Originally it didn't have the last ability, but I decided it needed it (large flier blockers are not red's stock in trade), even though that broke the word count. Red doesn't get many high-power fliers other than dragons, but I think it can get one or two.
I'm amused by the name, but I think something like "berserker" would be clearer (and either way, I considered inventing a keyword, but I didn't think there was enough reason other than shortening the wordcount which doesn't really count). That would be ok as a keyword, but I don't think the benefit would likely be worth it: there's not that many creatures with Aggressor that seem to want to be dealt with as a group, and it seems less part of their inherent identity than "defender", and it's only occasionally granted, and when it is "attacks each turn" sounds almost simpler than "gains aggressor". But maybe I'm too pessimistic.
If defender is a keyword, then there is no reason why agressor couldn't be a keyword. Both abilities seem to pop up with as much frequency, and require just as many words to explain. I know it might seem unnecessary, but one half of the point of keywords is to simplify talking about the game by giving very commonly used expressions their own keyword. We don't really need Haste, after all.
But the good thing about Agressor as a keyword is, that, if they keyworded it, it would come up more often (and would probably have about 10 creatures in the first set it was in). And there is nothing better for the health of the game than an ability that forces creatures to engage in combat.
For (((Challenge #005))).
Originally it didn't have the last ability, but I decided it needed it (large flier blockers are not red's stock in trade), even though that broke the word count. Red doesn't get many high-power fliers other than dragons, but I think it can get one or two.
You should cheat and make a new keyword for that ability. It certainly gets used enough.
Aggressive/Aggression (This creature attacks each turn if able) :-)
Or, to bring it in line with Defender - Aggressor
Hey, I like Aggressor! It's true, we should have a keyword for that.
I'm amused by the name, but I think something like "berserker" would be clearer (and either way, I considered inventing a keyword, but I didn't think there was enough reason other than shortening the wordcount which doesn't really count). That would be ok as a keyword, but I don't think the benefit would likely be worth it: there's not that many creatures with Aggressor that seem to want to be dealt with as a group, and it seems less part of their inherent identity than "defender", and it's only occasionally granted, and when it is "attacks each turn" sounds almost simpler than "gains aggressor". But maybe I'm too pessimistic.
If defender is a keyword, then there is no reason why agressor couldn't be a keyword. Both abilities seem to pop up with as much frequency, and require just as many words to explain. I know it might seem unnecessary, but one half of the point of keywords is to simplify talking about the game by giving very commonly used expressions their own keyword. We don't really need Haste, after all.
But the good thing about Agressor as a keyword is, that, if they keyworded it, it would come up more often (and would probably have about 10 creatures in the first set it was in). And there is nothing better for the health of the game than an ability that forces creatures to engage in combat.