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 2025-07-14 19:04:55)
OK things have been quiet so I'm going to do # 036
My apologies for the confusing requirement to have type "Planeswalker" in order to get the loyalty frame. The current edit I'm working on will remove this requirement (and similarly separate the token frame from the token rarity). Loyalty lands and Bosses can finally display the way they're meant to.
"Yes, defeated is more obvious but it's not gamespeak."
Yeah, but I still disagree. I'm NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT saying "I hate simplicity and clarity and we should use fancy complicated words". I think people massively overuse new terminology and ALMOST ALWAYS it's a mistake, and it should be clear, not clever.
I'm saying IN THIS SPECIFIC AND UNUSUAL SITUATION I think the word "defeated" is equally or more clear than spelling out "when this card is put into the graveyard", especially on a mythic rare.
That is, I think if you take ten beginner magic players -- ones who know the current permanent types, and told them what a boss was, and asked them if they knew what defeated meant, I would guess they would all say "Um, dealt damage until it's dead?" or something, which isn't very precise but shows they understand what the card is supposed to do. I think you'd probably have a higher hit rate than asking about some existing magic terminology.
@Bombshell: Ah... I see where some of the mix-up is. This isn't a Planeswalker, despite the fact that it has 'Planeswalker' in its type. Camruth only put that there because it was the only way to get the Planeswalker frame to appear in Multiverse.
So, in theory, this card would have a very different frame, and though it would use some Planeswalker tech, it would be obvious from looking at it that it was different from all the other cards you've seen before, and therefore, you would need to do a bit of independent research to figure out what the card does.
"'checking the rulebook' is not a fun game." Absolutely. I would rarely suggest that as an answer. However, when the change in gameplay is so fundamental, forcing the player to consult a rulebook or a person who knows the rules is better than forcing the card to bend to the current rules system.
"Planeswalkers... Explaining this to players was fairly clear because they follow the basic principles of the game." Actually, no. I follow your arguments Bombshell, and agree with you on many points, but Planeswalkers are not intuitive. They don't follow the basic nature of the game. They are permanents that can be attacked, can have damage redirected to and gain or lose counters because of it. They have activated abilities without colons, leave the battlefield when they have no counters and can only be activated once per turn at sorcery speed. If all that feels like an intuitive extension of the game, that's because of hindsight playing nasty games. When Planeswalkers first came out, I met two separate people who ripped them up and threw them in the trash... they thought they were just some crazy card thrown in the pack for flavor reasons... like an MVP card, but for in-story Planeswalkers.
As for Rootgrapple, I figure that's a matter of taste. I like 'defeated' because it's harder to achieve, and, because it is harder to achieve, the rewards can be much greater. If a player had an out like "If you destroy this with Vindicate, you get a reward" How big a reward could you legitimately put on that card? Because, with 'defeated', you could make the reward something like "Deal 50 damage to target player". That could be cool and exciting, but would only be fair on a Boss that was really, really difficult to beat.
@jmgariepy: "It should be impossible to figure out simply by looking at the card, and force people to find a rulebook."
I'd bet that WotC would rarely agree with that statement, especially given the amount of effort they've gone through to put reminder text and other hints to help new players out. Not saying it should never be done but 'checking the rulebook' is not a fun game.
On top of this, Planeswalkers are still a permanent and can be affected like one. Plus, they take damage from any source, just like a player. Explaining this to players was fairly clear because they followed the basic principles of the game.
I still don't know how one "defeats" this card and it's more confusing because this is a Planeswalker. Except it's a PW that doesn't follow the rules for that type? This would be a first, to my knowledge; supertypes that don't behave like supertypes-a Land that you cast as a spell, say.
So now you're talking about a totally new type of card altogether: doable but now you have to introduce a wholly new rule set for it and the potential rules issues are considerable-not to mention needlessly limiting, in my opinion, if creatures are the only answer to it. You're forcing people into a playstyle, thus alienating a segment of your audience and I don't see a need for that.
