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 09:10:33)
| 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 09:10:33)
Some quick design notes on this new mechanic -
·
colors.
· Rewards stalling. Useful when trying to break a stall.
· Not necessarily linear. Multiples of this mechanic in a defensive deck is desired, but in tempo decks you don't want too many of these.
· Closer to White for a Anti-W mechanic. Synergises well with laws. I am willing to concede that under the flavor of UG being allied with White and Greeks/Samnites having a better relationship with Rome than the Gauls and Carthaginians.
·Not actually sure I want to encourage stalls.
·Green cards will usually involve making the creature a bigger threat. Blue cards will improve your card quality or get rid of certain issues.
·Unsure about timing of trigger. Your end step renders the card a bit more newbie friendly in helping you get an effect immediately. Opponent's end step allows for more interesting counterplay in White by tapping down things to deny the trigger. Upkeep is dumb. Each end step seems hard to balance.
·Name sucks. Pure Pokemon. But it doesn't sound particularly White unlike other names I had for it.
Ahh, that wording sounds much better. Grammar/spelling is yet another one of my victims of sleepyposting on here.
You are right in it being only maginally blue at best. I will definitely keep it in BR because I have an idea that might work for UG.
I think I will leave it at triggering during attacks only if it's in BR. The other mechanic I have in mind lends itself to board stalls.
Thats what I get for making cards when I am tired
I would definitely keep
out of this, but on the hand afflict happened and was grixis, soo... Idk? I guess it's "just another evasion mechanic".
This probably should read "... each creature blocking it gets...", right? Otherwise it's rather weird and nonintuitive (very easily misread).
Allowing it to trigger on the creature with the ability blocking might encourage too many boards to get stalled. Then again, first strike kind of does that too.
Ah, if you have considered about turning this into a block (extending it) then certainly those are clear examples of evolving the mechanic. Still, basically I would try to map out the full potential of the mechanic before settling on the commonly used patterns of the said mechanic - so that's why I was kinda throwing crazy ideas around.
Yes on the rest of your points/questions.
also ": All creatures get -1/-1 UEOT"
... but yeah, looking better now IMO.
Fixed flanking. In
. I think I like it better than Grudge so far. Simple, not linear, and helps wreck shamed creatures (that Black also has access to) and allows it to punch through 1/4s.
I wanted to make it blocking or blocked by to encourage defensive play as well, unlike flanking. Not sure if that is the right way to go.
Not even sure this should be
. Especially since Outmaneuver is Red. Maybe Red/Black feels better for this mechanic?
Added a new ability. Bookkeeping central here. It's okay, it's mythic.
The latter is something I definitely thought about - however, given how each of the law cards are structured, I am hesitant to include it (it'd probably be Black, White/Black, or Blue/Black) in a slot that already has a lot of competition due to the reduced card count. It also feels like an "evolution" of the mechanic - if I ever complete this set and decide to make a 2nd set in the block, it would be perfect to showcase the degradation of honesty in politics in the late Roman Republic.
As for the "breaks all laws" effect, are you talking about a card that simply says something along the lines of "Target opponent breaks all current laws." or something? It seems a bit confusing and definitely another evolution of the mechanic. I am not sure I would include it in the second set because I am not sure how grokkable forcing people to commit crimes that they did not do would read, within the context of the mechanic. I imagine something along the lines of this interaction: "Cast Framed Assassination. Sac a creature, you break all three laws that are on the battlefield." "Wait. These laws say I can't cast instants. I didn't do that." "Yes you did." "No I didn't. Judge!"
...actually, that sounds pretty fun. I'll consider it.
Didn't even think about you breaking your own laws. I'll keep it, its flavorful. This upstart is friends with all the politicians so he can break as many laws as he wants.
Also no longer dies to Lightning Bolt.
Slightly more pushed. 2nd ability no longer has sacrifice clause and now Shrivels the field.
Yes, I had mistakenly thought that Dark Impostor tapped to kill things and played it especially safe. Changing it to be not as safe and more pushed!
That's awesome trinket text that I was looking around to make sure you had included it somewhere.
Also, this can be used injunction with your own law making cards which is rather.... interesting?
Have you thought about little crazier cards like "Each opponent/player breaks all the laws" that would trigger all those effects? Maybe flavored as planting evidence or whatever. Or how about some corrupt/hypocrite politician with "Whenever you break your own law, effect".
should be (has been stated being) second in countering spells (Lapse of Certainty, Frontline Medic, Hindering Light) and taking into account that this pretty much is a bad Silence this would make sense in 
.
That "baiting" gameplay can be interesting, but given that you have to sac this anyway, the correct answer 80 % of the time looks to be "counter anything" so that you don't lose card advantage - unless you are about to win on the next turn anyway and you just care about cards that would stop you from winning.
I think this is hardly playable as a tempo card.
:D just came to comment that a 4 CMC 3/3 with an activated ability of "
, Sacrifice a permanent: Destroy target creature" doesn't feel particularly mythic. Obviously this does more than that but it does read like that much of the time.
Different design. Same general idea.
Giving it a "better" ability so its not a junk mythic. Note that it still doesnt stop the spell. Possibly still junk mythic status.
Not!Crassus, if Agrian, Consul Ad Infinitum and Noblius, Tactician Principal are Ceasar and Pompey respectively.
Hopefully mythic-feeling enough.
Bumping this up to a 2/2 because turns out a 2/2 for 4 mana is a little underpowered, who knew
Oh, I missed that it's only during your turn. That seems balanced then.
It definitely is on the weaker side, but if you are anticipating getting wrecked next turn it could buy you an extra turn to stabilize, or blank your opponents removal for victory. The primary reason I added it is that it encourages more interaction than Lunar Force does. With Lunar Force, the caster just casts it and the opponent has to decide what to throw at it to get countered. With this card, the first card that an opponent casts could be bait - making the choice up to the caster to decide whether or not the spell they are casting is bait or not. Its not often that it'll happen, but I enjoy cards that involve more decisionmaking from both players.
I am not sure that the hybrid cost is the way to go - temporary as it may be, it still has the ability to counter a spell, and I would rather have White bleed into Blue in this set rather than the other way around, philisophically.
I debated making it cost 1 mana or somehow making the duration a bit longer, but I figure might as well cost it safely and than uncommon pseudo silence. If it does get put into the set, it will only be if UW ends up being more tempo than control.