I am unsure about how many requirements certain cards make.
Say, the relevant cards are an attacking grizzly bears and Shinen of Life's Roar and I have 2 grizzly bears's and I play hunt down (given flash in some arbitrary way, say Teferi, Time raveler) on one of my bears and his bear. If I block the bear with the bear I used hunt down on, can I leave the Shinen unblocked?
The question is in essence whether shinen makes one requirement for each creature or just one global requirement.
The natural reading to me is the latter and in that case I also wondered whether this is consistent with invasion plans. If that is just one requirement, then it seems to me to only be satisfied if you blocked with all creatures, if able. It would always seem to fall into the not able case, because you cant block with your oppeonts creatures.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Hail to the speaker, hail to the knower; joy to he who has understood, delight to they who have listened." - Odin
It may be better to read the "all" in this case as an "each" this will lead you to a correct understanding of how mtg uses this formating. The dual requirement on the grizzly targeted by hunt down can not be fulfilled, so you simply choose one to block.
But for instance a creature that says "[cardname] cannot block" would not stop a lure effect from functioning.
But for instance a creature that says "[cardname] cannot block" would not stop a lure effect from functioning.
Wait a minute, you're saying that if I have a Carrion Feeder and you attack with Shinen of Life's Roar, the Carrion Feeder has to block the Shinen, even though it can't block, and in Magic "can't" beats "can?" I don't know how else to read what you wrote.
An effect of the form "All creatures able to block [a given creature] do so" applies only to creatures "able to block" the given creature (review C.R. 509.1c). For example, for the purposes of such an effect—
a creature with the ability "[This creature] can't block", such as Carrion Feeder, is not "able to block" any creatures,
a creature is not "able to block" a creature with the ability "[This creature] can't be blocked", such as Unimpeded Trespasser, and
a creature with neither flying nor reach is not "able to block" a creature with flying (C.R. 702.9b).
I am unsure about how many requirements certain cards make.
Say, the relevant cards are an attacking grizzly bears and Shinen of Life's Roar and I have 2 grizzly bears's and I play hunt down (given flash in some arbitrary way, say Teferi, Time raveler) on one of my bears and his bear. If I block the bear with the bear I used hunt down on, can I leave the Shinen unblocked?
The question is in essence whether shinen makes one requirement for each creature or just one global requirement.
The natural reading to me is the latter and in that case I also wondered whether this is consistent with invasion plans. If that is just one requirement, then it seems to me to only be satisfied if you blocked with all creatures, if able. It would always seem to fall into the not able case, because you cant block with your oppeonts creatures.
Shinen of Life's Roar creates a global blocking requirement that requires all creatures able to block it do so. If you managed to flash in a Hunt Down targeting one of your Grizzly Bears and your opponent's Grizzly Bears, your other Grizzly Bears must block the Shinen of Life's Roar to satisfy that blocking requirement - you can't choose to leave it unblocked.
The only creatures that wouldn't be able to block in this situation are creatures that simply "can't block" (e.g. Carrion Feeder or tapped creatures), creatures that can block only if a cost is paid (since you aren't forced to pay the cost, even if something like Invasion Plans is affecting the player declaring blockers). A creature can only block if it can satisfy any blocking requirements without violating any blocking restrictions, and creatures that aren't able to block can't do that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Lapsed DCI Rules Advisor - Retired from playing but still hanging around
But for instance a creature that says "[cardname] cannot block" would not stop a lure effect from functioning.
Wait a minute, you're saying that if I have a Carrion Feeder and you attack with Shinen of Life's Roar, the Carrion Feeder has to block the Shinen, even though it can't block, and in Magic "can't" beats "can?" I don't know how else to read what you wrote.
I was trying to express that carrion feeder not being able to block would not excuse the bear from blocking (because OP was asking if exceptions to the all (ie at least one is not blocking the shinen) would allow other to not block the shinen). I was using that to try an provide clarity to the bulk of my post. I obviously failed, my bad.
Can someone cite some rule(s) for this? I did before asking the question consider rule 509.1 and it is what made me confused about it.
As in, the wording of Shinen of life's roar seems to be one requirement that is satisfied if all creatures able to block it does so (because that is what the card says). In that case, it would be valid to block just the bear with the bear that got hunt down (in my example), because both my bears blocking shinen would satisfy 1 requirement (shinens) and blocking the bear with the hunt down bear (no matter what the other bear was doing) would satisfy 1 requirement (the one made by hunt down).
Seemingly, from what everybody are saying (which was also my first thought before I got unsure) Shinen makes multiple requirements even though the text says something else. Which rule does that?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Hail to the speaker, hail to the knower; joy to he who has understood, delight to they who have listened." - Odin
Can someone cite some rule(s) for this? I did before asking the question consider rule 509.1 and it is what made me confused about it.
