Gorilla Berserkes + Lure
Ingo Warnke
What happens if a Lured Gorilla Berserker attacks and the defender has
3 creatures that would be able to block it (barring the restriction imposed
by the Berserkers)?
Must the defender block with all three or can he just try to assign the
first creature, see that this doesn't work and proceed similiarly with the
other creatures?
Ingo Warnke
David DeLaney
They must all three block, and they must all three block simultaneously
[since if you _had_ to assign them one by one the Berserker never _could_
get blocked]. Same as the three-Orcish-Conscripts question - they can block
as a group by themselves.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu "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://enigma.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Ingo Warnke
David DeLaney (d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu) wrote:
: nfa...@hp1.uni-rostock.de (Ingo Warnke) writes:
: >What happens if a Lured Gorilla Berserker attacks and the defender has
: >3 creatures that would be able to block it (barring the restriction imposed
: >by the Berserkers)?
: >
: >Must the defender block with all three or can he just try to assign the
: >first creature, see that this doesn't work and proceed similiarly with the
: >other creatures?
: They must all three block, and they must all three block simultaneously
: [since if you _had_ to assign them one by one the Berserker never _could_
: get blocked]. Same as the three-Orcish-Conscripts question - they can block
: as a group by themselves.
I don't debate that 3 creatures can block, the question is if they have to.
The must attack/block rules are more a set of rulings than actual rules.
For instance, if I have several must attackers that can attack simultaniously,
do I have to declare them in one step? This would be the analogous question
for attackers.
The latest ruling about Ekundu Cyclops seems to support this idea, but it
is usually hard to derive exact rules from just one card ruling.
Ingo Warnke
David Johnson
nfa...@hp1.uni-rostock.de (Ingo Warnke) wrote:
>David DeLaney (d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu) wrote:
>: nfa...@hp1.uni-rostock.de (Ingo Warnke) writes:
>: >What happens if a Lured Gorilla Berserker attacks and the defender has
>: >3 creatures that would be able to block it (barring the restriction imposed
>: >by the Berserkers)?
>: >
>: >Must the defender block with all three or can he just try to assign the
>: >first creature, see that this doesn't work and proceed similiarly with the
>: >other creatures?
>: They must all three block, and they must all three block simultaneously
>: [since if you _had_ to assign them one by one the Berserker never _could_
>: get blocked]. Same as the three-Orcish-Conscripts question - they can block
>: as a group by themselves.
>I don't debate that 3 creatures can block, the question is if they have to.
>The must attack/block rules are more a set of rulings than actual rules.
I agree with Dave - they must block.
>For instance, if I have several must attackers that can attack simultaniously,
>do I have to declare them in one step? This would be the analogous question
>for attackers.
It isn't quite the same [I hope] because I'd say that these guys
don't have to be declared in one go.
>The latest ruling about Ekundu Cyclops seems to support this idea, but it
>is usually hard to derive exact rules from just one card ruling.
What ruling is that? I thought the EC was a mess of not-quite-accurate
enough rulings.
The thing to remember about the combat assignment rulings is that
they are all phrased one way, but _actually_ work in a slightly
different way. This can be a little confusing [!!]
If you just completely ignore the concept of multiple assignment
opportunities you'll find it all works out the same [almost all the
time] and is much easier to figure.
I have no idea why they bothered to have multiple assignment
possibilities. Dave - why not ask Tom to ditch the whole
concept ?
David
David DeLaney
dav...@msol.u-net.com writes:
>If you just completely ignore the concept of multiple assignment
>opportunities you'll find it all works out the same [almost all the
>time] and is much easier to figure.
>
>I have no idea why they bothered to have multiple assignment
>possibilities. Dave - why not ask Tom to ditch the whole concept ?
It dates back to Ice Age, actually; the Goblin Conscripts pushed part of it
into being, because they wanted three GCs on their own to be able to attack
or block ... and the Kjeldoran Guards, with their specialized effects usable
during declare-attackers or declare-blockers, pushed the other part, because
they wanted these to be able to be used in between attacker or blocker
declarations. So they ended up saying you could declare sequentially,
simultaneously, or in any combo [after some hemming and hawing of course].
Then the must-attack creatures got mixed into the plot, and they decided that
the easiest way to reconcile them with Errantry, for instance, or Caverns of
Despair, was to have any must-attack creatures be necessarily declared _first_,
before any optional-attack creatures could be, just in case there was some
limit on how many creatures could attack.
David DeLaney
nfa...@hp1.uni-rostock.de (Ingo Warnke) writes:
>David DeLaney (d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu) wrote:
>: They must all three block, and they must all three block simultaneously
>: [since if you _had_ to assign them one by one the Berserker never _could_
>: get blocked]. Same as the three-Orcish-Conscripts question - they can block
>: as a group by themselves.
>
>I don't debate that 3 creatures can block, the question is if they have to.
>The must attack/block rules are more a set of rulings than actual rules.
Lure makes everything block that can block. It doesn't require things that
are being prevented from blocking unless a cost is paid to have the cost
paid ... but if it takes several blocking at once to block, and you have that
several available, then those several are all forced to block at once.
>For instance, if I have several must attackers that can attack simultaniously,
>do I have to declare them in one step?
No, you don't ... but you must declare all of them that can attack before
you can start declaring any optional-attack creatures.
>This would be the analogous question for attackers.
Not quite. The analogous question would involve must-attack Goblin Conscripts,
which can _only_ attack in bunches. If you've got three Nettled Conscripts
and nothing else ... then they must attack, and must all be declared at once
since otherwise they couldn't attack. There's no cost to pay, but you do
have to get the ordering right.
If you also had some optional-attack creatures, they couldn't be declared as
attackers before the Nettled Conscripts were, so couldn't "jump in first" to
clear the way for declaring separate Conscript attacks...
David Johnson
d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu (David DeLaney) wrote:
>dav...@msol.u-net.com writes:
>>If you just completely ignore the concept of multiple assignment
>>opportunities you'll find it all works out the same [almost all the
>>time] and is much easier to figure.
>>
>>I have no idea why they bothered to have multiple assignment
>>possibilities. Dave - why not ask Tom to ditch the whole concept ?
>It dates back to Ice Age, actually;
It dates back a lot further than that. Perhaps you mean it wasn't
useful before then. I agree, but it wasn't useful _after_ then either.
>any must-attack creatures be necessarily declared _first_,
>before any optional-attack creatures could be, just in case there
>was some limit on how many creatures could attack.
That's not true either. You can declare them at the same time as
OR earlier.
There is no reason for the multiple assignment opportunities.
No one uses them. They are pointlessly complex. The rulings
all work out the same as ignoring them.
David
David Johnson
d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu (David DeLaney) wrote:
>No, you don't ... but you must declare all of them that can attack before
>you can start declaring any optional-attack creatures.
No. see p49 Mirage
>>This would be the analogous question for attackers.
>Not quite. The analogous question would involve must-attack Goblin Conscripts,
>which can _only_ attack in bunches. If you've got three Nettled Conscripts
>and nothing else ... then they must attack, and must all be declared at once
>since otherwise they couldn't attack.
They could actually be declared in separate assignment steps.
>If you also had some optional-attack creatures, they couldn't be declared as
>attackers before the Nettled Conscripts were, so couldn't "jump in first" to
>clear the way for declaring separate Conscript attacks...
They could if you assigned them in the same step as the
Conscripts [p49 again].
David
David DeLaney
dav...@msol.u-net.com writes:
>d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu (David DeLaney) wrote:
>>No, you don't ... but you must declare all of them that can attack before
>>you can start declaring any optional-attack creatures.
>
>No. see p49 Mirage
Yep, I see ... and checking the Rulings shows they're supporting that _except_
in the cases where it would matter: when you're limited on what can attack.
If you've got some limit, then you can't declare optional-attackers as a
way to stop must-attackers from attacking... so even if you declare them
at the same time, you still have to "first" go for the must-attack things.
They have priority in being picked as declared attackers, in other words,
even if it's not temporal priority...
They slipped this one in on me - the last time I had checked, must-attack
_was_ still strictly before optional-attack, and ditto for blocking...