I think this situation is perfectly clear. If this is my combo that I put into my deck, then of course your bear could have attacked and of course it gets destroyed. If this is your combo that you put into your deck, then this is complete bull and of course my bear couldn’t have attacked!
“A creature won't be destroyed if it was unable to attack that turn, even if you had a way to enable it to attack. For example, a creature that had summoning sickness wouldn't be destroyed even if you had a way to give it haste.” Biased on this I would say this doesn’t kill any creatures unless no creatures attack then it could destroy all creatures because all of them could have attacked if none actually did.
@@Playingwithproxies This is an interesting angle to me. I'm just a rules noob, but I don't think I agree with Dave's logic. I agree that Grizzly Bears could have been declared as an attacker, but that occurs during the declare attackers phase, and the trigger is happening at the end step, after attackers have been declared. Once Silent Arbiter attacks, I feel like the "can't" clause wins out. Judging from some of the other comments, it seems awfully close to 50/50. We need a poll! Or some input from other judges? OR feedback from WotC?!? Great vid Dave!
@@Playingwithproxies this is my reading as well. a ruling should always reasonably consider the flow of least contrivance, and it should never veer away from the natural flow of game pieces or otherwise flipflop on two possible board states if it can help it
(For the record, this is what cedh players have actually thought about doing with the Gitrog combo, because nobody can agree whether or not it counts as slow play. It's not a loop, but the tournament rules are worded in a way that makes it ambiguous as to whether the Gitrog combo meaningfully changes the game state. So people have suggested actually going to Legacy tournaments and forcing a ruling out of judges.)
Season of the Witch ruling: “At the beginning of every end step, regardless of whose turn it is, the second ability triggers. When it resolves every creature that could have been declared as an attacker during that turn’s Declare Attackers Step but wasn’t will be destroyed. (2013-09-20)” “Every creature that /COULD/ have been declared…”. The Grizzly Bears could have been declared. They were not. There were choices involved, and even though your choice was limited by another game piece, it was still a choice. I agree - Definitely destroyed.
The definition would still be somewhat problematic. What would happen if instead of the arbiter, there was a propaganda on the field. Would the game consider how much mana you had access to? What if any other player had enchantment removal (but didn't play it) - the "could" leaves too much leeway for interpretation.
@@wchenfulThere's an another ruling on Season of the Witch that says the following: "A creature won’t be destroyed if it was unable to attack that turn, even if you had a way to enable it to attack. For example, a creature that had summoning sickness wouldn’t be destroyed even if you had a way to give it haste." That means creatures aren't destroyed by Season if propaganda is on the battlefield, because they "can't attack" unless you pay the 2.
My initial intuition was the same as Dave’s: During the declare attackers step, you COULD have declared Grizzly Bears as the one attacker, therefore it could have attacked. But here’s an argument the other way: Suppose all the creatures had been goaded (so each “attacks if able”) by Disrupt Decorum or some other such effect. The rules are clear that the Arbiter restriction takes precedence over the goad: One creature must still attack, but only one creature may attack. That implies that the creatures that didn’t attack, though goaded, must not have been able to attack thanks to the Arbiter restriction. But if they weren’t “able” to attack for goad purposes… then surely they “couldn’t” attack for SotW purposes. The trouble, of course, is that both of these contradictory lines of reasoning seem equally compelling.
I think if you declare one attacker then the rest would be unable to attack but if you declare no attacks then all of your creatures could have legally attacked and your board would be destroyed.
When declaring an attack, an attack is legal if the set of attacking creatures fulfill as many of the requirements (like "must attack" from goad) without breaking any restriction (like the arbiter's ability). IMO , if at the time of declaring attacker, there is a legal attack including a creature, then it was able to attack this combat. So imo if you have several goaded creatures and a silent arbiter, then 1 goaded creature attacks and survives. The other goaded creatures are sacrificed, and the ungoaded creatures survive.
I originally thought the Grizzly Bears could have attacked, because, well, you definitely could have declared it, and not the Silent Arbiter, as an attacker. But... You've convinced me that it couldn't attack, with the goad reasoning. Goad says it attacks if able. If something made it unable... Then yeah we say it couldn't attack. Season of the Witch's Oracle says "except for creatures that couldn't attack", and... It couldn't attack, under that circumstance, as the goad example shows, or it would have.
@@isaz2425 But the window of "declaring attackers" is bit larger than that. When you select one creature it makes all the others unable to attack, while still in the declare attackers step. If you were doing it on Arena, you could still unselect that creature and choose a different one.
@@jameshill2450 even if arena make you choose them 1 by 1 for convenience (because how else would they make it ?) , from the game rules' point of view, they are declared at the same time. Look at how goad and silent arbiter interact : when you have a silent arbiter and a goaded grizzly bear, you can not prevent the grizzly bear from attacking by attacking "first" with the arbiter. The arbiter doesn't make all creatures unable to attack after the first creature have been declared. The arbiter make an attack illegal if more than one creature have been declared. My point is that the ability doesn't affect any specific creature making it unable to attack, but it makes attacks with more than 1 attacker illegal. So if you say "I attack with arbiter and grizzly bear", the answer shouldn't be "the grizzly bear can't attack" but "the attack is illegal because there are 2 creatures". You can choose to either remove the bear from combat, or the arbiter, or both, to make the attack legal.
my intuition is that "could have attacked" means "there was a set of legal attackers that included grizzly bears", in which case it dies. but I can see the argument for it instead meaning "grizzly bears could have been added to the set of attackers you chose" in which case it survives.
I think your intuition nailed it. The second scenario isn't what SotW checks for. It's asking if there was a legal set of attackers that included grizzly bears. There was, they just chose another set. Basing that off of this quote from Gatherer "When it resolves every creature that could have been declared as an attacker during that turn's Declare Attackers Step but wasn't will be destroyed."
Although I personally think that you should be correct here, from how I would interpret the card effect of season of the witch, I believe that this case should work in the same way that it works with ghostly prison, whereas if you don’t have the mana to pay you can’t attack thus the creature lives.
Each creature CAN attack individually, so they could have attacked. Therefore, they are destroyed. HOWEVER, I could see a Judge saying, "Had you attacked with nothing, then all creatures would die. Since you attacked with one creature, none of the others could attack, so they are spared."
I know this is 5 months old, but I'm going to toss in my take anyway. The way I see it is that we're looking at the game state in the end step, as that's when Season of the Witch triggers. By this point, attacks have been declared and combat has been resolved. We are asking the question: "Could this creature have legally been declared as an attacker?" We don't need to speculate on if it could have been declared as an attacker, we know at this point that Silent Arbiter attacked, and we know that only one creature can be legally declared as an attacker at a time. While there could have been a modification that enabled Grizzly Bears to attack, it could not have been declared as an attacker in the combat step that occurred. I would argue this falls under a ruling we already have: "A creature won’t be destroyed if it was unable to attack that turn, even if you had a way to enable it to attack. For example, a creature that had summoning sickness wouldn’t be destroyed even if you had a way to give it haste." From the perspective of the end step, Grizzly Bears could no more legally have been declared an attacker than a summoning sick creature.
The way I have seen “could attack” articulated in the way I like best is “adding this creature to the set of creatures that did attack this turn would have still presented a valid attack.” In this case, adding the grizzly bears to the attack would have been invalid, so they could not have attacked. However, if you attack with neither, then each individually “could have attacked.”
Amy controls two Bonded Constructs (they have the ability "~ can't attack alone"). Amy chooses to attack with neither. Should they be destroyed? I think they should, but adding one of them to the set of attacking creatures makes the attack illegal.
@@notmyrealname9588 Beth controls two Bonded Constructs and Mike controls a Silent Arbiter and a Season of the Witch, Beth passes through combat with no attacks, do the Constructs die? Obviously there is no valid attack that includes one or both of the constructs, but neither of the constructs are strictly forbidden by a single ability from attacking. If you think that they would survive, could Amy in the original problem statement save her grizzly bears by playing Boiling Blood ("Target creature must attack this turn if able if able") on her Silent Arbiter? Since that would lead to multiple effects combining to make no valid attack include the grizzly bears.
A slightly more robust definition "could attack" could be "there is a larger set of creatures including this creature and all of the creatures in the original attack that would have still presented a valid attack" or, put it another way "adding this creature and possibly others to the set of creatures that did attack this turn would have still presented a valid attack" or something like that...
Based upon the following ruling on Season of the Witch, I would lean towards Amy's Grizzly Bears NOT being sacrificed. Due to a game stste, they could not attack even though you could give them the ability to attack (you could choose them over Silent Arbiter). "A creature won’t be destroyed if it was unable to attack that turn, even if you had a way to enable it to attack. For example, a creature that had summoning sickness wouldn’t be destroyed even if you had a way to give it haste."
I was all ready to jump in to the comments to defend what dave said until your comment. If the (oracle) text said "couldn't have attacked" I would say dave is right, since it _could_ have attacked, but silent arbiter was chosen instead, so it couldn't attack. Interestingly enough, the card itself says "could have attacked", so imo the oracle text is actually a change in behaviour.
I think the best practice here would be to distinguish between the ideas of Capability and Permission. Consider the difference between boardstates where one has a Rule of Law type effect contrasted against a boardstate without one. If you have enough mana for multiple spells, we would say you have the capability to cast multiple spells, but not the permission. Returning to the original prompt, each creature unaffected by summoning sickness AND not prevented from attacking as a result of rules text (such as the keyword Defender), at the time of Declare Attackers phase, could be said to have the Capability, but not necessarily the Permission. Season of the Witch's rulings have the following line: At the beginning of every end step, regardless of whose turn it is, the second ability triggers. When it resolves every creature that could have been declared as an attacker during that turn's Declare Attackers Step but wasn't will be destroyed. Based on this ruling, and the distinction provided regarding identifying creatures that had the Capability to attack, I would say that all creatures that didn't attack but had the Capability are destroyed. As loath as I am to involve the digital versions on rulings, both Arena and MTGO have ways to identify which creatures have the Capability to attack, which means there is a definitive list of criteria that can be used.
I feel like the bear should live, following the maximum-possible-requirements-for-all-restrictions rule. In the same way that a second 'attacks each turn if able' creature would be considered unable to attack under a Silent Arbiter, an Arbiter'd bear would be unable to attack for Season of the Witch.
After thinking for a while, I think your ruling is right. If a creature could have attacked during the declare attackers step, it should be considered as "could have attacked." If you check at the end step, then you could end up with silly situations like a player flashing in a Pacifism effect on a creature that didn't attack during the second main phase, and then claiming "this creature can't attack." I don't think anyone would say that a creature that had "this creature cannot attack" added to it after the declare attackers step would be immune to being sacrificed, so that's my justification for why you should check for what creatures could attack at declare attackers.
I feel the grizzly would live. Season of the Witch looks at the end step, which by then the Grizzly is deemed a creature which could not attack by silent arbiters effect.
After reading the rules on Declare Attackers, I think I would interpret the effect as "sacrifice the creature if it was part of a possible legal attack declaration configuration, but wasn't chosen as attacker". I think that would catch all corner cases and be consistent (including with stuff like goading, extra combat phases and other restrictions such as "can't attack unless" and cards like Ghostly Prison).
I would personally say it works like Firkraag + War’s Toll, in that you check what was true as you declared attackers. With those cards Firkraag would trigger if a single creature attacked and hit an opponent, because at the time it attacked there was a requirement for it to attack, even if it didn’t have to attack in the colloquial sense. So for the video’s scenario the Grizzly Bear couldn’t attack, since there was a restriction stopping it from attacking at the moment attackers were declared.
My intuition initially sided with the Bears not dying, by virtue of Season of the Witch triggering at the end step and having to retroactively do the "could it have attacked" check. But then I though to myself, what if none of the creatures attacked? Would applying this logic have destroyed just one of the creatures? Which one?
Then, all creatures are destroyed. They all could have attacked. Once a single attacker is declared/made, none of the other creatures could then attack.
"They all could have attacked" is a line that suggests the bear should die. Arbiter's restriction doesn't continue to exist beyond combat, why should that still factor into an end step trigger.
