in play
AlexChurchill: [16:52] Hah. Yeah. Conspiracy's "not on the battlefield" really means "are on the stack, in a hand, library or graveyard, in the ante or command zone, or outside the game"
Vitenka: [16:52] huh; so creatures dno't quantum tunnel from the stack to the battlefield?
AlexChurchill: [16:53] They sortof do, but things can look at them or affect them in the tunnel
AlexChurchill: [16:54] Despite the fact that the tunnelling is instantaneous
Edwin: [16:58] It seems weird that whether a creature affects itself depends on whether it can affect other things
AlexChurchill: [17:04] It is, very weird, but it's because people reading Orb of Dreams generally guess it'll ETB untapped
Vitenka: [17:03] Um... not that it generally makes any difference; but if the rules say it can have its effect before it's on the battlefield - that's just broken rules
AlexChurchill: [17:05] Orb of Dreams ETBs untapped, but Scarwood Treefolk ETBs tapped
Vitenka: [17:05] well yes- because it says so :)
Vitenka: [17:05] But I see your point; that distinction aint obvious
AlexChurchill: [17:06] But /why/ - or rather, /how/ to make that happen in the rules - is incredibly subtle and fiddly
good point. Add it to the restricted list instead