As in, the wording of Shinen of life's roar seems to be one requirement that is satisfied if all creatures able to block it does so (because that is what the card says). In that case, it would be valid to block just the bear with the bear that got hunt down (in my example), because both my bears blocking shinen would satisfy 1 requirement (shinens) and blocking the bear with the hunt down bear (no matter what the other bear was doing) would satisfy 1 requirement (the one made by hunt down).
Seemingly, from what everybody are saying (which was also my first thought before I got unsure) Shinen makes multiple requirements even though the text says something else. Which rule does that?
Here's how this situation works per rule 509.1:
- Shinen of Life's Roar's static ability creates a blocking requirement that requires all creatures that are able to block it to do so.
- Hunt Down creates another blocking requirement that one target creature (your bear) must block another target creature (their bear) if able.
- Barring any other blocking restrictions (such as creatures being unable to block, only being able to block if a cost is paid, or being tapped), the only way to satisfy all blocking restrictions in this scenario is for one of your bears to block Shinen of Life's Roar and for the other bear targeted by Hunt Down to block your opponent's bear. Any creatures that can't block simply don't block anything.
- A creature can only block one creature unless that creature has an ability that allows it to block multiple creatures in combat, and none of the creatures in this scenario do, so this is the only legal blocking arrangement based on the board state you presented. If a creature is already blocking a creature, it isn't able to block another creature.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Lapsed DCI Rules Advisor - Retired from playing but still hanging around
Can someone cite some rule(s) for this? I did before asking the question consider rule 509.1 and it is what made me confused about it.
As in, the wording of Shinen of life's roar seems to be one requirement that is satisfied if all creatures able to block it does so (because that is what the card says). In that case, it would be valid to block just the bear with the bear that got hunt down (in my example), because both my bears blocking shinen would satisfy 1 requirement (shinens) and blocking the bear with the hunt down bear (no matter what the other bear was doing) would satisfy 1 requirement (the one made by hunt down).
Seemingly, from what everybody are saying (which was also my first thought before I got unsure) Shinen makes multiple requirements even though the text says something else. Which rule does that?
C.R. 508.1d and C.R. 509.1c are the rules that govern attacking requirements and blocking requirements, respectively. However, it is unclear according to those rules—
whether an effect of the form "All creatures able to block [a given creature] do so" imposes one "requirement" (within the meaning of C.R. 509.1c) on each creature "able to block" the given creature, or one "requirement" generally, or
whether the effect of War's Toll's second ability imposes one "requirement" (within the meaning of C.R. 508.1d) on each attacking creature, or one "requirement" generally.
The answer has a bearing on whether certain attacking or blocking declarations are legal in certain circumstances. See also this thread.
- Shinen of Life's Roar's static ability creates a blocking requirement that requires all creatures that are able to block it to do so.
Ok, there are no restrictions, so "all creatures that are able to block it" refers to both bears. Hence, this requirement is satisfied if I block it with both bears and otherwise not.
Why then must I block shinen with my other bear if the bear that got hunt down is blocking the bear? It does not, from what you are saying, make me satisfy more requirements, unless I miss something (and I am trying to improve my understanding here).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Hail to the speaker, hail to the knower; joy to he who has understood, delight to they who have listened." - Odin
You control shinen and bear a. Your opponent controls bears b and c. Bear b has been told to block bear a. Bear b has two choices and can block either one, but must block at least one (and if it can block both must do so). Bear c is still able to block the shinen and must do so - it is afterall, able to (uncontested) and one of the all creatures being affected.
In CR 509.1c, requirement is defined as "effects that say a creature must block, or that it must block if some condition is met" (emphasis mine). A means one, so the natural interpretation is that Shinen creates one requirement for each creature.
A pair of examples where I feel that this local interpretation seems to have trouble:
You are attacked by two creatures with meanace say two grizzly bears and he got Goblin War Drums.
You have two grizzly bears and hunt down has been cast by him on one of your bears and his bear. I feel that you cannot block the grizzly that hunt down was not cast on with both your bears but must block the other bear with both. (I would be very interested if some one has another interpretation here). To be interpretted locally, one would need to see that one could block the other bear with both bears.
Next instead of one hunt down two has been cast, such that each of your bears must block a different of his bears.
There are no valid blocks with this local interpretation, since blocking either bear with both of yours is not valid because one bear would want to block the other, which was enough before to prevent an assignment from being valid.
A global interpretation has no trouble in these cases: in the first example, blocking the hunting down bear with both of yours is valid since it satisfies one global requirement and no other assignment of blockers satisfies any and in the other example blocking either with both is valid since it satisfies one global requirement and no way to block that satisfies all restrictions satisfies more.
