The second ability starts with the word If, clearly setting up a condition wherein attacking requirements are only added by step 508.1a if, and only if, a creature an opponent controls attacks. If no creatures attack, there is no requirement (step 508.1d) to fullfill, therefore you are fullfilling the maximum number of requirements with that attack declaration (0) without breaking any restrictions in play.
You seem to be under the impression that 508.1a allows you to choose what attackers you want to declare, and then never change that as long as you don't violate restrictions (508.1c) or somehow have under the minimum number of requirements (508.1d).
This is nonsense. Every attack declaration fulfills the maximum number of requirements "with that attack declaration". That is a tautology.
Therefore, your interpretation cannot be correct, because it means that 508.1d is always satisfied.
Quote from Slagathor »
And if he isn't lying about the L2 in his signature, then this is the correct interpretation.
A level 2 judge does not have the power to make official rulings, and is more than capable of being wrong. So are all of us, but throwing around credentials doesn't help. What we need is evidence from the rules... or an official ruling.
If you write the rule, it will determine how these cases work. The reminder text can't possibly cover them all, so don't try.
One way to do it would be something like this: "Shardbearer" means "Effects produced by abilities of Equipment attached to this creature that would increase this creature's power increase its power by twice as much instead" and the same for toughness. It's a mouthful, but you don't need to put it on the card! And I think it actually works... maybe.
I agree that manafixing is the major issue. There are a ton of strong cards, but they are spread across 3 colors:
White has a bunch of good spells up and down the curve, including 3 2-drops.
Red has a bunch of good spells skewed towards the higher end of the curve, and a Madcap Skills.
Black has the fewest good monocolored spells, which are mostly near the bottom of the curve. It does have a bomb.
Boros has a 2-drop and two bombs.
Rakdos has Augur Spree and little else -- mostly filler.
Orzhov has two Orzhov Charms and nothing else.
Boros is the clear winner, since it has 2 bombs and is in our best 2 colors. The question is then how much to splash. The main options are Augur Spree, Orzhov Charm, Stab Wound, and Ultimate Price.
Because we don't have a curve (we have a bunch of 2s and a bunch of 5s), we can't really build an effective aggro deck. There are no 3-drops at all, and only two 4s. Therefore, I think I want to splash all the options (or maybe all but Stab Wound), completely give up the idea of aggression, play 18 lands and a cluestone, and just pray that the manabase treats me well. We might as well use those 2-drops and removal for defense so we can win with our bombs and 5-drops.
Ah, I hadn't even considered that. Of course, since the rules explicitly require that you must maximize the number of requirements obeyed, if it only counts as obeying a requirement of War's Toll if you attack, then you have to attack.
But in that case, War's Toll can't work as written at all! It would never allow you to choose not to attack with any creatures, because attacking with all your creatures would always obey more requirements.
I believe TheLizard must be correct.
Yeah, this is pretty much the argument that convinced me.
The only problem is that it's entirely possible that the rules are supposed to be interpreted the other way, so that War's Toll technically doesn't work, and just no one noticed that.
EDIT: Shirotabi:
I don't think the order should matter, because no matter what order you do things in, you get to simply dispose of any potential attacks that violate a restriction. They're just illegal, unconditionally, period. But if you think the order gives us some hint as to the "legislature's intent" on this matter, I'd be interested to hear it.
It doesn't matter (too much) if the rules theoretically might make you compare 16,777,216 different possible attacks or whatever. Even in the worst-realistic-case scenario, most of them are the same, and can be considered together. Most players don't play MagneticWebEkunduCyclops.dec. The most likely situation is that you control one or two creatures that must attack, and maybe a Dueling Grounds, and you can easily narrow down the possibilities to "one of the creatures that must attack, must attack". You don't have to do a lot of computation to know that the other possibilities satisfy fewer requirements.
We know that Magic is Turing-complete, so theoretically you could be forced to calculate R(6,6) in order to determine what state the game arrives at. But this doesn't matter, practically.
EDIT: JasonFin has expressed the question correctly, I think. At least he gets my side of the issue right.
Obviously some comparison has to be made. I'm just asking, what comparison am I supposed to make exactly? If it's not all the combinations, then which ones?
The other thread is making it very clear that I don't understand situations with conditional attack requirements. So I have a bunch of scenarios, and I'm hoping that if people can explain the answers in these disparate cases, I'll finally figure it out.
In each question, I control 3 creatures, none of which is summoning sick, and my opponent controls either Dueling Grounds or Crawlspace. In all cases I would like to know what attacks I may legally make.
1B:
Same as 1A, except my opponent controls Crawlspace instead.
2A:
My creatures: Crazed Goblin, Ekundu Cyclops (with magnet counter), Hill Giant (with magnet counter)
My other permanents: Magnetic Web:
My opponent controls: Dueling Grounds
2B:
Same as 2A, except my opponent controls Crawlspace instead.
3A:
My creatures: Master of Cruelties, Ekundu Cyclops (with magnet counter), Hill Giant (with magnet counter)
My other permanents: Magnetic Web
My opponent controls: Dueling Grounds.
3B:
Same as 3A, except my opponent controls Crawlspace instead.
4A:
My creatures: Master of Cruelties enchanted with Lust for War, Ekundu Cyclops (with magnet counter), Hill Giant (with magnet counter)
My other permanents: Magnetic Web
My opponent controls: Dueling Grounds.
4B:
Same as 4A, except my opponent controls Crawlspace instead.
5A:
My creatures: Scarred Puma enchanted with Lust for War, Ekundu Cyclops (with magnet counter) under the effect of Lifelace, Giant Spider (with magnet counter)
My other permanents: Magnetic Web
My opponent controls: Dueling Grounds
5B:
Same as 5A, except my opponent controls Crawlspace instead.
6A:
My creatures: Scarred Puma enchanted with Lust for War, Ekundu Cyclops (with magnet counter) under the effect of Lifelace, Hill Giant (with magnet counter)
My other permanents: Magnetic Web
My opponent controls: Dueling Grounds
6B
Same as 6A, except my opponent controls Crawlspace instead.
...
I could go on, but that's way too many already. Even though these situations are really unlikely to come up in a game, like I said before, seeing answers to these (with explanation) would very much help me understand how these rules work, since I obviously don't.
Are you suggesting that attacking with zero creatures is not a legal play when you control 3 creatures and are under the effect of War's Toll?
By the way, I know where that sentence comes from. I'm asking Shirotabi, if you're not supposed to take the maximum over all possible attack combinations, then what are you supposed to take the maximum over? You have to take the maximum over something....
You do not have to consider ALL possible attack combinations to see which one(s) meet the most requirements without violating any restrictions. You choose your attackers, then if, for that set of attackers, the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximum possible number of requirements that could be obeyed without disobeying any restrictions, the declaration of attackers is illegal...and the game is backed up to before attackers were chosen.
Please explain the phrase "fewer than the maximum possible number of requirements that could be obeyed."
"Could be obeyed" how? "Maximum" out of what possibilities? What variables are you supposed to manipulate in order to find that maximum possible number?
Yes. You sacrifice Black Cat as part of the process of casting Altar's Reap. At this time, the trigger from Black Cat goes on the stack (on top of Altar's Reap).
You and your opponent can take cast spells and activate abilities while Black Cat's trigger is on the stack waiting to resolve. Once you're both done, the triggered ability resolves and your opponent must discard at random.
After that, you both get another chance to cast spells and activate abilities before Altar's Reap finally resolves (unless it got countered).
You're misinterpreting that quote. You don't get to decide first that you want to attack with the Crusher, and then note that you can't attack with the Goblin. Instead, if there's any way you could declare attackers in order to obey more requirements, the attack is illegal.
Note that I didn't claim that you needed to satisfy all the requirements in order to make the attack legal. I said that under your interpretation where you have to satisfy the maximum possible number of requirements for every creature, it isn't always possible to do so.
