I can write the entire CR changes you'd need to make if you'd like. It's actually not that hard. With the addition of the rules entry for dream walk itself, you just need to add a clause in the declare blockers step.
EDIT: It was much shorter than I thought it would be.
702.DRE Dreamwalk
702.DREa Dreamwalk is a static ability that appears on creatures. Rather than choose an untapped creature to block a creature with dreamwalk, the defending player chooses a tapped creature to block the creature with dreamwalk. This is an exception to the process described in rule 509.1a.
702.DREb Multiple instances of dreamwalk on the same creature are redundant.
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
The fear based wording "except by tapped creatures" seems a little odd. With fear, artifact creatures and black creatures can normally block anyway, so fear is only saying that other creatures can't block it. Reading this wording here the same way, tapped creatures can't normally block, and now untapped creatures can't block it either. Unless you have some other effect that allows tapped creatures to block (only Masako the Humorless I think), then this creature can't be blocked by anything.
I think this ability needs to be broken into two effects:
Dreamwalk (This creature can’t be blocked by untapped creatures. Tapped creatures can block it.)
Draft CR:
702.XX. Dreamwalk
702.XXa Dreamwalk is an evasion ability that modifies the rules for the declare blockers step. (See rule 509, "Declare Blockers Step.")
702.XXb A creature with dreamwalk can't be blocked by untapped creatures. Instead, the defending player can choose tapped creatures that he or she controls to block an attacking creature with dreamwalk.
702.XXc Multiple instances of dreamwalk on the same creature are redundant.
(Also, Do you have a particular ruling in mind for how this ability interacts with Masako the Humorless' "as though they were untapped"? It might be like the counter-intuitive ruling on Æther Web. I.e.: If the defending player controls Masako, then an attacking creature with dreamwalk can't be blocked by any creatures whether they are tapped or untapped.)
Regarding Masako the Humorless, tapped creatures would still be able to block creatures with dreamwalk. Masako's ability gives permission for the player to do something he or she wouldn't normally be able to do. It doesn't state something that's true about the way creatures block. This means that the player isn't required to take advantage of whatever the ability is allowing them to do and act as though the extra permission were never there.
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
Also, Do you have a particular ruling in mind for how this ability interacts with Masako the Humorless' "as though they were untapped"? It might be like the counter-intuitive ruling on Æther Web. I.e.: If the defending player controls Masako, then an attacking creature with dreamwalk can't be blocked by any creatures whether they are tapped or untapped.)
Because Masako uses "May" it means no special wording is required I believe.
Thanks for the alternate reminder text. I actually like it quite a lot.
I'll do some playtesting and see which one people find easier to understand.
702.XXb A creature with dreamwalk can't be blocked by untapped creatures. Instead, the defending player can choose tapped creatures that he or she controls to block an attacking creature with dreamwalk.
The thing about this kind of wording is it implies that for each attacker, you choose which creatures are going to block it. Declaring blockers works the opposite way, where you choose all the creatures you want to declare as blockers, then for each of those creatures you choose which attackers it's going to block. What Masako does is just allow tapped creatures be chosen in the list of creatures you want to block. The problem is, initially selecting which creatures you want to declare as blockers is unrelated to which attackers they will block (And thus any attackers having dreamwalk is irrelevant to that choice). Dreamwalk has to allow tapped creatures to be selected as blockers AND prevent them from blocking creatures other than those with dreamwalk AND not break Masako.
Because Masako uses "May" it means no special wording is required I believe.
Recheck Masako the Humorless' Oracle wording: "Tapped creatures you control can block as though they were untapped." Looking back at different printings of Giant Spider, I'm guessing the "may block" abilities were errata'd to "can block" with 9ED. That change was needed to make cards like Lure work propperly (before the solution of keywording reach, which solved that problem a different way).
I personally think that the current non-intuitive rulings on Æther Web and Ætherflame Wall mean that the cards need errata to make them work how people would expect them to work from reading them. Heartwood Dryad and Wall of Diffusion don't have that same ruling, so I am guessing that the wording there works correctly.
That same change can't be used with Masako the Humorless. Although, while Æther Web and Ætherflame Wall both need errata for how they function with actual cards, the only reason Masako needs errata is for custom cards like this. Maybe to function with dreamwalk, Masako could have custom errata like: "In addition to untapped creatures, tapped creatures you control can block."
(One benefit for Masako is that the rules don't actually say that tapped creatures "can't" block. The rules say that the creatures chosen to block must be untapped. That seems like a small mostly negligible difference, except it means that Masako doesn't have to worry about CR 101.2. since there is no "can't" effect to take precedence over it.)
702.XXb A creature with dreamwalk can't be blocked by untapped creatures. Instead, the defending player can choose tapped creatures that he or she controls to block an attacking creature with dreamwalk.
The thing about this kind of wording is it implies that for each attacker, you choose which creatures are going to block it. Declaring blockers works the opposite way, where you choose all the creatures you want to declare as blockers, then for each of those creatures you choose which attackers it's going to block. What Masako does is just allow tapped creatures be chosen in the list of creatures you want to block. The problem is, initially selecting which creatures you want to declare as blockers is unrelated to which attackers they will block (And thus any attackers having dreamwalk is irrelevant to that choice). Dreamwalk has to allow tapped creatures to be selected as blockers AND prevent them from blocking creatures other than those with dreamwalk AND not break Masako.
I was looking at CR 509.1a while drafting my rule and I think it does work with it. I know that rule says defending player chooses all of his blocking creatures. Period. New sentence. Then chooses the creatures that they are blocking. I just don't think that two sentence separation is necessary for dreamwalk's exception. My wording still follows that order: The defending creature can choose tapped creatures... those creatures can block an attacking creature with dreamwalk. Rules can make exceptions without having to completely re-write the original rule.
Do you think it needs to more explicitly follow the layout of CR 509.1a?
While the defending player chooses which creatures that he or she controls, if any, will block, in addition to untapped creatures, the chosen creatures can also be tapped. For each of the chosen creatures that are tapped, the defending player chooses one creature with dreamwalk for it to block that’s attacking him, her, or a planeswalker he or she controls.
That is incredibly ugly. (Maybe it is a bit of a strawman too. All you did was dismiss my wording as wrong without giving any suggestion of improvement, so I don't know what your idea is.) And I think it is largely unnecessary.
Nothing in what I wrote says that tapped creatures can block other creatures without dreamwalk. If you think there is some confusing potential in the rules for this to allow tapped creatures to block creatures without dreamwalk (for whatever reason) I guess that could be addressed with an extra subrule. Landwalk does something similar with an extra otherwise unnecessary rule at CR 702.14d to clear up any possible confusion.
Draft CR:
702.XX. Dreamwalk
702.XXa Dreamwalk is an evasion ability that modifies the rules for the declare blockers step. (See rule 509, "Declare Blockers Step.")
702.XXb A creature with dreamwalk can't be blocked by untapped creatures. Instead, the defending player can choose tapped creatures that he or she controls to block an attacking creature with dreamwalk.
702.XXc Dreamwalk does not allow tapped creatures to block creatures without dreamwalk.
702.XXd Multiple instances of dreamwalk on the same creature are redundant.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Dreamwalk (This creature can’t be blocked except by tapped creatures.)
I wanted to get an answer to what changes in the comprehensive rules would be required to makes this work?
Are you designing commons? Check out my primer on NWO.
Interested in making a custom set? Check out my Set skeleton and archetype primer.
I also write articles about getting started with custom card creation.
Go and PLAYTEST your designs, you will learn more in a single playtests than a dozen discussions.
My custom sets:
Dreamscape
Coins of Mercalis [COMPLETE]
Exodus of Zendikar - ON HOLD
I'm Mike, from The Mana Pool.
Check out my Tapped Out profile and comment on my decks!
EDIT: It was much shorter than I thought it would be.
702.DRE Dreamwalk
702.DREa Dreamwalk is a static ability that appears on creatures. Rather than choose an untapped creature to block a creature with dreamwalk, the defending player chooses a tapped creature to block the creature with dreamwalk. This is an exception to the process described in rule 509.1a.
