Master Warcraft Question.

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
I want to know what exactly the card Master Warcraft does.  It says:

Cast Master Warcraft only before attackers are declared.

You choose which creatures attack this turn.
You choose how each creature blocks this turn.

The problem is on player A's turn, he played this before he attacked. After player A declared his attackers, he said that because of this card, he then gets to then declare which of player B's creatures block.

I belive that the answer is in the cards txt. it says, "which creatures attack" but it says "how each creature blocks" meaning that player A does NOT get to declare who the blockers are, just which attacking creatures they block. i. e. How they block

am I correct?

The problem is on player A's turn, he played this before he attacked. After player A declared his attackers, he said that because of this card, he then gets to then declare which of player B's creatures block.

I belive that the answer is in the cards txt. it says, "which creatures attack" but it says "how each creature blocks" meaning that player A does NOT get to declare who the blockers are, just which attacking creatures they block. i. e. How they block

am I correct?

Player A is correct. When Master Warcraft says he gets to choose "how each creature blocks", this includes both whether it blocks and which creature or creatures it blocks.
No, it's the other way round. You only get to choose which creatures attack, not how they attack (Planeswalkers, which player in multiplayer). But you get to decide everything for the blocking creatures (which block or not, how they block, etc.).

DCI Level 2 Judge

 

"That's what's so stupid about the whole magic thing, you know," Rincewind said. "You spend twenty years learning the spell that makes nude virgins appear in your bedroom, and then you're so poisoned by quicksilver fumes and half-blind from reading old grimoires that you can't remember what happens next."

- Terry Pratchett, The Colour Of Magic

So what you're telling me is that a four mana card allows one player complete control of both his own declare attackers and then gets to declare the other players defenders?
So what you're telling me is that a four mana card allows one player complete control of both his own declare attackers and then gets to declare the other players defenders?

yes, though in multiplayer you could make Player B's creatures attack, but he'd choose where they go (you'd still get to choose what blocks)

DCI Certified Judge & Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJ
DJ Vortex

DCI Certified Judge since July 13, 2013
DCI #5209514320


My Wife's Makeup Artist Page <-- cool stuff - check it out

So what you're telling me is that a four mana card allows one player complete control of both his own declare attackers and then gets to declare the other players defenders?



well, you get control of your own declare attackers for free

the card allows you to EITHER:
choose which of your opponent's creatures block - and if they do block, which attackers they block (if cast during your turn).
or
choose which of your opponent's creatures attack (if cast during your opponent's turn).

(In a multiplayer game against player B and C, if you cast it during player B's turn, you can choose which creatures controlled by B attack; player B chooses whether to attack you or player C; you get to choose which of player C's creatures block and which attackers attacking player C they block)
M:tG Rules Adviser
So what you're telling me is that a four mana card allows one player complete control of both his own declare attackers and then gets to declare the other players defenders?


This is news?

Zammm = Batman.

It's my sig in a box
58280208 wrote:
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
192334281 wrote:
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
57092228 wrote:
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
56995928 wrote:
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul: Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay." I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board. Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
144543765 wrote:
195392035 wrote:
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
117639611 wrote:
198869283 wrote:
Oh I have a standing rule. If someone plays a Planeswalker I concede the game. I refuse to play with or against people who play Planeswalkers. They really did ruin the game.
A turn two Tibalt win?! Wicked... Betcha don't see that everyday.

The Pony Co. 

Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
57461258 wrote:
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
57461258 wrote:
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
57461258 wrote:
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
92481331 wrote:
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now. O' Jesus Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle. Amen.
92481331 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic, giving you time to set up your silly combo. Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
[quote=ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.[/quote]
56756068 wrote:
56786788 wrote:
.....would it be a bit blasphemous if I said, "PRAYSE RPJAYSUS!" like an Evangelical preacher?
Perhaps, but who doesn't like to blaspheme every now and again? Especially when Mr. RPJesus is completely right.
56756068 wrote:
I don't say this often, but ... LOL
57526128 wrote:
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster... Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil. And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
57042968 wrote:
111809331 wrote:
I'm trying to work out if you're being sarcastic here. ...
Am going to stop you right there... it's RPJesus... he's always sarcastic
58335208 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
112114441 wrote:
we can only hope it gets the jace treatment...it could have at least been legendary
So that even the decks that don't run it run it to deal with it? Isn't that like the definition of format warping?
I lol'd.
56287226 wrote:
98088088 wrote:
Uktabi Orangutan What the heck's going on with those monkeys?
The most common answer is that they are what RPJesus would call "[Debutantes avert your eyes]ing."
56965458 wrote:
Show
57461258 wrote:
116498949 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_... Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right? Right.
57545908 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
58397368 wrote:
58222628 wrote:
This just won the argument, AFAIC.
That's just awesome.
57471038 wrote:
57718868 wrote:
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players. And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it. He/It got me with Light of Sanction, which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
71235715 wrote:
+10
100176878 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
57078538 wrote:
heaven or hell.
Round 1. Lets rock.
GG quotes! RPJesus just made this thread win!
56906968 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
143359585 wrote:
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad, things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed.
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
On what flavor text fits me:
57307308 wrote:
Surely RPJesus gets Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius?
56874518 wrote:
First: I STILL can't take you seriously with that avatar. And I can take RPJesus seriously, so that's saying something.
121689989 wrote:
I'd offer you a cookie for making me laugh but it has an Upkeep Cost that has been known to cause people to quit eating.
56267956 wrote:
I <3 you loads
57400888 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
"AINT NO LAWS IN THE SKY MOTHER****." - Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran
10/10. Amazing.
I came here from this thread: Mtg Salvation Forums - Master Warcraft, expecting some more elucidating commentary on the subject, rather than, essentially, "no, this is what it means."

The rules in question:

602.3. As the attacking player declares each attacking creature, he or she chooses a defending player for it to attack. See rule 308, "Declare Attackers Step."

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 For each untapped creature the active player controls that he or she has controlled continuously since the beginning of the turn or that has haste, that player either chooses not to attack with it, or chooses an opponent or a planeswalker controlled by an opponent for that creature to attack. Then he or she determines whether this set of attackers is legal. (See rule 500, "Legal Attacks and Blocks.")


In that thread, rule 602.3 was used to argue that Master Warcraft does not allow its controller to determine which player or planeswalker each creature would attack, and rule 308.2 was used to argue the opposite.

In all honesty, since the choice of who/what to attack is made "as the the attacking player declares each attacking creature," it seems inseparable from choosing whether a creature attacks or not. In that case, it agrees perfectly with rule 308.2a, which portrays the same inseparability of those choices.

In other words,

MW says: You choose which creatures attack this turn.

The rules then say: as that choice is made, choose who or what it's going to attack (this choice either resides with the one who made the choice of whether the creature will attack, or it is controlled by the attacking player regardless)

The Gatherer ruling says: If the defending player controls a planeswalker, the person who cast Master Warcraft first chooses the complete group of creatures that are going to attack. Then, for each of those creatures, the active player chooses who or what it's going to attack. (and then this ruling throws all the previous reasoning out the window when it says, 1) If the defending player (wait we chose who the defending player was?) controls a planeswalker (so, we split the choice 308.2a into a hierarchichal decision tree of which player, then if that player controls a planeswalker, "to the Jace or to the face?") and 2)the choice of what a creature attacks isn't made when it is chosen as an attacker, but as a separate step after all attackers are declared??)

If one argues those choices are separable, it seems like you couldn't argue that choosing "how a creature blocks" is tantamount to choosing _whether that creature blocks_.

Now I'm really confused.

Just because one is a judge or a rules advisor does not mean that their word is inerrant. I'd love a clarification of this card that includes a well-reasoned argument explaining the aformentioned rules and how to properly apply them, especially if that explanation includes examples of other similar cards.

Hard mode: explain why choosing how each creature blocks requires the controller of Master Warcraft to choose which creatures block, _and why that is different from the first clause_.

Expert Mode: explain how the current functionality differs from the original functionality, given that the card was printed before both multiplayer and planeswalkers were part of the comprehensive rules.

This is all very relevant because this card sees a lot of play in EDH/Commander.

Thanks!
First off, you're quoting some fairly old rules there (probably because that MTGSalvation thread is over 3 years old). This is a link to the current Comp Rules: www.wizards.com/magic/comprules/MagicCom...

As for the Warcraft, it does two things: it lets you choose which creatures will attack that turn, and it lets you choose which creatures the defending player will block with (and how they will block). That's all it does. It does not say anything about letting you choose what those creatures will attack, so its still the active player's choice as to what each of those creatures are attacking. From the current Comp Rules:

Show

508.1. First, the active player declares attackers. This turn-based action doesn't use the stack. 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 is illegal; the game returns to the moment before the declaration (see rule 715, "Handling Illegal Actions").

508.1a The active player chooses which creatures that he or she controls, if any, will attack. The chosen creatures must be untapped, and each one must either have haste or have been controlled by the active player continuously since the turn began.

508.1b If the defending player controls any planeswalkers, or the game allows the active player to attack multiple other players, the active player announces which player or planeswalker each of the chosen creatures is attacking.

508.1c The active player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether it's affected by any restrictions (effects that say a creature can't attack, or that it can't attack unless some condition is met). If any restrictions are being disobeyed, the declaration of attackers is illegal. Example: A player controls two creatures, each with a restriction that states "[This creature] can't attack alone." It's legal to declare both as attackers.

508.1d The active player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether it's affected by any requirements (effects that say a creature must attack, or that it must attack if some condition is met). If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximum possible number of requirements that could be obeyed without disobeying any restrictions, the declaration of attackers is illegal. If a creature can't attack unless a player pays a cost, that player is not required to pay that cost, even if attacking with that creature would increase the number of requirements being obeyed. Example: A player controls two creatures: one that "attacks if able" and one with no abilities. An effect states "No more than one creature can attack each turn." The only legal attack is for just the creature that "attacks if able" to attack. It's illegal to attack with the other creature, attack with both, or attack with neither.

508.1e If any of the chosen creatures have banding or a "bands with other" ability, the active player announces which creatures, if any, are banded with which. (See rule 702.19, "Banding.")

508.1f The active player taps the chosen creatures. Tapping a creature when it's declared as an attacker isn't a cost; attacking simply causes creatures to become tapped.

508.1g If any of the chosen 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.

508.1h If any of the costs require mana, the active player then has a chance to activate mana abilities (see rule 605, "Mana Abilities"). 508.1i 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.

508.1j Each chosen creature still controlled by the active player becomes an attacking creature. It remains an attacking creature until it's removed from combat or the combat phase ends, whichever comes first. See rule 506.4.

508.2. Second, any abilities that triggered on attackers being declared go on the stack. (See rule 603, "Handling Triggered Abilities.")

508.2a Abilities that trigger on a creature attacking trigger only at the point the creature is declared as an attacker. They will not trigger if a creature attacks and then that creature's characteristics change to match the ability's trigger condition. Example: A permanent has the ability "Whenever a green creature attacks, destroy that creature at end of combat." If a blue creature attacks and is later turned green, the ability will not trigger.

508.3. Third, the active player gets priority. Players may cast spells and activate abilities


As you can see in those rules, choosing what creatures are attacking and choose what each of those creatures will attack are two different steps. The Warcraft only affects who makes the choice in 508.1a, not who make choices in 508.1b or any step after that.

And this has been rules this way pretty much since Ravnica came out. This is from Mark Gottlieb (Rules Manager at the time), about a month after Ravnica came out:

Here's the [O]fficial answer from our Rules Manager, Mark Gottlieb:
----------
"It doesn't include banding, and it doesn't include which player each
creature will attack.
The player who plays Master Warcraft chooses which creatures attack,
which is 308.2a. This isn't the same as actually declaring those
creatures as attackers, which is 308.2 in its entirety. The active
player is still the one responsible for that. So, the relevant rules
excerpts:
502.10b As a player declares attackers, he or she may declare that any
number of those creatures with banding, and up to one of those creatures
without banding, are all in a "band."
602.3. As the attacking player declares each attacking creature, he or
she chooses a defending player for it to attack.
The active player retains those decisions as he or she makes the attack
declarations."
----------

Wizards.Com Boards Net Rep

DCI Level 2 Judge

Questions don't have to make sense, but answers do.

That's much clearer now!

Thank you for including Mark Gottlieb's commentary on the card. Where'd you get that?