We've talked about creatures that act like enchantments, so here's the opposite: an enchantment that acts like a creature.
I wish it were , so it could also have "Whenever one or more creatures you control attack, ~ deals 1 damage to each defending player." But then it would not be common.

Note that I purposefully made it destroy, and not sacrifice, so that it's more creature-like: its toughness is its converted mana cost.
Also, this is some anti-flying-or-otherwise-unblockable for white.

Oh, that is keen. I think we can make this card a bit better, since right now it reads like a 0/3 Reach, Defender with Protection from Doom Blade for 3... which is probably not strong enough to matter. We might, instead/also, want to cut out the Activate once per turn, since blocking multiple creatures was already a white mechanic...

For a common, I think it's fine. Not every card can be good. Getting rid of the last sentence, like JM suggested, might make it simpler though.

How about you make it "~ deals 1 damage to target attacking creature and that creature becomes blocked"? That's also a white ability... (Which is amusing in that if we'd chosen green as the enchantment colour, ": ~ deals 1 damage to target attacking creature" would feel horrendously out-of-pie in a way that a green 1/3 wouldn't :P )

Oh, I agree, not every card should be good. But when you have a completely new card idea, it should probably be at least mediocre the first time you show it off. This is for two reasons:
1). You don't want people prejudiced against the mechanic when they see it again because "the mechanic is weak", and
2). When players don't know if something is good or not, they assume that the designers/developers knew what they were doing, and put the card in their deck and/or draft the card. You don't want to let down the people who are putting their faith in you.

But outside of that, I don't think you need to make a card like this good... I just think it needs to be playable... akin to a 6-7 pick in a draft.

I'm fine with a shift in power level. I just didn't want to make it too good.

Jmg: I agree with all your points about why this should be at least average in power (and I think it's a cool card -- simple but new). But I'm really not sure what the power level is.

If it could only block one creature, it would be as you say -- about equivalent to a 0/3 reach defender. (Assuming you cost vulnerability-to-creature-removal and vulnerability-to-enchantment-removal about equal.) 0/3 reach probably costs , or with a upkeep. But the ability to block multiple small creatures without dying is bound to be useful sometimes (it may even be too annoying, although I think it's an important way to make this feel like an enchantment rather than a creature), so that pushes it up by ? Or more? That would be or , it should probably be playtested at one of those and see how it does.

Keep in mind that it can also block unblockable creatures, which is generally difficult to do. Then again, it's also really crappy against tramplers.

ROFL. Yeah, this is really useless against tramplers, which sort of fits :) But yes, it's a definite bonus to block evasion creatures, that's another very white thing.

I really like this :)

Thanks, cmeister.
So, should we make this a "1/3" creature? And should it be able to block more than once per turn? I'm not sure about being able to block infinitely, but I like it being 1/3, I think.

I know this card is hard to guage, but really, as it is printed right now, I'd rather put an Angelic Wall in my deck and pay an extra for it. Personally, I think the "not once per turn" plays a little better into it acting like an enchantment... since it seems very similar to cards like Sphere of Law that way. But I'm not going to rail against giving it +1 power instead, if that's the way people would rather go.

We could try both this version and a "1 damage only once per turn". Maybe we'd end up with shifting them even further apart and having one at common and one at rare.

That sounds like a good idea. The file could probably support an uncommon as well. I like this design, and would like to see a few more enchantments that blocked like a creature. I think a deck that ran 12 of them would be kind of cool.

I think I prefer the simple 0/3 version if I'm honest, but that's me.

I think cmeister is right. Common should just have a 0/3, though maybe it could block more than once. We could put another in at rare or uncommon that has "toughness" if we so desire.