Two creatures with Lure

[Dave]

Hi all,

If I attack a player with two creatures, both of which have Lure
on them, and my opponent has only one blocker, who gets to
determine which of my creatures he must block, me or my opponent?

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

- Dave
Magic: The Gathering card singles
http://www.destinationmtg.com

[Maz]

Post by Dave
Hi all,
If I attack a player with two creatures, both of which have Lure
on them, and my opponent has only one blocker, who gets to
determine which of my creatures he must block, me or my opponent?
Lure {1}{G}{G}
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant creature
All creatures able to block enchanted creature do so.
- Dave
Magic: The Gathering card singles
http://www.destinationmtg.com

It's your opponent's choice which of them he wants to block.
Both creatures have got the same blocking requirement and only one of
those can be followed (unless your opponent's creature can block more
than one creature. If this is the case he has to block both lured
creatures).
Compare Rule 500. Legal Attacks and Blocks

[Risser]

The simple answer is, the defending player chooses, which is pretty
much what you'd expect. *Why* they choose is a little more
complicated, but it boils down to:
***
309.2a The defending player chooses zero or more creatures he or she
controls, chooses one attacking creature for each one to block, then
determines whether this set of blocks is legal. Only untapped creatures
can block, but blocking does not cause creatures to tap. Other effects
may also affect whether or not a set of creatures could block.
***
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.
***
As you can see, it's up to the defending player to present a game-legal
set of blockers, that obeys all the restrictions and meets as many of
the requirements as possible.

In your case, since blocking either creature satisfies one requirement,
and there is no way to satisfy both requirements, either way is legal.

Peter


PS: Out of curiosity, to the rules gurus, what if one of those
creatures was vanilla (say, Hill Giant) and one had built-in Lure (say,
Taunting Elf)? Would you be forced to block the Elf, because you'd be
satisfying two requirements vs. one with the Hill Giant? Just
wondering.

[David DeLaney]

Post by Risser
PS: Out of curiosity, to the rules gurus, what if one of those
creatures was vanilla (say, Hill Giant) and one had built-in Lure (say,
Taunting Elf)? Would you be forced to block the Elf, because you'd be
satisfying two requirements vs. one with the Hill Giant? Just wondering.

Very good question, actually. In this case the blocker must block the Lured
Elf, because doing so fulfills two requirements and denies one, whereas
blocking the Lured Bears fulfills one requirement and denies two.

Dave

[phat_joe]

Post by David DeLaney
Very good question, actually. In this case the blocker must block the Lured
Elf, because doing so fulfills two requirements and denies one, whereas
blocking the Lured Bears fulfills one requirement and denies two.

Not that these situations would ever come up in a real game anyway, but

How exactly did you get that? I see nothing about fulfilling as many
requirements as possible. In fact, the only thing I can see there seems
to indicate that you would end up in an infinite loop trying to satisfy
two Lures:

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.

Creatures A and B both have Lure and attack me. I have creature C. I
declare creature C as a blocker for creature A. I check creature C and
see that it must block creature A and must block creature B. B's lure
conflicts with the proposed set of blocking creatures, the block is
illegal, and I must propose another set of blocking creatures. I will
never be able to satisfy the requirements.

Unless we are saying that Lure's "must block if able" accounts for the
other Lure, by deciding that creature C is not "able" to block B once
it's been declared as a blocker for A. But if that is the case, I see no
reason why two Lures or even 100 Lures would make any difference in
which I choose. I declare C as a blocker for A, it is no longer "able"
to block B, and B's 100 Lures don't mind. I don't think you can have it
both ways. But I don't think that's what "able" means anyway.

/joe

[David DeLaney]

Post by phat_joe

Post by David DeLaney
Very good question, actually. In this case the blocker must block the Lured
Elf, because doing so fulfills two requirements and denies one, whereas
blocking the Lured Bears fulfills one requirement and denies two.

Not that these situations would ever come up in a real game anyway, but
How exactly did you get that? I see nothing about fulfilling as many
requirements as possible. In fact, the only thing I can see there seems
to indicate that you would end up in an infinite loop trying to satisfy

Nope. "Two Lures and no other requirements" gives you two different legal
blocking declarations; each is as legal as the other, since each satisfies
one requirement and denies the other - neither satisfies _more_ requirements
than the other, so neither is "less legal".

