I have a question regarding Young Warrior and effects that prevent it from declaring as an attacker/defender.

If the Unicorn player is 1st player and has a Young Warrior in play that is under the effect of Asahina Takamori (which prevents it from being declared an attacker or defender this round), must the Unicorn player then pass their first conflict because the Young Warrior says it must be declared as an attacker or defender in the first conflict each turn?

Also what happens if the Young Warrior instead has a Stolen Breath or Pacifism attached?
Is the Unicorn player then forced to go MIL (Stolen Breath) or POL (Pacifism) their first conflict?

Just now, Bayushi Shunsuke said:

I have a question regarding Young Warrior and effects that prevent it from declaring as an attacker/defender.

If the Unicorn player is 1st player and has a Young Warrior in play that is under the effect of Asahina Takamori (which prevents it from being declared an attacker or defender this round), must the Unicorn player then pass their first conflict because the Young Warrior says it must be declared as an attacker or defender in the first conflict each turn?

Also what happens if the Young Warrior instead has a Stolen Breath or Pacifism attached?
Is the Unicorn player then forced to go MIL (Stolen Breath) or POL (Pacifism) their first conflict?

If a Young Warrior cannot be declared as an attacker or defender (due to Takamori, Pacifism, Stolen Breath, or other) then its text has no effect—“cannot” overrides “must,” and once the first conflict has been declared the Young Warrior’s text is no longer relevant. So if a Young Warrior has Pacifism attached, and the first conflict of the phase is military, it can be declared in a future political conflict. The Unicorn player is never forced to pass a conflict declaration because Young Warrior cannot be declared as an attacker due to a card effect.

I should clarify that, as you must fulfill as many “must” conditions as possible, if the player with the Pacifism’ed Young Warrior is the first player and they declare an attack, it must be political with the Young Warrior attacking (as Young Warrior must be declared in the first conflict, and in this instance the Warrior can only be declared as a political attacker).

[Tyler Parrott, Apr 26 2019]

Although this is a pretty old topic, I just want to know if the ruling on Young Warrior also forces the opponent to make sure the Young Warrior can be declared as a defender. Let's say Pacifism is attached on the Young Warrior, and the opponent has the first conflict, are they forced to go Political since Young Warrior MUST be declared as a defender? Or is only the Young Warrior's controller forced to adhere to its text?

19 hours ago, Veruca said:

Although this is a pretty old topic, I just want to know if the ruling on Young Warrior also forces the opponent to make sure the Young Warrior can be declared as a defender. Let's say Pacifism is attached on the Young Warrior, and the opponent has the first conflict, are they forced to go Political since Young Warrior MUST be declared as a defender? Or is only the Young Warrior's controller forced to adhere to its text?

The opponent is not forced into making a choice, just to satisfy the text on Young Warrior.

1 hour ago, Bayushi Shunsuke said:

The opponent is not forced into making a choice, just to satisfy the text on Young Warrior.

That's what I assumed, just wanted to make sure. Thanks! 🙂