702.DREb Multiple instances of dreamwalk on the same creature are redundant.
[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 think this ability needs to be broken into two effects:
Dreamwalk (This creature can’t be blocked by untapped creatures. Tapped creatures can block it.)
Draft CR:
702.XX. Dreamwalk
702.XXa Dreamwalk is an evasion ability that modifies the rules for the declare blockers step. (See rule 509, "Declare Blockers Step.")
702.XXb A creature with dreamwalk can't be blocked by untapped creatures. Instead, the defending player can choose tapped creatures that he or she controls to block an attacking creature with dreamwalk.
702.XXc Multiple instances of dreamwalk on the same creature are redundant.
(Also, Do you have a particular ruling in mind for how this ability interacts with Masako the Humorless' "as though they were untapped"? It might be like the counter-intuitive ruling on Æther Web. I.e.: If the defending player controls Masako, then an attacking creature with dreamwalk can't be blocked by any creatures whether they are tapped or untapped.)
[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
Because Masako uses "May" it means no special wording is required I believe.
Thanks for the alternate reminder text. I actually like it quite a lot.
I'll do some playtesting and see which one people find easier to understand.
Are you designing commons? Check out my primer on NWO.
Interested in making a custom set? Check out my Set skeleton and archetype primer.
I also write articles about getting started with custom card creation.
Go and PLAYTEST your designs, you will learn more in a single playtests than a dozen discussions.
My custom sets:
Dreamscape
Coins of Mercalis [COMPLETE]
Exodus of Zendikar - ON HOLD
Recheck Masako the Humorless' Oracle wording: "Tapped creatures you control can block as though they were untapped." Looking back at different printings of Giant Spider, I'm guessing the "may block" abilities were errata'd to "can block" with 9ED. That change was needed to make cards like Lure work propperly (before the solution of keywording reach, which solved that problem a different way).
I personally think that the current non-intuitive rulings on Æther Web and Ætherflame Wall mean that the cards need errata to make them work how people would expect them to work from reading them. Heartwood Dryad and Wall of Diffusion don't have that same ruling, so I am guessing that the wording there works correctly.
That same change can't be used with Masako the Humorless. Although, while Æther Web and Ætherflame Wall both need errata for how they function with actual cards, the only reason Masako needs errata is for custom cards like this. Maybe to function with dreamwalk, Masako could have custom errata like: "In addition to untapped creatures, tapped creatures you control can block."
(One benefit for Masako is that the rules don't actually say that tapped creatures "can't" block. The rules say that the creatures chosen to block must be untapped. That seems like a small mostly negligible difference, except it means that Masako doesn't have to worry about CR 101.2. since there is no "can't" effect to take precedence over it.)
I was looking at CR 509.1a while drafting my rule and I think it does work with it. I know that rule says defending player chooses all of his blocking creatures. Period. New sentence. Then chooses the creatures that they are blocking. I just don't think that two sentence separation is necessary for dreamwalk's exception. My wording still follows that order: The defending creature can choose tapped creatures... those creatures can block an attacking creature with dreamwalk. Rules can make exceptions without having to completely re-write the original rule.
That is incredibly ugly. (Maybe it is a bit of a strawman too. All you did was dismiss my wording as wrong without giving any suggestion of improvement, so I don't know what your idea is.) And I think it is largely unnecessary.
Nothing in what I wrote says that tapped creatures can block other creatures without dreamwalk. If you think there is some confusing potential in the rules for this to allow tapped creatures to block creatures without dreamwalk (for whatever reason) I guess that could be addressed with an extra subrule. Landwalk does something similar with an extra otherwise unnecessary rule at CR 702.14d to clear up any possible confusion.
Draft CR:
702.XXa Dreamwalk is an evasion ability that modifies the rules for the declare blockers step. (See rule 509, "Declare Blockers Step.")
702.XXb A creature with dreamwalk can't be blocked by untapped creatures. Instead, the defending player can choose tapped creatures that he or she controls to block an attacking creature with dreamwalk.
702.XXc Dreamwalk does not allow tapped creatures to block creatures without dreamwalk.
702.XXd Multiple instances of dreamwalk on the same creature are redundant.