Community

Apr 12, 2010 -- 5:31PM, IronMagus wrote:

Apr 12, 2010 -- 5:19PM, paegun wrote:

i was actually posting that the way to resolve the problem is to make it manditory to declare combat

And we are just telling you that it's not a problem that needs resolving.  The active player always has the opportunity to announce combat before he begins tapping attackers.  Always.  He can do that every time, if he wants to.  If he declines that opportunity, then yes he gives up a small amount of advantage to the other player, but it's not like it's detrimental to the other guy either way.  Only the attacker is suffering here, and that only happens if he declines to do what he could have done in the first place.

I know..i know....im not fighting for it to be implemented, i just brought it to everyones attention...i can understand based on my first few posts how it may have seemed that i was bothered by the rules in some fashion and wanted them to be changed...i was trying to point something out, and saying the only way for it to never ever happen was to make declaring combat manditory...i know its not the biggest deal ever

Apr 12, 2010 -- 4:49PM, paegun wrote:

so its not an advantage compared to knowing who they want to attack with

I would argue it's not really an advantage at all to see who they want to attack with. Because if the game is rewound to Beginning of Combat, and the opponent takes an action, then the attacker is no longer bound to his choices. You might learn what he MEANT to do in the absence of interference, but you still don't know what he's GOING to do.

At best, the defender gets a small advantage by knowing with certainty that there was an attack planned, so the mana spent to keep someone out is worthwhile. Given that it would normally be fairly obvious if an attack should be coming anyway, this advantage is negligible.

 

Apr 13, 2010 -- 10:02AM, Wallnut wrote:

Thank you for the depth of all your answers.
It's only casual play, we're not going to be announcing or giving permission to continue after each phase/step... it was just a quick friendly game, but I guess that's where the problem lies.

The real issue I had with Flood, (or any other tap creature card) was that my opponent was using it after knowing what creatures I chose to attack with then backing up the game and tapping said creatures, (he admits to this, and claims its legal play).

Thanks again for your heated discussions

Bottom line:

As the active player, you're entitled to know whether the guy with Flood intends to use it before announcing which creatures you plan to attack with. If you get explicit agreement that your opponent is ready for you to declare attackers, then he can't back up and change his mind about what/whether to tap.

Even if you do declare attackers and then back up to let him tap stuff, you can change your mind about what (if anything) to attack with after he's tapped some of your potential attackers (the only time you're stuck with your initial declaration is when he doesn't want to back up and do something first).

In a casual game, asking "do you want to tap anything before I attack?" is easy to do, and means he has to decide before knowing which creatures (if any) you intend to attack with.