Twiddle in the attack phase
True Names
that it couldn't attack. What exactly happened was this:
Player 1 declared the intention to attack and tapped a Senguir
Vampire.
Player 2 cast Twiddle to tap the Senguir Vampire.
So the Twiddle happens first, and then the Senguir Vampire can't
attack because it was tapped.
Because Twiddle is an instant and not an interrupt, I don't think
it could have stopped the attack once it was declaired. It would
have tapped the Vampire, but the attack still would have happened.
Does anyone know for sure whether I'm right or wrong?
--
In the darkness of future past ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The Magician longs to see. > Dave OHearn <
One chants out between two worlds, > ohe...@max.tiac.net <
"Fire, walk with me." - David Lynch, _Twin Peaks_ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Mark Phaedrus
> Recently, someone here twiddled an attacking creature to tap it so
> that it couldn't attack. What exactly happened was this:
>
> Player 1 declared the intention to attack and tapped a Senguir
> Vampire.
> Player 2 cast Twiddle to tap the Senguir Vampire.
> So the Twiddle happens first, and then the Senguir Vampire can't
> attack because it was tapped.
>
> Because Twiddle is an instant and not an interrupt, I don't think
> it could have stopped the attack once it was declaired. It would
> have tapped the Vampire, but the attack still would have happened.
> Does anyone know for sure whether I'm right or wrong?
I'm glad you asked; this is only the 483rd time this question has
been brought up. (Just kidding... but not by much. :-) )
You are right, but not for the reasons you're using. Please read the
glossary entry on "Attack" carefully. Spells and effects are _not legal_
during the "declare attackers" and "declare blockers" step. Declaring an
attacker or a blocker is not something that can be "interrupted" or
"responded to" with spells or effects.
If you Twiddle a creature so that it's already tapped before the
attack starts, you can prevent it from attacking, because a tapped
creature can't be declared as an attacker or blocker. But if you wait for
the "declare attackers" step to use the Twiddle, you can't use it at all
until the fast-effects step after "declare attackers", and by then it's
too late. You can tap/untap the attacker all you want at this point, but
it will make Absolutely No Difference. (There is a rule that tapped
blockers cannot deal damage; there is no such rule for attackers.)
--
\o\ If you're interested in books/stories with transformation themes,\o\
\o\please try <URL:http://www.halcyon.com/phaedrus/Menu.html>, or \o\
/o/anonymous-ftp to ftp.halcyon.com in /local/phaedrus/translist. /o/
/o/ Comments and submissions to this list are always welcome. /o/
Kyle Nishioka
: Recently, someone here twiddled an attacking creature to tap it so
: that it couldn't attack. What exactly happened was this:
: Player 1 declared the intention to attack and tapped a Senguir
: Vampire.
: Player 2 cast Twiddle to tap the Senguir Vampire.
: So the Twiddle happens first, and then the Senguir Vampire can't
: attack because it was tapped.
: Because Twiddle is an instant and not an interrupt, I don't think
: it could have stopped the attack once it was declaired. It would
: have tapped the Vampire, but the attack still would have happened.
: Does anyone know for sure whether I'm right or wrong?
The "declare intent to attack" is in the main before the attack phase
starts. It is not part of the attack and if the attack phase is halted
(by this I mean that someone is using a fast effect that s/he wants to
resolve before the attack commences), the main phase can be continued and
another "declare intent to attack" can begin.
If the attacking player wants to, s/he can continue with the attack with
no attakers, (ie. a null attack). S/he is in no way commited to attacking
once they declare their intent to attack.
--
Kyle
nk...@uhunix3.its.hawaii.edu
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
Cpaths
>FROM: John Palmer <jpa...@infinet.com>
>
>True Names (ohe...@tiac.net) wrote:
>: Player 1 declared the intention to attack and tapped a Senguir
>: Vampire.
>: Player 2 cast Twiddle to tap the Senguir Vampire.
>
>attacking, and tapping my Sengir") in which case player 2 gets to say "Wait
>a minute! Before you declare your attack, I have a fast effect to play!"
>
>or
>
> Player 1 gave player 2 a chance to react, player 2 didn't, and then
>player 1 tapped his Sengir, irrevokably putting the sengir in the attack
>(barring an effect that *SPECIFICALLY* removes the sengir from the attack).
>
> Twiddle doesn't say it removes something from the attack, and
>launching a tap effect at an already tapped-to-attack sengir doesn't do
>anything.
