Just thinking about a few potential keywords that are probably unprintable, but maybe not? I dunno.
The first one is Hunt. It's just Hearthstone. It's also just provoke, but shhhh. As such, it'd probably be primarily in RG, tertiary in W. Or maybe it should be tertiary in B. Who knows.
Prowling Wolf2G Creature - Wolf (C)
Hunt (This creature can attack creatures your opponents control. Attacked creatures assign and are assigned combat damage as though they’re blocking.)
2/2
Does that wording work? Your opponent should be able to block it with other creatures, but the attacked creature just gets lumped in with them as though it's a blocker and can still be killed. So it's more interactive than just "T: Fight", at the very least! (You could try to rework it so the attacked creature actually does block, but 1. that's probably a rules nightmare, and 2. you can't flank when you're flat-footed, get outta here! You can use your bushido when you're untapped, pal.)
Next up is Lure, which is literally just Taunt. You know, from Hearthstone. Except with a minor change because, unlike Hearthstone, attacks don't happen individually, and being able to wall off every single creature with one dude would be too much. (I know Lure is already a card. Feel free to recommend something else for a name.)
Shield Warden1W Creature - Human Soldier (C)
Lure (Creatures your opponents control can attack this creature. It assigns and is assigned combat damage as though it’s blocking. You and planeswalkers you control can’t be attacked unless this creature is also attacked.)
2/2
Maybe this one doesn't work as well. It almost seems like kind of a drawback? But adding a clause to make it somehow optional would be really complicated and annoying and probably overpowered. Maybe having it only work if it's untapped? So that it'd work better with vigilance. I'm thinking this one would be primary in W, secondary in G, and maybe tertiary in U?
And of course, in this creature-attacking-creature environment, my true agenda would finally be revealed...
Lurking Assailant1(U/B) Creature - Human Rogue (C)
Backstab (If this creature is attacking, you may have it assign its combat damage to any blocking creature defending player controls.)
2/1
Hunt is functionally provoke, but provoke is simpler.
So it's more interactive than just "T: Fight"
At some point, you really have to go with simplicity, especially when hunt needs to have new comprules to be made for it
(and lure). And ONLY it. Attacking creatures is not a small change.
Lure can be simplified to "must block if able" + "attacking player decides which creature/s ~ will block".
Rules for attacking a creature are not that hard to implement. It is already possible to attack an animated planeswalker, so the rules can extrapolate from that quiet easily (and would be less mind-bending than actually attacking an animated planeswalker) - I have tested some and it means some not immediately intuitive but actually quiet ingenious scenarios come up, but it's basically in that weird space of "a-okay for custom cards if treated correctly, but quite likely not going to happen in an official expansion".
That said I can't see the original post because I ignore that user and since you quoted only a small part of that post it might be that the rest of the proposed mechanic is nonsense.
I personally just use a keyword like this:
Assault (This creature may attack opponents' creatures.)
And have everything else covered by an extensive but quite straightforward rules change - similar to how some evergreen keywords got fixed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
That said I can't see the original post because I ignore that user and since you quoted only a small part of that post it might be that the rest of the proposed mechanic is nonsense.
Hunt is functionally provoke, but provoke is simpler.
...
Attacking creatures is not a small change.
Provoke isn't without its problems. The classic example is provoking creatures with abilities, like Arcanis the Omnipotent.
Is it really THAT big of a change? I realize this is something that'll probably never exist in Magic the 27-year-old project as it is today, but if, in some hypothetical scenario, it were to be rebooted completely, I think abilities like these would be pretty painless to introduce. The game already has rules for creatures dealing combat damage to creatures, and the only hiccup I can think of is trample damage (which I think would just be assigned to the opponent).
Hunting GroundsG
Enchantment
Creatures can't attack unless a player controls no creatures.
During each player's turn, creatures that player controls have "T: This creature fights target creature you don't control."
It's not the same as what you're going for exactly but it is within the current rules I think. Maybe you can spin it?
To get closer to Hearthstone I suppose you could give all creatures wither too. It would make sense for a deep jungle set or something like Pyrulea (maybe.)
Hunting GroundsG
Enchantment
Creatures have wither can't attack unless a player controls no creatures.