Remember, the Elf above was a _Taunting_ Elf, which has its own innate Lure
ability - so a Lured Taunting Elf imposes _two_ requirements that eah
creature block it if able, not one. (One from the Elf's ability; one from
the Lure's ability.) A Lured Grizzly Bears only imposes one.

And there is indeed a rules-based need to satisfy as many requirements as
possible:

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.

Post by phat_joe
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.

Didn't look far enough down, I think; 500.4/5 go into what "conflicts with"
means.

Post by phat_joe
Creatures A and B both have Lure and attack me. I have creature C. I
declare creature C as a blocker for creature A. I check creature C and
see that it must block creature A and must block creature B. B's lure
conflicts with the proposed set of blocking creatures, the block is
illegal, and I must propose another set of blocking creatures. I will
never be able to satisfy the requirements.

You're not looking at "conflicts with"'s definition. It does NOT say "if any
requirements at all are not met, the proposed blocking declaration conflicts
with those requirements". It allows some requirements not to be met IF by
doing so an equal or greater number _are_ met. (Note that you have to abide
by all restrictions regardless; you can't get out of a _restriction_ by
invoking another restriction.)

So ignoring one Lure to follow another does NOT conflict; you won't _increase_
the number of requirements fulfilled by reversing this. Ignoring _two_ Lure
effects to follow one _does_ conflict... because doing it the other way
round satisfies more requirements (two, with one denied, versus one satisfied
with two denied).

In other words, with just two Lures, neither declaration is _better than_
the other one at making you follow _more_ requirements - so neither one
conflicts with the requirements by denying one of them. With two Lure effects
on one attacker and one on the other, "block the one with two Lure effects
affecting me" satisfies more requirements than the other blocking declarations
- so it's the only legal declaration.

Does that make more sense now?

Dave

[phat_joe]

Post by David DeLaney
Does that make more sense now?

Yes, definitely. I had only seen the snippets of the applicable rules
that had been posted in this thread, rather than looked to the actual
comprehensive rules list. Since the thing about multiple requirements is
explicitly mentioned, I'm a lot more satisfied.

/joe

[David DeLaney]

Post by phat_joe

Post by David DeLaney
Does that make more sense now?

Yes, definitely. I had only seen the snippets of the applicable rules
that had been posted in this thread, rather than looked to the actual
comprehensive rules list. Since the thing about multiple requirements is
explicitly mentioned, I'm a lot more satisfied.

Cool.

(Though it _is_ somewhat dry reading these days - long gone are the days when
Named_Person_1 and Named-Person_2 fought example duels in the rulebook pages -
the rulebook _does_ have a great deal of applicable stuff in it, and generally
you'll find stuff you didn't know nearly every time you read through it.)

Dave

[David DeLaney]

Post by Dave
If I attack a player with two creatures, both of which have Lure
on them, and my opponent has only one blocker, who gets to
determine which of my creatures he must block, me or my opponent?

Opponent does. He decides which blocker(s) block which attacker(s), subject to
constraints, restrictions, and requirements. He then takes his proposed set
of blockers and what they block, and sees if it's legal. You don't get to
decide who blocks your attacking creatures what unless some effect is telling
you to, like Melee or ... okay, maybe Melee is the only thing that does in
general. Provoke can also do such a thing, in a way.

With the given restrictions/requirements - two "Each creature must block this
if able", one on each attacker - there are two legal blocking declarations
for this one blocker: it blocks attacker A; or it blocks attacker B. Defending
player chooses one of these two legal blocking declarations; attacking player
sits and watches.

(It can't sit out, unless it is _unable_ to block both of them. If it's unable
to block one, it has to block the other if able. If it's _able_ to block both
at once, it must do so, but usually blockers can't do this.)

Dave

[Dave]

Post by David DeLaney

Post by Dave
If I attack a player with two creatures, both of which have Lure
on them, and my opponent has only one blocker, who gets to
determine which of my creatures he must block, me or my opponent?

Opponent does. He decides which blocker(s) block which attacker(s), subject to
constraints, restrictions, and requirements. He then takes his proposed set
of blockers and what they block, and sees if it's legal. You don't get to
decide who blocks your attacking creatures what unless some effect is telling
you to, like Melee or ... okay, maybe Melee is the only thing that does in
general. Provoke can also do such a thing, in a way.

(snip)

Thanks everyone for the answers!

- Dave