It doesn't end well for you.
You follow the instructions in the order written. First you shuffle everything away - and the instant Grasp of Fate is off the battlefield, Erebos is back on it - and then you attempt to set your life total to 20 while Erebos's effect is active. Since you can't gain life, you stay at 0 and lose the next time state-based actions are checked.
This answer assumes that you own Grasp of Fate and Lich's Mirror, and your opponent owns Erebos.
In this case, you shuffle Grasp of Fate and Lich's Mirror (among other cards) into your library, draw seven cards, and have life total raised to 20, instead of losing the game under C.R. 704.5a, then Erebos returns to the battlefield under your opponent's control "immediately after" Grasp of Fate leaves the battlefield (C.R. 610.3). Only then does Erebos's ability "Your opponents can't gain life" kick in (C.R. 611.3b, 611.3, 112.6). In effect, Lich's Mirror's replacement effect modifies what happens during the state-based action under C.R. 704.5a (C.R. 614.6), which nevertheless still happens simultaneously with other state-based actions "as a single event" (C.R. 704.3).
Okay, so two follow-up questions and a 3rd possible follow-up after this.
1. What happens if I own the Erebos?
2. Does the Lich's Mirror effect and my eventual game loss happen simultaneously, or are they two separate events since state-based actions were checked twice? (EDIT: Assuming Artscrafter is right.)
Okay, so two follow-up questions and a 3rd possible follow-up after this.
1. What happens if I own the Erebos?
If you own Erebos he would return under your control. As you can never be your own opponent, you would gain life.
2. Does the Lich's Mirror effect and my eventual game loss happen simultaneously, or are they two separate events since state-based actions were checked twice?
With Erebos being owned by your opponent there are 2 rounds of SBA in the first one the game sees you should lose then applies the effect on Liches mirror. After this the game instantly does another check of SBA to see if any more need to be applied and sees you at 0 life then makes you lose the game.
With out Erebos in the scenario the second round of SBA would do nothing so the game would progress to the relevant player having priority.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Okay, so two follow-up questions and a 3rd possible follow-up after this.
1. What happens if I own the Erebos?
2. Does the Lich's Mirror effect and my eventual game loss happen simultaneously, or are they two separate events since state-based actions were checked twice? (EDIT: Assuming Artscrafter is right.)
1. Since Erebos is still exiled (it's not in your hand or library, and it's not a "permanent" [C.R. 110.1]), you don't shuffle it into your library and it returns to the battlefield under your control "immediately after" Grasp of Fate leaves the battlefield due to Lich's Mirror (C.R. 610.3); by then, your life total will have been 20. Besides this, the answer is the same as under my comment 3.
2. My answer doesn't speak of an actual game loss; in my answer, state-based actions are performed only once in this scenario.
Y'know, I'm pretty sure that's not right. The rules you cited specify 'immediately after' -- not after the whole effect is finished, just after the individual event (the shuffle-in bit) is, which leaves Erebos on the field for the 'gain 20'.
For people's reference, here's 610:
610. One-Shot Effects
610.1. A one-shot effect does something just once and doesn't have a duration. Examples include dealing damage, destroying a permanent, creating a token, and moving an object from one zone to another.
610.2. Some one-shot effects create a delayed triggered ability, which instructs a player to do something later in the game (usually at a specific time) rather than as the spell or ability that's creating the one-shot effect resolves. See rule 603.7.
610.3. Some one-shot effects cause an object to change zones "until" a specified event occurs. A second one-shot effect is created immediately after the specified event. This second one-shot effect returns the object to its previous zone.
610.3a. If the specified event has already occurred when the initial one-shot effect would cause the object to change zones, the object doesn't move.
610.3b. An object returned to the battlefield this way returns under its owner's control unless otherwise specified.
610.3c. If multiple one-shot effects are created this way immediately after one or more simultaneous events, those one-shot effects are also simultaneous.
Example: Two Banisher Priests have each exiled a card. All creatures are destroyed at the same time by Day of Judgment. The two exiled cards are returned to the battlefield at the same time.
Note 610.3's reference to 'event's. Here's 700.1's definition:
"700.1. Anything that happens in a game is an event. Multiple events may take place during the resolution of a spell or ability. The text of triggered abilities and replacement effects defines the event they're looking for. One "happening" may be treated as a single event by one ability and as multiple events by another."
To me, this suggests that the three things that Lich's Mirror does are separate events, and that reading 610.3 should thus suggest that the return happens immediately, before the other 2 events have occurred.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes... Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
--Buck v Bell, 1927. This case, regarding the compulsory sterilization of inmates at mental institutions, has -- somehow -- never been overturned. Just a wee PSA for ya.
Y'know, I'm pretty sure that's not right. The rules you cited specify 'immediately after' -- not after the whole effect is finished, just after the individual event (the shuffle-in bit) is, which leaves Erebos on the field for the 'gain 20'.
However, C.R. 704.3 also speaks of events when it says that state-based actions are performed "simultaneously as a single event".
EDIT: Deleted second sentence after comment 16 was posted.
I'd like to satisfy a curiosity of mine. I still want a definitive answer to my original question, but I'd like to know one other thing:
Say I have Lich's Mirror and I go to 0 with my opponent already controlling Erebos (no Grasp of Fate involved). Obviously I would lose, but do two separate state-based events occur (Lich's Mirror and then me losing) or just one (do they happen simultaneously)?
I'd like to satisfy a curiosity of mine. I still want a definitive answer to my original question, but I'd like to know one other thing:
Say I have Lich's Mirror and I go to 0 with my opponent already controlling Erebos (no Grasp of Fate involved). Obviously I would lose, but do two separate state-based events occur (Lich's Mirror and then me losing) or just one (do they happen simultaneously)?
If any state-based actions apply, such as a player having 0 or less life, "all applicable state-based actions" are done; "this check [for state-based actions] is repeated" until "no more state-based actions have been performed" (C.R. 704.3; see also C.R. 116.5). The entire action done for Lich's Mirror occurs as one state-based action, not several, since it replaces what the state-based action under C.R. 704.5a does (C.R. 614.6).
I'd like to satisfy a curiosity of mine. I still want a definitive answer to my original question, but I'd like to know one other thing:
Say I have Lich's Mirror and I go to 0 with my opponent already controlling Erebos (no Grasp of Fate involved). Obviously I would lose, but do two separate state-based events occur (Lich's Mirror and then me losing) or just one (do they happen simultaneously)?
If any state-based actions apply, such as a player having 0 or less life, "all applicable state-based actions" are done, then "this check [for state-based actions] is repeated" until "no more state-based actions have been performed" (C.R. 704.3; see also C.R. 116.5). The entire action done for Lich's Mirror occurs as one state-based action, not several, since it replaces losing the game under C.R. 704.5a with multiple things (C.R. 614.6).
Your answer is slightly ambiguous. As you know, after Lich's Mirror's effect happens, the game checks again for state-based actions and I lose in that scenario because I had 0 life and I don't have Lich's Mirror anymore. My question was: does ALL of that happen as one event (Both Lich's Mirror and me losing after Lich's Mirror is applied), or do multiple checks result in multiple events?
Your answer is slightly ambiguous. As you know, after Lich's Mirror's effect happens, the game checks again for state-based actions and I lose in that scenario because I had 0 life and I don't have Lich's Mirror anymore. My question was: does ALL of that happen as one event: "Both Lich's Mirror and me losing after Lich's Mirror is applied), or do multiple checks result in multiple events?
The process is as follows:
Your life total is 0 as a player gets priority.
Since a player would get priority, state-based actions are checked (C.R. 116.5).
Since your life total is 0, you would lose the game as a state-based action (C.R. 704.5a), but instead of losing the game, you shuffle certain cards into your library, draw seven cards, and set your life total to 20 due to Lich's Mirror's effect (C.R. 614.6), but your life total remains 0 due to Erebos (assuming one of your opponents owns Erebos), since setting the life total to 20 this way causes life gain (C.R. 118.5).
Since state-based actions were performed, the check is repeated (C.R. 704.3).
Since your life total is 0, you would lose the game as a state-based action (C.R. 704.5a).
Thus, in the scenario you mention in comment 9, there would be two state-based action checks; note that they don't both occur "simultaneously", but rather only one batch of state-based actions does so at a time (C.R. 704.3).
My question was: does ALL of that happen as one event (Both Lich's Mirror and me losing after Lich's Mirror is applied), or do multiple checks result in multiple events?
With Erebos and Liches mirror it is 2 seperate events causing you to lose the game.
The first one replaced with Liches mirror doing its stuff. The second when SBA are rechecked and you are still at or below 0 life.
In most cases this is just technicallities outside of a potentially very small number of corner cases in a multiplayer game it is not relevant. You lose the game and it ends.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
So as a final clarification to my original question in my original post, Erebos doesn't come back from Grasp of Fate leaving until the entire Lich's Mirror event is applied and I would be at 20 life.
Also, quick question: What if in this scenario, Erebos is on the field and Grasp of Fate was holding my opponent's Abyssal Persecutor instead?
So as a final clarification to my original question in my original post, Erebos doesn't come back from Grasp of Fate leaving until the entire Lich's Mirror event is applied and I would be at 20 life. EDIT: what if Erebos is on the field and Grasp of Fate was holding my opponent's Abyssal Persecutor?
Under my answer in comment 3, that would be correct, since Erebos would reenter the battlefield "immediately after" Grasp of Fate leaves the battlefield (C.R. 610.3); since state-based actions (within a single check) occur "simultaneously as a single event" (C.R. 704.3), the next possible moment Erebos would return this way is after the state-based actions are performed.
To answer your new question (assuming your opponent owns Abyssal Persecutor): Under my answer in comment 3, Abyssal Persecutor would return just after the first batch of state-based actions, but just before "the check is repeated" under C.R. 704.3. In any case, Abyssal Persecutor would return before "the check is repeated" under C.R. 704.3, so once the new check sees your life total at 0 again, you would lose the game, but Abyssal Persecutor's effect stops you from losing (C.R. 101.2, 101.3); since you losing the game is impossible, Lich's Mirror's effect can't replace it with something else (C.R. 614.7; see also C.R. 614.17c). Since "no more state-based actions have been performed as the result of a check", the game stops checking for state-based actions (C.R. 704.3).
EDIT: Clarification.
EDIT (May 4): Added citation to a rule added in Amonkhet.
EDIT (May 7): See comment 24.
EDIT (Sep. 28): One rule was renumbered with Ixalan.
EDIT (Jan. 2, 2019): Add rule citation.
Y'know, I'm pretty sure that's not right. The rules you cited specify 'immediately after' -- not after the whole effect is finished, just after the individual event (the shuffle-in bit) is, which leaves Erebos on the field for the 'gain 20'.
However, C.R. 704.3 also speaks of events when it says that state-based actions are performed "simultaneously as a single event".
Again, 700.1: "700.1. Anything that happens in a game is an event. Multiple events may take place during the resolution of a spell or ability. The text of triggered abilities and replacement effects defines the event they're looking for. One "happening" may be treated as a single event by one ability and as multiple events by another."
