Cropwarden's Peace

[Ephraim]

Cropwarden's Peace

Instant

Target creature can't attack you this turn.

***

I only remembered after I came up with this card that [card]Change of Heart[/card] existed. Nonetheless, there is one major and one minor mechanical difference between them. First, this doesn't have buyback, which is big. Second, this only prevents a creature from attacking you. That means it's more interesting in a multiplayer game. The name is a bit unusual, so I'll explain it. A while ago, I was trying to think of a blue demigod to serve as the source of several blue spells. I came up with the Rainmaker. Tonight, trying to come up with a name for this card, it occured to me that it could be the peace originating from a similar, white demigod. (I also considered briefly that the Hogkeeper named on several of our older green cards could be the equivalent green demigod.)

***

Current Wording:

Cropwarden's Peace

Instant

Choose a player. If target creature attacks this turn, it must attack that player. (If that creature can't attack that player, it can't attack this turn. A creature can't attack its controller.)
Cascade

[asmoranomardicodais]

It is really weak. I couldn't see a constructed deck using it, period. I think it should be a cantrip, because that's the only way you'd ever see it in a multiplayer game anyway.

[wardo]

Strictly worst than Moment of Silence.

[Ephraim]

Strictly worst than Moment of Silence.

Not true. In a duel, yes. In a multiplayer game, this might help you to steer a fatty in another opponent's direction. Not necessarily an important use, but one that I considered to be most interesting when I designed this.

[wardo]

The way declaring attackers work, this wouldn't even work. You would have to play this before the attack is declared (so you don't know what would have attacked you in the first place), and once the attackers are declared, I'm pretty sure things can't be changed.

[Ephraim]

You're quite right about that, but if your opponent has a creature that you'd rather he send at an opponent than at you (even if you aren't sure where it was headed in the first place) you can target it at the beginning of his combat phase and force him to attack an opponent with it or nobody at all.

[Godder]

This card could be a cantrip and it still wouldn't make it above mediocre... Nice work .

[neppy]

This card needs to cantrip or offer some sort of recursion to be playable in any format.  The multiplayer use of playing it to divert creatures can be accomplished by just showing them a fog style card in your hand, and you aren't down the card in that case.  Its not strictly better but its many times more efficient.  Ethereal haze is even arcane at the same CC.

Something like sac a land to return from graveyard to hand, if you have more cards during upkeep pay 2 to return to hand etc. 

[Ephraim]

Well, the very subtle suggestions I have received from other designers suggest that this card is a trifle underpowered. I didn't want to make it cantrip, since I find that pretty cliche. I was told that turning it into a 3-mode charm was also kind of cliche. I've decided, therefore, to give it Cascade. I believe that "Cascade " is probably most appropriate.

[Nova442]

Tell me again why paying 3 mana to stop 3 of your opponent's creatures from attacking you is better than paying one to stop all of them?

[neppy]

Cascading this still doesn't do anything more than showing someone ethereal haze in your hand, and that costs 0.

[Ephraim]

Cascading this still doesn't do anything more than showing someone ethereal haze in your hand, and that costs 0.

That isn't true. Sometimes doing that will cause them to attack you just to bait the Ethereal Haze.

[Matt]

I kinda like this.

[Anusien]

What if instead of saying it can't attack you, have it either not attack or attack the player of your choice.  It changes the multiplayer dynamics slightly, but also makes it more powerful a card.

[Ephraim]

What if instead of saying it can't attack you, have it either not attack or attack the player of your choice.  It changes the multiplayer dynamics slightly, but also makes it more powerful a card.

That becomes suspiciously like [card]Threaten[/card] then. The time that you play it is different, but the effect is largely the same. I'm not saying they're identical, since you can use a Threaten'ed creature to block and when you use Threaten on the offense, you do so on your own turn. I'm just saying that doing it that way makes the mechanic seem way more red than white.

[Matt]

How about "target creature can only attack target player this turn"? That way you still can't FORCE it to attack (like Threaten) but you can encourage it.

[Ephraim]

I'm not sure I like that. It leads to the situation where if you want to prevent the creature from attacking in a duel, you have to name your opponent as target player and that seems grotesque to me, since it's an illegal play to attack oneself.

[Matt]

But think of how fun it would actually play out!

"Okay, I pay {W}{W} and cascade [card]. Matt, you attack Jacob with your Juggernaut, and you have to hit Marco with your Erg Raiders or take 2. And if you want to use that Erhnam this turn, you'll have to do it to Bram."
"Gosh, sorry Bram, but Ephraim has spoken. Smash for four!"

Combine it with Total War in multiplayer for some fun.

It's not like anyone would ever use this in duels anyway; it's already like a fourteenth pick in draft and no constructed deck would touch it.

[Ephraim]

But think of how fun it would actually play out!

"Okay, I pay {W}{W} and cascade [card]. Matt, you attack Jacob with your Juggernaut, and you have to hit Marco with your Erg Raiders or take 2. And if you want to use that Erhnam this turn, you'll have to do it to Bram."
"Gosh, sorry Bram, but Ephraim has spoken. Smash for four!"

Combine it with Total War in multiplayer for some fun.

It's not like anyone would ever use this in duels anyway; it's already like a fourteenth pick in draft and no constructed deck would touch it.

I concede. You appealed to the side of me that wanted to create this card in the first place.

Re-reading the wording for the cascade ability, am I going to need to have this target both the player and the creature? As it is, I think the choice of player will be copied with the spell.

[Matt]

Part of the rules text for cascade includes "You may choose new targets for the copy."

[Ephraim]

Right. I was asking about the bit that says "choose a player," but then I realized that part won't be decided until the spell resolves.

[Nova442]

I like this idea much better but does this allow a player to attack themself?

[Jacob Orlove]

does this allow a player to attack themself?

No.

[JAG]

does this allow a player to attack themself?

No.

I do sympathize with Nova442's question tho.  Unfortunately, there's no real precedent for this kind of ability, so I'm not entirely sure if we can word it any cleaner.  "Choose a player.  Target creature attacks that player this turn if able."  is clean but not what we intend (opponent should be able to choose not to attack, right?).  It would probably make it worse to add something like "it gains "0: this creature cannot attack this turn."  Maybe we should just add "if able" to the end of it?  After all, remember: "When a card and a rule contradict, the card wins."  Thus, I think this would actually allow you to force someone to attack themselves if they want to attack.  "if able" solves that problem.

"Choose a player.  If target creature attacks this turn, it attacks that player if able."

-JM

[Ephraim]

I could simply use a bit of reminder text: (If that creature can't attack that player, then it can't attack this turn.)

[Godder]

Reminder text to the effect of "Creatures can't attack their controller" might be in order as well.

[Ephraim]

Reminder text added. 24 Hour Clock.

[Anusien]

I like this version - Cascade makes this potentially very swingy in a multiplayer game.

[Bram]

Closed and added.