(2*) All about the process of declaring attackers Support Judging FtW on Patreon at / judgingftw Suggest a question: forms.gle/YTK2qrQqTL18rRsJ9 Declaring Attackers by Isaac King: outsidetheasylum.blog/declari...
Almost like that question ("How do attacking requirements and restrictions actually work?") isn't the same as the 2 star "how does the declare attackers step work?"
That article you linked to is brilliant, if only because it makes Season of the Witch actually *work* in the rules of Magic by letting you phrase the ability as destroying "each untapped creature that didn't attack this turn if it could have been included in one or more valid attack declarations," or something to that...in other words, a creature being unable to attack is defined as a creature that is not included in any member of the set of all legal attacks a player could make during their turn.
I suppose 'included' refers to a legal declaration which the creature in question AND all actually attacking creatures? Otherwise the rule could be quite annoying to check since it requires you to check all possible attacks, even if you settled for a trivially legal attack declaration.
I remember a few years ago someone managed to make a bad combo deck that forced the defending player to solve an NP-Hard problem to declare blockers using the restrictions/requirements stuff, all with standard legal cards One of the few times I've seen Sparky concede a game was when they tested it with a decently sized amount of attackers
@@tilnation14 Don't think most people do math that depends on that, a lot of stuff people use digitally (most of digital cryptography for example) would be affected depending on how the exact proof works and how efficient translating NP Hard problems into P problems is So if you work cryptography or network security it probably would have a huge impact and otherwise you would mostly notice it in that those things chanfe how they work
Being in the ballpark of my Ruhan/Master Warcraft question, I was a bit sad not to see it show up here. From the details in this video though, I'm thinking that MW just lets you take over the declare attackers and blockers steps instead of the usual players that would do so, bit wouldn't let you break any restrictions. So even with Master Warcraft, their Ruhan would have to attack.
Yes. Here's a relevant ruling on MW: "You choose attackers and make blocking assignments regardless of whether it's your turn and regardless of whether the creatures are attacking you. *Your choices must be legal within the normal rules for attacking and blocking*."
Challenge question: Amy controls a million 1/1 goblin tokens, a Basalt Monolith, and a Rings of Brighthearth. Nick controls a Propaganda. Can Amy attack Nick with all of her goblins by making "infinite mana" assuming she has the requisite amount of mana to start the "infinite mana" combo?
Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the answer is "No". Based on what was in the video, costs paid for circumventing effects like Propaganda can be paid, but no player gets priority during the sequence. So, any non-mana ability (like, say, {3}: Untap Basalt Monolith) cannot be activated before having to pay attack costs but after making the move to Declare Attackers. Now, I'm not certain, but I believe if you had something like Forbidden Orchard, which creates a trigger when tapped for mana, then you COULD make infinite mana by responding to the trigger, but I don't know if the trigger goes up before costs have to be paid.
I think the answer is yes. Amy may make 2 million mana in her beginning of combat step, then use this mana during the declare attackers step to pay for Propaganda 1 million times. She does need to be careful to do this before she starts to declare attackers, as once she declares attackers no one will receive priority to activate abilities except mana abilities, and Basalt Monolith's activated ability that untaps itself is not a mana ability.
@@fragniz Mana empties at the end of each phase, not each step. So floating mana in the beginning of combat step is possible. A card like Forbidden Orchard wouldn't change anything: pending triggers are put onto the stack when state-based actions are checked, i.e. the first time anyone would receive priority, which is after attackers are declared and after costs like Propaganda are paid.
106.4: When an effect instructs a player to add mana, that mana goes into a player's mana pool. From there, it can be used to pay costs immediately, or it can stay in the player's mana pool as unspent mana. Each player's mana pool empties at the end of each step and phase, and the player is said to lose this mana. Cards with abilities that produce mana or refer to unspent mana have received errata in the Oracle(TM) card reference to no longer explicitly refer to the mana pool.
viashino bey ability does nothing because the trigger won't go on the stack until after attacks are declared. and there certainly isn't different oracle text on that card, because Dave would have shown us otherwise. 😉
I assumed it still worked anyway, but I was curious so checked; it turns out there isn't different oracle text, but sadly there is a ruling saying it isn't a triggered ability but rather a constraint on attacking.
