Enforcer X(Whenever this creature blocks or becomes blocked, you may redistribute up to X damage assigned to this creature to another attacking or blocking creature. Only half this amount of damage may be assigned to your opponent's creatures this way, rounded up. This creature cannot attack in a band.)
Type 1
Enforcer X(Whenever this creature blocks or becomes blocked, you may re-distribute up to X damage that would be assigned to this creature to another legal target.)
Type 2 Limited
Enforcer(Whenever this creature blocks or becomes blocked, you may re-distribute up to 1 damage that would be assigned to this creature to another legal target.)
Okay, here's a rough concept I had. This was based on a way to counter-balance banding, in a theoretical concept that banding could be brought back, and implemented more artistically. Considering this, I realize this could be used with banding to invalidate the entire intention, so I have considered this may need a "This creature cannot attack in a band." clause.
As a draft concept it's still open to interpretation. I am against allowing this to affect uninvolved creatures. However, I am open to the thought of allowing this to redirect damage to the opponent's creatures via "including an opponent's creature" clause after 'another legal target'.
Realistically, this feels less like an ability that a set would want on written out on 1-2 creatures (uncommon or higher and definitely in White) than a keyword you'd want to show up on 8-12 creatures across all rarities. That's not saying that core idea of the ability is bad, just that the on-board complexity it creates doesn't benefit gameplay the more prevalent it is.
From a templating standpoint, there are already similar damage redirection effects in Magic so this can be worded more cleanly using the en-Kor creatures from Tempest block as a guide. Note, for instance, that saying "legal target" is redundant because no spell can target an illegal target.
However, "any target" has rules weight meaning "creature, player or planeswalker" and from your comment it seems your intention is that this should only be redirecting to your own creatures instead, so I am wording based on that understanding. If you do intend this to be able to hit opponent's creatures, we can remove "you control."
Enforcer X(Whenever this creature blocks or becomes blocked, the next X combat damage that would be dealt to it this turn is dealt to target creature you control instead.)
I added the specification of combat damage because it seems like your intention is for this to be a combat keyword, not something that can redirect, say, a Lightning Bolt after the creature has blocked but before combat damage resolves.
Finally, Banding has not been relevant in any way except people making meme decks since Ice Age, so unless you plan specifically on using banding in your environment, you can completely ignore the interaction. Also, for the love of God, don't plan specifically on using banding in your environment.
As to the gameplay of Enforcer, this is an ability that, especially if you do want it to hit opponent's creatures, will make large board states very difficult to play. The reason for this is the combat math becomes drastically different to figure out attacking or blocking if my opponent has even one or two "Enforcer 1" creatures in play, because now I must not only be able to evaluate how many creatures could be lost on each side as an effect of blocks, but also then where I could potentially lose a creature from the redirection, even one not in combat if the damage redirection is high enough.
A couple of things to improve gameplay would be:
(A) Make this only apply to attacking creatures. Since defenders have so much advantage, forcing this to be used aggressively keeps the game moving forward.
(B) Only redirect to creatures you control. Being able to prevent damage every turn is already strong, without turning it into the ability to snipe off opposing small creatures.
(C) Keep the number of the damage redirection generally small. Enforcer 1 on a couple of creatures is already strong, but Enforcer 3 or even 2 is bordering on being as powerful as protection from creatures.
So I'd go this way to keep play moving rather than it being used defensively and keep X at 1 on anything that isn't Rare:
Enforcer X(Whenever this creature becomes blocked, the next X combat damage that would be dealt to it this turn is dealt to target creature you control instead.)
I like the concept you have here. My only real complaint is the awful execution of a trigger with a redirection shield. This can easily be a static ability that interacts with combat damage. Also as rowanalpha says it should only benefit attackers. Enforcer X (When combat damage is assigned, if this is an attacking creature, you may redirect X damage from this creature to another creature you control.)
I like the concept you have here. My only real complaint is the awful execution of a trigger with a redirection shield. This can easily be a static ability that interacts with combat damage. Also as rowanalpha says it should only benefit attackers. Enforcer X (When combat damage is assigned, if this is an attacking creature, you may redirect X damage from this creature to another creature you control.)
There may be a cleaner way to word this, but the problem is "redirect" is not defined in the rules (it used to be, but they took it out in the 6th edition rules update) and the effects that do redirect damage are worded as above currently and all are activated abilities (look at the Oracle wording on Martyrdom for an extreme example). I'm betting there's a reason the ability needs to be able to target, and static abilities cannot be targeted.
If you remove blocking from the functionality, you are invalidating the original intention to interact with banding.
Only redirecting to creatures was the entire reason it was worded to describe "legal targets"; the context of which creates an element of isolation, denoting that only creatures involved in the attacker/defenders coupe, and not other creatures or planeswalkers uninvolved.
The argument that this increases the interactivity of combat is not an argument at all. Interactivity is fun—and that's what were responsible for creating here.
I see the dilemma in allowing this to redirect damage to your opponent's creatures, in that you will always direct the damage back at them, and never at yourself. However, in the case of banding, this has the exact ideal function. Because your opponent gains full control of damage assignment, and then you gain the control to bend the enforcer amount back at them.
If it's still too powerful by itself (against non-banding) is up for question. Off the rip it certainly doesn't seem so. It's like a more dynamic, interactive short-form bushido, that gains the ability to negate first strikers and double strikers. There is always the capability of halving the amount of damage you can redirect back at your opponent, retaining Enforcer as a point-based ability.
Enforcer X(Whenever this creature blocks or becomes blocked, you may redistribute up to X damage assigned to this creature to another attacking or blocking creature. Only half this amount of damage may be assigned to your opponent's creatures this way, rounded up. This creature cannot attack in a band.)
Okay, a couple of things to parse here. As usual, you not playing the game is causing you to make incorrect evaluations about how the game is played.
You're mistaking interactivity with complexity. Interactivity is good, but your ability makes the level of complexity of interactions to high to reasonable evaluate in an already complex situation.
The two reasons to attack are to deal damage to the opponent or force them to lose creatures in combat and reduce their position on board. Normally evaluating the risk of attacking is simple, with some risk that they have a combat trick in hand. The ability to redirect damage, though, means that the possible blocking combinations become multiplicatively more complex to evaluate, which leads to attacking being riskier, which leads to games stalling.
Your updated version - while I will grant is worded accurately for the game of Magic and I appreciate that - is both complex as an ability and in the game state it creates. You went from a reasonable ability that was poorly written out to a we written ability that is needlessly complex.
Finally, banding is bad. Making an ability to "counter" banding doesn't make banding more relevant because banding wasn't overpowered, it just was bad for gameplay. It stopped being used because (a) the rules were overly complicated and people couldn't remember how they worked, (b) they worked differently on attacking and blocking, and (c) banding was too strong defensively and led to games stalling. See the theme here? I haven't played against banding in more than 20 years, except maybe in an un-set, and I've been happier for it. The reminder text for banding takes up almost a whole card by itself.
I like the concept you have here. My only real complaint is the awful execution of a trigger with a redirection shield. This can easily be a static ability that interacts with combat damage. Also as rowanalpha says it should only benefit attackers. Enforcer X (When combat damage is assigned, if this is an attacking creature, you may redirect X damage from this creature to another creature you control.)
There may be a cleaner way to word this, but the problem is "redirect" is not defined in the rules (it used to be, but they took it out in the 6th edition rules update) and the effects that do redirect damage are worded as above currently and all are activated abilities (look at the Oracle wording on Martyrdom for an extreme example). I'm betting there's a reason the ability needs to be able to target, and static abilities cannot be targeted.
Redirect doesn't need to be defined in the rules(though it could be) it's part of reminder text; it doesn't carry rules weight it's only meant as an easily grokable way to convey the effect. It doesn't have to spell out how the rules function. As for needing a target, targeting is never needed. Targeting exists solely as a means of preemptively declaring intent to give the opponent an opportunity to act with that knowledge. It functions the same way trample does, when damage is being declared it changes how that damage is declared.
Redirect doesn't need to be defined in the rules(though it could be) it's part of reminder text; it doesn't carry rules weight it's only meant as an easily grokable way to convey the effect. It doesn't have to spell out how the rules function. As for needing a target, targeting is never needed. Targeting exists solely as a means of preemptively declaring intent to give the opponent an opportunity to act with that knowledge. It functions the same way trample does, when damage is being declared it changes how that damage is declared.
Okay, if its in the reminder text, you're right it can use shorthand, but that just means you'd need a separate rules entry for the ability. While the Magic comp rules do work that way, I generally assume custom cards include all the relevant rules on the card unless the post specifically lists a point-for-point comp rules style update.
As to the former part, if Reap wants to have this go to opposing creatures (yes, a bad idea, I know, but he seems set on it) it does need to target.
I have decided the last presented version will be the final version.
The only edit I see to make to this is that it needs to round up the damage instead of round down. I really wanted to keep the proportions as constrained as possible, and rounding up gives it more power rather than less as the scale increases. But otherwise, this ability does nothing at the Enforcer 1 level—and that absolutely can't be a thing.
Compromise is generally the only thing that's absolute.
