I couldn't find one but I did find rule 712.9 that says a player can gain control of himself, which leads me to believe I can "gain control" of a creature I already control
that's irrelevant you can cast Act of Treason at your own creature because it is a legal target for the spell
the rules don't care whether the effect of the spell will do anything or not
it's legal to cast Cancel at Supreme Verdict , the fact that it won't do anything to it doesn't make it an invalid play likewise it's legal to cast Murder at Stuffy Doll , again Murder won't do anything, but it was legally cast (maybe he's at two life and wants to gain a life from his Demon's Horn )
same deal here, AoT does 3 things: 1) it untaps the target creature if the creature is tapped (you can cast it at an untapped creature if you like, it'll just fail to untap it) 2) it puts a continuous effect on the creature giving control of the target to the controller of AoT, that effect has a duration until end of turn (normally, one would use AoT on a creature that an opponent controls to make a control change, but there's no requirement that the creature change control to another player) 3) it puts a continuous effect on the creature giving it the ability haste, that effect has a duration until end of turn (it'll put a redundant copy of haste on a creature that already has haste)
the only action that could actually be impossible, would be the instruction to untap the target creature if the creature had a status of untapped
the continuous effects are added regardless (though there may be no visible change)
if your opponent thinks that you can't cast AoT at your own creature because you can't gain control of it, does he likewise think that you can't cast it at his untapped creature because it can't untap it?
if he thinks "yes" to both, then he doesn't know the rules if he thinks "yes" to the former and "no" to the latter, then he's got severe cognitive problems. if he thinks "no" to both, we don't have a problem because he agrees with the rules.
If I have a question about changing control, I should be able to refer to a section that speaks about control (maybe section 110 which defines a permanents control) and find the answer.
except that your question isn't about changing control, it's about legally casting a spell and the rules answer that question I'll quote you again
Can I cast a spell like Act of Treason and target a creature I already control?
MtG Rules Advisor & Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJ DJ Vortex
DCI Certified Rules Advisor from July 14, 2009 to July 14, 2012 DCI #5209514320
Wit found in Rules Q&A
RPJesus: "Man, screw the rules, I'll play a game of 2HG Archenemy Planechase Emperor EDH draft yet. Once I figure out the rules for it..." Chaikov: "Of course, casual Magic may be played any way your Pokemon group agrees on..." and "It's not logic. It's Magic!" GainsBanding: "I only play online. The Magic Online shuffler is AWESOME!" Ikegami: "one might think [adult cats] would make excellent tokens. The issue, though, is that they are very hard to exile. They return to the battlefield more often than an undying creature." Astarael7: "Does 121.1 imply that players are supposed to wear their poison counters?" Bimmerbot: "If you move the wrong way and [the poison counters] fall, it's a game rule violation" Helluminatus: "Just remember, if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but the oracle text says creature - Bunny , then by god, it's a bunny." MadCow21: "Who are you and what have you done with the real Chaikov?"
If I have a question about changing control, I should be able to refer to a section that speaks about control (maybe section 110 which defines a permanents control) and find the answer.
except that your question isn't about changing control, it's about legally casting a spell and the rules answer that question I'll quote you again
Can I cast a spell like Act of Treason and target a creature I already control?
The question of whether or not one can gain control of a creature he already controls did come up and was under debate. Then the question of whether it needs to be written was disputed. My last post was about the need to repeat not whether or not I can target my creature.
The rules of the game also say that it's legal to target yourself when targeting a player but the rule writer deemed it necessary to write in a rule specifically saying you can take control of yourself. Likely, because the question came up during a game and someone decided clarification is necessary. That rule doesn't need to be written as you are already a legal target for "target player" but redundant rules make for easier references.
As to that question, the rules are not clear on that question. (most likely because it simply isn't relevant to anything)
The continuous effect is most certainly applied, however, most things in the rules that care, look for changes of state. There is no change of state if you had control of the creature immediately before and after the event that placed the continuous effect.
So I would answer no, you can not gain control of a creature that you already control, however, the control change effect is applied regardless.