During each player's turn, creatures that player controls have "T: This creature fights target creature you don't control."
That said I can't see the original post because I ignore that user and since you quoted only a small part of that post it might be that the rest of the proposed mechanic is nonsense.
Hunt is functionally provoke, but provoke is simpler.
...
Attacking creatures is not a small change.
Provoke isn't without its problems. The classic example is provoking creatures with abilities, like Arcanis the Omnipotent.
Is it really THAT big of a change? I realize this is something that'll probably never exist in Magic the 27-year-old project as it is today, but if, in some hypothetical scenario, it were to be rebooted completely, I think abilities like these would be pretty painless to introduce. The game already has rules for creatures dealing combat damage to creatures, and the only hiccup I can think of is trample damage (which I think would just be assigned to the opponent).
Its about as big a change as attacking a planeswalker.
But you have to ask: is it a necessary change? Planewalkers _needed_ a change in the rules to make them work borh rules-wise and flavor wise, and planewalkers are the flagships of the game. Everytime there's a new set, planeswalkers are rubbed in our faces.
If provoke or fight can provide a similar, if not exact, effect, is it necessary to introduce a new ability that would make the same change in the rules as planewalkers do? provoke + arcais the omnipotent has weird interactions, but that's as corner case as you can get. I can name similar problems with hunt and taunt.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
I'm a fan of provoke. The only possible change I would suggest is functional - make provoke read as follows:
Provoke (Whenever this attacks, you may have target creature defending player controls untap and block it.) Removed "if able." so that tapped creatures and creatures that cannot otherwise block it are forced to block it.
I'd be okay with leaving Provoke-as-is, as it gives tap abilities the functional ability to evade being provoked, flavorful and functional. But the new version of the mechanic would avoid this.
Provoke (Whenever this attacks, you may have target creature defending player controls untap and block it.) Removed "if able." so that tapped creatures and creatures that cannot otherwise block it are forced to block it.
That doesn't work. Can't always beats can (and yes, that's a golden rule [among several golden rules; people only keep on remembering one], before someone comes in and says "butbutbutgoldenrule!"). If an effect says "can't block" then it can't, even if you remove "if able." This is what made it necessary for "as though" wording found on several cards (like aether web, because otherwise non-shadow cannot block shadow) and why provoke has an untap clause (because otherwise tapped creatures can't block).
I remember someone proposing a provoke variant that included that the provoked creature could block the provoking creature as though untapped. It was good at the time, but I actually think with an established set of rules for attacking permanents these kinds of hacks are just not necessary anymore.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
Provoke V2 (This creature can attack a single creature you don't control as though it was a planeswalker.)?
You don't put the "as though it was a planeswalker" in the reminder text. Though you would clarify combat damage and blocking.
Overall, I'd be okay with bringing Provoke back as-is.
Provoke is not "bad", but not "good" either. It's worse than "fine". I would call it decidedly "meh".
One issue with provoke in the past has been that creatures tapping themselves in reaction to being provoked (and thus avoiding it) have been smong the more valuable targets. But that was historically. I also think that interaction feels "wrong" to inexperienced players. Is it really worth bringing it back over using "Whenever ~ attacks, you may have it fight target creature the defending player controls"? They are functionally distinct, but that's the point.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
The first one is Hunt. It's just Hearthstone. It's also just provoke, but shhhh. As such, it'd probably be primarily in RG, tertiary in W. Or maybe it should be tertiary in B. Who knows.
Prowling Wolf 2G
Creature - Wolf (C)
Hunt (This creature can attack creatures your opponents control. Attacked creatures assign and are assigned combat damage as though they’re blocking.)
2/2
Does that wording work? Your opponent should be able to block it with other creatures, but the attacked creature just gets lumped in with them as though it's a blocker and can still be killed. So it's more interactive than just "T: Fight", at the very least! (You could try to rework it so the attacked creature actually does block, but 1. that's probably a rules nightmare, and 2. you can't flank when you're flat-footed, get outta here! You can use your bushido when you're untapped, pal.)
Next up is Lure, which is literally just Taunt. You know, from Hearthstone. Except with a minor change because, unlike Hearthstone, attacks don't happen individually, and being able to wall off every single creature with one dude would be too much. (I know Lure is already a card. Feel free to recommend something else for a name.)
