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 17:51:57)
Hm, maybe a "number allowed in deck".
Relentless Rats: oo
Shock: 30
Lightning Bolt: 4
Ancestral Recall: 1
Shahrazad: 0
Honestly, I hate the idea. I wish all cards were balanced to have as many as you like in your deck (even though that makes it harder to have cards that don't totally unbalance constructed formats). But it would be an interesitng twist that when they design the cards, that some cards would be just overpowered if you could play 15 (eg. stone rain would be REALLY ANNOYING), but others might be interesting if you could build an archetype from one card without waiting for 3 near-functional-reprints of it to be printed at the same time.
(Also, it's not really in the spirit of the challenge because it's not a creature number, its a card number.)
Hm. Maybe a "spell resistance X" number, elevating the "can't be the target of spells or abilities unless their controller pays X" or "can't be the target of spells or abilities costing less than/more than X" to a major mechanic, so instead of having an X/1 non-hexproof or an X/1 hexproof, you can have something in the middle...
Ah, yes - "draw for destiny". Seen that mechanic in a few other games, such as .hack//ENEMY.
Added Behind the Scenes. Instead of stealing from Magic, I stole from Star Wars. Go me.
For Challenge # 019. I stole tactics from Decipher's now defunct Star Wars CCG. That game had a lot of good things going for it. Among them was a destiny number in the top right hand corner. Whenever you initiated combat, both players would flip the top card of their deck, then add the destiny to their side's total power. It added a bit of luck, but only so much, since the amount usually stopped at 6... so a blowout of 25 to 12 was still going to win no matter what we flipped. Furthermore, it allowed Decipher to print intentionally weak cards, and situation specific silver bullets that people enjoyed putting in their decks, because they won the occasional lucky flip off of them.
Flipping the top card of your deck for each attacking/blocking creature would probably be prohibitive (at least, the way the game is now... you could build around Magic and make the game about the "one big creature" effect, or have all the creatures make up teams at certain locations, like Star Wars did). Alternatively, Tactics could operate like Clash did... except revealing Tactics happens a lot more often. Many players would complain about the amount of randomness going on here, but if developed well, this could work well.
Funny thing is, when Richard Garfield first designed Magic, it had three stats in the lower right hand corner (so, presumably, Grizzly Bears would be a 2/2/2). I thought about using that, but that seemed like cheating to me. I also think I won't explain what it was either, in case someone happens to stumble upon it by accident. I don't want to go about removing options from a difficult challenge.
I just added Uprooted Oakling, and will come back with the second shortly.
For Challenge # 019. The third stat here, mass, probably needs a better name, but this will do. Mass is how much damage that this creature deals to players... which is different than the amount of damage dealt to creatures, still represented by Power. The idea behind Mass, is that Planeswalkers in this universe become huge other worldly things when they fight. Being deadly with a sword just isn't very impressive to them. In order to effectively stop these planeswalkers, you're much better off using a giant battering ram... but you'll have to get that huge implement past all of the planeswalker's defending creatures.
Not gonna try and come up with cards - but I had two thoughts for the mechanic.
The first was 'evasion' as a numeric score rather than flying/fear/landwalk/unblockable etc. But that loses quite a lot.
My second thought, however, is loyalty. All creatures have it - most have a lot of it, but some don't and lose it unless you do things to placate them. When a creature becomes disloyal, the opponent takes control of it (and refreshes the loyalty) (This thought started as 'how about an unsummoning cost')
For me, it seemed natural because of the lack of bleed between blue and black. Green and White, on the other hand, practically share the same mechanics.
I wanted to make something here, but I didn't have the time.
I'd envision Purple mana being a limited resource (which detracts slightly from the basic land type, but can be worked around, I think). Some ideas, some of which are overpowered:
- Creatures cast with purple mana have haste
- Instants/sorceries cast with purple mana have an extra copy put on the stack
- Instants/sorceries cast with purple mana can't be countered
- Cards which do something more powerful if cast with purple mana.
This challenge is a bit odd, I know, but hopefully someone finds it interesting. Sorry for taking so long to post, I got completely caught up in school work.
Removed enchanting restriction
Hmm... perhaps you are right.
For me, it's because I'm poisoned by reading an article from R&D where it was said purple almost made it into the Time Spiral block, and would have been between Blue and Black, with its enemy being green.
It's funny how people's conceptions of purple cards tend to borrow more from blue and black than the other colours.
I fear it probably looks more fun than it is; you can't cast lands, and if they've been holding onto a nonland, there's a reasonable chance that's because it's not useful in the current board state. But it's the kind of card that's worth having around just for those occasional times when it's utterly awesome. And of course it scales pleasingly in multiplayer.