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
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.
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.
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.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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
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.
But for instance a creature that says "[cardname] cannot block" would not stop a lure effect from functioning.