Tesla Project: Recent Activity
| Tesla Project: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Skeleton | Storyline | Limited Archetypes | Creature Types |
Recent updates to Tesla Project: (Generated at 2025-05-16 05:21:18)
"At end of turn" could work, maybe?
Yeah, I think that could work.
How do we feel about some more powerful effects that require sacrificing the source?
I know that, it is also not going in white. I am just saying that that is the type of effect I would expect on the "no spells" law, not gaining life. I saw that the mill effect is also on the "no spells" law and that is another good effect that gets better as the game goes long. The life gain effect should be attached to some law that your opponent breaks by being very aggressive like "attack with 3 or more creatures" because that is when the life gain is most useful.
That's an interesting idea, Jackal, but might not look great to players.
I'm finding Justice is growing on me with these three laws. It's just upkeep triggers we can push a little bit.
I don't, however, like how the first law gives the opponent little time to comply. How about "Its against the law for an opponent to control three or more creatures during his or her end step"?
Thats not going at common Jackel
I like that the law is specific enough that it can be played around but also something common enough that it will come up frequently against most types of decks. I don't know if the law has any flavor or if first strike is related to it. Mechanically it reminds me of ember beast which is a simple card that feels unusual in a good way.
I think if anyone uses the "no spells" law it should probably be a card that lets you draw cards. It is a law that gets better as the game goes long and your opponent's hand empties tied with an effect that gets better as the game goes long and your hand gets empty.
fixed the law
I would still prefer if this was an action instead of a state so that the opponent could stop breaking it every turn without needing to find a way to change the board state in a way that they may not be able to (such as getting their own creatures killed).
I would be more interested in trying to make common justice of the same color have the same penalty for breaking the laws not have the same law.
The flavor of the second law is 'keeping secrets and staying in the shadows is illegal'. Both cards that trigger on that law are the most invasive / creepy of the bunch - Mage Inquisitor and Mindleak Agent.
I could see two or more spells - that'd be fine too, I think - but 'no spells' produces better gameplay and encourages people to keep playing the game, rather than have to hold back cards.
I don't understand the flavour of the second law. Wouldn't it make more sense to make it be against the law to cast two or more spells in a turn?
I like the first law's mirroring of Revolution.
The last one seems pretty aggressive, although I suppose no more so than a regular upkeep trigger.
Were we planning on restricting each law to a specific color in common?
EDIT - Color restricting laws would probably make it too difficult to force the opponent's hand, wouldn't it.
A new attempt at Suppression Officer-style design. Does the flavor make sense?
Put into the Skeleton in Suppression Officer's slot, since their law was out of date.
I like how it mirrors Revolution
Uncoding. It's not bad, but we can search for better. The law is unsatisfactory, too.
In the Skeleton.
Secret Service now Inside Man. Testing new Law and new flavor.
Trying a more aggressive law. If it's too much we can just change it back.
Current draft of the common justice laws:
It is against the law for an opponent to control three or more creatures
It is against the law for an opponent to cast no spells during his or her turn.
It is against the law for an opponent to block.
Nobody likes this guy. Uncoded.
For CU06, rather