goad with Baird, Steward of Argive
Asked by koylucumert 2 years ago
here is an interesting question. lets say its a three player game where player A goaded my creature, and player B controls baird and a random planeswalker. when I go to attacks, I know I dont have to attack player B because of the ruling with ghostly prison where since there is a restriction, I might not pay it and not attack them. however, I want to attack their planeswalker instead. so does the ruling override the "has to attack a player" part because of baird despite paying for baird to attack a planeswalker?
Yesterday https://magicjudge.tumblr.com/post/173238016914/i-am-playing-edh-with-2-other-players-the-player
Relevant text in post:
"When the goaded creature goes to attack, it must obey as many requirements as possible without violating any restrictions. Your opponent is never required to pay for Ghostly Prison, even for a creature that has to attack, so unless your opponent chooses to pay 2, we can ignore the “attack another player” requirement. This means that the creature just has to attack if able, so its free to attack you, or a planeswalker you control, or a planeswalker that the Ghostly Prison player controls. All of these fulfill the requirement without violating a restriction. The only thing they can’t choose to do here is to not attack with the goaded creature"
June 12, 2022 5:44 p.m.
Sorry, to be clear, I mean that if you're already paying the for the goaded creature to be able to attack Player B's planeswalker, you are not then (after paying) obliged to attack Player B rather than that planeswalker.
If you don't pay anything, you're still obliged to attack Player A.
June 12, 2022 5:51 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #4
Even though this question has been hanging out here with answers for a while, I didn't close it out because I was hoping to get some clear guidance from elsewhere that I could bring back and contribute to help finish sorting it out. The outside input I got wasn't as helpful as I hoped for, but after thinking through it some more I agree with Yesterday's interpretation that yes, the creature is allowed to attack the planeswalker.
In the rules that detail how to declare a legal set of attackers, 508.1d includes the statement "If a creature can’t 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." You're not required to attack B because of the cost involved, and choosing to attack B's planeswalker and pay a cost doesn't change that fact.
June 27, 2022 10:32 a.m.
It would appear I unfortunately confused the issue. Yesterday just asked for confirmation, and that's my response was. I agree with Rhadamanthus that Yesterday has the correct answer
June 27, 2022 6:56 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #6
koylucumert: Since there don't seem to be any further follow-ups, corrections, or new information, I marked one of the responses that represents the consensus answer as the "Accepted answer" to consider this topic resolved. Please feel free to ask follow-up questions if you still have any.
Yesterday says... Accepted answer #1
I'm not 100% on this so would appreciate confirmation, but I think that you're not obligated to attack the player rather than the planeswalker.
As it's represented in both MTGO and Arena, paying the is something that happens as you declare the attack, so you only pay the cost once you've already declared what the creature in question is attacking.
It's not like something like Leonin Arbiter, where you can pay when you have priority in order to grant your creature the ability to attack, thus 'freeing' it from the restriction, in which case it'd make sense that it'd be obligated to attack the player over the planeswalker.
June 12, 2022 5:06 p.m.