Also, why don't you want Rootgrapple giving you mad props for beating this? If I can cast a Rootgrapple through the impediment that this card provides, why shouldn't I reap the benefits? Nobody cares if you beat an opponent through life loss or milling, right? Why should there be that kind of clause here?
I realize there are a lot of questions there and I'm not asking them ferociously. I just think that the game is incredibly complicated and so the stuff that can be done to keep the rules straightforward should be done that way.
Which is where I'd respond to Jack V's point: Yes, defeated is more obvious but it's not gamespeak. There's a common "Magic" language that exists and we're able to handle what is a very, very complex system because we are using the same language. They don't use 'Buried' anymore, even though it's pretty straightforward and shorter than 'destroyed and cannot be regenerated', because it was clashing with the other game language (destroyed, in this case) and confusing players.
If you just decide to change things because it's cool, you're going to confuse more people who might be excited by and love your idea otherwise. Templating matters for precisely this reason: to convey complicated information in a clear manner so mechanics can get out of the way and people can play the game.
I think there's two overlapping questions here.
Do we need to put "can only be destroyed by damage" or "if it's destroyed by damage" on the card? If there are anything like planeswalkers, I think there literally isn't room (if there's room on the same line, then ok, there's no problem). Then the only option is that that is in the comprehensive rules, and you just have to know -- I think that's OK for mythics. In fact, I think bosses are a really cool idea, but there's a couple of things like this (in both templating and play) that I think mean they would need a redesign. But in a design challenge about exploring new ideas, I think it's fine to play with an idea that's 90% good, even if it would need to be seriously reworked before it could be printed for real.
Should it say "defeated" or "put into the graveyard from play"? I think Bombshell is right that it matters whether people will know what it means just from reading the card, but I think people WILL know what it means just from reading the card. I think "defeated" is MORE obvious than "put into the graveyard from play" :)
That all makes sense, but we're talking about a new card type here. When Planeswalkers were first rolled out, they didn't bother with reminder text, Wizards just made the cards so alien looking that you had to either ask about the rules on Planeswalkers, or look them up your self. There wasn't even a 'saturation point of cards that have the mechanic' with Planeswalkers. 5 were rolled out in Lorwyn, and we didn't see new ones until Shards Block.
I think defeated makes sense when using these cards, because, yeah, you don't want Rootgrapple spontaneously giving you mad props for beating bosses that deserve to be beat the right way. The real thing that needs to be done here is remove the reminder text. Bosses can't possibly hold all the reminder text needed to run them the right way, so we shouldn't tease people with the idea that "all you need to do to figure this card out is spelled out on the card". It should be impossible to figure out simply by looking at the card, and force people to find a rulebook.
I still think you've got a dilemma using that language. In order:
1) Neat but you don't want flavor to trump usability. Nobody knows what 'defeated' is, just by reading the card. Which leads to:
2) That means you now have to add reminder text so people understand what that means. There are suddenly special rules in place. So you can either use game language or you can eat up space with reminder text AND complexity that is unnecessary.
3) Planeswalkers are already an issue in the game--it's just barely learning how to compensate for them. The items that say 'Destroy Target Permanent' generally start around 3 but if you feel it's too problematic then costing it appropriately is certainly the challenge with this.
As a sub-set of this, if this card can ONLY be handled with creatures then that excludes every player who wants to build a deck that doesn't use creatures. This is is a pretty big problem, because what does that deck do, in terms of sideboard options? Are you wanting to alienate a group of players just for flavor?
I do like the idea behind it but I think if you go this route then you may be creating more problems than you're solving.
add second face as per jmg's design
Well, Magic isn't currently using Bosses either. There are three reasons for using "defeated" instead of "put into a graveyard from play".
1) As you mentioned, it's better for flavor purposes.
2) It's shorter. As you can see, the space on the card is already quite limited.
3) Lastly, the most important reason is that the two wordings are (theoretically, since one of them isn't actually in Magic) not the same thing. As mentioned earlier, if Bosses really existed in Magic the rules would be set up so that they are only "defeated" when they are put into the graveyard through damage. Otherwise, they become too powerful with anything that says "Destroy target permanent."
