Again, I'm wondering if there are any weird card interactions with these two cards, and if these two cards don't work.
Act of Disloyalty3R Instant {S}
Gain control of target creature until end of turn. Untap it. It gains haste until end of turn. If you gain control of that creature this way, you may have that creature remain in combat.
1) Alice attacks Bob with her Grizzly Bears, Hill Giant, and Elite Vanguard. It is the declare attackers step, and Bob casts and resolves Act of Disloyalty on Alice's Hill Giant, opting to have it stay in combat (a stupid decision, but whatever). Since the Hill Giant was attacking Bob before Bob stole it from Alice, and since Bob made the Giant stay in combat, the Hill Giant is now attacking Bob even though it is under Bob's control. Bob can use his creatures to block the very Hill Giant that he controls.
2) Same creatures and same players. This time, Bob waits until the declare blockers step, at which point Bob has already declared to block Alice's Hill Giant with his Tarmogoyf. Bob once again casts and resolves Act of Disloyalty and opts to keep Hill Giant in combat. If left unhindered, the Hill Giant would deal combat damage to the Tarmogoyf, and the Tarmogoyf to the Hill Giant.
3) This time, Bob is the one attacking with his Frost Titan. Before the triggered ability resolves, Alice steals it with Act of Disloyalty. But Bob still controls the triggered ability for effects that care about the controller of an ability. (This is nothing new but I thought I'd mention it.)
---
Indecisive Blood2R Instant {S}
Choose target attacking creature and target player or planeswalker other than the player or planeswalker that the chosen creature is attacking. That creature is now attacking the chosen player or planeswalker. (Any blocking creatures not controlled by the newly chosen player or the controller of the newly chosen planeswalker don't block anything. If it's the declare blockers step, blockers aren't declared again to block the chosen attacking creature.)
4) MaRo, Aaron, and Matt are playing a three-player game. MaRo attacks Aaron with his Elite Vanguard. It is the declare blockers step, and Aaron has blocked with his Vampire Nighthawk. MaRo doesn't like that, so he casts and resolves Indecisive Blood, making the Elite Vanguard attack Matt instead. If left unhindered, MaRo's Elite Vanguard deals 2 damage to Matt, and Aaron's Vampire Nighthawk will whiff and not deal damage to anything.
5) Same players, but this time Aaron controls a Ghostly Prison. MaRo needs to pay 2 to attack Aaron with his Elite Vanguard regardless of whether or not he decides to switch the Elite Vanguard's defending player.
6) Same players, but this time Matt controls the Ghostly Prison. MaRo still declares Elite Vanguard attacking Aaron. If MaRo resolves an Indecisive Blood, he won't have to pay an extra 2, since the Elite Vanguard never "attacked" Matt in the first place. (Again, this is nothing new.)
7) Same players, but this time Aaron controls a planeswalker. It is the declare blockers step, and Aaron has once again decided to block with his Vampire Nighthawk. MaRo chooses Aaron's planeswalker and his Elite Vanguard. It resolves. But since the player that Elite Vanguard was attacking and the controller of the planeswalker are the same player, Aaron's Vampire Nighthawk still is blocking MaRo's Elite Vanguard, and the two creatures would trade hits as normal.
8) Same players, but this time it's the declare attackers step instead when MaRo switches Elite Vanguard from attacking Aaron to attacking Matt. Then the declare blockers step occurs, and since during the turn-based action of declaring blockers, Matt is the one being attacked, Matt is the one who declares blockers to block the Elite Vanguard, not Aaron.
9) Same players, and the game is in either the declare attackers or declare blockers step. MaRo's Elite Vanguard is attacking Aaron. In response, Aaron casts Blessed Reversal (gaining him 3 life at this time upon resolution). However, MaRo responds with Indecisive Blood, making the Elite Vanguard attack Matt instead. Then Blessed Reversal resolves, making Aaron gain 0 life.
10) MaRo attacks with something, then resolves Indecisive Blood, choosing his own Elite Vanguard and choosing himself. This works as you would expect; if left unhindered, the Elite Vanguard would deal 2 combat damage to its own controller.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
You mean other than the fact that they don't work? This involves nonactive players controlling attacking creatures, which would at the very least require rewriting the rules for assigning combat damage in CR510.1.
1) Can the Hill Giant that is now untapped and attacking its controller also just block itself?
2) So blocking decisions remain intact when the creature remains in combat? I'll be coming back to this...
