Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (
More info?)
phat_joe <scag@moralminority.org> wrote:
>While thinking about how cool Grandmaster Flash was, David DeLaney blurted:
>>
>> Very good question, actually. In this case the blocker must block the Lured
>> Elf, because doing so fulfills two requirements and denies one, whereas
>> blocking the Lured Bears fulfills one requirement and denies two.
>
>Not that these situations would ever come up in a real game anyway, but
>
>How exactly did you get that? I see nothing about fulfilling as many
>requirements as possible. In fact, the only thing I can see there seems
>to indicate that you would end up in an infinite loop trying to satisfy
>two Lures:
Nope. "Two Lures and no other requirements" gives you two different legal
blocking declarations; each is as legal as the other, since each satisfies
one requirement and denies the other - neither satisfies _more_ requirements
than the other, so neither is "less legal".
Remember, the Elf above was a _Taunting_ Elf, which has its own innate Lure
ability - so a Lured Taunting Elf imposes _two_ requirements that eah
creature block it if able, not one. (One from the Elf's ability; one from
the Lure's ability.) A Lured Grizzly Bears only imposes one.
And there is indeed a rules-based need to satisfy as many requirements as
possible:
500.4. A restriction conflicts with a proposed set of attackers or blockers if
it isn't being followed. A requirement conflicts with a proposed set of
attackers or blockers if it isn't being followed and (1) the requirement could
be obeyed without violating a restriction and (2) doing so will allow the
total number of requirements that the set obeys to increase.
500.5. When determining what requirements could be obeyed without violating
restrictions, you don't need to consider any options for a creature that don't
satisfy a requirement on it. But you do need to consider any options for any
creature(s) that will satisfy a requirement, as long as the total number of
obeyed requirements is increased (even if the option means not obeying another
requirement that was previously met).
Example: A player controls one creature that "blocks if able" and another
creature with no abilities. An effect states, "Creatures can't be blocked
except by two or more creatures". The creature with no abilities isn't
required to block. It's legal to declare both creatures as blockers, or to
declare neither creature as a blocker, but illegal to block with only one of
the two.
> 500.3. As part of declaring blockers, the defending player checks each
> creature he or she controls to see whether it must block, can't block,
> or has some other blocking restriction or requirement. If such a
> restriction or requirement conflicts with the proposed set of blocking
> creatures, the block is illegal, and the defending player must then
> propose another set of blocking creatures.
Didn't look far enough down, I think; 500.4/5 go into what "conflicts with"
means.
>Creatures A and B both have Lure and attack me. I have creature C. I
>declare creature C as a blocker for creature A. I check creature C and
>see that it must block creature A and must block creature B. B's lure
>conflicts with the proposed set of blocking creatures, the block is
>illegal, and I must propose another set of blocking creatures. I will
>never be able to satisfy the requirements.
You're not looking at "conflicts with"'s definition. It does NOT say "if any
requirements at all are not met, the proposed blocking declaration conflicts
with those requirements". It allows some requirements not to be met IF by
doing so an equal or greater number _are_ met. (Note that you have to abide
by all restrictions regardless; you can't get out of a _restriction_ by
invoking another restriction.)
So ignoring one Lure to follow another does NOT conflict; you won't _increase_
the number of requirements fulfilled by reversing this. Ignoring _two_ Lure
effects to follow one _does_ conflict... because doing it the other way
round satisfies more requirements (two, with one denied, versus one satisfied
with two denied).
In other words, with just two Lures, neither declaration is _better than_
the other one at making you follow _more_ requirements - so neither one
conflicts with the requirements by denying one of them. With two Lure effects
on one attacker and one on the other, "block the one with two Lure effects
affecting me" satisfies more requirements than the other blocking declarations
- so it's the only legal declaration.
Does that make more sense now?
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram