-2

Player 1 has Arcades Sabboth onto the battlefield.
Player 2 has Garna,The Bloodflame onto the battlefield.
In Player 2's main phase, he cast Illusory Gains on Arcades Sabboth, to gain control of the Elder Dragon; and, in the subsequent combat phase, declares Arcades Sabboth as an attacker, tapping him.
In the declaring blockers sub-phase, the defending player (player 1) summons Plaxmanta - spending green mana - thanks to his Flash Ability.

Consequently, this question arises, which I am now going to explain in detail.

Since Illusory Gains' triggered ability is now on the stack, and the creature to which Illusory Gains is to be assigned is the just summoned Plaxmanta, I was wondering which of the two is the right one:

1) Arcades Sabboth continues to be tapped and attacking, as declared by player 2 during the sub-phase, and therefore remains on his side, until the end of the combat phase; or,

2) Arcades Sabboth, since Illusory Gains has been "detached", is no longer under the control of player 2, and returns under the control of player 1, but tapped and removed from the fight.

In all this situation, Plaxmanta is in any case now enchanted by Illusory Gains, and therefore it is under the control of player 2.
But it is good to clarify whether the combat phase has significantly changed since his entering onto the battlefield, in a case like the one described. And for this purpose my question is addressed.

The particular dynamics of Illusory Gains, namely the fact that this card can "detach" from one creature to enchant another in various situations, makes this question a little different from various others, in my opinion.
Also the fact that Illusory Gains can be attached to creatures that have hexproof or shroud makes this card - and the situations related to it - really particular, and therefore it may need more explanations and clarifications from expert players.

  • 2
    Although not the focus of the question, it's worth mentioning that Arcades Sabboth can't attack the turn that it was enchanted by Illusory Gains without some source of haste. Summoning Sickness applies to creatures that changed controllers, so even though Arcades Sabboth has been on the field for several turns, it hasn't been under the opponent's control during their upkeep. Since the specific creature being stolen doesn't matter for your question, I suggest changing Arcades Sabboth to a creature with haste to avoid this issue. – Aetherfox Jan 30 at 14:58
  • 3
    The fact that the creature is Arcades Sabboth does nothing at all to this question - there's no reason for the massive image of that creature in here. If there was going to be an image of a card it should have been Illusory Gains. – Andrew Jan 30 at 16:29
  • @Aetherfox and most likely (though not impossible) the owner of Illusory Gains won't be playing Bant and would have had to sacrifice it before it was able to attack. – Andrew Jan 30 at 16:31
  • 4
    @ManoFromBerlin: Yes, changing control of creatures 'reactivates' summoning sickness. Note that summoning sickness checks if the creature has been under their current controller's continuous control since their controller's last upkeep. This question (example 4) addresses it: boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/25234/… I have no idea when/if the rule changed, but it's why you see a lot of temporary steal cards, like Traitorous Instinct, give haste for the turn as well. – Aetherfox Jan 30 at 16:49
  • 1
    @ManoFromBerlin what we call summoning sickness is in the rules "A creature’s activated ability with the tap symbol or the untap symbol in its activation cost can’t be activated unless the creature has been under its controller’s control continuously since their most recent turn began. A creature can’t attack unless it has been under its controller’s control continuously since their most recent turn began." – Andrew Jan 31 at 2:02
2

Number 2 is correct (Arcades is no longer attacking and returns to player 2).

506.4. A permanent is removed from combat if it leaves the battlefield, if its controller changes, if it phases out, if an effect specifically removes it from combat, if it’s a planeswalker that’s being attacked and stops being a planeswalker, or if it’s an attacking or blocking creature that regenerates (see rule 701.14) or stops being a creature. A creature that’s removed from combat stops being an attacking, blocking, blocked, and/or unblocked creature. A planeswalker that’s removed from combat stops being attacked.

(emphasis mine)

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.