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 2025-05-19 09:02:44)
Nice idea. Probably a bit too "doable" with existing card types: is this much different to an enchantment with "Sacrifice ~: Search your library... Activate this ability only if you've cast three creature cards that share a creature type this turn."?
Created Whims of War and Overwhelming Forces as explorations of the Strategy card type.
Created for Challenge # 031. See Whims of War for a discussion of the Strategy card type.
This one is meant to be Track 1 = Lots of small tokens, Track 2 = A few big creatures. I think the idea is that once you advance to Space 2, you lose the ability on Space 1, but maybe not.
Just created Marshall the Troops
Kinda like a blend of enchantments and schemes. When played Agendas go into your command zone until you meet the activation requirement. You would probably have one agenda at a time? maybe more, not sure yet.
Oh, obviously for Challenge # 031
Thank you. Yeah, exactly that. It's a sort of cross between traps and quests, but with the flavour that the trigger should usually be something that happens eventually but you can influence when.
Created for Challenge # 031. Strategies are something like multi-pronged level-up enchantments. They'd have their own frame design, like planeswalkers or level-up creatures. You'd place a counter on Track 1 Space 1 or Track 2 Space 1 when it enters the battlefield. Then at some later point, as a sorcery you can pay the advance cost (shown between vertical bars here) to advance to Space 2 on your chosen track. You can't change tracks without bouncing or flickering the strategy.
Ah, excellent idea: import the Reaction idea from Dominion.
Also Captured Information
For Challenge # 031.
This should probably be "instant -- reaction" but the lack of a mana cost seemed sufficiently different it could be a different spell type. (After all, instant and tribal really should be supertypes.)
The shuffling effect is meant to work vaguely like the legend rule and planeswalker uniqueness rule.
They're sort of like a second set of lands that doesn't do mana, at least in the way they're restricted.
I really like the idea of multiple battlefields, though. It's something I've toyed with in the past.
Originally, I had it at the beginning of upkeep, but I didn't want people thinking that it needed to be at the beginning of upkeep. Really, I imagine an enchantment with the ability "
: Play an effect." kicking around. The new part is playing effects, not what triggers it. I assume there's 101 ways to trigger it.
As for the shuffling together... I thought of that too, but I think it works better this way for another reason: People need a rules justification to play it this way. They need the rules to say "It's okay to make your own effects deck and play with it" so their opponent doesn't complain when they do that. It's the rules. They don't, however, need a justification to shuffle their effects decks with their opponents. Archenemy pretty much shows us this in practice.
Iinteresting. So I guess they're like 0-cost artifacts with a couple more restrictions... Yep, interesting new potential card type.
Yeah, I like this idea. I think I'd make it so the effect happened periodically (in upkeep? when you deal combat damage to a player?) so it didn't need a creature to enable it, but you could still have creatures that triggered effects if you wanted.
I was tempted to suggest that the effect decks of both players were shuffled together, although I think that would be too complicated to extricate again afterwards.
LOL. I'd not seen those before, yes, exactly :)
I wasn't sure what effects would be safe to put on a planeswalker. I decided "two negative loyalty effects" was safe, since it'll still run out of counters. I thought about adding another loyalty ability, but I thought it might be degenerate with a planeswalker with much loyalty or a very powerful ultimate.
In fact, given what damage does (duplicated through the familiar) it might be better for me to just say "When you lose life, your familiar takes that much damage"
Impressively different, at least.
Yeah, maybe this is the way to create a new card type: imagine a Magic variant, then think about what cards would have to exist to make that variant work :)
Treetop Jacers!
And yeah, I can see this card type coming to exist at some point...
I'm not sure what should be able to deal damage to familiars, but if the answer is "burn spells", presumably we'll use the same dodge of allowing direct damage to players to be redirected to familiars as well as planeswalkers (or to familiars and players simultaneously).
In fact, I wish wizards had been able to errata shock to be "creature, player or planeswalker" rather than fudge the comprehensive rules, although I assume they're right that it was the best compromise.
Well, I gave it a toughness. I was assuming it'd be like planeswalkers - you can shoot them instead of a player, if you like.
Or maybe there'd just be plenty of familiar destruction spells in the set that introduced them.
Nifty idea. It manages to seem different enough to any other card type to be almost worth the type. It's something like a World Land though (with of course different flavour). Except each player can have one, and they can be damaged...
Oh, dear. They can be damaged. What by? Are you proposing to errata Shock and all the thousands of other burn spells to say "target creature, player or familiar"?