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 23:56:28)
Went again and rolled Avatar of Woe. I was going to ship it back, since I've already worked with this cycle of avatars 3 times in the past, plus the Avatar of Woe already has a cycle... but I don't like to ship back.
So, I stepped back and tried to see the card through the eyes of a person who never saw the rest of the cycle. What would they fixate on? 'Ten creatures' seemed like an interesting jumping off point, so I patterned these four Avatars off of needing ten creatures to be somewhere: Avatar of Acquisitions, Avatar of Loyalty, Avatar of Tantrums and Avatar of Silence.
Challenge # 023.
Challenge # 023.
Challenge # 023.
Challenge # 023.
I suppose you could always take a big step outside the box, and give the green creature flying, but make it so that flying is irrelevant on that creature. For example, add the line "~ can't attack or block." Flying just becomes a liability there. I'm pretty sure MaRo would let that swing.
Alternatively, it could just be a very small utility creature, that happens to have a very high cost and keeps flying for flavor reasons. For example, a 2/2 flying Angel that taps to give another creature +4/+4, trample, vigilance, haste, pro black and pro blue. The flying at that point is rather irrelevant.
Hm. There's plenty of cycles where only one flies, although more with small creatures than splashy set-headliners. The problem seems to come when one tries to make a cycle of of dragons, or in this case angels.
IIRC Rosewater's conclusion was "don't do that, but ok, once every ten years you can have a splashy green flying angel or dragon". It's one reason to have loose and/or multicolour headline cycles.
If it wasn't for Akroma, Angel of Fury, I might have made it a cycle of iconics: dragon, angel, sphinx, demon and hydra. It might be a rare case where it would be justified being 4/5 flying and not look odd, as everyone expects all angels, sphinxes and dragons to fly, and most demons, and no hydras. It might still be easiest to ignore AAoF, after all, they can't all be called "Akroma, angel of X" :)
I can't think of any 2-3 flying cycles. There's cycles where the stats or rarities are duplicated, but it seems rare for there to be three keywords not 1 or 5. Unless there's dual-colour cycle where each keyword appears twice, but that's not twice the same.
Mm, building a five-colour cycle around a flier is always tricky. There's precedent for "the other four have flying, green has trample and is bigger" (Gaea's Embrace vs Serra's Embrace etc); for "green gets flying too, it's just bigger or harder to cast" (Bounteous Kirin, Jugan, the Rising Star); or I have a feeling there's one or two examples of "2-3 of the colours get flying, but 2-3 including green don't fly", though I can't bring it to mind right now.
I also rolled Telepathy and Akroma, Angel of Wrath which I think should make good cycles, but I'm having difficulty filling them out.
It's hard to make 1-CMC enchantments at all, although that means almost any effect would make them a recognisable cycle.
And Akroma, Angel of Fury suggests the form of the cycle: all 6CC 6/6 flying trample angel, protection from enemy colours, and with three other abilities which may or may not be on-colour. But I'm not sure I can make three more that fit, especially a flying green angel. Unless there's a different pattern, where only two are flying angels??
Heh... I suppose I do. Or at least, when designing a cycle for a challenge, I like to start by aiming at a tight cycle, even if I end up having to loosen it.
There aren't many viable P/Ts for creatures costing 1C with morph. Especially if Broodhatch Nantuko takes the 1/1, I don't think I could find four different ones. I guess I could go 1/1, 1/1, 0/2, 1/2, 1/2 though. (Actually, I suppose 1/1, 2/1, 1/2, 1/3, 0/3 are all reasonable. Guess I was wrong :) )
For Challenge # 023.
For Challenge # 023.
For Challenge # 023.
For Challenge # 023.
Yay! The return of Challenge #23! I originally rolled up Forest, and honestly gave it some thought. I was thinking of doing a "What if Magic basic lands provided different effects." Like tapping Swamps always did damage to you, and tapping Islands always milled you a card, and the card power was reflected in the spells. Ultimately, I decided against it, since, whether or not it's a good idea (probably a bad one, to be honest) the cards just wouldn't stand on their own without explanation.
So I rolled again and got Roar of the Wurm. I used to hate that card, because it was so obviously 'cheating'. It really drove my Johnny sensibilities nuts. "You're supposed to hide that sort of thing. How am I supposed to be clever with this?"
So I tried to use a bit of that, and made four cards that interacted a bit more with the casting and flashback costs. Clacking of the Crabs is a strong mill card... the sort that could fuel this whole cycle... but it asks for to find a way to get the ball rolling. Wail of the Banshee is intended to work with a deck that dumps oodles of cards into the graveyard. Chorus of the Angels is an excellent spell at four, but by putting in your graveyard, you killed the surprise. I figured this made the most sense in White, who's the least likely to try to cheat a spell into play... White would prefer to cast the spell twice, if it could. Meanwhile red would much prefer to cheat and rush spells, so Shriek of the Horde comes with a bonus if you discarded it this turn.
As a solution, this could be closer to Fade Away. "...to their owners' hands, unless they pay
for each of those permanents."
That ain't the right wording, but you get the idea.
Heh. I know you prefer your cycles to be tight, Alex. But I can't help but be a little sad that this card isn't a 0/2.
I made this ages ago, as a black card with a somewhat-flavourful mild drawback, and I don't think it would be printable in a normal set, but I just realised it would work well with the random-target stuff some of the time: Obstinate Mahout