(This creature can't be blocked unless you control no other unblocked creatures.)
(This creature can't be blocked unless defending player blocks all creatures attacking him or her.)
Stealth (This creature can't be blocked unless all attacking creatures are blocked.)
The problems with Skulk were that it didn't encourage enough interaction and didn't have very much design space.
I just kind of stumbled into this, and the more I think about it, the more I think it fixes both of these problems. It encourages combat interactions from both ends of the table (you'll want to attack with multiple creatures, your opponent will want to block everything they can), and I can think of a lot of neat designs for it.
My only concern is power level and how deep the design space actually is. I feel like it's deeper than Skulk, but I don't know by how much.
Also, I don't think this ability has ever been done before, so there's no solid evidence that it is actually U/B, but it seems to fit well enough.
So what do you guys think? Any suggestions for a name?Decided to go with Stealth. Actually still taking name suggestions.
Feels like it should be something in the vein of "insignificant", "inconspicuousness", or "overlooked".
Like.. they'd only notice it if no one else was still coming at them. Otherwise, they slip right in because they're so unassuming that you're too busy looking at the goblins.
The wording works, but would confuse many lay persons.
Double negatives (Not UNblocked) always trip people.
It's also.. awkward in multiplayer.
I would suggest something more like:
"This creature can't be blocked unless defending player blocks all creatures attacking him or her."
Wording could definitely still be improved, but it takes out the double negative, and fixes multiplayer.
Ya know, the more I think about this, I actually really like what the original version does to multiplayer.
If I attack Player A with my Stealth creature and Player B with my non-Stealth creature (assuming they both have blockers), Player B gets to decide whether they want to block and let Player A block, or take the damage and force Player A to also take damage. And if I attack BOTH players with Stealths, they have to make that decission together.
It also obviously synergizes with creatures that naturally have evasion, which encourages building around the mechanic and casting/attacking with other creatures. Plus, it allows one player to get through to one player who has huge defenses by also attacking a player who has none.
And the text is also shorter, but it could be changed to fix the double negative:
"This creature can't be blocked unless all attacking creatures are blocked."
Ya know, the more I think about this, I actually really like what the original version does to multiplayer.
In casual games, sure.
Once you hit tournaments, with rules enforcement, that's where things get hectic.
802.4. If more than one player is being attacked or controls a planeswalker that’s being attacked, each defending player in APNAP order declares blockers as the declare blockers step begins. (See rule 101.4 and rule 509, “Declare Blockers Step.”)
Attack the player to your left (Players A) with a Stealth creature.
Attack the player past him (Player B) with a regular creature.
Declare blockers:
The player A you attacked with the stealth creature must declare his blockers...
He can't block the stealth creature.
(At this moment you have an attacker that is not declared as being blocked)
Player B now declares blockers, and decides he will block.
Can't backtrack to Player A, he's just out of luck.
Stealth would have to add a rule adjusting this.
Something like "All players declare blockers against nonstealth creatures, then declare against stealth creatures"
Which starts making it fuzzy and weird, since it should still be one declare action, even if split in two.
Once you hit REL-goverened tournaments, collusion is frowned upon and the rules have issues.
Of course, if this is meant for casual, don't mind me >_<
I just have a question - ignorant swine that I am - how popular are sanctioned multiplayer tournaments, where "collusion is frowned upon?" Would these mostly be Commander?
It's not really a thing. The only 'real' multi-player tournaments are 2h giant, where this isn't a problem. But because anything can be sanctioned at FNM there needs to be rules that cover it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
(This creature can't be blocked unless you control no other unblocked creatures.)(This creature can't be blocked unless defending player blocks all creatures attacking him or her.)Stealth (This creature can't be blocked unless all attacking creatures are blocked.)
The problems with Skulk were that it didn't encourage enough interaction and didn't have very much design space.
I just kind of stumbled into this, and the more I think about it, the more I think it fixes both of these problems. It encourages combat interactions from both ends of the table (you'll want to attack with multiple creatures, your opponent will want to block everything they can), and I can think of a lot of neat designs for it.
My only concern is power level and how deep the design space actually is. I feel like it's deeper than Skulk, but I don't know by how much.
Also, I don't think this ability has ever been done before, so there's no solid evidence that it is actually U/B, but it seems to fit well enough.
So what do you guys think?
Any suggestions for a name?Decided to go with Stealth.Actually still taking name suggestions.Like.. they'd only notice it if no one else was still coming at them. Otherwise, they slip right in because they're so unassuming that you're too busy looking at the goblins.
The wording works, but would confuse many lay persons.
Double negatives (Not UNblocked) always trip people.
It's also.. awkward in multiplayer.
I would suggest something more like:
"This creature can't be blocked unless defending player blocks all creatures attacking him or her."
Wording could definitely still be improved, but it takes out the double negative, and fixes multiplayer.
No longer staff here.
"This creature can't be blocked unless each creature you control that's attacking the same player is also blocked."
Do you think Stealth would work?
I like Feyd_Ruin's wording.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
No longer staff here.
Ya know, the more I think about this, I actually really like what the original version does to multiplayer.
If I attack Player A with my Stealth creature and Player B with my non-Stealth creature (assuming they both have blockers), Player B gets to decide whether they want to block and let Player A block, or take the damage and force Player A to also take damage. And if I attack BOTH players with Stealths, they have to make that decission together.
It also obviously synergizes with creatures that naturally have evasion, which encourages building around the mechanic and casting/attacking with other creatures. Plus, it allows one player to get through to one player who has huge defenses by also attacking a player who has none.
And the text is also shorter, but it could be changed to fix the double negative:
"This creature can't be blocked unless all attacking creatures are blocked."
Once you hit tournaments, with rules enforcement, that's where things get hectic.
Attack the player to your left (Players A) with a Stealth creature.
Attack the player past him (Player B) with a regular creature.
Declare blockers:
The player A you attacked with the stealth creature must declare his blockers...
He can't block the stealth creature.
(At this moment you have an attacker that is not declared as being blocked)
Player B now declares blockers, and decides he will block.
Can't backtrack to Player A, he's just out of luck.
Stealth would have to add a rule adjusting this.
Something like "All players declare blockers against nonstealth creatures, then declare against stealth creatures"
Which starts making it fuzzy and weird, since it should still be one declare action, even if split in two.
Once you hit REL-goverened tournaments, collusion is frowned upon and the rules have issues.
Of course, if this is meant for casual, don't mind me >_<
No longer staff here.