Okay, so I posted a thread about this keyword a while ago, and I think I've found a way to make it work, but I need help.
The keyword is:
"Stealth(This creature can't be blocked unless all attacking creatures you control are blocked.)"
This works like Tromokratis, but in reverse. If any of your attacking creatures are left unblocked, then your stealth creature can't be blocked. This works fine in two player.
The problem comes in multiplayer. I have a creature with stealth and a creature without stealth, and I have two opponents. I attack the player directly to my left, Player A (the next player to get priority), with my stealth creature, and the player to my right, Player B (the last player to get priority), with the non-stealth creature. Under the current rules, Player A can't assign any blockers to the stealth creature because I have another attacking creature that can't become blocked in the same step because it's attacking the player that comes after Player A in turn order.
What I'm wondering is:
1. When exactly during the declare blockers step do attacking creatures become blocked?
2. Is there any way, with my current wording and with current rules, to let Player A declare a blocker on the stealth creature, then let Player B's decision not to block his or her attacker just negate Player A's block?
3. If I can do the above, is there a way to avoid falsely triggering blocking-related abilities (e.g. Player A blocks the stealth creature with Ashmouth Hound, then the block is negated by Player B).
How about just look at each defending player separately and bypass those questions?
Stealth (This creature can't be blocked unless all creatures attacking the same player or planeswalkers that player controls are blocked.)
Because that's more text, it's messier, and it's less political. I like how your opponents can make blocking decisions to intentionally help or hurt each other.
I'd like to stick with the current wording. I'm just wondering if a minor rules change regarding multiplayer blocking would be necessary or if a special rule regarding stealth in multiplayer would solve the issue.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The keyword is:
"Stealth (This creature can't be blocked unless all attacking creatures you control are blocked.)"
This works like Tromokratis, but in reverse. If any of your attacking creatures are left unblocked, then your stealth creature can't be blocked. This works fine in two player.
The problem comes in multiplayer. I have a creature with stealth and a creature without stealth, and I have two opponents. I attack the player directly to my left, Player A (the next player to get priority), with my stealth creature, and the player to my right, Player B (the last player to get priority), with the non-stealth creature. Under the current rules, Player A can't assign any blockers to the stealth creature because I have another attacking creature that can't become blocked in the same step because it's attacking the player that comes after Player A in turn order.
What I'm wondering is:
1. When exactly during the declare blockers step do attacking creatures become blocked?
2. Is there any way, with my current wording and with current rules, to let Player A declare a blocker on the stealth creature, then let Player B's decision not to block his or her attacker just negate Player A's block?
3. If I can do the above, is there a way to avoid falsely triggering blocking-related abilities (e.g. Player A blocks the stealth creature with Ashmouth Hound, then the block is negated by Player B).
Stealth (This creature can't be blocked unless all creatures attacking the same player or planeswalkers that player controls are blocked.)
I'd like to stick with the current wording. I'm just wondering if a minor rules change regarding multiplayer blocking would be necessary or if a special rule regarding stealth in multiplayer would solve the issue.