3) Of course. There are already a lot of instant speed theft like Blind with Anger, and they don't let you gain control of any triggered abilities from the stolen creature. The spell would have to specifically add that you also gain control of any activated/triggered abilities from that creature.
4) No. You already established in scenario 2 that blocking decisions remain intact when you gain control of an attacking creature and it remains in combat. Changing who the creature is attacking is much simpler. If you think the blocking decisions should be broken because it now has a different defending player, that seems a bit irrelevant considering how much other rules shenanigans are going on here. The important part is that in both scenarios the creature remains in combat after blocks have been declared. If it remains blocked in 2, then it should remain blocked here. Or if it doesn't remain blocked here, then it shouldn't remain blocked in 2.
If it remains blocked in 2 and you don't want it to remain here, I think you would have to write it out in rules text similar to False Orders specifically saying if it is changed to be attacking a different player or a planeswalker controlled by a different player then it is no longer blocked by creatures that are controlled by the first defending player.
5) ok.
6) ok. ... Although I wouldn't really say this is "nothing new".
7) Right.
8) of course.
9) fine.
10) If Act of Disloyalty works in your imaginary scenarios, then of course Indecisive Blood can do this. Although, why for your scenario would you make it a player using this to make his own creature attack himself? The scenario should be turning back an opposing creature like with Boros Fury-Shield.
You mean other than the fact that they don't work? This involves nonactive players controlling attacking creatures, which would at the very least require rewriting the rules for assigning combat damage in CR510.1.
Of course. The CR would be adjusted accordingly to accommodate this change.
1) Can the Hill Giant that is now untapped and attacking its controller also just block itself?
I forgot to mention this somehow. During the beginning of combat, each creature is not in combat, and thus is neither an attacking creature nor a blocking creature. During the declare attackers step, each creature is either not in combat or in combat, and if it is in combat, it is an attacking creature. During the declare blockers step and onward, if a creature is in combat, it is either an attacking creature or a blocking creature, but not both at the same time. In other words, being an attacking creature and being a blocking creature are mutually exclusive, and an attacking creature cannot become a blocking creature unless something stops it from being an attacking creature.
2) So blocking decisions remain intact when the creature remains in combat? I'll be coming back to this...
With Act of Disloyalty, the control of the creature changes, but the player or planeswalker it's attacking stays the same, and thus all blockers declared to block it stay the same.
4) No. You already established in scenario 2 that blocking decisions remain intact when you gain control of an attacking creature and it remains in combat. Changing who the creature is attacking is much simpler. If you think the blocking decisions should be broken because it now has a different defending player, that seems a bit irrelevant considering how much other rules shenanigans are going on here. The important part is that in both scenarios the creature remains in combat after blocks have been declared. If it remains blocked in 2, then it should remain blocked here. Or if it doesn't remain blocked here, then it shouldn't remain blocked in 2.
If it remains blocked in 2 and you don't want it to remain here, I think you would have to write it out in rules text similar to False Orders specifically saying if it is changed to be attacking a different player or a planeswalker controlled by a different player then it is no longer blocked by creatures that are controlled by the first defending player.
Since in 2, whatever player or planeswalker the creature is attacking stays the same, all blocking creatures controlled by that player or the controller of that planeswalker assigned to block that creature stay the same. The defending player is still the same.
But in 4, if the defending player is changed from Aaron to Matt, it doesn't make sense for Aaron's creature to remain blocking MaRo's creature, since Aaron is no longer the defending player. As a result, it's impossible for Aaron's creature to remain blocking MaRo's creature. (It's still a "blocking creature", but it's not blocking anything, so it doesn't deal combat damage to anything.)
If another Indecisive Blood were cast and Aaron were chosen again, Aaron's Vampire Nighthawk would still not deal combat damage to MaRo's Elite Vanguard. Just because it used to block the Elite Vanguard before the resolution of the first Indecisive Blood, it doesn't mean that it "re-blocks" it somehow.
10) If Act of Disloyalty works in your imaginary scenarios, then of course Indecisive Blood can do this. Although, why for your scenario would you make it a player using this to make his own creature attack himself? The scenario should be turning back an opposing creature like with Boros Fury-Shield.
Mainly as proof of concept to show that such a choice would work.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
I guess I just don't see nearly as big a problem with creatures being able to block attacking creatures with another defending player. It just normally isn't possible. Although I think there are some team multiplayer variants that allow it.
I've seen custom designs before like:
Rumble in the Jungle 1G
Instant
Cast CARDNAME only during combat after blockers are declared.
Target attacking creature becomes blocked by target creature controlled by another player.
