(Originally published on 2025-05-02; last reviewed on 2025-05-02; last updated on 2025-05-02)

It’s general knowledge that Trinisphere cannot be circumvented, except by a very small list of things, with convoke being the best-known one. Likewise, there are things well-known for losing to Trinisphere, such as Phyrexian mana, and the rules-related reasons for why these mechanics behave differently aren’t a mystery either.

What I have never seen is an examination of the reasons for why these mechanics should behave differently. Wouldn’t it be more consistent if convoke and Phyrexian mana interacted with Trinisphere in the same way? Couldn’t the rules for Phyrexian mana be changed to match those for convoke? As with most questions of this kind, I found the answer to be “Yes, but,” since nearly every desired behavior can be written into the Comprehensive Rules (CR). The real question is not “Can it be done?” but “How much does it cost?” and making Phyrexian mana work the same way as convoke is not as straightforward as one might initially assume.

• A short history of getting around Trinisphere
• A brief recap of the steps for casting a spell
• Convoke’s update
• Comparing Phyrexian mana to convoke
• No such thing as Phyrexian mana
• Conclusion

A short history of getting around Trinisphere

Twenty-one years ago, Trinisphere and its one-of-a-kind ability were unleashed upon the world. The ability’s effect enforces a minimum cost of three mana on each spell, with no exception, and the CR support this endeavor by applying this effect after any cost-increasing or ‑reducing effects [CR 601.2f]. Manaless alternative costs don’t matter, casting a spell without paying its mana cost doesn’t matter, and neither does the amount of mana a spell might cost less to cast. In short, “Trinisphere always wins.”

New keywords and mechanics were introduced over the years—notably convoke, two-brid mana, and Phyrexian mana—but they all stood powerless against Trinisphere’s might, and for the next nine years, at least three mana had to be spent for each spell. Until the CR update for Magic: The Gathering 2014 Core Set, which changed convoke and delve’s definition in a fundamental way. Trinisphere would still impose a cost of three mana on spells, but now that mana could be “convoked” or “delved,” and the saying became “Trinisphere always wins. Except against convoke and delve.” A few years later, Aether Revolt added improvise to that small list of keywords, and K’rrik, Son of Yawgmoth became the first and so far only standalone card able of circumventing Trinisphere’s desire for mana. “Trinisphere always wins. Except against convoke and delve. And improvise. And K’rrik.”¹

A brief recap of the steps for casting a spell

The process of casting a spell is divided into two halves: proposing the spell comes first, followed by dealing with the spell’s costs [CR 601.2]. These two halves are in turn divided into eight concrete steps, which happen in a fixed order. As with any good rule, this order is not arbitrary but was specifically chosen to be as sensible—and thus intuitive—as possible.

In this article, I will restrict myself to the steps relevant to the main topic. These are: choosing additional costs, alternative costs, and other variables; choosing legal targets; determining the spell’s total cost; and paying that cost.

Choosing costs and variables before targets is sensible, because those costs and variables can influence the number of targets and what those targets can be. A modal spell like Abrade, for example, only requires the target belonging to the chosen mode, so I need to choose that mode before I choose said target.² In the same way, some spells with kicker only require a specific target if they are kicked; Fight with Fire even replaces the normal target with an alternative set of targets. Choosing to pay a cost can also do the reverse and reduce the number of required targets, as seen with overload. If a spell has an X in its text and the value of X determines the number of targets or their legality, I again need to choose that value before I can make a legal target selection.

Determining the spell’s total cost after these two steps is also sensible. Choosing additional or alternative costs obviously influences the total cost, and the targets I choose for a spell may also increase or decrease that cost, as evidenced by Terror of the Peaks and Ride’s End.

That the total cost is determined before I actually pay it should not be too controversial either.

This sequence of steps will play an important role in the next section where I look at convoke’s original definition, its current definition, and possible alternatives.

Convoke’s update

When convoke premiered in Ravnica: City of Guilds, it was implemented as an ordinary combination of an additional cost and a cost-reducing effect:

502.46. Convoke

502.46a Convoke is a static ability that functions while the spell is on the stack. “Convoke” means “As an additional cost to play this spell, you may tap any number of untapped creatures you control. Each creature tapped this way reduces the cost to play this spell by {1} or by one mana of any of that creature’s colors.” Using the convoke ability follows the rules for paying additional costs in rules 409.1b and 4091f-h.

During the proposal of the spell, I would announce how many creatures I intended to tap, and how these creatures would reduce the total cost of the spell. When determining the total cost, I would apply these cost reductions to the mana component, and Trinisphere would apply after that and increase the mana component if necessary. The total cost would then consist of two costs: paying (at least three) mana and tapping an appropriate set of creatures.

An additional/alternative cost tied to a cost-reducing effect is the standard way to implement such a mechanic, as evidenced by offering, emerge, harmonize, and the original wording of delve. This implementation has two notable consequences: first, Trinisphere wins against it, and second, I can choose a greater cost reduction than what would be necessary to reduce the mana component to {0}. In other words, I could tap more creatures than absolutely required to pay for the spell, or “over-convoke” it.

At the time, there were no cards that cared about the creatures which convoked a spell, so over-convoking was just an obscure and mediocre way to tap some of my creatures. Still, Wizards of the Coast (WotC) deemed this an important enough issue and came up with a solution I find quite ingenious. As it turns out, a “no over-convoking” rule is difficult to develop with the old convoke definition and the process of casting a spell.

Suppose I cast Gather Courage. First, I have to announce how many creatures I want to tap for convoke. Under a “no over-convoking” rule, what should be my limit? Obviously one green creature. How did I determine that limit? Obviously by looking at the spell’s mana cost. Beyond this simple example, things get less obvious, though.

Suppose I cast Chord of Calling instead. Strictly speaking, CR 601.2b forces me to announce how many creatures I want to tap before I choose a value for X, so my limit for convoke should be three green creatures, since X is still 0 at that point. That’s obviously not the intended outcome. In reality, the exact order was waived anyway, but it wasn’t until 2022 that the CR provided support for doing things out of order with CR 601.4. So, even in this simple case, just looking at the mana cost is not enough.

In general, alternative costs, additional costs, and variables make the mana cost an unreliable way to determine the cost of a spell. The obvious solution of checking the spell’s cost once all these things are done (i.e. at the end of CR 601.2b) is also insufficient, because further things can influence the spell’s cost. If I cast Devouring Light and I choose my opponent’s Boreal Elemental as the target, the extra {2} only become known in step CR 601.2c, and technically, they are only applied when determining the total cost in step CR 601.2f.

So, the earliest point where I could check for over-convoking is after the spell’s proposal: at that time, I know the base cost (i.e. mana cost or alternative cost) and all the additional costs, cost increases, and cost reducers. Thematically, the legality check in CR 601.2e seems a fitting point, even if I technically haven’t applied the cost increases and cost reducers yet. However, the next issue is right around the corner: the order of cost reducers.

Suppose I cast Siege Wurm while I control Heartless Summoning. I choose to tap two green creatures and four other creatures. Is that over-convoking? It depends on the order in which I apply the two cost-reducing effects. If I apply convoke first, I reduce the cost from {5}{G}{G} to {1}, which is not over-convoking; Heartless Summoning then reduces that cost to {0}. If I apply Heartless Summoning first, the cost becomes {3}{G}{G}; convoke would reduce that cost by {4}{G}{G}, which would be over-convoking.

Intuitively, casting Siege Wurm while I control Heartless Summoning should mean that I can tap five creatures at the most. But as I described, that is hard to implement if I can freely order the two cost-reducing effects. The simplest solution would be a subrule saying that the effect from convoke has to be applied last. Another subrule could say that the casting of the spell is illegal if convoke’s effect would reduce the cost to less than nothing.³

Adding two subrules to convoke doesn’t sound so bad. However, delve also exists, and applying the same update to it seems desirable. So that’s two subrules each for convoke and delve. Then there’s forward compatibility to consider: should a card be printed that allowed a spell to have both keywords, both would insist on being applied last. Or another keyword of that kind might get created and lead to the same issue.⁴

To future-proof these kinds of effects, I’d consider sorting cost-reducing effects into two groups: one for convoke & Co. and one for the rest. The latter would always be applied first, in any order, followed by the former, in any order. Next, there would be a general rule that effects from the first group make the casting of the spell illegal if they would reduce the cost to less than nothing. The individual keywords would only need a subrule that marked them as belonging to that special group.

