Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Jul-19 5:31 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Rules question about Emrakul
AgePosted: 2017-May-10 3:17 am 

Joined: 2012-Jan-09 9:37 am
Age: Wyvern
Here's a question that stumped a friend and his local playgroup. We asked around to a few judges, without getting a definitive answer. Hopefully you guys can help us out.

Player 1 resolved Emrakul, the Promised End's trigger. He controls Player 2's turn. However, during that controlled turn, Player 3 kills Player 1.

What happens for the remainder of Player 2's turn? Who controls the turn now?

Does Player 2 still take an extra turn after that one?

Thanks.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules question about Emrakul
AgePosted: 2017-May-10 3:43 am 

Joined: 2017-May-09 1:04 pm
Age: Wyvern
nelsolo wrote:
Here's a question that stumped a friend and his local playgroup. We asked around to a few judges, without getting a definitive answer. Hopefully you guys can help us out.

Player 1 resolved Emrakul, the Promised End's trigger. He controls Player 2's turn. However, during that controlled turn, Player 3 kills Player 1.

What happens for the remainder of Player 2's turn? Who controls the turn now?

Does Player 2 still take an extra turn after that one?

Thanks.


Control over a player is basically done in layers (my wording of layer might be wrong here, but I'm not sure what to call it so I'm simply calling it a layer for my examples).

The original layer is the player. Lets call him Player A.

If Player A then has an ability resolve where Player B will control his turn, the layer is now:

B
A

If Player B is removed from the game via losing, his layer controlling player A will also be removed. So player A's layer now just looks like this:

A

So control over Player A's turn will go back to player A in the event that Player B loses while controlling Player A.

To take it a step further. If Player B casts Emrakul, Targeting Player A, and it resolves. Then Player C casts Mindslaver, activating it targeting Player A, the Layer now looks like this:

C
B
A

Player C will control player A during his next turn. If Player C dies during this turn, it will revert to Player B. And if Player B then also dies, it will revert to Player A.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules question about Emrakul
AgePosted: 2017-May-10 4:43 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
page04z: What you post makes sense -- I just don't know if that's supported in the rules :)

And I think that's the reason that the OP said that multiple judges couldn't give him an answer -- because there may not be an answer in the rules.

But, absent of any specific rules on this -- how you describe is how I'd do it in any of my local games (as I'm often the rules guru for strange esoteric stuff.)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules question about Emrakul
AgePosted: 2017-May-10 5:21 am 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
If a spell or ability starts to resolve and is removed from the stack doesn't it continue to resolve?

While not applicable, I think it fits the spirit of this situation.

Emrakul's effect triggers upon casting and resolves. Nothing about a player leaving the game will undo previous events that have occurred. If I quit a game you won't lose poison counters received from my dudes or gain back life I made you lose.

The controlled player would regain control (default settings) and get another turn (because the ability has resolved).

_________________
3DH4L1F3


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules question about Emrakul
AgePosted: 2017-May-10 8:39 am 

Joined: 2014-Jul-26 11:35 am
Age: Elder Dragon
I knew it was in there somewhere:
Quote:
800.4a. When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule 109) owned by that player leave the game and any effects which give that player control of any objects or players end.
(emphasis mine)

The effect giving the player control over the active player ends, so the game returns to whatever state would exist without that effect. So exactly what has been logiced out above.

The effect granting an extra turn however remains in the game, as there is no rule (that I could see) which indicates you are required to remove other types of effects created by the player leaving the game.

niheloim wrote:
If a spell or ability starts to resolve and is removed from the stack doesn't it continue to resolve?

Im not sure what you are meaning here, but I cant think a way for something to start to resolve and then be removed. Either a spell resolves or it doesn't.

_________________
Favourite Deck:
Ghost Council of Orzhova

Playing Online:
Noyan Darr & Sedris Zombie Guy


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules question about Emrakul
AgePosted: 2017-May-10 10:55 am 

Joined: 2017-May-09 1:04 pm
Age: Wyvern
specter404 wrote:
niheloim wrote:
If a spell or ability starts to resolve and is removed from the stack doesn't it continue to resolve?

Im not sure what you are meaning here, but I cant think a way for something to start to resolve and then be removed. Either a spell resolves or it doesn't.


Nice work finding that ruling. Seems it isn't necessarily layers (or you know, whatever word i was looking for) but just a single rule.

In regards to this, I suppose it could be something like... since you follow the text from the top to bottom while in the middle of resolving an ability, a card like Sylvan Offering might be applicable here. I don't know the exact scenario the OP is talking about, but my understanding of his statement is this:

Sylvan Offering wrote:
Choose an opponent. You and that player each put an X/X green Treefolk creature token onto the battlefield.
Choose an opponent. You and that player each put X 1/1 green Elf Warrior creature tokens onto the battlefield.


As it is resolving, you choose an opponent and then put the treefolks in play, then you choose an opponent and then put the elves into play. If the casting player would scoop after the treefolk are put into play, and before he chooses an opponent for the elves, I think that would count as a spell not resolving.

Not sure if this helps or not, that's my interpretation of what he is asking about though.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules question about Emrakul
AgePosted: 2017-May-10 1:49 pm 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
specter404 wrote:

niheloim wrote:
If a spell or ability starts to resolve and is removed from the stack doesn't it continue to resolve?

Im not sure what you are meaning here, but I cant think a way for something to start to resolve and then be removed. Either a spell resolves or it doesn't.


My meaning was to parallel a principle. Once the Emrakul effect starts, even if a player leaves the ability still continues to have its effect.

As for hypothetical situations:
When someone quits the game. You remove all their stuff from the stack. You can quit at any time even mid-resolution of one of your spells.

You might also get a spell with multiple effects that allows for the playing of a counter spell during resolution. You can target the spell resolving with the counter.

But you're right- either it resolves or it doesn't.

_________________
3DH4L1F3


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules question about Emrakul
AgePosted: 2017-May-10 2:54 pm 

Joined: 2017-May-09 1:04 pm
Age: Wyvern
niheloim wrote:
You might also get a spell with multiple effects that allows for the playing of a counter spell during resolution. You can target the spell resolving with the counter.


Would you mind giving an example of this? It was my understanding that no one has priority during the resolution of a spell or ability.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules question about Emrakul
AgePosted: 2017-May-10 2:56 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
specter404 wrote:
niheloim wrote:
If a spell or ability starts to resolve and is removed from the stack doesn't it continue to resolve?

Im not sure what you are meaning here, but I cant think a way for something to start to resolve and then be removed. Either a spell resolves or it doesn't.

Time Stop or Glorious End will begin resolving, and then in the process of it, remove itself from the stack.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: