Cool Card Design of the Day8/9/2016 - Here's a drawback keyword for creatures that are bad at consuming a blocker's attention.
This merfolk is bad at walking on land, making it easy to block.
This dino is just slow.
And this keyword isn't worth keywording. First, drawback mechanics are a real hard sell, so they've got to be positively dripping with flavor and/or exciting interactions within the set. Second, there's not remotely enough design space to make 8+ interesting plodding creatures.
Instead, we just spell out the effect on the one or two cards where it's interesting enough to bother.
I wish it was worded in a way that feels cleaner & more sensible to me personally: "Any creature can additionally block this creature for free" or something. I dunnno, it sounds bad too.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't this cause weird math damage trouble?
I think this is a neat concept rife with combat phase confusion
It doesn't cause any more combat math than being able to double-block. If two creatures double-block two creatures, it's slightly more complicated, but you still just assign order of damage and resolve normally.
DeleteThe wording is pretty awkward. Another reason this mechanic doesn't make the cut.
"Creatures blocking this can block another creature" doesn't quite work within the rules, since it isn't blocking it until after blockers are declared, right?
DeleteUsually this kind of loophole isn't worth worrying about, because some rules manager will tighten it up, but here it seems problematic enough I thought I'd point it out.
Slight variation: how about instead "Tapped creatures can block ~."
It's a static effect that changes how blockers can be declared. No loophole. (That doesn't mean we can't find a better way to word it.)
DeleteI like your variation a lot. Probably more than mine.
A totally different tack, but creatures that ONLY could be blocked by tapped creatures might be neat too...
Deletehttp://goblinartisans.blogspot.com/2011/05/21-ways-to-design-card-part-3-find-rule.html
DeleteI kinda like this. A reverse-Menace. There's an interesting evasion mechanic here I think, but I can't quite see it...
ReplyDelete