shadow, trespasser.

[shumatsu]

i dont completly get the wording on shadow.
can a creature with shadow block a creature without it, all i can tell is it cant be blocked be creatures without shadow.

can the trespasser il-vec ability be used multiple times at a time?

[Azerbaijan]

A creature with shadow can only block creatures with shadow. Similarly, a creature with shadow can only be blocked by creatures with shadow.

The reminder text seems perfectly clear to me: It can block or be blocked by only creatures with shadow.

You can use Trespasser il-Vec's ability multiple times in a turn, but it will have no noticeable effect; multiple instances of "shadow" are redunant.

[Krashbot]

Creatures with shadow cannot block creatures without shadow, and creatures without shadow cannot block creatures with shadow.

As for using Tresspasser il-Vec more than once, yes, you may use the ability as many times as you want. This allows you to discard as many cards as you want whenever you can play the ability. If you use the ability more than once, the Tresspasser will gain multiple instances of shadow. However, shadow is redundant, so the second, thrid, etc instances will do nothing.

Edit: Sarnath'd.

[Binary]

Originally Posted by shumatsu

i dont completly get the wording on shadow.
can a creature with shadow block a creature without it, all i can tell is it cant be blocked be creatures without shadow.

Shadow is not just flying with a different name. There is a key functional difference: creatures with shadow cannot block creatures without shadow.

can the trespasser il-vec ability be used multiple times at a time?

An activated ability can be played as many times as you can pay its costs, unless the ability says otherwise. You can activate Trespasser il-Vec's ability as many times as you have cards in your hand; however additional instances of Shadow have no additional effect.

[Horseshoe_Hermit]

Originally Posted by Azerbaijan

The reminder text seems perfectly clear to me: It can block or be blocked by only creatures with shadow.

It's reasonable for it not to make sense to some people, Azerbaijain, considering
(a) This grammar structure doesn't exist in some languages;
(b) it doesn't translate well into some languages that can imitate that structure; but mostly
(c) that grammar structure doesn't even exist in English.

What the ability wants to say is "A creature can't block a creature if exactly one of them has shadow."

[silvercut]

Originally Posted by Horseshoe_Hermit

(c) that grammar structure doesn't even exist in English.

It doesn't? It looks like just a simple sentence with a compound verb.

This creature can block or be blocked by only creatures with shadow.

This sentence can be broken apart into two simple sentences to make it easier.

This creature can block only creatures with shadow. This creature can be blocked by only creatures with shadow.

The part that is probably confusing is either the little tiny word "or." Why isn't it "This creature can block and be blocked by only creatures with shadow." ? At any one time it can never be both blocking and blocked. In combat, it can only be blocking or be blocked (or be unblocked). Having Shadow though means that it can only block or be blocked by other creatures with shadow. Maybe its the location of the word "only" that is confusing and that would be slightly better reminder text, although it is technically the same thing.

This creature can only block or be blocked by other creatures with shadow.

[Dr. Tom]

I hate the "by only creatures with shadow" part. That's terrible construction, and while it might be gramatically correct, it both looks and sounds HORRIBLE. Instead, it should say, "only by creatures with shadow." It reads better, it's easier to understand, and it probably translates better.

[shumatsu]

thx all, and for the trespasser, i only needed to know so i could drop a nice group of fatties to my suspended living end AEOT