Shield Warden 1W
Creature - Human Soldier (C)
Lure (Creatures your opponents control can attack this creature. It assigns and is assigned combat damage as though it’s blocking. You and planeswalkers you control can’t be attacked unless this creature is also attacked.)
2/2
Maybe this one doesn't work as well. It almost seems like kind of a drawback? But adding a clause to make it somehow optional would be really complicated and annoying and probably overpowered. Maybe having it only work if it's untapped? So that it'd work better with vigilance. I'm thinking this one would be primary in W, secondary in G, and maybe tertiary in U?
And of course, in this creature-attacking-creature environment, my true agenda would finally be revealed...
Creature - Human Rogue (C)
Backstab (If this creature is attacking, you may have it assign its combat damage to any blocking creature defending player controls.)
2/1
This thread was probably a mistake.
At some point, you really have to go with simplicity, especially when hunt needs to have new comprules to be made for it
(and lure). And ONLY it. Attacking creatures is not a small change.
Lure can be simplified to "must block if able" + "attacking player decides which creature/s ~ will block".
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
That said I can't see the original post because I ignore that user and since you quoted only a small part of that post it might be that the rest of the proposed mechanic is nonsense.
I personally just use a keyword like this:
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
Wow, thanks for contributing to the discussion!
Provoke isn't without its problems. The classic example is provoking creatures with abilities, like Arcanis the Omnipotent.
Is it really THAT big of a change? I realize this is something that'll probably never exist in Magic the 27-year-old project as it is today, but if, in some hypothetical scenario, it were to be rebooted completely, I think abilities like these would be pretty painless to introduce. The game already has rules for creatures dealing combat damage to creatures, and the only hiccup I can think of is trample damage (which I think would just be assigned to the opponent).
Enchantment
Creatures can't attack unless a player controls no creatures.
During each player's turn, creatures that player controls have "T: This creature fights target creature you don't control."
It's not the same as what you're going for exactly but it is within the current rules I think. Maybe you can spin it?
To get closer to Hearthstone I suppose you could give all creatures wither too. It would make sense for a deep jungle set or something like Pyrulea (maybe.)
Enchantment
Creatures have wither can't attack unless a player controls no creatures.
During each player's turn, creatures that player controls have "T: This creature fights target creature you don't control."
Its about as big a change as attacking a planeswalker.
But you have to ask: is it a necessary change? Planewalkers _needed_ a change in the rules to make them work borh rules-wise and flavor wise, and planewalkers are the flagships of the game. Everytime there's a new set, planeswalkers are rubbed in our faces.
If provoke or fight can provide a similar, if not exact, effect, is it necessary to introduce a new ability that would make the same change in the rules as planewalkers do? provoke + arcais the omnipotent has weird interactions, but that's as corner case as you can get. I can name similar problems with hunt and taunt.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Provoke (Whenever this attacks, you may have target creature defending player controls untap and block it.) Removed "if able." so that tapped creatures and creatures that cannot otherwise block it are forced to block it.
I'd be okay with leaving Provoke-as-is, as it gives tap abilities the functional ability to evade being provoked, flavorful and functional. But the new version of the mechanic would avoid this.
That doesn't work. Can't always beats can (and yes, that's a golden rule [among several golden rules; people only keep on remembering one], before someone comes in and says "butbutbutgoldenrule!"). If an effect says "can't block" then it can't, even if you remove "if able." This is what made it necessary for "as though" wording found on several cards (like aether web, because otherwise non-shadow cannot block shadow) and why provoke has an untap clause (because otherwise tapped creatures can't block).
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
Overall, I'd be okay with bringing Provoke back as-is.
You don't put the "as though it was a planeswalker" in the reminder text. Though you would clarify combat damage and blocking.
Provoke is not "bad", but not "good" either. It's worse than "fine". I would call it decidedly "meh".
One issue with provoke in the past has been that creatures tapping themselves in reaction to being provoked (and thus avoiding it) have been smong the more valuable targets. But that was historically. I also think that interaction feels "wrong" to inexperienced players. Is it really worth bringing it back over using "Whenever ~ attacks, you may have it fight target creature the defending player controls"? They are functionally distinct, but that's the point.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO