|
This search based on the March 17, 2008 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 that says 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 2005/10/01]
- 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 is affected by 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.)
[CompRules 2007/05/01]
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. [CompRules 2003/07/01]
Example: A player controls two creatures: one that "attacks if able" and
one with no abilities. An effect states, "No more than one creature can
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 2007/05/01]
- 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
if affected by 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 2007/05/01]
- 500.3a - An evasion ability is an ability an attacking creature has that
restricts what can block it. Evasion abilities are static abilities that
modify the declare blockers step of the combat phase. If a creature gains
or loses an evasion ability after a legal block has been declared, it
doesn't affect that block. Evasion abilities are cumulative.
[CompRules 2007/05/01]
Example: A creature with flying and shadow can't be blocked by a creature
with flying but without shadow. [CompRules 2007/05/01]
- 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. If there are multiple scenarios in which all restrictions are
being followed and the maximum possible number of requirements are being
followed (even if not all of them are), then any of those scenarios are
legal. [CompRules 2007/05/01]
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." Having only the first creature block
violates the restriction. Having neither creature block fulfills the
restriction but not the requirement. Having both creatures block the same
attacking creature fulfills both the restriction and the requirement, so
that's the only option. [CompRules 2007/05/01]
- 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 March 17, 2008 release of the Rulings.
|
|
|
|
