|
This search based on the January 15, 2004 release of the Rulings.
500 - Legal Attacks and Blocks
- 500.1 - Some effects restrict declaring attackers or blockers in combat or
require certain creatures to be declared as attackers or blockers. (See
Rule 308, "Declare Attackers Step," and Rule 309, "Declare Blockers
Step.") A restriction is an effect which says that a creature can't
block (or attack) or that it can't block (or attack) unless some condition
is met. A requirement is an effect which says that a creature must
block (or attack) or that it must block (or attack) if some condition is
met. [CompRules 2003/07/01]
- 500.2 - As part of declaring attackers, the active player checks each
creature he or she controls to see whether it must attack, can't attack,
or has some other attacking restriction or requirement. If such a
restriction or requirement conflicts with the proposed attack, the attack
is illegal, and the active player must then propose another set of
attacking creatures. (Tapped creatures and creatures with unpaid costs to
attack are exempt from effects that would require them to attack.)
Example: A player controls two creatures, each with a restriction that
states "[This creature] can't attack alone." It's legal to declare both
as attackers.
Example: A player controls two creatures: one that "attacks if able" and
one with no abilities. An effect states, "No more than one creature may
attack each turn." The only legal attack is for just the creature that
"attacks if able" to attack. It's illegal to attack with the other
creature, attack with both, or attack with neither. [CompRules 2003/07/01]
- 500.3 - As part of declaring blockers, the defending player checks each
creature he or she controls to see whether it must block, can't block, or
has some other blocking restriction or requirement. If such a restriction
or requirement conflicts with the proposed set of blocking creatures, the
block is illegal, and the defending player must then propose another set
of blocking creatures. (Tapped creatures and creatures with unpaid costs
to block are exempt from effects that would require them to block.)
[CompRules 2003/10/01]
- 500.4 - A restriction conflicts with a proposed set of attackers or blockers
if it isn't being followed. A requirement conflicts with a proposed set
of attackers or blockers if it isn't being followed and (1) the
requirement could be obeyed without violating a restriction and (2) doing
so will allow the total number of requirements that the set obeys to
increase. [CompRules 2003/07/01]
- 500.5 - When determining what requirements could be obeyed without violating
restrictions, you don't need to consider any options for a creature that
don't satisfy a requirement on it. But you do need to consider any
options for any creature(s) that will satisfy a requirement, as long as
the total number of obeyed requirements is increased (even if the option
means not obeying another requirement that was previously met).
[CompRules 2003/10/01]
Example: A player controls one creature that "blocks if able" and another
creature with no abilities. An effect states, "Creatures can't be blocked
except by two or more creatures." The creature with no abilities isn't
required to block. It's legal to declare both creatures as blockers, or
to declare neither creature as a blocker, but illegal to block with only
one of the two. [CompRules 2003/07/01]
- 500.Ruling.1 - As a side-effect of these rules, if one creature has two
copies of Lure on it and another creature has one copy of Lure on
it, then blockers must block the one with two Lures if possible, because
that blocking assignment satisfies two requirements instead of just one.
[Barclary 2003/12/11]
This search based on the January 15,2004 release of the Rulings.
|
|