As another example Nacatl War-Pride has a requirement that cannot be interpreted locally (there are quite a few restrictions that cannot be interpretted locally, like e.g. anything with meanace, but this is the only example I could find for requirments), i.e. to see if a creature satisfies the requirement you must check that globally it is the only one blocking this war-
In CR 509.1c, requirement is defined as "effects that say a creature must block, or that it must block if some condition is met" (emphasis mine). A means one, so the natural interpretation is that Shinen creates one requirement for each creature.
Wouldnt that would just mean that the card does not have a requirement? (besides using the all word, shinen also says that Shinen must be blocked which is different from must block).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Hail to the speaker, hail to the knower; joy to he who has understood, delight to they who have listened." - Odin
As another example Nacatl War-Pride has a requirement that cannot be interpreted locally (there are quite a few restrictions that cannot be interpretted locally, like e.g. anything with meanace, but this is the only example I could find for requirements), i.e. to see if a creature satisfies the requirement you must check that globally it is the only one blocking this war-
After pondering about this, I stand corrected. Nacatl War-Pride's ability must be handled as one requirement that involves all potential blockers. I now think the key is the subject: Shinen's ability is a statement about all creatures (that are able to block it), and Nacatl War-Pride's is a statement about itself. Treating the former as one inseparable effect is like saying, "Wrath of God says destroy all creatures. Hazoret the Fervent has indestructible, so destroying all creature is impossible. Therefore none is." to me.
As another example Nacatl War-Pride has a requirement that cannot be interpreted locally (there are quite a few restrictions that cannot be interpretted locally, like e.g. anything with meanace, but this is the only example I could find for requirements), i.e. to see if a creature satisfies the requirement you must check that globally it is the only one blocking this war-
After pondering about this, I stand corrected. Nacatl War-Pride's ability must be handled as one requirement that involves all potential blockers. I now think the key is the subject: Shinen's ability is a statement about all creatures (that are able to block it), and Nacatl War-Pride's is a statement about itself. Treating the former as one inseparable effect is like saying, "Wrath of God says destroy all creatures. Hazoret the Fervent has indestructible, so destroying all creature is impossible. Therefore none is." to me.
Dude, he just wants the rules in his favor despite literally everyone telling him no. Let him try it in a tournament. At a certain point it becomes I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
Warning issued for flaming and spam. Assuming the OP is not genuinely trying to understand the rules being explained here is rude. If you're not interested in trying to help them anymore, just go away, don't post just to be disrespectful.
-MadMage
As another example Nacatl War-Pride has a requirement that cannot be interpreted locally (there are quite a few restrictions that cannot be interpretted locally, like e.g. anything with meanace, but this is the only example I could find for requirements), i.e. to see if a creature satisfies the requirement you must check that globally it is the only one blocking this war-
After pondering about this, I stand corrected. Nacatl War-Pride's ability must be handled as one requirement that involves all potential blockers. I now think the key is the subject: Shinen's ability is a statement about all creatures (that are able to block it), and Nacatl War-Pride's is a statement about itself. Treating the former as one inseparable effect is like saying, "Wrath of God says destroy all creatures. Hazoret the Fervent has indestructible, so destroying all creature is impossible. Therefore none is." to me.
That does sound like a reasonable point to me. I would have prefered that both cards said each instead of all to be more clear, though.
To the guy above: I was asking to understand 509.1c better. The question is not from a real game. The probability that something like this comes up is basically 0.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Hail to the speaker, hail to the knower; joy to he who has understood, delight to they who have listened." - Odin
I know this thread is old, but just in case there were any questions left unanswered, they're meant to create one requirement per affected creature. The CR fails to mention this, but it's the only coherent way for it to work.
Spam warning issued. I know you wanted to be useful, but please don't revive old threads just because you feel like you could add something to them. -MadMage
Say, the relevant cards are an attacking grizzly bears and Shinen of Life's Roar and I have 2 grizzly bears's and I play hunt down (given flash in some arbitrary way, say Teferi, Time raveler) on one of my bears and his bear. If I block the bear with the bear I used hunt down on, can I leave the Shinen unblocked?
The question is in essence whether shinen makes one requirement for each creature or just one global requirement.
The natural reading to me is the latter and in that case I also wondered whether this is consistent with invasion plans. If that is just one requirement, then it seems to me to only be satisfied if you blocked with all creatures, if able. It would always seem to fall into the not able case, because you cant block with your oppeonts creatures.
But for instance a creature that says "[cardname] cannot block" would not stop a lure effect from functioning.
Wait a minute, you're saying that if I have a Carrion Feeder and you attack with Shinen of Life's Roar, the Carrion Feeder has to block the Shinen, even though it can't block, and in Magic "can't" beats "can?" I don't know how else to read what you wrote.
Shinen of Life's Roar creates a global blocking requirement that requires all creatures able to block it do so. If you managed to flash in a Hunt Down targeting one of your Grizzly Bears and your opponent's Grizzly Bears, your other Grizzly Bears must block the Shinen of Life's Roar to satisfy that blocking requirement - you can't choose to leave it unblocked.
The only creatures that wouldn't be able to block in this situation are creatures that simply "can't block" (e.g. Carrion Feeder or tapped creatures), creatures that can block only if a cost is paid (since you aren't forced to pay the cost, even if something like Invasion Plans is affecting the player declaring blockers). A creature can only block if it can satisfy any blocking requirements without violating any blocking restrictions, and creatures that aren't able to block can't do that.
I was trying to express that carrion feeder not being able to block would not excuse the bear from blocking (because OP was asking if exceptions to the all (ie at least one is not blocking the shinen) would allow other to not block the shinen). I was using that to try an provide clarity to the bulk of my post. I obviously failed, my bad.
Can someone cite some rule(s) for this? I did before asking the question consider rule 509.1 and it is what made me confused about it.
As in, the wording of Shinen of life's roar seems to be one requirement that is satisfied if all creatures able to block it does so (because that is what the card says). In that case, it would be valid to block just the bear with the bear that got hunt down (in my example), because both my bears blocking shinen would satisfy 1 requirement (shinens) and blocking the bear with the hunt down bear (no matter what the other bear was doing) would satisfy 1 requirement (the one made by hunt down).
Seemingly, from what everybody are saying (which was also my first thought before I got unsure) Shinen makes multiple requirements even though the text says something else. Which rule does that?
Here's how this situation works per rule 509.1:
- Shinen of Life's Roar's static ability creates a blocking requirement that requires all creatures that are able to block it to do so.
- Hunt Down creates another blocking requirement that one target creature (your bear) must block another target creature (their bear) if able.
- Barring any other blocking restrictions (such as creatures being unable to block, only being able to block if a cost is paid, or being tapped), the only way to satisfy all blocking restrictions in this scenario is for one of your bears to block Shinen of Life's Roar and for the other bear targeted by Hunt Down to block your opponent's bear. Any creatures that can't block simply don't block anything.
- A creature can only block one creature unless that creature has an ability that allows it to block multiple creatures in combat, and none of the creatures in this scenario do, so this is the only legal blocking arrangement based on the board state you presented. If a creature is already blocking a creature, it isn't able to block another creature.
C.R. 508.1d and C.R. 509.1c are the rules that govern attacking requirements and blocking requirements, respectively. However, it is unclear according to those rules—
Ok, there are no restrictions, so "all creatures that are able to block it" refers to both bears. Hence, this requirement is satisfied if I block it with both bears and otherwise not.
Why then must I block shinen with my other bear if the bear that got hunt down is blocking the bear? It does not, from what you are saying, make me satisfy more requirements, unless I miss something (and I am trying to improve my understanding here).
You are attacked by two creatures with meanace say two grizzly bears and he got Goblin War Drums.
You have two grizzly bears and hunt down has been cast by him on one of your bears and his bear. I feel that you cannot block the grizzly that hunt down was not cast on with both your bears but must block the other bear with both. (I would be very interested if some one has another interpretation here). To be interpretted locally, one would need to see that one could block the other bear with both bears.
Next instead of one hunt down two has been cast, such that each of your bears must block a different of his bears.
There are no valid blocks with this local interpretation, since blocking either bear with both of yours is not valid because one bear would want to block the other, which was enough before to prevent an assignment from being valid.
A global interpretation has no trouble in these cases: in the first example, blocking the hunting down bear with both of yours is valid since it satisfies one global requirement and no other assignment of blockers satisfies any and in the other example blocking either with both is valid since it satisfies one global requirement and no way to block that satisfies all restrictions satisfies more.
As another example Nacatl War-Pride has a requirement that cannot be interpreted locally (there are quite a few restrictions that cannot be interpretted locally, like e.g. anything with meanace, but this is the only example I could find for requirments), i.e. to see if a creature satisfies the requirement you must check that globally it is the only one blocking this war-
Wouldnt that would just mean that the card does not have a requirement? (besides using the all word, shinen also says that Shinen must be blocked which is different from must block).
Dude, he just wants the rules in his favor despite literally everyone telling him no. Let him try it in a tournament. At a certain point it becomes I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
Warning issued for flaming and spam. Assuming the OP is not genuinely trying to understand the rules being explained here is rude. If you're not interested in trying to help them anymore, just go away, don't post just to be disrespectful.
-MadMage
That does sound like a reasonable point to me. I would have prefered that both cards said each instead of all to be more clear, though.
To the guy above: I was asking to understand 509.1c better. The question is not from a real game. The probability that something like this comes up is basically 0.
Spam warning issued. I know you wanted to be useful, but please don't revive old threads just because you feel like you could add something to them. -MadMage
That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be.
- P. C. Hodgell