I’m gonna have to disagree with the my favourite judge today. In respect to the English language, could is the past tense of can, and since Silent Arbiter puts a restriction on who can attack it must then put every other creature under the restriction of can’t attack like a pacifism effect. Since Season of the Witch is going to trigger during the end phase, I would say that as long as 1 creature attacked when silent arbiter was in play, each other creature couldn’t attack, and should not be destroyed by Season of the Witch.
Every creature in the game every turn goes through multiple instances of "not being able to attack" (like during main phase 2) but obviously that's not what season of the witch means
i don't believe that SotW should destroy creatures if the attacker chose not to go through pacifism, and since silent arbiter is another restriction on attacking it should work the same way and nothing gets destroyed provided you performed the maximum legal attack of 1 creature
I paused before your answer to think about what I would prefer, and I agree. IMO, if at the time of the declare the attackers steps, you consider all legal attacks, then if grizzly bear is attacking in at least one of them , then it could have attacked. So it must be sacrificed.
Imo as long as one creature did attack the rest couldn’t legally attack so all of the rest will be safe. But if no creature attacks then your entire board could have been the one to attack and all will be destroyed.
@@Playingwithproxies The problem I have with this reasoning, is that you don't declare attackers one by one. Attackers are declared all at once. Before the declaration of attackers, any creature can be declared attacker, and after that, no creature can attack. even without the silent arbiter. The silent arbiter doesn't prevent the grizzly bear to attack after you said arbiter is attacking. It only makes the attack with both creatures illegal. (the difference is that at no point in the game, you can declare attackers but the grizzly is prevented from declared attacker by arbiter's ability)
@@Playingwithproxies The problem I have with this reasoning, is that you're supposed to declare all the attacker before the step when you check for abilities that force or prevent creatures from attacking, and only after that, the creatures become attacking creatures. (rules 508.1a to 508.1k) So there is no point in this process where the bear is prevented to attack because an other creature is already attacking. You don't add the attackers one by one to the attack, checking each time if you can add them to the attack. You have to choose a set of attacking creature, then check if they can attack, then they become attackers.
Curious if this SotW ruling impacts it. 9/20/2013 A creature won't be destroyed if it was unable to attack that turn, even if you had a way to enable it to attack. For example, a creature that had summoning sickness wouldn't be destroyed even if you had a way to give it haste. The bear couldn't legally been enabled to attack as long as another creature was declared as a legal attacker. Similar to how a player isn't obligated to pay Ghostly Prison in order to attack to satisfy SotW. The true solution is to get SotW onto MTGO so it can be the final arbiter. :)
there is a 2013 piece of errata on Season of the Witch's gatherer page that is edifying here: "At the beginning of every end step, regardless of whose turn it is, the second ability triggers. When it resolves every creature that could have been declared as an attacker during that turn's Declare Attackers Step but wasn't will be destroyed." this suggests that the official interpretation of "couldn't attack" is "could have been declared as an attacker, but wasn't". since you *could* have chosen any of the creatures you didn't choose, this aligns with judge dave's ruling that every creature other than the one you chose would be destroyed by Season's effect but that's just my reading, and i'm not even a L1 judge (not yet, anyway)
In my mind, the primary function of the 'couldn't attack' clause is to preserve the defending player's creatures each combat (as well as Defender creatures), since the effect triggers -every- turn. In that regard, it means to exclude creatures who couldn't attack because of the game state making that action illegal, and not necessarily because of the player's choice. Therefore, Amy's Grizzly Bears should live, since declaring Silent Arbiter as an attacker would make the Grizzly Bears an illegal attacker, and vice versa. I think the Grizzly Bears dying is more intuitive to players, but this seems like the more likely way an official body would make the ruling to me
I agree, if you imagine yourself back at the Declare Attackers step, there was nothing preventing you from attacking with the Bears. After you chose the Arbiter to attack, it may feel like the Bears can't attack, but they could have at that moment (and then it'd be the Arbiter who dies)
"From the minds that brought us [...] stickers" sick burn bro! 😂 Now, from the actual question: despite the silent arbiter, any one creature could have attacked so, yeah, the ones that didn't should die (just like Dave said at the end of the video that I was comenting on before finishing watching).
I would say that the Grizzly Bear should survive and not be considered to have been able to attack because declaring it as an attacker would have lead to an illegal board state.
Thr grizzly bears attacking isn't an illegal board state, the arbiter would just have to not attack. It's not like you can declare the arbiter as an attacker THEN check if the Bears "can attack", attackers are declared simultaneously
I don't know why I was so excited by the end of the video. I was so scared that, as a joke, you would not say what you think about the ruling and end the video suddenly. On top of that, when your opinion was the same as mine I almost jumped
This is an educational channel. I occasionally use humor, but not at the expense of my content's usefulness. I recall that I considered copping out while I was writing my script for this episode, but decided against it for exactly this reason.
I do agree with your ruling. I interpret the card as “Was the creature capable of being declared as an attacker? If so was it? If it wasn’t declared it go boom.” Since the grizzly bears was capable of being declared as an attacker in a legal option for your attackers then it goes boom. I have a lore and gameplay wise argument as well. Lore wise, witches like to bs rules and deals and such all the time and monkey paw to get the best outcome for themselves at the cost of others. Gameplay wise it lets you have a neat design space where you try to work around forcing your opponent to chose what they sacrifice by not letting them attack with all viable attackers.
Speaking from experience writing reference documentation, I think the solution here is to change the oracle text of Season of the Witch to more accurately define what a creature that couldn't attack would be. And then, if for whatever reason, a new card wants to use the same definition, then move it into the comprehensive rules and then un-errata Season of the Witch. Another possible option if you have the right connections is to call up the designer(s) of the card and ask them what they think should happen. But most people don't have those connections and those who do will not be caring about this interaction.
Not the most recent video, but if I encountered this situation I would interpret it as such: silent arbiter denies the *player* the ability to declare more than one attacker, but does not specifically prevent an individual creature from attacking. any creature that can attack during the declare attackers step that is not designated as an attacker is done so by the player's election, and is therefore eligible to be destroyed by season of the witch
I think this is like the combo of words like, menace and must be blocked. If there is only one blocker, it can't be blocked. So with this, if no creative attacked, you sac all your creatures becuase they *could have* attacked, but if one did, then the rest could not.
I think that the grizzly bears should live because the season of the witch trigger happens at the end step at which point the arbiter has attacked and because of it's text the rules prevent you from attacking with grizzly bears aswell so they could not have attacked according to silent arbiter being in play at the time. I feel like the oracle needs to update season of the witch because the wording 'could have attacked' is a bit ambiguous as there aren't any definitions for what it means to have been able to attack (that I'm aware of). Not sure what a better wording would be though.
Dave’s answer makes the most sense here in plain English, if you separate the words from Magic’s rules. The Grizzly Bear “could have” attacked. In our day to day lives, “could have” often refers to binary choices, like having an Arbiter out.
in my opinion, the fact that, at the beginning of combat, any creature may attack, even though only one will actually be able to do so, makes all the creatures able to attack. this way the player have the choice to make a creature survive season of the witch but beacause of silent arbiter his choice is simply less free, as in many other mtg scenarios. So the creatures do get destroyed.
But what if you play a creature in your first main phase. It could attack IF you gave it haste? You chose not to give it haste, therefore it is destroyed?
Gatherer actually has a clarification on this. The ruling states: "At the beginning of every end step, regardless of whose turn it is, the second ability triggers. When it resolves every creature that could have been declared as an attacker during that turn's Declare Attackers Step but wasn't will be destroyed." Under the effect of silent arbiter, each creature is able to be declared as an attacker during the declare attackers step, therefore the creatures that were not declared as attackers but could have been are destroyed
Jumping in to say that I think that ability to attack is something constantly checked and not only checked checked during the beginning of the declare attackers phase. Therefore I think that the game can see that after you have chosen one attacker you are unable to choose the grizzly bears so it is unable to attack.
I feel like your final interpretation is probably the most realistic interpretation 'at the table' - since the rules are silent, we haven't go to back to a more basic definition of 'couldn't attack' - that is, answering the question, "Is there any legal attack that could have been declared that includes this creature?" If yes, then that creature *could* attack. As a result, if there are *no* legal attacks that could have been declared that includes that creature, it couldn't have attacked, so is safe. As a result, when Silent Arbiter and Season of the Witch are in play, creatures with Defender, and creatures with 'summoning sickness' are still fine (they can't attack under any possible legal attack). If you have a creature that 'Must attack if able', and a Grizzly Bears with no requirements or restrictions, things get interesting. Rule 508.1c and d talk about these situations, and 'd' states that the only legal attacks are those where the maximum possible number of requirements are met without violating any restrictions. As such, because the 'must attack' creature's requirement must be met, there is no legal attack where the Bears can attack; therefore the Bears couldn't attack and are safe. If Silent Arbiter is out, and you have *two* creatures with 'must attack if able', the spiciness increases. The largest number of creatures that can attack without violating restrictions is one, so either creature attacking alone is a legal attack. Therefore, whichever one doesn't will be hit by the Season of the Witch for not attacking, because it 'could have'. Likewise, if you control several creatures with Defender, and an enchantment that says "Creatures you control with defender can attack as though they didn't have defender.", the fact that they have defender no longer saves them, because now they could have been part of at least one possible legal attack, and didn't attack. That said, that all assumes that the definition of "couldn't attack" is "there is no possible legal attack that includes that creature". I think that's a fine definition, but YMMV
Beginning of Combat Step - Grizzly Bears can attack Declare Attackers Step - Grizzly Bears cannot attack because another attacker has been declared End of Combat Step - Season of the Witch trigger checks for creatures that could have attacked, Grizzly Bears is currently very much in the 'cannot' camp.
Fascinating. My ruling would be that because both of Amy's questions was capable of being the sole attacker, the one which did not attack should die. But the real test would be to set up this situation on MTGO, and go with whatever happens on that platform. For... format unity. And stuff. Yep. (who do I have to @ to get Season of the Witch added to treasure chests?)
I have that alpha rule book coin flip statement tattooed on me! That feel when you can measure how much time has passed My ruling would be to enact a Shahrazad subgame & whomever wins decides WTF happens.
The caveat preventing the bears from attacking existed before the transition to the declare attackers step of combat, the game should be able to see what the attacking creatures will look like in the future to determine that any creature not attacking did so because of the arbiter's ability.
I'd say that as soon as Arbiter is declared an attacker, all other creatures lose the ability to attack. Since SotW destroys at the end step, it checks each creature that didn't attack and determines that they couldn't. Thus, they are spared. Great question, though. I don't know the answer.
I agree with your ruling. It seems like season of the witch should only skip over creatures that have a "couldn't have attacked" status, like defenders, gods that weren't online, creatures coming into play post-combat, and creatures played this turn without haste. Similarly, I think creatures that can't attack alone should be destroyed if there was at least one other creature that attacked or could have attacked, regardless of whether someone controls a silent arbiter effect
I'm a big fan of games including the Golden Rule, where if both players disagree and there is no judge to make the decision, you players roll a die or flip a coin to decide it. It's been a part of Warhammer rules for ages, since those rules can interact in very odd and wacky ways that aren't immediately obvious, much in the same way tht MTG rules can.
Here are the options I see. It should be determined if a creature XXX could have attacked by comparing the choice that actually happened to a hypothetical choice: XXX is considered "could have attacked" if there was a legal choice for attacking creatures with XXX attacking in addition to... A> any other set of creatures. B> the creatures that were actually chosen, and possibly more. C> the creatures that were actually chosen. If this choice would have required an additional cost to be paid, D> it doesn't count. E> it's counted if that player could have paid it using only current resources and mana abilities that are public knowledge. F> it's counted if, using only public knowledge, it can be shown there was a set of legal game actions this turn that would have resulted in the cost being paid. and when going full complex: G> F, but also for removing attacking restrictions. - A and G are the closest to the English meaning, while C and D are the easiest to evaluate. - Personally, I'd go with C+D, for simplicity. Especially F and G are just nightmares. - By "an additional cost" I mean 1) a cost would have to be paid in the hypothetical attack and 2a) there was no cost paid in the actual attack or 2b) the cost paid in the actual attack was equal or strictly higher than in the hypothetical attack. - If there were no declare attackers steps, no creatures "could have attacked" this turn. - If there were multiple declare attackers steps, XXX "could have attacked" this turn if it "could have attacked" in one of those.
I agree with your opinion, because of the way Season of the Witch is worded. Before choosing the creature to attack, the bears could attack. The conclusion would be different if SOTW was worded "except for creatures that couldn't have attacked". After choosing the attacker, the bears "could not have attacked", because Amy chose another creature to do so. Does that make sense?
I agree. Logic dictates that the Grizzly Bears *could* have attacked but *didn’t* attack. It was not prevented from attacking; it was prevented from being *chosen* as an attacker because Silent Arbiter was, instead. It didn’t have defender nor summoning sickness. So it should die.
I think the intention of Season of the Witch is to force people to attack with the creatures that can attack - not to force odd, unpreventable sacrifices.
Yeah the rules notes on gatherer seem to indicate that if you could have declared it an attacker during the declare attackers step and didn't it dies. You could have chosen either creature at the point. I also assume that if somehow you had a haste creature and didn't attack with it and then it lost haste later it would also die
I tap an Island cuz Ima need to Ponder on this one Thinking about it I think u r right but if the wording was "Players can't attack with more than 1 creature each combat" than I would feel it is the opposite cuz Can't overrules everything
I have a contrary line of reasoning coming from more of an intent perspective: Season of the Witch excludes creatures who are already tapped via external meddling (e.g. twiddle), it would make sense that creatures that couldn't attack because of external meddling (e.g. Silent Arbiter) would similarly be excluded.
Hmmm. Silent Arbiter's ability in Fifth Dawn was "No more than one creature **may** attack each combat.", while the Oracle text and the last printings are "[...] **CAN** attack [...]". That's an important difference IMO. So, using the Oracle text (which is the official and definitive text), the other ones couldn't attack, because the Arbiter states that the other creatures can't attack, so they shouldn't be destroyed IMO. Edit: I'd say CR 508.1d support my argument, while you're choosing which creature to attack with, it is an illegal state to attack with any other creature while Arbiter is in play, so they couldn't have attacked. In any cases, if you attack with no creature they all die.
I feel as though the creature has to be sacrificed. They had the opportunity to be declared as an attacker, even if it was decided to declare a different creature as an attacker.
I would say the Grizzly Bear is sac'd because there was a point at which it COULD attack. Sure, once another creature attacked, it was no longer able to, but that was because a decision was made regarding which creature to attack with. I'd say the same regarding things like Ghostly prison. Let's say a player enters their combat with only 2 mana available. They end up in a situation much like with the Arbiter where they can only afford to swing with a single creature. Those other creatures COULD attack, but the decision was made regarding which creature to attack with. How would this look as an actual rule though? I would probably word it something like this: A creature is considered to have been able attack this turn if, at the beginning of the declare attackers step, no current effect or ability would prevent it from being declared as an attacker later during that step. This means that all creatures controlled by the active player that are not tapped or affected by summoning sickness would be considered able to attack, unless otherwise specified by another card effect. Cards like Arbiter and Ghostly prison would not affect their ability to attack at the beginning of the declare attackers step, but only during the declaration of attackers, so the other creatures would still be considered as having been able to attack that turn. This check would also occur before any player gains priority as it would happen before attackers are declared, and players only get priority after attackers have been declared, so you wouldn't have to worry about any other effects or abilities that would modify the conditions during this check.
My opinion: CR 506.6 says that a creature “had to attack” if an effect applied to it requiring it to attack at the time attackers were declared. CR 508.1 and its subrules go out of their way to avoid referring to a creature that will end up being an attacker as actually attacking until several steps after the legality step, which to me implies that when the game looks at which creatures had to and couldn’t attack, it’ll see that the other creatures under Arbiter couldn’t attack because its effect applied to them at the time creatures became attacking creatures.
Once the Silent Arbiter is declared as an attacker the Declare Attackers Step is over though. Not because of Arbiter's ability, but because you declare all attackers at once. Last time you could (choose a creature to) attack, the Grizzly Bears was a legal option.
I am of the opinion that the grizzly bears went from a creature that can attack to a creature that couldn't have attacked. So if I were the head judge, I would rule that grizzly bears lives, because the trigger happens after the grizzly bears has changed from a creature that could attack to a creature that couldn't.
It's about as clear as mud but I think the rules do manage to handle it as written. Rule 508.1a-d. Consider if one went to combat and didn't declare either creature as an attacker. The restriction imposed by the arbiter would be satisfied and then no requirements (attacks if able) are dissatisfied. Both would die at end of turn. So the restriction at step c determines which are able to attack. If a creature is 'able to attack' declaring it as an attacker will not have resulted in an illegal action. This would be supported by considering 'skipping' the combat step, if we treat it as if it didn't exist (500.10), then no creature could have been able to attack during the turn. Creatures aren't destroyed.
I wonder if this particular interaction was inspired by a somewhat recent Yugioh video from MBT? I do appreciate that there is still policy about how to handle undefined rules interactions. Also, the fact that judge's discretion isn't the main way of interpreting rules.
I believe the Grizzly Bears should live, because they would be seen as "couldn't attack" by the time Season of the Witch checks to see which creatures should and shouldn't be destroyed, since Silent Arbiter put the "couldn't attack" restriction on every creature besides the single creature that was chosen to be the sole attacker. (Of course, this means that if the player with Silent Arbiter and Grizzly Bears didn't attack with any creatures, none of them will have gotten the "couldn't attack" restriction, and Season of the Witch would destroy them all.)
My interpretation is that the Bear would die. You could have chosen to the Bear as your single allowed attacker instead of the Arbiter so the Bear "could attack".
Thanks for doing this topic, love to see your opinion on this extreme corner case. Can't wait to see what's the next topic that deserves 5 stars. ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (What happens when a youtuber judge does something controversial on their channel.) 🤭
I'd look at each creature individually. At the time of declare attackers, can this creature be declared as an attacker and assigned to attack a player or planeswalker? If the answer is yes without any other conditions then I would then note whether it could attack and did or did not. Not replace arbiter with ghostly prison and of course this then turns back to official rulings where even if you could pay 2 you don't have to.
I think it ultimately could be handled with a templating/errata-level fix, it's not something that necessarily needs to be fixed in the rules. At any point in time, the game state can answer the question "is Grizzly Bears currently a legal attacker?" If Season of the Witch checks at the beginning of combat, Grizzly Bears should be destroyed. If it checks after attackers are declared, it should not be. It has to pick a time to check and check it; "speculative" triggers can't work. What if the Grizzly Bears was enchanted with Pacifism and an Amateur Auteur was also in play? Grizzly Bears *could* attack if Amateur Auteur was sacrificed to destroy the Pacifism. As a matter of fact, I think there's an amusing argument that says since SotW triggers at the end step, you can save Bears by enchanting it with Pacifism in 2nd Main, but there's probably actually something in the rules that would make that dubious.
... my solution for table top games would probably be a stupid solution that doesn't make sense, but feels right to me: if the Arbitrator entered the battlefield first, and the season later, then the bear should die. If the season entered the battlefield first, and the arbitrator later, then the bear should live. It's wether or not the enchantment "sees" the rule of stuff not being allowed to attack being made. This doesn't make sense in the rules itself - it's not some timestamps should have effect on - but it's a way that both interpretations of the combination could be interpreted and justified and come up, allowing players to manipulate it into becoming one or the other.
WAIT NO I WAS WRONG, the arbiter gives a creature the ability to attack, it doesn't prevent the other creatures from attacking (that is simply a side effect of the ability). The bears should die
Okay, so this one is tricky, but I believe I have a satisfying answer. *LONG* answer below. **TL;DR: the Grizzly Bears is destroyed**, because you choose which creatures attack all at once. Choosing more than one attacker will force you into an illegal state, where you have to choose your attackers again because something went wrong. But at any point where you choose the creatures to attack you could have chosen the Grizzly Bears, so it was not unable to attack. Let's first look at what Silent Arbiter does, because I believe how it works is *relatively* straight-forward, but still touches most of the relevant rules. Silent Arbiter's effects are obviously continuous, but they are not replacement effects; they contain neither "instead"(CR 614.1a), "skip" (CR 614.1b), or any of the longer templates (CR 614.1b-e). Nor are they prevention effects; they do not contain "prevent" (CR 615.1a). They are simply continuous effects adding rules to the game. Here we only care about the first effect: "No more than one creature may attack each combat.", but in regards to the above points the second one works just the same. It is fair to assume that the first effect affects CR 508.1 (Declare Attackers Step): "First, the active player declares attackers. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack. To declare attackers, the active player follows the steps below, in order. If at any point during the declaration of attackers, the active player is unable to comply with any of the steps listed below, the declaration is illegal; the game returns to the moment before the declaration (see rule 717, “Handling Illegal Actions”)." More precisely, it affects one of the "steps listed below"; CR 508.1c: "The active player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether it’s affected by any restrictions (effects that say a creature can’t attack, or that it can’t attack unless some condition is met). If any restrictions are being disobeyed, the declaration of attackers is illegal." I'd say Arbiter's effect can be safely considered as a restriction, akin to "all creatures may only attack if they are attacking alone". Actually, an effect just it is mentioned in the example of CR 508.1d. That rule is really about "requirements", but since that example also has a creature with an “attacks if able” ability, we can assume that is the "requirement", and "No more than one creature can attack each turn." is a restriction, used in the example to show how they may interact. Let's move onto Season of the Witch. The tricky part about Season of the Witch is the "couldn't attack". Luckily Season of the Witch has two rulings (as seen in Scryfall) to clear this up: Ruling 1 (R1): "At the beginning of every end step, regardless of whose turn it is, the second ability triggers. When it resolves every creature that could have been declared as an attacker during that turn’s Declare Attackers Step but wasn’t will be destroyed." Ruling 2 (R2): "A creature won’t be destroyed if it was unable to attack that turn, even if you had a way to enable it to attack. For example, a creature that had summoning sickness wouldn’t be destroyed even if you had a way to give it haste." R1 explains "creatures that could attack [this turn]" as "every creature that could have been declared as an attacker during [this] turn’s Declare Attackers Step but wasn’t". R2 supports R1; in conjunction they make it seem like Season of the Witch only cares about the Declare Attackers Step. This is lucky, because Silent Arbiter also affects that step. This is where the real mess starts, though... or so it seems. Going only by R1, the Grizzly Bears should be destroyed. After all, it could have been declared as an attacker - it would have been a legal action to declare (only) the Grizzly Bears as your attacker. However, R2 tells us that sometimes a creature won't be destroyed, and that this exception applies "even if you had a way to enable it to attack". Luckily, we don't have a way to enable the Grizzly Bears to attack. Why? To see that (and the answer to the question at large), we need to interpret "unable to attack that turn", alternatively "that couldn't attack". My final argument hinges on these two phrases being identical in meaning, and since the CR has nothing to say on either on them, I think it is a natural assumption. Still, this assumption should be up-front as such. Another assumption is that they have to do with 508.1, since that's when we determine which creatures may/may not attack. Our first assumption doesn't mean R2 is redundant though, since its example gives us a big hint: haste, which is dealt with in 508.1a, the first step of the 508.1 step-based action: "The active player chooses which creatures that he or she controls, if any, will attack. The chosen creatures must be untapped, and each one must either have haste or have been controlled by the active player continuously since the turn began." The above rule holds the key to the puzzle. In short, 508.1 tells us to go through the below steps, and if any of them end up illegal start over from the start. First, the active player chooses all creatures to attack at once (508.1a). The (only) next step that matters is 508.1c, where Silent Arbiter restriction will come into relevance; if there is more than one chosen attacker the declaration is illegal and you start over again, choosing new creatures to attack. So what does "unable to attack"/"couldn't attack" mean? The purpose of rulings is to explain card text, for this reason we can assume R1 to be explaining what Season of the Witch does, and that way get an answer: "couldn't attack" means "couldn't be declared as an attacker", or that there are no ways you could step through 508.1, so that by the end the relevant creature is an attacking creature. The Grizzly Bears is thus able to attack by default, so R2's exception "even if you had a way to enable it to attack" does not matter. You could say that once you choose to attack with the Arbiter, then you *are* unable to choose the Grizzly Bears without reaching an illegal state, and thus the Grizzly Bear *becomes* unable to attack. This is a false dilemma. Per 508.1a you choose all attackers at once, and if this leads to an illegal state you go back to one where you may choose (only) the Grizzly Bears again. The Grizzly Bears could attack, yet it didn't; **the Grizzly Bears is destroyed**. ---- It should also be noted that Silent Arbiter's restriction ought to force the active player to choose *zero* creatures to attack, if you have two Declare Attackers Step during the same combat, and the first one went through successfully with one attacking creature. I dunno if there are cards that give you a second Declare Attackers Step though...