704.3 clarifies that SBAs happen simultaneously to one another, but I'd argue (and also having asked the judge's rules chat) that it really doesn't apply to this; we're talking about the sub-events of a single SBA, not a bunch of SBAs trying to do things simultaneously where possible, and 700.1 makes it clear that what one thing may call an 'event' may be multiple 'event's for another. Based on the definition of 'event', it seems to me that, if Lich's Mirror weren't a replacement effect, we would have no trouble calling the three things it does separate events; after all, "multiple events may take place during the resolution of a spell or ability," and they're entirely sperate instructions. There's no reason to assume that the three events need happen simultaneously; for instance, 608.2c specifies that "The controller of the spell or ability follows its instructions in the order written," and 608.2e notes that, for some spells, separate actions are denoted by "separate sentences or clauses." Thus, given that they are 3 separate events, I don't understand why we shouldn't interpret the rules' phrasing of 610.3 ("A second one-shot effect is created immediately after the specified event") as literally meaning immediatly.
Also, for what it's worth, here's the Oracle errata on Suspension Field: "The exiled card returns to the battlefield immediately after Suspension Field leaves the battlefield. Nothing happens between these two events, including state-based actions. Suspension Field and the returned card aren’t on the battlefield at the same time." Still nothing completely definitive, but further supports the fact that literally nothing happens between the Priest leaving and the card returning; the only question is whether the triggering event (the Priest leaving the battlefield) should be lumped in with all the many things Mirror is doing, which (as I said above) I do not belive is true.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes... Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
--Buck v Bell, 1927. This case, regarding the compulsory sterilization of inmates at mental institutions, has -- somehow -- never been overturned. Just a wee PSA for ya.
Your example of The Great Aurora is actually inapplicable to the scenario given in comment 1, which involves a replacement effect that has multiple steps but which occurs during a state-based action that is nevertheless (according to C.R. 704.3) performed "simultaneously as a single event", that is (EDIT [May 7]: as I understood it when I originally wrote comment 3), there is no "time" (as far as the game is concerned) between the start of the state-based actions and their end. In the case of The Great Aurora, there is quite clearly such a "time" between the shuffling and the drawing (the spell doesn't use "simultaneously" and uses two separate action verbs to indicate the two different actions; see also C.R. 608.2c, which says a player is to "apply the rules of English to the text" of a spell when carrying out its actions), so that such an event as a card returning to the battlefield under C.R. 610.3 can come between them (another example is Warp World). [EDIT (May 7): The following sentence was edited for correctness.] That is also true for Lich's Mirror if its controller would lose the game while a spell or ability is resolving, such as if Door to Nothingness's activated ability resolves targeting that player.
[EDIT (May 7): The following is obsolete.] In any case, I will ask Natedogg, who I know is a Wizards Rules NetRep, on this matter, and possibly ask him for an official ruling.
I will wait for the official word on this, but in the meantime I'll throw in my two cents.
Lich's Mirror seems (SEEMS) like multiple events because the effect makes you do x "then" y. The "then" part seems interesting because obviously you can't shuffle cards in your library and draw simultaneously. In the case of Door to Nothingness, there would be no question that there would be multiple events.
The question, I think, that decides all of this is this: does a replacement effect have the power to override the "single event" nature of a state-based action (SBA) by replacing a single event with multiple actions and, by extension, possibly multiple events?
A Replacement Effect can turn something that is one event into more than one event. Consider Alhammarret's Archive, drawing a card is a single event, but drawing multiple cards is done one-at-a-time and so is separate events. So that is an example of a replacement effect changing a single event into multiple events.
Another example: If I control Lich's Mirror and my opponent controls Notion Thief, when I lose the game and replace that with all the actions on Lich's Mirror, does my opponent get to draw 7 cards, or only 1? If we treat the SBA as a "single event" even when it is replaced by Lich's Mirror, then they would only get to draw one and I would get to draw the other 6, since a replacement effect can only be applied once to each event.
Y'know, I'm pretty sure that's not right. The rules you cited specify 'immediately after' -- not after the whole effect is finished, just after the individual event (the shuffle-in bit) is, which leaves Erebos on the field for the 'gain 20'.
However, C.R. 704.3 also speaks of events when it says that state-based actions are performed "simultaneously as a single event".