EDIT: To say this in a clearer way, my understanding of the rules is that you have to look at all combinations of attackers you could declare without violating restrictions, and then find one that satisfies the most requirements or is tied for most. You do not get to start by deciding to attack, say, with Ulamog's Crusher, and then "rule out" all the combinations of attackers that don't involve Ulamog's Crusher. The reason this remains my understanding of the rules is that it corresponds to all the rulings that have been made about cards like Master of Cruelties, Hellraiser Goblin, Prized Unicorn, and so on, as well as to the Comprehensive Rules. No competing interpretation gets all those things correct.
That's because you are misunderstanding the term "satisfy the maximum requirements"
The creatures don't care about other creatures when they are blocking, you are only supposed to satisfy the maximum for each individual creature.
That's why any split is legal.
Really? We're supposed to satisfy the maximum for each individual creature? That doesn't make any sense, because that might not be achievable, leading to situations where no attack is legal.
Example: I control Crazed Goblin and Ulamog's Crusher and a Dueling Grounds. Initially, I consider attacking with just Ulamog's Crusher. However, my opponent points out that if I attack with Crazed Goblin instead, it satisfies 1 requirement for Crazed Goblin, while if I attack with just Ulamog's Crusher, it satisfies 0 requirements for Crazed Goblin. Zero is fewer than one, so this attack is illegal by your interpretation of 508.1d.
Next, I consider attacking with just Crazed Goblin. However, my opponent points out that this satisfies 0 requirements for Ulamog's Crusher, whereas if I attacked with just Ulamog's Crusher, it would satisfy 1 requirement for Ulamog's Crusher. Zero is still fewer than one, so this attack is also illegal.
Next, I consider attacking with nothing, but this satisfies no requirements at all, so this option is illegal too.
Finally, I consider attacking with everything, but this violates the restriction placed by Dueling Grounds. So that option is not legal.
In short, if your interpretation is correct, and we are supposed to maximize each creature's satisfied requirements individually, then there can be situations where no play is legal.
508.1d The active player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether it's affected by any requirements (effects that say a creature must attack, or that it must attack if some condition is met). If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximum possible number of requirements that could be obeyed without disobeying any restrictions, the declaration of attackers is illegal. 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.
Actually, if two Prized Unicorns attack and I have 5 creatures able to block, they all must block, but I get to choose which Unicorn each of my creatures blocks. I CAN block one Unicorn with all 5 creatures. Or I can split them 1 and 4, 2 and 3, as long as all my creatures are blocking one of your Unicorns.
Yeah, that's the point.
What I'm trying to say is that if each Prized Unicorn created one requirement, then out of the 6 possible ways to block (assume all your creatures are identical), the 0-5 and 5-0 splits would satisfy one requirement, while the 1-4, 2-3, 3-2, and 4-1 splits would satisfy zero. So only the 0-5 and 5-0 splits would be legal. But we know that in fact any of the splits are legal.
Epic Experiment is not in your graveyard at the time you cast Call to Mind. It's still on the stack. Therefore, you can't target it.
Going to the graveyard is the last part of a instant or sorcery spell's resolution, after you've finished following all the instructions on the spell (including the instruction to cast Call to Mind).
608.2. If the object that's resolving is an instant spell, a sorcery spell, or an ability, its resolution may involve several steps. The steps described in rules 608.2a and 608.2b are followed first. The steps described in rules 608.2c-j are then followed as appropriate, in no specific order. The step described in rule 608.2k is followed last.
...
608.2c The controller of the spell or ability follows its instructions in the order written....
...
608.2k As the final part of an instant or sorcery spell's resolution, the spell is put into its owner's graveyard. As the final part of an ability's resolution, the ability is removed from the stack and ceases to exist.
This is nonsense. Every attack declaration fulfills the maximum number of requirements "with that attack declaration". That is a tautology.
Therefore, your interpretation cannot be correct, because it means that 508.1d is always satisfied.