I agree GB is destroyed. To reply to your last paragraph... If you had a second combat step (plenty of cards do this) you would get a declare attackers step. In that case, you could attack with any creature you want, even if it didn't attack in the first combat. Silent Arbiter doesn't say each turn, it says each combat. So you can declare any 1 creature as attacking each combat step
Imo it shouldn't be destroyed Imagine each creature having a state: either "can attack" or "can't attack". Clearly stuff like summoning sickness or being tapped puts you in the latter. However, after Silent Arbiter attacks, all your other creatures now have the state "can't attack". So when Season of the Witch checks, all of them "can't attack" and so they aren't destroyed.
Thanks for the insights Dave! Is there any chance you explain in more detail how the comprehensive rules don’t cover this situation? Like in your Toolbox and Serra Paragon videos, you point to possibly relevant rules and explain why they fail to resolve the situation.
Same effect as if there was a propaganda in play. No more than one creature may attack means all creatures except for the one declared cannot attack. Amy shouldn't have to declare an illegal attack and then take back the Grizzly Bears in order to not sacrifice it.
With that ruling, Llanowar elves can be tapped during or after combat for mana, therefore they would also be seen as not able to attack (at the time of Season of the Witch effect), which is clearly wrong. I think it makes more sense to look at it in the scenario with multiple combat steps to see / understand what happens.
@@Luxalpa You can already do that even without that ruling, Season of the Witch only cares about untapped creatures after all, so you can tap any creature in response to Season of the Witch's triggered effect as long as is legal.
Another tricky wrinkle: say you have a creature with defender but an ability that can make it lose defender (or attack as though it didn't have defender), say Colossus of Akros. During your second main phase you pay it's monstrosity cost to make it so it can attack. Should that be destroyed because you could have chosen to activate monstrosity before combat? It could have attacked that turn if you made different decisions. To take the example further, what if you have an Arcades The Strategist in hand that you could have cast precombat main, but chose not to. There's no way for your opponent to have known that, but you could have attacked with your defenders if you had made the choice to cast it. All in all I think I've talked myself into the position that the fact that you could have chosen a different one creature doesn't matter. You could only attack with one, you did attack with one, therefore all creatures that could attack did attack. The fact that you could have made other choices just opens up too many cans of worms.
Good name, bad examples. "Could have attacked" from a rule standpoint would be better defined as was capable of being declared as a legal attacker during the declare attackers step. That's just much longer... So removing defender in main phase 2 wouldn't change whether or not it was a legal option during that step.
@@epochsgaming the longer wording doesn't clear up the ambiguity I was getting at "was capable of being declared an attacker" is still true of the Colossus if you had chosen to activate it during your precombat main. You had a line of play available to you that would allow it to attack but you chose not to do that. Just like there is a line of play in which Grizzly Bears attacks, but you chose not to do that by having Silent Arbiter attack instead. Possibly/capability is a very hazy and hard to define term especially in a game with hidden information (which is what the Arcades in hand example was illustrating). My point is it does not seem fair or undeniably strictly logical to draw a line between "chose to have one of my other creatures be the sole creature to attack because of Silent Arbiter" and "chose not to remove a restriction on attacking that I could have removed".
@@tylerowens I think maybe I explained it badly. Using the Colossus example of it wasn't activated in main phase 1, then in the declare attackers step it is actually incapable of being declared as an attacker. I.E. it couldn't attack. The game won't force you to take specific actions that are optional (think of a creature that attacks each turn if able vs Propaganda). In the stated problem though, that's not what we have. We have 2 creatures who were both legal choices.
@@tylerowens there are actually two rulings on season of the witch and both of them combine to answer that. The first is At the beginning of every end step, regardless of whose turn it is, the second ability triggers. When it resolves every creature that could have been declared as an attacker during that turn’s Declare Attackers Step but wasn’t will be destroyed. Since you activated the ability after the attack step, it couldn't effect the declare attackers step so it should be safe. For the second A creature won’t be destroyed if it was unable to attack that turn, even if you had a way to enable it to attack. For example, a creature that had summoning sickness wouldn’t be destroyed even if you had a way to give it haste. So having an ability that you could activate to allow it to attack doesn't mean it could have attacked. So even if you never activate monstrosity, you should be fine.
@@seandun7083 this makes sense to me, and I think it supports the idea that the Grizzly Bears should not be destroyed. It is established that choices you could have made but didn't make do not establish "could have attacked"
This is actually very simple. When the trigger for season of the witch activates to check. It sees that the bear was unable to attack. Even if prior to the combat declaration it could. When the check happens it couldn't.
I think the bear should be destroyed, as I think that “couldn’t attack” means couldn’t be eligible as an attacking creature when the declare attackers step begins. Since the bear isn’t ineligible as an attacker until the arbiter is already attacking, i.e. after the step has begun, it should be considered as a creature that could have attacked.
I don't think the bears should die... The situation is a bit similar to rulings with ghostly prison. If I remember the rules correctly my creatures all have the label "can't attack" until I pay the 2 mana, but the game can't force me to do so (That's why Ghostly Prison stops creatures that "have to attack each combat, if able"). Here the situation feels kinda similar, let's say I have 2 untapped lands, so technically I could attack with the bears, but don't have to sac them end of turn
I disagree, in the situatuon presented the bears should die, however I do think if the defender has a ghostly prison, you could declare no attackers and have none of them die.
You could have chosen any one of your creatures to be the one to attack that turn. It's not that they couldn't attack, you had to make the decision. You would need some sort of effect like pacifism that specifically says the creature can't attack to stop them from being destroyed.
My opinion is that one creature can attack, the others can't - so if no creatures attack then the controller of said creatures picks ONE creature to sacrifice.
I see, but all of them could attack. Ask this question for each creature you control on the battlefield "Can/could I attack with (only) this creature?", even if only one of them could be declared as attacker, each one of them could be declared individually.
@Yautja Prime actually Patrick is spot on. From the Gatherer rules clarifications for SotW "When it resolves every creature that could have been declared as an attacker during that turn's Declare Attackers Step but wasn't will be destroyed.". Both SA and GB were legal options to declare as an attacker. Also what Christopher said about picking one to keep with 0 attacks is the most wrong version.
@@Craznar You said if no attacks, they pick 1 to sac. That's wrong though. SA and GB could both be declared as an attacker legally, just not together. If you attack with neither, they should both die at end of turn
This is a really infuriating question. For 95% of the video, I was sure that they couldn't have attacked, and should be sacrificed But on the last moment, I finally got how they could have attacked, and should die. I hate this.
i wonder if someone can make a mtg version of godel’s incompleteness theorem lol. “there are no rulesets such that the outcome of all possible game actions are defined” or smth.
There is a ruling for *Season of the Witch* from 2013 that I think fits the circumstance: _At the beginning of every end step, regardless of whose turn it is, the second ability triggers. When it resolves every creature that could have been declared as an attacker during that turn's Declare Attackers Step but wasn't will be destroyed._ As you said, the *Grizzly Bears* "could have been declared as an attacker," and so it is susceptible to the ability.
Lack of official ruling aside, I personally think the Grizzly Bears should get destroyed in this case. Every similar thing with official rulings deals with cost to attack; i.e. if your creature is goaded but your opponents all have a Ghostly Prison or similar effect up, you aren't forced to pay for the Ghostly Prison, ergo the goad doesn't apply. But in this case, there really was nothing stopping you from attacking with the Grizzly Bears, since nothing is outright saying the Grizzly Bears can't attack, nor is it trying to force you to pay an unrelated optional cost; the Silent Arbiter is just making the attack very inconvenient given the Season of the Witch in play. In this instance I don't think the Season of the Witch and the Silent Arbiter interact at all, as there's enough of a degree of separation between their effects that I don't think they should be taking each other into account. Silent Arbiter says you only get to attack with one creature, not that specific creatures can't attack. Season of the Witch then sees the other creatures that didn't attack but technically could have had you chosen to attack with any of them instead, and destroys them. The two don't have any dependencies in their static abilities, they don't contradict each other in any way, nor do their abilities clash or even directly interact at all, only indirectly. That's why I think nothing about Silent Arbiter's restriction will be considered when resolving Season of the Witch's ability.
Maddening Imp Nettling Imp Norritt If they would cause creatures to die in this case then I side with SotW killing them, if not then SA wins. I assume they die but my longest mtg hiatus is the cause for that knowledge gap. I believe the intent of Season of the Witch (what a great name!) was to make all untapped, non-defenders which didn't attack die. I believe the intent of how Silent Arbiter works is unclear at best. Due to these things and the fact that the rules have been changed to support intent in the past (Kenzie who?) I would side with the "they all die" side. Besides, It's a flavor win and if SotW were to ever be reprinted it really seems like they would have reworded very similarly to the little imps. (I hope I got the imp interaction right!)
I feel like the wordings on the inps are a bit to different to compare. The imps don't care if a creature could or couldn't have attacked, instead they lay out specific scenarios to make exceptions for. They can kill a creature enchanted with pacifism whereas Sotw can't. They also force the creature(s) to attack whereas season doesn't. I wouldn't be surprised if these wordings were done as a fixed version of season of the witch, but they don't match up functionally. Given that lifelink still bypasses rain of gore even though tainted remedy was worded in a way that does catch it and Sotw only saw one printing a long time ago, I would be surprised to see any functional errata.
![30 ชั่วโมงคนเดียว บนรถไฟชั้น 3 โซเวียต [Around The World Ep. 2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MlE9boAVqDA/mqdefault.jpg)
I think this situation is perfectly clear. If this is my combo that I put into my deck, then of course your bear could have attacked and of course it gets destroyed. If this is your combo that you put into your deck, then this is complete bull and of course my bear couldn’t have attacked!
“A creature won't be destroyed if it was unable to attack that turn, even if you had a way to enable it to attack. For example, a creature that had summoning sickness wouldn't be destroyed even if you had a way to give it haste.” Biased on this I would say this doesn’t kill any creatures unless no creatures attack then it could destroy all creatures because all of them could have attacked if none actually did.
@@Playingwithproxies This is an interesting angle to me. I'm just a rules noob, but I don't think I agree with Dave's logic. I agree that Grizzly Bears could have been declared as an attacker, but that occurs during the declare attackers phase, and the trigger is happening at the end step, after attackers have been declared. Once Silent Arbiter attacks, I feel like the "can't" clause wins out. Judging from some of the other comments, it seems awfully close to 50/50. We need a poll! Or some input from other judges? OR feedback from WotC?!? Great vid Dave!
this is the most satisfying answer imo!
@@Playingwithproxies this is my reading as well. a ruling should always reasonably consider the flow of least contrivance, and it should never veer away from the natural flow of game pieces or otherwise flipflop on two possible board states if it can help it
Like the programming classic:
"Horrible hack" - horrible hack that I didn't write
"Temporary workaround" - horrible hack that I wrote
We need to start playing this combo in Legacy, so it starts coming up regularly and it becomes relevant enough that L5 judges shall give us answer.
(For the record, this is what cedh players have actually thought about doing with the Gitrog combo, because nobody can agree whether or not it counts as slow play. It's not a loop, but the tournament rules are worded in a way that makes it ambiguous as to whether the Gitrog combo meaningfully changes the game state. So people have suggested actually going to Legacy tournaments and forcing a ruling out of judges.)
Season of the Witch ruling:
“At the beginning of every end step, regardless of whose turn it is, the second ability triggers. When it resolves every creature that could have been declared as an attacker during that turn’s Declare Attackers Step but wasn’t will be destroyed.
(2013-09-20)”
“Every creature that /COULD/ have been declared…”.
The Grizzly Bears could have been declared. They were not. There were choices involved, and even though your choice was limited by another game piece, it was still a choice.
I agree - Definitely destroyed.
Thank you! It's a choice, it could have attacked by itself regardless one of them was gonna be destroyed
The definition would still be somewhat problematic. What would happen if instead of the arbiter, there was a propaganda on the field. Would the game consider how much mana you had access to? What if any other player had enchantment removal (but didn't play it) - the "could" leaves too much leeway for interpretation.
@@wchenfulThere's an another ruling on Season of the Witch that says the following:
"A creature won’t be destroyed if it was unable to attack that turn, even if you had a way to enable it to attack. For example, a creature that had summoning sickness wouldn’t be destroyed even if you had a way to give it haste."
That means creatures aren't destroyed by Season if propaganda is on the battlefield, because they "can't attack" unless you pay the 2.
Everybody gangsta until Judge Dave posts a 5 start ruling
My initial intuition was the same as Dave’s: During the declare attackers step, you COULD have declared Grizzly Bears as the one attacker, therefore it could have attacked. But here’s an argument the other way:
Suppose all the creatures had been goaded (so each “attacks if able”) by Disrupt Decorum or some other such effect. The rules are clear that the Arbiter restriction takes precedence over the goad: One creature must still attack, but only one creature may attack. That implies that the creatures that didn’t attack, though goaded, must not have been able to attack thanks to the Arbiter restriction. But if they weren’t “able” to attack for goad purposes… then surely they “couldn’t” attack for SotW purposes.
The trouble, of course, is that both of these contradictory lines of reasoning seem equally compelling.
I think if you declare one attacker then the rest would be unable to attack but if you declare no attacks then all of your creatures could have legally attacked and your board would be destroyed.
When declaring an attack, an attack is legal if the set of attacking creatures fulfill as many of the requirements (like "must attack" from goad) without breaking any restriction (like the arbiter's ability).
IMO , if at the time of declaring attacker, there is a legal attack including a creature, then it was able to attack this combat.
So imo if you have several goaded creatures and a silent arbiter, then 1 goaded creature attacks and survives. The other goaded creatures are sacrificed, and the ungoaded creatures survive.
I originally thought the Grizzly Bears could have attacked, because, well, you definitely could have declared it, and not the Silent Arbiter, as an attacker. But... You've convinced me that it couldn't attack, with the goad reasoning. Goad says it attacks if able. If something made it unable... Then yeah we say it couldn't attack. Season of the Witch's Oracle says "except for creatures that couldn't attack", and... It couldn't attack, under that circumstance, as the goad example shows, or it would have.
@@isaz2425 But the window of "declaring attackers" is bit larger than that. When you select one creature it makes all the others unable to attack, while still in the declare attackers step. If you were doing it on Arena, you could still unselect that creature and choose a different one.
@@jameshill2450 even if arena make you choose them 1 by 1 for convenience (because how else would they make it ?) , from the game rules' point of view, they are declared at the same time.
Look at how goad and silent arbiter interact :
when you have a silent arbiter and a goaded grizzly bear, you can not prevent the grizzly bear from attacking by attacking "first" with the arbiter.
The arbiter doesn't make all creatures unable to attack after the first creature have been declared.
The arbiter make an attack illegal if more than one creature have been declared.
My point is that the ability doesn't affect any specific creature making it unable to attack, but it makes attacks with more than 1 attacker illegal. So if you say "I attack with arbiter and grizzly bear", the answer shouldn't be "the grizzly bear can't attack" but "the attack is illegal because there are 2 creatures".
You can choose to either remove the bear from combat, or the arbiter, or both, to make the attack legal.
These two cards are giving me flashbacks to childhood. "I dont know, CAN you attack?" "Ugh, MAY I attack?"
I feel that since other creatures are unable to attack, they are safe from sacrifice, but if you don't attack, that you should sacrifice your board.
Agreed.
my intuition is that "could have attacked" means "there was a set of legal attackers that included grizzly bears", in which case it dies.
but I can see the argument for it instead meaning "grizzly bears could have been added to the set of attackers you chose" in which case it survives.
I think your intuition nailed it.
The second scenario isn't what SotW checks for. It's asking if there was a legal set of attackers that included grizzly bears. There was, they just chose another set. Basing that off of this quote from Gatherer
"When it resolves every creature that could have been declared as an attacker during that turn's Declare Attackers Step but wasn't will be destroyed."
Although I personally think that you should be correct here, from how I would interpret the card effect of season of the witch, I believe that this case should work in the same way that it works with ghostly prison, whereas if you don’t have the mana to pay you can’t attack thus the creature lives.
Each creature CAN attack individually, so they could have attacked. Therefore, they are destroyed.
HOWEVER, I could see a Judge saying, "Had you attacked with nothing, then all creatures would die. Since you attacked with one creature, none of the others could attack, so they are spared."
I know this is 5 months old, but I'm going to toss in my take anyway.
The way I see it is that we're looking at the game state in the end step, as that's when Season of the Witch triggers. By this point, attacks have been declared and combat has been resolved. We are asking the question: "Could this creature have legally been declared as an attacker?" We don't need to speculate on if it could have been declared as an attacker, we know at this point that Silent Arbiter attacked, and we know that only one creature can be legally declared as an attacker at a time. While there could have been a modification that enabled Grizzly Bears to attack, it could not have been declared as an attacker in the combat step that occurred. I would argue this falls under a ruling we already have: "A creature won’t be destroyed if it was unable to attack that turn, even if you had a way to enable it to attack. For example, a creature that had summoning sickness wouldn’t be destroyed even if you had a way to give it haste." From the perspective of the end step, Grizzly Bears could no more legally have been declared an attacker than a summoning sick creature.
The way I have seen “could attack” articulated in the way I like best is “adding this creature to the set of creatures that did attack this turn would have still presented a valid attack.” In this case, adding the grizzly bears to the attack would have been invalid, so they could not have attacked. However, if you attack with neither, then each individually “could have attacked.”
Amy controls two Bonded Constructs (they have the ability "~ can't attack alone"). Amy chooses to attack with neither. Should they be destroyed? I think they should, but adding one of them to the set of attacking creatures makes the attack illegal.
@@notmyrealname9588 Beth controls two Bonded Constructs and Mike controls a Silent Arbiter and a Season of the Witch, Beth passes through combat with no attacks, do the Constructs die? Obviously there is no valid attack that includes one or both of the constructs, but neither of the constructs are strictly forbidden by a single ability from attacking.
If you think that they would survive, could Amy in the original problem statement save her grizzly bears by playing Boiling Blood ("Target creature must attack this turn if able if able") on her Silent Arbiter? Since that would lead to multiple effects combining to make no valid attack include the grizzly bears.
A slightly more robust definition "could attack" could be "there is a larger set of creatures including this creature and all of the creatures in the original attack that would have still presented a valid attack" or, put it another way "adding this creature and possibly others to the set of creatures that did attack this turn would have still presented a valid attack" or something like that...
Based upon the following ruling on Season of the Witch, I would lean towards Amy's Grizzly Bears NOT being sacrificed. Due to a game stste, they could not attack even though you could give them the ability to attack (you could choose them over Silent Arbiter).
"A creature won’t be destroyed if it was unable to attack that turn, even if you had a way to enable it to attack. For example, a creature that had summoning sickness wouldn’t be destroyed even if you had a way to give it haste."
I was all ready to jump in to the comments to defend what dave said until your comment. If the (oracle) text said "couldn't have attacked" I would say dave is right, since it _could_ have attacked, but silent arbiter was chosen instead, so it couldn't attack. Interestingly enough, the card itself says "could have attacked", so imo the oracle text is actually a change in behaviour.
I think the best practice here would be to distinguish between the ideas of Capability and Permission.
Consider the difference between boardstates where one has a Rule of Law type effect contrasted against a boardstate without one. If you have enough mana for multiple spells, we would say you have the capability to cast multiple spells, but not the permission.
Returning to the original prompt, each creature unaffected by summoning sickness AND not prevented from attacking as a result of rules text (such as the keyword Defender), at the time of Declare Attackers phase, could be said to have the Capability, but not necessarily the Permission.
Season of the Witch's rulings have the following line:
At the beginning of every end step, regardless of whose turn it is, the second ability triggers. When it resolves every creature that could have been declared as an attacker during that turn's Declare Attackers Step but wasn't will be destroyed.
Based on this ruling, and the distinction provided regarding identifying creatures that had the Capability to attack, I would say that all creatures that didn't attack but had the Capability are destroyed.
As loath as I am to involve the digital versions on rulings, both Arena and MTGO have ways to identify which creatures have the Capability to attack, which means there is a definitive list of criteria that can be used.
I feel like the bear should live, following the maximum-possible-requirements-for-all-restrictions rule. In the same way that a second 'attacks each turn if able' creature would be considered unable to attack under a Silent Arbiter, an Arbiter'd bear would be unable to attack for Season of the Witch.
After thinking for a while, I think your ruling is right. If a creature could have attacked during the declare attackers step, it should be considered as "could have attacked." If you check at the end step, then you could end up with silly situations like a player flashing in a Pacifism effect on a creature that didn't attack during the second main phase, and then claiming "this creature can't attack." I don't think anyone would say that a creature that had "this creature cannot attack" added to it after the declare attackers step would be immune to being sacrificed, so that's my justification for why you should check for what creatures could attack at declare attackers.
I feel the grizzly would live. Season of the Witch looks at the end step, which by then the Grizzly is deemed a creature which could not attack by silent arbiters effect.
You still could have chosen it as the creature that did attack though!
After reading the rules on Declare Attackers, I think I would interpret the effect as "sacrifice the creature if it was part of a possible legal attack declaration configuration, but wasn't chosen as attacker". I think that would catch all corner cases and be consistent (including with stuff like goading, extra combat phases and other restrictions such as "can't attack unless" and cards like Ghostly Prison).
I would personally say it works like Firkraag + War’s Toll, in that you check what was true as you declared attackers. With those cards Firkraag would trigger if a single creature attacked and hit an opponent, because at the time it attacked there was a requirement for it to attack, even if it didn’t have to attack in the colloquial sense. So for the video’s scenario the Grizzly Bear couldn’t attack, since there was a restriction stopping it from attacking at the moment attackers were declared.
Yeah, I feel like this is similar enough to Silent Arbiter's interaction with "attacks each turn if able" that the bears gotta die.
Nothing was stopping you from choosing the grisly bears for the singular attacker. It's dead IMO.
My intuition initially sided with the Bears not dying, by virtue of Season of the Witch triggering at the end step and having to retroactively do the "could it have attacked" check.
But then I though to myself, what if none of the creatures attacked? Would applying this logic have destroyed just one of the creatures? Which one?
Then, all creatures are destroyed. They all could have attacked.
Once a single attacker is declared/made, none of the other creatures could then attack.
"They all could have attacked" is a line that suggests the bear should die.
Arbiter's restriction doesn't continue to exist beyond combat, why should that still factor into an end step trigger.
I’m gonna have to disagree with the my favourite judge today. In respect to the English language, could is the past tense of can, and since Silent Arbiter puts a restriction on who can attack it must then put every other creature under the restriction of can’t attack like a pacifism effect. Since Season of the Witch is going to trigger during the end phase, I would say that as long as 1 creature attacked when silent arbiter was in play, each other creature couldn’t attack, and should not be destroyed by Season of the Witch.
Every creature in the game every turn goes through multiple instances of "not being able to attack" (like during main phase 2) but obviously that's not what season of the witch means
i don't believe that SotW should destroy creatures if the attacker chose not to go through pacifism, and since silent arbiter is another restriction on attacking it should work the same way and nothing gets destroyed provided you performed the maximum legal attack of 1 creature
I paused before your answer to think about what I would prefer, and I agree.
IMO, if at the time of the declare the attackers steps, you consider all legal attacks, then if grizzly bear is attacking in at least one of them , then it could have attacked.
So it must be sacrificed.
Imo as long as one creature did attack the rest couldn’t legally attack so all of the rest will be safe. But if no creature attacks then your entire board could have been the one to attack and all will be destroyed.
I am with you on this. Put Master of Cruelties in there and you have the same situation: he lives or the rest of your team lives.
@@Playingwithproxies The problem I have with this reasoning, is that you don't declare attackers one by one. Attackers are declared all at once.
Before the declaration of attackers, any creature can be declared attacker, and after that, no creature can attack. even without the silent arbiter.
The silent arbiter doesn't prevent the grizzly bear to attack after you said arbiter is attacking. It only makes the attack with both creatures illegal. (the difference is that at no point in the game, you can declare attackers but the grizzly is prevented from declared attacker by arbiter's ability)
@@isaz2425 you could also say the grizzly bears was prevented to attack at the point you declared an attacking creature.
@@Playingwithproxies The problem I have with this reasoning, is that you're supposed to declare all the attacker before the step when you check for abilities that force or prevent creatures from attacking, and only after that, the creatures become attacking creatures.
(rules 508.1a to 508.1k)
So there is no point in this process where the bear is prevented to attack because an other creature is already attacking.
You don't add the attackers one by one to the attack, checking each time if you can add them to the attack.
You have to choose a set of attacking creature, then check if they can attack, then they become attackers.
Curious if this SotW ruling impacts it.
9/20/2013 A creature won't be destroyed if it was unable to attack that turn, even if you had a way to enable it to attack. For example, a creature that had summoning sickness wouldn't be destroyed even if you had a way to give it haste.
The bear couldn't legally been enabled to attack as long as another creature was declared as a legal attacker. Similar to how a player isn't obligated to pay Ghostly Prison in order to attack to satisfy SotW.
The true solution is to get SotW onto MTGO so it can be the final arbiter. :)
there is a 2013 piece of errata on Season of the Witch's gatherer page that is edifying here:
"At the beginning of every end step, regardless of whose turn it is, the second ability triggers. When it resolves every creature that could have been declared as an attacker during that turn's Declare Attackers Step but wasn't will be destroyed."
this suggests that the official interpretation of "couldn't attack" is "could have been declared as an attacker, but wasn't". since you *could* have chosen any of the creatures you didn't choose, this aligns with judge dave's ruling that every creature other than the one you chose would be destroyed by Season's effect
but that's just my reading, and i'm not even a L1 judge (not yet, anyway)
In my mind, the primary function of the 'couldn't attack' clause is to preserve the defending player's creatures each combat (as well as Defender creatures), since the effect triggers -every- turn. In that regard, it means to exclude creatures who couldn't attack because of the game state making that action illegal, and not necessarily because of the player's choice. Therefore, Amy's Grizzly Bears should live, since declaring Silent Arbiter as an attacker would make the Grizzly Bears an illegal attacker, and vice versa.
I think the Grizzly Bears dying is more intuitive to players, but this seems like the more likely way an official body would make the ruling to me
I agree, if you imagine yourself back at the Declare Attackers step, there was nothing preventing you from attacking with the Bears. After you chose the Arbiter to attack, it may feel like the Bears can't attack, but they could have at that moment (and then it'd be the Arbiter who dies)
"From the minds that brought us [...] stickers" sick burn bro! 😂
Now, from the actual question: despite the silent arbiter, any one creature could have attacked so, yeah, the ones that didn't should die (just like Dave said at the end of the video that I was comenting on before finishing watching).
I would say that the Grizzly Bear should survive and not be considered to have been able to attack because declaring it as an attacker would have lead to an illegal board state.
Thr grizzly bears attacking isn't an illegal board state, the arbiter would just have to not attack.
It's not like you can declare the arbiter as an attacker THEN check if the Bears "can attack", attackers are declared simultaneously
I don't know why I was so excited by the end of the video. I was so scared that, as a joke, you would not say what you think about the ruling and end the video suddenly.
On top of that, when your opinion was the same as mine I almost jumped
This is an educational channel. I occasionally use humor, but not at the expense of my content's usefulness. I recall that I considered copping out while I was writing my script for this episode, but decided against it for exactly this reason.
@@JudgingFtW That is great to know! It was a funny moment anyway since it created this fear
I do agree with your ruling. I interpret the card as “Was the creature capable of being declared as an attacker? If so was it? If it wasn’t declared it go boom.” Since the grizzly bears was capable of being declared as an attacker in a legal option for your attackers then it goes boom. I have a lore and gameplay wise argument as well. Lore wise, witches like to bs rules and deals and such all the time and monkey paw to get the best outcome for themselves at the cost of others. Gameplay wise it lets you have a neat design space where you try to work around forcing your opponent to chose what they sacrifice by not letting them attack with all viable attackers.
Speaking from experience writing reference documentation, I think the solution here is to change the oracle text of Season of the Witch to more accurately define what a creature that couldn't attack would be. And then, if for whatever reason, a new card wants to use the same definition, then move it into the comprehensive rules and then un-errata Season of the Witch.
Another possible option if you have the right connections is to call up the designer(s) of the card and ask them what they think should happen. But most people don't have those connections and those who do will not be caring about this interaction.
I feel like your ruling is absolutely the correct one for the correct reason.
Not the most recent video, but if I encountered this situation I would interpret it as such: silent arbiter denies the *player* the ability to declare more than one attacker, but does not specifically prevent an individual creature from attacking. any creature that can attack during the declare attackers step that is not designated as an attacker is done so by the player's election, and is therefore eligible to be destroyed by season of the witch
I think this is like the combo of words like, menace and must be blocked. If there is only one blocker, it can't be blocked. So with this, if no creative attacked, you sac all your creatures becuase they *could have* attacked, but if one did, then the rest could not.
I think that the grizzly bears should live because the season of the witch trigger happens at the end step at which point the arbiter has attacked and because of it's text the rules prevent you from attacking with grizzly bears aswell so they could not have attacked according to silent arbiter being in play at the time. I feel like the oracle needs to update season of the witch because the wording 'could have attacked' is a bit ambiguous as there aren't any definitions for what it means to have been able to attack (that I'm aware of). Not sure what a better wording would be though.
Dave’s answer makes the most sense here in plain English, if you separate the words from Magic’s rules. The Grizzly Bear “could have” attacked. In our day to day lives, “could have” often refers to binary choices, like having an Arbiter out.
in my opinion, the fact that, at the beginning of combat, any creature may attack, even though only one will actually be able to do so, makes all the creatures able to attack. this way the player have the choice to make a creature survive season of the witch but beacause of silent arbiter his choice is simply less free, as in many other mtg scenarios. So the creatures do get destroyed.
But what if you play a creature in your first main phase. It could attack IF you gave it haste? You chose not to give it haste, therefore it is destroyed?
Gatherer actually has a clarification on this. The ruling states: "At the beginning of every end step, regardless of whose turn it is, the second ability triggers. When it resolves every creature that could have been declared as an attacker during that turn's Declare Attackers Step but wasn't will be destroyed." Under the effect of silent arbiter, each creature is able to be declared as an attacker during the declare attackers step, therefore the creatures that were not declared as attackers but could have been are destroyed
Jumping in to say that I think that ability to attack is something constantly checked and not only checked checked during the beginning of the declare attackers phase. Therefore I think that the game can see that after you have chosen one attacker you are unable to choose the grizzly bears so it is unable to attack.
I feel like your final interpretation is probably the most realistic interpretation 'at the table' - since the rules are silent, we haven't go to back to a more basic definition of 'couldn't attack' - that is, answering the question, "Is there any legal attack that could have been declared that includes this creature?" If yes, then that creature *could* attack. As a result, if there are *no* legal attacks that could have been declared that includes that creature, it couldn't have attacked, so is safe.
As a result, when Silent Arbiter and Season of the Witch are in play, creatures with Defender, and creatures with 'summoning sickness' are still fine (they can't attack under any possible legal attack).
If you have a creature that 'Must attack if able', and a Grizzly Bears with no requirements or restrictions, things get interesting. Rule 508.1c and d talk about these situations, and 'd' states that the only legal attacks are those where the maximum possible number of requirements are met without violating any restrictions. As such, because the 'must attack' creature's requirement must be met, there is no legal attack where the Bears can attack; therefore the Bears couldn't attack and are safe.
If Silent Arbiter is out, and you have *two* creatures with 'must attack if able', the spiciness increases. The largest number of creatures that can attack without violating restrictions is one, so either creature attacking alone is a legal attack. Therefore, whichever one doesn't will be hit by the Season of the Witch for not attacking, because it 'could have'.
Likewise, if you control several creatures with Defender, and an enchantment that says "Creatures you control with defender can attack as though they didn't have defender.", the fact that they have defender no longer saves them, because now they could have been part of at least one possible legal attack, and didn't attack.
That said, that all assumes that the definition of "couldn't attack" is "there is no possible legal attack that includes that creature". I think that's a fine definition, but YMMV
Beginning of Combat Step - Grizzly Bears can attack
Declare Attackers Step - Grizzly Bears cannot attack because another attacker has been declared
End of Combat Step - Season of the Witch trigger checks for creatures that could have attacked, Grizzly Bears is currently very much in the 'cannot' camp.
In which step is Silent Arbiter delcared as an attacker? Because according to this there would have to be some secret second Declare Attackers step.
Fascinating.
My ruling would be that because both of Amy's questions was capable of being the sole attacker, the one which did not attack should die.
But the real test would be to set up this situation on MTGO, and go with whatever happens on that platform. For... format unity. And stuff. Yep.
(who do I have to @ to get Season of the Witch added to treasure chests?)
I have that alpha rule book coin flip statement tattooed on me!
That feel when you can measure how much time has passed
My ruling would be to enact a Shahrazad subgame & whomever wins decides WTF happens.
The caveat preventing the bears from attacking existed before the transition to the declare attackers step of combat, the game should be able to see what the attacking creatures will look like in the future to determine that any creature not attacking did so because of the arbiter's ability.
i agree with your interpretation. the bear *could* have attacked so it should die
5 star question... Buckle up!!
I'd say that as soon as Arbiter is declared an attacker, all other creatures lose the ability to attack. Since SotW destroys at the end step, it checks each creature that didn't attack and determines that they couldn't. Thus, they are spared.
Great question, though. I don't know the answer.
I agree with your ruling. It seems like season of the witch should only skip over creatures that have a "couldn't have attacked" status, like defenders, gods that weren't online, creatures coming into play post-combat, and creatures played this turn without haste. Similarly, I think creatures that can't attack alone should be destroyed if there was at least one other creature that attacked or could have attacked, regardless of whether someone controls a silent arbiter effect
I'm a big fan of games including the Golden Rule, where if both players disagree and there is no judge to make the decision, you players roll a die or flip a coin to decide it. It's been a part of Warhammer rules for ages, since those rules can interact in very odd and wacky ways that aren't immediately obvious, much in the same way tht MTG rules can.
Here are the options I see. It should be determined if a creature XXX could have attacked by comparing the choice that actually happened to a hypothetical choice:
XXX is considered "could have attacked" if there was a legal choice for attacking creatures with XXX attacking in addition to...
A> any other set of creatures.
B> the creatures that were actually chosen, and possibly more.
C> the creatures that were actually chosen.
If this choice would have required an additional cost to be paid,
D> it doesn't count.
E> it's counted if that player could have paid it using only current resources and mana abilities that are public knowledge.
F> it's counted if, using only public knowledge, it can be shown there was a set of legal game actions this turn that would have resulted in the cost being paid.
and when going full complex:
G> F, but also for removing attacking restrictions.
- A and G are the closest to the English meaning, while C and D are the easiest to evaluate.
- Personally, I'd go with C+D, for simplicity. Especially F and G are just nightmares.
- By "an additional cost" I mean 1) a cost would have to be paid in the hypothetical attack and 2a) there was no cost paid in the actual attack or 2b) the cost paid in the actual attack was equal or strictly higher than in the hypothetical attack.
- If there were no declare attackers steps, no creatures "could have attacked" this turn.
- If there were multiple declare attackers steps, XXX "could have attacked" this turn if it "could have attacked" in one of those.
I agree with your opinion, because of the way Season of the Witch is worded. Before choosing the creature to attack, the bears could attack. The conclusion would be different if SOTW was worded "except for creatures that couldn't have attacked". After choosing the attacker, the bears "could not have attacked", because Amy chose another creature to do so. Does that make sense?
I would say that the Grizzly Bears lives on the account that a negative trumps a positive.
I agree. Logic dictates that the Grizzly Bears *could* have attacked but *didn’t* attack. It was not prevented from attacking; it was prevented from being *chosen* as an attacker because Silent Arbiter was, instead. It didn’t have defender nor summoning sickness. So it should die.
It was absolutely prevented from attacking.
I think the intention of the Season of the Witch is to avoid non hasters to die on the turn they come in. So I concur in that the bears should die.
I think the intention of Season of the Witch is to force people to attack with the creatures that can attack - not to force odd, unpreventable sacrifices.
Yeah the rules notes on gatherer seem to indicate that if you could have declared it an attacker during the declare attackers step and didn't it dies. You could have chosen either creature at the point. I also assume that if somehow you had a haste creature and didn't attack with it and then it lost haste later it would also die
I tap an Island cuz Ima need to Ponder on this one
Thinking about it I think u r right but if the wording was "Players can't attack with more than 1 creature each combat" than I would feel it is the opposite cuz Can't overrules everything
I have a contrary line of reasoning coming from more of an intent perspective: Season of the Witch excludes creatures who are already tapped via external meddling (e.g. twiddle), it would make sense that creatures that couldn't attack because of external meddling (e.g. Silent Arbiter) would similarly be excluded.
Hmmm.
Silent Arbiter's ability in Fifth Dawn was "No more than one creature **may** attack each combat.", while the Oracle text and the last printings are "[...] **CAN** attack [...]". That's an important difference IMO.
So, using the Oracle text (which is the official and definitive text), the other ones couldn't attack, because the Arbiter states that the other creatures can't attack, so they shouldn't be destroyed IMO.
Edit: I'd say CR 508.1d support my argument, while you're choosing which creature to attack with, it is an illegal state to attack with any other creature while Arbiter is in play, so they couldn't have attacked.
In any cases, if you attack with no creature they all die.
I feel as though the creature has to be sacrificed. They had the opportunity to be declared as an attacker, even if it was decided to declare a different creature as an attacker.
I would say the Grizzly Bear is sac'd because there was a point at which it COULD attack. Sure, once another creature attacked, it was no longer able to, but that was because a decision was made regarding which creature to attack with. I'd say the same regarding things like Ghostly prison. Let's say a player enters their combat with only 2 mana available. They end up in a situation much like with the Arbiter where they can only afford to swing with a single creature. Those other creatures COULD attack, but the decision was made regarding which creature to attack with.
How would this look as an actual rule though? I would probably word it something like this:
A creature is considered to have been able attack this turn if, at the beginning of the declare attackers step, no current effect or ability would prevent it from being declared as an attacker later during that step.
This means that all creatures controlled by the active player that are not tapped or affected by summoning sickness would be considered able to attack, unless otherwise specified by another card effect. Cards like Arbiter and Ghostly prison would not affect their ability to attack at the beginning of the declare attackers step, but only during the declaration of attackers, so the other creatures would still be considered as having been able to attack that turn. This check would also occur before any player gains priority as it would happen before attackers are declared, and players only get priority after attackers have been declared, so you wouldn't have to worry about any other effects or abilities that would modify the conditions during this check.
My opinion: CR 506.6 says that a creature “had to attack” if an effect applied to it requiring it to attack at the time attackers were declared. CR 508.1 and its subrules go out of their way to avoid referring to a creature that will end up being an attacker as actually attacking until several steps after the legality step, which to me implies that when the game looks at which creatures had to and couldn’t attack, it’ll see that the other creatures under Arbiter couldn’t attack because its effect applied to them at the time creatures became attacking creatures.
That should be a layer-like issue. They should figure a way to find a timestamp-like interpretation.
Once the Silent Arbiter is declared as an attacker, this prevents the Grizzly Bear from attacking. So it could not attack and therefore should live.
Once the Silent Arbiter is declared as an attacker the Declare Attackers Step is over though. Not because of Arbiter's ability, but because you declare all attackers at once. Last time you could (choose a creature to) attack, the Grizzly Bears was a legal option.
oh yeah I love 5 star episodes, they always feel so special!!
I am of the opinion that the grizzly bears went from a creature that can attack to a creature that couldn't have attacked. So if I were the head judge, I would rule that grizzly bears lives, because the trigger happens after the grizzly bears has changed from a creature that could attack to a creature that couldn't.
It's about as clear as mud but I think the rules do manage to handle it as written.
Rule 508.1a-d.
Consider if one went to combat and didn't declare either creature as an attacker. The restriction imposed by the arbiter would be satisfied and then no requirements (attacks if able) are dissatisfied. Both would die at end of turn. So the restriction at step c determines which are able to attack.
If a creature is 'able to attack' declaring it as an attacker will not have resulted in an illegal action.
This would be supported by considering 'skipping' the combat step, if we treat it as if it didn't exist (500.10), then no creature could have been able to attack during the turn. Creatures aren't destroyed.
I wonder if this particular interaction was inspired by a somewhat recent Yugioh video from MBT?
I do appreciate that there is still policy about how to handle undefined rules interactions. Also, the fact that judge's discretion isn't the main way of interpreting rules.
I believe the Grizzly Bears should live, because they would be seen as "couldn't attack" by the time Season of the Witch checks to see which creatures should and shouldn't be destroyed, since Silent Arbiter put the "couldn't attack" restriction on every creature besides the single creature that was chosen to be the sole attacker.
(Of course, this means that if the player with Silent Arbiter and Grizzly Bears didn't attack with any creatures, none of them will have gotten the "couldn't attack" restriction, and Season of the Witch would destroy them all.)
My interpretation is that the Bear would die. You could have chosen to the Bear as your single allowed attacker instead of the Arbiter so the Bear "could attack".
Thanks for doing this topic, love to see your opinion on this extreme corner case. Can't wait to see what's the next topic that deserves 5 stars. ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
(What happens when a youtuber judge does something controversial on their channel.) 🤭
I agree with your ruling. For the same reason.
I'd look at each creature individually. At the time of declare attackers, can this creature be declared as an attacker and assigned to attack a player or planeswalker? If the answer is yes without any other conditions then I would then note whether it could attack and did or did not. Not replace arbiter with ghostly prison and of course this then turns back to official rulings where even if you could pay 2 you don't have to.
I think it ultimately could be handled with a templating/errata-level fix, it's not something that necessarily needs to be fixed in the rules.
At any point in time, the game state can answer the question "is Grizzly Bears currently a legal attacker?" If Season of the Witch checks at the beginning of combat, Grizzly Bears should be destroyed. If it checks after attackers are declared, it should not be. It has to pick a time to check and check it; "speculative" triggers can't work. What if the Grizzly Bears was enchanted with Pacifism and an Amateur Auteur was also in play? Grizzly Bears *could* attack if Amateur Auteur was sacrificed to destroy the Pacifism.
As a matter of fact, I think there's an amusing argument that says since SotW triggers at the end step, you can save Bears by enchanting it with Pacifism in 2nd Main, but there's probably actually something in the rules that would make that dubious.
I agree with your ruling judge thanks for the vid!
... my solution for table top games would probably be a stupid solution that doesn't make sense, but feels right to me: if the Arbitrator entered the battlefield first, and the season later, then the bear should die.
If the season entered the battlefield first, and the arbitrator later, then the bear should live.
It's wether or not the enchantment "sees" the rule of stuff not being allowed to attack being made.
This doesn't make sense in the rules itself - it's not some timestamps should have effect on - but it's a way that both interpretations of the combination could be interpreted and justified and come up, allowing players to manipulate it into becoming one or the other.
WAIT NO I WAS WRONG, the arbiter gives a creature the ability to attack, it doesn't prevent the other creatures from attacking (that is simply a side effect of the ability). The bears should die
Idk, a good combo can be Silent Arbiter + a vehicle + high power creatures.
Yeah, I agree. Bear was a potential attacker.
With Season of the Witch
The mad lad actually did it.
I defer to the Shaharazad technique - if you can't agree on something, play a game of Magic to resolve it.
Okay, so this one is tricky, but I believe I have a satisfying answer. *LONG* answer below.
**TL;DR: the Grizzly Bears is destroyed**, because you choose which creatures attack all at once. Choosing more than one attacker will force you into an illegal state, where you have to choose your attackers again because something went wrong. But at any point where you choose the creatures to attack you could have chosen the Grizzly Bears, so it was not unable to attack.
Let's first look at what Silent Arbiter does, because I believe how it works is *relatively* straight-forward, but still touches most of the relevant rules.
Silent Arbiter's effects are obviously continuous, but they are not replacement effects; they contain neither "instead"(CR 614.1a), "skip" (CR 614.1b), or any of the longer templates (CR 614.1b-e). Nor are they prevention effects; they do not contain "prevent" (CR 615.1a). They are simply continuous effects adding rules to the game. Here we only care about the first effect: "No more than one creature may attack each combat.", but in regards to the above points the second one works just the same.
It is fair to assume that the first effect affects CR 508.1 (Declare Attackers Step):
"First, the active player declares attackers. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack. To declare attackers, the active player follows the steps below, in order. If at any point during the declaration of attackers, the active player is unable to comply with any of the steps listed below, the declaration is illegal; the game returns to the moment before the declaration (see rule 717, “Handling Illegal Actions”)."
More precisely, it affects one of the "steps listed below"; CR 508.1c:
"The active player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether it’s affected by any restrictions (effects that say a creature can’t attack, or that it can’t attack unless some condition is met). If any restrictions are being disobeyed, the declaration of attackers is illegal."
I'd say Arbiter's effect can be safely considered as a restriction, akin to "all creatures may only attack if they are attacking alone". Actually, an effect just it is mentioned in the example of CR 508.1d. That rule is really about "requirements", but since that example also has a creature with an “attacks if able” ability, we can assume that is the "requirement", and "No more than one creature can attack each turn." is a restriction, used in the example to show how they may interact.
Let's move onto Season of the Witch.
The tricky part about Season of the Witch is the "couldn't attack". Luckily Season of the Witch has two rulings (as seen in Scryfall) to clear this up:
Ruling 1 (R1): "At the beginning of every end step, regardless of whose turn it is, the second ability triggers. When it resolves every creature that could have been declared as an attacker during that turn’s Declare Attackers Step but wasn’t will be destroyed."
Ruling 2 (R2): "A creature won’t be destroyed if it was unable to attack that turn, even if you had a way to enable it to attack. For example, a creature that had summoning sickness wouldn’t be destroyed even if you had a way to give it haste."
R1 explains "creatures that could attack [this turn]" as "every creature that could have been declared as an attacker during [this] turn’s Declare Attackers Step but wasn’t". R2 supports R1; in conjunction they make it seem like Season of the Witch only cares about the Declare Attackers Step. This is lucky, because Silent Arbiter also affects that step. This is where the real mess starts, though... or so it seems. Going only by R1, the Grizzly Bears should be destroyed. After all, it could have been declared as an attacker - it would have been a legal action to declare (only) the Grizzly Bears as your attacker. However, R2 tells us that sometimes a creature won't be destroyed, and that this exception applies "even if you had a way to enable it to attack". Luckily, we don't have a way to enable the Grizzly Bears to attack. Why? To see that (and the answer to the question at large), we need to interpret "unable to attack that turn", alternatively "that couldn't attack". My final argument hinges on these two phrases being identical in meaning, and since the CR has nothing to say on either on them, I think it is a natural assumption. Still, this assumption should be up-front as such. Another assumption is that they have to do with 508.1, since that's when we determine which creatures may/may not attack. Our first assumption doesn't mean R2 is redundant though, since its example gives us a big hint: haste, which is dealt with in 508.1a, the first step of the 508.1 step-based action:
"The active player chooses which creatures that he or she controls, if any, will attack. The chosen creatures must be untapped, and each one must either have haste or have been controlled by the active player continuously since the turn began."
