Working on getting the wording for laws correct so that they're clear in what they do. Not a fan of "controller controls", but since laws apply to the person reading it (i.e. "Casting a spell targeting a permanent you control is against the law" refers to targetting your own creatures with your spells, it should be clearer as to when the controller of the card is referenced as opposed to the person the law applies to.

This is Karmic Justice + flash (blue) for the most part. Can be argued for mono-White, but it's a powerful effect so I'd rather force multicolor in this instance. Also a fine blocker.

I think could be argued as well since this reminds me of High Priest of Penance. Obviously, that wouldn't fit into the faction scheme you have set up though... Actually, would perhaps be the most natural cost for this.

You could also try to change the vindicate punishment into something like bounce or perhaps dominate.

I can see the colour rationale; it's kinda "Your stuff has hexproof; but they can bypass it by sacrifice". With a side of white denial-in-advance. Phrasing could be clearer, if that's what's being aimed at, mind you.

How about: "Players may sacrifice a permanent in order to break the law". That makes this a very interesting way to bypass law decks; if you've got tokens or something; as well as being a nasty stand-alone law penalty for opponents.

I like the Mind Control idea. Changing temporarily. Might remove flash due to card advantage concerns.

Had a thought for another law: "Choosing not to is against the law" (if a card says you may do something, unless you do...)

By default text on a permanent applies always as if the controller is reading it. Are there examples for cards that require to or strongly benefit from violating that default assumption?

The best example is District Censor - does it mean casting spells on your - the person breaking the law - turn against the law, or is casting the spells on your - the person who controls it - against the law? I feel like it's important to have the clarity in instances such as that.

Note that there's other issues with District Censor that I need to work out too, namely the fact that you're always breaking your own law if you control it and someone else controls another Law card. I could just change it to "Casting spells during an opponent's turn", however.

Wouldn't it be clear to say "A player casting spells during their own turn is breaking the law." as well as consistent with the established rule that "you" on a permanent refers to the controller.

More specific to this card:

I'm not certain the current rules support the "destroying one or more permanents" trigger - or at the very least whether they are intuitive about it. E. g. it seems like you want one trigger from Damnation or Creeping Corrosion or even Fracturing Gust because a single ability destroys all permanents in question.

How though are the rules supposed to interact with e. g. Austere Command where multiple modes are processed in order and initiate multiple destruction efffects each which may destroy one or more permanents of any given player.

I think adequate rules could be written if this was a simple triggered ability with an unusual trigger, but things might be more complicated once you involve the law mechanic because I would have to guess as how its rules are supposed to be written.

Well, the "Destroys a permanent" trigger does exist (Karmic Justice), and the difference between that and the trigger I have here is like the difference between "whenever a creature attacks you" and "whenever one or more creatures attack you" - it just counts the instances per effect/action. (on another note, one downside is that damage from spells like Lightning Bolt doesn't trigger this on creatures, so players may play this uninuitively).

I believe it would interact similarly to how Obelisk Spider works with Contagion Engine and Grim Affliction - since they're two separate events, they'll trigger twice. So a card like Malicious Affliction would trigger this twice, since it's two different destroy effects, but a card like Curtain's Call will only trigger it once.

I don't see anything particularly concerning about the wording of the conditions of the trigger, but I agree that it could do with some more clarification.

This whole mechanic is probably something that is dubious in the frames of the current ruleset. I'm mostly concerned with how easy it is to grok before making it work nicely within the current rules.

It seems easy to grok; but will lead to horrible stalls since it feeds on itself. If you don't shut it down as soon as it starts coming out, you'll quickly end up with every possible action having multiple horrible penalties attached.

Which makes me want to suggest "conceding the match is against the law..." but.

Well, that's generally the point of prison decks. Which inclines me to want to include this mechanic on aggressive cards so the deck lends itself more to D&T style play rather than Ensnaring Bridge.

Destroying itself wont actually triggerher effect (but will trigger any other law cards you have), because she's not there to see her "break law" trigger resolve.

I contest your last statement. She sees her own destruction and that is flagged as against the law. There is no delay in transmitting the information since you are using a static ability to declare what is against the law.

And she doesn't need to be on the battlefield for the effect of her trigger to apply the same way destroying a 187 creature in response to the trigger will not stop the effect.

If you want to change that, you have to add an intervening if-clause to the second ability ("When an opponent breaks the law, if ~ is on the battlefield, ...") or maybe change the static ability defining what's against the law to a triggered ability ("When a player does something, that player breaks the law.") or find another check.

The current version triggers on destroying this permanent.

On another note: Since a triggered ability only starts going on the stack after the event it triggers on occurs, the player breaking the law would no longer be taking part in the game for a "conceding the match is against the law" trigger - so it will only make sense in e. g. multiplayer. And it won't at all be useful if you want to abuse this card's triggered ability.

Ahh, you're right on that. Clearly I wasn't thinking about the abilities correctly.

I'll just adjust her trigger to be something a little more narrow, then. Might make her a little on the underpowered side. Or might just scrap this version altogether.

That's supposed to be "noncreature, nonland" at least on the second ability, right? Because this card is insane if it can steal lands.

I could have sworn it said nonland before, too.