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 2025-07-04 10:13:02)
Well, on the one hand, I agree, this is too specific to make a good card in a real set; I was stretching to make three cards that I thought had interesting links, and if you lose the connection to the planeswalker this can become "put a +1/+1 counter on target creature" or just be killed. (The same applies to the Archmage, even more so). But on the other hand, half the creatures probably won't have counters but half the allies probably will, which is what I was thinking when I made this.
Found it: 107.1b: "Most of the time, the Magic game uses only positive numbers and zero." so yeah, the no 0 cards in a pile rule must be divy mechanic only.
Is this true? I know that you can no longer divy Fact or Fiction into a pile of 0 and a pile of 5. I can understand how there needs to be a card in a pile to be called a 'pile'. But I'm not 100% sure its not because you can't call "0" anymore when asked for a number.
If defender is a keyword, then there is no reason why agressor couldn't be a keyword. Both abilities seem to pop up with as much frequency, and require just as many words to explain. I know it might seem unnecessary, but one half of the point of keywords is to simplify talking about the game by giving very commonly used expressions their own keyword. We don't really need Haste, after all.
But the good thing about Agressor as a keyword is, that, if they keyworded it, it would come up more often (and would probably have about 10 creatures in the first set it was in). And there is nothing better for the health of the game than an ability that forces creatures to engage in combat.
Late for the party. For your approval, I submit:
Revert to Shadow and Essence of Sky
Originally, I planned to add a card with the line "Copy all spells", but decided against it, since I would be forced to include reminder text that said (You may not choose new targets for those copies), and that seemed like a total drag. I still like the card, but the best version of it requires more than 5 words.
I'm amused by the name, but I think something like "berserker" would be clearer (and either way, I considered inventing a keyword, but I didn't think there was enough reason other than shortening the wordcount which doesn't really count). That would be ok as a keyword, but I don't think the benefit would likely be worth it: there's not that many creatures with Aggressor that seem to want to be dealt with as a group, and it seems less part of their inherent identity than "defender", and it's only occasionally granted, and when it is "attacks each turn" sounds almost simpler than "gains aggressor". But maybe I'm too pessimistic.
Challenge # 005. Obviously intended to be animated, and requires support from block. I made it cost 3, since, I assume, any world that animates enchantments sort of regularly, probably makes their power + toughness equal to casting cost. That would make this a strong 3/3 worth the wait. That is, unless enchantments becoming creatures is very common... then they might automatically become 2/2s. But then it would be very common, and this would still be a great 2/2.
Challenge # 005. When Phyrexia invades worlds, it often spends centuries undercover, pretending to be part of the environment. Why not use morph? In some planes, morph creatures are normal (albeit, you shouldn't stand too close to them. Who knows what's inside, eh?) I could imagine the denizens of that plane thinking its odd that the number of morph creatures seem to have risen dramatically.
Also, if you see one or two myr pop up in a set's card list, that's a pretty big hint...
Too overpowered, even for mythic. If that didn't leave such a bad taste in my mouth, I'd probably say it was a good card. Still, this would be spectacular as a 1/1.
Good call. Solid.
Hey, I like Aggressor! It's true, we should have a keyword for that.
That's funny. This immediately reminded me of Force of Savagery. I also don't think the card needs to be nerfed for cards that won't intereact with it in block. In fact, my first thought was "Couldn't this be bigger? Wouldn't there be another creature you can zombify in set that will be bigger than this?". I do agree with Jack, though. Any block that has this in it should find some way of 'cheating' into play by using its low cc. It just should be a fair way to cheat.
It's not a lock, because "any number of" includes zero. Once you have your googol of allies, you just start choosing to copy no abilities.
I really liked the Allied themed Planeswalker and Allies, and conceptually, they're all very good. Had I worked in development, though, I'd probably move to have this card struck. It's a great idea, and would probably still be a great idea if it was splashier and rare, but by itself, and with other Acolytes, it's just a grizzly bear. I know what the card is trying to do, but unless 50% of the creatures in block come with counters (unlikely), he's going to dissapoint a lot of players on round 2 a lot of times. When he's a good card, he's great... I just don't know if that's worth when he's a bad card.
Perhaps this should specifically call out Allies? I missed where you were going with this, myself. I assumed there was some interaction with the next card down the line that made Allies have flash or something. If the card read "copy target triggered ability from an ally" it would still do what you intended it to do, and told the people playing at home what they should be doing with it.
Yeah, there's a bigger problem with this than going infinite. Two of these by their lonesome cause a game lock, since they are forced to copy each other's abilities. If I have an archmage, and I play an archmage, and there are no other allies, the game ends in a tie.
How's this for solving that issue?
Probably should say printed P/T cannot be lowered.
If you play Giant Growth on this, does it keep the +3/+3 forever since the bonus can't wear off (to do so would mean lowering its P/T)?
It probably needs reminder text stating "If its power or toughness would be lower than 2, it stays 2." Or something more accurate, whichever.
There's also the fact that Terra Eternal sort of sucks.
I lean toward thinking you're correct, Darkheart, but there are other ways to deal with creatures.
Personally, I would want it to cost less. To me that's a big drawback. But that doesn't mean it's not fair.