Not attacking at all is not a legal option. It doesn't fulfill any of the requirements. _if and only if_ Amy pays the 2 for propaganda, attacking pat is the only legal option . That then fulfills 4 of the requirements on the bears: attack a player other than Nick, attack a player other than Olive, must attack x2 Otherwise, attacking Nick OR Olive are both legal, since they both fulfill exactly 3 of the requirements: must attack x2, and one of the "attack a player other than..." requirements
I have previously seen Lier adventure flashback video which makes sense. But why am I able to retrace adventure cards with Six(creature) and choose the adventure side? (Seek the beast for ex.)
When casting an enchantment creature for its bestow cost, does the cast still trigger any abilities that care about when creature spells are cast, or does it only register as an enchantment aura when checking for triggered abilities? Thanks for any help!
Bestow [cost] (If you cast this card for its bestow cost, it's an Aura spell with enchant creature. It becomes a creature again if it's not attached to a creature Therefore, it is an aura spell, thus not a creature.
@selfnico I thought so but wanted to double check. Sometimes the rules interact in ways that aren't always obvious from reading the plain text or they have extra interactions than may appear on the surface. Thank you.
I have a question if it can be answered my brother cast chaotic transformation targeting a enchantment, creature and artifact (no land) the creature is a melded titania do i reveal for 3 or 4 cards because of titania being 2 perments once its exiled. Chaotic transformation says for each permanent exiled this way
Three because Titania, Gaea Incarnate is one permanent composed of 2 cards. Cards are only permanents on the battlefield so them being 2 cards once exiled isn't meaningful to Chaotic Transformation.
@@arcbinder chaotic says each permanent exiled this way and the rule for melds on gather says If an effect moves a melded permanent to a new zone and then affects "that card," it affects both cards.
@@nolife874 Yes, but Chaotic Transformation doesn't affect cards, it affects permanents and permanents only exist on the battlefield. Melded permanents are one permanent composed of two cards. If it said for "For each permanent card exiled this way", then I would agree with your reading that it would count for two. Relevant rule: 712.4. If a melded permanent leaves the battlefield, one permanent leaves the battlefield and two cards are put into the appropriate zone.
@@nolife874 No it doesn't. "Exile up to one target artifact, up to one target creature, up to one target enchantment, up to one target planeswalker, and/or up to one target land. For each permanent exiled this way, its controller reveals cards from the top of their library until they reveal a card that shares a card type with it, puts that card onto the battlefield, then shuffles."
So, if the step where you check if the creatures are untapped, and when you tap them, comes before the step where you can activate mana abilities... Does that mean a vigilant mana dork (eg Moonscarred Werewolf) can attack, and also tap to pay for its own Propaganda costs?
So you must choose untapped creatures in 508.1a, tap them in 508.1f, then pay costs in 508.1g, so you should be able to pay costs with a vigilant mana dork (it won't get tapped), but not one without vigilance since it will be tapped right before paying. 508.1a: The active player chooses which creatures that they control, if any, will attack. The chosen creatures must be untapped, they can't also be battles, and each one must either have haste or have been controlled by the active player continuously since the turn began. 508.1f: The active player taps the chosen creatures. Tapping a creature when it's declared as an attacker isn't a cost; attacking simply causes creatures to become tapped. 508.1g: If there are any optional costs to attack with the chosen creatures (expressed as costs a player may pay "as" a creature attacks), the active player chooses which, if any, they will pay.
Maybe I missed something with the linked explanation, but what happens if you don't know how much mana you'll actually have access to, such as with Selvala? When casting spells, you reverse the spell, keep Selvala's mana and life, everyone keeps their card, and you can reverse other mana abilities (but not Selvala). This is all from a ruling for Selvala, but it doesn't have a similar one for declaring attackers.
I believe it will work similarly since if you try to pay a cost that you cannot pay, you end up reversing the action as well as the mana abilities you can reverse (but not Selvala since she draws cards). 730.1: If a player takes an illegal action or starts to take an action but can't legally complete it, the entire action is reversed and any payments already made are canceled. No abilities trigger and no effects apply as a result of an undone action. If the action was casting a spell, the spell returns to the zone it came from. Each player may also reverse any legal mana abilities that player activated while making the illegal play, unless mana from those abilities or from any triggered mana abilities they caused to trigger was spent on another mana ability that wasn't reversed. Players may not reverse actions that moved cards to a library, moved cards from a library to any zone other than the stack, caused a library to be shuffled, or caused cards from a library to be revealed.
Hi Dave! I have another question for your consideration. If I have Gandalf the White on the battlefield and I play Rosie Cotton of South Lane how many +1/+1 counters will Gandalf receive? I am quite sure that 2 Food tokens are created by Rosie as her first ability is triggered an additional time by Gandalf, but is her second ability triggered an additional time? Does 'create a token' interact with an 'enters the battlefield' triggered ability at all? I looked at rule 701.6 (Create), but I am unsure if it helps or hinders. Advice (or a video), would be much appreciated. Thanks, Smashman
Created tokens do enter the battlefield so each food will trigger her twice. 111.2: The player who creates a token is its owner. The token enters the battlefield under that player's control.
What happens when the optional cost is 0? If Amy controls a Bloodrock Cyclops (attacks each turn if able) enchanted by Nick’s Cowed By Wisdom aura (can’t attack or block unless Amy pays 1 for each card in Nick’s hand), and Nick has 0 card in hand, can Amy refuse to pay the optional cost of 0 mana and not attack? It seems to be that this would be a legal move as nothing seems to be caring about the actual cost of the optional cost.
"When Viashino Bey attacks, all creatures you control attack if able." Is this not a triggered ability? If Viashino Bey never attacks, the ability doesn't trigger, so the requirement for Grizzly Bears to attack doesn't exist. (Although I'm not sure about the timing ... the ability wouldn't trigger until the very end of the declare attackers step, so would this requirement even apply to the current combat phase?)
The behaviour in two-player games is why goad is written as two separate requirements: attack of able, and attack not-me if able. The second requirement is unfulfillable in a two-player game, and so has no effect, but the first one still works. If goad was implemented as just "attack not-me if able" then it would do nothing at all in a dual, they'd still be able to choose to attack or not, which wouldn't be great as a mechanic. Meanwhile, if they'd made it a requirement and a restriction, "must attack if able, cannot attack me" then it would be a weird mechanic that would _force_ attacks on multiplayer but _prevent_ attacks in duals, which would be a weird mechanic to make.
11:52 that’s so unnecessarily confusing… As far as I could tell, attacking “Pat” by any means should satisfy all 4 requirements, and you didn’t really explain why not, so it took me forever to figure out what was going on. At first I thought I must have misheard the names, and maybe there were only 3 players I miss the days when the Planeswalkers still counted as the player. I have no idea how things work now apparently 😂
Ensnaring Bridge and Propaganda both create restrictions which stop a creature from attacking under certain conditions. Restrictions can't be, or in the case of Propaganda don't need to be, broken even if it would help fulfill now requirements. 508.1d: The active player checks each creature they control to see whether it's affected by any requirements (effects that say a creature attacks if able, or that it attacks if some condition is met). If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximum possible number of requirements that could be obeyed without disobeying any restrictions, the declaration of attackers is illegal. If a creature can't attack unless a player pays a cost, that player is not required to pay that cost, even if attacking with that creature would increase the number of requirements being obeyed. If a requirement that says a creature attacks if able during a certain turn refers to a turn with multiple combat phases, the creature attacks if able during each declare attackers step in that turn. So with just a bridge + imp, the non-wall creatures would need to attack if they were small enough to fit under bridge, but otherwise they can't attack and will be destroyed. With Propaganda, none need to attack unless their controller decides to pay the 2 for them (or there is somewhere else they can attack), but the ones that don't attach will be destroyed. Here's a relevant ruling from the imp: "If a creature can’t attack because of some restriction, or because it is tapped, it is destroyed at the end of the turn."
Expect for rules say so I never really understood why tapped (otherwise legal) vigilance creature cant just attack tapped. It doesnt have to tap :( after all.
Flavorfully you could think of tapped creatures as being "tired". A creature with vigilance doesn't get tired from attacking, but if it's already really tired, it's not going to be very effective in combat.
For anyone still confused by the commander example like I was: Goad's second requirement is that the creature must attack a PLAYER if able, and that player isn't the one who goaded it. Attacking Pat's planeswalker doesn't fulfill this requirement since it isn't a player (I assume this would work the same with a battle Pat was defending). In my brain I was interpreting goad more like "Target creature must attack each combat if able and cannot attack you if able to attack something else", which isn't *quite* true apparently lol. In the end, the set of options Amy can choose (if she doesn't pay the 2) includes declaring no attackers, attacking Nick, attacking Olive, and attacking Pat's planeswalker (attacking Pat is not included in the set because Amy chose not to pay the 2). Declaring no attackers fulfills 0/4 requirements, attacking Pat's planeswalker fulfills 2/4 requirements (the requirements that grizzly bears attacks each combat if able, which counts twice because it was goaded by two different players), and attacking Nick or Olive fulfills 3/4 (the same 2 as before plus the requirement that grizzly bears attacks a PLAYER that isn't Nick/Olive). Therefore the only legal option is to declare grizzly bears as an attacker attacking Nick or Olive.
I had not realized that Goad prohibits attacking planeswalkers (in a multiplayer game). That's very odd and I bet that rule gets played wrong all the time.
>Two stars
>"It took a professional mathematician two months to answer this question"
Almost like that question ("How do attacking requirements and restrictions actually work?") isn't the same as the 2 star "how does the declare attackers step work?"
😂 You know, easy magic!
Enlist is another mechanic that is used at the same time as Exert.
Example: Guardian of New Benalia
That article you linked to is brilliant, if only because it makes Season of the Witch actually *work* in the rules of Magic by letting you phrase the ability as destroying "each untapped creature that didn't attack this turn if it could have been included in one or more valid attack declarations," or something to that...in other words, a creature being unable to attack is defined as a creature that is not included in any member of the set of all legal attacks a player could make during their turn.
I suppose 'included' refers to a legal declaration which the creature in question AND all actually attacking creatures?
Otherwise the rule could be quite annoying to check since it requires you to check all possible attacks, even if you settled for a trivially legal attack declaration.
Damn… When he said “article” I was hoping for a math paper 😅
I remember a few years ago someone managed to make a bad combo deck that forced the defending player to solve an NP-Hard problem to declare blockers using the restrictions/requirements stuff, all with standard legal cards
One of the few times I've seen Sparky concede a game was when they tested it with a decently sized amount of attackers
If, theoretically, P=NP, are we(the general populace) going to have to learn a bunch of new mathematics or would we just pretend that they're not?
@@tilnation14 Don't think most people do math that depends on that, a lot of stuff people use digitally (most of digital cryptography for example) would be affected depending on how the exact proof works and how efficient translating NP Hard problems into P problems is
So if you work cryptography or network security it probably would have a huge impact and otherwise you would mostly notice it in that those things chanfe how they work
@@TheLuckySpades Yea I looked it up afterward and realized my question basically made no sense, bar the proof being really simple, which it won't be
I always thought ad-hoc was pronounced "add hawk." The more you know
It is indeed pronounced as you thought it was.
@@danl9030 Both of them are listed as valid in many dictionaries (e.g. Merriam-Webster). So really, everyone is correct.
I pronounce it as add hawk 🐦
Add-hawk-tuah
every word is pronounced however you want, they’re made up lol
Being in the ballpark of my Ruhan/Master Warcraft question, I was a bit sad not to see it show up here. From the details in this video though, I'm thinking that MW just lets you take over the declare attackers and blockers steps instead of the usual players that would do so, bit wouldn't let you break any restrictions. So even with Master Warcraft, their Ruhan would have to attack.
Yes. Here's a relevant ruling on MW:
"You choose attackers and make blocking assignments regardless of whether it's your turn and regardless of whether the creatures are attacking you. *Your choices must be legal within the normal rules for attacking and blocking*."
Very cool. Very in depth. Always enjoy the patron picks
Oh snap, a late night video.
An early morning video for me
Challenge question:
Amy controls a million 1/1 goblin tokens, a Basalt Monolith, and a Rings of Brighthearth.
Nick controls a Propaganda.
Can Amy attack Nick with all of her goblins by making "infinite mana" assuming she has the requisite amount of mana to start the "infinite mana" combo?
Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the answer is "No". Based on what was in the video, costs paid for circumventing effects like Propaganda can be paid, but no player gets priority during the sequence. So, any non-mana ability (like, say, {3}: Untap Basalt Monolith) cannot be activated before having to pay attack costs but after making the move to Declare Attackers. Now, I'm not certain, but I believe if you had something like Forbidden Orchard, which creates a trigger when tapped for mana, then you COULD make infinite mana by responding to the trigger, but I don't know if the trigger goes up before costs have to be paid.
She doesn't need to generate "infinite mana", just 2 million or more, which she can easily do by repeating the loop 2 million or more times.
I think the answer is yes. Amy may make 2 million mana in her beginning of combat step, then use this mana during the declare attackers step to pay for Propaganda 1 million times. She does need to be careful to do this before she starts to declare attackers, as once she declares attackers no one will receive priority to activate abilities except mana abilities, and Basalt Monolith's activated ability that untaps itself is not a mana ability.
@@fragniz Mana empties at the end of each phase, not each step. So floating mana in the beginning of combat step is possible. A card like Forbidden Orchard wouldn't change anything: pending triggers are put onto the stack when state-based actions are checked, i.e. the first time anyone would receive priority, which is after attackers are declared and after costs like Propaganda are paid.
106.4: When an effect instructs a player to add mana, that mana goes into a player's mana pool. From there, it can be used to pay costs immediately, or it can stay in the player's mana pool as unspent mana. Each player's mana pool empties at the end of each step and phase, and the player is said to lose this mana. Cards with abilities that produce mana or refer to unspent mana have received errata in the Oracle(TM) card reference to no longer explicitly refer to the mana pool.
viashino bey ability does nothing because the trigger won't go on the stack until after attacks are declared.
and there certainly isn't different oracle text on that card, because Dave would have shown us otherwise. 😉
I assumed it still worked anyway, but I was curious so checked; it turns out there isn't different oracle text, but sadly there is a ruling saying it isn't a triggered ability but rather a constraint on attacking.
@@arcbinderthe oracle text is different, it says “if” instead of “when” so it works
@@poiri oops, completely blanked on that somehow
I'm confused at the end. Is attacking pat or not attacking at all the only two options?
Not attacking at all is not a legal option. It doesn't fulfill any of the requirements.
_if and only if_ Amy pays the 2 for propaganda, attacking pat is the only legal option . That then fulfills 4 of the requirements on the bears: attack a player other than Nick, attack a player other than Olive, must attack x2
Otherwise, attacking Nick OR Olive are both legal, since they both fulfill exactly 3 of the requirements: must attack x2, and one of the "attack a player other than..." requirements
I have previously seen Lier adventure flashback video which makes sense. But why am I able to retrace adventure cards with Six(creature) and choose the adventure side? (Seek the beast for ex.)
When casting an enchantment creature for its bestow cost, does the cast still trigger any abilities that care about when creature spells are cast, or does it only register as an enchantment aura when checking for triggered abilities? Thanks for any help!
Bestow [cost] (If you cast this card for its bestow cost, it's an Aura spell with enchant creature. It becomes a creature again if it's not attached to a creature
Therefore, it is an aura spell, thus not a creature.
@selfnico I thought so but wanted to double check. Sometimes the rules interact in ways that aren't always obvious from reading the plain text or they have extra interactions than may appear on the surface. Thank you.
I have a question if it can be answered my brother cast chaotic transformation targeting a enchantment, creature and artifact (no land) the creature is a melded titania do i reveal for 3 or 4 cards because of titania being 2 perments once its exiled. Chaotic transformation says for each permanent exiled this way
Three because Titania, Gaea Incarnate is one permanent composed of 2 cards. Cards are only permanents on the battlefield so them being 2 cards once exiled isn't meaningful to Chaotic Transformation.
@@arcbinder chaotic says each permanent exiled this way and the rule for melds on gather says If an effect moves a melded permanent to a new zone and then affects "that card," it affects both cards.
@@nolife874 Yes, but Chaotic Transformation doesn't affect cards, it affects permanents and permanents only exist on the battlefield. Melded permanents are one permanent composed of two cards. If it said for "For each permanent card exiled this way", then I would agree with your reading that it would count for two.
Relevant rule:
712.4. If a melded permanent leaves the battlefield, one permanent leaves the battlefield and two cards are put into the appropriate zone.
@@arcbinder it does say for each permanent card exiled this way for the 2nd half of the effect
@@nolife874 No it doesn't.
"Exile up to one target artifact, up to one target creature, up to one target enchantment, up to one target planeswalker, and/or up to one target land. For each permanent exiled this way, its controller reveals cards from the top of their library until they reveal a card that shares a card type with it, puts that card onto the battlefield, then shuffles."
So, if the step where you check if the creatures are untapped, and when you tap them, comes before the step where you can activate mana abilities... Does that mean a vigilant mana dork (eg Moonscarred Werewolf) can attack, and also tap to pay for its own Propaganda costs?
So you must choose untapped creatures in 508.1a, tap them in 508.1f, then pay costs in 508.1g, so you should be able to pay costs with a vigilant mana dork (it won't get tapped), but not one without vigilance since it will be tapped right before paying.
508.1a: The active player chooses which creatures that they control, if any, will attack. The chosen creatures must be untapped, they can't also be battles, and each one must either have haste or have been controlled by the active player continuously since the turn began.
508.1f: The active player taps the chosen creatures. Tapping a creature when it's declared as an attacker isn't a cost; attacking simply causes creatures to become tapped.
508.1g: If there are any optional costs to attack with the chosen creatures (expressed as costs a player may pay "as" a creature attacks), the active player chooses which, if any, they will pay.
Maybe I missed something with the linked explanation, but what happens if you don't know how much mana you'll actually have access to, such as with Selvala? When casting spells, you reverse the spell, keep Selvala's mana and life, everyone keeps their card, and you can reverse other mana abilities (but not Selvala). This is all from a ruling for Selvala, but it doesn't have a similar one for declaring attackers.
I believe it will work similarly since if you try to pay a cost that you cannot pay, you end up reversing the action as well as the mana abilities you can reverse (but not Selvala since she draws cards).
730.1: If a player takes an illegal action or starts to take an action but can't legally complete it, the entire action is reversed and any payments already made are canceled. No abilities trigger and no effects apply as a result of an undone action. If the action was casting a spell, the spell returns to the zone it came from. Each player may also reverse any legal mana abilities that player activated while making the illegal play, unless mana from those abilities or from any triggered mana abilities they caused to trigger was spent on another mana ability that wasn't reversed. Players may not reverse actions that moved cards to a library, moved cards from a library to any zone other than the stack, caused a library to be shuffled, or caused cards from a library to be revealed.
When learning Magic, me and my friend thought Bloodrock Cyclops also had to attack on the opponent's turn xD
Hi Dave! I have another question for your consideration.
If I have Gandalf the White on the battlefield and I play Rosie Cotton of South Lane how many +1/+1 counters will Gandalf receive?
I am quite sure that 2 Food tokens are created by Rosie as her first ability is triggered an additional time by Gandalf, but is her second ability triggered an additional time?
Does 'create a token' interact with an 'enters the battlefield' triggered ability at all? I looked at rule 701.6 (Create), but I am unsure if it helps or hinders.
Advice (or a video), would be much appreciated.
Thanks,
Smashman
Created tokens do enter the battlefield so each food will trigger her twice.
111.2: The player who creates a token is its owner. The token enters the battlefield under that player's control.
What happens when the optional cost is 0?
If Amy controls a Bloodrock Cyclops (attacks each turn if able) enchanted by Nick’s Cowed By Wisdom aura (can’t attack or block unless Amy pays 1 for each card in Nick’s hand), and Nick has 0 card in hand, can Amy refuse to pay the optional cost of 0 mana and not attack?
It seems to be that this would be a legal move as nothing seems to be caring about the actual cost of the optional cost.
Yeah. You aren't forced to pay the cost.
"When Viashino Bey attacks, all creatures you control attack if able."
Is this not a triggered ability? If Viashino Bey never attacks, the ability doesn't trigger, so the requirement for Grizzly Bears to attack doesn't exist.
