Submission: Summon thy master

Name: Summon thy master
Card type: Combat (reaction?)

Card text:
Requires: Slave. When this slave minion successfully blocks a D action, a member of the owning clan (controlled by the slave's controller) may tap to cancel the combat and enter combat with the blocked minion instead. Untap this slave minion.

How does this card address a compelling game need?:
To add tactical versatility to minions with the slave attribute.

Zombieking wrote:

Name: Summon thy master
Card type: Combat (reaction?)

Card text:
Requires: Slave. When this slave minion successfully blocks a D action, a member of the owning clan (controlled by the slave's controller) may tap to cancel the combat and enter combat with the blocked minion instead. Untap this slave minion.

How does this card address a compelling game need?:
To add tactical versatility to minions with the slave attribute.

Thematically correct, I can envision a scrawny gargoyle warning his/her master. However:
1.) Puts Gargoyles in the passengers seat, a utility for (!)Tremere
2.) If you add Gargoyle intercept cards, you might as well omit Gargoyles entirely and include Eyes of Argus and suchlike, (!)Tremere's are currently better at intercept.
3.) Putting minions with slave status into game is quite expensive for this card idea. Doubt it will see any use.

This idea would work as a Gargoyle Creature Ally with +2 intercept and the ability to hand combat over to it's master (which would be fun ). I don't think it empowers the Gargoyle bloodline at all, it just makes them more utilitarian.

The Gargoyle bloodline freed themselves from their masters and work on freeing remaining embraced Gargoyle slaves. I feel Gargoyle cards should focus more on this theme
whitewolf.wikia.com/wiki/Gargoyle_Revolt

Yeah, I completely see where you're coming from – it's just that I always thought that the slave mechanic was a really interesting tactical option. And as far as as I know there isnt a single card that tries to expand on it in a useful manner.

My idea was simply a defensive version of the existing slave rule. I wonder if there is possibility of adding this as errata to the slave rule, to give more utility vs. the expensiveness of employing slaves? (i know, silly idea. just thinking out loud!)

anyway, thanks for the feedback and the link – im not that familiar with the whitewolf mythos, will have a read up