This is a hell of a cool idea!
But for wording purposes, this should probably read "When this card is put into a graveyard from play".
Don't get me wrong, I love the flavor of the wording but Magic doesn't currently use it.
I also wish the upkeep step could be removed, and all upkeep triggers be placed in the first main phase. It won't impact gameplay much.
The end step could be like the draw phase, wherein end-of-turn effects would trigger but players can't activate new abilities or play spells. That would remove the unintuitive shenanigans of casting end-of-turn instants AFTER the beginning of the end step.
Regeneration is too much trouble to be worth it and should be phased out.. you know, like phasing.
The "Can't be blocked" restriction of protection is unintuitive. This hilarious article parodies it nicely.
I agree that the max hand rule should be removed.
On the subject of 4x+: I have no problem with it... but it would require a radical change in how we play and think of Magic. Netrunner is a good example of how to get the work done. (I don't blame Netrunner's mechanics for why Netrunner didn't succeed. In the early days of CCGs, no card game succeeded except Magic. Lot5R seems to be the exception to that rule. I'm guessing that it had to do with flavor. You wanted an environment that could absorb as many nerds as possible. Fantasy was a given. Runner up? Fantasy in an Asian setting). Also, I don't have a problem with 1x everything, like in Commander.
The biggest thing that 4x has going for it is that it is easy, and makes sure that decks don't become 30x. It's easy, because I can just take the 15 best cards I can think of and make a deck out of them. And occasional tournament quality 30x decks... well, I think you know why that's terrible. What if that was the deck to beat? And to compete at your local tournament scene, you had to play that deck? Netrunner worked because there was no such thing as a real tournament environment. When Magic got a tournament environment, that's when the 4x hammer got dropped. For an example of how frustrating this would all be, make an Affinity deck, have a friend make an Affinity deck, and play them against each other for the next year.
No max hand size: Will probably happen in our lifetime. In GDS2, one of the questions was "If you could change any rule...". Evidently, removing maximum hand size was the number one answer. It was my suggestion as well. Why? Well it punishes slow starts... so it's a win-more mechanic. Having more cards in hand also speeds up the game, unlike what popular opinion would tell you. If I have a 15 cards in hand, but only 4 are relevant, then it doesn't matter that I have an extra 8 cards. If, however, I have 7 cards in hand, and each turn I draw three cards, and I can only play one card per turn... well, then each turn I will have to decide which of my most worthless cards are the least worthless. That's a lot of time dedicated towards something you don't really care about... and it hurts to boot.
It's a bit like comparing a faster leveling system in an MMO to World of Warcraft, or to an alternate RPG to Dungeons and Dragons. It's exciting, and you get what you want out of the game, so that's good. Unfortunately, it hurts the long-term playability of the game. For some games, that's not only acceptable, but encouraged. If the target audience is more 'board game crowd', like, let's say Game of Thrones the Living Card Game is, then this is a strong option (I should point out, that GoT's mana system is a very different animal, and probably closer to Magic. I'm just saying that they could have gone that way, and it would have been acceptable). When you're trying to design a game that's intended to captivate an audience who plays once a week for an indefinite time period, you want more variance in the core game. Unpredictable mana bases, games where you squeak out victory, or are smashed due to poor draws are necessary consequences. It also makes the games where everything lines up highly memorable... another necessity for high-traffic games.
Damn. :P
Chancellor of the Dross doesn't target, by the way.
I wholeheartedly support the four-of-limit, as a way to maintain deck and gameplay variance. Otherwise, inevitably, someone will be able to break the game.
Future Future Future league results:
3rd place
4x Tendrils of Agony
26x Black Lotus
30x Ancestral Recall
defeated by a bad draw.
2nd place
60x Chancellor of the Dross
defeated by sideboarded 15x Leyline of Sanctity
1st place
60x Rocket-Powered Turbo Slug
I have no issue with the four-of limit. I think it's a great way to balance, actually, and it makes it much easier to ensure deck diversity.