Again, 700.1: "700.1. Anything that happens in a game is an event. Multiple events may take place during the resolution of a spell or ability. The text of triggered abilities and replacement effects defines the event they're looking for. One "happening" may be treated as a single event by one ability and as multiple events by another."
704.3 clarifies that SBAs happen simultaneously to one another, but I'd argue (and also having asked the judge's rules chat) that it really doesn't apply to this; we're talking about the sub-events of a single SBA, not a bunch of SBAs trying to do things simultaneously where possible, and 700.1 makes it clear that what one thing may call an 'event' may be multiple 'event's for another. Based on the definition of 'event', it seems to me that, if Lich's Mirror weren't a replacement effect, we would have no trouble calling the three things it does separate events; after all, "multiple events may take place during the resolution of a spell or ability," and they're entirely sperate instructions. There's no reason to assume that the three events need happen simultaneously; for instance, 608.2c specifies that "The controller of the spell or ability follows its instructions in the order written," and 608.2e notes that, for some spells, separate actions are denoted by "separate sentences or clauses." Thus, given that they are 3 separate events, I don't understand why we shouldn't interpret the rules' phrasing of 610.3 ("A second one-shot effect is created immediately after the specified event") as literally meaning immediatly.
Echo this from me.
The "immediately after" for these 'until' one-shots must be meant to be like this.
We can also consider what would happen if a replacement effect applied to what Lich's Mirror did to the State-Based Action. Replacing the shuffle-away part (more likely, some particular permanent leaving the battlefield) would still leave you with the drawing and lifegain 'immediately after'. There's no way you would argue that 704.3 would compress all those actions into one event for the purpose of a replacement effect, so why for the until one-shots? Just as a replacement effect is able to pinpoint exactly which actions, and which temporal relationships, are relevant to its specified original event, the until one-shots can do the same.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
I asked in the chatroom of our regional judges and they agreed with me, that you would die, because Erebos comes back before you get the life.
I would be surprised, if Natedogg rules something else.
As I confirmed with "nastaboi" on the Ask a Magic Judge chat, I was wrong. In the scenario given in comment 1 and with the assumptions in comment 2's first paragraph, Erebos will return to the battlefield "immediately after" Grasp of Fate is shuffled into its owner's library and before seven cards are drawn (C.R. 610.3). Therefore, in that case, Erebos will be on the battlefield in time to keep Lich's Mirror's owner from gaining life (which normally happens when a player goes from 0 life to 20 [C.R. 118.5]) (C.R. 611.3b, 611.3, 112.6, 101.2; see also C.R. 101.3). As it turns out, the wording "... then performs all applicable state-based actions simultaneously as a single event" in C.R. 704.3 is very unintuitive; as it turns out, it's there to indicate that state-based actions begin simultaneously, even if some of those actions are replaced with multi-step events, as is the case with Lich's Mirror's replacement effect.
I don't think 704.3 is unintuitive. It is there to ensure that SBAs begin and end together as atomic actions. That is, with respect to each other there are only two gamestates that exist for SBAs, the state before all SBAs are performed and the state after all SBA's are performed.
Imagine a hypothetical creature with the ability "As long as this creature is in a graveyard, players can't draw cards." If both this creature would be destroyed and Lich's Mirror's controller would lose simultaneously as SBAs, without 704.3, there would be no principled way to determine if the Mirror player draws cards or not. With 704.3, it is clear there can exist no gamestate wherein the creature is in the graveyard yet the Mirror player hasn't completed the entire multi-step SBA. Thus the player does draw.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You follow the instructions in the order written. First you shuffle everything away - and the instant Grasp of Fate is off the battlefield, Erebos is back on it - and then you attempt to set your life total to 20 while Erebos's effect is active. Since you can't gain life, you stay at 0 and lose the next time state-based actions are checked.
In this case, you shuffle Grasp of Fate and Lich's Mirror (among other cards) into your library, draw seven cards, and have life total raised to 20, instead of losing the game under C.R. 704.5a, then Erebos returns to the battlefield under your opponent's control "immediately after" Grasp of Fate leaves the battlefield (C.R. 610.3). Only then does Erebos's ability "Your opponents can't gain life" kick in (C.R. 611.3b, 611.3, 112.6).In effect, Lich's Mirror's replacement effect modifies what happens during the state-based action under C.R. 704.5a (C.R. 614.6), which nevertheless still happens simultaneously with other state-based actions "as a single event" (C.R. 704.3).EDIT (May 7): See comment 24.
1. What happens if I own the Erebos?
2. Does the Lich's Mirror effect and my eventual game loss happen simultaneously, or are they two separate events since state-based actions were checked twice? (EDIT: Assuming Artscrafter is right.)
If you own Erebos he would return under your control. As you can never be your own opponent, you would gain life.
With Erebos being owned by your opponent there are 2 rounds of SBA in the first one the game sees you should lose then applies the effect on Liches mirror. After this the game instantly does another check of SBA to see if any more need to be applied and sees you at 0 life then makes you lose the game.
With out Erebos in the scenario the second round of SBA would do nothing so the game would progress to the relevant player having priority.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
and it returns to the battlefield under your control "immediately after" Grasp of Fate leaves the battlefield due to Lich's Mirror (C.R. 610.3); by then, your life total will have been 20. Besides this, the answer is the same as under my comment 3.2. My answer doesn't speak of an actual game loss; in my answer, state-based actions are performed only once in this scenario.EDIT (May 7): See comment 24.
For people's reference, here's 610:
610.1. A one-shot effect does something just once and doesn't have a duration. Examples include dealing damage, destroying a permanent, creating a token, and moving an object from one zone to another.
610.2. Some one-shot effects create a delayed triggered ability, which instructs a player to do something later in the game (usually at a specific time) rather than as the spell or ability that's creating the one-shot effect resolves. See rule 603.7.
610.3. Some one-shot effects cause an object to change zones "until" a specified event occurs. A second one-shot effect is created immediately after the specified event. This second one-shot effect returns the object to its previous zone.
610.3a. If the specified event has already occurred when the initial one-shot effect would cause the object to change zones, the object doesn't move.
610.3b. An object returned to the battlefield this way returns under its owner's control unless otherwise specified.
610.3c. If multiple one-shot effects are created this way immediately after one or more simultaneous events, those one-shot effects are also simultaneous.
Example: Two Banisher Priests have each exiled a card. All creatures are destroyed at the same time by Day of Judgment. The two exiled cards are returned to the battlefield at the same time.
Note 610.3's reference to 'event's. Here's 700.1's definition:
"700.1. Anything that happens in a game is an event. Multiple events may take place during the resolution of a spell or ability. The text of triggered abilities and replacement effects defines the event they're looking for. One "happening" may be treated as a single event by one ability and as multiple events by another."
To me, this suggests that the three things that Lich's Mirror does are separate events, and that reading 610.3 should thus suggest that the return happens immediately, before the other 2 events have occurred.
--Buck v Bell, 1927. This case, regarding the compulsory sterilization of inmates at mental institutions, has -- somehow -- never been overturned. Just a wee PSA for ya.
However, C.R. 704.3 also speaks of events when it says that state-based actions are performed "simultaneously as a single event".
EDIT: Deleted second sentence after comment 16 was posted.
Say I have Lich's Mirror and I go to 0 with my opponent already controlling Erebos (no Grasp of Fate involved). Obviously I would lose, but do two separate state-based events occur (Lich's Mirror and then me losing) or just one (do they happen simultaneously)?
EDIT (Jun. 21, 2018): Correctness edit.
EDIT (May 7): Correctness edits.
With Erebos and Liches mirror it is 2 seperate events causing you to lose the game.
