Slivers.

Chances are suprisingly good that magpie was not wearing pants when he
or she said:
> Im so happy slivers are here there the best .
> Anyway...if i have a Hunter Sliver which gives all slivers provoke and
> a Two-Headed Sliver which gives them the ability that they can only be
> blocked by 2 or more creatures.

Okay. If you use Provoke on a particular creature, your opponent can
choose to either block that Sliver with at least two creatures, one of
which must be the one you Provoked, or he can choose not to block it at
all.

> Assuming my opponent has declared 1
> blocker and 2 of his creatures are tapped and i attack with a sliver
> and a non-sliver. He blocks the non-sliver creature, but since my
> sliver has provoke and i make him untap one of his other creaures to
> block it what ability would overrule the other, the Hunter Sliver or
> the Two-Headed Sliver?

You seem to be confused about how declaring blockers works. All blockers
are declared at once. This happens *after*, not before, Provoke is used;
the Provoke triggered ability goes on the stack just after you declare
attackers, and blockers can't be declared until after it resolves.

That aside, it's like I said above. Your opponent can either block a
given sliver with two or more creatures that include the one that sliver
Provoked, or not block at all, but can't block with just one creature
(even the Provoked one).

> Ok now about suspend, if there's a sorcery card being suspended and Eye
> of the Storm is in play what would happen? I'm assuming the Eye would
> remove it once its played, bcuz the eye looks for a sorcery or instante
> being played and the suspend ability says "play" it without paying its
> mana cost. But then again im not an expert with new stuff hehe.

Suspend says "play", as you pointed out yourself. So such cards are
played, and Eye of the Storm applies. Whether you paid the spell's mana
cost has nothing to do with it.
 >> Stay informed about: Slivers. 

Okay, how 'bout this: two Hunter Slivers are in play, and all Slivers
have two instances of Provoke. Now how does Two-Headed Sliver interact?
 >> Stay informed about: Slivers. 

mutantman91.DeleteThis@gmail.com <mutantman91.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:

> Okay, how 'bout this: two Hunter Slivers are in play, and all Slivers
> have two instances of Provoke. Now how does Two-Headed Sliver interact?

All Slivers have "This creature can't be blocked except by two or more
creatures."

Period.

Now, if the two provoke abilities of a given Sliver target two creatures
that would otherwise be eligible to block it, that block would be valid
and therefore mandatory.
--
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes.DeleteThis@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W
 >> Stay informed about: Slivers. 

mutantman91.DeleteThis@gmail.com <mutantman91.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>Okay, how 'bout this: two Hunter Slivers are in play, and all Slivers
>have two instances of Provoke. Now how does Two-Headed Sliver interact?

Hunter Sliver 1R Creature - Sliver
1/1 All Slivers have provoke. (When a Sliver attacks, its controller may have
target creature defending player controls untap and block it if able.)

Two-Headed Sliver 1R Creature - Sliver
1/1 All Slivers have "This creature can't be blocked except by two or more
creatures.".

Now each Sliver that attacks has both its Provokes trigger, and the Sliver's
controller may target the same creature twice (fairly similar to the one-
Provoke case, except with two different untap times), or may target two
different creatures. If both targetted creatures are able to block the
attacking Sliver and if the attacker's controller decides to have both
untap and forced-block, THEN it's not legal to try to not block that Sliver,
or to block it with just one of them plus some other creature, because now
"both of them block it" is (generally) a legal blocking assignment, which
satisfies two more blocking requirements than "nothing blocks it" AND which
doesn't involve anything that's not forced to block (as 500.5 notes).
If that parses for you, anyway.

Having just one forced-block doesn't mean anything else "must block along with
it to make the block legal" that's not forced to block - that's what 500.5 is
saying, effectively, for the one-Provoke case - but if you've GOT two that
must block and that can block, guess what? You've got yourself a legal blocking
assignment you can pick that DOES make "no blockers" conflict with the
must-block requirements, so "no blockers" is no longer legal.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd.DeleteThis@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
 >> Stay informed about: Slivers.