| Tesla Card Dump: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
|
CardName: District Enforcer Cost: 1W Type: Creature - Human Soldier Pow/Tgh: 3/1 Rules Text: Putting a token onto the battlefield is against the law. [Law] - At the beginning of your upkeep, if an opponent broke the law since the beginning of your last turn, creatures you control gain first strike until end of turn. Flavour Text: Set/Rarity: Tesla Card Dump Uncommon |
History: [-] Add your comments: |
First strike in connection to the trigger doesn't really feel logical. Feels like a blue trigger, too.
changing from card drawing law to token hating.
So, when do we want to have Justice trigger? Immediately? At upkeep if they did something last turn? We need to keep the wording consistent.
Yeh its probable the first strike that needs to change rather than making the laws less consistent.
changed from first strike to tapping.
changed from tapping back to first strike now with experimental new wording.
changed to new Justice wording
Changed name from Empirion Inforcer
Duel Deck Playtest data: Reward consistently felt underwhelming, also played with it giving all creatures first strike and suddenly played a lot better.
Could also not be restricted to creature tokens so that canisters can trigger it.
moved from common to uncommon and making all creatures gain first strike.
This can cause you to suffer from playing a token if your opponent is playing justice
Is it possible to reword it so laws only apply to the opponent without spelling that out in every law? Eg. "Justice - If an opponent broke one of your laws..."?
Doesn't seem white to have the laws apply differently to different players. The decision should be made at the deck-building step to not run cards that break the law if you're going to enforce that law. You know, like in real life.
But right now, they all say "if an opponent broke the law" not "if any player broke the law". That's already asymmetric, and I think that's ok. I think I see what you mean, but I think it would fit into white's flavour well enough the other way.
This card has outdated wording. See (((Suppression Officer))) for a Justice card with the current iteration.
Odd that this is on a white creature... a color that highly supports token creatures. I could see this being a black creature instead (though, admittedly, first strike would be an odd choice. Not out of the question, just odd.)
This card from 4 months ago with old templating and odd abilities is pulling too much focus, removing.