I also would never want hand size to be unlimited, because it DOES make a difference.
Whenever the 4 card limit comes up, I point at netrunner; which worked perfectly well without one. The way it mainly did it was by your wanting to have at least some of a whole bunch of different stuff in a deck; so there wasn't usually room for more than 6 or 8 of a single card in a deck. The cards were mostly very well balanced. This lead to a sales problem, however.
I haven't thought of any cards, but rules changes I'm curious about (which anyone else is welcome to tweak and make examples for) include:
Remove the 4-of rule. I hate this rule. I'm so used to it I never think about it, but it just seems so inelegant. Can't cards be balanced so you can play "20 lightning bolts, 20 raging goblins, 20 mountains"? Admittedly, I don't think we could get there from here: no-one would play 20 grizzly bears, they'd play 20 tarmogoyfs, and then there'd REALLY be a bidding war on expensive rares. Some cards you naturally only want so many: lots of pro deck lists run less than 4, or run 4 plus one or two tutors, but not 4 tutors. But some (cf. lightning bolt) you'd probably run LOTS. One option is to design above-the-curve cards so they're slightly anti-self-synergistic. Another is to have many cards (or an inherent mechanic) which hoses multiples. Another is to have "basic" cards where you can have any number, and "legendary" cards where you can only have (or play?) one.
Remove life total, and say the defending player must block if they can. But I can't think of a good winning condition if they don't block. Lose when you run out of creatures and just have a lot of cheap cantrip chump blockers for non-aggro decks to keep playing? ALL creatures mill when they're unblocked, and there's no outright anti-mill cards? I quite like that idea -- since you CAN win by milling, why have a separate life total?
Remove hand size limit. This makes very little difference anyway.
I like this plan.
@jmg I'm very interested to hear, because I've often heard that the play-a-card-as-land system feels a lot smoother, but never been sure if the reduced variance would matter long-term.
For Challenge # 035 based on Camruth's Magic Wars idea.
I'm being lazy and riffing off of Camruth's Idea by adding two new keyword abilities - Assault and Reserve on the following cards (((Barbarian Raiders))) and (((Ready Reserves))).
Oh, one more game, while we're talking about maintaining resources. I rather like Battle Spirit's resource system, which... um... you know what... this would require a lot of writing, and I've already written an article when Battle Spirits came to America. If you really care, it's located at here, but I don't blame you if you'd prefer to skip past an old opinion of a game that's waffled in the American market (in contrast, that game is number 2 in Japan right now. Funny how practically no one recognizes it in North America.)
I am definitely cool with having some cards be capable of being mana sources. I'm not too big on the game being super consistent, but it does lock out my other problem of people not playing with certain cards and always turning them face down.
Another option, which I appreciate, is World of Warcraft TCGs approach to this problem. You can turn any card face down for mana in that game, but there's one card type (Quests) that are much better when you do... they kind of got a morph thing going on, where you turn them over and draw a card if you pay
(but they're still lands) or something like that. Again, on round 8, you will have 8 mana... which really bugs me, because many games play out the same way. But at least this time, you could be stuck with 'all land' and 'no land' hands, and in both scenarios, you can keep playing (pay mana to resolve quests, or turn 'real cards' into mana).
That being said, I don't think I've seen a game say "All cards must start as land, and must be flipped up into something else". That sounds like a great attack on the problem, and an interesting in-game challenge. Like to rush your opponent? Fine. But you've got to squelch your mana base while you do it. Want to play huge spell after huge spell? Fine. But you've got to find a way to stay alive for multiple turns without casting your big guns. Why am I not designing this game already?
One way to get around this would be to only make common/uncommon creatures have mana sources attached so you had to play the "bad" cards to ensure you have a viable mana base.
or pay 
to get 
for example)
Mind you, then you would have players complaining about being "forced" to play with the basic cards (which I personally have no issue with but can see how others might grumble).
Another option would be to have the "bad" creatures have the best mana sources (multicolour, etc) and have the better cards be weaker mana sources (maybe