I can see this ability in pretty much any color BUT green. Red and White for the Master Warcraft angle and Blue and Black for the Mind Control/Enslave angle. I’d argue White for its similarity to Pacifism.
Incidentally, this card as worded is already strictly better than Pacifism, and close to a cantrip Pacifism, which is way too strong. I’d suggest either bumping to 2C or adding a mana cost to the “when enchanted creature dies” clause.
This makes me think of the following design, which I think would be beautiful:
Super Guard Duty W Enchantment - Aura (C)
Enchanted creature has Defender.
When enchanted creature dies, draw a card.
----
Yes, it's strictly better than Guard Duty, but Guard Duty is at the low end of the power scale, and I think this would be at the higher end, though it could certainly cost 1W or 2W if you wanted to make it worse. Also note this is a much different card than Guard Duty, because Guard Duty wants to go in a fliers deck, and this wants to go in a control deck.
It gives the opponent a choice: They can use it to block and trade with one of your creatures or they can just treat it as a Pacifism. Of course, it is way worse than Pacifism, because they get the choice. Also, if it is a 5/5 or something like that, it might even be able to block without trading.
So the card is in power level (mana cost aside) strictly between Guard Duty and Pacifism, but there is a lot of space for good commons between those.
Isn't this better than pacifism? Could you fix some of the rules problems by making it "can't attack, blocks a creature of your choice if able" or similar.
(You mean the original version is too strong, or my rewording was stronger in some way I didn't realise?)
I feel like we've had this conversation before, but I can't remember if there was a convincing answer.
AIUI Wizard's usual requirement has been that the attacking decisions for all creatures, and the blocking decisions for all creatures, each need to be made by one player (or at least one team), to avoid problems like "there's a static ability that says only one creature can attack, if different players disagree about which creature it is, the rules don't define what happens".
Hence Master Warcraft letting you choose for ALL creatures, but them usually avoiding ever printing "you choose" for an individual creature.
Of course, they probably *could* fix the comp rules to allow this to work, but they seem to have been resisting that. Or has this changed in some way I wasn't following?
Ohhh yeah. I seem to remember that now. Yeah, the problem is who chooses first? Because each choice affects the next. You'd have to codify who chooses first.
"You decide if and how enchanted creature attacks and blocks before its controller declares attacks and blocks."
Firstly, wizards have avoided printing this ever, which makes me think there's a policy not to, even if it would work under the rules.
Secondly, even choosing first doesn't necessarily resolve all problems. Suppose there's two creatures A and B. There's a "exactly one creature must attack" effect and a "creature B must attack" effect. If their controller chooses for both of them, they must choose B alone to attack. But if you choose for A -- do you have to choose to not attack with A so there's a valid combination left for them to choose? Or do you only have to avoid breaking restrictions yourself, and then they have to choose the best of the combinations taking your decision as fixed? If you can and do attack with A, must they then not attack with B?
It's fair to be wary of things Wizards seems to have avoided, but dangerous to dismiss them. There are plenty of things Wizards tried and failed to do before that they have since figured out.
Cool Card Design of the Day
I can see this ability in pretty much any color BUT green. Red and White for the Master Warcraft angle and Blue and Black for the Mind Control/Enslave angle. I’d argue White for its similarity to Pacifism.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, this card as worded is already strictly better than Pacifism, and close to a cantrip Pacifism, which is way too strong. I’d suggest either bumping to 2C or adding a mana cost to the “when enchanted creature dies” clause.
Entirely agreed.
DeleteThis makes me think of the following design, which I think would be beautiful:
ReplyDeleteSuper Guard Duty W
Enchantment - Aura (C)
Enchanted creature has Defender.
When enchanted creature dies, draw a card.
----
Yes, it's strictly better than Guard Duty, but Guard Duty is at the low end of the power scale, and I think this would be at the higher end, though it could certainly cost 1W or 2W if you wanted to make it worse. Also note this is a much different card than Guard Duty, because Guard Duty wants to go in a fliers deck, and this wants to go in a control deck.
I was trying to figure out when the guard would die, but I see, it dies on the Day of Judgment.
DeleteIt gives the opponent a choice: They can use it to block and trade with one of your creatures or they can just treat it as a Pacifism. Of course, it is way worse than Pacifism, because they get the choice. Also, if it is a 5/5 or something like that, it might even be able to block without trading.
DeleteSo the card is in power level (mana cost aside) strictly between Guard Duty and Pacifism, but there is a lot of space for good commons between those.
I'd cost it at WB
ReplyDeleteBlinding Rage R
ReplyDeleteEnchantment - Aura
Enchant Creature
R: Enchanted creature attacks this turn if able.
R: Enchanted creature can't block target creature this turn.
(Alternatively, if auras could tap...)
Isn't this better than pacifism? Could you fix some of the rules problems by making it "can't attack, blocks a creature of your choice if able" or similar.
ReplyDeleteIt is too strong.
DeleteWhat rules problems?
(You mean the original version is too strong, or my rewording was stronger in some way I didn't realise?)
DeleteI feel like we've had this conversation before, but I can't remember if there was a convincing answer.
AIUI Wizard's usual requirement has been that the attacking decisions for all creatures, and the blocking decisions for all creatures, each need to be made by one player (or at least one team), to avoid problems like "there's a static ability that says only one creature can attack, if different players disagree about which creature it is, the rules don't define what happens".
Hence Master Warcraft letting you choose for ALL creatures, but them usually avoiding ever printing "you choose" for an individual creature.
Of course, they probably *could* fix the comp rules to allow this to work, but they seem to have been resisting that. Or has this changed in some way I wasn't following?
The original.
DeleteOhhh yeah. I seem to remember that now. Yeah, the problem is who chooses first? Because each choice affects the next. You'd have to codify who chooses first.
"You decide if and how enchanted creature attacks and blocks before its controller declares attacks and blocks."
Ah, ok.
DeleteBut I'm not convinced that works as a workaround.
Firstly, wizards have avoided printing this ever, which makes me think there's a policy not to, even if it would work under the rules.
Secondly, even choosing first doesn't necessarily resolve all problems. Suppose there's two creatures A and B. There's a "exactly one creature must attack" effect and a "creature B must attack" effect. If their controller chooses for both of them, they must choose B alone to attack. But if you choose for A -- do you have to choose to not attack with A so there's a valid combination left for them to choose? Or do you only have to avoid breaking restrictions yourself, and then they have to choose the best of the combinations taking your decision as fixed? If you can and do attack with A, must they then not attack with B?
It's fair to be wary of things Wizards seems to have avoided, but dangerous to dismiss them. There are plenty of things Wizards tried and failed to do before that they have since figured out.
DeleteSurely you have to follow their restrictions.