|
6 months ago ::
Nov 24, 2012 - 11:07PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Oct 14, 2012
|
Can I cast a spell like Act of Treason and target a creature I already control?
If so, is there a specific rule that says so? 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
Thanks in advance for any clarification.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 24, 2012 - 11:15PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Nov 16, 2007
|
The only limit on the choice of target is that it must be a "creature", so yes you can. If it said "target creature you don't control", then you couldn't.
It will untap the creature if it's tapped, and it will suppress the symptoms of summoning sickness until end of turn if applicable.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 24, 2012 - 11:28PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jan 24, 2011
|
If an effect tries to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible. In the case of Act of Treason, you target any creature, even if you control it. You will not gain control of it (although you will have an extra control effect on it), but everything else the spell does will happen as stated above.
If they ever print a card with a "whenever you gain control of a creature" trigger, it might matter that you already control it.
Rules Advisor Please autocard: [c ]Disenchant[/c ] = Disenchant  .
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 24, 2012 - 11:33PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Oct 14, 2012
|
If an effect tries to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible. In the case of Act of Treason, you target any creature, even if you control it. You will not gain control of it (although you will have an extra control effect on it), but everything else the spell does will happen as stated above.
If they ever print a card with a "whenever you gain control of a creature" trigger, it might matter that you already control it.
That's a perfect resolution to my delima. Thanks. Now, before I go muddling through the rules for proof, does anyone know where the rules say if some effects of a card are impossible others are still valid? I have a friend who I know will dispute that.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 24, 2012 - 11:48PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Sep 17, 2005
|
If an effect tries to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible. In the case of Act of Treason, you target any creature, even if you control it. You will not gain control of it (although you will have an extra control effect on it), but everything else the spell does will happen as stated above.
If they ever print a card with a "whenever you gain control of a creature" trigger, it might matter that you already control it.
That's a perfect resolution to my delima. Thanks. Now, before I go muddling through the rules for proof, does anyone know where the rules say if some effects of a card are impossible others are still valid? I have a friend who I know will dispute that.
609.3. If an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 24, 2012 - 11:53PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jan 24, 2011
|
If an effect tries to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible.
609.3. If an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible.
One-word away from verbatim 
Rules Advisor Please autocard: [c ]Disenchant[/c ] = Disenchant .
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 24, 2012 - 11:55PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Nov 16, 2007
|
If an effect tries to do something impossible
I specifically did not mention that rule because it doesn't apply. There's nothing impossible here. You do gain control of it, which is to say it does create a continuous affects that gives you control. This does matter (e.g. if something else giving control expires first).
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 25, 2012 - 12:16AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jan 24, 2011
|
Yes but within the game it makes no difference, since if you controlled it before, that effect won't matter for any kind of timestamp and might as well not be there at all.
Rules Advisor Please autocard: [c ]Disenchant[/c ] = Disenchant .
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 25, 2012 - 12:19AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2009
|
Just for a bit of extra completeness, I'm going to highlight that the reason you can target a creature you control with Act of Treason  is because its target is specifically "target creature. Compare with Act of Aggression  : "target creature an opponent controls".
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 25, 2012 - 12:49AM
#10
|
|
|
Whether or not it is impossible to gain control of something you already control seems to depend on the definition of "gain control." More specifically, we need to know if a change in control is necessary for the action to be considered "gaining" control. Unfortunately, I can't find anywhere in the CR that defines gaining control (if someone else can, please post!  ). The closest hints at the topic are the following two rules, which appear to offer contradictory answers to this issue: 701.8b When control of two permanents is exchanged, if those permanents are controlled by
different players, each of those players simultaneously gains control of the permanent that was
controlled by the other player. If, on the other hand, those permanents are controlled by the
same player, the exchange effect does nothing.
712.9. A player may gain control of himself or herself. That player will make his or her own decisions
and choices as normal.
Of course, we could fall back on rule 701.1, since gain control is not defined as a keyword.
701.1. Most actions described in a card’s rules text use the standard English definitions of the verbs
within, but some specialized verbs are used whose meanings may not be clear. These “keywords”
are game terms; sometimes reminder text summarizes their meanings.
In this case, the word "gain" means "to come into possession of" (www.thefreedictionary.com/gain), which would mean you were not in possession of the thing before the action occurred.
|
|
|
