"Unblockable" sounds better, more like a keyword ability. Why is it "can't be blocked"? @Oracle text Sometimes, you are not being helpful as you should be. Also, longer sentence structure usually leads to confusion and arguments in games.
SnarkyOracle
★★★★☆ (4.1/5.0)(5 votes)
"'Unblockable' sounds better, more like a keyword ability. Why is it 'can't be blocked'?" -Infernaldarkness
Because unblockable isn't a keyword.
Look up the Magic 2014 Core Set Rules Preview. It explains the reason for this change:
"Here's the thing: there are actually many variations on unblockable. There are cards like Barrenton Cragtreads, Firefright Mage, Goblin War Drums, and several others. It would be strange and counterintuitive if unblockable functioned like a keyword but all the subsets of unblockable didn't. So, to alleviate confusion as to why unblockable isn't a keyword, we're going to make it more obvious that it isn't by changing its template to 'can't be blocked.'"
Indestructible became a keyword, but in order to indicate that unblockable isn't and likely never will be keyworded, it got reworded to a more consistent and less keyword-y phrasing.
Superllama12
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.5/5.0)(1 vote)
I understand the reasons for changing the wording; however, I prefer the old wording. When I first started, I understood the way unblockable functioned, and it made sense--the card is not in a physical form, therefore it cannot be touched by any creature, hence it is unblockable. Using the term "unblockable" was more flavorful than "can't be blocked," so I liked it better. In addition, I feel that saying "can't be blocked" may be somewhat confusing. When you compare it to creatures with abilities such as fear and intimidate, it feels like the card is missing the end of its rules text, or that maybe it's supposed to function like intimidate. In board states that contain both this and a creature with intimidate, it may become confusing and hard to keep track of because they both read "can't be blocked," leading to confusion as to which creature can be blocked and which cannot. The unblockable wording helped differentiate it from other similar cards. Overall, I understand why they would change the wording, but I find that it complicates the matter more than it will help
JRE47
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(1 vote)
Wow, has it really been four years?
Sadly now a cheap replacement for Stalker and Traft, but it'll do in a pinch. I've got some fond memories of this legless guy.
Mode
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(1 vote)
Wow. This pseudo-keyword has been around since Legends. (Which might also be the reason why it's been there in the first place.) I didn't expect it to go.
And in fact, I thought unblockable was a keyword like indestructible. But even though i prefer the old wording since it just sounds more powerful in my ears, i can see why they went for the change - the wording is more consistent that way.
For example, the reminder text/rule for intimidate reads: "This creature can't be blocked except by artifact creatures and/or creatures that share a color with it", not "This creature is unblockable except for (...)"
I'm okay with that, it's for the better.
Although i'll still refer to such cards with "that unblockable creature" instead of "that creature that can't be blocked", or "i use that instant to make my creature unblockable" instead of "i use that instant so my creature can't be blocked".
LordOfTheFlies87
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(1 vote)
I want Latch Seeker in the core. Please?
RedJaron
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
So, say this comes up against a Fog Patch or Choking Vines, which rules wins out? The Phantom says he can't be blocked, but the Fog says everything's blocked. Since the Fog and Vines are the latest effects, don't they take precedence that turn?
TheWrathofShane
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
Playable in budget constructed. Limited beatstick.
Grakling
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(1 vote)
@RedJaron If you read the oracle for either of those cards it will tell you. (This spell works on creatures that can't be blocked.)
Continue
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
Perhaps playable in Standard as your eighth creature in monoblue devotion, if Omenspeaker isn't your choice.
Phelplan
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
I love that this is in instead of Jace's Phantasm. Thank you, Thank You, Thank You: for getting the powercreep under control Wizards.
Smokingpapyrus
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
I'd say just make unblockable a keyword and make Intimidate reminder: 'this creature can only be blocked by artifact creatures or creatures that share a color with it'. How is that confusing or unintuitive? One is similar to flying (blockable under circumstances) and the other is straight up: can't block me, no exceptions.
Yes I've read the reasoning behind it but I don't agree. If anything the 'can't be blocked except...' explanation of flying/intimidate/etc would be better of being 'can only be blocked by...'. Seems more straightforward to me. Flying is very different from unblockable and the wording could reflect that better.
Comments (12)
@Oracle text
Sometimes, you are not being helpful as you should be. Also, longer sentence structure usually leads to confusion and arguments in games.
-Infernaldarkness
Because unblockable isn't a keyword.
Look up the Magic 2014 Core Set Rules Preview. It explains the reason for this change:
"Here's the thing: there are actually many variations on unblockable. There are cards like Barrenton Cragtreads, Firefright Mage, Goblin War Drums, and several others. It would be strange and counterintuitive if unblockable functioned like a keyword but all the subsets of unblockable didn't. So, to alleviate confusion as to why unblockable isn't a keyword, we're going to make it more obvious that it isn't by changing its template to 'can't be blocked.'"
Indestructible became a keyword, but in order to indicate that unblockable isn't and likely never will be keyworded, it got reworded to a more consistent and less keyword-y phrasing.
Sadly now a cheap replacement for Stalker and Traft, but it'll do in a pinch. I've got some fond memories of this legless guy.
(Which might also be the reason why it's been there in the first place.)
I didn't expect it to go.
And in fact, I thought unblockable was a keyword like indestructible.
But even though i prefer the old wording since it just sounds more powerful in my ears,
i can see why they went for the change - the wording is more consistent that way.
For example, the reminder text/rule for intimidate reads:
"This creature can't be blocked except by artifact creatures and/or creatures that share a color with it", not
"This creature is unblockable except for (...)"
I'm okay with that, it's for the better.
Although i'll still refer to such cards with "that unblockable creature" instead of "that creature that can't be blocked", or "i use that instant to make my creature unblockable" instead of "i use that instant so my creature can't be blocked".
Please?
If you read the oracle for either of those cards it will tell you.
(This spell works on creatures that can't be blocked.)
Yes I've read the reasoning behind it but I don't agree. If anything the 'can't be blocked except...' explanation of flying/intimidate/etc would be better of being 'can only be blocked by...'. Seems more straightforward to me. Flying is very different from unblockable and the wording could reflect that better.