>
> Keep in mind that tapping a creature to attack is the payment of a
>cost, and nothing can interrupt the actual, honest to goodness "going from
>untapped to tapped state" effect.
As someone already pointed out, it's simpler than that, hope I have this
right:
(1) declare intention to attack.
(2) start the "declare attackers" subphase.
(3) tap the sengir.
At this point it is not legal to cast twiddle. During the
"declare attackers subphase, almost all effects and spells are illegal.
(4) NOW we have the fast effects subphase after declaring attackers.
It is now legal (and much too late) to use twiddle to tap the sengir.
- toby robison Critical Paths, Inc. p01...@psilink.com
John Palmer
Brian J.Cash
: Recently, someone here twiddled an attacking creature to tap it so
: that it couldn't attack. What exactly happened was this:
: Player 1 declared the intention to attack and tapped a Senguir
: Vampire.
: Player 2 cast Twiddle to tap the Senguir Vampire.
Note that this is not in response to the attack, but
rather it is telling Player 1 "Hey! I wasn't done with the
last phase yet! Please back play up to the point before
the attack so I can cast my spell. I cast Twiddle on your
untapped Vampire. OK, you can go on to the attack phase now."
: So the Twiddle happens first, and then the Senguir Vampire can't
: attack because it was tapped.
Yes. But not because of Last In First Out.
: Because Twiddle is an instant and not an interrupt, I don't think
: it could have stopped the attack once it was declaired. It would
: have tapped the Vampire, but the attack still would have happened.
: Does anyone know for sure whether I'm right or wrong?
It has nothing to do with interrupt vs instant. An attack is not
a fast effect. If Player 1 had said "I going to attack. Do you want
to do anything first?" and Player 2 responded with "No." and then
Player 1 tapped the Vampire to attack, the Twiddle would be useless.
Once a creature is declared for an attack, tapping/untapping it does
nothing to the attack/damage.
Brian /-|-\
--
To each, my own.
John Palmer
: As someone already pointed out, it's simpler than that, hope I have this
: right:
: (1) declare intention to attack.
: (2) start the "declare attackers" subphase.
: (3) tap the sengir.
: At this point it is not legal to cast twiddle. During the
: "declare attackers subphase, almost all effects and spells are illegal.
Actually, there's one thing you missed:
1) declare intention to attack, barring any fast effects by opponent.
Opponent may now cast twiddle to tap the Sengir, but this suspends the
declaration of the attack phase. That is, the Active Player could say
"well, okay, I'm not attacking now, after all."
Sally Houghton
|> (1) declare intention to attack.
|> (2) start the "declare attackers" subphase.
|> (3) tap the sengir.
|> At this point it is not legal to cast twiddle. During the
|> "declare attackers subphase, almost all effects and spells are illegal.
|> (4) NOW we have the fast effects subphase after declaring attackers.
|> It is now legal (and much too late) to use twiddle to tap the sengir.
|>
|> - toby robison Critical Paths, Inc. p01...@psilink.com
|>
|>
Surely it is legal to now use twiddle to un-tap the sangir vampire.
Therefore the vampire is no longer attacking.
As you can only attack once in a turn, it is out for the turn, yet it
can still block in the following turn(s).
Sally.
Ingo Kemper
: Cutting right to the point...
: |> (4) NOW we have the fast effects subphase after declaring attackers.
: |> It is now legal (and much too late) to use twiddle to tap the sengir.
: Surely it is legal to now use twiddle to un-tap the sangir vampire.
: Therefore the vampire is no longer attacking.
: As you can only attack once in a turn, it is out for the turn, yet it
: can still block in the following turn(s).
Nonsense. If you Twiddle the Vampire and untap him, he is still attacking.
Twiddle does not say anything about "stopping an attacking creature", and so
it doesn't. All you have done by untapping the Vampire: You gave your
opponent an additional creature to block with.
. __ __ __
__/_/|_/_/____/__|___ke...@uni-muenster.de____---===> \
/ / |/ |__/ |__/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---===>__/
Thomas Stuart Beeson
>|> (2) start the "declare attackers" subphase.
>|> (3) tap the sengir.
>|> At this point it is not legal to cast twiddle. During the
>|> "declare attackers subphase, almost all effects and spells are illegal.
>|> It is now legal (and much too late) to use twiddle to tap the sengir.
>|>
>Therefore the vampire is no longer attacking.
>As you can only attack once in a turn, it is out for the turn, yet it
>can still block in the following turn(s).
>
Not only would the Sengir still be able to attack, tapping at this point
does not remove it from the attack, but as you point out, it could now
block next turn. If you download the D'Angelo rulings summaries which are
posted regularly, you will find answers to many questions like the one
asked above.
Tom Beeson
Mike Marcelais
| Cutting right to the point...
| |> (1) declare intention to attack.
| |> (2) start the "declare attackers" subphase.
| |> (3) tap the sengir.
| |> At this point it is not legal to cast twiddle. During the
| |> "declare attackers subphase, almost all effects and spells are illegal.
| |> (4) NOW we have the fast effects subphase after declaring attackers.
| |> It is now legal (and much too late) to use twiddle to tap the sengir.
| |>
| |> - toby robison Critical Paths, Inc. p01...@psilink.com
| |>
| |>
| Surely it is legal to now use twiddle to un-tap the sangir vampire.
Yes.
| Therefore the vampire is no longer attacking.
Ah...no. Simply untapping (or tapping) an attacking creature does nothing
other than change the orientation of the card. The creature is still
attacking, will still deal damage, and still has all of it's abilities.
--
+------------------------+----------------------------+
| Mike Marcelais | mrma...@eos.ncsu.edu |
| Moonstone Dragon | Magic: The Gathering Judge |
| -==(UDIC)==- | Author of ChrHack 2.3 |
+-----------------------------------------------------+
Mark Phaedrus
(Sally Houghton) wrote:
> Cutting right to the point...
> |> (1) declare intention to attack.
> |> (2) start the "declare attackers" subphase.
> |> (3) tap the sengir.
> |> At this point it is not legal to cast twiddle. During the
> |> "declare attackers subphase, almost all effects and spells are illegal.
> |> (4) NOW we have the fast effects subphase after declaring attackers.
> |> It is now legal (and much too late) to use twiddle to tap the sengir.
> Surely it is legal to now use twiddle to un-tap the sangir vampire.
Sure; that's exactly what he said.
> Therefore the vampire is no longer attacking.
For the 378th time, false. Once An Attacker Has Been Legally
Declared, The Tapped/Untapped Status Of That Attacker Has Absolutely No
Impact On The Attack, And We Really Really Mean It. Tapped blockers do
not deal damage. There is no such rule for attackers. There never has
been such a rule for attackers.
Cpaths
>FROM: Sally Houghton <s...@wodin.phys.unsw.edu.au>
>
>Cutting right to the point...
>
>|> (1) declare intention to attack.
>|> (2) start the "declare attackers" subphase.
>|> (3) tap the sengir.
>|> At this point it is not legal to cast twiddle. During the
>|> "declare attackers subphase, almost all effects and spells are illegal.
>|> (4) NOW we have the fast effects subphase after declaring attackers.
>|> It is now legal (and much too late) to use twiddle to tap the sengir.
>|>
>can still block in the following turn(s).
>
>Sally.
In the fast effects after attackers are declardd, you can untap the
sengir with twidlde, but the vampire is still attacking.
ONLY a card that SAYS it removes a creature from the attack can remove
a creature from the attack after you declare it as an attacker.
David DeLaney
>Surely it is legal to now use twiddle to un-tap the sangir vampire.
Yes.
>Therefore the vampire is no longer attacking.
No. Tapping or untapping a combatant has _no effect on whether it is in
combat_. The Vampire is now untapped and attacking. Deal with it.
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. Disclaimer: IMHO; VRbeableURLAP
http://enigma.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Michael D. Phoenix
Brandon Wallace <bra...@criterion.com> wrote:
>On 8 Sep 1995, Sally Houghton wrote:
>
>=> Cutting right to the point...
>=>
>=>
>=> |> (1) declare intention to attack.
>=> |> (2) start the "declare attackers" subphase.
>=> |> (3) tap the sengir.
>=> |> At this point it is not legal to cast twiddle. During the
>=> |> "declare attackers subphase, almost all effects and spells are illegal.
>=> |> (4) NOW we have the fast effects subphase after declaring attackers.
>=> |> It is now legal (and much too late) to use twiddle to tap the sengir.
>=>
>=> Surely it is legal to now use twiddle to un-tap the sangir vampire.
Yes. Giving your opponent an untapped, attacking, damage-dealing
Sengir Vampire.
>=> Therefore the vampire is no longer attacking.
Bull. Twiddle says *nothing* about the attacking status of its
target, and the rulebook says nothing about "an attacker which becomes
untapped is no longer attacking."
>=> As you can only attack once in a turn, it is out for the turn, yet it
>=> can still block in the following turn(s).
