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. Then, if that player controlled any objects on the stack not represented by cards, those objects cease to exist. Then, if there are any objects still controlled by that player, those objects are exiled. This is not a state-based action. It happens as soon as the player leaves the game. If the player who left the game had priority at the time he or she left, priority passes to the next player in turn order who’s still in the game. Example: [...]
Example: 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 his or her 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.
[...]
The example shows the part I am not sure about. Which effects qualify as "give a player control of an object"? In contrast, which effects lead to a player controlling an object he doesn't own, but isn't given control of by an effect? Bribery seems to fall in the second category (see rules example), but why is that the case? Why is there a difference between "You control X" / "Gain control of X" and "Put onto the battlefield under your control"? I would certainly read that as an effect "which gives me control of an object".
Effects that "give a player control of an object" use the formulations "gain control of..." or "you control enchanted...". They don't include effects that put a permanent onto the battlefield under a particular player's control, or effects, such as Gather Specimens, that change under whose control a permanent enters the battlefield. (C.R. 110.2 defines a permanent's default controller.)
Under C.R. 800.4a, if a player leaves the game, a nontoken permanent that entered the battlefield under that player's control but is owned by another player will be exiled, as long as no player still in the game has ever controlled that permanent. This applies to Sepulchral Primordial and Oblivion Sower just as it does to Bribery.
Effects that "give a player control of an object" use the formulations "gain control of..." or "you control enchanted...". They don't include effects that put a permanent on the battlefield under a particular player's control, or effects, such as Gather Specimens, that change under whose control a permanent enters the battlefield.
Thanks a lot to you both.
Off topic, I noticed something wierd, probably a forum bug. When I quote you, it says that you wrote this:
To elaborate on my answer: The only "effects which give [a] player control" are continuous effects, not one-shot effects such as effects that put a permanent onto the battlefield under a player's control, because only continuous effects have a duration (compare C.R. 610.1, which describes one-shot effects, with C.R. 611.1, which describes continuous effects). (Gather Specimens's effect doesn't count in this category, even though it's a continuous effect -- "this turn" -- because it only modifies the event of a certain kind of permanent entering the battlefield.)
Ok, so I guess you just have to know and accept this "rule" and everything becomes clear (even though it seems counterintuitive to me)
To try and make you understand the logic behind this...
The default controller of a permanent, i.e. the player who doesn't need a continuous effect to be ongoing in order to control that permanent, is the one under whose control the permanent entered the battlefield. Things work like that so cards like Bribery or Rise from the Grave don't have to do things like put a permanent on the battlefield under its owner's control, then create a change-of-control effect, which would make enter-the-battlefield effects work weird.
To give control of a permanent to its owner just because its default controller has left the game would mean that the rules of the game create a continuous change-of-control effect, which is something only cards can do otherwise. What the rule you had trouble with does is deemed better for a system that's consistent and makes sense structurally speaking. I do understand how giving the permanent to its owner may feel more intuitive, but there are these other considerations at play. Beyond that, it's a matter of opinion, but you indeed have to go with the rule anyway .
I'm a former judge (lapsed), who keeps up to date on rules and policy. Keep in mind that judges' answers aren't necessarily more valid than those of people who aren't judges; what matters is we can quote the rules to back up our answers. When in doubt, ask for such quotes.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I got difficulties understanding Rule 800.4a: The example shows the part I am not sure about. Which effects qualify as "give a player control of an object"? In contrast, which effects lead to a player controlling an object he doesn't own, but isn't given control of by an effect?
Bribery seems to fall in the second category (see rules example), but why is that the case? Why is there a difference between "You control X" / "Gain control of X" and "Put onto the battlefield under your control"? I would certainly read that as an effect "which gives me control of an object".
Does this mean that cards bought under your control with Sepulchral Primordial or Oblivion Sower will also be exiled if you lose?
Thanks for your help and explaining the rules to me!
Under C.R. 800.4a, if a player leaves the game, a nontoken permanent that entered the battlefield under that player's control but is owned by another player will be exiled, as long as no player still in the game has ever controlled that permanent. This applies to Sepulchral Primordial and Oblivion Sower just as it does to Bribery.
EDIT (Jul. 14, 2019): Edited.
Off topic, I noticed something wierd, probably a forum bug. When I quote you, it says that you wrote this: But I can't see it in your actual post...
EDIT: Ok, I got it, you edited your post between me loading this thread and pressing "Quote".
EDIT (Jul. 14, 2019): Correctness edit.
The default controller of a permanent, i.e. the player who doesn't need a continuous effect to be ongoing in order to control that permanent, is the one under whose control the permanent entered the battlefield. Things work like that so cards like Bribery or Rise from the Grave don't have to do things like put a permanent on the battlefield under its owner's control, then create a change-of-control effect, which would make enter-the-battlefield effects work weird.
To give control of a permanent to its owner just because its default controller has left the game would mean that the rules of the game create a continuous change-of-control effect, which is something only cards can do otherwise. What the rule you had trouble with does is deemed better for a system that's consistent and makes sense structurally speaking. I do understand how giving the permanent to its owner may feel more intuitive, but there are these other considerations at play. Beyond that, it's a matter of opinion, but you indeed have to go with the rule anyway .