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 2025-05-25 16:40:06)
You got me Wiki-ing Strider. My first thought was "How come Capcom hasn't used this character." Then I remember they have. He's had three games, and appeared in Capcom vs. Namco and Marvel vs. Capcom 1,2 and 3. I like this quote by Travis Fahs:
"there's no denying the iconic appeal, but for all of his flashy moves and fashion sense, Capcom has never really known what to do with him."
Yeah. That's about right. It's also a shame that he's locked into Capcom. I'm pretty sure Nintendo could have made a killer new Strider game by now, if they had the chance to tackle the subject. In fact, I kind of wish this happened to all the iconic video game companies. I'd love to see how each companies take on their competitors iconic characters would look like.
"After combat" isn't even a trigger condition.
Players who are used to seeing lots and lots of triggers on their cards, as Del Laugel has noted is a deliberate trend, will have no problems understanding "Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, if that player's life total is greater than 10, that player's life total becomes 10." They might add a reminder of (The life total changes after damage is dealt.) if it's meant for a core set or something, but that's how the ability would be phrased.
Huh. I just totally saw the background as foliage, it didn't even occur to me to question it. Now I look closely, it looks more rocky.
I think yeah, being cyan made it look green, as did just the general lushness of the image.
Well, the art is kinda wholly and completely cyan.
Wow, I never would have seen this as Green-Blue art, but now that it's in the frame I get it.
Hiryu
For Challenge # 060: Well, since stream of conciousness was appreciated last time...
Reminds me of Lord of the Rings, for some reason. The bit with the dead in the swamp, perhaps. Strider. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strider_%28arcade_game%29 Strider!
Ah; that level where the kremlin jump out of their seats to transform into segments of a robotic snake. A classic. (Also, the bad guy doesn't just have a base on the moon - not even on a second moon. No; he has a base on "Third Moon". That's dedication, that is.) Excuse me, I'm distracted reading that and reminding myself of the wonderfully silly jumpy bouncy arcade game. Which lead to me discovering some unfixed wiki slander (many of those ports rocked!)
Um, right. Ok. Back to magic. Among striders 'things' were: Most animation frames of any character at the time (he was VERY jumpy and twisty) a very very silly sword (its animation was, like, two or three times as long as he was tall) and an occasional robotic panther helper (official name? "tetrapodal mecha panther") for no adequately explained reason. (He's a ninja, fighting a robotic kremlin snake, to prevent a three-moon emperor from ruling; and he rides off into the credit sequence, into space, on a hang glider. Like he NEEDS a reason.)
Let's TRY and get back to mtg, shall we? Sword. Guy in the picture has a blue sword. Sword of Fire and Ice gives 'draw a card' for is ability. (Goes looking... Scroll Thief already exists)
There's "unblockable, draw card when it connects" too. So let's focus on the original strider source, and add swampwalk; as a lesser, but still colour appropriate evasion. SoF+I is +2/+2, so there's the stats (and reasonable for a lone warrior too)
Trying to find a name... the internet tells me that 'swamp' is yet another search term that ends in "Watch for free!" downloads (sure, riiiight) and the LOTR mmo tells me it's got a fell tortoise in it. That didn't help at all. fine; back to the arcade game. Cost-wise? Clearly blue-knight. More words than common; but not enough to warrant rare.
Do you know how Chromatic Sphere and Frogmite interact? ... any time there's a card that threatens the stability of how spells are cast, the design is nixed, or made less appealing.
Good point. OK, you're right, this confusion is a problem, and if it could be avoided it'd be better.
I wonder if the sequence for announcing a spell could be:
That would remove the ambiguity, but officially endorse saying the name and then tapping the mana if you want to.
@Jack: Oh, I'm aware that you can do one or the other, and that they're both similar. It's just that... I'm curious. Do you know how Chromatic Sphere and Frogmite interact? This is using the current rules (and the rules as they were in 2003... this was a very common interaction). Let's say you have 3 lands and the sphere in play. You announce Frogmite, lock in the cost at 3, shuffle mana through Chromatic Sphere (because it's a mana ability), draw a card, then pay Frogmite's cost. You pay three, even though you have no artifacts in play. It's very unintuitive, but that's how it works.
I'm glad to admit that this sort of interactions doesn't come up often. But I'm pretty sure they don't come up that often because any time there's a card that threatens the stability of how spells are cast, the design is nixed, or made less appealing. How often does that happen? I don't know. I do know that someone in the Great Designer Search submitted a card that was rejected for this reason, though.
Hmm... the more I think about it, the more I think this spell, Spellstone (and my hypothetical land), is getting in the way. I'm trying to come up with a combination of a card which would be better for you to announce, then activate Spellstone. The truth is, I can't come up with one. Almost universally, you would want to activate this card before casting your spell, unless you want to see the casting of your spell fail, and nothing really happen because of it. It's a head scratcher. Charmed Pendant sure is an example of a card that goes all wrong using the current model. Lion's Eye Diamond, Rhystic Cave and Witch Engine have been errated as well with 'only any time you could cast an instant', so I know the examples exist. All old cards, before Wizards decided not to mess with this space anymore. But Spellstone? Maybe there's no specific reason to errata it. There might be an interaction I'm not thinking of, but I can't think of one.
Oh, I came up with one. You could sacrifice a permanent as part of a cost, then activate the Spellstone, since you choose how to pay for things in the order of your choice. Then, having not gotten mana, the thing you sacrificed is already sacrificed.... which might be important if you were fizzling a spell. I admit, it's a poor example of what could go wrong, but I did, at least, find a little hole.
explicitly make it happen after combat; to prevent "But it goes to 10 and then hits you for 2 so you're on 8!" style arguments.
