DDR

[@jdmichal]

I would change Master of Cruelties to start: "Whenever Master of Cruelties «is attacking» a player...". I think this would make it clear that it doesn't matter how it got to this state. What matters is it got to this state, so that the next condition (is unblocked) can be evaluated.

[@JuniperHatesTwitterlikeHandles]

yeah this is what I was gonna say

[@jyrinx]

There's still a _slight_ oddity in that you could argue that the trigger should apply at the end of the declare attackers step-after all, it's attacking, and it hasn't been blocked (yet). Probably still better than the current wording but it's not perfect (and it certainly wouldn't improve matters to say anything about the declare blockers step). Actually, I wonder why they didn't just make it a replacement effect: “If Master of Cruelties would deal combat damage to a player, instead that player's life total becomes 1.” I guess that makes it much stronger with trample (though much weaker against, say, The One Ring).

[@toddbussey5718]

@@jyrinx > I wonder why they didn't just make it a replacement effect No interaction. Currently a player can Stifle the trigger.

[@NoTengoIdeaGuey]

No because then his life total ability would go through in instances like this. In Magic "attacks" means "is declared as an attacker at the beginning of the declare attackers phase". A creature that ETBs because of an ability after declaring attackers did not "attack" this turn. "Is attacking" just means the creature is engaged in combat at all. One is a trigger at a specific phase, the other is just a state of the creature. The way it's worded now prevents people from subverting blocks via other means and only allows the life total effect to work when MoC is on the field before combat.

[@JuniperHatesTwitterlikeHandles]

@@NoTengoIdeaGuey please watch the video you are commenting under.

[@LotusPaintball]

"Whenever Master of Cruelties isn't blocked while attacking..."

[@JasonOshinko]

This doesn't work the way you want it to. Every time a creature attacks, it's "not blocked while attacking" because the defending player hasn't had the chance to declare blockers yet.

[@adamgardner9374]

@jasonoshinko Until the declare blockers step is finished and blockers have been selected, an attacking creature is neither blocked nor unblocked. Per CR 509.1h: > An attacking creature with one or more creatures declared as blockers for it becomes a blocked creature; one with no creatures declared as blockers for it becomes an unblocked creature. This remains unchanged until the creature is removed from combat, an effect says that it becomes blocked or unblocked, or the combat phase ends, whichever comes first. A creature remains blocked even if all the creatures blocking it are removed from combat.

[@adamgardner9374]

Worth noting that Master of Cruelties may be worded the way it is because the CR glossary has an entry for the exact wording, “attacks and isn’t blocked”: > An ability that triggers when a creature “attacks and isn’t blocked” triggers when the creature becomes an unblocked attacking creature. See rule 509.1h. There’s no similar glossary entry for any other wording such as “isn’t blocked while attacking”, although, technically I don’t think there needs to be. But probably templating that is already present and “ruled on” in CR is preferred over templating that hasn’t been used before.

[@ChouRaiyuki]

@@JasonOshinko When does Master Of Cruelties ability actually kick in? Would adding simply adding "at the damage step" fix it?

[@iidoyila_live_]

​@@adamgardner9374I believe they arrived at the same time. "attacks" and "attacking" are different words in magic, so, i think we should just try to learn those words and apply logic. We already should know as magic players that a creature "attacks" when you declare it to, and then it is "attacking". Anyway, for Cruelties, when you attack, you have to give them a chance to block, since in Magic you don't waste words. It wouldn't mention blocking if you had a chance to do the trigger before blocks were even possible. And MoC is obviously attacking, since we know the basic rules about attacks.

