Unblockable versus Can't be blocked
General forum
Posted on June 2, 2014, 8:22 p.m. by ChiefBell
Is there any functional difference here?
Also, does anyone know WHY they changed the text?
I heard that unblockable isn't actually a keyword, it's just like an 'attribute'. Why is this the case.
I have so many questions, I'm like a child
Epochalyptik says... #3
Unblockable is shorter and probably looks better in the template.
The reason why unblockable isn't a keyword is that there are so many different kinds of unblockable. There's the classic "can't be blocked at all" (Invisible Stalker ), fear, intimidate, horsemanship, "can't be blocked except by creatures with flying" (Silhana Ledgewalker ), "can't be blocked except by X" (Amrou Seekers ), etc.
June 2, 2014 8:38 p.m.
It seems like the new cards take the form 'cannot be blocked' like uhhh Triton Shorestalker - which seems clunky.
June 2, 2014 8:44 p.m.
GoldGhost012 says... #5
If it looks better in the template, why did they change it to the longer and slightly more awkward "can't be blocked?"
June 2, 2014 8:45 p.m.
I guess it needs less exlpaining - because it's like a statement. 'unblockable' is open to some interpretation, whereas 'cannot be blocked' is like an instruction.
June 2, 2014 8:46 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #7
Actually, "unblockable" is used for creatures that have the generic "can't be blocked at all" trait. "Can't be blocked" is used as "can't be blocked except by . . ."
June 2, 2014 8:54 p.m.
So then it seems very weird that they've opted for the latter in most recent examples.
June 2, 2014 8:56 p.m.
It's basically because there are so many variations on the inability to be blocked. Since you can't use unblockable except in the generic case ("Unblockable except by Goblins" and "Unblockable except for by two or more creatures" don't sound too great), they just kind of abandoned it as a word to use.
June 2, 2014 9:08 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #10
At this point, it's probably just to bring the "unblockable" stuff into consistent formatting.
June 2, 2014 9:11 p.m.
Actually, they changed it to the wording on to can't be blocked like on Triton Shorestalker instead of using unblockable because of the same reason's that Epochalyptik listed in in response #2 for why it isn't a keyword. Unblockable was just such a vague term because, like epoch mentioned, there are so many different forms of unblockable. So in an attempt to make things less confusing they started wording it as "can't be blocked". At least that's what i've read before about it. I think the idea is that as more cards are printed using the "can't be blocked" wording, then the use of the term "unblockable" will be phased out of use and the "can't be blocked" wording ,which they feel is less confusing, will be the commonly used vernacular.
June 2, 2014 9:17 p.m.
ClansInitiate says... #12
They actually changed rules text so that now there is errata that states anywhere "unblockable" shows up it is replaced with "can't be blocked".
June 2, 2014 9:25 p.m.
RussischerZar says... #13
All the explanations you need in this article under the headline "Unblockable Demoted to Definitely Not a Keyword ".
For the lazy people:
[...] when people ask about indestructible, unblockable is usually not far behind. One might expect it to get a similar upgrade to keyword, but alas, one would be mistaken. 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." As you've seen, the words "can't be blocked" were used on cards already, so this change seemed very natural. Please note this is a change in template only. No cards will functionally change.
June 11, 2014 12:07 p.m.
But flying is a type of unblockable (a static, evasion ability) as it is fear and intimidate, but we are not using "can't be blocked by creatures without flying" or "can't be blocked by nonartifact, nonblack creatures", so why they can't make unblockable a keyword? Just my thought in this topic.
November 16, 2014 2:12 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #15
@Devlain: First, you just necroed a topic from five months ago. Read the post dates before commenting.
Second, having abilities like flying, fear, and intimidate (as well as the landwalk abilities) is flavorful, and it isn't very complicated. Trying to keyword "unblockable" would mean you now have a basic keyword ability that has to come with exceptions on many cards, and that's terrible practice. Keywords are supposed to represent standalone concepts. At most, they could be tied to an ability that determines whether an object has the keyword ability (see: Aeronaut Tinkerer). You don't keyword something just to later specify "oh, this bit of the ability doesn't apply to this, that, and the other."
November 16, 2014 3:11 p.m.
@EpochalyptikI found this thread searching about "can't be blocked" in google, so I didn't check the date.I don't know why it would be wrong to reanimate an old thread anyway =/
I totally agree with the changes because they are consistent with another orcale texts and eliminate the confusion of "unblockable/can't be blocked" beign a keyword when it isn't; what it is inconsistent for me is the explanation of why unblockable woudn't work as a keyword ability now or in a near future. Damn! It could be named "Stealth"; "Sneak"; "Unstopable" and even "Unblockable".I think this is not to crazy to do that =o
November 16, 2014 4:01 p.m.
Hey, Curtain of Light "blocks" Triton Shorestalker, right?
November 16, 2014 4:07 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #18
I explained that. Keywords are meant to be standalone. They're not conditional. You wouldn't create a keyword that needed modifies like "unblockable except if X, Y, or Z." That's bad templating.
November 16, 2014 4:11 p.m.
@Epochalyptik: Totally agree on that, to make a keyword work around exclusion is not a good templating.Only pointed that unblockable as standalone could work as a keyword the same it worked for flying.But in that case, unblockable has to be a keyword and "can't be blocked by ~" not.This way creature would have unblockable instead of being unblockable.Anyways, the disscusion is futile since WotC already made a choice.It's only that I ever wanted unblockable to be a keyword, I think that nothing would be more intuitive than that. (By example, look what they did to Indestructible)
November 16, 2014 4:29 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #21
The discussion isn't futile. WOTC has changed mechanics and templating in the past.
It's just that your argument isn't particularly strong. There's no reason to have unblockable be a keyword if there are so many variations. Even if you keyword it for the sake of simplicity on creatures like Invisible Stalker, you're now forced to use both a keyword and a similar ability to represent very close variants of the same basic concept. Why bother using a keyword at all if you still have to use it in conjunction with written-out forms for very common limitations?
November 16, 2014 4:55 p.m.
CrazyLittleGuy says... #22
@Devlain Did you even read the article posted above? "It would be strange and counterintuitive if unblockable functioned like a keyword but all the subsets of unblockable didn't."
That's how cards have always been formatted. There are never keyword abilities that have subsets of different qualifications varying from card to card.
November 16, 2014 4:59 p.m.
@Epochalyptik: I don't like keywords only because they are keywords.They make the game mechanicaly easier to teach. As a Lvl 2 Judge I spent a lot of time explaining the old version of indestructible to some players who coudn't understand at first glance how does it worked in interaction with humility effects and another effects (of spells, triggered or activated abilities) who grants indestructible until end of turn.I think that making unblockable a keyword, life would be easier for the newbie players.But that are my thoughts, based on my personal experience.I think your arguments are pretty valid, but from a design point of view, both ways (to be or not to be a keyword) have theirs advantages and disadvantages.I'm not trying to win an argument, just sharing the other look of the question =o
November 16, 2014 7:40 p.m.
@CrazyLittleGuy: But I specifficaly said that "can't be blocked by ~" shoudn't be a keyword, while "unblockable" could existed as a keyword with pretty good results.Of course, all that I'm doing is just theorizing
November 16, 2014 7:43 p.m.
@CrazyLittleGuy: And in case you were wondering, yes, I read the article the day it has been published and today only to review what it says.But my solution specifically didn't create subsets of unblockable (or "stealth", "sneak", or whatever it could be called it it even existed)
jonhydude says... #2
They changed it because new players were confused apparently.
At least that's what I heard.
June 2, 2014 8:25 p.m.