The original CC seems really off-4 mana nets a 2/4, why 6 for a 2/5? The Feint cost doesn't push it either though at common I get not wanting to blow it up. Still: even at 3 mana for the Feint, the soonest one could cast this would be turn 3. Might be pushing too much though.

Analysis is pretty valid. I want to keep the base mana cost high to encourage using the feint ability.

This has probably already been covered, but attackers before blockers are declared aren't blocked, but aren't unblocked either, right?

V: That's right.

I’m actually okay with that. My bigger concern was people sending in creatures, allowing them to hit, then Feinting with no discernable drawback or decision to be made. Even if they pull a creature out of combat before blockers are declared, they still had to choose to commit a creature to the cause.

If there’s a way to really restrict it to an unblocked creature after blockers are declared but before damage is dealt — with lest text — then I’m interested in that. The wording is brutal though.

How about "You may cast this during the declare blockers step for its feint cost if you remove an unblocked attacker you control from combat"?

I like that. I’ve amended it slightly (end of step), but put it in place.

I don't think there is an "end of declare blockers step". I think you'd have to use a modification of the Flash Foliage/Trap Runner/Curtain of Light text:

"You may cast this during combat after blockers have been declared for its feint cost if you remove an unblocked attacker you control from combat."

That could really use some commas, but I'm not sure how that might impact the actual rules behind "intervening if clauses" and whatnot.

Houlding— I get what you’re saying, but this seems to me to be the most direct and succinct way of saying when the ability is supposed to be used, and it captures the flavor of the ability perfectly. I think this is another one that falls into that Matt Tabak category, where the whole thing works with a fairly minor adjustment to the comprehensive rules (if it’s needed at all). I’m going to leave it this way for now.

Side note, my wife and I are going on the Magic Cruise this upcoming summer. Since I’ll have something of a captive audience including R&D members, I’m planning on bringing a mocked-up, playable/draftable set of SOR with me. They’re not technically allowed to look, but I know firsthand it’s happened before. I may be able to get some definitive takes on the viability of the way to make Feint work there.

"the whole thing works with a fairly minor adjustment to the comprehensive rules"

Oh yes, good idea. It would be easy to tweak the rules so attackers don't count as blocked or unblocked after combat damage has happened, and AFAIK that wouldn't break anything, in which case the reminder could simply go back to "You may cast this for its feint cost if you remove an unblocked attacker you control from combat", which I still think people will EXPECT to work the way it actually does, but now would work that way in the comprehensive rules as well. I'd definitely vote for that (and to avoid "at the end of" which specifically doesn't work) but I agree you don't need to decide now.

This is SFletcher posting as a "visitor". (Yes, Alex, I forgot my login and password. Again. I can post from home, where my browser just stays perpetually logged in, but since upgrading my iPhone, the phone browser logged out and I'm too dumb to just write my login down somewhere. Like you suggested.)

At any rate, Jack V, I think I understand what you're saying (assuming there's no sarcasm there), but I suspect your wording got garbled. What I was proposing as far as rules changes go is simply defining a point, or last window of opportunity, between when blockers are declared and when damage is dealt.

I've looked into the Declare Blockers step again though, and I noticed this time that there's one small detail that very much works in my favor:

509.1. First, the defending player declares blockers. This turn-based action doesn't use the stack.

This means that once you're into the Declare Blockers step, the first thing that happens is the actual declaration of blockers, no exceptions. So I Feint says it happens during the Declare Blockers step, it has to happen between the determination of blockers and when damage is dealt. The wording Alex proposed (before I adjusted it to be at the end of the step) was 100% accurate to my intent.

Alex wins.

Thanks. And oops, sorry! No not sarcastic at all, but I guess we were slightly at cross purposes. I knew Alex's wording worked rules-wise, so I assumed you'd changed it because you thought the version you used sounded better; I hadn't realised you weren't sure it worked rules-wise and thought you were looking for a wording that worked better than that, rather than looking for one that good.

And when I first heard this version of feint (not that I've been following very closely), I thought it was a good option to tweak the official rules for feint so it says (however that is expressed) that you can only do it between blockers being declared and combat damage, and that that's how everyone would expect it to work, so it's not necessary to put the details in reminder text.

But I'd thought you'd considered that and rejected it. So when you suggested a tweak to the rules, I assumed you meant to tweak the rules so creatures stop being unblocked after combat damage, which I did (and still do) think is a good idea. Because then you can use the simplest possible reminder text ("...if you remove an unblocked attacker you control from combat") and it will mean exactly what it sounds like it means, so both beginners and rules-pedants can be happy with it.

I agree "during the declare blockers step" works equally well rules-wise, but I think the version that has fewer words of reminder text is better, because I think people will understand what it means. (You could always add a second sentence reminding that it has to be after blockers are declared and before combat if you think that helps, but I think it's still better to have the first sentence as free of subclauses as possible.)

But I also agree that by this point it's clear it will work somehow, even if we're still talking about the details, so you can decide the exact wording at your leisure if you want to.

I agree the wording "unblocked attacker" would be ideal, if the rules got a tweak to say that attackers only count as blocked or unblocked until they've dealt all their combat damage. There might be some niggly details to work out, or unintended consequences for a few random cards though.