Hi!

We had a talk with my friends about a situation.

Here it is :
Let's say that Irana wanted to attack Haruka but the attacker forgot that a totem or an enemy character had taunt.
Once the defender reminded Irana's controller that there is that taunter, can the attacker decide to change his plan and to somthing else?
I just read the rules but nothing is said about those cases.

Thanks in advance.

---

Tibo

In my opinion... (I am not a judge).

If the totem is a Stoneclaw Totem next to the attacker, the proper way to do this is to go

"This is an illegal attack, you have to attack a Taunter."

The attack couldn't be declared so it's not binding. Like if you tried to move a Rook diagonal in chess.

If it was a Grounding Totem next to the defender (with a magic attack), or a Protector, then you go

"Alright, attack targetting my X, I'll redirect to Grounding Totem/Protector."

At this point there's no turning back as the attack was already declared, and the redirect is an effect that follows from the attack, not something that made the attack illegal.

---

"The beatings will continue until morale has improved."
- Standard corporate management technique

Ok I understand.
And what if the attacker just made his move that it become adjacent to the totem or the warrior with taunt?
Can you cancel the move part to do another one?

---

Tibo

If there is nothing illegal about the move, then it sticks. You can't take back a move just because your attack (which has nothing to do with moving) can't target who you want it to.

2160844:

In my opinion... (I am not a judge).

If the totem is a Stoneclaw Totem next to the attacker, the proper way to do this is to go

"This is an illegal attack, you have to attack a Taunter."

The attack couldn't be declared so it's not binding. Like if you tried to move a Rook diagonal in chess.

If it was a Grounding Totem next to the defender (with a magic attack), or a Protector, then you go

"Alright, attack targetting my X, I'll redirect to Grounding Totem/Protector."

At this point there's no turning back as the attack was already declared, and the redirect is an effect that follows from the attack, not something that made the attack illegal.

/agree

---

Minis Rules - Level 2
PM- Level 1
2009 Durotar Realms Minis Top 8

I ROLL AT:

in casual play (and probably in tournies for me) I would let you take it back.

Recomend you leave your finger on the piece (like chess)

2160844:

In my opinion... (I am not a judge).

If the totem is a Stoneclaw Totem next to the attacker, the proper way to do this is to go

"This is an illegal attack, you have to attack a Taunter."

The attack couldn't be declared so it's not binding. Like if you tried to move a Rook diagonal in chess.

If it was a Grounding Totem next to the defender (with a magic attack), or a Protector, then you go

"Alright, attack targetting my X, I'll redirect to Grounding Totem/Protector."

At this point there's no turning back as the attack was already declared, and the redirect is an effect that follows from the attack, not something that made the attack illegal.

That's not quite how it works in wowminis.  In declaring an attack, you follow the rules as outlined for 703.  Specifically, you declare the attack, then you target.  In chess, this would be akin to declaring the piece you would move, then moving it.  The first part is not illegal, but the second part is, so you rewind back to the point in which the attack was declared and the attacker must declare a legal target.

At NACC, I was playing Vashj with the wavecaller who had taunt when next to Vashj.  At least twice I had opponents fail to realize that the wavecaller had taunt, declare an attack against a non-wavecaller character while adjacent to the wavecaller.  I immediately stopped them, a judge was called over, and it was confirmed that they still had to make the attack, but it had to be against a legal target (the wavecaller).  If the attack and target were declared in the same step, then sure, you could change your action, but declaration(703.1a)/target(703.1c) are distinct in the rules.

So, for the Original Poster, if you were being strict about the rules, Irana would have to attack the taunter instead of his intended target.