(Although I'm not sure about the timing ... the ability wouldn't trigger until the very end of the declare attackers step, so would this requirement even apply to the current combat phase?)
Check the Oracle
A ha. Mystery solved. Thanks.
You should explain that goad doesn't work in normal two player games. I learned it the worst way possible and I think it's kinda counterintuitive.
It kinda does. The creature still has to attack if able
The behaviour in two-player games is why goad is written as two separate requirements: attack of able, and attack not-me if able. The second requirement is unfulfillable in a two-player game, and so has no effect, but the first one still works.
If goad was implemented as just "attack not-me if able" then it would do nothing at all in a dual, they'd still be able to choose to attack or not, which wouldn't be great as a mechanic. Meanwhile, if they'd made it a requirement and a restriction, "must attack if able, cannot attack me" then it would be a weird mechanic that would _force_ attacks on multiplayer but _prevent_ attacks in duals, which would be a weird mechanic to make.
11:52 that’s so unnecessarily confusing…
As far as I could tell, attacking “Pat” by any means should satisfy all 4 requirements, and you didn’t really explain why not, so it took me forever to figure out what was going on. At first I thought I must have misheard the names, and maybe there were only 3 players
I miss the days when the Planeswalkers still counted as the player. I have no idea how things work now apparently 😂
Planeswalkers never counted as players.
What about Maddening Imp + Propaganda or Ensnaring Bridge?
Ensnaring Bridge and Propaganda both create restrictions which stop a creature from attacking under certain conditions.
Restrictions can't be, or in the case of Propaganda don't need to be, broken even if it would help fulfill now requirements.
508.1d: The active player checks each creature they control to see whether it's affected by any requirements (effects that say a creature attacks if able, or that it attacks if some condition is met). If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximum possible number of requirements that could be obeyed without disobeying any restrictions, the declaration of attackers is illegal. If a creature can't attack unless a player pays a cost, that player is not required to pay that cost, even if attacking with that creature would increase the number of requirements being obeyed. If a requirement that says a creature attacks if able during a certain turn refers to a turn with multiple combat phases, the creature attacks if able during each declare attackers step in that turn.
So with just a bridge + imp, the non-wall creatures would need to attack if they were small enough to fit under bridge, but otherwise they can't attack and will be destroyed.
With Propaganda, none need to attack unless their controller decides to pay the 2 for them (or there is somewhere else they can attack), but the ones that don't attach will be destroyed.
Here's a relevant ruling from the imp:
"If a creature can’t attack because of some restriction, or because it is tapped, it is destroyed at the end of the turn."
Expect for rules say so I never really understood why tapped (otherwise legal) vigilance creature cant just attack tapped. It doesnt have to tap :( after all.
Flavorfully you could think of tapped creatures as being "tired". A creature with vigilance doesn't get tired from attacking, but if it's already really tired, it's not going to be very effective in combat.
two stars seems way too low
For anyone still confused by the commander example like I was: Goad's second requirement is that the creature must attack a PLAYER if able, and that player isn't the one who goaded it. Attacking Pat's planeswalker doesn't fulfill this requirement since it isn't a player (I assume this would work the same with a battle Pat was defending). In my brain I was interpreting goad more like "Target creature must attack each combat if able and cannot attack you if able to attack something else", which isn't *quite* true apparently lol.
In the end, the set of options Amy can choose (if she doesn't pay the 2) includes declaring no attackers, attacking Nick, attacking Olive, and attacking Pat's planeswalker (attacking Pat is not included in the set because Amy chose not to pay the 2). Declaring no attackers fulfills 0/4 requirements, attacking Pat's planeswalker fulfills 2/4 requirements (the requirements that grizzly bears attacks each combat if able, which counts twice because it was goaded by two different players), and attacking Nick or Olive fulfills 3/4 (the same 2 as before plus the requirement that grizzly bears attacks a PLAYER that isn't Nick/Olive). Therefore the only legal option is to declare grizzly bears as an attacker attacking Nick or Olive.
I had not realized that Goad prohibits attacking planeswalkers (in a multiplayer game). That's very odd and I bet that rule gets played wrong all the time.
@@Sheer_Falacy Per the Wiki: If the creature can't attack a player other than you, then it must attack you or a planeswalker if it can.