"Must be blocked if able" effect makes other attacking creatures essentially unblockable?
Asked by siukong 13 years ago
Several cards have been printed with this effect recently (Deadly Allure, Hinterland Scourge, and Irresistible Prey), and if what I was told today at FNM was true I've been playing with this effect incorrectly. I was told that any and all blockers you declare HAVE to block the attacking creature with this ability. This would mean you can, for example, have a player attack with a Phage the Untouchable and a 0/1 Thrull token after casting Deadly Allure on the token, and no matter how many creatures their opponent controlled they would automatically win (assuming no damage prevention or removal). That doesn't seem right to me.
I was told it was because each of your blocking creatures don't "know" what the other ones are doing. That explanation seems a little unclear to me. Can someone confirm this, and if possible give a better explanation with a reference to the rules?
KorApprentice says... #2
Only one creature must be declared blocking for a creature to be considered 'blocked', you are correct.
March 17, 2012 2:55 a.m.
KorApprentice says... #3
For further clarification, here is the Gatherer ruling from Deadly Allure:
1/22/2011 - If the target creature is attacking, the defending player must assign at least one blocker to it during the declare blockers step if that player controls any creatures that could block it.
All similar spells have a similar ruling on Gatherer, though the situation is explained in the MTG Comprehensive Rulebook:
509.1h An attacking creature with one or more creatures declared as blockers for it becomes a blocked creature; one with no creatures declared as blockers for it becomes an unblocked creature. This remains unchanged until the creature is removed from combat, an effect says that it becomes blocked or unblocked, or the combat phase ends, whichever comes first. A creature remains blocked even if all the creatures blocking it are removed from combat.
Deadly Allure and such spells only require that the creature becomes a 'blocked' creature, which the MTG Comprehensive Rulebook describes as an attacking creature with one or more creatures assigned to block it. This means that only one creature need be assigned to block the creature targeted with Deadly Allure, etc., for it to be considered 'blocked'.
March 17, 2012 3:05 a.m.
That still doesn't quite answer my question which essentially boils down to this: as long as I'm using one or more creatures to block and fulfil the blocking requirement, can I block a different attacking creature as well? Or can I ONLY block the first creature, since the requirement (and designation as "blocked") isn't fulfilled until after all blockers are declared?
(elaboration on what I mean by "requirement" here - 3rd section: http://www.cranialinsertion.com/article/58)
March 17, 2012 3:30 a.m.
Yes.
As long as a blocker is declared on the creature which was targeted by Deadly Allure, any remaining creatures which are eligible to block may be declared as blocking Phage the Untouchable.
March 17, 2012 4:19 a.m.
KorApprentice says... #6
Or can I ONLY block the first creature, since the requirement (and designation as "blocked") isn't fulfilled until after all blockers are declared?
This is incorrect. A creature is designated as a blocked creature as soon as a creature is declared to block it, this does not wait until all blockers are declared. This is because rule 509.1h, which I quoted above, is part of rule 509.1, the first part of the Declare Blockers step. All of rule 509.1 happens 'simultaneously', all steps are performed before the game state proceeds, therefore once a creature is assigned to block the Deadly Allured creature, it instantly becomes a 'blocked' creature and you may make the rest of your blocking assignments as though that creature is 'blocked'. Yes, you may choose to have your other creatures block a different creature.
March 17, 2012 4:24 a.m.
Actually it's a BIT different from what KorApprentice said, but the end result is the same.
When you Declare Blockers, you choose an arrangement for your blockers, then check to see if there are any restrictions or requirements.
If any restrictions are violated, the block is illegal. (For example, trying to block with Sightless Ghoul)
If any requirements are violated, the least possible number of requirements must be violated, otherwise the block is illegal. (For example, your opponent control two creatures that he has cast Deadly Allure on, but you control only one creature. Blocking either one will violate a requirement, "This creature must be blocked this turn if able", but it will also violate the least possible number of requirements, thus it is legal.)
If the block is illegal, the game state backs up and you declare blockers again. (Note that while you can, in some cases, circumvent requirements such as "This creature must be blocked" or "This creature must block any attacking creature" you can never circumvent restrictions: "This creature can't block" or "Only one creature may block this turn.")
Because you declare ALL your blockers at once, THEN check for restrictions/requirements, you may block Deadly Allure'd creatures with only one creature, if you choose.
This still works with Lure: This card sets up a requirement that ALL creatures must block it if able. Any block that violates more than the minimum number of requirements is still illegal.
TL;DR version: No, you are correct. You only need to block with one creature to satisfy the requirement of Deadly Allure.
March 17, 2012 9:27 a.m.
There's a reason that Lure exists while things like Deadly Allure are out there, and that's precisely because they DON'T force an all-in block.
March 17, 2012 4:49 p.m.
Yes, I'm aware that a card like Hinterland Scourge wouldn't force an all-in block like Lure would. The assertion made by my opponent (and agreed upon by a judge) when he attacked with the Scourge and several other creatures was that my only option was to block the Scourge with at least one of my creatures (UP TO all of them) and that I could do nothing else about the other 8 damage coming through. I now know that he was wrong and that the judge was either wrong as well or misunderstood the question.
March 17, 2012 6:46 p.m.
Your judge was 100% wrong. I'm sorry that you got totally screwed if you lost that game.
Being a judge I hear convincing arguments from players that I can relate to all the time:
"Mycosynth Latice says I can spend mana as though it were any color, so I can use the mana from my Plains to fuel Consume Spirit as though it were black. It says it right there! 'As though it were!'"
"Chains of Mephistopheles makes him discard his whole hand if he tries to draw outside of his normal draw step because there's no 'stop' text in the card."
"Rolling a D20 to decide which stack of permanents we randomize is random because the D20 is random."
It goes on and on and on.
The most important thing to remember as a judge is that your job is to interpret the game state and rules unless a player can provide a previous ruling by a judge.
What should have been done was this:
- Enemy casts Deadly Allure
- Enemy Attacks
- You declare blockers
- Ask the judge, "Is this a legal block?"
- Judge looks at the field and sees that Deadly Allure's conditions have been met
- Judge answers, "Yes, that is a legal block. Continue."
- Enemy complains that the ruling is not in his favor.
- Judge asks enemy, "Is the creature you cast Deadly Allure on blocked?"
- Enemy says, "Yes, but---"
- Judge cuts him off, "Then it's a legal block."
This example is a little bit harsh; however, there are some players for which it is 100% necessary. I always hear arguments for cards and take them into consideration... but in the end I generally stick by my guns. Every now and then I have to look up a rule in the comprehensive book, but on average consultation is not required. Interpreting rules is more logic than anything else. Just step through the conditions and instructions like a computer program.
Another good example of conditions being met is when your opponent controls a Gideon Jura and a Norn's Annex. If he activates the +2 ability of Gideon ("Creatures target opponent controls must attack Gideon Jura next turn if able.") you can simply choose to not pay the phyrexian white mana requirement to keep your creature untapped. Why? Your opponent can't force you to pay costs (unless they are of an additional nature)... it's in the rules. Your creatures are trying to attack Gideon. They really want to! Unfortunately, you aren't paying for the Norn's Annex condition to be met so they simply look at Gideon with evil eyes and growl.
siukong says... #1
Additional - Please note I am not talking about Lure
effects here, which state that ALL creatures must block the attacker if able.
March 17, 2012 2:52 a.m.