Goad and Combat Taxes in Multiplayer
Quick note on the conventions used before we get into things: while normally “A” and “N” names are used to denote Active and NonActive players, for multiplayer scenarios sequential letters of the alphabet are generally used, with “A” indicating the Active Player at the start of the scenario. Also, typically only items relevant to the scenario are mentioned, and everything is assumed to be both legal and irrelevant. If a detail is somehow relevant and not indicated, this is usually because either it was overlooked during development/recreation and/or was not considered previously. A detail being absent does not necessarily (although usually does) mean it is irrelevant.
The scenario:
Amon is trying to determine their options for legal attacks. Previously, Bruh resolved Disrupt Decorum and currently Coin controls Sphere of Safety. Doomed is tapped out with nothing relevant on board. To determine what constitutes a legal attack for Amon, let’s first take a look at some of the underlying rules concepts.
What does “Goad” mean?
Goaded is a designation a permanent can have, and a goaded permanent must attack each combat if able and must attack a player other than the player that goaded it if able. This is notable for several reasons. Firstly, as a designation it’s not an ability or a characteristic that can be interacted with or copied. Second, since it isn’t limited to any specific permanent type, anything on the battlefield can be goaded. And third, the phrasing of “if able” indicates that this is a requirement and not a restriction, more on that later.
What does all that mean IRL?
The term “designation” is used to differentiate between all the things that can affect objects in various ways. All most players need to know is that once goaded, an object stays goaded until the expiration of the effect (usually the beginning of the goading player’s next turn). Another couple of examples of “designation” are “Monarch” and “Monstrous”. The use of “permanent” instead of “creature” has little rules difference and is mostly to avoid potential confusion and possible futureproofing (i.e. allows for the goading of noncreature permanents that can become creatures). The distinction between an attack requirement and an attack restriction is of key importance, which we’ll talk about in the next section.
What are requirements and restrictions, and how do I identify them?
Just like the Magic Golden Rules state, “can’t beats can”, restrictions take precedence over permissions, and the same holds true for combat. An effect that states a permanent must attack or does something in combat if able is a requirement. An effect that states a permanent can’t attack or can only attack is a restriction. There are two rules for determining if an attack declaration is legal: 1) it must fulfill the maximum number of requirements AND 2) it must not violate any restrictions. If multiple possible declarations would result in the same number of maximum possible requirements without violating restrictions, each is a legal attack. If any possible declaration would violate any restriction, no declaration is legal.
What about “can’t attack unless…”?
It can be easy to get wrapped up in trying to work out the “unless” portion, however these effects are still a restriction (“can’t attack”) and should be treated as such. While there is a whole CR section about costs (118), in this case it is irrelevant: in the process of declaring attackers, restrictions come before requirements and costs to attack are specifically called out as being non-mandatory. Unlike any other non-optional cost (using Sunforger to cast Lightning Bolt with a Thalia, Guardian of Thraben in play; you are not required to activate mana abilities to pay the tax, but if you have at least 1 unspent mana you must pay the tax), the sequencing and timing of combat necessitates that this not be the case. When it’s determined if any restrictions are being violated, we haven’t even begun to look at what requirements exist yet.
What’s that about sequencing of attackers?
Every game action has a clear and specific sequence of events. It’s why Kodama of the West Tree will ramp you through a shield counter but not through wither/infect, but that’s a different topic. The TBA (turn based action) of declaring attackers has several steps that happen in a specific order. First, the active player determines which creatures they want to attack with. Next, the attacking player chooses which (if any) planeswalkers and/or battles controlled or defended by the defending player(s) will be attacked.
The third and fourth steps are most relevant to this discussion. Next in line is determining if any of the attacking creatures are affected by any restrictions; this includes conditional restrictions (“can’t attack unless…”) and no restriction can be violated. Note that costs to attack are paid later in the process, so a declaration with such a restriction isn’t necessarily illegal and the cost isn’t considered yet. After determining that no restrictions are violated is when requirements are evaluated. Unlike restrictions, where a “hard” value of 0 can be violated, requirements have a “soft” value of “maximum possible” within the confines of the given restrictions.
Putting the pieces together
With the information we have gathered, we can now put together how and why goad and combat taxes interact, or more accurately how they don’t interact. Goad imparts two requirements: must attack if able and must attack a player other than the goading player if able. However, since the restriction of “can’t attack unless….” is evaluated first, the player(s) with the pillow fort pieces can be ignored by goaded creatures provided their controller doesn’t pay the associated cost.
What if everyone but the goading player has a pillow fort?
Excellent question! Let’s apply what we’ve covered to figure this out. First, let’s lay out some assumptions: that no creature has a relevant ability (i.e. “attacks each combat”, “can’t attack alone”, “can only attack alone”, etc.….), that the attacking player does not pay any applicable costs (in effect removing any “unless…” text), and that there are more than two players (meaning this is at least a three-player game). A is the attacking player, B is the goading player, and C is any other player(s) in the game.
Attack A:
Restrictions:
- illegal per the rules
Requirements:
- attack each combat if able
- attack other than B if able
Summary: 1/1 restrictions violated, 2/2 requirements upheld; this attack is NOT legal
Attack C:
Restrictions:
- can’t attack
Requirements:
- attack each combat if able
- attack other than B if able
Summary: 1/1 restrictions violated, 2/2 requirements upheld; this attack is NOT legal
Attack B:
Restrictions:
- none
Requirements:
- attack each combat if able
Summary: 0/1 restrictions violated, 1/2 requirements upheld; this attack IS legal. As this is the only attack that violates no restrictions (and incidentally upholds the most requirements), A must make this attack.
What if everyone has a pillow fort?
In this (admittedly boring sounding) scenario, there exists no legal attack unless one or more restrictions is removed, most likely by “paying the tax” or removing one or more permanents imposing a restriction.
End of Combat
That’s all I can think of for this discussion. If you have any follow-up questions, something isn’t quite clear, if you think I missed something, @ me in the TL:R Discord in the ask-a-judge channel.