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 19:18:44)
For Challenge # 145, using Adak's Eye. My first thought was to make a cyclops or beholder, or something that when it was killed left the eyes behind. But that didn't do a good job explaining why other creatures couldn't attack. Eventually, I figured that line might make a good restriction on a super-huge creature. You have a choice: kill an eye per turn so you can swing, or wait to get a massive army of eyes.
I have no idea how to cost this buster. I get the impression that Desolation Twin does a good job expressing what the baseline is for
. DT seems considerably more powerful than this card, so I guess 
. I might be off.
Oh, that's nice. I would gladly play a deck around this card.
"I play Bloodfire Colossus."
"Cool. Activate him."
"Damn."
I'm rather happy to find that "make a card for Grinder" was practically a challenge all by itself. ;)
Heh. Cute -4, in that you can do it immediately, but it won't be great until you +1 once and +0 twice.
Huh. Was certain I had included that.
Well, it's fixed now.
See Challenge # 145.
I made Evanescence, for Alex's Spirit.
I made Wound for my token.
You forgot Power and Toughness.
EDIT: Oops, Alex already said that. Sorry.
See Challenge # 145 and Spirit.
It was freaking hilarious and very unexpected.
That's what I meant, although I was worried, I hoped it would come across as sweet not making fun.
Jack! Omg. Was that a Grindr joke?
Hm. I think that's unambiguous, though I'm not enough of a judge to be sure. Is it something wizards would actually print, though?
OTOH, I'm thinking maybe a spell "target opponent activates an ability of target creature they control without paying its mana cost" might be more clear, and pretty fun -- usually useless, but say on a flash creature could cause them to waste a mana creature outside their main phase, and occasionally shine to blow up a creature with a conditional sac ability! :)
And Scarificatron, another for Grinder.
See Challenge # 145
Why would you ever want a Grinder? Well, one reason is you have one of the "chain artifacts together" mechanics.
Which I really love (I think clockwork wings had a good one?) but struggle to be battlefield relevant when they mostly only affect your own artifacts without becoming a game of solitaire.
Obviously Scarificatron is not useful by itself, but could be very useful to power other wind-up devices.
ETA: And obviously "when you activate two" is a dodgy rules-wise, but I think it could be made explicit. Either you have to activate two together back-to-back without passing priority, which most people will understand as "at once" if the rules don't dwell on exactly how that's implemented. Or you have to activate both as a cost to this artifact's windup ability (I think that works in the rules, except it would be v confusing to use costs instead of triggers to chain windup abilities into further windup abilities). Or you have to activate one in response to the other?
Also see Scarificatron
> Does it mean, "Ignore cost" or "must pay cost if able but needn't activate man abilities to be able to do so"? Does it ignore timing restrictions?
It doesn't mean "ignore cost". It does mean "must pay cost if able but needn't activate mana abilities". It doesn't ignore timing restrictions.
That much is implied by the rules, but would definitely need spelling out in an FAQ and rules primer for the hypothetical cardset.
I do like the upkeep-lifeloss tokens too, except that they're rather more wordy than Grinder: "At the beginning of your upkeep" is a lot of letters.
I'm not sure if masochism works. It would be better if it could key off combat damage, so it would work in any deck without needing specific enablers as well as masochism cards. But it's too confusing to have a +1/+1 trigger off combat damage. Maybe if it turned pain into mana or cards instead?
Oh, that's fascinating. I'm concerned, both play-wise and rules-wise, though. It seems like, if it weren't for the constraint of the challenge, putting an artifact with "at the beginning of your upkeep, you lose 1 life" would be simpler and maybe more interesting.
And I'm not sure what "activate an ability of an artifact they control" does. Does it mean, "Ignore cost" or "must pay cost if able but needn't activate man abilities to be able to do so"? Does it ignore timing restrictions?
OTOH, I'm thinking maybe the "lose 1 life" version of grinder might be interesting, say as a half-way house between damage and poison, creatures that don't do immediate damage, but give the opponent "each turn lose 1 life" artifacts instead...?
Jack created Crim, Rakdos Gadgeteer, and I created Uncontrolled Overloader and Sprocketflinger.
Created for Challenge # 145.