The above rule holds the key to the puzzle. In short, 508.1 tells us to go through the below steps, and if any of them end up illegal start over from the start. First, the active player chooses all creatures to attack at once (508.1a). The (only) next step that matters is 508.1c, where Silent Arbiter restriction will come into relevance; if there is more than one chosen attacker the declaration is illegal and you start over again, choosing new creatures to attack. So what does "unable to attack"/"couldn't attack" mean? The purpose of rulings is to explain card text, for this reason we can assume R1 to be explaining what Season of the Witch does, and that way get an answer: "couldn't attack" means "couldn't be declared as an attacker", or that there are no ways you could step through 508.1, so that by the end the relevant creature is an attacking creature. The Grizzly Bears is thus able to attack by default, so R2's exception "even if you had a way to enable it to attack" does not matter. You could say that once you choose to attack with the Arbiter, then you *are* unable to choose the Grizzly Bears without reaching an illegal state, and thus the Grizzly Bear *becomes* unable to attack. This is a false dilemma. Per 508.1a you choose all attackers at once, and if this leads to an illegal state you go back to one where you may choose (only) the Grizzly Bears again. The Grizzly Bears could attack, yet it didn't; **the Grizzly Bears is destroyed**.
----
It should also be noted that Silent Arbiter's restriction ought to force the active player to choose *zero* creatures to attack, if you have two Declare Attackers Step during the same combat, and the first one went through successfully with one attacking creature. I dunno if there are cards that give you a second Declare Attackers Step though...
I agree GB is destroyed.
To reply to your last paragraph...
If you had a second combat step (plenty of cards do this) you would get a declare attackers step. In that case, you could attack with any creature you want, even if it didn't attack in the first combat.
Silent Arbiter doesn't say each turn, it says each combat. So you can declare any 1 creature as attacking each combat step
Imo it shouldn't be destroyed
Imagine each creature having a state: either "can attack" or "can't attack". Clearly stuff like summoning sickness or being tapped puts you in the latter. However, after Silent Arbiter attacks, all your other creatures now have the state "can't attack". So when Season of the Witch checks, all of them "can't attack" and so they aren't destroyed.
Thanks for the insights Dave! Is there any chance you explain in more detail how the comprehensive rules don’t cover this situation? Like in your Toolbox and Serra Paragon videos, you point to possibly relevant rules and explain why they fail to resolve the situation.
Those were rather different as there comprehensive rules did answer what would happen, but it did not align with intended function of cards.
Same effect as if there was a propaganda in play. No more than one creature may attack means all creatures except for the one declared cannot attack. Amy shouldn't have to declare an illegal attack and then take back the Grizzly Bears in order to not sacrifice it.
Great explanation.
I would treat "can attack" and "can't attack" as static abilities. By the time Season looks at the Bears they have "can't attack" so they live
With that ruling, Llanowar elves can be tapped during or after combat for mana, therefore they would also be seen as not able to attack (at the time of Season of the Witch effect), which is clearly wrong. I think it makes more sense to look at it in the scenario with multiple combat steps to see / understand what happens.
@@Luxalpaseason of the witch only affects untapped creatures
@@Luxalpa You can already do that even without that ruling, Season of the Witch only cares about untapped creatures after all, so you can tap any creature in response to Season of the Witch's triggered effect as long as is legal.
Another tricky wrinkle: say you have a creature with defender but an ability that can make it lose defender (or attack as though it didn't have defender), say Colossus of Akros. During your second main phase you pay it's monstrosity cost to make it so it can attack. Should that be destroyed because you could have chosen to activate monstrosity before combat? It could have attacked that turn if you made different decisions.
To take the example further, what if you have an Arcades The Strategist in hand that you could have cast precombat main, but chose not to. There's no way for your opponent to have known that, but you could have attacked with your defenders if you had made the choice to cast it.
All in all I think I've talked myself into the position that the fact that you could have chosen a different one creature doesn't matter. You could only attack with one, you did attack with one, therefore all creatures that could attack did attack. The fact that you could have made other choices just opens up too many cans of worms.
Good name, bad examples. "Could have attacked" from a rule standpoint would be better defined as was capable of being declared as a legal attacker during the declare attackers step. That's just much longer...
So removing defender in main phase 2 wouldn't change whether or not it was a legal option during that step.
@@epochsgaming the longer wording doesn't clear up the ambiguity I was getting at "was capable of being declared an attacker" is still true of the Colossus if you had chosen to activate it during your precombat main. You had a line of play available to you that would allow it to attack but you chose not to do that. Just like there is a line of play in which Grizzly Bears attacks, but you chose not to do that by having Silent Arbiter attack instead. Possibly/capability is a very hazy and hard to define term especially in a game with hidden information (which is what the Arcades in hand example was illustrating). My point is it does not seem fair or undeniably strictly logical to draw a line between "chose to have one of my other creatures be the sole creature to attack because of Silent Arbiter" and "chose not to remove a restriction on attacking that I could have removed".
@@tylerowens I think maybe I explained it badly.
Using the Colossus example of it wasn't activated in main phase 1, then in the declare attackers step it is actually incapable of being declared as an attacker. I.E. it couldn't attack.
The game won't force you to take specific actions that are optional (think of a creature that attacks each turn if able vs Propaganda).
In the stated problem though, that's not what we have. We have 2 creatures who were both legal choices.
@@tylerowens there are actually two rulings on season of the witch and both of them combine to answer that. The first is
At the beginning of every end step, regardless of whose turn it is, the second ability triggers. When it resolves every creature that could have been declared as an attacker during that turn’s Declare Attackers Step but wasn’t will be destroyed.
Since you activated the ability after the attack step, it couldn't effect the declare attackers step so it should be safe.
For the second
A creature won’t be destroyed if it was unable to attack that turn, even if you had a way to enable it to attack. For example, a creature that had summoning sickness wouldn’t be destroyed even if you had a way to give it haste.
So having an ability that you could activate to allow it to attack doesn't mean it could have attacked. So even if you never activate monstrosity, you should be fine.
@@seandun7083 this makes sense to me, and I think it supports the idea that the Grizzly Bears should not be destroyed. It is established that choices you could have made but didn't make do not establish "could have attacked"
This is actually very simple. When the trigger for season of the witch activates to check. It sees that the bear was unable to attack. Even if prior to the combat declaration it could. When the check happens it couldn't.
If you controlled a creature that must attack if able, would you still say the silent arbiter should be sacrificed?
I think the bear should be destroyed, as I think that “couldn’t attack” means couldn’t be eligible as an attacking creature when the declare attackers step begins. Since the bear isn’t ineligible as an attacker until the arbiter is already attacking, i.e. after the step has begun, it should be considered as a creature that could have attacked.
I don't think the bears should die... The situation is a bit similar to rulings with ghostly prison. If I remember the rules correctly my creatures all have the label "can't attack" until I pay the 2 mana, but the game can't force me to do so (That's why Ghostly Prison stops creatures that "have to attack each combat, if able"). Here the situation feels kinda similar, let's say I have 2 untapped lands, so technically I could attack with the bears, but don't have to sac them end of turn
I disagree, in the situatuon presented the bears should die, however I do think if the defender has a ghostly prison, you could declare no attackers and have none of them die.
You could have chosen any one of your creatures to be the one to attack that turn. It's not that they couldn't attack, you had to make the decision. You would need some sort of effect like pacifism that specifically says the creature can't attack to stop them from being destroyed.
My opinion is that one creature can attack, the others can't - so if no creatures attack then the controller of said creatures picks ONE creature to sacrifice.
I see, but all of them could attack. Ask this question for each creature you control on the battlefield "Can/could I attack with (only) this creature?", even if only one of them could be declared as attacker, each one of them could be declared individually.
@Yautja Prime actually Patrick is spot on. From the Gatherer rules clarifications for SotW
"When it resolves every creature that could have been declared as an attacker during that turn's Declare Attackers Step but wasn't will be destroyed.".
Both SA and GB were legal options to declare as an attacker.
Also what Christopher said about picking one to keep with 0 attacks is the most wrong version.
@@epochsgaming Trust magic to have the most rational option as being the most wrong :)
Also - I said sacrifice one, not keep one.
@@Craznar You said if no attacks, they pick 1 to sac.
That's wrong though. SA and GB could both be declared as an attacker legally, just not together. If you attack with neither, they should both die at end of turn
Can you accurately explain the ruling for counters (poison/toxic) if 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 players control vorinclex monstrous hunter?
This is a really infuriating question. For 95% of the video, I was sure that they couldn't have attacked, and should be sacrificed
But on the last moment, I finally got how they could have attacked, and should die.
I hate this.
The silent arbiter basically put its controller in a bind of loosing their creatues beacuse of its ability
i wonder if someone can make a mtg version of godel’s incompleteness theorem lol. “there are no rulesets such that the outcome of all possible game actions are defined” or smth.
There is a ruling for *Season of the Witch* from 2013 that I think fits the circumstance:
_At the beginning of every end step, regardless of whose turn it is, the second ability triggers. When it resolves every creature that could have been declared as an attacker during that turn's Declare Attackers Step but wasn't will be destroyed._
As you said, the *Grizzly Bears* "could have been declared as an attacker," and so it is susceptible to the ability.
Lack of official ruling aside, I personally think the Grizzly Bears should get destroyed in this case. Every similar thing with official rulings deals with cost to attack; i.e. if your creature is goaded but your opponents all have a Ghostly Prison or similar effect up, you aren't forced to pay for the Ghostly Prison, ergo the goad doesn't apply. But in this case, there really was nothing stopping you from attacking with the Grizzly Bears, since nothing is outright saying the Grizzly Bears can't attack, nor is it trying to force you to pay an unrelated optional cost; the Silent Arbiter is just making the attack very inconvenient given the Season of the Witch in play.
In this instance I don't think the Season of the Witch and the Silent Arbiter interact at all, as there's enough of a degree of separation between their effects that I don't think they should be taking each other into account. Silent Arbiter says you only get to attack with one creature, not that specific creatures can't attack. Season of the Witch then sees the other creatures that didn't attack but technically could have had you chosen to attack with any of them instead, and destroys them. The two don't have any dependencies in their static abilities, they don't contradict each other in any way, nor do their abilities clash or even directly interact at all, only indirectly. That's why I think nothing about Silent Arbiter's restriction will be considered when resolving Season of the Witch's ability.
Maddening Imp
Nettling Imp
Norritt
If they would cause creatures to die in this case then I side with SotW killing them, if not then SA wins. I assume they die but my longest mtg hiatus is the cause for that knowledge gap.
I believe the intent of Season of the Witch (what a great name!) was to make all untapped, non-defenders which didn't attack die.
I believe the intent of how Silent Arbiter works is unclear at best.
Due to these things and the fact that the rules have been changed to support intent in the past (Kenzie who?) I would side with the "they all die" side. Besides, It's a flavor win and if SotW were to ever be reprinted it really seems like they would have reworded very similarly to the little imps. (I hope I got the imp interaction right!)
I feel like the wordings on the inps are a bit to different to compare. The imps don't care if a creature could or couldn't have attacked, instead they lay out specific scenarios to make exceptions for. They can kill a creature enchanted with pacifism whereas Sotw can't. They also force the creature(s) to attack whereas season doesn't.
I wouldn't be surprised if these wordings were done as a fixed version of season of the witch, but they don't match up functionally. Given that lifelink still bypasses rain of gore even though tainted remedy was worded in a way that does catch it and Sotw only saw one printing a long time ago, I would be surprised to see any functional errata.
@@seandun7083 Have you read the OG text and the Oracle text? When I look at both on Norritt and Nettling Imp I disagree with you.