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 11:11:34)
Oops, sorry, I think I thought you wrote that. Ok, now I think all the comments make sense :)
He didn't notice that it does, I believe.
Wait, do you mean it should trigger multiple times, or it shouldn't?
Ah. Yes, I missed the multiple triggers. Sorry bout that.
Hmm, yes. I wonder if Wizards will actually explore that space.
Starcrossed Lover with Longing
See Challenge # 143.
One advantage of the new "base power and toughness" terminology is that we can use it here to sidestep any confusion about what order P/T boosting effects happen in -- it's approximately the same as "another creature with the same p/t written on the card"
Wording suggestion: "If a player discarded a card this turn, you may cast this card for its eidetic cost and add though it has flash." That keeps triggered abilities out of hidden zones.
I wouldn't worry about the wording too much; since my templating stinks.
But "play it again sam" would be better named "Recur". And likely still too confusing, if it had too many triggers. I mean should it be exactly what the card does? Or as your example, just something related?
Sorry, I was primarily looking at jmgariepy's comment when I responded.
Well, as worded this is a keyword, not an ability word, so it definitely needs to stay as "whenever a player discards a card" if it's keeping this card's wording.
Thanks. :-)
I imagine it would do better with a frame treatment of some sort.
Realized it was missing UEOT clause.
Fair enough. I mean, this clearly has confused at least three people, so it's obviously not as simple as it seemed to me.
Sorry, yes, we should never say "this has +1/+1 for each blocking creature" because it wears off at end of combat, I'd meant to suggest something like "when blockers are declared, this gets +1/+1 UEOT for each blocking creature" or something like that. But I didn't have exact wording, I'd hoped to illustrate the sort of thing I thought was probably possible, even if I didn't have a complete rule-compatible wording.
I'm also confused by other people's comments, do some people read this as it gets +1/+1 _maximum? Whereas, I read it as, "if you attack with this and two other creatures and they all get blocked, it gets +3/+3". Is that right?
And ok, maybe it's not confusing to anyone else, but I normally assume if it's confusing to me, it's too confusing for common. Partly it's the combat maths, that you have to plan your whole block quite carefully because a small change will change what this does. And partly, I find that "whenever a creature blocks" always looks like it means "my creature" or "opposing creature" and it's hard for me to remember it means both.
Oh, well done for using "elastic". I thought that was a great word, but would need some work to find a mechanic that fit it well.
I like the idea though. It could be like level-up, an instant with three different lines an costs, but sufficiently closely related it feels more like one card than a split card.
Rubber Band, with Elastic.
I'm not sure I understand what's so fiddly. If this blocks or is blocked with two other copies of itself, they'll all be at least 4/4.
It might, but I suspect not all players know when "This gets +1/+1 for each blocking creature" ends. This is meant to apply to every creature that's blocking, whether it's yours or those of another player.
I read as it gets +1/+1 whenever something blocks. So if something else is blocked, it gets +1/+1. And if it blocks or is blocked, it gets +1/+1 (which is bushido 1)
So.. it's not quite as good as getting frenzy, because if nothing is blocked at all, this doesn't get +1/+1.
But.. it does seem like a fiddly set of minor circumstances that would be much more simply resolved by just making this a bear; or perhaps "Has +1/+1 during combat"?
See Challenge # 143.
Like many things, it seemed like a good idea in my head until I put it onto a card.
I don't quite follow jmg's maths. Am I right this gets +1/+1 when ANY opposing creature blocks, or when it blocks or any other creature you control blocks? That seems like it's going to be confusing.
But I like the idea, maybe it needs a simple reminder, and maybe "+1/+1 for each blocking creature" might be easier to read?
I don't really see the Frenzy. Are you referring to this getting boosted if they block your other creatures?
Yeah, I'm of the opinion that ability words should all have the same condition.
"Otherwise simple?" This is forced to reference the stack, and no spell with Buffer would ever be useful on its own.
It is kind of neat how you could cast a (presumably discounted) Buffer spell for
, then next turn another one for 
, and get the first effect for a discount overall.
That's why I made my suggestion. To make it so that you would still have to pay that spell's original cost.
Oh; I was assuming they were always "whenever a player discards a card"; and yes, this particular one is intended to be a way to kick the chain off so you could throw multiple other cards at it.
Interesting idea for other "I like that; do more of that" cards - though it needs a different name.
Used 'Limit Break' in Arvil, the Hurler. Adding 'Elastic'.