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 09:08:31)
| 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 09:08:31)
I like the Mind Control idea. Changing temporarily. Might remove flash due to card advantage concerns.
The difference between 2 and 3 life is pretty minimal so I'm not sure it needs it. On the other hand, the decision to stoic this or not is much less pronounced than Ponderous Aven, since it doesn't have built-in evasion. Again the concern is wanting to play it so that you gain max value (with a counter). Ideally the
uncommon will have some way to remove counters for benefits in a way that makes it clear how you're supposed to play the color combo.
Yeah, that's correct. I'm still exploring different methods for a defensively-minded
mechanic. Eventually I'll get around replacing/removing the older mechanics that I'm not using.
Uhm... is the set going to feature both stoic and bide? That's a bit much when it comes to stall encouraging mechanics + it looks like these step on each other's toes design wise as well..? Ie. A keyword you put on a creature that asks you to not attack with it.
I somehow got the impression that stoic might the replacement for bide? Is this true?
I like this card conceptually. Though fetching for an enchantment doesn't seem to match the flavor...
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 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.
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.
Creating a couple more build-around-mes that might make it in the set. Merchants and trade are going to be a not-insignificant component of the set, so I figured I'd make a lord for them. Their whole gimmick is using +1/+1 counters as currency. They won't be too prevalent, but I figure with the reduced amount of cards that non-White colors are getting, having an interesting incentive to draft nonwhite cards is more necessary than usual.
Honestly I think Primal Clay is more well liked because the choice isn't linked to a mechanic, which should be viewed as all upside. While Stoic can be viewed as "all upside" (in that it gives you an additional mode for the creature), I'm more hesitant to go forward with this mechanic because of the timidity and regret for the "optimal" line of play that you mentioned. If there are ways on the card to remove the +1/+1 counter, however, the decision to choose stoic or not is lessened dramatically. So the best way to use this mechanic is to use it as a vehicle to move the game forward is to get +1/+1 counters on board to use for other spells in exchange for building a defensive board that can't (at that moment) pressure the opponent.
I think Suspend is a good example to compare to because IIRC that mechanic was lukewarmly received but a lot of players really like it - I think a lot of it has to do with that timidity and regret notion that you mentioned, where players are inclined to cast a spell like Rift Bolt during a turn where they play off curve, but might regret it later when they have 3 mana and really need to kill some creature.
This is definitely less "cool" than suspend in that it doesn't have a way to add pressure to anything once it's on the board bar some other synergistic cards... I might change it to something like "Can't attack alone" or "Can't attack unless you pay
.", but that might be viewed as even more downside than this.
Rare -> Uncommon for power level reasons. Not sure if that's correct.
Changed Wall tokens to colorless so it doesn't go crazy with Oath.
There's also the problem of timidity, and regret. Some players will, given an option, always play it safe. To them, playing it safe will entail making a 3/3 defender, even if there's an open board. After doing that, though, that player is bound to be frustrated every turn for not attacking with their creature.
That said, this problem is also an inherent problem in Primal Clay, and there are many people who love that card. So take that advice with a grain of salt.
Yeah, it's definitely got the downside of encouraging board stalls rather than breaking it. I'm like 60% confident I can make the archetype more about stalling until the "big turn", but it's still stall-heavy in a defensive format, so I'm not perfectly happy with it. The decision between stoic and unstoic being real is the only thing I'm super excited about for this mechanic.
Support card for Stoic. Does having cards that will remove the drawback of having to choose between board defender and threat make the mechanic more or less interesting?
A reason stoic is a lesser mechanic to unleash is also that unleash cut down on passivity while stoic enforces passivity. As a designer you usually want to encourage action.
On the flip side this might mean the decision to use stoic is a real one IMO since giving up on a threat is different than giving up on blocking.
Nega-Unleash for
. Does this make interesting decisions, or is does it have the same issues as Unleash where Unleashing/Not Unleashing isn't a decision in every case but Thrill-Kill Assassin?
Ideally there will be a number of cards in
that will play off of removing counters from creatures for effects.
Hm, I'd argue that Squadron Hawk's brokenness stemmed from carrying equipment (read: Sword of Body and Mind) as a flyer and the fact that it was much stronger in constructed than it was in limited, since you were guaranteed 3 copies of it. This is probably closer to Welkin Hawk than Squadron Hawk, and I don't believe that was broken at all in limited. In constructed, a 2/2 on the ground is way more reasonable to deal with than a 1/1 in the air.
In a large set draft, you can reasonably guarantee 2.4 copies of each common - so you're only reasonably regenerating for "free" (have to pay
to recast it, making the regeneration comparison similar to Mire Boa or an unearth card like Dregscape Zombie) once or twice at most. I don't really want to make this a 2/1 or bump it up to 3 mana for that reason, so this is something that I'd want to test out at this power level first.
Needs to be common to work in limited, though.
This is basically "Regenerate for free, but only 3 times". Feels like a bit much for no added casting cost; with a fiddly implementation.
Ummm, Squadron Hawk was introduces as a common and was found to be problematic in general so that doesn't really count IMO since it was it's first time. I'm not sure about it's limited success though. It being reprinted at common in eternal masters definitely doesn't count either.
Infectious Bloodlust is a mediocre Aura card (and Auras generally suck - everyone knows this, right?) that replaces itself (it's no Rancor though that's for sure) so I hardly see it as proper to use it as a justification for printing a common bear that replaces itself.
Squadron Hawk and Infectious Bloodlust say this is okay at common.
I view this ability as a white-centric ability even though it shows up and is encouraged in all colors.
I like it. Green gets similar abilities all the time. Chub Toad and Amphibious Kavu feel entirely appropriate.
The creature type also is neat.
Usually "blocks or becomes blocked" is reserved for White, but I feel like green can have it too.