This hypothetical update would consist of two general subrules (or equivalent text added to CR 601.2f) and one subrule each for convoke, delve, and whatever keywords would be developed in the future. To me, this seems to be the minimum price for preventing over-convoking and over-delving without changing convoke and delve fundamentally.⁵

Obviously, this is not what WotC did; they went the opposite approach and fundamentally changed the way the two keywords worked. From a layperson’s view, convoke already meant tapping creatures to pay for a spell’s cost, and WotC changed convoke’s definition to match that understanding:

702.50. Convoke

702.50a Convoke is a static ability that functions while the spell with convoke is on the stack. “Convoke” means “For each colored mana in this spell’s total cost, you may tap an untapped creature of that color you control rather than pay that mana. For each generic mana in this spell’s total cost, you may tap an untapped creature you control rather than pay that mana.” The convoke ability isn’t an additional or alternative cost and applies only after the total cost of the spell with convoke is determined.

This change to convoke and delve reminds me a lot of the introduction of wither and the evolution of damage results: originally, damage to creatures always resulted in that damage being marked on them, and damage to players always resulted in them losing life. Wither changed this by introducing an alternative result for creatures; then the Magic: The Gathering 2010 Core Set update changed lifelink’s definition and now damage could have an additional result; then infect introduced an alternative result for players; and finally toxic added yet another additional result.

In the same vein, the only way to pay mana was to remove an appropriate amount of mana from one’s mana pool. Then this update to convoke and delve introduced two alternatives specific to paying a spell’s cost: tapping creatures and exiling cards. Improvise then added tapping artifacts to that list, and K’rrik added paying life.

How does this actual update compare to the theoretical version I crafted earlier? Pretty well. It requires no general subrules, no new subrules for the individual keywords, and the new definitions of convoke and delve are about as long as the old ones.⁶ It does come with one functional difference, though: because convoke and delve don’t reduce the mana component of the total cost anymore and only apply while paying that cost, Trinisphere can’t enforce spending at least three mana on it.

In the greater scheme of things, this change is pretty inconsequential, and when it becomes relevant in an actual game, it helps a player overcome Trinisphere, which seems like a good thing to me. Apart from that, it’s another piece of rules trivia, and what rules enthusiast, judge or otherwise, doesn’t like to learn a new piece of rules minutiae. All things considered, I find this to be an excellent update.

Comparing Phyrexian mana to convoke

A clearly negative thing about the update was that it divided mechanics into two classes: those that beat Trinisphere and those that don’t. And with this distinction, the obvious question of “Why does mechanic X belong to the first group but mechanic Y belongs to the other one?” arises.⁷

In the case of Phyrexian mana, the similarities to convoke are obvious: one lets me pay life instead of mana and the other lets me tap creatures instead of paying mana. Yet Phyrexian mana loses to Trinisphere, because I make the choice for Phyrexian mana early on in the casting process, while I choose costs and variables [CR 601.2b]. When I later determine the total cost of the spell, it’s already known whether I pay mana or 2 life, and Trinisphere can increase the cost if necessary.

Hybrid mana functions the same way. It doesn’t get much attention though, because hybrid mana is always paid with mana, and the existing two-brid cards require additional cost reducers to have Trinisphere become relevant.

So why didn’t WotC change Phyrexian mana as part of the same update? One reason could be that the goal of the update was to prevent over-convoking, and Phyrexian mana never had that problem, but the more likely reason are the technical problems that come with such a change.

Let’s say that I don’t decide how to pay for Phyrexian mana until I actually pay the total cost. What are the consequences? For most of the casting process, this works without a problem. One step, however, gets a little troublesome, and that is applying cost-reducing effects.

If I cast Moltensteel Dragon and some effect reduces the total cost by {R}, what is the total cost? {R} is not exactly {R/P}, so I might decide that it just reduces the generic portion; or I might decide that the cost is reduced by one {R/P} because {R} matches one of the two components. If I choose the second option, it also means that I can’t spend life for that Phyrexian mana, even if I wanted to; a small change, but a change nonetheless.

Since the impetus for this thought experiment is symmetry, I should treat hybrid mana the same way. Does {R} reduce {R/G} to nothing? What about {2} and {2/R}? Can I choose that {2/U}{2/U}{2/U} reduced by {U}{U}{U} doesn’t automatically become nothing if my opponent controls Vexing Bauble? But if I have that choice, doesn’t that mean that I move the decision of how to pay the hybrid mana back to before the Trinisphere step?

Once I have decided how cost-reducing effects interact with Phyrexian mana and with hybrid mana, I can move on to paying the cost. As it happens, the spell also has convoke. How do I convoke a hybrid mana such as {R/G}? Convoke says that for a colored mana, I can tap a creature of that color, and a hybrid mana has the colors of both halves, so to convoke {R/G}, would I have to tap a creature that’s both red and green? How do I convoke {2/R}? It’s red, so out of the box, I can’t tap two nonred creatures to pay for it. More things to consider when I change the rules around these mechanics.

Maybe hybrid mana with its two colors (or a colorless and a colored half) is just too troublesome, and I should keep its current functionality. Phyrexian mana doesn’t have most of those problems, because it’s just one color. Except when it’s a hybrid Phyrexian mana.

At this point, I think it’s fair to conclude that a simple and elegant solution is impossible. Hybrid and Phyrexian mana could be made to work like convoke, but it would require a framework for reducing such costs and changes to convoke & Co. to account for such mana. One has to decide between functional consistency and simplicity of rules, and in this case, WotC’s choice (and my own preference) falls on simplicity.

During my research for this article, I discovered that the CR actually reflect the difficulties I outlined above, albeit in an indirect manner.

No such thing as Phyrexian mana

I have to confess that, up to this point, I have used some terms incorrectly. The thing is, Phyrexian mana and hybrid mana don’t exist; what exists are Phyrexian mana symbols and hybrid mana symbols.⁸

Mana is represented by mana symbols (see rule 107.4). Mana symbols also represent mana costs (see rule 202).

CR 106.2

Spells and abilities produce mana, which I can spend to pay for mana in a cost, and each mana I spend pays for exactly one mana in that cost. Both the mana produced and spent, and the mana in the cost are represented by mana symbols, but this representation is not always on a one-to-one basis, and not all mana symbols represent mana.

There are five primary colored mana symbols: {W} is white, {U} blue, {B} black, {R} red, and {G} green. These symbols are used to represent colored mana, and also to represent colored mana in costs. Colored mana in costs can be paid only with the appropriate color of mana. See rule 202, “Mana Cost and Color.”

CR 107.4a

The five basic mana symbols can represent mana produced by effects, as well as mana in a cost. In both cases, one mana symbol represents exactly one mana of that color. The same goes for the colorless mana symbol {C}. In other words, there is the white (blue, etc.) mana symbol, and there is white (blue, etc.) mana.

Numerical symbols (such as {1}) and variable symbols (such as {X}) represent generic mana in costs. Generic mana in costs can be paid with any type of mana. For more information about {X}, see rule 107.3.

CR 107.4b

Numeric mana symbols don’t represent mana produced by effects. They do represent generic mana in costs, but a single mana symbol can represent more than one generic mana.

A hybrid mana symbol is also a colored mana symbol, even if one of its components is colorless. Each one represents a cost that can be paid in one of two ways, as represented by the two halves of the symbol. A hybrid symbol such as {W/U} can be paid with either white or blue mana, and a monocolored hybrid symbol such as {2/B} can be paid with either one black mana or two mana of any type. A hybrid mana symbol is all of its component colors.

CR 107.4e

Hybrid mana symbols represent neither mana produced by effects nor mana in a cost. Instead, they represent a choice between two costs, both of which happen to be mana. The same goes for Phyrexian mana symbols, except that one of the costs is paying 2 life [CR 107.4f]. In other words, there is the white and blue hybrid mana symbol, but there is no white and blue (hybrid) mana.

