Multiverse Design Challenge: Recent Activity
| Multiverse Design Challenge: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| All challenges | Upcoming Challenges | Make a new design challenge! | All challenges (text) |
Recent updates to Multiverse Design Challenge: (Generated at 2025-05-13 11:16:32)
Nice idea.
To make it more red, how about "
, Sacrifice ~: Add 
to your mana pool. Spend..." That way it's a oneoff boost which feels more red, and is awesome for storm but kinda hard to use anywhere else. Could equally be an ETB trigger, as a variation on Priest of Urabrask.
Next I rolled Challenge # 071 and Challenge # 106. Well, that's trivial, then :)
Horde Shaman, a red mana-elf that accelerates you more, but only into a shower of small spells, not one big spell.
Also see Cradle of Warriors I created for a recent goblin artisans design challenge to create an aggro-focused dual land, and one of the other entries for that challenge, a dual land with "Only spend this mana on costs of 4CMC or less."
An attempt at a red mana elf. I'm not quite sure how this should be costed; I wanted it to help diversity without helping ramp very much, to support a "shower of small creatures" deck rather than green's "big stompy fatty" deck, but maybe at the moment it's just too efficient.
Would "
,
: Add 
" or "
,
: Add 
" be better?
rename
I suggest you make the mana at the beginning of the declare attackers step, because if you add it at the beginning of combat step it'll disappear before there are any attacking creatures :)
Nifty, though. Reminds me of Radha, Heir to Keld.
wr-m~w.
Heh, like Challenge # 065 :)
Funny. I assumed Challenge #107 was going to be "Create a card that rhymes with another card"...
my example Servant Generator
A belated entry Mass extinction, fulfilling "CMC 12+" and "based on a real-world event".
Ah! Yes. I guess one way to make it relevant in an 'un' set would be have a card like Who/What/When/Where/Why but where all the halves were the same, but continued the spiral to infinity: one half taking up half the card, one taking up half the remainder, etc, etc until it got too small to print.
So for most purposes it would be a normal burn spell. But occasionally it could combo with a card that cares about CMC to kill someone who gained infinite life with gleemax :)
I realise I may have broken the word "half" in my first paragraph :)
This card has CMC "1 and 3". So you could get it by transmuting for 1, or transmuting for 3, but not transmuting for 4. However, something that gained you life equal to its CMC would gain "1 and 3" life - i.e. gain 4 life. So that's the difference that having two copies of the same card would do: anything that counts CMC (or mana cost, i.e. Charmed Pendant, or mana symbols like Phosphorescent Feast) would count it twice.
I think the card has both different mana costs, not the sum of the mana costs, although I'm not sure if there are some exceptions.
I wasn't sure if that applies to names, but the comp rules says "Each split card has two names. If an effect instructs a player to name a card and the player wants to name a split card, the player must name one of those names and not both. An object has the chosen name if one of its names is the chosen name."
In fact, if both halves were the same, would that be in any way different from a card having the text of just one half? Even if not, it could be funny for 'un' if there were some way of making it seem relevant.
You know, when I saw this name, I wondered if you were going to do the same card twice. I couldn't think of many reasons why a person would do that... except to make a card's combined casting cost intentionally higher. So, for example, if C//C gained four life for
, then searched your library for a card that costs 8 and puts it in your hand, it could get another copy of C//C...
But, yeah, that's all I got.
I thought of this while brainstorming on names, but it technically fit this challenge.
I'm not sure exactly what the rules are on split cards having duplicate names. I think most of the problems are due to one half sharing a name with another card. Does anything go wrong if there's two cards with the same name, but they're halves of the same card? It might screw up gatherer, but that's not a gameplay/rules problem.
LHS is very simic in conception, but unfortunately, weirds are actually RU, not simic. Is there any easy way of getting the "copy target mutant creature" templated correctly?
RHS could have been any filtering effect, but I thought "1, then 2" fit best.