It is a interesting idea, but rules will need to be written, that we can see how it can work. (It does seem like it may be better than what I have now.)

The reason disabling not allowing blockers is not "clear" is at least twofold:

• It is done during the declare attackers step and interacts with multiple mechanics that interact with attacking (haste, vigilance), so there is a natural assumption to ask "what else"
• There is another question of "Why not simply an activated ability costing ?" lurking in the background; and the ability to interact with the disabling creatures (even if only after the fact) would be a reasonable answer.

So, now having ascertained that bocking is not an option, why not using estabished mechanical space and an activated ability? Just for vigilance?

Alternatively, this could easily be a mechanic like on Alaborn Cavalier, so not allowing blockers is a consideration.

I think a really cool way to try and do this mechanic is to actually rewrite combat to allow blocking "harrassing"/diabling units and "attack" in two waves. That way you wouldn't have to bother with the /convoke buyout, because instead blocking the creature with disable becomes a counterplay.

Right now the mechanic seems too complicated on the one hand, but also not consistent enough with attacking - making it harder to play correctly.

I agree that it makes sense for the rules of the card to work well together (even if I have not done that yet, but it can be changed to improve this).

It seems clear to me that disabling creatures can't be blocked, since they aren't attacking, and the effect is working during the declare attackers step so there is no time to be blocked.

However, I have a idea. My idea is to allow the cost to be convoked, so you can tap two other creatures instead of that one if you don't want that one tapped and detained, or tap only one other and pay one mana, or tap the same one and pay one mana simply to avoid detainment if you only want to avoid being detained but can still be tapped (if it is not already tapped). This convoking could be restricted to creatures that would be allowed to block it if it were attacking, maybe (or maybe not).

But maybe that is too complicated. An alternative would be for disable to be a alternative kind of attack (although then it would be stopped by having defender). In this case it is blockable by either two creatures or two mana; if two creatures block it, they are affected by the disable instead. However, then damage is not dealt and disable is doing instead, but disable will need to prevent the target creature from blocking if it is successful, and this won't work, then, because the timing is wrong. So, this way is also too complicated (perhaps even more so), and has its own undesirable properties, including some rules being too confusing, I think. (It might make the other effects work together, but they would work in a confusing and unclear way and I think this is not worth it.)

(Although, I don't really care if the rules are complicated, as long as they aren't too convoluted or too confusing; the rules should be clear to whoever reads them, rather than being mixed up and confusing.)

So, I am unsure. There are other possible ideas too about changing the costs, timing, etc.

I get why they have artner from a lore perspective, but it is good practice to find rules text for the card that allows the cards work well togeher.

Right now the mechanics on each of them don't even work together all that well - e. g. disable wants to be used by tapping, but so do the activated abilities.

So... is disable simple enough to receive reminder text? It is ambiguous from the rules you describe whether disabling creatures can be blocked.

What's the big plan behind tapping AND detaining?

The rules file is linked from the front page for this card set. The relevant rule is copied below:

Disable is a static ability that modifies the rules for the declare attackers step. A creature that is not attacking may be declared as disabling, if it isn't tapped and doesn't have summoning sickness (haste ignores summoning sickness, like normal), and taps it (unless it has vigilance). Creatures doing disabling create triggers on the stack, with that creature as source, and a creature controlled by the defending player as target. When it resolves, the target creature is tapped and detained, unless its controller pays . Detained creatures can't use disable.

(Maybe the cost above should be changed. Do you have a suggestion to change it?)

About partners, the reason for that is that they are partners in the story. However, the cards can be changed if this way is problematic, I suppose.

An actual good card to reprint. I wish it was more like Coral Cylix - cantripping immediately rather than slow-tripping upon use. Even just slow-triping right upon entering the battelfield would be a reasonable upgrade.

Requested Feedback.

Can I get a second iteration of you considering and explaining why you don't make this an artifact and remove echo (balanncing the other costs appropriately if you think this is necessary)?

I don't understand why this ability has to have so much cramped into it. Could the abilities concerning mana and card number games be split?

Requested Feedback.

So... intentionally reprinting color pie breaks and old mechanics is the set's theme, right?

Requested Feedback.

Two mana more for +1/+0 over White Knight is really not an upgrade that needs to be balanced by a bump in rarity and legendary supertype.

Requested Feedback.

I don't know what disable does. I found three cards with that keyword in this set, but none had reminder text and there exists no details page for mechanics to explain it to me.

Your handling of keyword abilities takes up some space. Wh aren't flying and flanking on one line?

Between this and Ziveruskex I learn something about their anatomy in the comments, but not so much whether there are any mechanial considerations to making these partners. Do their activated abilities work well together? Disable?