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 2025-07-06 09:51:04)
For Challenge # 070. Since I can not complete the challenge (right now), I figured I'd do the next best thing and create a card based upon my inability to complete the challenge. :p
Evolution Chamber
For Challenge # 070, as I've totally failed in not drawing attention to it.
Hmm... a little strong, if you ask me. If I play this on round 1, I can expect to get the rough equivalent of a Portcullis that returns gated creatures to their owner's hands out of it. In the meantime, while my opponent doesn't play any creatures, I can drain him/her. If I can't win by turn 5, when this card could potentially come back to bite me, then shame on me.
For what it's worth, I like the idea here. It's just, against a creature deck, you don't really care if your opponent gets back their graveyard... you've already won.
Presumably there's some other wording that would work as intended. Does "can't be used to pay for generic mana" work? Or is there something else?
A callback to bosses from Challenge # 031.
When you play a spell, you pay one "cost": the total cost. There is no breaking it down into several subcosts, some of which are colored and others which aren't.
It will pay for the
, but not the 
. Edgewalker has referred to colored costs, if not in the same manner. This should work as-is.
Is a Fireball for
supposed to count for this? Because no card has ever made a distinction like that, but the rules seem to indicate that it would count.
Hpgfciq ox gyo, fhm y nptewi frsoim xutl fbdp. Hiyr hgrz hhwc cud nxivyxwv! I'll submit a card later on.
My submission: Implicit Maze. This is one of the few cases that mana burn would help a design, since then I wouldn't need the mana cost in the activation.
For Challenge # 070. I encoded the card text the same way the challenge was encoded, so only cmeister can read it before the challenge goes live. Each field (name, rules, flavor) is encoded separately.
I wonder if it starts "Mark Rosewater says"?
Heh. A few of us discussed this to some extent. "D'py" I think has to be "I've". There's also "ar'bi", which probably has to be "we'll"/"we've"/"we're"; and as you say "Krlrsa'y" and "Hetequ's" have to end with S or T. This all adds up to being something other than a substitution cipher. I tried a few simple Vigenere-like decodings, but couldn't get anywhere.
My guess is that the "Krlrsa'y Qsdz" and "Hetequ's Xldr" turn out to be the same thing.
Hmm... doesn't look like a rot, or any regular letter for letter exchange, actually. If the punctuation is to remain stable, then 'Y' in "Krisrsa'y" needs to be an 'S' or theoretically a very odd 'T'. But there's also the word "D'py" which also contains a "Y" at the end. I don't know many contractions that are spelled X'xs or X'xt. Then there's the word "Hetequ's" at the end. If this was a rot, then the last letter couldn't be 'S'. And, again, Apostrophe-tee is unlikely with a word that long. (Edit: Strike that. Both 'Wouldn't' and 'Couldn't' are that long. That would make this Rot1... if all the other letters matched...)
I guess I could just submit cards I think are likely to fulfil as many potential challenges as possible :)
Well, bonus points for cracking the challenge before it gets released :)
Well, thank you :)
I do like the underlying idea. I think there's a lot of ideas in simple green and red "fight" creatures which will slowly appear in real magic sets. And I think there's some design space in attacking creatures like plainswalkers -- I made a slightly-more-sensible version Island Turtle
But I think Wizards will avoid doing it for real, because it promotes confusion beginners already have with many games where the normal behaviour is to attack creatures, and because there are some strange rules interactions, and because you can get the same effect with fight, or things like Soltari Guerrillas (which is ridiculously good when it's unblockable).
But hey, I've been wrong lots before :)
LOL! Yeah, that's what I thought. Judging from the capitalisation, word lengths, punctuation and spaces, it definitely looks like English under some letter-replacement scheme.
But I assume that's always rot13, and it felt very surreal when I rot13'd it several times and it was just as incomprehensible :)
I tried a simple substitution-cipher solver online and it didn't produce an answer :)
Wah! It's not rot13 :)
Yeah, after I went to bed last night it occurred to me that this card was probably an example of very good design. The more I think about it, the more I'm surprised we haven't done this yet. It seems like a natural extension of the rules of attacking Planeswalkers. Even the corner cases (Can I block the creature attacking my creature with the creature being attacked?) seem easy to resolve (Sure. Why not? You could probably group block as well, with a group that included the originally attacked creature.)
Oh, sorry, I'm being muddled today :(
I meant it was broken from a design perspective in being unforgiveably ambiguous in "what happens if you want to block with a creature that's being attacked...".
I agree the rules will (I think) handle it, and that it's not too strong.
One of the tweaks I was thinking of was a modern blue Tim "2U. 1/1. Unblockable. ~ can attack creatures," which fixes most of the issues, maybe. Although I'm not sure if green or blue should get creature-ping or not.
For later.
Hmm. The rules makes it broken as-is, you say? I can't quite see why that'd be the case... Presumably it would work like planeswalkers: I can declare it as an attacker, attacking your Elvish Piper. Any creatures you control (including that Elvish Piper) can block it as if it were attacking you or your Garruk. If nothing blocks it, it gets to deal combat damage to your Piper without the Piper dealing combat damage back. That all seems to work fine.
If I give it deathtouch and make it unblockable, it'd be able to kill any creature regardless of size or most kinds of defence including hexproof, with the sole exceptions being damage prevention (including protection) and regeneration / indestructibility. But that doesn't seem very abusive, especially compared to Ulvenwald Tracker or Prodigal Pyromancer.
Perhaps the problems come from the fact that the rules don't expect creatures to be attacked? Certainly Norn's Annex won't protect your creatures from this. But that's fine: Ghostly Prison doesn't protect your planeswalkers from anything.
I can't think of anything that breaks too badly. A few rules like 506.3 would need to be updated, but that's no more than other wacky cards get. What am I missing?