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
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
- 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
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
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
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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.
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).
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).
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?
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.