Guide: Attack vs attacking

NOTE: This is a guide, not a rules question. If you ever have rule questions about this part of Magic, or perhaps you might not even have thought of such rule questions until now, hopefully this is a good read. This guide can also serve as a reference so people can link to this.

Perhaps one common confusion about Magic terminology is surrounding the word "attack". Turns out "attack" and "attacking" are very different concepts that are not interchangeable, and they are not very intuitive either.

In Magic, the verb "attack", as in "this creature attacks", is exclusively used to mean "be declared as an attacking creature". (CR 508.3a) This is that one point in time when you choose which creatures you want to swing with, and tap them. (CR 508.1; abilities trigger specifically at CR 508.1m) It does not mean throughout the entire combat phase or anything like that.

In contrast, the adjective "attacking" is exclusively used in "attacking creature" (also known as the noun "attacker"). It simply means a creature that is currently being pointed at some player (or planeswalker or battle), ready to deal damage at the combat damage step.

What's the difference? To attack (the verb) with a creature causes that creature to become an attacking creature. However, if a creature enters the battlefield already attacking (the adjective), it was not declared to be an attacking creature, it did not attack. Here are some examples:

• When Falconer Adept attacks, it creates a Bird token that is attacking. But the Bird token did not attack.

• In the above case, Screaming Swarm will not count the Bird token as one of the creatures that attacked. If you only swing with Falconer Adept, the player mills one card, even though there are two attacking creatures (Adept and the Bird token).

• Similarly, when Alesha, Who Smiles at Death attacks, it can bring back Falconer Adept onto the battlefield already attacking. But in this case, Falconer Adept was not declared as an attacking creature, it doesn't create a Bird token.

Confusing? Hopefully it's no longer the case. If "attack" is used as a verb, it means "declared as an attacker". If "attacking" is used as an adjective (or "attacker" as a noun), it just means it's currently pointing at someone.

A question would be, why do Wizards use these confusing terms? I have no idea either. I think it would be better to replace the verb with "declared as an attacker", but it does make card text more lengthy.

By the way, "block" and "blocking" are exactly the same. A creature entering blocking is a rare effect, but it's not unheard of like in Flash Foliage or the last ability of Brimaz, King of Oreskos.

Some common effects involving declaring attackers are attack restrictions and requirements. Restrictions are effects that say "can't attack" or "can attack only if"; they restrict you from attacking, sometimes allowing you only if certain conditions are met. Requirements are effects that say "must attack if able"; they require you to attack, but only if possible. I won't go too much into the details, but in short, all restrictions must be obeyed, and then maximize the number of requirements you satisfy among the possibilities. Being goaded is a common attack requirement. Attack restrictions are a bit more rare. (There are also block restrictions and requirements. Block restrictions are very common, with flying and menace being evergreen keywords.)

Now that you know the difference between "attack" and "attacking", you might look at these restrictions and requirements. Every single one of them uses "attack" as a verb. That means they only apply when declaring attackers! Creatures that enter attacking without being declared as such are not affected by the restrictions and requirements whatsoever. Even if an opponent has Blazing Archon, you can send a creature with myriad to another player, and you'll still create a token attacking Blazing Archon's controller.