[@crazyhans]

I agree that this is a bit of a punt on the templating, to me the issue is that "When(ever) ~ attacks" heavily primes the reader to expect an attack trigger (given that's what follows that text most of the time), and so their focus gets pulled away from the "isn't blocked" part despite that being the important bit. Maybe "When MoC 'is attacking' a player and isn't blocked..." would be preferable? Still has a priming issue in talking about attacking first, but at least "is attacking" is distinct from "attacks". Bonus is it's only +1 character on the original text. Maybe we could steal from the Ninjutsu reminder text and have it be "When MoC becomes an unblocked attacker and is attacking a player, that player's..." Maybe "When MoC is declared unblocked and is attacking a player..." Or perhaps "Call a judge, they'll tell you what happens"; that one's the fewest characters 🙃

[@TheTransforcer]

Yes the infamous instance and difference between “declared as an attacking creature ” and “a creature attacking”.

[@williamdrum9899]

"Reading the card explains the card" Enters tapped and attacking:

[@Flyboy245]

Judge Dave, coming in clutch with another reference to one of the first things I learned in my early days of magic. I got absolutely shreked by a kaalia doing the same thing

[@Greg501-]

"When defending player does not block Master of Cruelties..." is my best go at it

[@jerodast]

I was about to say something like this, but I realized it does need to specify that a player is being attacked, not a PW. Even when attacking a PW, their controller is the defending player. Awkward :(

[@freeflow14]

I definitely got this one wrong, was sure that master of cruelties wouldn't trigger since it wasn't declared as an attacker.

[@Tarrandus]

Same I knew Cavalry Pegasus didn't work, and I assumed they worked the same.

[@williamdrum9899]

"When CARDNAME attacks and isn't blocked" triggers during the declare blockers step somehow

[@tinamp811]

I think the wording should be: "Whenever ~ isn't blocked". Add a CR change somewhere to specify that "isn't blocked" means "the creature is attacking and isn't blocked". I think most people are going to naturally understand that a creature has to be attacking in the first place in order to be blocked - and then you can remove the source of the confusion, "ATTACK". Including the word "attack" on the card is confusing because it means two completely separate things in Magic: *declaring* something as an attacker, and literally the creature being in the red zone.

[@Arrzarrina]

No attacking creature is blocked before the declare blockers step. Therefore MoC is a guaranteed Go To One whenever it is attacking.

[@tinamp811]

@@Arrzarrina that's a vastly silly and unintuitive conclusion to come to, given that "blockers" are mentioned, and "isn't blocked" is already a mechanic used in the ninjutsu mechanic, and players seem to intuitively understand how ninjutsu works. With your friends, do you try to Ninjutsu in Ninja of the Deep Hours when you attack but before going to blockers?

[@AlexandreDemers-qf8xl]

I really enjoy your clear explanations. This channel rocks! Thanks!

[@robertburns22]

I was hoping for a judge to start a youtube channel! Keep up the examples they are HUGE help for veteran and amateur players :)

[@humanfactorsgirl]

It makes a lot of sense to me. I think for the exact same reason that it is legal for it to enter the battlefield tapped and attacking: This trigger occurs during the blocking phase, and it has found a way to be legally attacking.

[@ben_clifford]

Ah. Good ol' Master of Cruelties. This guy combos with so many things so well.

[@TheBedazzeler]

Surely just "whenever MoC is attacking and is not blocked" Or "whenever MoC becomes an unblocked attacking creature".

[@LibertyMonk]

You're missing the "a player" bit, so it doesn't just set their life to 1 while it's hitting a Battle or Planeswalker.

[@TheBedazzeler]

@@LibertyMonk correct you are! I think the first template with that addition is pretty perfect

[@byeguyssry]

...isn't that literally already what the card says? Edit: mb. It's slightly different. But idk if between the declaring attackers and declaring blockers step, that condition would be technically fulfilled

[@TheBedazzeler]

The current template works, and is simply confusing. The small addition of the "ing" in attacking i think does enough to show why it isn't triggerering when it attacks.

[@adamk5487]

The truth grammatically is: “If Master is attacking, and isn’t blocked…”

[@seandun7083]

The problem is that I'm magic that wouldn't be a triggered ability since it doesn't use when, whenever or at.

