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 2025-05-22 08:33:02)
Well, it prevents all of the first damage you take (and the second, if the first is less than 3) So it's more like a Fog or a Holy Day that sticks around until you need it (and eats fireballs too) rather than you having to keep mana up for it.
I'm thinking you could adapt magic into quite a different flavour of game by having lots of planeswalkers - much more "I can see what you can do, and need to decide which consumable resource to use to progress" lots of rattlesnakes.
Multiverse of Bums!
Opponents won't actually be able to redirect noncombat damage to this, so it's that much better (than what? Healing Salve? What isn't?)
Heh. You could even recreate "Enchant World" by giving them all the same planeswalker type :)
I think it's possible, but it is tough to fit your head in that box. Chandra's Simulacrum could have instead said:
[+1] Deal 1 damage to up to one target creature.
[-1] Deal 1 damage to all creatures.
[-6] Deal 4 damage to target player.
I got too fancy, and it backfired. It was a good backfire, mind you. It got me to focus on what was important here.
Griff, the Holy
Since you'd only ever use the +0 when you have no cards in hand, I think it should just say that. Although that's not very blue. I don't think either way quite makes the "single story" concept, which I agree is the right way to make a 3-ability walker.
On Young Chandra (at uncommon) I nearly separated "1 damage to cr" and "1 dmg to player" into 2 ablties to make 3 total, but decided it just looked messy. Hmmm, Jace's simalcrum is pretty good, I wonder if there's anything else that would make a good 3-ability common?
The [0] can be abused, since, if you can't discard a card, you don't. You just draw a card. That's tricky for new player's to understand, but I'm okay with them not getting it immediately, using the card for a while, then picking up on how they can take advantage of the [+0] later. Though it does raise a question of whether it would be better to just say "If you have no cards in hand, draw a card". Not as pleasing symmetrically, but easier to process. Don't know.
Should the [+1] and [0] abilities maybe be switched? I figure drawing first gives you more options, making it more powerful.
Thought about what made Chandra's Simulacrum work and didn't work for me. Came back to the drawing board and made Jace's Simulacrum. I think this does a better job feeling like a real planeswalker, but still keeps it common.
For Challenge # 042. One more shot at making a three ability common planeswalker. I think the folly of Chandra's Simulacrum is that I tried to get too much accomplished on one card. Common, even if it is cluttered and confusing, is still supposed to tell a simple story. I think this one works much better. The abilities are straightforward, and, when summed up, tell a simple story. The conflict in the [-0] is straight-forward as well, telling players that they have the choice of stopping to draw a card, or moving forward and potentially drawing more/protect the Simulacrum.
Hey... now this I can get behind. One of the problems I've had with the planeswalker design is that they don't feel 'unique enough' on one or two loyalty abilities. But just game text? Broken enchantments that can be shut off by attacking them? That's really cool. I could see twenty planeswalkers like this running around in that world.
Heh. Your 'strictly better' than a Vulshok Sorcerer is going to be rather surprised when I attack it with my Grizzly Bear. In fact, I think this might be underpowered for that reason... though it is tough to say.
Good point about the types: I picked "Young Jace" for flavour reasons, but I agree having no name or a unique name would fit better.
I had a similar version Illusory Mansion. I wasn't sure how much loyalty it should have (all the lands are probably somewhat too strong for lands). It's interesting how much "creatures attack ~ if able" and "prevent all damage to you" are basically the same abilities on a planeswalker :)
For Challenge # 042, howsabout planeswalkers with no loyalty abilities at all?
This is, effectively, a holy day variant. It sits around and prevents damage; but is really quite easy to remove.
I also wondered about having an ability - giving a nice tradeoff of risk versus immediate benefit. But seems too complex for anything less than rare.
Interesting take on the challenge. This is a pretty good card for a common - a hasted Merfolk Looter that tutors for a PW when it dies or after several loots. Still, I like the idea you're going for here.
Hmm. This is pretty close to strictly better than Vulshok Sorcerer, but that's no big deal. This does seem reasonable.
I think, however, that the idea of an all-[0] ability uncommon planeswalker is probably best combined with the absence of a planeswalker type. Or put another way, if you want your uncommon planeswalker to have a type like Chandra, it'd be a good place to use all minus abilities.
It's not a deal-breaker - Kamigawa had a small handful of uncommon legends like Sachi, Daughter of Seshiro and Nagao, Bound by Honor. But it seems a shame to miss the opportunity to use a natural way for the uncommon legends to naturally disappear of their own accord.
I skipped the planeswalker name because this guy is meant to a faceless fodder.
Jerkwalker
I did consider adding counters when it was attacked, but if so, I might as well not have bothered making it count down rather than up in the first place :)
Hm, I did consider "dies", but I thought it might count only "destroyed", not "put into the graveyard due to state-based effects". But I was wrong, it does include going to the graveyard for any reason. So I'd be happy to use it for planeswalkers, but I probably shouldn't as the flavour is, the planeswalker wanders off bored, not dies. Hm, maybe "deserts"? Or "defects"?
And yeah, any cheap planeswalker will have use as an answer to the grown-up version :)
It could almost be "When ~ dies, dig for a planeswalker." Sadly; abuses the dies terminology in a way wizards haven't done yet, and uses a keyword from a set I created :)
Anyway, yeah. Sideboarding this to kill the real Jace seems funny. Otherwise; can I attack it with a -4/2 creature please?
For Challenge # 042
The idea is, to have a common card which is useful in a hypothetical planeswalkers-matter set. And I embraced the "legend rule for planeswalkers" effect, where two of these turn into two real planeswalkers.
Unfortunately (a.) I tried to balance this so it would occasionally be correct for the opponent to attack it, but i don't think it ever is -- only if they're sure you don't have a planeswalker in your deck.
And (b.) this seemed a really simple effect, but it still is too wordy :(