So, I was staring at this card trying to figure out how easily you could cast this for , when I realized I have no idea how the timing of feint really works.

After blockers are declared, you announce a feint spell and choose an unblocked creature whose damage you wish to prevent. That much is clear. But my issue is that things get fuzzy when figuring out how much damage will be prevented, as you need to apply the cost reduction before the damage step. So how does it interact with cards like Goblin Glaivemaster? Pump spells? If I declare a Feint spell, and then my opponent kills the chosen creature in response, did I prevent any combat damage from happening?

Seems... fishy.

Like anything else, costs are locked in at the time of the spell's announcement, and can't be responded to. Preventing the damage is part of the ability's cost, so simply announcing it once blockers are declared and choosing your "feinting" creature will set the cost of the spell.

Doublestrike seemed sticky to me for a while, but I believe that (could be wrong) under M10 rules, there's no window for effects (save triggered ones) or responses once the damage-dealing starts happening, so a doublestriker's eventual damage sum can be assessed before they take their first strike swing. As long as a Feint effect is declared in the "declare blockers" step, Feint should work as intended.

That said, I've been looking for a better way to structure the ability. It's one hell of a mouthful.

And the answer as to when you can pull off a play of Ruinous Riot is "Pretty f*ing fast", but it takes an incredible draw and serious casualties to your own resources.

Hm. I think the concept of feint is fine, unambiguous and fairly intuitive (at least in situations I can think of), but I don't think the rules work for it yet.

You must have to declare feint spells in the declare blockers step after blockers are declared (the last opportunity before combat damage). However, I don't think the cost reduction makes sense until the damage is actually prevented, so the spell shouldn't actually go on the stack until after combat damage.

And I don't think there's any time before the damage is actually dealt when it's inevitable what it's going to be. If you did cast feint spells in declare blockers step, would the cost reduction apply to what the damage would be? What if someone plays giant growth in response or after it resolves?

(The combat damage step does put triggered abilities on the stack and give players priority, after damage, including after first strike damage, cf. http://www.wizards.com/magic/comprules/MagicCompRules_20110715.pdf 510.3 510.4)

I'm not sure what's best. Perhaps make feint a special action that happens as you assign combat damage (either paying the rest of the costs then, or just remembering the reduction so you can play it in the combat damage step after combat damage). Or have it be something you declare in advance in decalre blockers, and then cast based on the actual reduction. Or (changing it a bit) make it trigger from an unblocked creature's power, instead of the damage actually prevented.

As for how soon you could play this, you can manage it on turn 1 with "exile simian spirit guide x4, mountain, boggart ram gang, ruinous riot", but there's definitely much more useful things you could do on turn 1 with 5 mana (although I'd love to see my opponent's face).

Turn 2, you can manage it just with "Turn 1. Mountain, Akki Avalanchers. Turn 2. Mountain, attack, float RR, sac mountain, feint for 3" but that's very niche and still burning resources.

I think turn 3 is the soonest you can manage it sanely, and even then, you're trading quite a bit for it. I originally thought maybe 3RR was too much for land destruction, but given the possibilities for reduction, it seems right.

The Giant Growth example is easy to answer: the Giant Growth is irrelevant. Once the feint spell is announced, that's where the cost is locked in. Now the creature will deal 0 combat damage, regardless of what happens later.

Still, I agree that the ability as a whole is built on some deceptively shaky ground, and wish there were a simpler way to make it work. Dan (Bombshell) and I have pondered this for a hell of a long time, and jeep coming back to the same thing: it's a solid end effect and it's a good fit for this set, but there's got to be a better way to make it work.

One friend of mine has suggested that it should actually restore damage already dealt in exchange for costing less, but it feels awkwarnerone that way. "You thought you got hurt, but I was actually setting up something totally different, so here, have a bonus."

I've looked at simply tying the cost reduction to a creature's power, but as Dan quickly recognized, it has the potential to just be salt in a wound. "Yeah, I just hit you for 4 to the face. Now watch me cast a damn-near-free huge creature/gamebreaker".

I could also simplify it to "tap a creature, spell costs (power) less", but it just doesn't feel the same to me. Might be the simplest way though.