[@spencerpilcher2755]

@@seandun7083"Whenever Master is attacking and isn't blocked."

[@jaysonexists6149]

since you mentioned ninjutsu, would you be able to ninjutsu something in after master of cruelties’ trigger happens and have the ninjutsu-ed creature deal lethal? since the master trigger is after blocks not when damage is dealt?

[@1AlasBabylon]

Yes. Ninjutsu is a legal ability to use at any combat step between declare blockers and the end step of combat.

[@LibertyMonk]

Yeah, should be fine. The trigger will be on the stack before you're even allowed to Ninjutsu. Just let it resolve, then swap.

[@RestingStitchFace0]

I think the problem has less to do with the wording on Master of Cruelties, and more with the wording of other creatures that say "Whenever this creature attacks" in general. Technically, it triggers when you declare the attack, so it would be WAY clearer if the wording was "Whenever you declare an attack with this creature..."

[@LibertyMonk]

A different wording that works exactly the same is tricky, because it has to trigger in the "Declare Blockers" step to be identical, and no damage is assigned. Maybe "is attacking...", because it only adds one word, but the "a player" so many of the words have mechanical meaning. I *want* it to be something closer to "when it would assign combat damage to a player, that player's life total becomes 1 (and it does not assign combat damage) instead", but that would happen an entire step later, and interacts differently with assign-no-damage, damage prevention, and remove-from-combat effects.

[@laytonjr6601]

And it would trigger if you give it trample and boost its attack (or maybe trigger an infinite loop? If it doesn't asign combat damage it can't asign lethal damage and trample doesn't work)

[@byeguyssry]

It does make sense that MoC's trigger is during declare blockers and not declare attackers. But perhaps it can be templated as, "Whenever a player that Master of Cruelities is attacking assigns no blockers for it..." though I'm not sure if that would cause problems elsewhere

[@DorkmasterFlek]

Interesting, I wasn't sure about MoC's second ability in that situation! I agree the wording is slightly confusing there. I like the suggestion of "Whenever ~ _is attacking_ a player and isn't blocked". I think that's more clear about the specific interaction and almost the same in word length.

[@zephr8786]

i was thinking about this recently because it bugged me and my best thought was "becomes unblocked" since unblocked is already something easily understandable and used in ninjutsu, it felt the most natural to me to me it's very clear exactly when the trigger should happen with this formatting and is also concise

[@LibertyMonk]

How does Maze of Ith work on Master of Cruelties? It feels like the life total would still be set to 1 if it isn't blocked, but you could still block it (though no damage would be delt). I really meant an effect that would remove it from combat during the Declare Blockers step, say it's regenerated after being Go for the Throat'd.

[@jeezuhskriste5759]

If you remove it before blockers, it won’t be attacking, so the ability can’t trigger. If you remove it after blockers, the time for it to trigger will already have passed, so it won’t affect anything related to the ability.

[@cheesi]

I enjoy some dumb semantics so I like this as is tbh, it's just on the verge where it's definitely silly but I can reason through it and it makes perfect sense to me without any real stretching. Declaring attackers happens at a specific time, and if the Master of Cruelties doesn't show up on time it isn't getting that trigger. That doesn't mean it isn't attacking, just that it showed up too late to get its abilities in likenthe other attackers. Declaring blockers also happens at a specific time, and this time the Master if Cruelties has showed up on time to benefit any triggers that depend on being blocked or not.

[@HeavyMetalMouse]

"When blockers are declared, if Master of Cruelties is attacking and unblocked, (foo)" - This is probably the best templating I can think of. Firstly, it focuses on the timing: This trigger is triggering on the event of blockers being declared. This is the most important part of any trigger, the condition and timing of when it triggers. Secondly, it makes it clear that MoC only has to be 'attacking and unblocked' and thus doesn't share the 'when this attacks' language of on-attack triggers. This might technically have unusual interactions with effects that could cause MoC to become blocked as part of a spell or ability, and thus would have different effects from the original templating. For example, if you attack alone with an MoC as printed, then your opponent declares no blockers, its ability triggers and goes on the stack. If the opponent then casts Curtain of Light, targeting MoC, causing it to become blocked, as printed this would no longer matter; the triggered ability is on the stack, and no longer cares about the status of the MoC now that it is waiting to resolve. Under the suggested templating above, however, this falls foul of the 'intervening if clause' rule, as the 'if MoC is attacking and unlocked' is checked both on stacking the ability, and again on its resolution. Since Curtain of Light would have made MoC no longer 'unblocked', the intervening 'if' check fails on resolution, causing the trigger to do nothing. So my proposed templating is, unfortunately not mechanically identical to the printed rules. Perhaps something like: "When an opponent does not block Master of Cruelties while it is attacking, (foo)" could work, but that feels cumbersome. I feel like plain English wording wants an 'if' in there, since plain English doesn't like 'attacking' as an adjective describing a quality of a creature the way the rules do. You can say 'target attacking creature', but it doesn't feel good to say something like "When attacking Master of Cruelties becomes unblocked, ..." even though mechanically that would be the most accurate way to say it. It could be normalized enough if there were sufficient abilities of the type - there probably aren't because there's a much easier way to check if a creature hasn't been blocked: "When (this) deals combat damage to an opponent, (foo)", which tends to imply a very similar yet distinct state of combat for the majority of creatures that care about 'getting through'.

[@jerodast]

A little tangential but what if "enters the battlefield attacking" did trigger attack triggers? Basically change to "when a creature becomes an attacker" instead of "attacks".

[@isaz2425]

I'd probably formulate it as "Whenever master of cruelties isn't blocked while he attacks a player" It makes it more clear that the trigger condition is about the blocks, rather than the attack.

[@prosamis]

Best to think of it as states and state based actions (kinda) for me If you think that attack triggers happen not because you declared the attack but because the game checked "is attacking" right after you declare your attacks and only then for things that trigger on attack, it makes sense that that trigger gets missed on this but something that checks it later, like master of cruelties, would trigger still So this needs a mindset shift from "actions" to "states"

[@damien4197]

Whenever no blockers are declared for an attacking master of cruelties, if it was attacking a player that player's life total becomes 1.

[@kaspernordlund6828]

"whenever master of cuelty isn't blocked by a player it's attacking..."

[@outcastjack]

I think "When Master of Cruelties would deal combat damage to a player, if it wasn't(/isn't) blocked, that player's life total becomes 1 instead." could work - by making it a replacement effect the assigns no damage part could be excluded. Not 100% sure if the intervening if changes the functionality at all though.

[@andrewdemayo945]

The 'would deal combat damage' does change it, because it means that if I gave a Master of Cruelties attacking me -1/-1 before damage, my life total would not become 1, since in that scenario the 'would deal combat damage' part would not be fulfilled. (It also technically makes the change in life happen later, in combat damage phase, rather than declare blockers).

[@LibertyMonk]

@@andrewdemayo945 the -1/x interaction honestly sounds fair to me, but it is a change. It's just kind of weird that the trigger doesn't care at all about damage. If you cast a Fog and don't block it, it'll still set the life to 1. IMO the second bit is the big deal, the timing changes.

[@andrewdemayo945]

Maybe 'Whenever Master of Cruelties is attacking a player and isn't blocked' (continue as before)?

[@JasonOshinko]

"Whenever" indicates a triggered ability. "Would" indicates a replacement effect. Those two words are never used together.

[@bwrpwr]

I knew how it worked by rote, but never thought about it in comparison to cards like the pegasus. That is a strange wrinkle. Of course it was Kaalia of the Vast that first made me look into this at all.

