Season of the Witch + Silent Arbiter

[Michael Keller]

I was playing a multi-player casual game a little while ago and I was just wondering if this really does work:

Silent Arbiter states that only one creature may attack during combat. Season of the Witch, however, states that all creatures that could have attacked but did not are destroyed.

Being that my opponent could have chosen each one of his creatures to attack to satisfy the Arbiter, would the rest of his dudes get blown up? I was under the assumption this worked but I'm not sure.

[Dilettante]

Oracle Text for Season of the Witch has changed a little:

At the beginning of your upkeep, sacrifice Season of the Witch unless you pay 2 life.
At end of turn, destroy all untapped creatures that didn't attack this turn, except for creatures that couldn't attack.

With Silent Arbiter, yes, pretty much anything at EoT that's untapped that could attack, unless they have the 'can't attack' clause a-la Defenders... get destroyed.

[Michael Keller]

So it should work if both those permanents are in play.

[Jaiminho]

If a single creature attack, the rest won't be able to. So, why would them all die at EOT?

[Michael Keller]

Because your opponent could have chosen each one of his creatures to attack (as the lone one to actually be able to attack), but didn't.

Thus, they would die because he could have chosen each one to fit the bill, but didn't (sans one).

[Dilettante]

If a single creature attack, the rest won't be able to. So, why would them all die at EOT?

*rethinks*

Silent Arbiter is: No more than one creature may attack each combat.
No more than one creature may block each combat.

Silent Arbiter sets merely a maximum limit (1) of how many can attack, but doesn't affect whether or not a creature may attack.
Season of the Witch is inclusional (destroy all untapped creatures that didn't attack this turn) then exclusional (except for creatures that couldn't attack).

Silent Arbiter's ability does not change the state of a creature being able or unable to attack... merely a limit (you can even choose zero), and therefore, in interaction with Season of the Witch... all creatures had the ability to attack that could have... but didn't... are destroyed with the exception of the 0-1 creatures that could attack... or creatures that did not have the ability to... creatures with summoning sickness or defender or a similar state (Moat).

Is my logic flawed?

[Michael Keller]

Exactly, so each creature could have been the one for you to choose to attack with, but because they didn't (not couldn't) attack, they should be destroyed, me-thinks.

[Jaiminho]

Still, when one creature is declared as an attacker, that player can't declare any others, since it would be an illegal set of attackers. If the definition of a creature not being able to attack includes a creature that if declared as an attacker would result in an illegal set of attackers is defined as a creature not able to attack, then no one would be sacrificed if one attacked. If none attacked, then all that were apt to attack would be sacrificed.

I think.

[Michael Keller]

Season of the Witch at the end of the turn goes back to check and see which untapped creatures that did not attack were, and (barring summoning sickness or restrictions like Moat) it destroys them.

The Arbiter allows all but one to attack. However, each creature was eligible to attack before attackers were declared.

[Jaiminho]

A creature not able to attack is a creature that, if attacking, would make the set of attackers illegal. There is no "it goes back to before the attack and checks it". Check rules 308 and 500.

As soon as one is declared, the others can't attack anymore. So, no one is destroyed. If none attack, all of there were able when declaring attackers, so they are all destroyed.

[Michael Keller]

Let me rephrase that:

All creatures were considered eligible to attack AFTER the fact as well. Just because they didn't attack, doesn't mean they weren't eligible. Each one of those creatures had the option to attack, but the player chose not to. Silent Arbiter does not restrict a creature from attacking, it only restricts the number attacking.

Given that each creature had no restriction from being a recognized eligible attacker before and after combat, that would ultimately destroy them.

[Jaiminho]

All creatures were considered eligible to attack AFTER the fact as well. Just because they didn't attack, doesn't mean they weren't eligible.

It does mean, if one creature attacked. This is the card's text:

At the beginning of your upkeep, sacrifice Season of the Witch unless you pay 2 life.
At end of turn, destroy all untapped creatures that didn't attack this turn, except for creatures that couldn't attack.

Creatures that couldn't attack, not creatures that simply can't attack. The rules check back at when they attacked. So, the situation is not isolated from the fact that something prohibited them from attacking. In other words, they couldn't attack.

Again, if you can't declared A and B as attackers, but you can declare only A or only B as attackers, if you declared A, B couldn't attack and, if you declared B, A couldn't attack. This is what's happening here.


Silent Arbiter does not restrict a creature from attacking, it only restricts the number attacking.

This is a contradiction. If it restricts the number of creatures that can attack, it means that each creature that would attack after that limit is declared can't attack.


We'd need some judge to check on this to confirm whatever we are saying.

[Tacosnape]

All I know is that this thread has now made me want to start making up magic-related lyrics to Donovan's "Season of the Witch." As a result, I hate you all.

[Anusien]

[19:07] <Lee|work> The creatures are not destroyed.
[19:07] <Lee|work> They were prevented from attacking.
[19:07] <Lee|work> (assuming you attacked with one)