Even if Feint technically works within the rules, I think that it would create a lot of disagreement and judge-calling due to its reliance on presumptions.

One solution would be to broaden the prevention to all unblocked creatures, and then tie the cost-reduction scaling to the number of unblocked creatures you control. This would weaken the ability under a number of circumstances, but it does clarify the rules.

Feint (Prevent all combat damage unblocked creatures you control would deal this turn: Cast this spell as if it had flash, and for less for each unblocked creature you control.)

Houlding's solution is not the worst thing I've seen. Not at all. Let's put that up as one for serious consideration.

It does allow multiple "feints" at once though. Is that a problem?

"Now the creature will deal 0 combat damage, regardless of what happens later."

I agree, but what will the cost reduction be?

M Houlding: Hm, interesting idea. Perhaps make it: "Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt by any number of unblocked attackers you control: Cast ~ for less for each of those creatures" or something? This way works better with more creatures, the original way with big creatures.

I tried instead of but it could be either; the cost can be adjusted to match the discounts available.

Playtesting should tell whether than or the original play better (both in terms of fun, or simplicity).

I feel like there must be some good solution to templating rules for the original, though I'm still not sure what. I agree about the giving life back, I thought the same thing, but it would just make it more complicated.

I want something like "When a creature you control deals combat damage to a player, you may prevent that damage and cast ~ from your hand as though it had flash and for less for each damage prevented that way". But it doesn't quite work because (1) abilities can't trigger from cards hidden in your hand and (2) the ability doesn't go on the stack until the middle of the combat damage step when damage has already been dealt.

Here's another thought -

At the moment Feint has three primary elements contributing to its complexity:

1. It alters the timing of the Feint'd spell.
2. It incorporates a variable cost reduction mechanism.
3. This cost reduction is implemented before the result of the prevention can be known.

In keeping the flavor of Feint, it seems vital that Feinting can only happen during your combat, so there's no real reason to try to mess with that at the moment. The question then is whether a) the cost reduction needs to be scalable and b) if so, can it be attached to something else.

Considering you've gone with a reduction mechanism that doesn't allow for free spells, I wonder if you wouldn't be better served by just removing the scaling altogether, as changing the timing can often be a significant bonus of its own. You could then just attach a Feint cost to the ability and have something much cleaner like:

Ruinous Riot
­
Sorcery
Destroy target artifact or land.
Feint (You may cast this during combat for its Feint cost if you prevent all combat damage that would be dealt by an attacking creature you control.)

It doesn't solve the issue of someone feinting off the same creature repeatedly. The only way to do that (that I can think of) is to strengthen the effect somewhat by removing the creature from combat:

Feint [cost] (You may cast this during combat for its feint cost if you remove an attacking creature you control from combat.)

I kind of like that last option. I'd need to reconsider the costing of a few spells, but it could work. It would also allow the ability to work a little more intuitively with Mindstrikers...which is a whole other can of worms.

Also, if Houlding's last template works the way I think it does, it means we can put feint on a spell that will affect damage dealt by other creatures in that same combat scenario.

Whoa. M_Houlding, I think you've hit on it, though I'd consider rephrasing it as 'remove an unblocked creature you control from combat' so that the mechanic isn't 100% upside for the caster. As it would go now, you could save a creature that would die otherwise and means that the environment would become extremely aggressive, maybe moreso than we'd want.

Very good ideas, everyone!

Though I wasn't really thinking about the distinction, it does feel a little bit more like a feint if your creatures can actually be put into combat and removed.

It might not be that aggressive though, as you would still be leaving yourself open to a counterattack, as the feinted creature wouldn't be returned to an untapped state. But I can imagine a lame scenario where someone just sends some dweebs to feint while they just cast cheap business.

So probably for the best if tested as "unblocked" rather than "attacking".

Looks like you were all discussing this while I was off on holiday :) but I agree the place you've ended up is a much better implementation of Feint, both for simplicity and actually working in the rules. Good job, and great testament to distributed development!

I can't stand it. I know you're playing it.

I'mma set it straight, This Watergate.