>
>Can you post the relevant ruling which says the Sangir can't attack?
Nonesuch. He was wrong.
>As
>I understood it, there is no requirement that an attacker must be tapped to
>be part of combat. The only rule I noticed was that you must
>Tap an attacker when you declare it. There are lots creatures that
>attack while not tapped, and they are still part of combat. I thought
>that once you declare attackers, those attackers *will attack*, unless
>you 1) zap them into oblivion, 2) take control of them 3) play a card
>which says something like: attacking creature deals no damage this turn
Actually, cards which say "attacking creature deals no damage this
turn" (like Warning, Foxfire, and Maze of Ith) do not keep the
creature from attacking; they merely keep it from dealing damage. It
is still an attacking creature. So, for example, if it is lured, your
opponent must still block it with all of his creatures.
Lure a Saproling, attack with all of your Saprolings, Maze the lured
one--repeat as necessary.
Hope this helps,
Mickey.
Brandon Wallace
=> Cutting right to the point...
=>
=>
=> |> (1) declare intention to attack.
=> |> (2) start the "declare attackers" subphase.
=> |> (3) tap the sengir.
=> |> At this point it is not legal to cast twiddle. During the
=> |> "declare attackers subphase, almost all effects and spells are illegal.
=> |> (4) NOW we have the fast effects subphase after declaring attackers.
=> |> It is now legal (and much too late) to use twiddle to tap the sengir.
=> |>
=> |> - toby robison Critical Paths, Inc. p01...@psilink.com
=> |>
=> |>
=>
=> Surely it is legal to now use twiddle to un-tap the sangir vampire.
=> Therefore the vampire is no longer attacking.
=> As you can only attack once in a turn, it is out for the turn, yet it
=> can still block in the following turn(s).
Can you post the relevant ruling which says the Sangir can't attack? As
I understood it, there is no requirement that an attacker must be tapped to
be part of combat. The only rule I noticed was that you must
Tap an attacker when you declare it. There are lots creatures that
attack while not tapped, and they are still part of combat. I thought
that once you declare attackers, those attackers *will attack*, unless
you 1) zap them into oblivion, 2) take control of them 3) play a card
which says something like: attacking creature deals no damage this turn
--
Brandon Wallace
Nicholas | Applegate Capital Management
mailto:bm...@criterion.com http://www.criterion.com/home-pages/brandon
"I live life face down in the fast lane."
Operator Dude,2nd Floor,(716)834-0900x253,
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.950915095134.1710I-100000@achilles>,
>Brandon Wallace <bra...@criterion.com> wrote:
>>=> Surely it is legal to now use twiddle to un-tap the sangir vampire.
>Sengir Vampire.
>
>target, and the rulebook says nothing about "an attacker which becomes
>untapped is no longer attacking."
Oh, wow; I knew there was a reason I liked this group. I had never thought
of this; the above incorrect conclusion was so "obvious".
>Actually, cards which say "attacking creature deals no damage this
>turn" (like Warning, Foxfire, and Maze of Ith) do not keep the
>creature from attacking; they merely keep it from dealing damage. It
>is still an attacking creature. So, for example, if it is lured, your
>opponent must still block it with all of his creatures.
>
>Lure a Saproling, attack with all of your Saprolings, Maze the lured
>one--repeat as necessary.
Ok, ok, ok, so: the Saproling is still attacking, everybody still has to
block him, and he deals/receives damage normally, he just happens to be
untapped. Right?
This doesn't affect anything else, such as
- if he's blocked with a Basilisk, the Saproling still dies
- if the Saproling were a Royal Assassin or Tim, he could still poke
- if he were Marton Stromgald, all other attackers are still stupid big
(maybe; I don't recall the exact text)
- if he were a Preacher, he could still take control of opponent's dude
right? The only other things that would be affected were if an effect
said "this effect only works while creature is tapped" (and I can't think
of one off the top of my head that would apply here).
Jim Niemira | We secretly replaced the dilithium | "General Veers, you have |
Senior SysApe | crystals in the Enterprise with | failed me for the last |
www.fstrf.org | Folgers; let's see if they notice. | time." --Darth Vader |
--
Jim Niemira | We secretly replaced the dilithium | "General Veers, you have |
Senior SysApe | crystals in the Enterprise with | failed me for the last |
www.fstrf.org | Folgers; let's see if they notice. | time." --Darth Vader |
Michael D. Phoenix
Operator Dude,2nd Floor,(716)834-0900x253, <oper...@fstrf.org> wrote:
> Michael D. Phoenix wrote in article <43d3fj$b...@Radon.Stanford.EDU> :
>>In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.950915095134.1710I-100000@achilles>,
>>Brandon Wallace <bra...@criterion.com> wrote:
>>>On 8 Sep 1995, Sally Houghton wrote:
>[snip]
>>>=> Surely it is legal to now use twiddle to un-tap the sangir vampire.