And as I answered earlier, this has no relevance to the question that you initially asked.
MtG Rules Advisor & Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJ DJ Vortex
DCI Certified Rules Advisor from July 14, 2009 to July 14, 2012 DCI #5209514320
Wit found in Rules Q&A
RPJesus: "Man, screw the rules, I'll play a game of 2HG Archenemy Planechase Emperor EDH draft yet. Once I figure out the rules for it..." Chaikov: "Of course, casual Magic may be played any way your Pokemon group agrees on..." and "It's not logic. It's Magic!" GainsBanding: "I only play online. The Magic Online shuffler is AWESOME!" Ikegami: "one might think [adult cats] would make excellent tokens. The issue, though, is that they are very hard to exile. They return to the battlefield more often than an undying creature." Astarael7: "Does 121.1 imply that players are supposed to wear their poison counters?" Bimmerbot: "If you move the wrong way and [the poison counters] fall, it's a game rule violation" Helluminatus: "Just remember, if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but the oracle text says creature - Bunny , then by god, it's a bunny." MadCow21: "Who are you and what have you done with the real Chaikov?"
712.9. A player may gain control of himself or herself. That player will make his or her own decisions and choices as normal.
@cmontyrun: You seem to be under the misconception that rule 712.9 is indicating that you are allowed to target yourself with something like Mindslaver . While that is certainly true, it's not what 712.9 is saying. That rule is there to remind us of how control effects work.
Any effect that says "target player" with no qualifiers like that can be used to target yourself, no matter how little sense the effect might have. For example, you can look at your own hand with Gitaxian Probe if you like.
712.9 is reminding us that control effects on players are applied in a the same way as control effects on permanents (even though there is a vast difference in the actual mechanics of the effect, how it's applied is the same). This really has nothing to do with activating a Mindslaver . It's all about how to resolve the effect.
So back to Act of Treason . Can you target your own creature? Sure. You already control it, so that part of the effect may be wasted -- but it's probably relevant that you untap it and give it haste. There are plenty of things that you can do in Magic that "don't make sense," but can nonetheless be applied in a meaningful way. Some tangentially related examples:
As I mentioned before, you can cast Gitaxian Probe on yourself. You're already looking at your hand, so that part seems like a useless effect. You'll still draw a card, though.
You can cast Feast of Blood on an indestructible creature if you really need the 4 life.
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul:
Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay."
I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board.
Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other BarryShow
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic , giving you time to set up your silly combo . Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster...
Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil.
And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right?
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players.
And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it.
He/It got me with Light of Sanction , which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad , things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed .
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
And as I answered earlier, this has no relevance to the question that you initially asked.
The name of the thread is " Can I gain control of my own creature" Granted, that's open to interpretation and my following question was misguided (focusing on targeting rather than effect) but the question was posed and others did address it already.
@cmontyrun: You seem to be under the misconception that rule 712.9 is indicating that you are allowed to target yourself with something like Mindslaver . While that is certainly true, it's not what 712.9 is saying. That rule is there to remind us of how control effects work.
No. Please follow allong. Others have argued that there's no need to say "a player may take control of a creature he or she already controls" because a knowledge of every rule shows that, because your creature is a legal target and the the way the system of layers/timestamps works, you can take control of your own creature. (though that's debated) If there's not need for that rule, then there's also no need for 712.9 for thesame reason.
My point was that, if the rule makers say that a clarification is necessary in that instance, it makes sence for a clarification in a virtually identical situation.
So, does it matter if the rules explicitally say "a player may take control of a creature he or she already controls"? Yes for the same reason it's necessary to have 712.9.
The continuous effect is most certainly applied, however, most things in the rules that care, look for changes of state. There is no change of state if you had control of the creature immediately before and after the event that placed the continuous effect.
So I would answer no, you can not gain control of a creature that you already control, however, the control change effect is applied regardless.
That's sound logic but that contradicts the logic used in 712.9. If a player can "gain control" of himself, than he should be able to "gain control" of his own creature.
Truthfully, I'm not advocating for either side on that debate. I just think it should be addressed spaecifically as many minor instances are addressed specifically.
