Berserkers of Blood Ridge attacks each turn if able additional combat phase magic faq

[Sphinx]

If I control a Berserkers of Blood Ridge ("Berserkers of Blood Ridge attacks each turn if able.")

After combat phase in which the Berserkers attacked, I cast a Waves of Aggression for a 2nd combat phase

do the Berserkers need to attack in that combat phase as well or not since they've already attacked this turn?

[Arix]

No. Saying it attacks each turn if able means just that - if it can attack and hasn't attacked yet this turn, then it has to. If it's already attacked this turn, then its condition is fulfilled and you don't have to attack again. Here's a ruling from Gatherer (on Relentless Assault):

A creature that must attack each turn, must only attack once that turn. It is not forced into each attack that turn.

[billy92]

some related questions:

1) So lets say I cast World at War, meaning there will be 2 combat phases that turn. Can I say I attack only in the SECOND combat phase? The ruling you quoted says the creature needs to attack each turn but doesnt seem to care whether you attack in the first combat phase, or second combat phase, correct?

2) Assuming the answer to #1 is yes, what happens if the creature is killed between the 1st and 2nd combat phase? Because now there is a situation where the creature was able to attack that turn (in the 1st combat phase), but didn't.

3) Let's say I havent cast anything yet and we are in the 1st combat phase and I have one of those creatures that must attack each turn. I have a Relentless Assault in my hand, can I say "Oh, I'm not going to attack with this creature thats supposed to attack because I plan on casting this relentless assault here (* I show all the relentless assault I have in my hand*) and attack with him in the next phase", can I do that? and if so then again what if Relentless assault is countered when I do cast it?

[Arix]

The answer is quite simple. "Attacks each turn if able" means that when you're declaring attackers, if the creature can attack but hasn't yet that turn, then it must attack. It doesn't matter if you're going to get extra combat phases that turn.

[starfire]

I'm assuming it's the same for blocking,

for example when a Giant Ambush Beetle enters the battlefield and targets one of my creatures, if there is more then 1 combat phase I only have to block it once right?

[Arix]

Pretty much.

[Sphinx]

If in between the 2 combat phases (after it attacked in the first one) the Berserkers of Blood Ridge was Momentary Blinked, would it have to attack in the 2nd phase?

[Arix]

Assuming it's given haste, then yes, it would.

[Sphinx]

If there's a Dueling Grounds in play, do I have to declare the Berserkers of Blood Ridge as the attacker, or can I declare a different creature as an attacker meaning the Berserkers of Blood Ridge is not able to attack?

[Arix]

When a situation like that comes up, you have to obey as many requirements as possible while breaking as few restrictions as possible. Attacking with another creature means you're disobeying the Berserkers' requirement, so you can't do that. You have to declare the Berserkers as an attacker.

[Sphinx]

if the Berserkers is enchanted with Brainwash and I have 3 untapped lands, would I be forced to pay the mana and attack with it?

[Arix]

No, you never have to pay the mana for Brainwash.

[gaminger]

why not, if he has the 3 mana it means that he is able to attack with the Berserkers if he pays it so why doesnt he have to pay and attack to meet the most number of requirements?

[Arix]

Well, if he has the three mana waiting right there in his mana pool, then yes, he'll have to. But chances are that he doesn't have three mana - he has three untapped lands. Although you have to pay the mana if you can, you never have to actually put that mana into your mana pool.

[ZebraDroid]

When a situation like that comes up, you have to obey as many requirements as possible while breaking as few restrictions as possible. Attacking with another creature means you're disobeying the Berserkers' requirement, so you can't do that. You have to declare the Berserkers as an attacker.

what about what it says here: http://www.wizards.com/magic/generic...ules042399.txt

500.2. The active player checks each creature declared as an attacker for any
restriction on attacking when combined with the rest of the proposed attack.
Likewise, he or she checks each creature not declared as an attacker for any
attacking requirements that don't conflict with the rest of the proposed
attack. If either of these is the case, that set of attackers is illegal, and
the active player must propose another attack. Similar restrictions apply to
declaring blockers.
EXAMPLE: A player controls two creatures, each with a restriction that states
"<This creature> can't attack unless another creature attacks. It's legal to
declare both as attackers. If one creature "attacks if able" and an effect
states "Only one creature may attack each turn," it's legal to declare either
creature as an attacker but illegal to attack with both or neither.

[Arix]

Well, first of all, that quote says exactly what I said, so...yeah. Second of all, that quote is from a version of the comprehensive rulebook thatwas updated in 1999 - use the most recent version of the rulebook, it's a lot easier.

[ZebraDroid]

what do you mean that its exactly what you said its actually the OPPOSITE of what you said it says:

If one creature "attacks if able" and an effect
states "Only one creature may attack each turn," it's legal to declare either
creature as an attacker but illegal to attack with both or neither.

so it says you can declare either the must attack creature or the other creature as attacker and you say you HAVE to declare the must attack creature as attacker so
I think youre wrong

[Merlin]

I think you took it a bit out of context, anyway here are the more current rules from the comprehensive rules and you can see that you have to attack with that creature even in that situation described with dueling grounds in play:

508.1d The active player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether it’s affected by any requirements (effects that say a creature must attack, or that it must attack if some condition is met). If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximum possible number of requirements that could be obeyed without disobeying any restrictions, the declaration of attackers is illegal. Tapped creatures and creatures that can’t attack unless you pay a cost are exempt from effects that would require them to attack.
Example: A player controls two creatures: one that “attacks if able” and one with no abilities. An effect states “No more than one creature can attack each turn.” The only legal attack is for just the creature that “attacks if able” to attack. It’s illegal to attack with the other creature, attack with both, or attack with neither.

[Arix]

What Merlin said. Again, use the current version of the rules, not one that's 11 years out of date.