DDR

(2*) Can you gain control of a battle and then choose not to block when you attack it?
Support Judging FtW on Patreon at / judgingftw
Suggest a question: forms.gle/YTK2...
A: No. Fun fact, you already control the battle if you're the one who played it.

[@RibusPQR]

Pretty sure if Nick takes controls a Siege such as Invasion of Tarkir, he can no longer be its protector, so he has to choose someone else to be its protector, so then he can attack it.

[@DrAngryMongoose]

Yup

[@jerodast]

If he can't kill it he may not want to attack it, but in a multiplayer game you might still want to put the responsibility of defending it onto someone else haha. After Judge Dave showed 704.5x on screen I thought this was where he was going with the discussion :)

[@namename8004]

Glad to shore up my Battle knowledge. I don't get to play much anymore, but I like to keep my game knowledge up for when I do get to play.

[@terraqueo89]

Man, idk why, I just really enjoy battles. So much more than planeswalkers.

[@johnbibb2471]

1:20 Dave, the bit about Nick not being able to attack the battle if he controls it is wrong. See CR 704.5x

[@psymar]

Interestingly he cites that exact rule at that point in the video.

[@TheShadowflare789]

I think this ruling kind of glosses over the fact that Amy's play makes some incorrect assumptions about Battle controllers. The way the scenario is phrased ("Amy plays Zealous conscripts to steal [the Battle]") implies that Amy believes she does not control the Battle, but she does in fact control Invasion of Tarkir the entire time. Choosing Nick as the Battle's protector does not also make him its controller, even though many prople will put their Battle on or in front of its protector's playmat as a way of indicating who the defending player is. Zealous Conscripts' ability will still resolve just fine of course, because it doesn't care whether you already controlled the permanent in question, but I think making special note of the fact that Amy is *always* the Battle's controller, even while Nick is its protector, is important to emphasize and is probably the main rules misunderstanding that made someone ask this question in the first place.

[@deoplo5988]

Yeah I didn't really pick up on that fact until about halfway through the video. I assumed the protector of the battle was also the controller, but now I see why that obviously wouldn't work, since battles refer to "you", the controller.

[@jerodast]

Yeah I was surprised Judge Dave didn't address this by the end.

[@jackeea_]

"This means that it is not possible for Nick to use a control changing effect so he can attack Invasion of Tarkir" I don't think that's right! If he took control of it then: * [704.5x] If a Siege's controller is also its designated protector, that player chooses an opponent to become its protector. So Nick would choose an opponent (in a 1v1 game, Amy) to protect it. So, he could attack it.

[@almogdov]

Hi Dave, got an interesting question for you. With the creature type changes, many are now gone. What if someone names an obselete creature type and what is the fix? Does it matter if it's later in the game? For example, I play Roaming Throne naming Naga (my commander is a Naga) without knowing its now a snake. After a few turns I play a snake with an ETB, at this point someone pointing out that Nagas are now Snakes. Does the Throne automatically changed to Snake? Can I re-choose to whatever I want? Do I get a warning or more for illegal play?

[@TheKillingMine]

I had the most perverse, evilest thought imaginable: What if I add "I concede the game" in the action queue of Bureaucracy? Of course, the next person's upkeep, they will most likely discard their hand to stay in play. But what happens if the person accepts to follow the action queue of Bureaucracy?

[@seanheath4492]

Now I'm imagining a scenario where Nick is defending a battle, doesn't block for it (and there's enough damage headed its way to flip it), and somehow flashes out Zealous Conscripts (or something else with the same effect) before damage. Might not win the game, but it has some potential for amusement.

[@jerodast]

I wondered if this would fall into some of the "creature is removed from combat" rules. If Nick takes control of the battle mid-combat, then 704.5x which Judge Dave showed on screen could cause him to immediately designate Amy as its protector. 310.8b says "A battle’s protector can never attack it." However, 506.4 has a long list of why a creature would be removed from combat but doesn't include "if its controller is also the protector of a battle it's attacking". So I guess this would work!

[@drillerkiller9]

This entire video makes no sense to me. Zealous Conscripts does nothing, Amy was and is always the Owner and Controller of the Battle.