since it looks like there will be no further feedback on the meta questions I posted I accepted the answers from murgatroid99

Isn't there a MTG rules that says one can't make illegal choices? It's pretty much a no-brainer, but I seem to remember there being one. There's lots of situation-specific rules that amount to that, but I thought there was a pretty general one.

It seems kind of tautological to me

@ikegami If you're talking about that Propaganda question, 508.1 says "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"

yeah, that's a siutuation-specific example I already referenced (and I was about to add to the bottom but got distracted).

I mean, there's always section 721 "Handling Illegal Actions"

That's not what I had in mind either.

or maybe it is

"If a player takes an illegal action or starts to take an action but can’t legally complete it"

I had looked at 721, but I kinda missed that it said exactly that

ok, I was never quite happy with my answer --12 visible edits!-- but I think I'm there now

I have to ask: part of 508.1d, which you quoted, says "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."

When I saw that question, I initially interpreted that as meaning that you could choose not to attack at all, since Propaganda is a cost to attack

What's your take on that?

It doesn't get that far.

In the previous step, the attack was declared illegal

uh... costs are are payed in 1j.

I'm not following

Means I could be wrong

Let's ignore that for a second

The passage you quote said "even if attacking with that creature would increase the number of requirements being obeyed."

So the passage you quoted sees two possibilities 1) paying the cost, or 2) not attacking

Which is consistent with my answer.

But, now, I must consider the timing of paying the cost, and whether that change anything

Your answer says that you have to attack

Your answer says that you have to attack if there are other options.

You must still meet the requirement if able

You just don't have to pay to make it happen

My answer actually said you don't have to attack if all the players have Propaganda

You're barking up the wrong tree

"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."

could be written

"If a creature can’t attack unless a player pays a cost, that player is not required to pay that cost no matter what.

And my answer is 100% in agreement with that

If you think my answer says you are forced to pay the cost, then I miscommunicated and I'll fix it.

The alternate interpretation I was considering is that you apply that check after choosing which player or planeswalker each creature is attacking. But now that I think about it more, you probably get some other inconsistencies if you assume that

My answer relies on the not paying the cost making the attack decleration illegal

I'm not convinced of that and need to review the rules

I thought the costs were payed in .1a, so .1c would make it illegal.

The thing is that you choose which creatures are attacking, then you choose which players or planeswalkers they are attacking, then you check restrictions and requirements.

So I feel like it might be valid to declare that you're attacking the player with Propaganda, then say "This creature can't attack unless I pay a cost, so I am not required to pay that cost to fulfill the requirement that that creature must attack"

Wait, actually none of that makes sense. You can't declare that a creature is attacking a player, then end your attack declaration with that creature not attacking

OK, I think your answer is correct

"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" So when the attacker doesn't pay the cost in .1j, the whole decleratin is rolled back

Right, I'm convinced now. I think the way I was interpreting it was equivalent to declaring that the creature in question is not attacking at all, but is specifically not attacking the player with Propaganda, which just isn't a thing

We all know that producing mana is not mandatory, even if paying a cost is, right?

yes

Scenario: 2 players. "All creatures attack each combat if able." is in effect. A has 1 creature and 2 mana in their mana pool. N has a Propaganda and 0 planeswalkers. Would A be forced to attack N?

The answer is clearly no if the mana pool was empty.

No, because even though paying costs is generally mandatory, the part of the rule I quoted overrides that

but 508.1j contradicts that

If you declare no attackers, there are no costs to pay

Whatever you tell me the answer is, I don't believe it. This is something a judge would need to answer

You are forced to declare an attacker "All creatures attack each combat if able."

That thing you quoted is a requirement. Which you can choose not to fulfill because of the part of the rule I quoted

You can fullfil

the mana is in your pool

It says that you can choose not to pay costs to fulfill requirements, period. It doesn't depend on whether you can pay the costs

But .1j says you have to pay the cost, period

Let's go through the process in order.

In step 1, I declare no attackers.

In step 2, nothing happens

In step 3, no restrictions are violated.

Do the steps with the mana pool empty first

In step 4, I am fulfilling 0 requirements. I could fulfill 1 requirement, but I am allowed to choose not to do so because I would have to pay a cost to do so

You don't pay costs in 4.

You're jumpting ahead

No, I'm not

The clause I quoted is in step 4

oh woops, no. sorry, misread

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.

yeah, you're probably right, though

But there's no cost at this point

That explicitly allows you to choose to fulfill fewer than the maximum possible number of requirements if you need to pay a cost to attack

Propaganda is the cost

But it doesn't apply

you didn't try to attack

It's not clear, that's all

The creature can't attack unless you pay Propaganda's cost. That's a counterfactual statement that is true even if you are not attacking

That's not what Propaganda says

It says the creature can't attack "you"

But if attacking Propaganda's controller is the only option, then the creature can't attack at all unless you pay Propaganda's cost

ok

It does work out.

I was approaching it from the opposite direction (try to attack first). In that situation, it's messier

So that means the attack cost itself can be waived, not just the production of mana.

Interesting. (To me, at least)

Imagine that rule didn't exist, and you didn't have the mana

You would have to fulfill that requirement and attack. Then in a later step, you don't have the mana, so you can't pay the cost.

So you rewind. But you still have to fulfill that requirement and attack

And you need it for more than just mana costs, because you encounter the same problem with other costs that you are incapable of paying