Right template for custom made mechanic

14 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hi! For the GDS2, I designed a mechanic that was called sidewalk, and that it basically functions this way.

1. When this creature attacks, you may choose not to tap it (like an optional vigilance).
2. If the creature is tapped, it can be blocked by and only by tapped creatures. (if it's untapped, it can be blocked only by untapped creatures, but that's the way all creatures work in the first place)

The problem is that I have troubles finding a way to word this ability so that players parse it correctly at first sight. Here are some attempts at templating it, and the issues with them:

Wording 1. Tapping this creature to attack is optional, while tapped, it can be blocked by and only by tapped creatures.

Issues: Even though that's standard behavior, people tend to miss that while this cards attack untapped it can be blocked by untapped creatures. It's not obvious if this allows a tapped sidewalker to attack, but playtesting shows it's better if it doesn't, like an "optional vigilance".

Wording 2. This creature can attack tapped or untapped and can only be blocked by creatures in the same state.

Issues: state is not a commonly printed term in magic, so people have troubles understanding that it means that it refers to tapped creatures being able to block a tapped sidewalker.

Wording 3. When this creature attacks, choose tapped or untapped. If you choose tapped, this creature can be blocked by and only by tapped creatures until the end of combat.

Issues: This wording and the simplified "can only be blocked by tapped creatures" don't have the wonderful visual aid of "if it's untapped -> untapped blockers" and "if it's tapped -> tapped blockers" so it's more complex to see who can block whom. It has the additional problem that untapping or tapping a sidewalker in the middle of combat doesn't change its choice of blockers, which has worse gameplay and isn't intuitive.

The root of my problem is that I'm not fluent enough at english to be able to write a clear and simple wording with all the desired functionality, yet the mechanic is too damn good to scrap it. If there's no alternative, I would go for #3 or its simplified version, but it loses a lot of what makes it so great. Please help me!

PS: There's also the problem that ~walk is the suffix of landwalk abilities, so I'll definitely have to change the name of the ability, but don't worry about that.
I would probably do it something like this:

Sidewalker [manacost]
Creature - [creaturetype]
Whenever sidewalker attacks, you may untap it.
As long as sidewalker is tapped, tapped creatures can block it as though they were untapped, and untapped creatures cannot block it.
P/T 
You could probably get away with a template such as "You may choose not to tap ~ when it attacks." To be honest, the rules for the Declare Attackers step and Vigilance are kinda vague (wording-wise) as it is, even if it's really obvious how they work.

For the second part of the ability, I'd agree with cyphern.
Rules Nut Advisor
As long as sidewalker is tapped, tapped creatures can block it as though they were untapped, and untapped creatures cannot block it.

That one doesn't work; if tapped creatures block it "as though they were untapped", they can't block it at all, because "untapped creatures cannot block it".

Assuming this is all reminder text for a keyword, I like TranscientMaster's "You may choose not to tap ~...", but I'd say "as it attacks" so the word "when" isn't in there. For the rest of the ability, "If ~ is tapped, only tapped creatures can block it."

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

That one doesn't work; if tapped creatures block it "as though they were untapped", they can't block it at all, because "untapped creatures cannot block it".

Ah yes, you're right.
I think the trade-off would be more elegant if untapped creatures could block it either way.  Nevertheless, here's my take on it:
You may have ~ attack as though it had Vigilance.
As long as ~ is tapped, tapped creatures can block it as though they were untapped and other creatures can't block it.
For the rest of the ability, "If ~ is tapped, only tapped creatures can block it."


This is the same as "If ~ is tapped, it's unblockable."  Compare to Cloud Elemental after it loses flying.  Nothing gives tapped creatures the ability to block, and nothing gives Cloud Elemental the ability to block creatures with flying.
This is the same as "If ~ is tapped, it's unblockable."  Compare to Cloud Elemental after it loses flying.  Nothing gives tapped creatures the ability to block, and nothing gives Cloud Elemental the ability to block creatures with flying.

As rules text, yes, but I'm assuming it's just reminder text; the actual rules would enable it properly.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

If this creature is tapped, tapped creatures can block it and untapped creatures can't block it.




potential alternatives
I would probably do it something like this:

Sidewalker [manacost]
Creature - [creaturetype]
Whenever sidewalker attacks, you may untap it.
As long as sidewalker is tapped, tapped creatures can block it as though they were untapped, and untapped creatures cannot block it.
P/T

Maybe:

Whenever Sidewalker attacks, you may untap it.
As long as Sidewalker is tapped, creatures can block it as long as they're tapped, and untapped creatures can't block it.
P/T

Although there might be some issues with creatures that can block multiple creatures. Do they still get to block other normal creatures while tapped. You might want to consider:

Whenever Sidewalker attacks, you may untap it.
As long as Sidewalker is tapped, tapped creatures can block, and untapped creatures can't block Sidewalker.
P/T


Longer but more rules compatible:

Whenever Sidewalker attacks, you may untap it.
As long as Sidewalker is tapped, defending player may declare as a blocker any tapped creature he or she controls, and untapped creatures can't block Sidewalker.
P/T
DrJones: I think the version you already have is better than any of the three in your post or any others this thread so far:

    Sidewalk (This creature can attack tapped or untapped. While this card is tapped, it can be blocked by and only by tapped creatures.) 
Yeah it starts pretty good, but that ending gets awkward.

Sidewalk (This creature can attack tapped or untapped. As long as it's tapped, only tapped creatures can block it.)


===========

And if you really need a double emphasis:

Sidewalk (This creature can attack tapped or untapped. As long as it's tapped, tapped creatures can block creatures with sidewalk and only tapped creatures can block ~.)
MaRo would say, "Everybody loves options, but too many options just makes for a bad buffet," or something like that. What I would do is eliminate the untapping potentiality altogether and just stick with the initial concept. Let's call it Sidestep, since I don't get the flavor of Sidewalk. 

Sidestep (This creature may only be blocked by tapped creatures.) 

I came up with a functionally-different, but similar keyword that this reminds me of. It's basically the same as vigilance, except a little worse! Profit!

Negligence (This creature may block if it's tapped.) 

99% the same as Vigilance, but no tap abilities. Isn't design space fun? 
Thank you very much for your help, I'll name my children after you. 
I don't like 'Negligence' for the name of that ability; 'Negligence' sounds more like a keyword for something being unable to block, i.e. 'neglecting its duty.' 
MTG Rules Advisor Mirrodin_Loyalty.png

Negligence is not a good keyword because reading opponent cards from a distance is hard and people usually don't read the text of tapped cards, thus it creates bad moments during gameplay. At least Hasako the Humorless granted the ability to all creatures, so players can't get tricked as easily as you know that all of them can block. Even then, I remember reading that R&D is not proud of that card because of that issue.