Forestwalk in 2HG
Asked by Bertie 13 years ago
In a game of 2HG, i was playing Mono-White and My team mate was playing Bant colours. A member of the opposing team droped a creature with forestwalk. Whilst my friend controlled a forest and i didnt we were unsure who, if anyone could block it. We decided we couldn't block it as we controlled a forest as a team.
Is this correct?
MagnorCriol says... #2
It's an hour before my two-day limit, but eh, I'll round up. Calling Aegair's answer.
(By the way, the tl;dr version is "In 2HG, you choose a player to attack, you don't just attack the opposing team. So you can abuse forestwalk as long as you choose a player with forests.")
May 25, 2011 11 a.m.
AegairEtapa says... #3
(the problem with that rule is you can attack one person and deal damage to the other)
May 25, 2011 11:27 a.m.
AegairEtapa says... #5
It's weird I'll give you that.. Originally I was basically posting "You choose who you attack" but then looked up the rules. It certainly is weird. You can even choose different people per effect :S
May 25, 2011 11:45 a.m.
MagnorCriol says... #6
I just skimmed the rules and assumed it was a mess of legalese that truncated to "you choose who to attack." I suppose it has to be the more complicated way because of some corner cases (it's always the corner cases), but damned if it isn't unintuitive.
AegairEtapa says... Accepted answer #1
Yes and no.
In Two Headed Giant, when attacking the attacking player chooses which defending player abilities like forestwalk is checking. Assuming he chose the one with the forest, then yes, it would be unblockable.
"810.7b Any one-shot effect that refers to the "defending player" refers to one specific defending player, not to both of the defending players. The controller of the effect chooses which one the spell or ability refers to at the time the effect is applied. The same is true for any one-shot effect that refers to the "attacking player." Any characteristic-defining ability that refers to the "defending player" refers to one specific defending player, not to both of the defending players. The controller of the object with the characteristic-defining ability chooses which one the ability refers to at the time the nonactive players become defending players. All other cases in which the "defending player" is referred to actually refer to both defending players. If the reference involves a positive comparison (such as asking whether the defending player controls an Island) or a relative comparison (such as asking whether you control more creatures than the defending player), it gets only one answer. This answer is "yes" if either defending player in the comparison would return a "yes" answer if compared individually. If the reference involves a negative comparison (such as asking whether the defending player controls no black permanents), it also gets only one answer. This answer is "yes" if performing the analogous positive comparison would return a "no" answer. The same is true for all other cases that refer to the "attacking player.""
May 23, 2011 11:32 a.m.