C17 release notes went up, and part of the release note section for Portal Mage makes me want a doublecheck that it really does what it seems to say it does when it redirects a Master of Cruelties.
"Whenever Master of Cruelties attacks a player and isn't blocked, that player's life total becomes 1."
"If you reselect which player or planeswalker an attacking creature is attacking, that creature is still considered to have attacked the player or planeswalker as declared, but it is now attacking the new player or planeswalker."
So I attack player B, Portal Mage lands and makes me switch my attack to C... if C chooses not to block, "it is stil considered to have attacked the player or planeswalker as declared..." so, B's life total gets set to 1? Is that an accurate interpretation?
MoC's text:
First strike, deathtouch
Master of Cruelties can only attack alone.
Whenever Master of Cruelties attacks a player and isn't blocked, that player's life total becomes 1. Master of Cruelties assigns no combat damage this combat.
Portal Mage release notes:
When Portal Mage enters the battlefield during the declare attackers step, you may reselect which player or planeswalker target attacking creature is attacking. (It can't attack its controller or its controller's planeswalkers.)
You may cast Portal Mage outside of a declare attackers step. If Portal Mage enters the battlefield outside of a declare attackers step, its ability simply doesn't trigger.
Reselecting which player or planeswalker a creature is attacking ignores all requirements, restrictions, and costs associated with attacking.
Reselecting which player or planeswalker a creature is attacking doesn't cause "when this creature attacks" abilities to trigger. Notably, the Curses in this set (such as Curse of Vitality) won't trigger while Portal Mage's ability is resolving. If you reselect which player or planeswalker an attacking creature is attacking, that creature is still considered to have attacked the player or planeswalker as declared, but it is now attacking the new player or planeswalker.
If an ability targets something controlled by the "defending player" of an attacking creature and the defending player for that creature changes before that ability resolves, the ability will be countered because its target has become illegal.
Note that Portal Mage does its thing in the declare attackers step... however, the Master doesn't trigger until the following step, the declare blockers.
By which time the defending player is already changed.
But Master of Cruelties never refers to a defending player. It just refers to "that player", referencing the player who was attacked. "that creature is still considered to have attacked the player or planeswalker as declared" seems to imply that the game is meant to remember which player was the one attacked (even though it is now distinct from the concept of "defending player"). (This is why that specific text confused me - it would make sense to me that C should be whacked, but that text seemed to me to contradict).
But Master of Cruelties never refers to a defending player. It just refers to "that player", referencing the player who was attacked. "that creature is still considered to have attacked the player or planeswalker as declared" seems to imply that the game is meant to remember which player was the one attacked (even though it is now distinct from the concept of "defending player"). (This is why that specific text confused me - it would make sense to me that C should be whacked, but that text seemed to me to contradict).
The text "that player" refers to the antecedent "a player". Before Portal Mage, there was no effect that allowed the player or planeswalker being attacked to change, so that C.R. 509.5g, which applies to Master of Cruelties despite its text not strictly following the form given in that rule, presented few problems. With the advent of Portal Mage in Commander 2017, neither C.R. 509.5g nor any other rule sufficiently clarifies the behavior of Master of Cruelties's last ability at the time of this writing (no other Magic card as of August 12, 2017 has an ability of the form "...attacks a player[a player] and isn't blocked..."). It would be speculation to guess—
whether Master of Cruelties will have new text upon the release of Commander 2017, or
whether a new rule will be added to the comprehensive rules clarifying Master of Cruelties's last ability.
EDIT (Jul. 23): Clarified situation; struck out text.
But Master of Cruelties never refers to a defending player. It just refers to "that player", referencing the player who was attacked. "that creature is still considered to have attacked the player or planeswalker as declared" seems to imply that the game is meant to remember which player was the one attacked (even though it is now distinct from the concept of "defending player"). (This is why that specific text confused me - it would make sense to me that C should be whacked, but that text seemed to me to contradict).
The part of the release notes for Portal Mage that you highlighted doesn't apply to Master of Cruelties' ability because, as Minoke said, that ability triggers only in the declare blockers step, and "that player" is the player who is currently being attacked and hasn't blocked. "Attack and isn't blocked" is a special kind of trigger condition, governed by this rule:
509.5g. An ability that reads "Whenever [this creature] attacks and isn't blocked, . . ." triggers if no creatures are declared as blockers for that creature. It will trigger even if the creature was never declared as an attacker (for example, if it entered the battlefield attacking). It won't trigger if the attacking creature is blocked and then all its blockers are removed from combat.
What you highlighted in the release notes is for abilities worded "whenever this attacks an opponent", or the like, which are more common and trigger in the declare attackers step, from the action of declaring attackers. For example, changing who Kaalia of the Vast is attacking in response to her trigger won't change who the creature put on the battlefield from the hand will be attacking, it's still the player who Kaalia attacked, who she was declared an attacker towards.
The text "that player" refers to the antecedent "a player". Before Portal Mage, there was no effect that allowed the player or planeswalker being attacked to change, so that C.R. 509.5g, which applies to Master of Cruelties despite its text not strictly following the form given in that rule, presented few problems. With the advent of Portal Mage in Commander 2017, neither C.R. 509.5g nor any other rule sufficiently clarifies the behavior of Master of Cruelties's last ability at the time of this writing (no other Magic card has an ability of the form "...attacks a player and isn't blocked..."). It would be speculation to guess—
whether Master of Cruelties would have new text upon the release of Commander 2017, or
whether a new rule will be added to the comprehensive rules clarifying Master of Cruelties's last ability.
Because of the timing of Master of Cruelties' trigger event and the behavior of such a trigger as explained in 509.5g, it's fairly clear to me that "that player" is the current defending player at the time of the ability's triggering. It would make no sense to me if the ability were to check who Master initially was declared an attacker towards, especially since there may be no such player if Master was put on the battlefield attacking, say by aforementioned Kaalia. It is an established ruling that Master's ability works in that case (creating a player-killing combo with Kaalia dealing combat damage after defending player is put to 1). So errata or a new rule don't seem strictly necessary (though they may still do it to help clarify things).
That special 509.5g trigger condition can be annoying to us rules aficionados in that it's the one exception to what would otherwise be a sound principle: that the verb 'to attack', when used in an active tense, means only the action of declaring a creature as an attacker. A creature put on the battlefield attacking did not attack, but they can still fulfill the condition of "attacks and isn't blocked", which can be confusing.
I'm a former judge (lapsed), who keeps up to date on rules and policy. Keep in mind that judges' answers aren't necessarily more valid than those of people who aren't judges; what matters is we can quote the rules to back up our answers. When in doubt, ask for such quotes.
Technically, Master of Cruelties is uninterpretable since it doesn't even match the protocol in rule 509.2g! We've been living a lie.
Warning issued for spam and trolling. This isn't adding anything useful to the conversation, just mocking someone's interpretation.
EDIT after comment #8 was posted: I've changed my interpretation as to this being trolling, but the spam warning remains. -MadMage
It is curious, why didn't they print MoC with the 'defending player' template like is on Guiltfeeder, Swamp Mosquito, etc? What is gained with the 'that player' switch, if not a behaviour change in the face of effects that remember who was originally attacked?
I meant to say 509.5g, and I meant that seriously. Master of Cruelties doesn't match the protocol for understanding what its ability is, so we are left with only natural language. It doesn't have an ability that reads "Whenever ~ attacks and isn't blocked, . . ." it says ""Whenever ~ attacks a player and isn't blocked, . . ." .
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
"Whenever Master of Cruelties attacks a player and isn't blocked, that player's life total becomes 1."
"If you reselect which player or planeswalker an attacking creature is attacking, that creature is still considered to have attacked the player or planeswalker as declared, but it is now attacking the new player or planeswalker."
So I attack player B, Portal Mage lands and makes me switch my attack to C... if C chooses not to block, "it is stil considered to have attacked the player or planeswalker as declared..." so, B's life total gets set to 1? Is that an accurate interpretation?
MoC's text:
First strike, deathtouch
Master of Cruelties can only attack alone.
Whenever Master of Cruelties attacks a player and isn't blocked, that player's life total becomes 1. Master of Cruelties assigns no combat damage this combat.
Portal Mage release notes:
When Portal Mage enters the battlefield during the declare attackers step, you may reselect which player or planeswalker target attacking creature is attacking. (It can't attack its controller or its controller's planeswalkers.)
You may cast Portal Mage outside of a declare attackers step. If Portal Mage enters the battlefield outside of a declare attackers step, its ability simply doesn't trigger.
Reselecting which player or planeswalker a creature is attacking ignores all requirements, restrictions, and costs associated with attacking.
Reselecting which player or planeswalker a creature is attacking doesn't cause "when this creature attacks" abilities to trigger. Notably, the Curses in this set (such as Curse of Vitality) won't trigger while Portal Mage's ability is resolving.
If you reselect which player or planeswalker an attacking creature is attacking, that creature is still considered to have attacked the player or planeswalker as declared, but it is now attacking the new player or planeswalker.
If an ability targets something controlled by the "defending player" of an attacking creature and the defending player for that creature changes before that ability resolves, the ability will be countered because its target has become illegal.
Note that Portal Mage does its thing in the declare attackers step... however, the Master doesn't trigger until the following step, the declare blockers.
By which time the defending player is already changed.
a player[a player] and isn't blocked...").It would be speculation to guess—- whether Master of Cruelties will have new text upon the release of Commander 2017, or
- whether a new rule will be added to the comprehensive rules clarifying Master of Cruelties's last ability.
EDIT (Jul. 23): Clarified situation; struck out text.
EDIT (x2): Because of the timing of Master of Cruelties' trigger event and the behavior of such a trigger as explained in 509.5g, it's fairly clear to me that "that player" is the current defending player at the time of the ability's triggering. It would make no sense to me if the ability were to check who Master initially was declared an attacker towards, especially since there may be no such player if Master was put on the battlefield attacking, say by aforementioned Kaalia. It is an established ruling that Master's ability works in that case (creating a player-killing combo with Kaalia dealing combat damage after defending player is put to 1). So errata or a new rule don't seem strictly necessary (though they may still do it to help clarify things).
That special 509.5g trigger condition can be annoying to us rules aficionados in that it's the one exception to what would otherwise be a sound principle: that the verb 'to attack', when used in an active tense, means only the action of declaring a creature as an attacker. A creature put on the battlefield attacking did not attack, but they can still fulfill the condition of "attacks and isn't blocked", which can be confusing.
Warning issued for spam
and trolling. This isn't adding anything useful to the conversation,just mocking someone's interpretation.EDIT after comment #8 was posted: I've changed my interpretation as to this being trolling, but the spam warning remains. -MadMage
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Edit: Oh, yeah, Planeswalkers. Always screwing everything up.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].