When do you pay the costs for propoganda.

[Phil]

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

This came up ina multiplayer game
Player A : big fat creature
Player B : A creature that can tap other creatures
Player C : Propoganda.

Player A wants to storm over and clobber player C with the big fat
creature, but he doesn't want to risk player B tapping it and stopping
him.
So it becomes important when player A pays the propoganda costs. Does
he declare attackers first, then pay. Or pay then declare attackers.
Should the case be pay, then declare, could player A pay the costs more
than once,if he needed to dump mana? I assume that whenever he pays
the costs, player A has the option to not attack, or to attack player
B. Would this be right, within the 'there are no rules for
multiplayer' umbrella?

In the event, we all agreed that Player A's intentions were fairly
clear and Player C got a good clobbering.

Thanks for your help.

Phil.

 

[Guest]

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

<phil@ideastakingshape.co.uk> wrote:

> This came up ina multiplayer game
> Player A : big fat creature
> Player B : A creature that can tap other creatures
> Player C : Propoganda.
>
> Player A wants to storm over and clobber player C with the big fat
> creature, but he doesn't want to risk player B tapping it and stopping
> him.
> So it becomes important when player A pays the propoganda costs. Does
> he declare attackers first, then pay. Or pay then declare attackers.
> Should the case be pay, then declare, could player A pay the costs more
> than once,if he needed to dump mana? I assume that whenever he pays
> the costs, player A has the option to not attack, or to attack player
> B. Would this be right, within the 'there are no rules for
> multiplayer' umbrella?

A pays as part of the declaration of attackers, and only for creatures
being declared as attackers. Nobody gets priority in the middle of that
process.

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 The active player either chooses to not attack, or chooses one or
more creatures he or she controls and then determines whether this set
of creatures could attack. Only creatures can attack, and the following
creatures can't attack: tapped creatures (even those that can attack
without tapping) and creatures the active player didn't control
continuously since the beginning of the turn (except those with haste).
Other effects may also affect whether or not a set of creatures could
attack. (See rule 500, "Legal Attacks and Blocks.")

308.2d If any of the creatures require paying costs to attack, the
active player determines the total cost to attack. Costs may include
paying mana, tapping permanents, sacrificing permanents, discarding
cards, and so on. Once the total cost is determined, it becomes "locked
in." If effects would change the total cost after this time, ignore this
change.

308.2f Once the player has enough mana in his or her mana pool, he or
she pays all costs in any order. Partial payments are not allowed.
--
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W

 

[Guest]

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

phil@ideastakingshape.co.uk <phil@ideastakingshape.co.uk> wrote:
>This came up ina multiplayer game
>Player A : big fat creature
>Player B : A creature that can tap other creatures
>Player C : Propoganda.

Okay. Let me check something: okay, Propaganda only protects C in this case
("creatures can't attack _you_ unless".)

>Player A wants to storm over and clobber player C with the big fat
>creature, but he doesn't want to risk player B tapping it and stopping him.

Okay. (Note that the current rules are Weird about when you say who you are
attacking; I am attempting to point this out to them and get that Fixed.)

>So it becomes important when player A pays the propoganda costs. Does
>he declare attackers first, then pay. Or pay then declare attackers.

He pays _as part of_ declaring attackers; he pays at a time that B (and
everyone else too) does not have priority at all and can't do something.
308.2* goes through the sequence: in order, he chooses what to attack with
(or not to attack at all) and checks legality of the attacking set, makes bands
if any, taps the creatures, determines and pays costs to attack if any, then
the creatures actually become attackers.

At no time during this does B get priority; this is being done as step 2 of
combat, declare-attackers step, starts, and none of this uses the stack at all
in any way, so none of it can be 'responded to'.

>Should the case be pay, then declare, could player A pay the costs more
>than once,if he needed to dump mana?

Nope. He pays the costs or doesn't; you can NEVER "pay a cost multiple times
at once".

> I assume that whenever he pays
>the costs, player A has the option to not attack, or to attack player
>B. Would this be right, within the 'there are no rules for multiplayer'
>umbrella?

At present, yes (almost). There is, as alluded to above, a rule (306.3) that
says active player is the 'attacking player' during the -entire- Combat phase,
and nonactive player is the "defending player", that's been there quietly
since the first 8th Edition rulebook - but, clearly, if no attackers have
been declared yet, there can't be a 'defending player' -or- an 'attacking
player'. Players don't attack other players; creatures attack players...

It is unclear how 306.3 would extend to multiplayer, since most multiplayer
games operate under either a "pick who you'll attack as you declare attackers"
paradigm or a "who you can attack is determined by where you're sitting in
relation to them" paradigm for the structured ones. But, as far as I can
tell, nothing currently in the rules says "A has to pick who he will attack
before he actually declares attackers".

However, by the time A pays costs, A has already chosen his attackers and,
presumably, who they will attack, so your assumption is not totally correct;
A will have chosen who he's attacking before he pays _costs_ to attack - but
B can't interfere at any time in between those two - no "Okay, you're
attacking him with that? Then I use my Icy Manipulator on it and tap it before
it can attack" is allowed there. B can, of course, foresee that A wants to
attack C with Mr.Big, and tap Mr.Big during beginning-of-combat step, before
attackers are ever declared at all - but in that case A can't pick Mr.Big to
attack with as declare-attackers step starts.

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.

 

[Guest]

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

dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) writes:
> It is unclear how 306.3 would extend to multiplayer, since most
> multiplayer games operate under either a "pick who you'll attack as
> you declare attackers" paradigm or a "who you can attack is
> determined by where you're sitting in relation to them" paradigm for
> the structured ones. But, as far as I can tell, nothing currently in
> the rules says "A has to pick who he will attack before he actually
> declares attackers".

There are of course, other options. The way I generally play
multiplayer is that as the first part of the Beginning of Combat step,
the active player declares whom they will be attacking that
phase. That allows the defending player to tap the attacker's
creatures before they can attack, while the other players in the game
know that they don't have to. (I think that the prototype
multiplayer-modified comprehensive rules they put up quite while ago
now had it work similar to that, but I'm not completely sure.)

The best approach, of course, it to ensure that all the players in
your game agree ahead of time how you want to handle the "when does
the defending player get named" question.

--
Peter C.
"Uncle Cosmo ... why do they call this a word processor?"
"It's simple, Skyler ... you've seen what food processors do to food, right?"
-- MacNelley, "Shoe"

 

[Guest]

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

Peter Cooper Jr. <pete+mtg@cooperjr.name> wrote:
>dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) writes:
>> It is unclear how 306.3 would extend to multiplayer, since most
>> multiplayer games operate under either a "pick who you'll attack as
>> you declare attackers" paradigm or a "who you can attack is
>> determined by where you're sitting in relation to them" paradigm for
>> the structured ones. But, as far as I can tell, nothing currently in
>> the rules says "A has to pick who he will attack before he actually
>> declares attackers".
>
>There are of course, other options. The way I generally play
>multiplayer is that as the first part of the Beginning of Combat step,
>the active player declares whom they will be attacking that
>phase. That allows the defending player to tap the attacker's
>creatures before they can attack, while the other players in the game
>know that they don't have to. (I think that the prototype
>multiplayer-modified comprehensive rules they put up quite while ago
>now had it work similar to that, but I'm not completely sure.)

Yes, they did. And it struck me as very odd, mainly because I'd never
encountered that in a multiplayer game anywhere I'd played. I'd be happy
to have that as an optional variant - but for it to be the default? Strikes
me as not the right way to do it, in my personal view only.

>The best approach, of course, it to ensure that all the players in
>your game agree ahead of time how you want to handle the "when does
>the defending player get named" question.

Oh yes - ANY time you're using House Rules, or variants, make sure in advance
everyone's clear on what you're doing. (This may be the Bronze Rule Of
Multiplayer...)

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.

