I notice there a fair amount of cards that cannot block, the most notable being gravecrawler. Like with "defender" do you think there will/ should be a creation of a new term that applies to "only attackers"? Id like your inputs.
Modern - RUG Delver RUG - Splinter Twin UR - Jund BRG
Legacy - RUG Delver RUG - Maverick GW - SI BG
Foreigning out SI, currently 33/75. The only thing better than a T1 kill is doing it with cards no one has ever heard of and/or can't read. If anyone has any of the usual pieces, PM me. I'm willing to buy/trade.
Problem is for each instance of where keywording an old ability like above and reach has worked there are equal examples of where it has had a couple of unforeseen issues.
The functional change on loxodon warhammer and the removal of a couple of small combos you could do with the original wording of the fear mechanic being a couple of examples.
Whilst I agree that WOTC are probably looking at it or have done I would be surprised if they did choose to keyword it unless they were planning to make it a big theme for an upcoming set and intending it to be more evergreen than it is at the moment. As otherwise they are potentially setting them selves up for all sorts of problems down the line.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
I notice there a fair amount of cards that cannot block, the most notable being gravecrawler. Like with "defender" do you think there will/ should be a creation of a new term that applies to "only attackers"? Id like your inputs.
Someone (probably Mark Rosewater) on DailyMTG once talked about this subject and mentioned the word "Attacker". Think about a creature with both Attacker and Defender: It can't attack or defend! Wouldn't that feel stupid? The writer concluded that it's not a good keyword. There was also some comment about how Defender isn't very good, but I think it's still okay as long as Attacker isn't made into a keyword too.
Good point. Defender = "can't attack", so Attacker = "can't defend/block".
And then cards like Pacifism could be re-worded to say "Target creature gains Attacker and Defender".
Funny, and elegant in a way, but it would feel pretty stupid.
The inherent problem with the actual keyword "Defender" is that it leaves the reciprocal "attacker" contradictory when employed together like mentioned here;
Aggressive or Aggressor seems like a good counterpoint to Defender in my mind. Using Attacker would cause confusion with new players, probably making them think that only those creatures could attack or something.
I can't believe anyone is excited about this card. It is absolutely unplayable. I wouldn't even play her in LIMITED. Easily the worst walker printed since the green elf one. Absolutely terrible.
I guess there's some precedent for sluggishness (or just "sluggish"), although it doesn't make that much sense that being sluggish prevents a creature from blocking, but not from attacking.
Someone (probably Mark Rosewater) on DailyMTG once talked about this subject and mentioned the word "Attacker". Think about a creature with both Attacker and Defender: It can't attack or defend! Wouldn't that feel stupid? The writer concluded that it's not a good keyword. There was also some comment about how Defender isn't very good, but I think it's still okay as long as Attacker isn't made into a keyword too.
given that Pacifism effects aren't worded "Enchanted creature has defender and can't block" this is a pretty stupid argument
Reckless? They're the guys that just run in, strategy be damned?
That's probably the best name for it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The only good thing about this post is the edible chocolate roaches they gave out! Mmm mmm!
*crawl crawl*
Wait a minute, edible roaches don't crawl! EDIBLE ROACHES DON'T CRAWL!
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." Frederic Bastiat
Cowardice would not work, since most of the creatures that cannot block are usually berserkers or the like, and just don't have a defensive mode.
I agree with Reckless. Take the Rakdos in RTR for example. They can be normal creatures (those with Unleash), or they can abandon defense in favor of increased combat ability. They will never defend, but they can assault like crazy.
Still makes Pacifism look weird. Reckless Defender?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks
Commander
Ezuri, Renegade Leader (Aggro/Combo - Favorite) Skullbriar, the Walking Grave (Sac and Grave hijinks) Azusa, Lost but Seeking (Landfall hijinks) Kaalia of the Vast (Heavily modded)
My vote goes to "Aggressor" or "Berserker", though the later might be confusing for some people since Berserker is also a valid creature subtype. Therefore, if they used that term in the future for creatures which can't block, I could see newer players asking why Ærathi Berserker, Elvish Berserker, Dwarven Berserker and Bloodbraid elf (among others) are all exempt from the keyword ruling.
Anyhow, the best I can come up with myself is a game in the top 8 of a PTQ back during Urza block in which we were starting game 3 with time already expired, so the tiebreaker rule was that whoever had more life after 3 turns would win. And I lost to... healing salve.
The inherent problem with the actual keyword "Defender" is that it leaves the reciprocal "attacker" contradictory when employed together like mentioned here;
They would have to make a keyword like "cowardice" for cards like pacifism and then they could have "attacker" and "defender", but not together.
"I have no idea what it's like not to be a straight white male, and the experiences of others are irrelevant." -Conservative Motto
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
Legacy - RUG Delver RUG - Maverick GW - SI BG
Foreigning out SI, currently 33/75. The only thing better than a T1 kill is doing it with cards no one has ever heard of and/or can't read. If anyone has any of the usual pieces, PM me. I'm willing to buy/trade.
Problem is for each instance of where keywording an old ability like above and reach has worked there are equal examples of where it has had a couple of unforeseen issues.
The functional change on loxodon warhammer and the removal of a couple of small combos you could do with the original wording of the fear mechanic being a couple of examples.
Whilst I agree that WOTC are probably looking at it or have done I would be surprised if they did choose to keyword it unless they were planning to make it a big theme for an upcoming set and intending it to be more evergreen than it is at the moment. As otherwise they are potentially setting them selves up for all sorts of problems down the line.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
Haste consumes 10% of the space on the card and means the same thing. Why wouldn't they keyword Haste?
Oh I really think there does. Haste makes life so much easier. Could you imagine Suspend without Haste?
GModern Belcher
GGreen Deck Wins
3I'm the King
RBlazeTron
Attacker maybe?
That way you can have Craven Walls!
Good point. Defender = "can't attack", so Attacker = "can't defend/block".
And then cards like Pacifism could be re-worded to say "Target creature gains Attacker and Defender".
Funny, and elegant in a way, but it would feel pretty stupid.
They would have to make a keyword like "cowardice" for cards like pacifism and then they could have "attacker" and "defender", but not together.
Cuz Berserkers don't hang back and defend...
*edit*
Then again, Berserker might be a better keyword for "This creature must attack each turn if able"
Berserker was one of the first things i thought of to propose as a keyword, but discarded it for the reasons you suggest.
given that Pacifism effects aren't worded "Enchanted creature has defender and can't block" this is a pretty stupid argument
That's probably the best name for it.
*crawl crawl*
Wait a minute, edible roaches don't crawl! EDIBLE ROACHES DON'T CRAWL!
I agree with Reckless. Take the Rakdos in RTR for example. They can be normal creatures (those with Unleash), or they can abandon defense in favor of increased combat ability. They will never defend, but they can assault like crazy.
Still makes Pacifism look weird. Reckless Defender?
Commander
Ezuri, Renegade Leader (Aggro/Combo - Favorite)
Skullbriar, the Walking Grave (Sac and Grave hijinks)
Azusa, Lost but Seeking (Landfall hijinks)
Kaalia of the Vast (Heavily modded)
Standard
Waiting for Innistrad...
Extended
Hah!
Modern
Living End Cascade (RGB)
Legacy
Burn
Vintage
None
Casual
WB Aggro-Control
Green Stompy
Pink Floyd (UWr Wall Control)
Lunch Box (Fatty ramp)
D-Bag (White Control)
Level 13 Task Mage
Wanna hear what I think about restaurants?
Check out my http://damancy.blogspot.com/
Trust me! IM FAT!!!!
Gravecrawler on guard duty? What then.
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.