Baird Steward of Argive interfering with Trove of Temptation!
I have Baird, Steward of Argive in play, and I also have Trove of Temptation in play.
With those two cards in play, the opponent is not forced to attack with their creatures even when having free mana available.
To recreate this issue, it's simple, just put these two cards in play and you'll see the opponent can decide not to attack if they want to!
I think this is clearly a bug, as the obligations imposed by Trove of Temptation can be ignored for free!
I think the opponent should be forced to attack with at least one creature (by Trove of Temptation) and then be forced to pay 1 mana (by Baird). As things are now, they can choose not to attack if they want to, even having untapped lands available.
-
[Deleted User] commented
Not a bug, but how the game works. Your opponent has no obligation to make his creatures able to attack, he just has to attack with one if able.
508.1d The active player checks each creature they control to see whether it’s affected by any
requirements (effects that say a creature attacks if able, or that it attacks if some condition is
met). If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximum possible
number of requirements that could be obeyed without disobeying any restrictions, the
declaration of attackers is illegal. IF A CREATURE CAN'T ATTACK UNLESS A PLAYER PAYS A COST, THAT PLAYER IS NOT REQUIRED TO PAY THAT COST , even if attacking with that creature would increase the
number of requirements being obeyed. If a requirement that says a creature attacks if able
during a certain turn refers to a turn with multiple combat phases, the creature attacks if able
during each declare attackers step in that turn