<p>From the Comprehensive Rules Glossary:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>Block Alone</strong> 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.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So it's your second option.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-12T12:20:15.240Z
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
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-12T14:17:59.073Z
@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
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-12T14:20:35.043Z
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
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-12T14:36:17.877Z
@cronax you can't do anyting in response to declaring blockers or attackers, because those actions don't use the stack: [http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/q/473/2474](http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/q/473/2474)
Pablo
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-03T00:35:34.177Z
2014-02-03T10:34:22.770Z
2014-02-03T10:34:22.770Z
Pablo
<p>Some cards, such as <a class="mtg-autocard" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" href="https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Loyal%20Pegasus">Loyal Pegasus</a> and <a class="mtg-autocard" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" href="https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Mogg%20Flunkies">Mogg Flunkies</a> feature the rules text</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>Card name</em> can't attack or block alone.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>For attacking, this is unambiguous; the creature can only attack if another attacker is also declared.</p>
<p>For blocking, which of the following is the case?</p>
<ul>
<li>The creature can only be declared as a blocker if blocking <em>the same creature</em> as another blocker</li>
<li>The creature can only be declared as a blocker if any other creature is also declared as a blocker, <em>regardless of what that creature is blocking</em></li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-03T01:24:20.087Z
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.)
Cascabel
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-03T16:06:34.793Z
On further thought, "can't attack alone" has the same ambiguity problem. You could choose to attack different players and/or planeswalkers
bengoesboom
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-03T20:46:04.097Z
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.")
Cascabel
<magic-the-gathering>
What exactly does "can't attack/block alone" mean?
bengoesboom
# What exactly does "can't attack/block alone" mean?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-02-02)

Some cards, such as [Loyal Pegasus](https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Loyal%20Pegasus) and [Mogg Flunkies](https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Mogg%20Flunkies) 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*

**Tags:** magic-the-gathering

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: 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.)  
> **username_0**: On further thought, "can't attack alone" has the same ambiguity problem. You could choose to attack different players and/or planeswalkers  
> **username_1**: 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.")  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2014-02-03. Score: 21 | Accepted answer

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.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: 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.  
> **username_2**: @username_3 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.  
> **username_3**: 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?  
> **username_2**: @cronax you can't do anyting in response to declaring blockers or attackers, because those actions don't use the stack: [http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/q/473/2474](http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/q/473/2474)  

---

