Duel Decks Starcraft: Remastered: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity
Mechanics | FAQ

CardName: Stalker Cost: 2U Type: Creature - Protoss Scout Pow/Tgh: 1/1 Rules Text: Shield 2 (This enters with two +1/+1 counters. It's dealt damage by first removing that many +1/+1 counters, with excess damage dealt as normal.) {1}{U}: Return Stalker to its owner's hand. Flavour Text: Set/Rarity: Duel Decks Starcraft: Remastered Common

Stalker
{2}{u}
 
 C 
Creature – Protoss Scout
Shield 2 (This enters with two +1/+1 counters. It's dealt damage by first removing that many +1/+1 counters, with excess damage dealt as normal.)
{1}{u}: Return Stalker to its owner's hand.
1/1
Updated on 13 Dec 2018 by jameschanlee

History: [-]

Much simplified from Stalker. Problem is I don't know if the card is any good. Haha. Also, do people have some kind of emotional attachment to the Stalker (i.e. will they complain that it's such a bland card here?)

2014-08-14 10:56:29: jameschanlee edited Stalker:

2U -> 1U

Blue doesn't get 3 power for 2. I tried to limit it by making the creature very hard to attack with (again playing into Protoss defensive early game theme). I think the ability is a drawback... right?

Nice. Blue doesn't get 2/2s for 1 either, but nobody told DOTP Jace, who for years has been parading his Phantasmal Bears around people's faces. This is a great take on Norin the Wary / Goblin Cadets. Can't decide whether I think it's good flavour for Stalkers or not.

(FWIW I preferred the crop of the artwork on Stalker to this tighter shot.)

Alex: Changed the picture back (not that you can see it at this point haha).

Playstest results; I really, really like the way this plays. It's a 3-power wall and should be played as such - it's really powerful in that regard. Being RIDICULOUSLY impotent when it tries to attack makes me feel better about giving blue a 3-power creature. Stalker blink -> (((Purifier Beam))) is also a valid strategy, and it can drop down and do some insane damage before the opponent's recovery.

I'm thinking of giving this flash, but I suppose that would be too strong.

Heh, I guess it is a Wall of Torches. With a couple of occasional other applications. Sounds good :)

2014-08-20 11:21:16: jameschanlee edited Stalker:

zoom out

2016-04-25 21:35:57: jameschanlee edited Stalker

Previously:

Stalker {1}{u}
Creature - Protoss [c]
When ~ becomes blocked by a creature with power 2 or greater, return ~ to its owner's hand.
2/2


  • bumped up one cmc, 2 drop to be given to (((Adept))).
  • Blink made manual. Seems more interesting and another good design space for shield.

realistically, the shield almost never matters since it only has 2 toughness. Check if it's needed.

2017-06-13 04:01:36: jameschanlee edited Stalker:

removed shield ability as it doesn't do much with 2 toughness. Gave shield ability to Archon.

2017-06-20 05:10:21: jameschanlee edited Stalker

Shame. Maybe use the phantom ability? (Creature of touchness 0, and If damage would be dealt to ~, prevent that damage. Remove a +1/+1 counter from ~)

Ew, those had distinct rules fiddliness. Maybe that was just the wording they used (Phantom Nomad and friends - especially the sentence break in the middle of the ability) - but I remember them being not as fun to play with as you'd think.

Alex / Vitenka: Damn. I think I figured out the problem. The "remove a +1/+1 counter from it" looks like such a feel bad ability that it immediately turns off people. How about if I just give these guys reasonable stats, then change the shield to be a more intuitive toughness boosting ability?

Zealot {1}{w}
Shield 2 (This enters the battlefield with two shield counters on it. Damage is dealt to it by removing shield counters first if able.)
2/2

(I don't actually know if this is too strong)

Stalker {2}{u}
Shield 2 (This enters the battlefield with two shield counters on it. Damage is dealt to it by removing shield counters first if able.)
­{1}{u}: Return ~ to its owner's hand.
3/1

Actually I can call the counters something else so it can double as energy. I

Adept {w}{u}
Shield 1 (This enters the battlefield with a psi counter on it. Damage is dealt to it by removing psi counters first if able.)
­{1}, Remove a psi counter from ~: ~ can't be blocked this turn.
3/2

Void Ray {3}{u}
Flying
Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, put a psi counter on it. (Damage is dealt to it by removing psi counters first if able.)
~ gets +1/+1 for each psi counter on it.
2/2

Hmm, I guess having shield counters as their own ting and decoupling from +1 works; at the expense of another type of token.

I wonder if it could ETB with a token totem aura? (Don't do that)

Ugh. This would actually be a valid use of a flip card.

