This leads to another question. Suppose the controller of Master Warcraft specifies that some other player's creatures are attacking. Now, a third player controls Propaganda. What are the attacking player's obligations here? What if he decides that the creatures will attack the player with Propaganda, and then can't pay? Do we rewind?
Or is he instead obligated to say that the creatures will attack a player who doesn't control a Propaganda?
As for the details of how you "help" your opponent with his attacker declarations, the relevant rule is this.
It says to see rule 308.
308.2. To declare attackers, the active player follows the steps below, in order. If at any point during the declaration of attackers, the active player is unable to comply with any of the steps listed below, the declaration was illegal; the game returns to the moment before the declaration (see rule 422, "Handling Illegal Actions," and rule 500, "Legal Attacks and Blocks").
308.2a For each untapped creature the active player controls that he or she has controlled continuously since the beginning of the turn or that has haste, that player either chooses not to attack with it, or chooses an opponent or a planeswalker controlled by an opponent for that creature to attack. Then he or she determines whether this set of attackers is legal. (See rule 500, "Legal Attacks and Blocks.")
There doesn't seem to be any such thing as choosing who will attack separately from whom will be attacked. For each creature, you either choose no attack, or choose a defender. Those are the only two choices.
Which begs the question, what does Master Warcraft allow you to do instead of allowing the controller to do.
If we followed your interpretation, then what Master Warcraft does is allow you to put a "must attack" tag on creatures. This would make you wonder why Master Warcraft wouldn't be worded the same way as other cards that do that.
In other words, why doesn't Master Warcraft use the "attacks this turn if able" language of other cards that do what you say this does?
btw a judge at Star City agrees with your interpretation.
I was wondering if someone could explain to me exactly what this does in multiplayer.
Master Warcraft says that you decide which creatures attack. However, in the Comp Rules, deciding whether a creature attacks and who it attacks are the same process. So I was hoping to get a clarification.
I should explain, I mean when playing the Attack Multiple Players option.
When everyone disagrees with your opinion and you have failed utterly to get anyone to adapt their position to your ideas, that's called losing an argument.
Wow, I don't know if you can get much farther from a working definition of "truth" than this.
Dont you think the courts would have approved Darons motion to quash if they thought the case was so weak?
What does that have to do with you saying that this case is like the Apple case with regard to trade secrets, that being the particular error that I was just correcting?
This leads to another question. Suppose the controller of Master Warcraft specifies that some other player's creatures are attacking. Now, a third player controls Propaganda. What are the attacking player's obligations here? What if he decides that the creatures will attack the player with Propaganda, and then can't pay? Do we rewind?
Or is he instead obligated to say that the creatures will attack a player who doesn't control a Propaganda?
It says to see rule 308.
There doesn't seem to be any such thing as choosing who will attack separately from whom will be attacked. For each creature, you either choose no attack, or choose a defender. Those are the only two choices.
Which begs the question, what does Master Warcraft allow you to do instead of allowing the controller to do.
If we followed your interpretation, then what Master Warcraft does is allow you to put a "must attack" tag on creatures. This would make you wonder why Master Warcraft wouldn't be worded the same way as other cards that do that.
In other words, why doesn't Master Warcraft use the "attacks this turn if able" language of other cards that do what you say this does?
btw a judge at Star City agrees with your interpretation.
Master Warcraft says that you decide which creatures attack. However, in the Comp Rules, deciding whether a creature attacks and who it attacks are the same process. So I was hoping to get a clarification.
I should explain, I mean when playing the Attack Multiple Players option.
Wow, I don't know if you can get much farther from a working definition of "truth" than this.
Ah, now that is a nice summation of the problem.
Me, personally, I was never hoping in a million years that there was going to be a "Draw-Go Guild."
Huh. Maybe the problem here is your definition of "the control guild." What's your definition of "the control guild"?
I don't remember anyone at Wizards saying that the Azorius was the Draw-Go guild
Can you say "preconception"
What does that have to do with you saying that this case is like the Apple case with regard to trade secrets, that being the particular error that I was just correcting?