Wrath mind game

[phatperm]

[cardname]
WW
Instant
Play [cardname] only before attackers are declared.
Hide any number of items.
After attackers are declared, if the number of items hidden is equal to the number of attacking creatures, destroy all creatures the attacking player controls.

***

To start out, I'm not really one for flavor so I don't have a name or any flavor text yet (I'm not even sure if flavor text will fit). I love cards that create mind games with your opponent and I was toying around with white's nature of tactical superiority in battle and ended up with this. The idea is that you predict your opponent's attack and counter it with an ambush they don't see coming. As far as the templating, I used Goblin Game's wording, which is slightly strange and not very flavorful, but I wasn't sure if using "write down a number" would be possible, even though that's generally what Goblin Game involves. I also have a minor problem with the flavor of the card, since it destroys all creatures instead of just the attacking ones. If it only destroyed attackers, however, it would turn into an overpriced Fog unless your opponent was willing to gamble.

***

Current Wording:

Martial Augury
WW
Instant
Play Martial Augury only before attackers are declared.
Secretly choose a number.
After attackers are declared, reaveal the number. If the number is equal to the number of attacking creatures, destroy all attacking creatures and all untapped creatures the attacking player has controlled continuously since the beginning of the turn.

[Limbo]

The "hide items" trick is more of a red thing. So maybe you can switch this the other way around into a card that destroys blocking critters and make it red?

[Matt]

I'm not convinced that this mechanic should have been on even ONE card, why are people making several more?

[Jacob Orlove]

He's not tied to the specific mechanic, just to the idea of a guessing game that doesn't involve cards in hand.

[neppy]

You could secretly choose a number like menacing ogre.

[phatperm]

You could secretly choose a number like menacing ogre.

OMG! Thank you! Wording updated.

[Jacob Orlove]

I love this card, by the way. You get to play incredible mind games. For example, you're at 4, facing two 2/2s, with no blockers. You play this. What number do you choose? Two is "obvious" because if he attacks with both guys, it's the only number that keeps you alive. Your opponent knows this, though, and thus will most likely attack with one creature. However, you, knowing that, can name "One" and kill both his guys. But since he knows that, he may just attack with both guys, even though that loses to your obvious play of "Two", because it wins the game outright if you tried to be clever.

In game theory terms, neither of you has a dominant strategy, so you have to weigh the relative rewards for both players and vary your choices in a semi-random manner.

It gets even more complicated when you introduce other issues. For example, if you're in a creature stall, you can play this, and if he attacks, he will lose a guy, but if you name "Zero" and he doesn't attack at all, he loses his whole team.

[SpencerForHire]

You should make it so they have to attack with at least one creature.

[neppy]

"As you play [cardname], secretly choose a number."

Is there a reason you want the number to be chosen when you play the card rather than on resolution? 

[phatperm]

You should make it so they have to attack with at least one creature.

I disagree because if your opponent only has one creature out this becomes a Terminate for WW, which I think is too good. I want this card to always give your opponent options.

"As you play [cardname], secretly choose a number."

Is there a reason you want the number to be chosen when you play the card rather than on resolution? 

Not particularly, I just wasn't sure about the wording. Any better suggestions?

And what does everyone think about the CC? Is WW fair?

[Ephraim]

I don't find this card very exciting, but I will comment on it anyway, since I don't have any substantial objections to it. For {W}, this should only destroy the creatures that attack. After all, a fair tactic should be for your opponent to hold back entirely, thereby passing his attack. If you predict that and guess "zero," I don't think you should also get to destroy all of your opponent's creatures. If you want to keep the wording as is, I would cost this the same as Wrath.

[neppy]

"As you play [cardname], secretly choose a number."

Is there a reason you want the number to be chosen when you play the card rather than on resolution? 

Just change that line to "Secretly choose a number" to make it choose on resolution.

[Jacob Orlove]

I don't find this card very exciting, but I will comment on it anyway, since I don't have any substantial objections to it. For {W}, this should only destroy the creatures that attack. After all, a fair tactic should be for your opponent to hold back entirely, thereby passing his attack. If you predict that and guess "zero," I don't think you should also get to destroy all of your opponent's creatures. If you want to keep the wording as is, I would cost this the same as Wrath.

But with this card, if you guess wrong it does nothing, unlike wrath. Since your opponent sees the same board position you do, they should be able to beat your guess at least half the time, if not more, unless you're particularly adept at reading them.

