Assistance with the proper formatting of a mechanic.

[Venedrex]

I've been working on a custom set themed around large armies, and I have been going back and forth over what the best way to template one of the main mechanics is.
As it stands, the mechanic goes like this

SPOILER

Show

Hide

2: Deploy -- Create a 1/1 white Human Soldier creature token with: "This creature can't attack or block unless each soldier token you control that is able to attack or block does so as well."

Essentially my problem is I don't know whether I should keep the mechanic as a ability word, or try and keyword it. I'm using MSE and I don't know if there is a way to format a mechanic to dynamically change what color and type of creature token it's creating based on the card that has the mechanic. I'm also not sure if making such a change would overcomplicate the mechanic.

On the other hand, I don't know if ability words were meant to be used in this way, since they usually seem to be designed along the lines of "Player does something/has something, then [effect], and this use appears to be the opposite of that. The idea was to take a modified version of the unpublished army mechanic mentioned in one of Maro's design articles, and have it make tokens for each of the set's factions, which all require different tokens, but with the same restriction for combat, but I'm not sure if it should be worded the way it is.

I finally broke down and posted this because I have this sinking feeling I'm not doing this right but I don't know what the best course of action is moving forward.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks,

[WizardMN]

Being an Ability Word is fine. There is nothing about your ability that would preclude it from being an Ability Word. And since you want to change the creature type each time, it is probably best as an ability word anyway.

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with the ability or the wording either. I am not a fan of it due to some weird things you may encounter with different blocking and attacking requirements (probably more on the blocking side). For example, if you have 10 untapped Soldiers and the opponent has a creature you are forced to block, you would need to block with all 10 soldiers since that is the only way to meet the requirement of blocking but not violate the restriction provided. It is sort of corner case, but still not ideal from a rules/play perspective.

[Venedrex]

Oh gotcha, thank you very much. That's a good point about the blocking, I'll look into trying to tweak it to prevent that.

[void_nothing]

You could also move the keyword to the tokens: "This creature can't attack or block unless each other creature you control with deploy/each other token you control that shares a creature type with this token also attacks or blocks."

WizardMN is otherwise spot on - this is a drawback mechanic and also does odd things in relatively usual scenarios.

[Venedrex]

Yeah I agree, it is a weird mechanic for sure. I guess I don't really want it in the set for the reasons you mentioned, but I'm worried about the set having so many 1/1 tokens that larger creatures without trample are largely invalidated by the sheer number of tokens that can chump them out over several turns. I could lessen the amount of tokens generated, but I'm unsure about how to capture the feel of a large army without an equally large amount of tokens.

I'm sure there is probably a better solution, and I'll try to figure something out. You're right that it feels bad and is a drawback. Ideally it would feel more like a bonus and something cool to do with armies, rather than just a restriction.

[OneAndOnly]

Amass creates an "army" that grows as you amass more, but allows each player to determine how actual tokens they use to represent that.

For the original proposal, I would suggest breaking it down into its components.
One part is "Deploy -- {cost}: Create a token with {mechanic}."
The second is "{Mechanic} -- This creature can't attack or block unless each other creature you control with {mechanic} attacks or blocks as well."
I might call {mechanic} "horde" or "phalanx" or "formation," depending on the exact flavor you want.

This allows you to create individual cards with the ability, to add or remove the keyword as a main or secondary effect of spells and abilities, and so on.

You might also think about wording it in positive terms -- "When this attacks, each other X attacks" -- rather than negative ones ("Can't attack unless {foo}"). That generally reads better and is utilized more by players.

[Morpic_Tide]

You could also have it keyworded similarly to Eternalize and Boast, where part of the effect is locked in by the keyword. Figure out what you want static, then have that be the keyword action. For example: "Deploy a White Human (create a 1/1 white Human Soldier creature token with "whenever this creature attacks, each other Soldier token you control attacks if able")".

[Venedrex]

Both those ideas sound really good. Thanks for the help guys, I really appreciate it, I like the idea of making it two parts and giving it a positive spin as well.

[Venedrex]

OK everyone, I'm back with my take on everyone's suggestions. Not sure if this is right but I think it's starting to move in the right direction at least.
Here's a sample of what I have so far:

Skeletal Division (U)
Creature - Skeleton Soldier
Deploy — When Skeletal Division enters the battlefield, create three 1/1 black Skeleton Soldier creature tokens with formation.
2/2

The card itself is not necessarily balanced but it's just a rough draft of what the effect looks like.
I am also unsure whether it is better to have a bunch of creatures with weak stat lines that etb and deploy a big amount of soldiers. for maximum flavor, or have the majority of deploy cards be more like normal creatures where you pay to slowly make a token every turn.
As for the second mechanic, I'm still trying to solve the corner case problem while keeping word count to a minimum, as well as trying to put a more positive spin on it.

Formation (Whenever this creature attacks or blocks, each other soldier token you control that is able to attack or block does so as well.)

[spacemonaut]

Deploy and Formation are great names for this.

Formation (Whenever this creature attacks or blocks, each other soldier token you control that is able to attack or block does so as well.)

I suggest "each other creature with formation" rather than "each other soldier token", so that this doesn't introduce a surprise nerf to all my other non-formation soldier tokens. If I'm playing a soldier deck and want additional sources of soldier tokens, I'd probably have to not pick this one card because then it puts a constraint on how my other soldier tokens act. But, if its own tokens only change how each other behave, that's fine—they're off in their own little bunch doing a cool thing without messing with the rest of my soldier tokens.

Narratively I think it works well that way too. All my creatures with formation are in a formation—they move together. The ones that aren't in a formation aren't moving together so they do their own thing.

[Venedrex]

That's a good idea, I really like what you said about not punishing a player for putting these cards in their deck deck with other soldier tokens. I'll change it to what you suggested.