0

According to CR 610.3...

Some one-shot effects cause an object to change zones “until” a specified event occurs. A second one-shot effect is created immediately after the specified event. This second one-shot effect returns the object to its previous zone. If a resolving spell or activated ability creates the initial one-shot effect that causes the object to change zones, and the specified event has already occurred before that one-shot effect would occur but after that spell or ability was put onto the stack, the object doesn’t move. If a resolving triggered ability creates the initial one-shot effect that causes the object to change zones, and the specified event has already occurred before that one-shot effect would occur but after that ability triggered, the object doesn’t move.

However, this rule does not seem to express itself in maximal generality (or perhaps there is another similar rule which broadens the rules' joint scope). We can infer that the object changing zones is not a necessary condition for applying the prescribed behavior, as Oubliette has a ruling which states...

If Oubliette leaves the battlefield before its triggered ability resolves, the target creature won't be phased out or tapped.

On the other hand, if my understanding is correct, then if Act of Aggression is legally cast during the first Cleanup Step, its controller will gain control of the target until the relevant turn-based actions during the second Cleanup Step; the game will not look back to the relevant turn-based actions from the first Cleanup Step and prevent control from changing on the grounds that the effect of Act of Aggression should have already expired. We've seen that the key difference is not the zone change; it is also presumably not the bit about being a specified event, as CR 700.1 states, in part, "Anything that happens in a game is an event," and uses another turn-based action (blocking) as the example, so "until end of turn" should also qualify as a specified event. The key difference must be that Oubliette is treated as a double one-shot effect as detailed in CR 610.3, while Act of Aggression is treated as a continuous effect.

Is there either some set of necessary and sufficient conditions within an instruction, or some online resource, which classifies it as either a double one-shot effect, or a continuous effect? Something (kind of) analogous exists in Yu-Gi-Oh! on its wikis, but I have not been able to find this information on Gatherer or Scryfall, or even in the Scryfall API logs.

1 Answer 1

3

Act of Aggression is not governed by 610.3 because it doesn't cause the targeted object to change zones. Even if it was, the "the effect doesn't happen" clause would still not be applied.

First, for Rule 610.3 to apply it requires that the object changes zones. Since AoA targets creatures, that object has to be on the battlefield, and the battlefield is a zone that is shared by all players. Changing the controller of that creature does not cause it to change zones. That is why 610.3 does not apply to Act of Aggression.

400.1. A zone is a place where objects can be during a game. There are normally seven zones: library, hand, battlefield, graveyard, stack, exile, and command. Some older cards also use the ante zone. Each player has their own library, hand, and graveyard. The other zones are shared by all players.

Second, even if AoA was governed by 610.3, it would still ignore the first instance of the "until end of turn" event and have its effect of changing control. I believe you misread the relevant clause of 610.3:

If a resolving spell or activated ability creates the initial one-shot effect that causes the object to change zones, and the specified event has already occurred before that one-shot effect would occur but after that spell or ability was put onto the stack, the object doesn’t move.

So AoA would fail to change controller only if the "until end of turn" event happened between casting and resolving AoA. However, that can never happen because that event only happens when the stack is empty and all players pass priority.

  1. Cleanup step

514.2. Second, the following actions happen simultaneously: all damage marked on permanents (including phased-out permanents) is removed and all “until end of turn” and “this turn” effects end. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack.

514.3a At this point, the game checks to see if any state-based actions would be performed and/or any triggered abilities are waiting to be put onto the stack (including those that trigger “at the beginning of the next cleanup step”). If so, those state-based actions are performed, then those triggered abilities are put on the stack, then the active player gets priority. Players may cast spells and activate abilities. Once the stack is empty and all players pass in succession, another cleanup step begins.

So you cast and resolve AoA in 514.3a, and it will end in the second instance of 514.2. This is the completely normal order of events and not what 610.3 regulates.


Finally, Oubliette is irrelevant to the 610.3 discussion because, contrary to your assumption, Oubliette is not governed by 610.3 but by 610.4, an analogue to 610.3:

610.4. Some one-shot effects cause a permanent to phase out “until” a specified event occurs. A second one-shot effect is created immediately after the specified event. This second one-shot effect causes the permanent to phase in.

5
  • In addition to this, the relevant part of 610.3 talks about whether the event "has already occurred", but the end of turn happens repeatedly forever, so there's no meaningful point at which you can say that it "has already occurred" vs "has yet to occur".
    – murgatroid99
    Commented May 7 at 20:51
  • @murgatroid99 not quite, I believe. There is no perpetual "end of turn" state akin to game-state triggers, if that's what you meant. The "end of turn" event that ends AoA happens at a distinct point during the cleanup step, in 514.2. If you cast AoA during 514.3a, it will have its control-changing effect until the next cleanup step and 514.2 comes around.
    – Hackworth
    Commented May 7 at 21:56
  • That's not what I meant. I meant what you said in your expanded explanation. My point was that after the end of the first turn of the game, there has always been an "end of turn" event in the past, and there will always be another "end of turn" event in the future, so there's no reasonable point at which you can say that "the end of turn" has already occurred, which is part of the premise of the question.
    – murgatroid99
    Commented May 7 at 22:41
  • Yes I see what you mean. I guess that's why, even though 610.3 is defined very broadly in that it any event can qualify, in practice, applicable cards such as Banishing Light all have events that can only ever happen once, such as when Banishing Light leaves the battlefield.
    – Hackworth
    Commented May 8 at 8:46
  • Technically I guess it would be possible for Wizards to have created a rule here on the same principle as CR 503.2. "If a spell states that it may be cast only 'after [a player’s] upkeep step,' and the turn has multiple upkeep steps, that spell may be cast any time after the first upkeep step ends." It could have been that "has already occurred" looked for the first occurrence that turn.
    – user10478
    Commented May 8 at 16:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .