Provoke

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

Hi,

My opponent controls a creature that can't be blocked by more than one
creature with a Lure on it. I control 2 vanilla creatures. My opponent
attacks with his creature and as soon as I choose to block it with one
of my vanillas, the other one isn't able to block anymore so it won't
although his creature is enchanted by Lure.

So far so good, right?

So now the creature my opponent was controling also has Provoke. He
provokes one of my creature but as soon as I choose to block with the
other, the first one isn't able to block so it won' although it was
provoked.

This can't be right because it defeats the purpose of Krosan Vorine.
But what went wrong?


Krosan Vorine
{3}{G}
Creature -- Cat Beast
3/2
Provoke (When this attacks, you may have target creature defending
player controls untap and block it if able.)
~this~ can't be blocked by more than one creature.

Lure
{1}{G}{G}
Enchant Creature
All creatures able to block enchanted creature do so.

Vanilla Creature
{2}{R}
Creature -- Ogre
2/2

--
David

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

"David de Kloet" <dskloet@few.vu.nl> wrote in message
newsine.GSO.4.63.0506121555570.16571@fluit.few.vu.nl...
> Hi,
>
> My opponent controls a creature that can't be blocked by more than one
> creature with a Lure on it. I control 2 vanilla creatures. My opponent
> attacks with his creature and as soon as I choose to block it with one
> of my vanillas, the other one isn't able to block anymore so it won't
> although his creature is enchanted by Lure.

OK.. so his creature with Lure can only be blocked by one creature.

> So far so good, right?
>
> So now the creature my opponent was controling also has Provoke. He
> provokes one of my creature but as soon as I choose to block with the
> other, the first one isn't able to block so it won' although it was
> provoked.

He can use the ability, sure. But it won't be able to block the Lured Krosan
Vorine because the Vorine's ability says it can't be.

> This can't be right because it defeats the purpose of Krosan Vorine.
> But what went wrong?

What went wrong was your opponent made, in my opinion, a bad call putting
the Lure on the Vorine, since the Lure and the Vorine's ability work at odds
against each other. So you do what you can; you have to block the Vorine if
you're able, likely with the Provoked creature, and everything else is free
to block or not block any number of other attacking creatures. The rules
also say (anyone remember where?) that if card X says effect A happens, and
card Y says it can't, then the can't wins out.

Hope this helps
Erich

> Krosan Vorine
> Provoke (When this attacks, you may have target creature defending
> player controls untap and block it if able.)
> ~this~ can't be blocked by more than one creature.
>
> Lure
> Enchant Creature
> All creatures able to block enchanted creature do so.
>
> Vanilla Creature
Creature -- Vanilla
X/Y

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 16:07:06 +0200, David de Kloet <dskloet@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>My opponent controls a creature that can't be blocked by more than one
>creature with a Lure on it.

Okay. Lure does not in any way override any "can't block" restrictions. In
particular, it CANNOT make more than one creature ABLE to block this attacker
that can't be blocked by more than one creature.

>I control 2 vanilla creatures. My opponent
>attacks with his creature and as soon as I choose to block it with one
>of my vanillas, the other one isn't able to block anymore so it won't
>although his creature is enchanted by Lure.

Well, not exactly. You choose a set of blockers, then look to see if that set
is legal. If at least one of your creatures -can- block, then "no blockers"
isn't legal because of the Lure. "Both block it" isn't legal because of the
creature's own ability. This leaves "one of the two blocks it", and in your
given case it doesn't matter which one - either one blocking it alone is
legal.

Blockers aren't declared "in sequence", or one after another, or anything like
that; we are not Yu-Gi-Oh. Like attackers, blockers are declared all at once.

>So now the creature my opponent was controling also has Provoke. He
>provokes one of my creature but as soon as I choose to block with the
>other, the first one isn't able to block so it won' although it was
>provoked.

Again, "must block" cannot override "can't block". However: now you get into
the weird portions of blocking declaration legality. Specifically: 500.4,5
.... which tell us that the requirement for the Provoked creature to block
is conflicting with the proposed block. Why? Because that creature has TWO
requirements on it, where the other only has one... and 500.4 says that
if you can increase the number of requirements met, without violating any
restrictions, from what the current proposed block has, then the current
proposed block conflicts with the Provoked creature's two requirements. And
we can increase the number of met requirements: block with only the Provoked
creature. That satisfies two requirements (Provoke and Lure's for that
creature), and leaves out one, where blocking with the other creature satisfies
one (Lure's for _that_ creature) and leaves out two.

In short: now your Provoked creature must block, and the other one gets left
behind, because doing it that way makes more requirements happy without
breaking any restrictions. (Or in other words, "must block" twice counts for
more than "must block" once.)

(And yes, Krosan Vorine was in part the impetus for this small rewriting of
the block-declaration rules from what they were before.)

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.

 

[Maz]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

David de Kloet schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> My opponent controls a creature that can't be blocked by more than one
> creature with a Lure on it. I control 2 vanilla creatures. My opponent
> attacks with his creature and as soon as I choose to block it with one
> of my vanillas, the other one isn't able to block anymore so it won't
> although his creature is enchanted by Lure.
>
> So far so good, right?

Right

> So now the creature my opponent was controling also has Provoke. He
> provokes one of my creature but as soon as I choose to block with the
> other, the first one isn't able to block so it won' although it was
> provoked.
>
> This can't be right because it defeats the purpose of Krosan Vorine.
> But what went wrong?

The provoked creature must block if able.
This is a blocking *requirement* as well as the lure's effect
The attacking creature also cannot be blocked by more than 1 creature,
which is a blocking *restriction* as defined in Rule 500 (see below)

You don´t need to obey a requirement if doing so conflicts with a
restriction AND the total number of requirements being followed doesn't
increase if you do so.

However, in your case, the amount of requirements being followed
increases by one if you block with the provoked creature instead of the
other creature. There is no way you can obey the lure - requirement as
it conflicts with the "no more than 1 blocker" - restriction but as you
can obey the requirement created by the provoke ability, you must do so!


----------------
500. Legal Attacks and Blocks

500.1. Some effects restrict declaring attackers or blockers in combat
or require certain creatures to be declared as attackers or blockers.
(See rule 308, "Declare Attackers Step,� and rule 309, "Declare Blockers
Step.�) A restriction is an effect which says that a creature can't
block (or attack) or that it can't block (or attack) unless some
condition is met. A requirement is an effect which says that a creature
must block (or attack) or that it must block (or attack) if some
condition is met.

....

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. (Tapped creatures and
creatures with unpaid costs to block are exempt from effects that would
require them to block.)


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.