So, hybrid and Phyrexian mana symbols never directly represent mana, and numeric mana symbols only represent mana in costs. This pattern continues in the rules for adding mana and for reducing costs: if I’m instructed to add mana to my mana pool based on a hybrid mana symbol, I choose one half and add the mana matching that half.

If an effect would add mana represented by a hybrid mana symbol to a player’s mana pool, that player chooses one half of that symbol. If a colored half is chosen, one mana of that color is added to that player’s mana pool. If a generic half is chosen, an amount of colorless mana represented by that half’s number is added to that player’s mana pool.

CR 106.8

To use the phrasing of CR 601.2b, I replace the mana symbol with a nonhybrid equivalent before adding the mana. Similar rules apply for Phyrexian mana symbols [CR 106.9] and for numeric mana symbols [CR 106.10]. The same thing happens if I reduce a cost based on a hybrid mana symbol:

If a cost is reduced by an amount of mana represented by a hybrid mana symbol, the player paying that cost chooses one half of that symbol at the time the cost reduction is applied (see rule 601.2f). If a colored half is chosen, the cost is reduced by one mana of that color. If a generic half is chosen, the cost is reduced by an amount of generic mana equal to that half’s number.

CR 118.7e

So, in all cases, the CR take care to convert mana symbols into actual mana before adding that mana to a mana pool or performing calculations with it. As long as that’s done, the results are clear and intuitive. In the previous section, I did not do this and tried to compare mana symbols directly with mana; the result was—unsatisfactory.

Conclusion

Phyrexian mana symbols and convoke may interact differently with Trinisphere, but that interaction is consistent with how Phyrexian mana symbols interact with the rest of the rules framework for mana. With that framework in mind, Phyrexian mana symbols appear not as an alternative means of paying for mana, but as an additional cost. The correct comparison is not convoke, but cards like Caustic Exhale or the Defiler cycle from Dominaria United:

Needless to say, replacing every Phyrexian mana symbol in a mana cost with one of those texts would be utterly impractical, and activation costs would require their own update.

In its current state, the Phyrexian mana symbol is as elegant as it can be: a single symbol and a short sentence of reminder text are all that’s needed to explain it to the layperson. And if the interaction with Trinisphere ever comes up, a closer look at the CR will supply a rules enthusiast with all the pointers they could need.

Personally, I just had a notion that cost reducers would be a stumbling block when I started research for this article; finding this much support in the CR was a delightful surprise. Yet another case for which an answer exists if one looks for it.

1. There’s also Heirloom Epic, which does the same for its ability’s activation cost, but a Trinisphere for activated abilities seems unlikely to happen. ↩︎
2. In the alternative world where modal spells have the targets of all their modes, a card like Abrade would be significantly less powerful, since it would always require a creature and an artifact to be on the battlefield. This would run counter to the flexibility that’s so characteristic of modal spells, and it wouldn’t be particular intuitive to target both permanents if the spell never affects one of them. ↩︎
3. CR 118.7 offers some good templates for the technical wording of that rule. ↩︎
4. For a few years now, it’s possible for a spell to have convoke, delve, and improvise, and be eligible for K’rrik’s effect. Solving this with subrules for each individual keyword and for standalone cards is awkward at best. ↩︎
5. Or, even worse, tampering with the order of steps when casting a spell with convoke. ↩︎
6. It even eliminates a question I encountered during my research: how specific do I need to be when announcing the convoking creatures? The original definition of convoke did not say anything in that regard, although if the example is to be believed, I just had to announce something like “a green creature and two others” rather than “my Bear Cub and my two Alpha Myrs.” This doesn’t match later keywords like emerge, the updated offering, and harmonize, which all stipulate that a specific permanent is chosen. Then again, these keywords all came after convoke’s update, so this might simply be a change of mind on WotC’s part. Also, for convoke, a creature of an appropriate color could still be assigned to the generic portion of the spell’s cost; in other words, there was an additional choice involved which might be enough to differentiate it from the other keywords. ↩︎
7. Or more realistically: “Why does the mechanic I like have to lose to Trinisphere?” ↩︎
8. Readers aware of the difference must have been gnashing their teeth at my continued misuse of the terms; hopefully, they will recognize the educational purpose behind it. ↩︎