Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Blade Knight | Forced Blocker Resolution

  1. #1

    Blade Knight | Forced Blocker Resolution

    I've recently gone in depth talking about Blade Knight, but I have a question about how the effect of his rare interacts with cards the force blockers such as Cable or Goblin Attack Force.


    If I target an opponent's sidekick with a forced block effect (and it survives) and then attack with Blade Knight, would the sidekick be forced to block or would my opponent get to select a blocker of their own and ignore the forced to block global since the sidekick would no longer be able to join the block since Blade Knight's effect limits my opponent to a single blocker?

    For an example, my opponent has a Beast die in play, on level one, and a sidekick. I have a rare Blade Knight at level 3. In my main step I target the sidekick with the Goblin Attack Force Global and then move on to my attack step and send out Blade Knight to attack. Can my opponent select Beast to block me, or must he first block with his sidekick before he is allowed to declare other blockers? I ask because his sidekick is only forced to block "if able" and if he blocks with Beast first, his sidekick is no longer able to block and can happily ignore the effect. However, if he must first declare the sidekick's block, then all goes according to plan and I can telep-- I mean, kill his sidekick... Yeah...

    Let me know how you think this resolves since I can definitely see both interpretations.

  2. #2
    I'd say you force the sidekick to be the sole blocker, since it meets Blade Knight's requirements. The "if able" means that if you had a level 2 blade knight and tried to make a level 3 beast force block, it wouldn't be able to (can't beats must) and it could then ignore the global.

    What your opponent could do is apply the GAF global to his Beast during the main step, and then he has two characters that "must block". During his declare blockers step, he can choose which one first, he chooses Beast, and then the sidekick can't block (since Blade Knight "can't" trumps global "must").

  3. #3

  4. #4
    I can understand where PK is coming from, but the wording on Blade Knight has me doubtful only because it states that only 1 monster can block it. This is an example of a must with some maybes. The timing could make all the difference or blade knight could override the energy spent during the main step...hhmm. This may have to be submitted to wizkids.

  5. #5
    Necromanticer
    For an example, my opponent has a Beast die in play, on level one, and a sidekick. I have a rare Blade Knight at level 3. In my main step I target the sidekick with the Goblin Attack Force Global and then move on to my attack step and send out Blade Knight to attack. Can my opponent select Beast to block me, or must he first block with his sidekick before he is allowed to declare other blockers? I ask because his sidekick is only forced to block "if able" and if he blocks with Beast first, his sidekick is no longer able to block and can happily ignore the effect. However, if he must first declare the sidekick's block, then all goes according to plan and I can telep-- I mean, kill his sidekick... Yeah...
    Your opponent will be allowed to block with the beast and when they attempt to block with the Sidekick it won't be able to do so due to Blade Knights ability. The global only says that the target much block(if able/legal), which translate, that the player must attempt to have this target block this turn during the Assign Blockers step before moving on. It doesn't say it must declare this as the first blocker or declare this as a blocker before declaring others, etc.

  6. #6
    There's nothing in the 'must block (if able)' text to indicate timing, so it's certainly the case that Beast can block first, making the sidekick unable to block.

  7. #7

  8. #8
    You guys forget that all blockers are declared simultaneously. Thus, you can't choose to block in such a way that the sidekick isn't blocking. It creates a form of logic puzzle, but by doing so it creates an series of effects that must occur.

  9. #9
    I didn't forget, I honestly didn't know. What about assigning attackers, i.e. Beholder.

    If you can assign to attack in an order, you can assign to block in an order, right?

    In other news: This game needs its rules redone to be less fiddly.

  10. #10
    The Beholder ability IS worded poorly. You must technically declare all of your attackers before resolving abilities, so all the Beholder really means is that you must resolve his ability first. The wording simply ensures that you can't use two beholders to get double the effects, among other interactions.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •