Trivium: Recent Activity
| Trivium: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Design Goals | Worldbuilding | Skeleton | Draft Archetypes |
Recent updates to Trivium: (Generated at 2025-05-01 05:55:38)
| Trivium: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Design Goals | Worldbuilding | Skeleton | Draft Archetypes |
Recent updates to Trivium: (Generated at 2025-05-01 05:55:38)
There's a lot of knobs that can be tweaked on this. But this is the general idea for the design.
Not-Boudica. She's supposed to be a female treefolk, but then I realized those are just dryads. Sorry Dauntless Dourbark!
Good point. Added 2nd clause.
Consider Military Intelligence. This isn't exactly the same, but it does seem to compare unfavorably.
Works with most aggressive decks, I think. Not sure if that's incentive enough to splash for it. This effect might be better on a creature (preferrably a flying one) as well.
You are correct in that instance - however, personally I always felt that symmetrical card draw felt a little white-influenced (despite always being blue - Skyscribing being Azorius-flavored definitely didn't hurt that perception), so the "white influence" is mostly a philosophical thing more than anything. Alternatively, you can consider the "white influence" as weakening the card draw into a scry, otherwise this might be a Runed Servitor + Welkin Tern variant.
Yeah, that was definitely my initial coloring of it. However, because
interacts a bit with counters in this set, I wanted to throw it a bone and make it multicolored due to its interaction with counters. It's like how Sky Spirit could easily be Mono-
- the multicolor-ness of the card is meant to signal what types of decks might want it in draft.
Nope, it works within the rules. Base power and toughness is set in Layer 7A if the card has a CDA defining P/T (and is default on cards that don't have CDAs defining P/T). In Layer 7B you get Shame and other P/T setting effects which this also applies towards. This effect applies on Layer 7C, which is the domain of pumps and anthems. Anything that gives a creature + or - something applies here. So unless I'm completely missing something, this is okay.
The potential rules iffyness probably stems from the lack of this sort of effect due to confusion potential (before they used the term "base power and toughness"). Now that we have that terminology, I think it's fine to make effects in this way since it's clearly spelled out as "base power and toughness".
Just a side note on the card for those who might come to view this: it's basically a mix of Eager Construct and something like the classic Welkin Tern design which has numerous functional reprints (with different creature types).
As for
's influence, 
has its own long history in symmetrical effects related to drawing (which is heavily related to library manipulation) - the original influence (ancestor) probably dates back to alpha with Timetwister.
Lore Broker, Fascination, Prosperity, Dakra Mystic ?, Vision Skeins, and Words of Wisdom to name a random few in no particular order - not to mention all the Timetwister variants. So what I'm saying is that this looks like a natural progression in this blue theme regardless of any outside influence.
Doesn't this have potential layering issues with pumps and whatnot? At least it raises some questions... Pendelhaven / Pendelhaven Elder are one time temporal effects so you just check the p/t once which is simple enough.
IMO this could rather easily be mono-
.
One of those "splashable" uncommons in an unsupported color combination. This can combine with
Merchant Tribal, 
Stoic/+1/+1 counter Tribal, or as a reasonably good filler in 
/
token swarm.
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.
Added "noncreature"
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.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
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?
Had a thought for another law: "Choosing not to is against the law" (if a card says you may do something, unless you do...)
Setting to "noncreature" for now due to power level concerns.