A level 2 judge does not have the power to make official rulings, and is more than capable of being wrong. So are all of us, but throwing around credentials doesn't help. What we need is evidence from the rules... or an official ruling.
The reminder text is just a reminder to the player. It doesn't have to be technically precise, though the closer the better.
Here are some possible edge cases to consider:
Umezawa's Jitte
Barbed Battlegear
Barbed Battlegear AND Leonin Scimitar attached to the same creature
Honor of the Pure with Bludgeon Brawl and Mycosynth Lattice on the battlefield, attached or not attached to the creature.
If you write the rule, it will determine how these cases work. The reminder text can't possibly cover them all, so don't try.
One way to do it would be something like this: "Shardbearer" means "Effects produced by abilities of Equipment attached to this creature that would increase this creature's power increase its power by twice as much instead" and the same for toughness. It's a mouthful, but you don't need to put it on the card! And I think it actually works... maybe.
White has a bunch of good spells up and down the curve, including 3 2-drops.
Red has a bunch of good spells skewed towards the higher end of the curve, and a Madcap Skills.
Black has the fewest good monocolored spells, which are mostly near the bottom of the curve. It does have a bomb.
Boros has a 2-drop and two bombs.
Rakdos has Augur Spree and little else -- mostly filler.
Orzhov has two Orzhov Charms and nothing else.
Boros is the clear winner, since it has 2 bombs and is in our best 2 colors. The question is then how much to splash. The main options are Augur Spree, Orzhov Charm, Stab Wound, and Ultimate Price.
Because we don't have a curve (we have a bunch of 2s and a bunch of 5s), we can't really build an effective aggro deck. There are no 3-drops at all, and only two 4s. Therefore, I think I want to splash all the options (or maybe all but Stab Wound), completely give up the idea of aggression, play 18 lands and a cluestone, and just pray that the manabase treats me well. We might as well use those 2-drops and removal for defense so we can win with our bombs and 5-drops.
The only problem is that it's entirely possible that the rules are supposed to be interpreted the other way, so that War's Toll technically doesn't work, and just no one noticed that.
EDIT: Shirotabi:
I don't think the order should matter, because no matter what order you do things in, you get to simply dispose of any potential attacks that violate a restriction. They're just illegal, unconditionally, period. But if you think the order gives us some hint as to the "legislature's intent" on this matter, I'd be interested to hear it.
We know that Magic is Turing-complete, so theoretically you could be forced to calculate R(6,6) in order to determine what state the game arrives at. But this doesn't matter, practically.
EDIT: JasonFin has expressed the question correctly, I think. At least he gets my side of the issue right.
Dramatis Personae:
Mons's Goblin Raiders
Hill Giant
Giant Spider
Crazed Goblin
Scarred Puma
Master of Cruelties
Ekundu Cyclops
Lust for War
Magnetic Web
Dueling Grounds
Crawlspace
Lifelace
In each question, I control 3 creatures, none of which is summoning sick, and my opponent controls either Dueling Grounds or Crawlspace. In all cases I would like to know what attacks I may legally make.
1A:
My creatures: Mons's Goblin Raiders, Ekundu Cyclops (with magnet counter), Hill Giant (with magnet counter)
My other permanents: Magnetic Web
My opponent controls: Dueling Grounds
1B:
Same as 1A, except my opponent controls Crawlspace instead.
2A:
My creatures: Crazed Goblin, Ekundu Cyclops (with magnet counter), Hill Giant (with magnet counter)
My other permanents: Magnetic Web:
My opponent controls: Dueling Grounds
2B:
Same as 2A, except my opponent controls Crawlspace instead.
3A:
My creatures: Master of Cruelties, Ekundu Cyclops (with magnet counter), Hill Giant (with magnet counter)
My other permanents: Magnetic Web
My opponent controls: Dueling Grounds.
3B:
Same as 3A, except my opponent controls Crawlspace instead.
4A:
My creatures: Master of Cruelties enchanted with Lust for War, Ekundu Cyclops (with magnet counter), Hill Giant (with magnet counter)
My other permanents: Magnetic Web
My opponent controls: Dueling Grounds.