[Norm4eva]

If I play Llanowar Elves first turn, then next turn drop another Elves and a Priest of Titania, when I enter my attack phase you can play this card for zero and I lose everything.  That sucks.  Even if I did all this post-combat, you playing it in my combat phase forces me to decide whether or not I should just attack you.  Moreover, late in the game if I draw a fatty and throw it down in relief, you can punish me for forgetting to wait until the second main phase.  That, I think, really really sucks, because it's based on a rules technicality.  It makes people deliberately enter the combat phase under weird circumstances, and even though the game does this anyway it shoots fast play in the foot.  It's like having some uppity chess fucker get mad at you because you considered moving your rook and touched it without saying j'adoube.  You should probably change it to attacking creatures, White generally likes to affect attacking creatures before all others.

[Godder]

Perhaps if it were destroy all attacking creatures?

[Ephraim]

Norm4eva raises the excellent point that you can't skip your combat phase, even if a lot of people neglect to mention it if they don't intend to attack. I had forgotten that too, but it also plays into the argument I was making earlier. Situations where you know how many creatures your opponent will attack with will result in a one-sided Wrath. It is for that reason that I think this needs to cost as much as Wrath, if it destroys all of that player's creatures. Even though half the time it does nothing, the other half of the time, it is an instant-speed, one-sided Wrath. Getting twice the effect half the time should cost the same. I really don't want this to cost that much, though. I think it's interesting at {W}, but it would be most fair at that cost if it destroys only attacking creatures (which, now that I think about it, is more in order for a white combat trick than an all-out Wrath effect.)

[Jacob Orlove]

How about 1WW then? Wrath itself is fundamentally one-sided in practice anyway.

[Norm4eva]

I think you can leave the cost alone if it only hits attacking creatures.  Considering they still have to guess the correct number, 1WW is a lot to pay for nothing to happen - case in point, Celestial Dawn. :P
EDIT: You know on second thought, for the simple fact that this card will almost always make the game back up during combat, I'm not certain I like it very much.  There'll be a lot of times when Player A goes "Swing with the team" and Player B goes "Woah woah woah, [cardname]."  And then it DOES turn into a shitty Fog, because if it does turn into 'attacking creatures' then Player A can totally counter the effect by staying home.

[phatperm]

If I play Llanowar Elves first turn, then next turn drop another Elves and a Priest of Titania, when I enter my attack phase you can play this card for zero and I lose everything.  That sucks.  Even if I did all this post-combat, you playing it in my combat phase forces me to decide whether or not I should just attack you.  Moreover, late in the game if I draw a fatty and throw it down in relief, you can punish me for forgetting to wait until the second main phase.  That, I think, really really sucks, because it's based on a rules technicality.  It makes people deliberately enter the combat phase under weird circumstances, and even though the game does this anyway it shoots fast play in the foot.  It's like having some uppity chess fucker get mad at you because you considered moving your rook and touched it without saying j'adoube.  You should probably change it to attacking creatures, White generally likes to affect attacking creatures before all others.

I hear what you are saying. What if we changed this to "destroy all creatures that were able to attack" (or whatever the proper wording would be)? I think that addresses a lot of the problems with this card.

[Revvik]

"Destroy all untapped creatures without summoning sickness?"

[phatperm]

"Destroy all untapped creatures without summoning sickness?"

Then you end up killing creatures w/ Pacifism on them, but it's probably the best wording possible...

[Jacob Orlove]

Then you end up not killing the attackers. I'd say just destroy all creatures without summoning sickness. Alternatively, you could have this give haste to your opponent's team.

[phatperm]

Then you end up not killing the attackers. I'd say just destroy all creatures without summoning sickness. Alternatively, you could have this give haste to your opponent's team.

"Destroy all creatures without summoning sickness" ends up killing the BOP you tapped to play something pre-combat. "Destroy all attacking creatures and all untapped creatures without summoning sickness" is a little wordy, but it's what I want the card to do.

[neppy]

I don't think summoning sickness is a game term anymore, so you cant use it as part of rules text.

[Ephraim]

That is correct. Note the Oracle wording of Siren's Call:

Play only during an opponent’s turn and only before attackers are declared.
Creatures the active player controls attack this turn if able.
At end of turn, destroy all non-Wall creatures that player controls that didn’t attack this turn. Ignore this effect for each creature the player didn’t control continuously since the beginning of the turn.

[phatperm]

Wording updated. Is it too wordy now?

[asmoranomardicodais]

summoning sickness isn't a game term any more???!! WTF?

[Fall-Titan]

Its not a technical game term.... Just like fizzle. We players still tend to use it and other players know what we are talking about but the term is no longer in the rule book thats all.

[asmoranomardicodais]

The world has officially come to an end...

[phatperm]

What about the name "Martial Augury"? And Matt, is the wording too long to not use microtext?