To attack, or not to attack, part 2

In a previous blog post I asked a question about what happens when a Jackal Familiar is enchanted with Furor of the Bitten. This is a similar question, but with a slightly different twist:

Assume that a Master of Cruelties is enchanted by Furor of the Bitten. What happens?

This is closely related to the other situation, but the difference is now that rather than the creature being unable to attack alone, this one can only attack alone. Thus the question becomes: Can you attack with another creature, or are you forced to attack with Master of Cruelties each turn (if it's otherwise able), precluding any other creature from attacking?

This is once again a situation where many players, even very experienced ones, get it wrong (and may cause a considerable amount of disagreement.) The correct answer is that yes, Master of Cruelties must attack each turn (if there's nothing else stopping it, eg. summoning sickness) and thus nothing else can attack.

Rule 508.1d of the Comprehensive Rules (which I quoted in the other blog post) deals with this situation. It basically amounts to:

When declaring attackers:

1. Restrictions must not be disobeyed.
2. The amount of requirements being obeyed must be maximized (without disobeying any restriction.)
3. Any other declaration of attackers is illegal.

In this particular case a declaration of attackers where Master of Cruelties is attacking obeys more requirements (without disobeying any restrictions) than a declaration where it's not attacking. Therefore it's the only legal declaration.

(Sometimes it may happen that there are several possible declarations that obey the same number of requirements. In this case the player can freely choose between one of them. However, as stated, those are the only legal ones, and one of them must be chosen.)

But wait, there is more. Here's an even more complicated twist to the problem:

Suppose you control Master of Cruelties (not enchanted by anything) and some other creatures, and your opponent casts Aggravate. What happens?

The key to resolve this situation is to realize that an effect that says "each creature attacks if able" is placing a requirement on each such creature individually, and the amount of requirements being obeyed must be maximized.

This means that if you control two creatures (one of them being Master of Cruelties), then you can choose which one attacks. (This is an example where two different declarations of attackers obeys the same amount of requirements, and thus you can choose one of them.)

However, if you control more than two creatures, then the only legal declaration is one where all the other creatures except Master of Cruelties attack (because this declaration obeys the most requirements.)

(Bonus question: What happens in the above situation if Master of Cruelties is enchanted with Furor of the Bitten?)

Persistent Melira

Consider these questions, all if which are related in some manner:

1. Assume you control Melira, Sylvok Outcast, you give her persist (for example with Cauldron Haze), and she dies. When she comes back, will she have a -1/-1 counter?
2. Assume you control Melira's Keepers, you give it persist, and it dies. When it comes back, will it have a -1/-1 counter?
3. You control a Clone (it doesn't really matter what it's copying) and Melira's Keepers, you give the Clone persist, and it dies. When it comes back, you make it be a copy of Melira's Keepers. Will it have a -1/-1 counter?
4. You control a Volrath's Shapeshifter, the top card of your library is Melira's Keepers, you give the Shapeshifter persist, and it dies. When it comes back, will it have a -1/-1 counter?

These questions deal with some of the most obscure parts of the rules of the game. Let's examine the first two.

Melira, Sylvok Outcast has a static ability which states that creatures you control can't have -1/-1 counters placed on them. Melira's Keepers is somewhat similar, except that it affects only itself (and stops any kind of counters from being placed on it, although in this case that's inconsequential).

So there are two interesting questions here: When they gain persist and die, do they come back with a -1/-1 counter or without one, and do they behave differently in this regard?

Quite curiously their type of static ability does make a difference in this case. In particular, Melira, Sylvok Outcast will return with a -1/-1 counter, while Melira's Keepers will return without one. The reason for this may not be apparent, and it is, as said, one of the more obscure parts of the rules.

A static ability that affects all creatures behaves differently from a static ability that only affects the specific creature itself. The effect (in this case persist) that makes the creature enter the battlefield with an additional characteristic (in this case a -1/-1 counter) will be affected by a static ability that says something about the creature itself, but will not be affected by any generic effect that applies to all creatures (even if that effect is in the card being evaluated.) In a sense, one could think of it as the generic effect not affecting the creature until it's on the battlefield (and thus doesn't affect how creatures enter it.)

