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 2025-05-14 17:20:42)

2014-02-16 14:48:46: Jack V created and commented on the card Phoenix Flame #2
2014-02-16 04:10:50: jmgariepy commented on Challenge # 099

Added Phoenix Flame, based on Regenesis #3.
2014-02-16 04:06:21: jmgariepy commented on Phoenix Flame

For Challenge # 099 Based off of Regenesis #3. Alex made the assumption that Regenesis #3 was probably a card with flavor. So did I... but I spent way too long trying to figure out how to give this effect a Black/White flavor. I kept working with ideas like burying someone alive, the Magician Trick called "Apprentice's Revenge", and some sort of way to forcibly martyr and resurrect someone. But each of these ideas kept running smack into the reality of how the card operates. Regenesis #3 does, like, 3 different things (Flicker, Creature kill and Recurring Nightmare.) None of those ideas really caught all three modes, and it just made the flavor look weak when it didn't.
Red, on the other hand, rarely plays the resurrection game, but it does do it with creatures named 'Phoenix'. And if I was to make a red Zombify, it probably would end up a lot like this. Phoenix Flame:
Chooses a number. I know that's not specifically red, but it does remind me of Red's sense of whimsy.
Resurrection is based on the creature's power.
Often kills a creature, then pulls it right back out of the grave, which is reminiscent of how a Phoenix plunges into a volcano to be born anew.
Straight up killing a creature is rare in red, but it's still a part of its color pie, and can be done if there's a flavor justification. Straight creature kill shouldn't be in blue and green, and isn't appropriate for white.
A sense of chaos permeates the card. When the Phoenix Flames doesn't do what the flavor infers the card will do (namely, when the card return a different creature, or kills the creature outright), player will just shrug their shoulders, and say "Well, that's red."
As an aside, I cleaned up the loophole Jack noticed in the original card by adding 'if they do'. Now the card can't just be used as as an instant speed Zombify.

2014-02-16 03:47:27: jmgariepy created the card Phoenix Flame

2014-02-14 17:33:06: Jack V commented on Regenesis #3

Ooh, very interesting. You're right, the wording is a bit fiddly, but I can't think of anything much clearer. I like the possibilities.

And yes, it works reasonably well as GU "regenesis", but there should be a good black or white version.

It looks like you can choose a number you don't have any of in play to get a cheap Rise from the Grave. Is that deliberate or a bug, it seems it would be too good and somewhat confusing.

Am I right that this functions as removal against Blightsteel Colossus but not Emrakul, the Aeons Torn? That's a bit confusing, but we probably have to live with it; it's cool it can do that at all.

2014-02-14 15:56:10: Alex commented on Challenge # 099

Created Regenesis #3 based on the intriguing name of Regenesis.

2014-02-14 15:55:18: Alex created and commented on the card Regenesis #3

2014-02-14 01:05:10: jmgariepy commented on Challenge # 099

Link added Regenesis #2 but forgot to link it. I added Magnetic Mine #5.

2014-02-14 01:00:34: jmgariepy commented on Magnetic Mine #5

Challenge # 099 and continuing to spin from Magnetic Mine #4. Can people read magnetic Howling Mine out of this? I assume some people will get it.

Also, the Elkin Bottle-ish ability makes me want to call this Elkin Lair #2...

2014-02-14 00:57:40: jmgariepy created the card Magnetic Mine #5

2014-02-13 18:12:13: Link created and commented on the card Regenesis #2

2014-02-13 18:09:55: Link commented on Regenesis

That's a pretty bitchy quote from Bruna, huh?

2014-02-13 02:56:43: jmgariepy commented on Challenge # 099

Added Regenesis based on Trostani's Decree #2.

2014-02-13 02:55:49: jmgariepy commented on Regenesis

For Challenge # 099, renamed from Trostani's Decree #2. To be honest, I think that casting cost is wishful thinking. But I'm game.

2014-02-13 02:53:48: jmgariepy edited Regenesis

2014-02-13 02:51:42: jmgariepy created the card Regenesis

2014-02-13 02:28:15: jmgariepy commented on Magnetic Mine #3

I also thought of switching in the rider "You may only cast one more spell, or activate one more non-mana ability this turn." Which gets the same idea across in a more restrictive way. But I figured the flavor is stronger the way it's written.

2014-02-12 23:13:03: Jack V commented on Trostani's Decree

FWIW, I think that's just about perfect. It has a particularly good use for an always-even, but allowing you can use it as a situational card, or in an "odd-mana-cost-only" deck if you prefer. None of the usual downsides to a weighted choice seem to apply: either mode is a decent wrath with a niche build-around, so they don't clash in limited; and I think "even or odd, your choice" reads more naturally than "even only" (people might even ask, why can't I choose odd -- lots of even/odd more/less cards give you the choice).

And white is about theoretical fairness -- it's ok if sometimes actual fairness is ground up between the wheels of justice :)

2014-02-12 22:29:06: Alex commented on Trostani's Decree

Mmm. So while either mode feels somewhat Selesnya, there's one use implied by the mechanics of tokens - destroying all odd-CMC and leaving the even ones alone - but another one supported by the text. Is that a problem?

2014-02-12 18:09:05: Link commented on Magnetic Mine #4

I would guess that a good portion of Magic players don't know what "parity" means.

2014-02-12 18:05:54: Jack V commented on Trostani's Decree #2

Yeah, seems like a very good Selesnya card. Hour of Reckoning is in a similar space in the original Ravnica, I think I like this one more. That also suggests the cost is reasonable (assuming convoke cards are usually overcosted) though I find it hard to tell how much better this or Alex's is if you build a deck around it.

2014-02-12 17:50:25: Link commented on Challenge # 099

I created Trostani's Decree #2 based on Alex's Trostani's Decree.

2014-02-12 17:49:21: Link created and commented on the card Trostani's Decree #2

2014-02-12 16:01:32: amuseum commented on Trostani's Decree

white could this. it's just sad that selesnya is all about tokens, and all tokens have the same parity CMC.

2014-02-12 16:00:18: amuseum edited Magnetic Mine #4:

sac this

2014-02-12 13:01:01: Jack V commented on Trostani's Decree

Ah, cool! This seems like something that should exist, better than our efforts on Square the Circle

2014-02-12 12:31:47: Alex commented on Challenge # 099

Created Trostani's Decree based on Magnetic Mine #4.

2014-02-12 12:31:16: Alex created and commented on the card Trostani's Decree

2014-02-12 12:31:15: Jack V commented on Magnetic Mine #3

I guess you could add mana burn back to this ability explicitly, that's always a possibility if it helps. But I'm not sure that really helps the flavour.

Alternatively, it could say "only use this to cast cards with [something]", but I'm not sure that does better,.

2014-02-12 12:25:15: Alex commented on Magnetic Mine #4

Ashling's Prerogative suggests this doesn't need to mention "parity" and could just say "with converted mana cost of the chosen value".

Was this intended to sac?

See other cardsets