Bestow Abilities
Asked by ZappaDappa 9 years ago
I'm working on building a multi colored Bestow deck and I have a Mogis's Warhound
and a Sightless Brawler
.
If I bestow them both on the same creature, or just one onto the other, I get the two abilities to interact - "Must attack each turn if able" and "can't attack alone".
If I have one creature out on the board, and also have a Mogis's Warhound bestowed onto a Sightless Brawler , does that cause both creatures to attack each turn - or will the Warhound/Brawler combo only be forced to attack if I choose to attack with the other creature?
aFriendlyAlly says... #2
It says attack each turn "If Able". So if it can't due to sightless brawler, it won't.
July 23, 2014 5:13 p.m.
ZappaDappa says... #3
Thanks guys.
How about if I attack with a Spiteful Returned and my opponent has a plainswalker out. Can I have the -2 go to the plainswalker like I could the damage, or is it a case of 'player just means player'?
July 23, 2014 5:18 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #4
The others are probably thinking of situations where some effect is imposing an additional cost on attacking. If a creature can't attack because a cost wasn't paid, you're never forced to pay that cost.
If there are any effects creating certain requirements for or restrictions on declaring attackers or blockers, a legal declaration satisfies the maximum number of requirements while violating no restrictions. If you control a Bear Cub and a Mogis's Warhound enchanted with Sightless Brawler , there are multiple possible declarations, but only one of them is actually legal:
- No attacks: No requirements fulfilled, no restrictions broken
- Attack only with Bear Cub: No requirements fulfilled, no restrictions broken
- Attack only with Warhound: One requirement fulfilled, one restriction broken
- Attack with both creatures: One requirement fulfilled, no restrictions broken (this is the legal declaration)
July 23, 2014 5:25 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #5
To your second question: only non-combat damage to an opponent can be redirected to one of their planeswalkers. Though the normal result of damage to a player is life loss, they're not the same thing.
July 23, 2014 5:26 p.m.
ZappaDappa says... #6
Thanks for the response.
Just to clarify, you are saying that since declaring no attackers fills no requirements, that means I cannot chose to pass on my attack step in that situation?
The 'requirement' is "attacks each turn if able" and the 'restriction' is "cannot attack alone". Clearly attacking with just the Warhound breaks that restriction.
If there was no Bear Cub, then "attacks each turn if able" would be fullfilled since the warhound was not able. But with the Bear Cub in play, you don't think choosing not to attack with the Bear Cub would fullfill the warhounds "attacks each turn if able" since it would be unable to attack alone?
July 23, 2014 5:39 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #7
If the Warhound is is in a situation where he's unable to attack, that doesn't mean his "attacks each turn if able" is being fulfilled. With no Bear Cub, not attacking with the Warhounds still fulfills zero requirements. However, in that situation zero is the maximum number of requirements that your options allow you to fulfill without breaking the "can't attack alone" restriction, so it's legal.
Like I noted in my first post, not attacking with anyone fulfills zero requirements. Since there's a way to fulfill more than zero by attacking with both creatures, you have to take that option instead.
Epochalyptik says... Accepted answer #1
Rules questions should be asked in the Q&A, which is linked in the header. I can't convert this thread to a Q&A question, so I'm moving it to BE.
"If able" means what it says. If a restriction, such as "can't attack alone," prevents a creature from attacking in a specific situation, you aren't forced to create a situation in which that creature could attack.
If, however, you are in a situation in which the creature could attack, it must.
July 23, 2014 5:12 p.m.