>>Yes. Giving your opponent an untapped, attacking, damage-dealing
>>Sengir Vampire.
>>
>>>=> Therefore the vampire is no longer attacking.
>>Bull. Twiddle says *nothing* about the attacking status of its
>>target, and the rulebook says nothing about "an attacker which becomes
>>untapped is no longer attacking."
>
>Oh, wow; I knew there was a reason I liked this group. I had never thought
>of this; the above incorrect conclusion was so "obvious".
I swear, Maze of Ith has caused more misunderstanding of the rules
than any other card except the line "No effects are generated by
target card" on the old Icy Manipulator, and the removal of that line
on the new one...:-)
Yes...Maze of Ith only keeps a creature from dealing/receiving damage
because it *says* it does, not because it untaps that creature.
>>Actually, cards which say "attacking creature deals no damage this
>>turn" (like Warning, Foxfire, and Maze of Ith) do not keep the
>>creature from attacking; they merely keep it from dealing damage. It
>>is still an attacking creature. So, for example, if it is lured, your
>>opponent must still block it with all of his creatures.
>>
>>Lure a Saproling, attack with all of your Saprolings, Maze the lured
>>one--repeat as necessary.
>
>Ok, ok, ok, so: the Saproling is still attacking, everybody still has to
>block him, and he deals/receives damage normally, he just happens to be
>untapped. Right?
Well, almost. He *doesn't* deal/receive damage normally (this is
probably what you meant). But yes, he's still attacking, and
everybody still has to block him, and he just happens to be untapped.
The only time tappedness matters is for blockers; a tapped blocker
does not deal damage, although it still receives damage as normal.
>This doesn't affect anything else, such as
>- if he's blocked with a Basilisk, the Saproling still dies
Yep! And if you attack with a Lured Basilisk, and then Maze it, then:
1) everything still has to block it.
2) it takes no damage from said "everything".
3) everything that blocks it dies.
4) it doesn't die (unless there's a Basilisk blocking it or something,
which is why you put Regeneration on your Basilisk too...:-)
>- if the Saproling were a Royal Assassin or Tim, he could still poke
Yes! Exactly! He's an untapped creature, and can do just about
anything he wants that an untapped creature can normally do.
>- if he were Marton Stromgald, all other attackers are still stupid big
> (maybe; I don't recall the exact text)
Actually, that's true of Marton even if he is removed from the attack
or dies. The bonus he gives to the creatures happens in the Declare
Attackers step (when just about all effects are illegal, including
most if not all effects that would get rid of Marton), and lasts until
the end of turn regardless of what happens to Marton.
In fact, Maze/Marton is a wonderful combination.
You can:
1) attack with Marton
2) block with Marton on the next turn
3) if Marton is still alive, go back to step 1 on your next turn.
More wonderful yet is Marton/Karakas (because it allows you to get
Marton out of other sorts of danger, and is useful against your
opponent's legends as well). It allows you to:
1) attack with Marton
2) remove Marton from the attack (and from danger)
3) re-cast Marton when the attack is over
4) block with Marton on the next turn
5) if marton is still alive, go back to step 1 on your next turn.
And Maze/Karakas/Marton is just unholy, because you can
1) Attack with Marton
2) Preserve (and untap) Marton with the Maze
3) Block with Marton
4) Remove Marton from danger with Karakas.
Evil, no? *grin*
And if you had Concordant Crossroads out, you could do this every turn...:-)
>- if he were a Preacher, he could still take control of opponent's dude
Yes.
>right? The only other things that would be affected were if an effect
>said "this effect only works while creature is tapped" (and I can't think
>of one off the top of my head that would apply here).
Nor I.
You've got the idea right.
Hope this helps,
Mickey.
John Palmer
: >
: >Lure a Saproling, attack with all of your Saprolings, Maze the lured
: >one--repeat as necessary.
: Ok, ok, ok, so: the Saproling is still attacking, everybody still has to
: block him, and he deals/receives damage normally, he just happens to be
: untapped. Right?
No, the maze of ith 1) untaps the attacking creature if tapped, and
2) prevents the creature from dealing or receiving damage.