#attacking restrictions

[magicjudge]

Through various forms of chicanery, I control two Pramikon, the Sky Rampart. One is set to left, one is set to right. Is combat locked out, or does the Pramikon pair cancel itself out? I’ve heard conflicting answers between both 1v1 and 3+ player scenarios. I’ve argued one side, been convinced I was wrong, then recently had someone again challenge what I thought was correct!

Pramikon creates an attacking restriction and such restrictions cannot be violated.

Therefore, a player will only be able to attack if the same opponent is the nearest opponent on both the left and the right.

They won’t be able to attack at all unless that opponent is the same, which only happens when there are only two players remaining in the game.

When left equals right, it's OK to fight.

[magicjudge]

I’ve got a Nahiri the Unforgiven & control Ghostly Prison. If I use Nahiri’s +1, could that creature’s controller try to attack me & fail to pay the Prison tax, and not attack anyone if there are other players still in the game (assuming there’s no cost in attacking them)?

Once again we come to the classic battle between attacking requirements (i.e. Nahiri's +1) and attacking restrictions (i.e. Ghostly Prison).

Whenever a player declares attackers, they must fulfill the maximum number of requirements possible while not violating any restrictions. (Note that a player is never forced to pay to attack with something like Ghostly Prison in play). If an attack is declared that doesn't do, then it's an illegal declaration and a legal attack must be declared instead.

In this particular scenario, the target creature is required to attack a player, and it can't attack you unless its controller pays 2 mana. If the option to attack another player without paying a cost exists, then choosing to not attack with that creature isn't meeting the maximum possible number of requirements. The only way they could not attack at all is if every opponent had a Ghostly Prison-style effect. So they need to attack someone. That someone can be you if they want to (and can) pay the 2 mana.

[magicjudge]

I am playing edh with 2 other players. The player to my left has a ghostly prison on board. The player on my right has a 4/4 vanilla, and two mana untapped. If I goad his creature before combat, is he required to pay to attack, or can he decline to pay and attack me? If he taps out in response does that prevent from having to attack the other player?

He never has to attack the other player unless he wants to.

When you goad a creature, it creates two attacking requirements on that creature: It has to attack if able, and it has to attack a player other than you if able. Ghostly Prison creates an attacking restriction that can be ignored by paying 2 when the attack is declared.

When the goaded creature goes to attack, it must obey as many requirements as possible without violating any restrictions. Your opponent is never required to pay for Ghostly Prison, even for a creature that has to attack, so unless your opponent chooses to pay 2, we can ignore the “attack another player” requirement. This means that the creature just has to attack if able, so its free to attack you, or a planeswalker you control, or a planeswalker that the Ghostly Prison player controls. All of these fulfill the requirement without violating a restriction. The only thing they can’t choose to do here is to not attack with the goaded creature.

[magicjudge]

Interesting situation came up tonight: Fumiko the Lowblood and Ghostly prison in a multiplayer game. My understanding of the interaction is that you can choose to attack the player with the Ghostly Prison, then choose to not pay the cost, and thus not attack, because it won’t force you to pay. Another player believes that you’ll instead be forced to attack a different player if you choose not to pay the tax for attacking. Which interpretation is correct, and why does/doesn’t it work either way?

You can never be forced to pay a cost to attack, such as for Ghostly Prison. Paying such a cost to attack is part of declaring attackers. The active player chooses which player or planeswalker each creature is attacking, then pays any required costs. If there are costs that can’t be paid or aren’t paid, then the declaration of attackers is illegal and a legal set of attackers needs to be declared. The set of attackers is also illegal if less than the maximum possible number of requirements to attack are being fulfilled.

What this means for Fumiko is that each creature controlled by an opponent of Fumiko’s controller that can attack must do so. If that creature’s control doesn’t want to (or can’t) pay for it to attack the controller of Ghostly Prison, then that player must choose a different player or planeswalker for it to attack. It only gets to not attack if every possible attack requires a cost to attack.

[magicjudge]

does Silent Arbiter's ability stop Kaalia of the Vast's abilty when she attacks or not?

No.

Silent Arbiter’s ability means that only one creature can be declared as an attacker in the declare attackers step. Kaalia’s triggered ability puts the angel/demon/dragon onto the battlefield attacking. It wasn’t declared as an attacker and thus Silent Arbiter doesn’t care.

[magicjudge]

Say I have a Master of Cruelties and an Ekundu Cyclops. I'm not forced to attack, but I want to attack with the Master. Does the Cyclops just sit the combat out despite its requirement (attacks *if able*) because of the Master's restriction (can only attack alone)?

Yes.

The need to never violate an attacking or blocking restriction always takes precedence over an attacking requirement.

[magicjudge]

What happens when I have Ghostly Prison and a Ruhan of the Fomori attacks?

If the opponent chosen by Ruhan’s triggered ability controls Ghostly Prison, then Ruhan isn’t forced to attack that player since a player can never be forced to pay a cost to attack. In that case, Ruhan’s controller can have Ruhan attack the chosen player (and pay) or any other player or planeswalker, or not attack at all.

[magicjudge]

I have a question about the newly spoiled card Orzhov Advokist. Let's say I control it in a 3 player game. At my upkeep, opponent A get's the counters, and opponent B does not. If opponent A takes control of one of my or opponent B's creatures, can they attack me with it? What if opponent B takes control of one of opponent A's creatures?

If a player chooses to get counters from Orzhov Advokist’s triggered ability, then the resulting restriction on attacking applies to that player, not to the specific creatures that player controls at that time.

A creature can’t attack you or a planeswalker you control if its current controller opted for the counters. It doesn’t matter if who controlled that creature when the Adovkist trigger resolves.