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 2025-05-18 09:53:35)
Rachael created Epidemic and Get Out Of Jail Free.
Fun challenge! I created Sigil of the Longest Road and Mark of the Distinguished. (I think it's fine to name your card the same as the inspiration if you want; although it becomes less reliably linkable using
(((triple parens)))then.)Pretty directly using the numbers from dominion. "May play an additional land each turn" isn't all that good unless you've got lots of card draw or similar; combo's well with landfall etc. though. Also works as
->
filtering. Eh, it'll do.
I like the "differently-named" lands. I went the obvious route, but I think yours is more interesting. There's a little excuse to play as eccentric a mana base as possible (a little hard on monocolor decks, but that's probably ok).
I chose "20% of starting value" as the key number, but only had it happen once: I agree "every turn" gives a good reason for the change of control to matter. I'm not sure if I like the life gain or not: it can really draw games out, but OTOH, it works nicely with the concept of the longest road, in that if I have it for a turn, then you gain control for a turn, it cancels out, which sort of makes sense settlers-wise, rather than just driving everyone inexorably towards death.
For Challenge # 024
Created for Challenge # 024. Reminds me a bit of Enter the Dungeon. I decided it was a bit too hard to try to create a card mimicking one Apples to Apples card without adding any of the rules of Apples to Apples, so this card just has you play one round of Apples, with a reward for the most "distinguished" card. I could have gone for "most letters in name", "most types", and/or given a bonus for being Legendary, but I thought I'd try to steer clear from the more silver-bordered possibilities.
Inspired by Uno "Wild Draw 4" for Challenge # 024
I'm not sure how much the "if there's no other cards you can play" will matter. Obviously when there's nothing else you can do is a time you want to do card draw, but it stops you, eg, saving creature removal.
I'm not sure if "if there's no other cards you can play" is well defined under the rules. Does anyone know? I think it ought to count that you can pay costs for, if you play mana abilities, but not forced to do use other abilities in order to pay for costs. But does that actually work?
For Challenge # 024
While repeatable "Draw a card, play an additional land" is broken, doing it just once isn't.
Most of this card is based on the pun. And it's come out far too weak now - as a card it would work better if you could search the cards (and be pure blue) but then it'd have pretty much nothing to do with Dom.
Created for Challenge # 024. Using the same approach as on Jenny, Marquisa of Catan - one of the very first home-made Magic cards I made, many years ago - I decided a "victory point" should correspond to "opponents lose 1 life". I decided to tweak that to "and you gain that much life" to make the card a bit more appealing.
How to represent "longest road" was an interesting question (much harder than Largest Army, which I'm sure was deliberate on jmgariepy's part). At first I thought "most lands", but I thought that might correspond to "most roads", which is not the same as "longest road". In the end I went for the slightly more unusual "most differently-named lands" to evoke the feel of a road stretching out across lots of different bits of territory, rather than having lots of little forks within one piece of territory.
Kessig Wolf Run already sort-of echos Kessel Run :) (I can't decide if that's a deliberate homage or not.)
Edit: My cards: Industrious Woodcutter, Road of Woe, Jace's Wild
Wow, I'm impressed at the diversity of cards already suggested, this was a surprisingly good idea for a challenge.
"The dom card wants to allow you to do something twice - and the only 'one per turn' in magic is land drop, so that's pretty obvious"
That's actually a really good idea, but I hadn't thought of it. You should go ahead and make it, often the most interesting cards are what one person thought was obvious but other people didn't.
Ideally, "play an extra land" would be paired with a card draw effect, so it's more likely to be used (most "play an extra land" are a bit weak, as it puts you ahead for a couple of turns, but not usually in the long run), but unfortunately, a 3-cost creature with "
: Draw a card. You may play an additional land this turn" is a bit too good, even if it doesn't do "T: Add 
" as well, and would probably be too good even if it cost "
, 
:". Can anyone think of a way of balancing it?
I skipped the card from bottom of deck, which would break the lock and be even more directly copying it, it's almost certainly not needed.
And no, no need to make it completely trivial to cycle forever. We'll just assume you go looking for a second copy.
Huh. Yeah, I agree this could be a problematic combo, but also, I think it's a surprisingly interesting idea. Note that as worded (I think) it's still on the stack as its resolving so it's not shuffled in itself: that's probably correct, to stop it being too repetitive, but if you'd rather it did, you could say so explicitly.
Based on Longest Road for Challenge # 024.
I wasn't sure how closely to model the "gain control when you control more" and to avoid problems with ties in the (very rare) occasion where more than or equal to two but less than all players put lands into play simulataneously. I went for checking once per turn (although maybe it should be at end of turn?)
Opponents losing on 4 life instead of 0 is basically "artifact lava axe" but it'll occasionally be better or wose.
I specifically wanted the effect to stack if you could play multiples to be more like "get another 20% towards a victory condition" (even though there's only one of these in settlers), even though that makes the wording a little clunky. Can anyone think of a better wording?
It's a shame there's not really a bonus for having more lands, other than keeping control over this: if it's all-downside this looks a lot less attractive. Any suggestions?
Huh. this card appears to be more fun than I thought. Dammit.
Oh, I like it. It's a good example of a free instant which is useful, but not overpowered.
I agree you've got to be very careful giving any enchantment removal to B/R, but also, traditionally artifacts do get to do effects that are in color in weaker forms (eg. Moonglove Extract), even if Mark Rosewater is still against colors getting things out of pie, however expensively. This is hardly going to give black/red relief from enchantments, so the question is, is it a fair price for B/R to destroy an enchantment?
I'm not sure. It's sufficiently narrow it'll rarely make a difference if it costs 0 or 1. We've established "destroy target creature aura" costs something less than C. But does it cost enough less that B and R can get it for 0 as well as G or W? I hope it does, because I prefer the simpler version of the card, but I'm not sure.
For Challenge # 024
Ok, this is more subtle than I thought. It has the whole "Are you winning with what you've used? No? Care to try a second time?" thing.
It's an incremental lockdown with lots of combo possibility.
It's still not VERY fun though.