{General Jarkeld}
Situation: Player A attacks Player B with creatures a1 & a2. Player B declares blockers as his only creature b1 blocking a1. Player C owns {General Jarkeld} and activates his ability during the declare blockers step to switch blockers to new setup: b1 will now block a2, not a1.
Acording to these judges in this forum here:
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-rulings/magic-rulings-archives/492065-general-jarkeld-and-unblocked-attackers
Both creatures should now be considered blocked.
Disregarding all the times mtg may seem counter-intuitive, I feel this interpretation is flawed because both the card's text and the rulings make explicitly clear that his effect activates during the declare blockers step. As such, creatures are not actually blocked until both players agree they are done declaring the setup: "ok this one will block this one, and this other one this one, no wait let that one pass unblocked and I'll just block this one with this instead. Ok? yes. OK let's assign damage. "
So if the general is switching things, it happens before any actual "blocking" is performed...
how is the General able to make one creature block two if his switch happens in declare blockers step ("this one blocks this one instead. oh ok. so it follows this one remains unblocked because when I was declaring that it would be blocked you changed that")
I have admiration towards judges, and feel grateful they exist to suss out the hairy interactions, amd sometimes in heated situations come down with some interpretation that gets things moving again. I am glad you guys exist to keep a game I love keep going healthy. I am just sharing my mental process and trying to understand this interaction. It is healthy that obscure interpretations be discussed and not taken by faith, is my position.
right?
Found 2 Rules that seem to apply:
1. 509.1h (http://imtgapp.com/forum/index.php?action=imtg;area=rule;number=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.
2. 509.2a (http://imtgapp.com/forum/index.php?action=imtg;area=rule;number=509.2a): During the declare blockers step, if a blocking creature is removed from combat or a spell or ability causes it to stop blocking an attacking creature, the blocking creature is removed from all relevant damage assignment orders. The relative order among the remaining blocking creatures is unchanged.
:-( #1 happens before #2 in combat. didn't know they were considered blocked that early into the declare-blockers step. oh well, makes the general super annoying...
BUT WAIT,
I remember players Flashing blockers in, into combat to surprise block my attackers...
According to what I read then (see rules quoted), this shouldn't be possible... no?!
/confused/
As wonky as it is, those L2s are correct.
Once a creature is declared as a blocker, the attacking creature is blocked. No matter what happens, it will remain that way. And once the General's ability resolves, the 2nd attacker becomes blocked, blocking that one as well. In the end, both creatures are considered blocked.
You can flash in a creature in response to declaration of attackers, then assign it as a blocker during declare blockers step. Or you can flash it in when you have priority during declare blockers and block with it. The first way is the recommended way as it's less confusing.
I've witnessed being blocked then having the defending player {Unsummon} the blocking creature so it takes no damage and they don't either. I don't agree with that ruling but that's how it works. Trample does counter it (as far as I'm aware.)
As for the general, as far as I'm aware the purpose was to make it so your big creatures are getting blocked by small fry. Not to get hits through unblocked. As such as far as I'm aware the judges are in fact correct.
If you want to flash in a creature and block with it, it will have to technically be in the declare attacker phase (after they've declared attacks and priority is passed to you)
Once the declare blocker phase is entered, no player recieves priority until the blockers are actually declared. Once that happens, it's too late to flash in a new creature and declare it as a blocker (since blocks are already declared). You can at this point, however, do tricks like flashing in {Quickling} to bounce a declared blocker, leaving the attacking creature still considered blocked.
Quote from: Noblellama on August 17, 2014, 05:36:29 PM
As long as something like {Prophet of Kruphix} or {Yeva, Nature's Herald} are out you could declare your {Ornithopter} as a blocker and {Unsummon} him and cast him as many times as you have unsummons and the only damage you would take would be from trample...
Sadly no. You only get to declare blocks once. Once you declare, you can Unsummon and flash something back in, sure, but you can't declare blocks again
Edit: I should probably add that all blockers are declared at the same time. And like I said in the above post, no one gets priority until it's fully declared.
awesome info ! wish i could bookmark this discussion for reference during craycray combats