What about the Clone?

When the Clone is entering the battlefield, you choose what it copies. In this case we are choosing Melira's Keepers. So the question becomes: What happens first, the persist effect giving it a -1/-1 counter, or Clone acquiring the Keepers' ability that stops counters from being put onto it?

The correct answer is that Clone becomes a copy of Keepers before the persist effect tries to put a -1/-1 counter on it, and therefore it gets no counter. (This is, if anything, an even more obscure and hard to find consequence of the rules of the game.)

And finally, Volrath's Shapeshifter (and Melira's Keepers being the top card of your graveyard):

Now this is a really tricky one, and can confuse even judges. (It doesn't help that the official rulings for this card and how it interacts with enters-the-battlefield replacement effects have changed over time.)

At first it might look like this is just the same thing as with the Clone, but their abilities are a bit different. While Clone specifically says that it "enters the battlefield as a copy" of something, this card does not say anything about entering the battlefield with the characteristics of the top card of the graveyard.

This is such an obscure case that there may be some disagreement even among experts, but the majority consensus seems to be that Shapeshifter is considered to have the characteristics of the top graveyard card as it enters, and will therefore not have a -1/-1 counter put on it by persist. (However, this interpretation shouldn't be taken as set-in-stone until an official ruling from Wizards of the Coast can be cited.)

To block, or not to block?

Assume that you control a Hunter Sliver and a Two-Headed Sliver, and your opponent controls two Grizzly Bears.

The Hunter Sliver gives provoke to all slivers, the Two-Headed Sliver says that slivers can't be blocked except by two or more creatures.

Question: If you attack with one sliver and target one of the defending bears with the provoke ability, is your opponent forced to block with both bears (if they are otherwise able to do so)?

This problem is similar to one I posed in an earlier post, although in that case the question was about attackers rather than blockers.

Many a player would hastily answer to this question that "no; since the bears can't block alone, they aren't forced to do so." However, this answer would once again be incorrect.

The rule text that handles this situation is the following:

509.1c The defending player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether it's affected by any requirements (effects that say a creature must block, or that it must block 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 blockers is illegal. If a creature can't block unless a player pays a cost, that player is not required to pay that cost, even if blocking with that creature would increase the number of requirements being obeyed.

This is very similar to the rule about declaring attackers. In short, what this is saying is that a declaration of blockers that obeys less requirements than another possible declaration of blockers (which doesn't disobey any restrictions) is an illegal declaration. Only a declaration that maximizes the number of requirements (without disobeying restrictions) is a legal declaration.

In this particular example there are two possible declaration of blockers: Not declaring any blockers, and declaring both bears to block the sliver. Since the latter obeys more requirements than the former, the former is an illegal declaration of blockers. In other words, the defending player has to block the sliver with both bears.

(Note that if the defending player had only one bear, he could not block the sliver regardless of the provoke because the Two-Headed Sliver is imposing a restriction on blocking, and a restriction always trumps a requirement.)

In cases where there are several possible declarations that would obey the same amount of requirements, the defending player can choose between them. This would be the case, for example, if you attacked with two slivers and used the provoke ability of both of them. In this case the provoke abilities are forcing the defending player to block either one of two slivers, so the defending player can choose which sliver to block with the two bears.

(Incidentally, it makes no difference in this particular case whether the two provoke abilities target the same bear or different ones. While the situation is technically speaking different, the end result is the same.)

As a thinking exercise, consider what happens if the defending player had three bears, or four bears, and you attacked with two slivers and targeted two of them with their provoke abilities.

Grave Betrayal

Assume that you control a Grave Betrayal, and an opponent controls an animated Treetop Village that dies.

1. When Treetop Village comes back under your control, will it be a Zombie?
2. If you animate it using its ability, will it then be a Zombie?

The question is relevant because there are many cards that specifically refer to Zombies (for example Diregraf Captain and Victim of Night.)

And to clarify a possible confusion: Yes, Treetop Village will return under your control with a +1/+1 counter on it if it died as a creature (under your opponent's control) even though it will not be a creature when it does so (it will be simply an unanimated Treetop Village.) Grave Betrayal's triggered ability only cares what it was when on the battlefield, not what it becomes once it hits the graveyard.

The answer to the first question is simple: As long as Treetop Village is not a creature, it simply cannot have a creature subtype (this is specifically stated in the rules of the game) and therefore it won't be a Zombie.

The second question is a bit more complicated.

Another clarification is needed at this point to avoid confusion: Yes, the effect of Grave Betrayal will be constantly applying to Treetop Village for as long as the latter is on the battlefield, regardless of whether it actually causes a change or not. It not being a creature does not cause the effect to cease to exist. (It just means that the effect isn't actually making it a Zombie if it's not a creature.)

Also note that "it's still a land" really means "in addition to its other types", which in turn means that its effect making it an Ape creature does not overwrite any other types or subtypes it may have.

So, if Treetop Village becomes a creature (eg. by using its own ability), does it become a Zombie? If you answer yes, then you haven't been reading this blog enough, because it's not that simple...

This is a rather peculiar case where the timestamps of effects have a non-trivial consequence.

There are now two effects affecting Treetop Village (on the same layer): The effect that says it's a Zombie, and the effect that says it's an Ape creature. The former has an older timestamp and is therefore applied first.

And that's the crucial point: Such effects on the same layer are evaluated one by one, in timestamp order (unless they are dependent effects, and these two are not.) This means that "is a Zombie" is evaluated first, but at this stage Treetop Village is not a creature, so that effect does nothing. Then we evaluate the "is an Ape creature" which makes it a creature (of subtype Ape.)

This means that it will be an Ape creature, but not a Zombie.

Last known information

The concept of "last known information" is not something that comes up frequently in Magic the Gathering. Thus it's not surprising that it might sometimes be unclear what exactly happens in certain situations.

For example, assume that there's a germ token equipped with Mortarpod, soulbonded with a Tandem Lookout.

Because of the soulbond ability, whenever the Germ deals damage to an opponent, its controller draws a card. However, if the Germ's controller now uses its "Sacrifice this creature: This creature deals 1 damage to target creature or player" ability, will he or she draw a card?

Is there any difference if instead of being soulbonded to Tandem Lookout, the Germ had been soulbonded with a Nearheath Pilgrim?

Since the Germ token is not on the battlefield by the time the ability that Mortarpod grants resolves, this is a situation where the last known information is used to determine what happens. As the Oracle ruling clarification for Mortarpod says, "if you sacrifice the equipped creature to deal 1 damage to a target creature or player, the damage is dealt by the creature as it last existed on the battlefield."

The important thing to understand is that the last known information is used to determine, and only affects, the effect that requires that information. In other words, when the ability granted by Mortarpod resolves, it looks to the object as it last existed on the relevant zone (in this case the battlefield) to determine if it had anything that affects the damage. For example, if it had infect, then the damage will be done in the form of -1/-1 counters or poison counters. If it had deathtouch, the target creature will be destroyed. If it had lifelink, then its controller gains that much life, and so on.

That answers the second question: Since the Germ had lifelink (due to being soulbonded to Nearheath Pilgrim), its controller will gain 1 life at the same time as 1 damage is dealt.

What about the first case, then? Will the Germ's controller draw a card?

Note that the card-drawing ability does not affect in any way how the damage is dealt. Therefore it's not something that the damage ability is looking for to determine how the damage is dealt.

The card-drawing ability does not exist anymore by the time the damage is dealt (because the Germ token is long gone.) Therefore there's nothing to trigger. Thus the answer to the first question is that the player does not draw a card.