That is much less destructive to the rules. With a seemingly smaller change of allowing a Curtain of Light effect to make one further instruction, it does allow a creature controlled by a player other than the defending player to be blocking.
A creature attacking its controller is much more complicated than just a creature blocking for a different defending player.
I guess I just don't see nearly as big a problem with creatures being able to block attacking creatures with another defending player. It just normally isn't possible. Although I think there are some team multiplayer variants that allow it.
I've seen custom designs before like:
Rumble in the Jungle 1G
Instant
Cast CARDNAME only during combat after blockers are declared.
Target attacking creature becomes blocked by target creature controlled by another player.
That is much less destructive to the rules. With a seemingly smaller change of allowing a Curtain of Light effect to make one further instruction, it does allow a creature controlled by a player other than the defending player to be blocking.
A creature attacking its controller is much more complicated than just a creature blocking for a different defending player.
I suppose the concern with utmost priority (no pun intended) would be to actually make the change of defending player possible. Other than that, whatever happens to any old creatures that used to block the creature whose defending player changed would be dealt with then.
Having said that, I now think that whatever happens to the old blocking creatures should indeed be written out explicitly in the rules text of the card. Thanks for the help!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Act of Disloyalty 3R
Instant {S}
Gain control of target creature until end of turn. Untap it. It gains haste until end of turn. If you gain control of that creature this way, you may have that creature remain in combat.
1) Alice attacks Bob with her Grizzly Bears, Hill Giant, and Elite Vanguard. It is the declare attackers step, and Bob casts and resolves Act of Disloyalty on Alice's Hill Giant, opting to have it stay in combat (a stupid decision, but whatever). Since the Hill Giant was attacking Bob before Bob stole it from Alice, and since Bob made the Giant stay in combat, the Hill Giant is now attacking Bob even though it is under Bob's control. Bob can use his creatures to block the very Hill Giant that he controls.
2) Same creatures and same players. This time, Bob waits until the declare blockers step, at which point Bob has already declared to block Alice's Hill Giant with his Tarmogoyf. Bob once again casts and resolves Act of Disloyalty and opts to keep Hill Giant in combat. If left unhindered, the Hill Giant would deal combat damage to the Tarmogoyf, and the Tarmogoyf to the Hill Giant.
3) This time, Bob is the one attacking with his Frost Titan. Before the triggered ability resolves, Alice steals it with Act of Disloyalty. But Bob still controls the triggered ability for effects that care about the controller of an ability. (This is nothing new but I thought I'd mention it.)
---
Indecisive Blood 2R
Instant {S}
Choose target attacking creature and target player or planeswalker other than the player or planeswalker that the chosen creature is attacking. That creature is now attacking the chosen player or planeswalker. (Any blocking creatures not controlled by the newly chosen player or the controller of the newly chosen planeswalker don't block anything. If it's the declare blockers step, blockers aren't declared again to block the chosen attacking creature.)
4) MaRo, Aaron, and Matt are playing a three-player game. MaRo attacks Aaron with his Elite Vanguard. It is the declare blockers step, and Aaron has blocked with his Vampire Nighthawk. MaRo doesn't like that, so he casts and resolves Indecisive Blood, making the Elite Vanguard attack Matt instead. If left unhindered, MaRo's Elite Vanguard deals 2 damage to Matt, and Aaron's Vampire Nighthawk will whiff and not deal damage to anything.
5) Same players, but this time Aaron controls a Ghostly Prison. MaRo needs to pay 2 to attack Aaron with his Elite Vanguard regardless of whether or not he decides to switch the Elite Vanguard's defending player.
6) Same players, but this time Matt controls the Ghostly Prison. MaRo still declares Elite Vanguard attacking Aaron. If MaRo resolves an Indecisive Blood, he won't have to pay an extra 2, since the Elite Vanguard never "attacked" Matt in the first place. (Again, this is nothing new.)
7) Same players, but this time Aaron controls a planeswalker. It is the declare blockers step, and Aaron has once again decided to block with his Vampire Nighthawk. MaRo chooses Aaron's planeswalker and his Elite Vanguard. It resolves. But since the player that Elite Vanguard was attacking and the controller of the planeswalker are the same player, Aaron's Vampire Nighthawk still is blocking MaRo's Elite Vanguard, and the two creatures would trade hits as normal.
8) Same players, but this time it's the declare attackers step instead when MaRo switches Elite Vanguard from attacking Aaron to attacking Matt. Then the declare blockers step occurs, and since during the turn-based action of declaring blockers, Matt is the one being attacked, Matt is the one who declares blockers to block the Elite Vanguard, not Aaron.