That's fine - if I use psi / shield counters, then I'll remove all +1/+1 counters from the other cards.

I'm testing it now. It... plays a bit differently, but I can see it working.

I can't tell if "Damage is dealt to it by removing shield counters first if able" is supposed to work more like Phantom Nomad or more like Ursine Fylgja. Is all damaged prevented, and a single counter removed? Or is a number of counters equal to the amount of damage dealt removed?

Fylgia. What's a good wording?

Wither had really intuitive wording but falls flat if i try to use it for this.

(This enters the battlefield with 2 psi counters. Damage is dealt to this by first removing a psi counter per 1 damage if able.) ?

(This enters the battlefield with 2 psi counters. This takes damage by removing that many psi counters first if able.) ?

I suppose I could word it exactly like Ursine Fylgja, though I would really prefer not to - I'll need to rebalance again since it's a really strong counter against one of Zerg's primary attack vectors Corruptor (((Volatile Burst)))

(This enters the battlefield with 2 psi counters. You must remove a psi counter to prevent 1 damage to this if able.)

(This enters the battlefield with 2 psi counters. Remove a psi counter instead of taking 1 damage if able)

(This enters the battlefield with 2 psi counters. Each psi counter prevents 1 damage to this, then is removed.)

I think your second new wording is much better. "that many" helps a lot.

> (This enters the battlefield with 2 psi counters. This takes damage by removing that many psi counters first if able.)

The problem with Alex's suggestion (which, by the way, I think that's the best of the lines too) is that it doesn't really say that the counters are there to prevent damage. It says they do it 'if they are able'. And I get the impression that some new players (and some jerks who are exploiting new players) will assume they won't be able to prevent damage until another card turns that ability on.

The majority of players will get what you're talking about. But I'd prefer to aim for almost all the players.

I'm starting to think Wizards must have designed this ability at some point, but never used it. It's simple and intuitive. But it's a pain to spell out.

I totally get why you don't want Fylgja. But I figured I'd march out this solution because I like how it operates like a rudimentary computer:

"Remove a Psi counter from Stalker: Prevent the next 1 damage that would be dealt to stalker. You must activate this ability if damage would be dealt to Stalker, and there's at least one Psi counter on it."

Will damage be done to Stalker? Is there a counter on it? Then you must remove a counter. After having removed the counter, will damage be done to Stalker? Is there a counter on it? Then you must remove a counter. Ad nauseum.

Alternatively, I have this:

"Damage is done to Stalker in the form of removing Psi counters from it. Any excess damage is dealt to the Psi creature's toughness."

I took a little from Wither, and a little from Trample. I don't think this works precisely within the way the rules would handle it. But that doesn't matter. Reminder text doesn't have any rules baggage, so it doesn't need to be precise. It just has to be precise enough so that the reader understands what's being asked of them.

Is there any variant might work? What about "If this would be destroyed, instead remove a +1/+1 counter from it". The shield is not depleted by small creatures, so it would need to be costed more expensively, but might feel nicer to play, that the shield is only used up when you need it to be.

Or "(When damage is dealt to this, if it has counters on, it isn't destroyed. Instead remove that many counters.)" That's similar, but the shield absorbs one big blow completely.

Or "(When damage is dealt to this, first remove that counters. Any excess damage is dealt the normal way.)" That's the original functionality with some tweaks to wording.

Remove a +1/+1 counter: Regenerate ~

2017-06-25 22:19:03: jameschanlee edited Stalker:

changed to work with new shield ability

2018-10-25 07:22:36: jameschanlee edited Stalker

Does this die if it has 2 damage marked on it at the end of turn even if it was shielded?

With the current wording of the ability it does. You have "at end of turn" which is old wording for "at the beginning of the end step", so the counters are removed before cleanup (damage is removed in cleanup step).

Oh shite. Really? I assumed the counters would be removed after the cleanup step. Damn. Gotta change this again I suppose.

2018-10-30 09:45:18: jameschanlee edited Stalker
2018-11-09 02:31:26: jameschanlee edited Stalker
2018-12-13 03:55:01: jameschanlee edited Stalker

Add your comments:


(formatting help)
Enter mana symbols like this: {2}{U}{U/R}{PR}, {T} becomes {2}{u}{u/r}{pr}, {t}
You can use Markdown such as _italic_, **bold**, ## headings ##
Link to [[[Official Magic card]]] or (((Card in Multiverse)))
Include [[image of official card]] or ((image or mockup of card in Multiverse))
Make hyperlinks like this: [text to show](destination url)
What is this card's power? Rumbling Baloth
(Signed-in users don't get captchas and can edit their comments)