How does this Act of Treason resolve?
Asked by Dimir-Acolyte 5 years ago
There is a multiplayer EDH game consisting of players A, B, and C in that turn order. Player A casts Bribery on player C, stealing a Prodigal Sorcerer. Next turn player B casts Act of Treason on the Sorcerer. When the Treason effect ends, who gains control of the Sorcerer? It's preveious controller (A) or it's owner (C)?
To add a point of clarification to Boza's post - just because one control-changing effect is currently applicable does not cause any others to go away. Control-changing effects are in Layer 2, and the game remembers these effects when a new effect is put on top. So, if Player A owns a creature, Player B takes it, Player C takes it, and Player D uses Act of Treason, the creature will revert back to the next highest control-changing effect in the layer--Player C.
It's also important to drive home the point that Bribery is a bit strange and is not really a control-changing effect. Bribery does not allow you to "gain control" of a creature--the creature enters the battlefield under your control without having ever been under another's.
This very minor distinction makes a critical difference in multiplayer games--in fact, Bribery is specifically mentioned in the examples to Rule 804(a).
Why is this important? When a player loses the game, the first thing that happens is all control-changing effects end. So, if a player using Act of Treason loses the game, their control changing effect will end, and the creature will revert back to whoever is next highest in the layer.
Bribery, however, is not a control-changing effect, since the creature was never under another's control. It will not revert back to its owner, but rather will be exiled (Then, if there are any objects still controlled by that player, those objects are exiled.)
Example from Rule 800.4(a): Alex casts Bribery, which reads, “Search target opponent’s library for a creature card and put that card onto the battlefield under your control. Then that player shuffles their library,” targeting Bianca. Alex puts Serra Angel onto the battlefield from Bianca’s library. If Bianca leaves the game, Serra Angel also leaves the game. If, instead, Alex leaves the game, Serra Angel is exiled.
November 13, 2018 9:02 a.m.
Dimir-Acolyte - As this has been open for a couple days, I've marked Boza's post as the accepted answer to this thread. In the future, if you could please hit the "Mark as Answer" button that shows up on responses once you're question has been resolved, that would be appreciated. It helps keep the Rules Q&A section organised and serves as allows future users who stumble across the same question to easily locate the answer.
"Ownership refers to who's card that deck came from."
This is a good general way to understand ownership, but is not 100% accurate--there exist two exceptions:
Ownership also includes cards that are brought in from outside of the game--such as with Glittering Wish. This seems pretty obvious, but, technically, these cards do not have a "deck they came from" so do not neatly fit in your definition.
There also exist four cards that allow ownership to change, regardless of whose deck the card started in--Bronze Tablet, Darkpact. Tempest Efreet, and Timmerian Fiends. Granted, all of these cards are banned in every format, not welcome at kitchen table, and possibly in violation of local gambling laws, but they're still worth mentioning as a historical curiosity.
Boza says... Accepted answer #1
A.
With the control changing effects, the most recent one is the one that applies. Once the Act of Treason effect ends, control reverts back to the previous controller, which is A in this case.
Sidenote: The answer can never be C, the owner, since that player never controlled that card in this game, only owned it. For contrast, if the creature stolen by A is exiled by Oblivion Ring that was destroyed later on, the stolen creature will return under C's control, since C is the owner.
November 13, 2018 4:31 a.m.