9) Same players, and the game is in either the declare attackers or declare blockers step. MaRo's Elite Vanguard is attacking Aaron. In response, Aaron casts Blessed Reversal (gaining him 3 life at this time upon resolution). However, MaRo responds with Indecisive Blood, making the Elite Vanguard attack Matt instead. Then Blessed Reversal resolves, making Aaron gain 0 life.
10) MaRo attacks with something, then resolves Indecisive Blood, choosing his own Elite Vanguard and choosing himself. This works as you would expect; if left unhindered, the Elite Vanguard would deal 2 combat damage to its own controller.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
1) Can the Hill Giant that is now untapped and attacking its controller also just block itself?
2) So blocking decisions remain intact when the creature remains in combat? I'll be coming back to this...
3) Of course. There are already a lot of instant speed theft like Blind with Anger, and they don't let you gain control of any triggered abilities from the stolen creature. The spell would have to specifically add that you also gain control of any activated/triggered abilities from that creature.
4) No. You already established in scenario 2 that blocking decisions remain intact when you gain control of an attacking creature and it remains in combat. Changing who the creature is attacking is much simpler. If you think the blocking decisions should be broken because it now has a different defending player, that seems a bit irrelevant considering how much other rules shenanigans are going on here. The important part is that in both scenarios the creature remains in combat after blocks have been declared. If it remains blocked in 2, then it should remain blocked here. Or if it doesn't remain blocked here, then it shouldn't remain blocked in 2.
If it remains blocked in 2 and you don't want it to remain here, I think you would have to write it out in rules text similar to False Orders specifically saying if it is changed to be attacking a different player or a planeswalker controlled by a different player then it is no longer blocked by creatures that are controlled by the first defending player.
5) ok.
6) ok. ... Although I wouldn't really say this is "nothing new".
7) Right.
8) of course.
9) fine.
10) If Act of Disloyalty works in your imaginary scenarios, then of course Indecisive Blood can do this. Although, why for your scenario would you make it a player using this to make his own creature attack himself? The scenario should be turning back an opposing creature like with Boros Fury-Shield.
Of course. The CR would be adjusted accordingly to accommodate this change.
I forgot to mention this somehow. During the beginning of combat, each creature is not in combat, and thus is neither an attacking creature nor a blocking creature. During the declare attackers step, each creature is either not in combat or in combat, and if it is in combat, it is an attacking creature. During the declare blockers step and onward, if a creature is in combat, it is either an attacking creature or a blocking creature, but not both at the same time. In other words, being an attacking creature and being a blocking creature are mutually exclusive, and an attacking creature cannot become a blocking creature unless something stops it from being an attacking creature.
With Act of Disloyalty, the control of the creature changes, but the player or planeswalker it's attacking stays the same, and thus all blockers declared to block it stay the same.
Since in 2, whatever player or planeswalker the creature is attacking stays the same, all blocking creatures controlled by that player or the controller of that planeswalker assigned to block that creature stay the same. The defending player is still the same.
But in 4, if the defending player is changed from Aaron to Matt, it doesn't make sense for Aaron's creature to remain blocking MaRo's creature, since Aaron is no longer the defending player. As a result, it's impossible for Aaron's creature to remain blocking MaRo's creature. (It's still a "blocking creature", but it's not blocking anything, so it doesn't deal combat damage to anything.)
If another Indecisive Blood were cast and Aaron were chosen again, Aaron's Vampire Nighthawk would still not deal combat damage to MaRo's Elite Vanguard. Just because it used to block the Elite Vanguard before the resolution of the first Indecisive Blood, it doesn't mean that it "re-blocks" it somehow.
Mainly as proof of concept to show that such a choice would work.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
I've seen custom designs before like:
Rumble in the Jungle 1G
Instant
Cast CARDNAME only during combat after blockers are declared.
Target attacking creature becomes blocked by target creature controlled by another player.
That is much less destructive to the rules. With a seemingly smaller change of allowing a Curtain of Light effect to make one further instruction, it does allow a creature controlled by a player other than the defending player to be blocking.
A creature attacking its controller is much more complicated than just a creature blocking for a different defending player.
I suppose the concern with utmost priority (no pun intended) would be to actually make the change of defending player possible. Other than that, whatever happens to any old creatures that used to block the creature whose defending player changed would be dealt with then.
Having said that, I now think that whatever happens to the old blocking creatures should indeed be written out explicitly in the rules text of the card. Thanks for the help!
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall