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 2025-07-13 15:05:31)
This particular take is very interesting. Obviously +4/+0 is way more than a
/
equipment would normally give; I do worry that on a first striker, say, the drawback would be very easy to avoid. And if anything, it feels a bit like a cop-out to let the third curse be removed by destroying the enchanted creature :)
That was indeed my motivation for making auras that turn into equipment or vice versa - but I did that on Nebulous Rage, not Blade of Vengeance. In fact, I was interested in that before I even wrote Multiverse: one of the cards in Sienira's Facets (which was the inspiration for me to write Multiverse) was Soulblade of Honour. It's certainly not a clean implementation - it's pretty horrible... (Although it was good in the set, which had things that cared about being equipped and/or being enchanted, and the card types you controlled, etc.)
But yeah, I suppose I'll grudgingly concede that this is one thing that DFCs enable that wasn't really possible before :P
This card inspired Rampant Bear.
This card inspired Blade of Vengeance.
Alex's Blade of Vengeance got my gears turning, and I failed to complete the prerequisites of the challenge with Noble Grove anyway. So, one more: Thrice Cursed Axe.
Bonus entry for Challenge # 030. Inspired by Alex's Blade of Vengeance. I don't know if Alex recognized it and chose to do his own thing, or if he just missed it, but equipment transforming into auras and/or auras transforming into equipment is pretty damn awesome. The word attach or unnattach doesn't need to appear on the card anywhere! I just had to make this card... and I messed up by not fulfilling the challenge on a previous card anyway.
Also, I did a verboten thing by making the axe a black artifact, without giving it a black converted mana cost. But, the concept was just too black to leave as a normal artifact... I wonder how many people that would upset?
This card inspired Nebulous Rage.
Good thought. In fact, this would make a lot more sense than my version or Withengar if it turned into a curse when it dealt damage to the player.
Conversely, one could turn into a creature aura when the equipped creature dealt damage to that creature.
Hmm, actually, perhaps +1/+1 isn't the best bonus. As it is, if the creature is a 2/2 and gets into combat with an opponent's 2/2, it'd survive... until the trigger transformed this, and then it'd die :P So I think I'll make it +2/+0 instead.
Okay, looks like there is plenty of space here after all :) I came back and created Blade of Vengeance... and then Nebulous Rage.
Created for Challenge # 030. Equipment that transforms into something else feels like a very fertile and flavourful space. dude1818 already captured several nice ideas in Mirroria's transforming equipment, but I think there are more.
I should say I do find this a lovely and fascinating design. Rewarding you for living on the edge!
It's a bit odd to see the "all nonland permanents are blue" condition; it doesn't seem to relate to the other things the card is doing (draw X cards, empty libraries, instants and sorceries). But the idea of a triggered transformation into a planeswalker that tries to keep you from dying to decking is delightful.
Whoops! Forgot about the different types thingy. Well, this card turns into a coward, so I get half credit.
I don't get the problem. Magic players are a bit spoiled in my opinion, and the game can't advance unless we're willing to add some complication somewhere. That being said, I'll save the rant. You're right that this isn't the best format for it. Maybe I'll read that post then write an article about it ;)
Split cards that have some way of then turning into the other half of the split isn't done though; so you could equally keyword that bit of it instead :)
Ha! You'd think, wouldn't you? But actually I'm not sure if that works. The ability actually reads as if it said "Transform ~: Regenerate ~", because the game knows that "(this object's name)" means "the object that is the source of this ability", even if it changes name in the meantime.
I think it might more conventionally be written as "
: Regenerate ~ and transform it."
BTW, technically the terms of Challenge # 030 required the cards to transform into a different type. But I think it's fine.
You "don't get the problem"? Which of the fifteen problems don't you get?
...Eh, maybe we don't have to have this discussion here. It's not like either of us is going to change the other's mind, after all ;)
(EDIT: I'm going to store my list of those problems here so they're not lost next time WotC change their forums software.
> (1) DFCs force people to use either (1a) opaque sleeves or (1b) checklist cards.
> (1a)'s problems include (1a1) financial implications especially for players with lots of decks; (1a2) it leaves an ugly taste when you recall Wizards' recent promotional ties with UltraPro; (1a3) it leads to scratching cards when putting them into and out of sleeves potentially several times each game; (1a4) it has risks such as putting a DFC back in its sleeve the wrong way round; and (1a5) it means you can't see all the details of the card when it's in your hand (e.g. what's Kruin Outlaw's second ability once she's flipped?).
> (1b) is a horrible hack which nobody likes; it means (1b1) you can't see the details of the card when it's in your hand (nor its artwork or flavour text), (1b2) to check those details you have to look in an out-of-game pile which is a painfully obvious tell, (1b3) even if you don't look in the pile when you draw a checklist card, you have to look elsewhere on the card for its identity than with most cards, leading people to state they can tell when people draw a checklist card by watching them; and (1b4) it's possible for someone to open and want to play more DFCs than they get checklist cards.
> (2) In-game, a DFC's back side is potentially relevant public knowledge, but not visible on the table.
> (3) Drafting becomes a dexterity game where (3a) there are strategic benefits to waiting to make your first pick (or any other pick) until you see what everyone else has picked, and where (3b) it's very easy to cheat accidentally or deliberately by seeing neighbours' current choices when trying to look at their piles for the permitted DFC info; also (3c) drafting becomes very different between f2f and MTGO, which impairs the usefulness of MTGO to practice f2f drafters or vice versa.
> (4) The flavour and immersiveness of the set is impaired because there are (4a) far fewer basic lands opened in boosters, and (4b) fewer basic land arts in total, even for players who don't use the checklist card.
> (5) There's no reminder text for "transform".
Iiiinteresting. Yes, this is somewhat comparable to Rogue Elephant / Scythe Tiger. Fascinating card for aggro decks. Good idea, Sorrow.
I think we can assume this was meant to say "transform ~ and cast it" or "transform ~, put it on the stack and choose targets" or some such.
But yeah, the difficulty I've had when creating land/X DFCs is that they'd usually be cleaner as just a sacrifice effect on the land. We already have things like Mouth of Ronom showing that you don't need a DFC to do that.