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 2025-08-26 21:11:40)
Thanks.
By the way, I noticed I don't think I can move cards from this set to cards with no home, I'm not sure if that's an issue with the cardset options on cards with no home, but it would be convenient for cards like this that get made for a challenge and then don't quite fit. I'm not sure if the answer is I missed an obvious setting somewhere, or most community sets should be "everyone is an admin", or if it should be a tweak to how the permissions work reported as a feature request?
Hah. It's even more of a split card than Brimstone was, and that's identical to Fire // Ice. (Edit: Or was at the time I made this comment, anyway.)
Oh, interesting take on Coastal Tower. It can give mana the turn you cast it, but that delays getting coloured mana for another turn. I like it a lot.
And yeah, I'm treating this challenge as if it had an implicit "Suppose DFCs weren't a really really bad idea" rider :)
Rampant Bears, Diffuse Essence. And oops, sorry, I got carried away and made Equatorial River even though it's a normal DFC.
ETA: Also Imprisoning Blade
For Challenge # 030.
This should probably have some mana added to the flip, but I made the simpler version. As it is, it can be played as an untapped colourless land, or as a tapped dual land.
I'm not sure about using DFC for utility stuff like lands. On the one hand, once they're in play, you can have the massive advantage of having a modal land without keeping track of counters. OTOH, it's obviously a real pain to keep taking it out of its sleeve or substituting it for a checklist card.
For Challenge # 030
Not quite "different types", but I like the way DFC lets you have a spell flip that otherwise would be annoying to remember which mode it was in. It would be even more evident if it were a global enchantment on both sides, but a) that problem is solved with "on your turn/not on your turn" wording and b) for this challenge, I wanted an enchantment/aura.
In fact, both this and Rampant Bears really want to be like split cards and have the characteristics of both sides while they're not in play, but that would be a bigger rules change, so I went with "can cast either side". That's not strictly necessary, but I like the idea this can be played as either R or W and flipped later.
For Challenge # 030
In fact, a modal version of two baseline common spells would probably cost more than this even in green, but I wanted to make the simplest possible version first.
I'd have to assume this is part of a cycle. Paying life in blue is rather rare... but other than that, I think this is a pretty cool mechanic.
LOL. Yeah, interesting question.
Created Librarian's Aid and Stalwart Druid. I think three is too many - there won't be any good ideas left by the time a couple of people are done, without copying ideas that dude1818 used in his entire set of DFCs Mirroria. So I won't make a third just now, but I might come back and add some more in a couple of days.
Created for Challenge # 030. Wow, it's hard finding DFC ideas that dude1818 hasn't already used in Mirroria. But I quite like this idea. Normally it would be up to the opponent to pay the 2 life, but under certain circumstances you might want to pay the life yourself.
There's potential for a few different takes on this: the creature in this case is very much a consolation prize, but if the spell and creature are both larger and scarier, the choice could be different and perhaps more interesting.
Created for Challenge # 030. Kind of the opposite of Dormant Protector and earthform.
As an example this is a card I created Dormant Protector.
I am going to nab Challenge 30 if that's OK with everyone.
LOL. Yeah, I don't know if they are, but mad max is an excellent description: really silly, but they could just about do that flavour in theory, even if they downplay machines... :)
I'm not sure how the flying rules should work. As is, I think the mounted creature doesn't have flying, but can be blocked only when the roc is, which seems about right, but I don't know if people will play it right.
Good point. The rules should probably forbid a mounted creature mounting a creature (even if a mountable creature is ok).
(Maybe mount isn't the best word for it.)
OMG! That is a huge frickin' toitle!
This is where things get a bit sticky. The Roc doesn't grant flying to creatures mounting it.
Oh, and can a Fine Charger mount a Trained Roc? Survey says "Yes." I don't really want to think about Fine Chargers mounting Fine Chargers right now. Magic might need to sport a "T for Teens" logo.
I find it funny to imagine these two cards in the same world. Mad Max much?
Perhaps the first words of the reminder text should be "Attach or unattach a creature..." I don't see why having to pay to unmount is a terrible thing, and while the reminder text wouldn't end up saying anything about simultaneously mounting two creatures, logic and the comprehensive rules could handle that.
Wow, that does indeed remove the large majority of the rules confusion. Good idea.
I assume this is for Challenge # 029?
Another "is it possible to have creatures that can be attacked?"
Does the blocking restriction remove the rules ambiguities? I think it may still be confusing, but it ought to work how you'd expect: on attack, it's just a creature; on defence, it can block only if it itself isn't under attack, so it can never block creatures from attacking itself; it doesn't deal damage when it's attacked.