Magic: The Gathering situational question.

Rderdall

So, my wife and I just picked up a couple starter decks today, so we can play together. I've played some games on Xbox Live, but I'm not an expert by any means and this was her first time ever.

While playing tonight, the following situation came up, and I would like to know if we played the situation correctly.

I had an Angelic Arbiter on the battlefield.

My wife cast an Act of Treason during her turn, took control of my Angelic Arbiter and used it against me.

We discussed whether or not it was possible before we did the play, and decided to do it anyway and look it up later. What we were wondering was, does the fact that she cast the Act of Treason SPELL as my opponent prevent her from being able to attack (the result of my Arbiter's ability) even though she was taking the Arbiter for her own?

Please advise!

khain

With gatherer you can look at the rules for specific cards, anyway Angelic Arbiter effects only apply if it's on the battlefield and under your control. Since it's no longer under your control after Act of Treason your wife isn't restricted to cast spells or attack.

Spawnbroker

Sorry, but that's wrong. The way the Angelic Arbiter ability works is it's a triggered ability. The spell Act of Treason goes on the stack, then the triggered ability from the Arbiter goes on the stack. The triggered ability is resolved first, which says "your opponent can't attack with creatures", then your opponent takes control of the Arbiter.

Since the triggered ability was resolved while you still had control of the Arbiter, it means she can't attack you.

Edit: Now that I think about it some more, and reading the card again, it looks like the effect is not a triggered ability, it's ongoing. I think it may be legal to do that play, in that case. I'm really not sure. What makes me unsure is the wording of the ability. If it said "If an opponent cast a spell this turn, he or she can't attack with creatures," then it would work like I stated above. Since it doesn't word it that way, it makes me think the ability is more ongoing and once it comes under her control she can then attack.

khain

Spawnbroker wrote: »

Sorry, but that's wrong. The way the Angelic Arbiter ability works is it's a triggered ability. The spell Act of Treason goes on the stack, then the triggered ability from the Arbiter goes on the stack. The triggered ability is resolved first, which says "your opponent can't attack with creatures", then your opponent takes control of the Arbiter.

Since the triggered ability was resolved while you still had control of the Arbiter, it means she can't attack you.

Edit: Now that I think about it some more, and reading the card again, it looks like the effect is not a triggered ability, it's ongoing. I think it may be legal to do that play, in that case. I'm really not sure. What makes me unsure is the wording of the ability. If it said "If an opponent cast a spell this turn, he or she can't attack with creatures," then it would work like I stated above. Since it doesn't word it that way, it makes me think the ability is more ongoing and once it comes under her control she can then attack.

It's not a trigger ability. Also from gatherer rulings, "During an opponent's turn, that opponent may either cast spells or attack with creatures, but not both (assuming that Angelic Arbiter is on the battlefield for the entirety of that turn). The player may perform other actions, such as activating abilities and playing lands." Note that is specifically says that you can't do both only if Angelic Arbiter is on the battlefield for the entire turn.

edit: Also from the next line, "If Angelic Arbiter leaves the battlefield during an opponent's turn, its abilities cease to affect the game. For example, if an opponent casts Doom Blade to destroy Angelic Arbiter, that player may then attack with creatures." which probably would have made this clearer.

OnTheLastCastle

A scenario that helps to simplify this is if you Doom Blade (or otherwise kill with a spell) the arbiter, you may then attack.

-L1 Judge

edit: also click the display rulings at the bottom of the gatherer link. It usually explains things like this. In fact, I only looked at it after the fact and my doom blade example is there.

Though the latest set has been rife with 'interesting' interactions that I thought they'd worked through in the past. We had a great question about Elixir of Immortality getting stolen by a Geth.

VThornheart

Now, would it be right in saying that when the effect is checked (for example, when her attack phase begins), the meaning of the word "opponent" will have changed to mean him, which means that even if it applied to her at one point it no longer applies?

This would definitely be easier to resolve if it were considered a triggered ability: it would've gone on the stack before the rite, and "opponent" would be her when it goes on the stack, and thus she wouldn't be able to attack with it. I'm not quite sure what the implications are if this isn't a triggered ability... and what kind of ability would this be? As far as I knew, there's only two types: triggered and activated.

Or are there more now, and if so when are they evaluated? Magic seems to go through these phases of simplifying the system to make the result of actions and effects more obvious, and then slowly creeping back to poorly documented additional interactions.

jeddy lee

it's a static effect rather then a triggered ability. Whenever you do an action, it checks against game rules and static effects, this is fundamental for all CCGs. So in this case, P1 has the arbiter. P2 casts a spell, the game checks for legality. Each instance of attempting to do anything requires the check for legality against static effects. When P2 has control of the arbiter, he is no longer considered the opponent of the arbiter's controller, as he IS the arbiter's controller. Thus the conditions on the card no longer apply to P2.

I hope this made some sense... it's 2:30 in the morning.

JaysonFour

As soon as your wife took control of the Arbiter, the effect stopped working on her and started working on you. So the attack against you was legal.

Akilae729

There used to be a 1-800 number to Wizards of the Coast just for this sort of thing when I was playing MTG 7 or 8 years ago

Many heater arguments were solved by just calling up the number. (when the solution couldn't be tracked down in the little 5th edition rule book)

Maybe it still exists?

Darkewolfe

http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=256261

Angelic Arbiter's state-based ability (who is the opponent of the controller of Angelic Arbiter?) will not affect the person who cast Act of Treason once they control the Arbiter.

Darmak

Akilae729 wrote: »

There used to be a 1-800 number to Wizards of the Coast just for this sort of thing when I was playing MTG 7 or 8 years ago

Many heater arguments were solved by just calling up the number. (when the solution couldn't be tracked down in the little 5th edition rule book)

Maybe it still exists?

Wow, that's pretty cool. Like, really cool.