4B:
Same as 4A, except my opponent controls Crawlspace instead.
5A:
My creatures: Scarred Puma enchanted with Lust for War, Ekundu Cyclops (with magnet counter) under the effect of Lifelace, Giant Spider (with magnet counter)
My other permanents: Magnetic Web
My opponent controls: Dueling Grounds
5B:
Same as 5A, except my opponent controls Crawlspace instead.
6A:
My creatures: Scarred Puma enchanted with Lust for War, Ekundu Cyclops (with magnet counter) under the effect of Lifelace, Hill Giant (with magnet counter)
My other permanents: Magnetic Web
My opponent controls: Dueling Grounds
6B
Same as 6A, except my opponent controls Crawlspace instead.
...
I could go on, but that's way too many already. Even though these situations are really unlikely to come up in a game, like I said before, seeing answers to these (with explanation) would very much help me understand how these rules work, since I obviously don't.
By the way, I know where that sentence comes from. I'm asking Shirotabi, if you're not supposed to take the maximum over all possible attack combinations, then what are you supposed to take the maximum over? You have to take the maximum over something....
"Could be obeyed" how? "Maximum" out of what possibilities? What variables are you supposed to manipulate in order to find that maximum possible number?
You and your opponent can take cast spells and activate abilities while Black Cat's trigger is on the stack waiting to resolve. Once you're both done, the triggered ability resolves and your opponent must discard at random.
After that, you both get another chance to cast spells and activate abilities before Altar's Reap finally resolves (unless it got countered).
Note that I didn't claim that you needed to satisfy all the requirements in order to make the attack legal. I said that under your interpretation where you have to satisfy the maximum possible number of requirements for every creature, it isn't always possible to do so.
EDIT: To say this in a clearer way, my understanding of the rules is that you have to look at all combinations of attackers you could declare without violating restrictions, and then find one that satisfies the most requirements or is tied for most. You do not get to start by deciding to attack, say, with Ulamog's Crusher, and then "rule out" all the combinations of attackers that don't involve Ulamog's Crusher. The reason this remains my understanding of the rules is that it corresponds to all the rulings that have been made about cards like Master of Cruelties, Hellraiser Goblin, Prized Unicorn, and so on, as well as to the Comprehensive Rules. No competing interpretation gets all those things correct.
Example: I control Crazed Goblin and Ulamog's Crusher and a Dueling Grounds. Initially, I consider attacking with just Ulamog's Crusher. However, my opponent points out that if I attack with Crazed Goblin instead, it satisfies 1 requirement for Crazed Goblin, while if I attack with just Ulamog's Crusher, it satisfies 0 requirements for Crazed Goblin. Zero is fewer than one, so this attack is illegal by your interpretation of 508.1d.
Next, I consider attacking with just Crazed Goblin. However, my opponent points out that this satisfies 0 requirements for Ulamog's Crusher, whereas if I attacked with just Ulamog's Crusher, it would satisfy 1 requirement for Ulamog's Crusher. Zero is still fewer than one, so this attack is also illegal.
Next, I consider attacking with nothing, but this satisfies no requirements at all, so this option is illegal too.
Finally, I consider attacking with everything, but this violates the restriction placed by Dueling Grounds. So that option is not legal.
In short, if your interpretation is correct, and we are supposed to maximize each creature's satisfied requirements individually, then there can be situations where no play is legal.
What I'm trying to say is that if each Prized Unicorn created one requirement, then out of the 6 possible ways to block (assume all your creatures are identical), the 0-5 and 5-0 splits would satisfy one requirement, while the 1-4, 2-3, 3-2, and 4-1 splits would satisfy zero. So only the 0-5 and 5-0 splits would be legal. But we know that in fact any of the splits are legal.
Going to the graveyard is the last part of a instant or sorcery spell's resolution, after you've finished following all the instructions on the spell (including the instruction to cast Call to Mind).