[@The9gods]

We could change wordings like the Pegasus's to, "when (this creature) is declared as an attacker..." This way creatures with "as long as (this creature) is attacking..." wouldn't have any conflicts and wouldn't care if it was declared, only if it is attacking. For MC we could use, "If MC is attacking and isn't blocked, then the defending players life becomes 1 instead of doing combat damage."

[@kingmric]

Would the same apply if it were to be encored by card like araumi, the dead tide?

[@toddbussey5718]

At the declare blockers step, if Master of Cruelties went unblocked, defending player's life total becomes 1 and Master of Cruelties assigns no combat damage this combat. This wording is 12 characters longer than the existing wording, but is almost functionally equivalent.

[@goseigentwitch3105]

it could use similar wording to Ninjutsu Whenever Master of Cruelties becomes an unblocked attacker, if it's attacking a player, ~

[@9sven6]

I would attempt: "Whenever Master of Cruelties is not blocked as it is attacking..." The nuance that "beeing not blocked" only happens once after blockers are declared seems intuitive enough to me.

[@TheL0rd0fSpace]

I like this, but since As has some pretty substantial rules baggage as a word to indicate replacement effects, I'd probably make it say "Whenever Master of Cruelties is not blocked while it is attacking..." That makes it clearer that it doesn't matter how it started attacking, only that it needs to be unblocked while attacking.

[@theoneandonlyflexo]

"When Master of Cruelties becomes an unblocked attacker"

[@MunetsuguTakeno]

Reading Master of Cruelities actually...brings me to a question. Can you swing iwth Master of Cruelities and assuming hes not blocked, during declare blockers steps activate ninjutsu and..kill your opponent with the sneaky ninja?

[@cateranoverlord8116]

If Master of Cruelties is named an attacker during your declare attack step, untap and remove all other attacking creatures you control from combat. All other whenever this creature attacks triggers wear off. Master of Cruelties assigns no combat damage if he is unblocked and defending players life total becomes 1. Does this help?

[@polbulanosalto7403]

There are a lot of answers here that I don't think make for good replacements. The only template I think works here would be "Whenever Master of cruelties goes unblocked, ..." This phrasing makes it clear that a). This a one time trigger and not a continuous effect and b). The creature doesn't need to have been declared as an attacker. It's also the most concise which is important for readability.

[@jdmichal]

This doesn't handle the "attacks a player" part. Under your wording, if I attack your Planeswalker and you don't block, enjoy your new life total.

[@williamdrum9899]

This is one of the funniest examples of ruling cheese there is. Your opponent could have Blazing Archon "Creatures can't attack you" and Alesha can bring a Wall out of your graveyard attacking your opponent (provided Alesha is attacking another opponent who doesn't control a Blazing Archon)

[@Bafflementation]

Bonus question: What happens if Nick responds with Curtain of Light while Master of Cruelties' trigger is on the stack?

[@draket3333]

Nothing. The trigger condition is only checked when the ability triggers (except when there's an intervening if clause), so it will still resolve normally.

[@ptitdrogo]

I got this one wrong and I was so convinced too ! Definitely a vrry unintuitive interaction

[@freewilly1337]

I actually think the wording isn't that bad. One underlying concept in MTG is essentially "a triggered ability would trigger as soon as it could have" which explains why the Pegasus wont trigger in the example. The point in time the ability could have triggered did already pass. But Master of Cruelty says "Whenever (blabla) attacks a player AND isn't blocked...". So he both needs to be attacking AND not being blocked for the ability to trigger. And the first point in time this can be decided whether true or not is directly after assigning of blockers. Which fits perfectly to why Ninjutsu wouldn't work.

