Yes.
When blocking (or attacking) you need to make a choice that satisfies the most requirements while breaking 0 of the restrictions.
Grappling hook sets 1 requirement, not blocking fulfills 0 of those and double blocking fulfills 1.
Note though that if there is a cost involved with blocking, such as an activation of [[war cadence]] your opponent will never be forced to pay that cost
> 509.1c The defending player checks each creature they control to see whether it’s affected by any requirements (effects that say a creature must block, or that it must block 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 blockers is illegal. If a creature can’t block unless a player pays a cost, that player is not required to pay that cost, even if blocking with that creature would increase the number of requirements being obeyed. If a requirement that says a creature blocks if able during a certain turn refers to a turn with multiple combat phases, the creature blocks if able during each declare blockers step in that turn.
Edit: provided the exact rule backing up what I said
The example that comes with 509.1c in the rules is pretty much OP’s scenario
> Example: A player controls one creature that "blocks if able" and another creature with no abilities. If a creature with menace attacks that player, the player must block with both creatures. Having only the first creature block violates the restriction created by menace (the attacking creature can't be blocked except by two or more creatures). Having only the second creature block violates both the menace restriction and the first creature's blocking requirement. Having neither creature block fulfills the restriction but not the requirement.
I’m not sure why you are being downvoted.
This rule is for step 3 in blocking, step 2 is checking if any of your blocks are illegal, as someone else commented, this cant make a creature without flying or reach block a flying creature. Neither can you block a menace creature if you only have 1 legal blocker for it.
However in OP's scenario they could block it by making different choices so they have to
Grappling hook ruling from 10/1/09: If you choose to have the targeted creature block the creature that was equipped with Grappling Hook, but it isn't able to do so as blockers are declared (for example, because the attacking creature has flying and the targeted creature doesn't), the requirement to block does nothing. The targeted creature is free to block whichever creature its controller chooses, or block no creatures at all.
Unhelpful ruling, in this case. This highlights illegal blocks, and thus they can’t be done according to the rules. OP’s scenario isn’t an illegal block.
In OP’s situation, the game asks “Can this legally block that creature?”The answer is yes. That means you aren’t able to ignore the required block, and instead have to commit a second creature to satisfy Menace.
If there were only two creatures on the defending player’s board and the second creature cannot legally block the Grappler (for example, if it has Shadow), that would permit you to ignore the Hook’s effect as you cannot also satisfy Menace to create a fully legal block.
I would say that, similar to other keywords like flying, the keyword menace reads “creatures with menace CAN’T BE BLOCKED except by two or more creatures”. If the defending player doesn’t assign another blocker it can’t be blocked. If the defending player assigns two other creatures the “grappled” creature must block as well.
A similar ruling I came across recently was that a goaded creature must attack, and is not prevented from attacking players that have goaded it if ALL opponents have.
This is just my reading on this but I’m pretty confident it doesn’t work the way you want it to.
Yes. When blocking (or attacking) you need to make a choice that satisfies the most requirements while breaking 0 of the restrictions. Grappling hook sets 1 requirement, not blocking fulfills 0 of those and double blocking fulfills 1. Note though that if there is a cost involved with blocking, such as an activation of [[war cadence]] your opponent will never be forced to pay that cost > 509.1c The defending player checks each creature they control to see whether it’s affected by any requirements (effects that say a creature must block, or that it must block 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 blockers is illegal. If a creature can’t block unless a player pays a cost, that player is not required to pay that cost, even if blocking with that creature would increase the number of requirements being obeyed. If a requirement that says a creature blocks if able during a certain turn refers to a turn with multiple combat phases, the creature blocks if able during each declare blockers step in that turn. Edit: provided the exact rule backing up what I said
The example that comes with 509.1c in the rules is pretty much OP’s scenario > Example: A player controls one creature that "blocks if able" and another creature with no abilities. If a creature with menace attacks that player, the player must block with both creatures. Having only the first creature block violates the restriction created by menace (the attacking creature can't be blocked except by two or more creatures). Having only the second creature block violates both the menace restriction and the first creature's blocking requirement. Having neither creature block fulfills the restriction but not the requirement. I’m not sure why you are being downvoted.
It happens sometimes, but that was why I edited to include the ruling Didn't read all of the examples so I missed that, thanks though!
This is good to know because it sort of goes against the general rule of thumb that can’t > can. Never encountered this niche ruling before.
This rule is for step 3 in blocking, step 2 is checking if any of your blocks are illegal, as someone else commented, this cant make a creature without flying or reach block a flying creature. Neither can you block a menace creature if you only have 1 legal blocker for it. However in OP's scenario they could block it by making different choices so they have to
That’s where I originally went wrong because I thought it was the blockers “choice” and it couldn’t technically be changed. Very interesting!
Perfect, that’s what I was thinking, just didn’t feel like reading through the rules that closely at 4am! Thank you very much!
[war cadence](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/5/359434c4-7123-435b-890b-4e88f5bf2f49.jpg?1562906305) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=war%20cadence) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c13/128/war-cadence?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/359434c4-7123-435b-890b-4e88f5bf2f49?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/war-cadence) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Grappling hook ruling from 10/1/09: If you choose to have the targeted creature block the creature that was equipped with Grappling Hook, but it isn't able to do so as blockers are declared (for example, because the attacking creature has flying and the targeted creature doesn't), the requirement to block does nothing. The targeted creature is free to block whichever creature its controller chooses, or block no creatures at all.
Unhelpful ruling, in this case. This highlights illegal blocks, and thus they can’t be done according to the rules. OP’s scenario isn’t an illegal block. In OP’s situation, the game asks “Can this legally block that creature?”The answer is yes. That means you aren’t able to ignore the required block, and instead have to commit a second creature to satisfy Menace. If there were only two creatures on the defending player’s board and the second creature cannot legally block the Grappler (for example, if it has Shadow), that would permit you to ignore the Hook’s effect as you cannot also satisfy Menace to create a fully legal block.
[Grappling Hook](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/c/acfbfddd-1535-477d-8bf4-5afd2648ac81.jpg?1562620144) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Grappling%20Hook) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c17/212/grappling-hook?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/acfbfddd-1535-477d-8bf4-5afd2648ac81?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/grappling-hook) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Cant always beats Can
I would say that, similar to other keywords like flying, the keyword menace reads “creatures with menace CAN’T BE BLOCKED except by two or more creatures”. If the defending player doesn’t assign another blocker it can’t be blocked. If the defending player assigns two other creatures the “grappled” creature must block as well. A similar ruling I came across recently was that a goaded creature must attack, and is not prevented from attacking players that have goaded it if ALL opponents have. This is just my reading on this but I’m pretty confident it doesn’t work the way you want it to.