My friend asked me to let him know when I was done with my main phase and before I declare attacks, which I did. I had Master of Cruelties on the bf and he cast Chemister's Trick on him, before I declared my attackers.
Do I have the chance to declare other attackers, which would negate his spell, since MoC must attack alone?
After much debate, we settled on me being able to declare attackers which forces MoC to take the bench (he got to take his spell back) based on the first part of:
Master of Cruelties isn’t forced to attack, but if it does, it must do so alone. If you control another creature with an ability that says it must attack if able, that creature must attack and Master of Cruelties won’t be able to.
And then there is: 508.1d The active player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether it's affected by any requirements (effects that say a creature must attack, or that it must attack if some condition is met). If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximum possible number of requirements that could be obeyed without disobeying any restrictions, the declaration of attackers is illegal. If a creature can't attack unless a player pays a cost, that player is not required to pay that cost, even if attacking with that creature would increase the number of requirements being obeyed.
The wording here makes my brain a wee bit achey, and I feel like it applies here, but I'm not entirely sure how to apply it.
TL;DR: Opponent played Chemister's Trick on my Master of Cruelties before the attack phase, and I pointed out that declaring at least one other attacker would force MoC to not be able to attack.
ThereAssuming Chemister's Trick targeted Master of Cruelties when it resolved, there is only one attacking requirement in this scenario: Master of Cruelties "attacks this turn if able" (C.R. 508.1d). Normally, a creature fulfills this requirement by attacking, whether alone or with other creatures. However, Master of Cruelties also has an ability that imposes a restriction: "Master of Cruelties can only attack alone", which means "Master of Cruelties can't attack unless it attacks by itself" (C.R. 508.1c, 506.5). Master of Cruelties can still fulfill the requirement by attacking alone, but violates the restriction by attacking together with one or more other creatures (C.R. 508.1d).
EDIT: Correctness edit after comment 3 was posted.
Two things to remember about requirements and restrictions:
1) You can't, ever, disobey a restriction: if MoC does attack, then it must be alone.
2) You must, as much as possible, obey requirements: MoC is required to attack. That's the only requirement here.
Can it attack? Yes.
Therefore, MoC must attack.
Alone, of course.
Do note that things would be different if opponent OVERLOADED Chemister's Trick: there would be more than one requirements to attack, so you'd be able to attack with some other creature than MoC.
Two things to remember about requirements and restrictions:
1) You can't, ever, disobey a restriction: if MoC does attack, then it must be alone.
2) You must, as much as possible, obey requirements: MoC is required to attack. That's the only requirement here.
I see. I thought that declaring other attackers would allow his restriction to act in my favor, causing him to sit the battle out and not get wasted by a defender. Thanks for the insight! I'll let him know it was a smart play thought should have worked (he won anyway lol).
NP
All I did was to summarize rules 508.1c & 508.1d.
'One cannot, ever, disobey a restriction': 508.1c (...) If any restrictions are being disobeyed, the declaration of attackers is illegal.(...)
'One must, as much as possible, obey requirements': 508.1d (...) maximumpossible number of requirements (...)
This means that some requirements may, on occasion, be disobeyed. For example, if 2 Master of Cruelties were required to attack. Since they can only attack alone, one of them only would. The other would therefore disobey its requirement.
In the situation you described, attacking with other creatures than MoC would have disobeyed a requirement which you could have obeyed, making you obey ZERO requirement where you could have obeyed ONE. Zero not being the maximum when one is possible, that would be illegal.
Do I have the chance to declare other attackers, which would negate his spell, since MoC must attack alone?
After much debate, we settled on me being able to declare attackers which forces MoC to take the bench (he got to take his spell back) based on the first part of:
Master of Cruelties isn’t forced to attack, but if it does, it must do so alone. If you control another creature with an ability that says it must attack if able, that creature must attack and Master of Cruelties won’t be able to.
And then there is: 508.1d The active player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether it's affected by any requirements (effects that say a creature must attack, or that it must attack if some condition is met). If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximum possible number of requirements that could be obeyed without disobeying any restrictions, the declaration of attackers is illegal. If a creature can't attack unless a player pays a cost, that player is not required to pay that cost, even if attacking with that creature would increase the number of requirements being obeyed.
The wording here makes my brain a wee bit achey, and I feel like it applies here, but I'm not entirely sure how to apply it.
TL;DR: Opponent played Chemister's Trick on my Master of Cruelties before the attack phase, and I pointed out that declaring at least one other attacker would force MoC to not be able to attack.
ThereAssuming Chemister's Trick targeted Master of Cruelties when it resolved, there is only one attacking requirement in this scenario: Master of Cruelties "attacks this turn if able" (C.R. 508.1d). Normally, a creature fulfills this requirement by attacking, whether alone or with other creatures. However, Master of Cruelties also has an ability that imposes a restriction: "Master of Cruelties can only attack alone", which means "Master of Cruelties can't attack unless it attacks by itself" (C.R. 508.1c, 506.5). Master of Cruelties can still fulfill the requirement by attacking alone, but violates the restriction by attacking together with one or more other creatures (C.R. 508.1d).EDIT: Correctness edit after comment 3 was posted.
1) You can't, ever, disobey a restriction: if MoC does attack, then it must be alone.
2) You must, as much as possible, obey requirements: MoC is required to attack. That's the only requirement here.
Can it attack? Yes.
Therefore, MoC must attack.
Alone, of course.
Do note that things would be different if opponent OVERLOADED Chemister's Trick: there would be more than one requirements to attack, so you'd be able to attack with some other creature than MoC.
RULES OF MAGIC :
http://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/rules-and-formats/rules
I see. I thought that declaring other attackers would allow his restriction to act in my favor, causing him to sit the battle out and not get wasted by a defender. Thanks for the insight! I'll let him know it was a smart play thought should have worked (he won anyway lol).
All I did was to summarize rules 508.1c & 508.1d.
'One cannot, ever, disobey a restriction':
508.1c (...) If any restrictions are being disobeyed, the declaration of attackers is illegal.(...)
'One must, as much as possible, obey requirements':
508.1d (...) maximum possible number of requirements (...)
This means that some requirements may, on occasion, be disobeyed. For example, if 2 Master of Cruelties were required to attack. Since they can only attack alone, one of them only would. The other would therefore disobey its requirement.
In the situation you described, attacking with other creatures than MoC would have disobeyed a requirement which you could have obeyed, making you obey ZERO requirement where you could have obeyed ONE. Zero not being the maximum when one is possible, that would be illegal.
Similar rules exist for declaring blockers.
RULES OF MAGIC :
http://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/rules-and-formats/rules