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 2025-05-17 16:59:57)
Created Grappling Rope as a baseline simple attempt (for a common). I'll have a go at a rare later :)
For Challenge # 020. Bone Saw and Shuko show us that +1/+0 costs
total to cast+equip, so adding a minor enough ability should take it up to 
total. Most keyword abilities aren't minor enough; for example, first strike I think would need to cost more than 
total if the equipment gives +1/+0, and first strike would look pretty odd with +0/+1. But I think reach will do.
(Sylvok Lifestaff follows a similar approach.)
And thank you, for very nicely illustrating why they're never going to put anything too good in that slot. (Except skullclamp, which they apologised for and banned.)
(Goodness me, clamping your general repeatedly. Eeeeevil.)
Let me tell you, more of these are very much needed in Magic. I've been putting together an Isamaru, Hound of Konda Commander deck. My intent is to penalize players for starting their commander games way too slow. It has an extra bonus because there are no 1cc cards in the deck... I always want Isamaru.
My game plan has been to play the hound on round one, then equip him or enchant him round 2 and swing. You know, with something like Bonesplitter or Skullclamp. Then I went to look at White 2CC auras and 2-cost-equip... and, there's not much of interest out there (not including Crusade variants. That isn't the point). Heaven help me, I've been thinking of running Brilliant Halo.
So, yeah. I'm just saying that if it looks good equipped to a hound on round 2, I'm giving you extra kudos.
So here we are - a VERY minimal constraint. CC2, equip 0, CC1 equip 1, or CC0 equip 2.
It's not worse than Forest if you need to fill out the mana base for a Karn EDH deck!
I was thinking the best line to add would be:
"Cavern counts as a basic land when not on the battlefield."
does everything a basic land can do except when in play. Thoughts?
A decent example of the potential use of the card limit; though since this is strictly worse than Forest you could probably make it slightly better and still get away with it. (Stupid 4-card limit. Wish they'd never introduced that. It made the urza lands a lot less useful.)
Designed for Challenge # 019.
I decided to add this even though it isn't a creature.
The colourless "Basic Land" would be doable with card limit as you can set it to ∞. It isn't a basic land so you don't get the odd interactions that adding a sixth type of basic land would cause but you can have any number in your deck.
I guess you could add a rider that it can be searched for as a basic land to enable things like Rampant Growth, etc to find it but I don't think you necessarily have to.
Le sigh. It's true. There are a lot of Magic players with a lot of different opinions. Trying to tell them to play the way I would like to play is much too trying.
I've got an idea for one!
I like the idea as envisaged by Camruth.
I think jmg's last suggestion is a recipe for instant hatred by vast armies of kitchen table players, followed quickly by "Nobody pays any attention to those numbers except the first, right?" One of the things about Vintage / Legacy and casual formats based on them is that you can still play your old Standard deck there.
Arguable. EDH has a lot of strangeness going on... the Highlander aspect of it is just one of them. I assume, if this method was put into place, that EDH would feel even weirder, since you'd be giving a property normally reserved for Mythic Rares (You can only play one) to cards like Naturalize (which, I'd assume, would normally have a limit of 6, say). I am probably getting too picky, though, so forget my blather.
There are plenty of pros to this, which also include: Making Mythics feel more Mythic, allowing more cards that are fine if there is only one on the table, and grating if there are more than one (hello Night of Soul's Betrayal and Krark's Thumb). Not to mention lines of text like "If you have seven or more copies of ~ on the battlefield, you win the game."
What I'd really like, and I know that this is going well outside the range of "Reasonable things that Wizards would do", would be a string of numbers for each format. One large number for Standard, another diminishing number for Modern, then vintage, then legacy. It would give a feeling of "The stuff that is currently coming out is more relevant", while still imbuing a little "but you can still play with one in your deck, even if it is 7 years later, just because you love the card that much".
But if more cards change the default, then changing the default itself becomes a lot less interesting as a format.
It would be interesting with EDH, some cards would get weaker, others stronger - remember, you don't need to have the cards reference their own DL numbers like my two examples (they were just a splashy way to work it).
One other con: It would make Elder-dragon formats less viable.
Still, I can see this working. We've already got cards with 1 and &inf; here.
correct, there would be a little deck/card symbol with the number and each card would have its own limit.
It has pros and cons -
Pro: More design flexibility (a slightly weaker common could be offset by having more copies available)
Con: Slightly more complexity during deck construction/tournament registration.
I am sure there are more pros and cons but they were the first ones I thought of (and they are only examples)
So each card has its own limit, instead of the standard 4-of rule?
Inspired by Innistrad, zombie movies and halloween, this is another example of the deck limit number - in this case ∞ (any number) for Challenge # 019
Designed Mated Dragon and Endless Hordes for this challenge.
The new number is deck limit and appears on the typeline, before the cardtypes.
For Challenge # 019
The number before the cardtype on the typeline is the deck limit number for this card.
Cardlimit is how many of a particular card you may have in your deck, from 1 to - (representing any number - maybe the infinity symbol instead of -). This would kill the "limit of 4" by allowing cards to be designed at almost any power level and limited by how many can be in a deck.