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 2025-11-04 16:30:58)
For the challenge, choose a group of animals (there is a handy list at Animal Groups) and create two cards: one that is a creature card and one that is a noncreature spell that plays up the pun. (For example, Murder of Crows: Destroy target Bird creature.) You can redo an existing Magic card, but try not to do the same name as someone else.
Magic has done a few of these before: Brood of Cockroaches, Crash of Rhinos, Crowd of Cinders, Crush of Wurms, Drift of Phantasms, Drove of Elves, Flock of Rabid Sheep, Flow of Maggots, Fog of Gnats, Gang of Devils, Gang of Elk, Horde of Boggarts, Mass of Ghouls, Murder of Crows, Plague of Vermin, Pride of Lions, School of Piranha, Skitter of Lizards, Swarm of Rats, Veil of Birds, and Wake of Vultures.
Although, if you've played this, it might very well be possible to just pay for the Pacts (and in effect grant them an Extra Turn 4...)
True. I wasn't thinking of the pacts when I made this, but they're probably fine, since their all just one-for-one cards. Plus, interactions like this are pretty hilarious:
Player One, extra turn one: Cast Super Huge creature?
Player Two: Pact of Negation.
Player One, extra turn two: Cast a different super huge creature?
Player Two: Um. Okay. Pact of Negation.
Player One, extra turn three: Naturalize Beyond Immanence?
Player Two: Oh. That's bad...
Heh, this is also great with a handful of Pact of Negation, Slaughter Pact, Intervention Pact etc.
Nope, they never got around to printing the Aura called "Deathtouch" yet. (There's Venomous Fangs from back in the day. But I think "Deathtouch" would be cheaper than that in modern Magic.)
For Challenge # 060. Tricky little piece of art to build around. I chose it because it had a good The Dark thru Visions look to it. The sort of artwork Wizards would buy at an artshow, then try to fit a card around it later (see Stasis or Maro). As such, it suggests being paired with a B/G enchantment... but it's so open ended that you could match it with any general enchantment, and it wouldn't feel 'wrong'.
Since we've already seen Still Death I didn't want to go down that road a second time. I decided to take this artwork at face value. This is a artifact table. It belongs to a wizard. Most times, it gives the wizard a piece of fruit, which is represented by drawing a card. Rarely, the wizard draws a skull and loses 6 life.
Using fruit to represent drawn cards isn't a very common theme... I just felt the contrast of drawing cards and losing life looked better than "Target creature gets two +1/+1 counters". The counters are real... you know what you're getting. Card drawing is always a risk.
I think I prefer Connect to Swag... although I will give you that Accoutrement is a fantastic subtype.
The cost makes it very reminiscent of Coalition Victory. Yeah, Chronomantic Escape and Solitary Confinement are very good with this.
It's also pretty strong the turn after a Wrath / Final Judgment / Terminus. But basically, the cost is high enough that either the opponent has to have a reasonable chance of making a strong threat next turn, or you must be cheating it into play in which case you're in a format where the opponent can be cheating things into play too. So, weirdly, it seems plausible to me. It's certainly got that mythic "wow" factor.
For Challenge # 060. I know this is a wedding cake, but this also looks like an opera hat with an opera hat on top of it (with a clock on top of that... but I'm willfully choosing to ignore that). Originally, I tried to make this a clone of the equipment that would only work on the same creature... but it made more sense if the hat topped the hat, and not the base creature, as it were.
Oh, and yes, I was forced to make this Lengendary because I was pretty sure people would get two on the same equipment wrong (I'm pretty sure that if you equipped two to a Bonesplitter for example, the end result would (roughly) be "Equipped creature gets +8/+0." It would double the double.)
The most important thing about this card, though, is that I got to use the line "Swag only as a sorcery."
Island Sanctuary is the old classic; Ghostly Prison will help too.
In case of direct burn - how about the good old Circle of Protection: Red? You'll need some way to draw mana during your off turn. Oh; crap. The Unwinding Clock combos potentially let you ignore the downside of this. Though if you've pulled off one of those combos, you can probably win with Scryb Sprites anyway ;)
Yeah, that's interesting.
I'm wondering what else to pair it with. Chronomantic Escape might be useful. As might Slaughter Pact and Pact of Negation.
More directly Fist of the Suns? Especially the use of wubrgle. Very reminiscent of the master plans mtg variant too. (ooh, I should play that again, thanks for reminding me)
Added Beyond Immanence. Remember kids, Santa Claus is not dead. He's in space, gathering power.
For Challenge # 060. Clearly, you should play this card with Topsy Turvy. ;)
I really wasn't sure how far up the converted mana cost I should go. I did think of making this
, but I figured you'd just rather play Progenitus] at that rate... I really didn't want to compare these two cards directly....
Well; no - because the REAL point is to be able to guess and deprive or cast your opponents stuff.
A cycling deck can use this pretty effectively, with the Drifting Meadow and Secluded Steppe families. But even then it's just like an analogue of Scrying Sheets. And less good, actually, because you have to be able to play it right now: so a cycling counterspell when you want a cycling Fog or vice versa is pretty useless, not to mention a high-cost card early-game. (And in fact cycling specifically is especially pointless because this forces you to cast it, not just put it in your hand.)
By comparison with Scrying Sheets, could this say "put it in your hand" if it matches?