 

[Guest]

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

<phil@ideastakingshape.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1121692626.411536.215030@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> This came up ina multiplayer game
> Player A : big fat creature
> Player B : A creature that can tap other creatures
> Player C : Propoganda.
>
> Player A wants to storm over and clobber player C with the big fat
> creature, but he doesn't want to risk player B tapping it and stopping
> him.
> So it becomes important when player A pays the propoganda costs. Does
> he declare attackers first, then pay. Or pay then declare attackers.
> Should the case be pay, then declare, could player A pay the costs more
> than once,if he needed to dump mana? I assume that whenever he pays
> the costs, player A has the option to not attack, or to attack player
> B. Would this be right, within the 'there are no rules for
> multiplayer' umbrella?
>
> In the event, we all agreed that Player A's intentions were fairly
> clear and Player C got a good clobbering.
>
> Thanks for your help.

Well, the simplest thing is to do this:

Player A declares his intention to attack (or actually, that he is entering
the combat phase). Player B's best time to decide whether or not to tap
Player A's Creature is now. Why?

- Later than this, and the creature will be tapped as soon as Player A
declares it as an attacker, unless it has Vigilance. Note that if the
creature has Vigilance, Player B tapping it will not do anything in respect
to removing it from combat; it will now look like a creature that doesn't
have Vigilance.

- Earlier than this, and Player A hasn't entered the combat phase yet, so
may still play other spells and abilities.

Whether he does or not, Player A then declares what creatures he will attack
with, tapping them, and pay all costs AT THE SAME TIME THEY ARE DECLARED. As
for handling Propaganda:

Propaganda
2U
Enchantment
Creatures can't attack you unless their controller pays 2 for each creature
attacking you. (This cost is paid as attackers are declared.)

The cost for attacking is 2 per creature per Propaganda. Payments on static
abilities are only paid once; there is no opportunity to pay more than once.
If you can't pay or choose not to pay, you can't do what the ability allows.
In this case, if Player A can't pay or isn't willing to pay the 2 per
Propaganda to allow his Creature to attack (which is paid at the time he
declares attackers), he can't attack.

'Nuff said?
Erich

 

[Guest]

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

Erich Leibrock <eleibrock@symDELETETHECAPSpatico.ca> wrote:
>Well, the simplest thing is to do this:
>
>Player A declares his intention to attack (or actually, that he is entering
>the combat phase). Player B's best time to decide whether or not to tap
>Player A's Creature is now. Why?
>
>- Later than this, and the creature will be tapped as soon as Player A
>declares it as an attacker, unless it has Vigilance. Note that if the
>creature has Vigilance, Player B tapping it will not do anything in respect
>to removing it from combat; it will now look like a creature that doesn't
>have Vigilance.

This last is if B waits for it to be declared as an attacker, and then taps
it, of course. Tapping or untapping an attacker or blocker does nothing at
all to remove it from combat...

>- Earlier than this, and Player A hasn't entered the combat phase yet, so
>may still play other spells and abilities.
>
>Whether he does or not, Player A then declares what creatures he will attack
>with, tapping them, and pay all costs AT THE SAME TIME THEY ARE DECLARED.

Whoa there, Tex. You are skipping somehow an entire step: beginning-of-combat
step. Declaring attackers is NOT the very next thing that happens after you
enter Combat phase. B has this entire step to tap A's creature(s) during...
and A can also do stuff during this step.

>The cost for attacking is 2 per creature per Propaganda. Payments on static
>abilities are only paid once; there is no opportunity to pay more than once.
>If you can't pay or choose not to pay, you can't do what the ability allows.
>In this case, if Player A can't pay or isn't willing to pay the 2 per
>Propaganda to allow his Creature to attack (which is paid at the time he
>declares attackers), he can't attack.

Right. And this is done as step -2- of Combat phase starts, declare-attackers
step. B can certainly tap creatures before this ... but if so, this is also
before any of them have been declared as attackers at all, and before B
actually knows which creature(s) A is going to try to attack with. (B may
-suspect- certain things very strongly, but won't know yet what is actually
going to be declared as the set of attackers.)

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.