Standoff

[Ephraim]

Standoff
{W}
Instant

Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt this turn. If you control more creatures than the number of attacking creatures, put Standoff into your hand instead of your graveyard as part of its resolution.

***

I am well-aware that this card needs revision. The general idea is that I'd like a reusable Holy Day. As with the other white cards I've been creating lately, I'd like it to key to tactics or strategy somehow. My initial plan was for that key to be numeric superiority, but it just doesn't make sense that a couple of token soldiers could hold off a Mahomoti Djinn indefinitely. The other idea I had for this was "If you control more creatures than the number of attacking creatures, you may put Standoff into your hand instead of your graveyard as part of its resolution, then sacrifice a creature." The flavour would need to change, in that case, but it would tend to balance the unchecked recursion aspect of this card. Of course, it occurs to me that this turns out to be conditional buyback -- could it be worded using the buyback template?

[Ephraim]

Current Wording:

Standoff
{1} {W}
Instant

Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt this turn. If a defending player controls more untapped creatures than the number of attacking creatures, put Standoff into your hand instead of your graveyard as part of its resolution.

One foot soldier alone is vulnerable. Many foot soldiers, properly equipped, can repel any assault.
--Onean War Manual

[Fall-Titan]

I think you should change the buyback effect to "If you control more untapped creatures then there are attacking creatures." This keeps decks like white weenie who play alot of creatures but use them to attack from abusing this card and using it as a Platinum angel for 2 mana. Also makes the buyback more conditional so you dont have to put the sacrifice a creature clause in there.

[Nibble]

Of course, it occurs to me that this turns out to be conditional buyback -- could it be worded using the buyback template?

Possibly, but I'm not certain exactly how. The best I can think of would be:

If you control more creatures than the number of attacking creatures, this has Buyback (2 or W or whatever).

Also, this definitely should have a timing clause. If you cast it anytime outside of combat, or before attackers are declared, a lone creature on your side can stave off armies. Possibly even 'During the declare blockers phase of an opponent's turn' - because I see the flavor of this card as helping your army to fend off a large attack, not to send off your army, get a combat trick played on you, and then somehow turn your own attack into a standoff.

Another idea is to change the effect to "Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt to creatures this turn." This prevents the scenario you mention, of Soldier tokens holding back Djinns, and I think makes more sense flavor-wise with the card as it is now (a standoff, to me, is done by incredibly skilled blocking that prevents losses - but if you can't actually block an attacker in the first place, it doesn't do much good). Obviously, though, this weakens the card considerably, so it would need a bit of rebalancing.

[Malhavoc]

I would suggest:

Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt this turn. If you control more blocking creatures than the number of attacking creatures, you can sacrifice a blocking creature to put Standoff into your hand instead of your graveyard as part of its resolution.


This forces you to really keep untapped creatures, and really block (not just attacking and then using this card thanks to your great number of tapped creatures). Sacrificing a creature is needed IMO to balance it.

[MrZuccinniHead]

I think you should take some of the other suggestions because as it is now, this is too strong.

[TheWellknownBrownie]

I'd be worried about synergy with token-generators. At any rate, nibbles is correct that it needs a timing clause to only be cast during combat and after the declare attackers step.

The last line the current wording is also unnecessary. It would already be part of the spell's resolution without it saying so.

[Matt]

I think forcing the creatures to be untapped is the best way to truly convey a standoff. What's more, it leaves the door open to combos with another of white's characteristic abilities, Vigilance.

[Ephraim]

I like the idea that the creatures have to be untapped. I also liked the idea of this being playable only during an opponent's declare blocker's step. It still has synergy with vigilance, since vigilant creatures will be untapped at that time, but it won't allow the situation that Nibbles described in which Standoff is used to save you from a combat trick played during your attack. (Not that it would be awful if this card could do that, but if people think it shouldn't, then I can change it.)

For now, I will definitely insert the word "untapped" into this card and we'll see what else develops.

[Ephraim]

I think the way to prevent wankery with this on your own attack is to reword it slightly. Instead of saying "If you control more untapped creatures..." It should say, "If a defending player controls more untapped creatures..." You can still force a Standoff during your own attack, but the conditions for doing so are more themely to the way the card portrays itself.

[Malhavoc]

I would still prefer "If a defending player controls more defending creatures..". It is more flavorful IMHO, since this means thatthose creatures are really involved in the combat, and not just untapped creatures. Flavor-wise, I still don't get why this should work when you are the one attacking: why the opponent having more creatures than you should let you re-use this spell?

[Ephraim]

That's true, Malhavoc, but I think that it also significantly decreases the power of this card. It also fails to address flavour in some other ways. If you attack me with four fliers and a non-flier and I block the non-flier with six creatures, that doesn't exactly justify the effect of this spell either. Part of the flavour I am looking for in this spell is a sense of preparedness -- that even when it seems that white doesn't have the resources (fliers, for instance) to stave off an attack, that they manage to do so by clever use of numerical superiourity. This is a theme I can explore in the flavour text, if you find this explanation satisfactory.

[Ephraim]

Proposed flavour text:
One foot soldier alone is vulnerable. Many foot soldiers, properly equipped, can repel any assault.
--Onean War Manual

[Ephraim]

24 Hour Clock

[Matt]

Closed and added.[/color]