Attacks if able but not Alone

Asked by Kamiserat 8 years ago

So, this came up in conversation at my Game Store recently and one of our local Judges was unsure due to the ambiguity of the situation as to the official ruling off-hand. Thought maybe someone here had an idea.

For argument's sake, let's say you had a Basandra, Battle Seraph on your field and the opponent had something like Loyal Pegasus which can't attack or block alone but the opponent also had another creature on the field. If you were to target the Pegasus with Basandra's ability, would the Pegasus be forced to attack? i.e. Does Targeting the Pegasus with Basandra's ability actually force the pegasus and the second creature to attack or does it essentially fizzle because the opponent doesn't have to attack with the second creature thus making Pegasus unable to attack?

GearNoir says... #1

Creatures that are targeted by Basandra, Battle Seraph's ability are still subject to regular combat rules, in addition to:

Gatherer:

• If, during a players declare attackers step, a creature is tapped, is affected by a spell or ability that says it cant attack, or hasnt been under that players control continuously since the turn began (and doesnt have haste), then it doesnt attack. If theres a cost associated with having a creature attack, the player isnt forced to pay that cost, so it doesnt have to attack in that case either.

Loyal Pegasus would not be able to attack unless you could also force the second creature to attack or the opponent chose to attack with the other player.

December 20, 2016 noon

Kamiserat says... #2

That was my belief as well. Do you know what paragraph that falls under in the official rules?

December 20, 2016 12:13 p.m.

GearNoir says... #3

I think this is mostly a case where we follow the card text. Basandra's text makes its ability subject to Pegasus' text.

Basandra's ability is paid for, then checks to see if the creature can attack. If it can't, for whatever reason, nothing happens.

Also, in the rule noted above, Pegasus' need to attack or block with another creature is like an additional cost that is optional to pay.

December 20, 2016 12:25 p.m.

Lame_Duck says... Accepted answer #4

I think the relevant rule for this situation would be:

"508.1d The active player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether its 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 cant 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.

Example: A player controls two creatures: one that attacks if able and one with no abilities. An effect states No more than one creature can attack each turn. The only legal attack is for just the creature that attacks if able to attack. Its illegal to attack with the other creature, attack with both, or attack with neither."

Although, I'm not actually exactly certain how it applies here; my read would be that both creatures would be forced to attack because that would be obeying the maximum number of requirements without disobeying any restrictions and attacking with another creature wouldn't be a cost as I understand it, but I'm not at all confident of that answer.

December 20, 2016 12:33 p.m.

GearNoir says... #5

So I have to apologize on this one. After a bunch of additional digging I am seeing a theme that abilities like Loyal Pegasus' ability is not seen as similar to a cost payment. In this situation, if the second creature is able to also attack with Pegasus, it must. I see that Lame_Duck beat me to it.

See judge blog:

• http://blogs.magicjudges.org/rulestips/2014/07/what-attacks-if-able-really-means/

The distinction is odd in my eyes, but there you have it.

Again my apologies for misleading.

December 20, 2016 1:26 p.m.

Kamiserat says... #6

That's why this was so odd. I don't remember what the exact combinations of things was when this came up in real life but it got us all wondering how exactly this would work.

A friend, who is a Judge in training, was pretty sure that something like this would in fact force you to attack with the two creatures because having an untapped second creature able to attack means that the Pegasus is able to attack. You just need to attack with both.

In my eyes, it would seem that forcing a creature like Loyal Pegasus to attack would essentially fizzle as its not able to attack unless I attack with another creature. So if I choose not to attack with that second creature then Loyal Pegasus would not be able to attack. But if I did choose to attack with another creature I would also be forced to attack with Pegasus.

One of our higher level Judge friends was intrigued because the wording 'seems' to make it ambiguous but he hadn't personally run into a situation like this and was unsure at the time what the official ruling would be. I'm sure he's probably looked into it by now. Luckily we were just playing a friendly game at out local game store when this happened, not a tournament or FNM.

Thank you guys for the information.

December 20, 2016 2:13 p.m.

Rhadamanthus says... #7

Lame_Duck's interpretation of their quoted rule is correct. You're never allowed to violate restrictions when making attacking/blocking declarations, but you have to max out the number of requirements being fulfilled. Saying "no attacks" in this situation fulfills 0 requirements, but attacking with both creatures fulfills 1 requirement. Both creatures have to attack (the Gatherer ruling first quoted by GearNoir is only about not violating restrictions).

December 20, 2016 3:04 p.m.