That's really a bizarre line of argument: "there's a rule that isn't necessary, therefore any other potential rule that isn't necessary should also be included".
Also, you're still comparing the Mindslaver effect to those that change control of permanents. The two are completely different. It's like saying that because something is said about drawing a card, the same should be said about drawing the game.
The most that would be reasonable to add is some reminder subrule of 611 saying that, if something tries to generate a continuous effect that has no visible effect on the game state, the effect is still generated.
I'm just telling you my opinion based on an extrapolation of the rules as a whole.
The rules don't specifically say one way or the other. We know the effect is applied and does its thing regardless, even if there is no appreciable effect.
As mentioned earlier, Bazaar Trader can be used to perma-steal a creature stolen temporarily by the aforementioned Act of Treason .
We know 100% for sure that the effect is applied, but it has no visible effect until the turn ends when the control change effect of Act of Treason ends and then we discover that the creature stays where it is because the Bazaar Trader effect is still in place.
Now it also comes down to what one means by gaining control Is it referring to the act of placing the continuous effect? Or does it refer to a change of state?
If you mean the former, then yes you gained control of the creature that you already controlled - again. However, if you mean the latter, no there was no state change.
Triggers look for state changes, like Fallowsage when it becomes tapped. It has to start in a untapped state and end in a tapped state for the ability to trigger. If you put a Fallowsage on the field tapped, say because of an opponent's Kismet , it will not trigger because it didn't transition from one state to the other between gamestates on either side of the event of entering the field.
Likewise, if you activate the equip ability targeting the same creature that the equipment is already attached to the timestamp is not updated and it didn't become equipped anew.
Logically, we can extrapolate from these other rules/interactions/guidelines and speculate that there was no change of control rather that there was just an application of an effect that had no visible effect on the board at the time that it was applied..
MtG Rules Advisor & Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJ DJ Vortex
DCI Certified Rules Advisor from July 14, 2009 to July 14, 2012 DCI #5209514320
Wit found in Rules Q&A
RPJesus: "Man, screw the rules, I'll play a game of 2HG Archenemy Planechase Emperor EDH draft yet. Once I figure out the rules for it..." Chaikov: "Of course, casual Magic may be played any way your Pokemon group agrees on..." and "It's not logic. It's Magic!" GainsBanding: "I only play online. The Magic Online shuffler is AWESOME!" Ikegami: "one might think [adult cats] would make excellent tokens. The issue, though, is that they are very hard to exile. They return to the battlefield more often than an undying creature." Astarael7: "Does 121.1 imply that players are supposed to wear their poison counters?" Bimmerbot: "If you move the wrong way and [the poison counters] fall, it's a game rule violation" Helluminatus: "Just remember, if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but the oracle text says creature - Bunny , then by god, it's a bunny." MadCow21: "Who are you and what have you done with the real Chaikov?"
That's really a bizarre line of argument: "there's a rule that isn't necessary, therefore any other potential rule that isn't necessary should also be included".
There are several redundant rules that follow that exact logic. Again, it seems as though the comprehensive rules were intended as a categorized reference tool as appose to a book intended to be read front to back.
Also, you're still comparing the Mindslaver effect to those that change control of permanents. The two are completely different. It's like saying that because something is said about drawing a card, the same should be said about drawing the game.
In the game, I control my actions, my opponent can gain control of my actions and I can gain control of my own action. In the game, I control my creatures, my opponent can gain control of my actions and I can gain control of my own creatures. (arguably) The parallel is there. Again, if 712.9 exists, by any logic, the exact same logic could be used to create a similar rule regarding control of permanents.
The most that would be reasonable to add is some reminder subrule of 611 saying that, if something tries to generate a continuous effect that has no visible effect on the game state, the effect is still generated.
That's exactly the kind of thing I suggested awhile ago. Referring to redundant "reminders"
I should be able to go to section 402.1 and learn what I need to know or have a brief synopsis of what's explained in greater detail somewhere else as well as the rule number. (Emphasis added)
you loads
