|
|
Post by cajun on Dec 19, 2018 9:37:47 GMT
No this works. "~ can't be blocked" and its many siblings are abilities. Tho the proper wording gets you to
~ can block creatures as though those creatures didn't have abilities.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on Dec 19, 2018 23:54:32 GMT
With regards to Petroglyphs and this keyword, the watchwords for Equipment and Aurae are "Gains" or "Has".
An ability is any rules text printed on the card or explicitly granted to it that isn't reminder text, whether it's keyworded or not. Hence why "Gains" and "Has" are relevant (as those indicate a creature now has an ability). This is why Jump and the like would switch Petroglyphs off and be ignored by Impassible, but Invisibility wouldn't be bothered by either.
There is no way to make Impassible lolnope all forms of evasion without unintended consequences from being too broad.
|
|
|
|
Post by cajun on Dec 20, 2018 4:44:52 GMT
k gonna simplify what just happened there Phantom Warrior is an ability, but yea if you have an Aura making a thing unblockable it doesn't give an ability and so my first take there doesn't work. time to dig up my pal Mistbreaker."Ignore all effects that would prevent this creature from blocking." |
|
|
|
Post by voltaic-qui on Dec 20, 2018 19:46:53 GMT
My question with this mechanic is why you want a keyword mechanic that's basically reach 2. Reach isn't an exciting ability. I also don't know how many creatures have evasion abilities that reach doesn't cover. Yes, yes, horsemanship, but is your set going to have horsemanship? I hope not. And there's pseudo-evasion like Engulfins Slagwurm too that this isn't actually going to stop. I also also am pretty sure that you get sort of the same effect from Trap Runner. |
|
|
|
Post by voltaic-qui on Dec 21, 2018 2:01:47 GMT
As an aside on Horsemanship, why the "I hope not." in regards to its being added to a set? The thing that makes it such a bad mechanic (along with most pseudo-flying abilities) is the fact that there's too small a pool of cards that have it. It doesn't play well with other sets because it's only represented in one set, and thus only that set has counters for it. The fastest solution to such an issue would actually be for the mechanic to become evergreen, thus ensuring that more decks will contain counters. Every set has counters for creatures with pseudo-flying. Kill spells are counters for creatures with pseudo-flying. The most problematic evasion creature in the past decade of Magic (arguably) is Invisible Stalker, which is problematic because it can't be offed with targeted removal. Without evasion abilities, limited devolves into "who has the bigger creatures" at best and interminable boardstalls at worst. |
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Dec 21, 2018 11:35:46 GMT
I, too, was wondering why to have such a mechanic i the first place. Keywords that only do something when you happen to play against the right opponent are rarely worth it. Reach is somewhat of an exception because flying is a commonplace ability that your opponent will likely have access to. However, reach really isn't an interesting keyword.
Yet, if you are just brainstorming around, why don't you just use the rulestext of the aforementioned Trap Runner. This would do what you want in 98% of the cases.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on Dec 21, 2018 21:41:35 GMT
What I want to do doesn't enter into it. It's not my mechanic. I would really appreciate it if people would stop trying to shackle this to me, because it wasn't my idea and at this point it's becoming...well, to be frank, infuriating that people keep trying to make me take responsibility. I don't own this idea, and I don't claim it. My only stake is in getting the wording to a state that is rules-functional so that the people I'm working with can evaluate it properly. As an addendum to which, suggesting alternatives to me is less than pointless, because that's not my call, and doesn't help to resolve the issue I'm actually trying to settle.  The thing is that (whether or not you intended it) you have essentially become the pitch-man for this idea, and since we can't talk to the actual creator we have to settle for the next best thing, which is the pitch-man. You can't dismiss our legitimate concerns out of hand if you're acting on behalf of the mechanic's creator. |
|
|
|
Post by kefke on Dec 21, 2018 22:10:17 GMT
I'm removing myself from this thread then. And I'm not sure what you were trying to do here, but it's yours now.
|
|