Abilities and layers

Let's assume that there's a Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth on the battlefield, and it's enchanted with a Guardian Zendikon.

Effectively, Urborg will now be like this:

Its full type line will be: "Legendary Land Creature - Swamp Wall". (It's a swamp because of its own ability, and this gives it the ability to tap for one black mana.)

Now let's assume that someone enchants it with Lignify.

Thus it ends up effectively looking like this:

Question: Are all lands swamps in addition to their other types?

One could hastily think that they are not, because Urborg does not have that ability anymore. However, as is usual in this blog, it's not that simple.

Urborg's ability is a type-setting ability, while Lignify's ability is an ability-setting (or in this case an ability-removing) ability. These are evaluated on different layers.

The status of all permanents on the battlefield is evaluated one layer at a time, starting from the first one.

In this situation layers 1 to 3 have nothing special to them. However, when we get to layer 4 (the layer where type setting abilities are evaluated), we see that Urborg has an ability that sets the type of each land to Swamp.

It's important to understand that at this point Lignify's ability has still not been evaluated (because its effect happens on layer 6.) Therefore at this layer Urborg still has the ability "Each land is a Swamp in addition to its other types." This is evaluated now, and therefore it sets the type of all lands to Swamp (including Urborg itself.)

Then, when we evaluate layer 6 we see that Lignify is removing all of Urborg's abilities. Thus it affects Urborg only. (Remember that so-called dependent abilities are evaluated only when they happen on the same layer. Therefore Lignify's ability has no effect on layer 4.)

Also note that even though Urborg is a Swamp due to its own ability, it does not have the ability to tap for one black mana, because Lignify is removing it.

Likewise Lignify is removing the "Defender" ability set by Guardian Zendikon, due to Lignify having a newer timestamp. (Urborg could now freely attack.)

Raging Rivers

Here's a Raging River:

The Oracle text for the card is the following:

Whenever one or more creatures you control attack, each defending player divides all creatures without flying he or she controls into a "left" pile and a "right" pile. Then, for each attacking creature you control, choose "left" or "right." That creature can't be blocked this combat except by creatures with flying and creatures in a pile with the chosen label.

This makes gameplay interesting. Basically the battlefield is divided into two, and ground creatures (without flying) can only attack and defend on one half of it.

Question: What happens if there are two Raging Rivers on the battlefield at the same time?

This situation is a bit complicated. While it's not explicitly stated in the game's rules how exactly the situation should be handled, it can nevertheless be deduced unambiguously from how effects work.

To analyze this situation, let's assume that there are six Grizzly Bears attacking and six Civic Wayfinders defending. (It's not all that important what the creatures are for the sake of this example.)

When the bears attack, both Rivers will trigger, but they will resolve one at a time. When the first River effect resolves, the attacking and defending creatures may have been divided into "left" and "right" groups for example like this (you can click on the image to get a larger version):

I have color-coded the effect of the first River with yellow markers for clarity. What the effect in question is doing is creating a continuous effect (during this combat phase) that imposes a restriction on which creature can block which other creature: Those creatures marked with a yellow L can only block those attacking creatures with a yellow L, and likewise for the yellow R markers.

Now the effect of the second River resolves. All creatures are now independently divided into "left" and "right" groups due to this effect. I have color-coded this second effect with purple markers. They could be divided, for example, like this:

The second effect likewise now states that only creatures with a purple L can block attacking creatures with a purple L, and likewise for the purple R.

The division into two groups for the second (purple) effect is completely independent of the first (yellow) effect. However, both effects are still imposing a restriction on which creature can block what. Both effects have to be taken into account when declaring blockers. For example, even though the second effect would allow a creature with a purple L to block an attacking creature with a purple L, the first effect will be restricting that possibility if they have a different yellow marker.

Therefore the only possible way to declare blockers is like this:

So, quite flavorfulwise, two Raging Rivers will divide the battlefield into four parts, and all non-flying attackers and blockers will be restricted to one of those parts. It's like a river that splits into two, and there's a mountain range between them.