Board & Card Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people who like playing board games, designing board games or modifying the rules of existing board games. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Some cards, such as Loyal Pegasus and Mogg Flunkies feature the rules text

Card name can't attack or block alone.

For attacking, this is unambiguous; the creature can only attack if another attacker is also declared.

For blocking, which of the following is the case?

  • The creature can only be declared as a blocker if blocking the same creature as another blocker
  • The creature can only be declared as a blocker if any other creature is also declared as a blocker, regardless of what that creature is blocking
share|improve this question
The rulings on the gatherer pages you linked to do answer this, though a bit obliquely: "Similarly, Mogg Flunkies can be declared as a blocker only if another creature is declared as a blocker at the same time." (It doesn't say it has to be blocking the same creature.) – Jefromi Feb 3 '14 at 1:24
On further thought, "can't attack alone" has the same ambiguity problem. You could choose to attack different players and/or planeswalkers – bengoesboom Feb 3 '14 at 16:06
And that ambiguity is explicitly addressed in the rulings: "Although Mogg Flunkies can't attack alone, the other attacking creature(s) doesn't have to attack the same player or planeswalker." (As well as by the indirect phrasing, from the sentence before the one I quoted about blockers: "Mogg Flunkies can be declared as an attacker only if another creature is declared as an attacker at the same time.") – Jefromi Feb 3 '14 at 20:46
up vote 14 down vote accepted

From the Comprehensive Rules Glossary:

Block Alone A creature “blocks alone” if it’s the only creature declared as a blocker during the declare blockers step. A creature “is blocking alone” if it’s blocking but no other creatures are. See rule 506.5.

So it's your second option.

share|improve this answer
This means that if you are blocking with 2 creatures, one of which cannot block alone, and your opponent manages to remove that other creature, your 'block alone' creature is no longer able to block anything. – Cronax Mar 12 '15 at 12:20
@Cronax If that other creature is removed after blockers have been declared, then the creature that cannot block alone will continue blocking, in the same way that removing flying from a blocking creature after blockers have been declared will not make it stop blocking flying creatures. – Pablo Mar 12 '15 at 14:17
are you sure? I'm pretty sure that if you remove the other creature in response to the declaration of blockers, the 'cannot block alone' creature is no longer a valid blocker? – Cronax Mar 12 '15 at 14:20
@cronax you can't do anyting in response to declaring blockers or attackers, because those actions don't use the stack: – Pablo Mar 12 '15 at 14:36

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.