This looks like Adaptive Automaton to me, so seems fine in artifact.
Also, my Onslaught Zombie Clerics deck would love this. Boneknitter, Deathmark Prelate, Rotlung Reanimator, Gangrenous Goliath, Shepherd of Rot... sadly not Infernal Caretaker, but you can't have everything.
For the issue to do with this card in particular, this is indeed the kind of mana ability you don't want people activating during the process of casting a spell or ability.
I'd say the best solution is probably to add the Charmed Pendant rider to it, "Activate this ability only any time you could cast an instant."
"My problem with the current rules is that they're the reverse order from my previous two examples. The current way we cast spells is:"
You remember that you can tap mana beforehand and have it your pool, right? My interpretation is that most people, if there's any doubt that they may have enough mana, or want to use a not-technically-mana ability like a fetchland, do:
Whereas if they're only tapping lands and will clearly have enough mana, they do:
So it seems to me like you always CAN use mana abilities first. And if you choose to use mana abilities during the resolution of a spell, there's no major benefit or downside to doing so, except that:
(i) if you tap your mana first and realise you don't have enough, you may not be able to back it up (ii) if you announce your spell first and then back it up, your opponent knows you have it
So it doesn't seem to make a lot of difference, and the current situation is nearly equivalent to "tap mana, then play spell" with the optional step of telling your opponent in a non-binding way what spell you're about to try to cast.
Simplifying the rules might be better, but I'm not sure it makes a lot of difference -- am I missing something?
I think the current wording takes you to 10: I think "if" is equivalent to "when", so the trigger happens after the damage. But I agree making that obvious would be a lot better, and avoid some feel-bad: I think I feel disappointed if this takes them to 10, even if that's quite good.
Mm; yeah, I guess "At end of combat" is the most sensible way to do it.
And, uh, I guess my aggro decks are a lot less aggro than yours. (Even assuming no blocks: T2 19, T3 16, T4 12... So a turn 5 10 isn't missing the curve by much. Actually; I wonder if I could re-word this to make it 'their maximum life is 10'; which would hit, um, the zero healing decks out there. Never mind.)
I find it strange you would think this is good for an aggro deck. Looks to me that you want this to be for a mid-range deck that doesn't plan to swing until round 5. But, yeah, cool card. I'm not sure what happens to an opponent who got hit by this and was at 20. Are they at 10 now, or 8? I'm pretty sure that's a solvable problem, though. Maybe trigger at end of combat.
Weird. Well, that's interesting. My problem with the current rules is that they're the reverse order from my previous two examples. The current way we cast spells is:
1). Announce Spell
2). Choose all targets
3). Pay all costs.
The way this is set up, Spelltome causes a problem... since you must announce your spell before paying the cost of the spell... even if we don't know whether or not you can pay for it. The 'players cannot reverse actions' ruling, though, is very weird. I wasn't aware this existed... I kind of assumed the game backed up, but I can understand why they would want the opposite to happen.
Well, anyway, if the comp rules operated like I suggested in my previous post, the deranged assistant problem would never happen. You wouldn't be able to cast your spell until you had the mana already in your pool. The way it is now, you play a funny game of "I cast this. Could I have cast it?" I know that's how many people naturally play, but it causes headaches. Many players also cast spells, then look at the card they drew for the turn... that doesn't mean we should make the rules create corner cases for when that happens. We should just let them draw out of order, if it has no effect on the game.
EDIT: By the by, I'm interested in hearing an alternate opinion as to why the system needs to stay the way it is... assuming it isn't retreading the same very true argument of 'letting the players play the way they want to play'. This seems like good article material, but I'd hate to write up the article only to have someone attack me from left field with a very valid argument as to why we need to do things the way we do things. I've done some pre-liminary scavenging of internet articles on the subject, but many of them talk about how we do it, but don't really get into the 'why' so much. I love finding out I'm wrong. It makes for more interesting reading, anyway, if I can come up with a sound theory, then find a way to disprove myself.
Jungle Intimidator
For Challenge # 060
This isn't especially connected to art, but I felt the art really suggested a small powerful GU creature, and after considering a few other abilities, I settled on Snakeform-on-a-stick.
It's good to consider, but I think it's fine. The two cards will only coexist in modern, and they both cost four, and if it's too good wizards have already shown themselves willing to ban modern combos which are too good. And as you say, just the tantalising possibility is awesome :)
Um. The heretofore unsuspected existence of the rite makes me think "Oh, crap. Probably need to change the number then."
But maybe this is a case where I should let people live the dream. It's a "Two card and they couldn't block or counter" combo. So maybe it's safe?
General Feng and Secret Paths The first I kinda like; despite the process I used to get to it. The second... I kinda hate; but love the process that got me there.
For Challenge # 060:
A T-Rex threatens another dinosaur, on a ridge, set against a sunset. It's the land before cliche! Yes! clearly this is, in fact, a Suarian pre-cambrian re-enactment of a western; the lone gunmans ride into the sunset interrupted by a mail dino-van crashing along, which will segue into a saloon scene where the Wooly mamoth at the piano hits a minor chord when he stalks in "Not looking for trouble" but his tiny arms are twitching near his tiny six shooters.
Um. Uh. That's not even SLIGHTLY a magic card, is it?
Well, dang. I'm stumped now.
I guess we'll stick with the lone-gunman part. Let's go with anti-lure.