I posted an answer that I think could benefit from some more attention

@DavidZ Honestly, I'm with Ikegami on this one. You're spending a lot of effort to defend this specific wording you chose, and I don't think it really helps you communicate your answer.

In fact, I don't think your answer is entirely correct

I also don't really understand why you're using that phrasing in the first place. Literally the sentence after the one you emphasized in the rule you quoted directly addresses the exact situation in question, so it's really not clear why you are saying it's not taken into account.

@murgatroid99 It sounds like you misunderstood what I meant in the same way as ikegami. The phrasing I used does not mean that the rules fail to explain what happens in that situation. I'm very surprised that this is being misunderstood.

In any case, thanks for your perspective - I guess this means I need to make a more substantial edit.

I honestly don't understand how to interpret "X is not smart enough to do Y" as anything other than "X does not do Y"

No, I agree with you there. But it sounds like you and ikegami are reading my answer as though Y is "explain what happens in this situation" and that's not what I said at all. I'm equally confused as to how you're getting that from what I wrote.

You said "the game rules aren't 'smart' enough to take that option into account". I don't understand how the sentence I pointed to does not qualify as "taking that option into account"

Which sentence is that again?

(there have been a lot of sentences :P just making sure I'm clear)

You bolded one sentence in your rules quote. I am pointing to the sentence directly after that one

Gotcha.

I take the sentence after the bolded one as explicitly saying that the rules do not take that option into account. Or more explicitly, it says that the rules which govern legal attacks do not take into account the option of paying a cost to exempt yourself from a restriction on attacking.

(I'm editing my answer anyway, but I appreciate you explaining your understanding of what I wrote)

Oh, I see what you're saying now. I really would never have interpreted what you said that way without that whole explanation.

Cool. I learned something today. The interpretation I had seemed eminently natural to me and I had a hard time seeing how people could take it differently.

And I think it would really be more accurate to say that there is a more general convention in the rules that you are never forced to activate mana abilities.

I interpret that sentence as kind of a second-order consequence of that convention: basically, not being forced to pay costs is a more fundamental rule than following combat requirements

Hm, yeah... I guess that makes some sense.

In other words, in my mind, it's not that the rules aren't taking that option into account, but rather that they are taking into account the right not to pay costs, plus adding some consistency (i.e. that rule would be even more confusing if it had an "if the cost includes a mana payment")

Good point

Eh, I just deleted the answer

Given what you're saying I don't think it gives anything useful