[@T4N7]

I find the part about Alesha easy to understand, it us the part where u said Ninjutsu doesn't work to trigger him that probably would've gone over my head if this came up in a game but in hindsight it makes sense since it functions the same way as the declaring attackers rules so y not work like that with declaring blockers

[@jerodast]

Also interesting to imagine a world where Defender meant "this creature can never be attacking" (SBA remove from combat if attacking with that ability) and same thing for any other attack restriction. Since you have to obey all attack restrictions on declaration anyway, this only "cancels" attack situations that were cheated into existence with "ETB attacking" effects, which arguably is the more faithful interpretation to the spirit of the restriction on the card, despite the current rule. Basically it could be more conservative and less permissive. Maybe this breaks some fan favorite combos tho I dunno :P

[@jerodast]

Normally I'm on the side of "don't make interactions narrow out of fear, let crazy stuff happen" but in this case there is a certain sense of the card not following its own rules.

[@guilhermesouza4933]

Master triggers when its not blocked, not when it attacks, so it makes sense to me It works

[@PositiveBlackSoul]

"Whenever Master of Cruelties deals combat damage to a player and wasn't blocked, that players life total becomes 1 instead." -> replacement effect makes last line irrelevant. -> less confusing with "whenever attacks" templating. -> tradeoff is, it changes interaction with Ninjutsu from Umezawa, though I'm not sure that is actually a problem.

[@cheesi]

Unfortunately I'm pretty sure this won't work the same if the damage is prevented. If damage is prevented you won't get the combat damage trigger, because there is no combat damage. As the card is written it doesn't matter if damage is prevented or not: Master of Cruelties' life-setting ability causes loss of life, not damage.

[@PositiveBlackSoul]

@@cheesi good catch

[@jinxed7915]

I think the best way to "fix" Master of Cruelties (to be more intuitive) is to forgo it being a triggered ability and make it a replacement effect. If ~ would deal combat damage to a player and isn't blocked, that player yada yada life becomes 1 and ~ deals no damage this combat Now, this would be slightly different since ninjistu'ing out Master of Cruelties would then go onto work in this case, but considering we arent trying to errata the card but simply consider an alternate future where it was always templated this way, i find it acceptable

[@xxlpulselxx]

"If Master of Cruelties is unblocked, defending player's life total becomes 1 and Master of Cruelties deals no combat damage."

[@jdmichal]

Someone else pointed out that this would still trigger if you attacked a Planeswalker. The "player" part needs to be retained.

[@xxlpulselxx]

@@jdmichal that's true. Thanks for letting me know!

[@mn6334]

This also changes it to a replacement effect instead of a triggered ability which can make a difference.

[@laverageguymc7297]

It would also work with ninjutsu worded like this. I don't think that's intended.

[@cosmosveil9355]

"During each combat, if Master of Cruelties is attacking a player and isn't blocked, prevent all combat damage it would deal this step. When you do, that player's life total becomes 1." To the best of my knowledge, using the word "when" and not "if" creates a reflexive trigger that can be responded to rather than a replacement ability, preserving as much function of the original wording as possible.

[@flaetsbnort]

I believe that wording would work exactly the same. It would trigger when the defending player failed to block it, just like the actual wording.

[@Warlord1o4]

Alesha was one of my first commader decks and how that works is rude I got a few knock outs that way. A wall Alesha may want to is wall of blood. You can play life to make it bigger. :)

[@awi11o]

Hey Dave, I have a question using the saga "The Eleventh Hour" and you trigger the final chapter against, say, your Master used as an example here. It token is named 'Prisoner Zero' now, but it's card effects will still say "...when Master of Cruelties attacks...." on the token copy. Does that mean that the Prisoner Zero will not trigger it's effect on itself, and instead, effectively triggers the original "Master" card twice? I feel like this is a confusing way of wording this, I'm just curious if the card name reads the whole board or just the card. For instance, if BOTH players had a "Master of Cruelties" except, for some reason or another, your opponent loses all abilities on his version but the card keeps the "Master of Cruelties" name, would your opponent also technically have an attack trigger from YOU attacking? I feel like "Master of Cruelty" is a bad example to use, the card that made me begin to question this was "The War Doctor" Anyways thanks for reading if you did, have a good day!

[@RibusPQR]

When a card says its own name, it really means "me, this thing that I am" So you can Mutate, change its name, or exile with Agatha's Soul Cauldron, and the ability will still work.

[@awi11o]

@@RibusPQR on one hand that SEEMS like the right answer but on the other hand MTG is a VERY technical game. I don't mean to be a stickler and ask for your source, but do you have an official ruling to point to where I could determine this?

[@RibusPQR]

@@awi11o 201.5. Text that refers to the object it’s on by name means just that particular object and not any other objects with that name, regardless of any name changes caused by game effects.

[@awi11o]

@@RibusPQR thank you!

[@aragaer]

I think that with current template Trap Runner would still stop Master of Cruelties, while the proposed template would make Trap Runner useless against it.

[@RibusPQR]

Trap Runner would cause MoC to become blocked, but isn't able to prevent the triggered ability from triggering or successfully resolving.

[@allopeth]

Failed this one, indeed super confusion, I would have ruled that MoC was never declared as an attacker so it doesn't trigger... but yeah now I'm aware of this :P

[@erictauer]

Whenever Master of Cruelties isn't blocked, that player's life total becomes 1. Master of Cruelties assigns no combat damage this combat.

[@Crockist]

What about "isn't blocked in combat"? That way you're not even using the word "attack" while using a wording which intrinsically implies participation in combat. My only concern is people interpreting it as "oh my creature wasn't blocked because it was never attacking" and thinking the ability will trigger regardless.

[@Crustgg]

What about, “If master of cruelties would deal combat damage to a player, instead prevent that damage, and that player’s life total becomes 1.”

[@TheLuckySpades]

That one couls still have Master of Cuelties be blocked and the damage still get therough (e.g. trample and removing the blocker/buffing Master) And would be stopped by damage prevention effects, which Master isn't stopped by as of now

[@andrewdemayo945]

That would change how it works, rather than just making how it currently works clearer - for example, it would mean that if I gave Master of Cruelties -1/-1 and it attacked me but wasn't blocked, my life total would not become 1, because it had no combat damage to prevent.

[@FriendliestTrashpanda]

Why not simply "Whenever Master of Cruelties deals combat damage to a player, that player's life total becomes 1"?

[@z_o_i_n_k_s]

- If the defending player was already at 1 life, Master of Cruelties would deal lethal damage which is different to how it currently works. - The trigger would now resolve in the Postcombat step instead of the Declare Blockers step. - Master of Cruelties would now trigger other "when (combat) damage is dealt" effects like from Curiosity when it ordinarily would now. Sometimes errata does change the original behavior of cards, but it is best to avoid that kind of thing, especially when it could effect so many cards.

[@JasonOshinko]

The biggest lesson here is that the comments section needs to stop trying to "fix" things that don't need to be fixed. Every suggestion is more unclear or convoluted than the original, or simply doesn't function within an actual gameplay scenario.

[@awi11o]

Hi Dave!!!

[@Scrumdawgrizzillionaire]

Nice!

[@BlakeFaeMorton]

I think putting something into play attacking should trigger attacking abilities. But I also think being able to cheat "must attack alone" is fine. Also, I did great since abusing Alesha was one of my first decks. 😂

[@JasonOshinko]

How do you justify that? When does the ability go onto the stack if not during the declare attackers step?

[@BlakeFaeMorton]

@@JasonOshinko When a card attacks would be when it goes on the stack. If it is put into play attacking, then it goes on the stack the same as an EtB.

[@iidoyila_live_]

"whenever a player blocks and Master of Cruelties is attacking that player but isn't blocked, < defending player has a bad time >". Wow, that's awful to read! Maybe just let's keep it how it is written, which is extremely tight, and demand a little rules knowledge from players? Unfortunately , "it just works as is" , because we distinguish between "When a creature attacks" and "an attacking creature". Just think about that for a second, and how much you'd have to change about magic to start referring to different categories than these.

[@Crustgg]

30 seconds ago! 🎉