I was totally for allowing this ability to fully redirect damage at the opponent's creatures in limited combat scenarios (removing the 'half-this-much-damage' clause). However, the art of subtleness has great fruits to bare, and this is a prime opportunity to reap that benefit, and cut-free from desperation.
Okay Reap, now that you've decided on a design for this ability, you should actually playtest it (with other people) to see how it plays. Mock up a couple of cards and stick them in sleeves in a 40 card deck of commons and lands and see how this mechanic affects play.
Make a
4 2/2s with enforcer 1 for 1W
2 2/4s with enforcer 1 for 3W
2 3/3s with enforcer 1 for 2WW
In a 40 card deck, you'll see those 8 cards plenty to get a feel for how it plays.
Now that you've theory-crafted the crap out of this, the only way to determine if it is actually any good is to play with it. Make sure too that you play the cards and then you play against the cards, because there are quite a few cards that are fun for the player and make the game sucky and boring for the opponent (cough...Stasis...cough)
Knight of CrucibleW Creature — Human Knight
Haste
Enforcer 0 (Whenever this creature blocks or becomes blocked, you may redistribute up to 0 damage assigned to this creature to another attacking or blocking creature. Only half this amount of damage may be assigned to your opponent's creatures this way, rounded up. This creature cannot attack in a band.)
Whenever Knight of Crucible attacks, it gains a point of enforcer. Then put a +1/+1 counter on it at the end of turn.
0/2
Enforcer X (Whenever this creature blocks or becomes blocked, you may redistribute up to X damage assigned to this creature to another attacking or blocking creature. Only half this amount of damage may be assigned to your opponent's creatures this way, rounded up. This creature cannot attack in a band.)
Type 1
Enforcer X (Whenever this creature blocks or becomes blocked, you may re-distribute up to X damage that would be assigned to this creature to another legal target.)
Type 2 Limited
Enforcer (Whenever this creature blocks or becomes blocked, you may re-distribute up to 1 damage that would be assigned to this creature to another legal target.)
Okay, here's a rough concept I had. This was based on a way to counter-balance banding, in a theoretical concept that banding could be brought back, and implemented more artistically. Considering this, I realize this could be used with banding to invalidate the entire intention, so I have considered this may need a "This creature cannot attack in a band." clause.
As a draft concept it's still open to interpretation. I am against allowing this to affect uninvolved creatures. However, I am open to the thought of allowing this to redirect damage to the opponent's creatures via "including an opponent's creature" clause after 'another legal target'.
From a templating standpoint, there are already similar damage redirection effects in Magic so this can be worded more cleanly using the en-Kor creatures from Tempest block as a guide. Note, for instance, that saying "legal target" is redundant because no spell can target an illegal target.
However, "any target" has rules weight meaning "creature, player or planeswalker" and from your comment it seems your intention is that this should only be redirecting to your own creatures instead, so I am wording based on that understanding. If you do intend this to be able to hit opponent's creatures, we can remove "you control."
Enforcer X (Whenever this creature blocks or becomes blocked, the next X combat damage that would be dealt to it this turn is dealt to target creature you control instead.)
I added the specification of combat damage because it seems like your intention is for this to be a combat keyword, not something that can redirect, say, a Lightning Bolt after the creature has blocked but before combat damage resolves.
Finally, Banding has not been relevant in any way except people making meme decks since Ice Age, so unless you plan specifically on using banding in your environment, you can completely ignore the interaction. Also, for the love of God, don't plan specifically on using banding in your environment.
As to the gameplay of Enforcer, this is an ability that, especially if you do want it to hit opponent's creatures, will make large board states very difficult to play. The reason for this is the combat math becomes drastically different to figure out attacking or blocking if my opponent has even one or two "Enforcer 1" creatures in play, because now I must not only be able to evaluate how many creatures could be lost on each side as an effect of blocks, but also then where I could potentially lose a creature from the redirection, even one not in combat if the damage redirection is high enough.
A couple of things to improve gameplay would be:
(A) Make this only apply to attacking creatures. Since defenders have so much advantage, forcing this to be used aggressively keeps the game moving forward.
(B) Only redirect to creatures you control. Being able to prevent damage every turn is already strong, without turning it into the ability to snipe off opposing small creatures.
(C) Keep the number of the damage redirection generally small. Enforcer 1 on a couple of creatures is already strong, but Enforcer 3 or even 2 is bordering on being as powerful as protection from creatures.
So I'd go this way to keep play moving rather than it being used defensively and keep X at 1 on anything that isn't Rare:
Enforcer X (Whenever this creature becomes blocked, the next X combat damage that would be dealt to it this turn is dealt to target creature you control instead.)
There may be a cleaner way to word this, but the problem is "redirect" is not defined in the rules (it used to be, but they took it out in the 6th edition rules update) and the effects that do redirect damage are worded as above currently and all are activated abilities (look at the Oracle wording on Martyrdom for an extreme example). I'm betting there's a reason the ability needs to be able to target, and static abilities cannot be targeted.
Only redirecting to creatures was the entire reason it was worded to describe "legal targets"; the context of which creates an element of isolation, denoting that only creatures involved in the attacker/defenders coupe, and not other creatures or planeswalkers uninvolved.
The argument that this increases the interactivity of combat is not an argument at all. Interactivity is fun—and that's what were responsible for creating here.
I see the dilemma in allowing this to redirect damage to your opponent's creatures, in that you will always direct the damage back at them, and never at yourself. However, in the case of banding, this has the exact ideal function. Because your opponent gains full control of damage assignment, and then you gain the control to bend the enforcer amount back at them.
If it's still too powerful by itself (against non-banding) is up for question. Off the rip it certainly doesn't seem so. It's like a more dynamic, interactive short-form bushido, that gains the ability to negate first strikers and double strikers. There is always the capability of halving the amount of damage you can redirect back at your opponent, retaining Enforcer as a point-based ability.
Enforcer X (Whenever this creature blocks or becomes blocked, you may redistribute up to X damage assigned to this creature to another attacking or blocking creature. Only half this amount of damage may be assigned to your opponent's creatures this way, rounded up. This creature cannot attack in a band.)
You're mistaking interactivity with complexity. Interactivity is good, but your ability makes the level of complexity of interactions to high to reasonable evaluate in an already complex situation.
The two reasons to attack are to deal damage to the opponent or force them to lose creatures in combat and reduce their position on board. Normally evaluating the risk of attacking is simple, with some risk that they have a combat trick in hand. The ability to redirect damage, though, means that the possible blocking combinations become multiplicatively more complex to evaluate, which leads to attacking being riskier, which leads to games stalling.
Your updated version - while I will grant is worded accurately for the game of Magic and I appreciate that - is both complex as an ability and in the game state it creates. You went from a reasonable ability that was poorly written out to a we written ability that is needlessly complex.
Finally, banding is bad. Making an ability to "counter" banding doesn't make banding more relevant because banding wasn't overpowered, it just was bad for gameplay. It stopped being used because (a) the rules were overly complicated and people couldn't remember how they worked, (b) they worked differently on attacking and blocking, and (c) banding was too strong defensively and led to games stalling. See the theme here? I haven't played against banding in more than 20 years, except maybe in an un-set, and I've been happier for it. The reminder text for banding takes up almost a whole card by itself.
Okay, if its in the reminder text, you're right it can use shorthand, but that just means you'd need a separate rules entry for the ability. While the Magic comp rules do work that way, I generally assume custom cards include all the relevant rules on the card unless the post specifically lists a point-for-point comp rules style update.
As to the former part, if Reap wants to have this go to opposing creatures (yes, a bad idea, I know, but he seems set on it) it does need to target.
The only edit I see to make to this is that it needs to round up the damage instead of round down. I really wanted to keep the proportions as constrained as possible, and rounding up gives it more power rather than less as the scale increases. But otherwise, this ability does nothing at the Enforcer 1 level—and that absolutely can't be a thing.
Compromise is generally the only thing that's absolute.
I was totally for allowing this ability to fully redirect damage at the opponent's creatures in limited combat scenarios (removing the 'half-this-much-damage' clause). However, the art of subtleness has great fruits to bare, and this is a prime opportunity to reap that benefit, and cut-free from desperation.
Make a
4 2/2s with enforcer 1 for 1W
2 2/4s with enforcer 1 for 3W
2 3/3s with enforcer 1 for 2WW
In a 40 card deck, you'll see those 8 cards plenty to get a feel for how it plays.
Now that you've theory-crafted the crap out of this, the only way to determine if it is actually any good is to play with it. Make sure too that you play the cards and then you play against the cards, because there are quite a few cards that are fun for the player and make the game sucky and boring for the opponent (cough...Stasis...cough)
Creature — Human Knight
Haste
Enforcer 0 (Whenever this creature blocks or becomes blocked, you may redistribute up to 0 damage assigned to this creature to another attacking or blocking creature. Only half this amount of damage may be assigned to your opponent's creatures this way, rounded up. This creature cannot attack in a band.)
Whenever Knight of Crucible attacks, it gains a point of enforcer. Then put a +1/+1 counter on it at the end of turn.
0/2