The first one replaced with Liches mirror doing its stuff. The second when SBA are rechecked and you are still at or below 0 life.
In most cases this is just technicallities outside of a potentially very small number of corner cases in a multiplayer game it is not relevant. You lose the game and it ends.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Also, quick question: What if in this scenario, Erebos is on the field and Grasp of Fate was holding my opponent's Abyssal Persecutor instead?
Under my answer in comment 3, that would be correct, since Erebos would reenter the battlefield "immediately after" Grasp of Fate leaves the battlefield (C.R. 610.3); since state-based actions (within a single check) occur "simultaneously as a single event" (C.R. 704.3), the next possible moment Erebos would return this way is after the state-based actions are performed.To answer your new question (assuming your opponent owns Abyssal Persecutor):
Under my answer in comment 3, Abyssal Persecutor would return just after the first batch of state-based actions, but just before "the check is repeated" under C.R. 704.3. In any case,Abyssal Persecutor would return before "the check is repeated" under C.R. 704.3, so once the new check sees your life total at 0 again, you would lose the game, but Abyssal Persecutor's effect stops you from losing (C.R. 101.2, 101.3); since you losing the game is impossible, Lich's Mirror's effect can't replace it with something else (C.R. 614.7; see also C.R. 614.17c). Since "no more state-based actions have been performed as the result of a check", the game stops checking for state-based actions (C.R. 704.3).EDIT: Clarification.
EDIT (May 4): Added citation to a rule added in Amonkhet.
EDIT (May 7): See comment 24.
EDIT (Sep. 28): One rule was renumbered with Ixalan.
EDIT (Jan. 2, 2019): Add rule citation.
EDIT: Thank you. That settles the thread.
Again, 700.1: "700.1. Anything that happens in a game is an event. Multiple events may take place during the resolution of a spell or ability. The text of triggered abilities and replacement effects defines the event they're looking for. One "happening" may be treated as a single event by one ability and as multiple events by another."
704.3 clarifies that SBAs happen simultaneously to one another, but I'd argue (and also having asked the judge's rules chat) that it really doesn't apply to this; we're talking about the sub-events of a single SBA, not a bunch of SBAs trying to do things simultaneously where possible, and 700.1 makes it clear that what one thing may call an 'event' may be multiple 'event's for another. Based on the definition of 'event', it seems to me that, if Lich's Mirror weren't a replacement effect, we would have no trouble calling the three things it does separate events; after all, "multiple events may take place during the resolution of a spell or ability," and they're entirely sperate instructions. There's no reason to assume that the three events need happen simultaneously; for instance, 608.2c specifies that "The controller of the spell or ability follows its instructions in the order written," and 608.2e notes that, for some spells, separate actions are denoted by "separate sentences or clauses." Thus, given that they are 3 separate events, I don't understand why we shouldn't interpret the rules' phrasing of 610.3 ("A second one-shot effect is created immediately after the specified event") as literally meaning immediatly.
My other argument in favor of this reading is that of the on a similar issue. This particular question has not come up elsewhere that I could find, but a very similar one did in many places with a separate card: The Great Aurora. Namely, people would use one of the new 'until' cards (usually Aligned Hedron network or Suspension Field[/]c, since they could hit your own thing) plus, say, Omnath, Locus of Rage or (my choice) Notion Thief, to get the card back in the middle of resolving The Great Aurora. Three examples I could find (not counting my own thread I made at one point):
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/standard-type-2/standard-archives/636826-omnath-locus-of-rage-the-great-aurora-and-aligned
https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/3lx67h/new_bfz_combo_with_the_great_aurora/
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-rulings/769292-concession-during-resolution-of-abilities (a similar ruling in the comments)
Also, for what it's worth, here's the Oracle errata on Suspension Field: "The exiled card returns to the battlefield immediately after Suspension Field leaves the battlefield. Nothing happens between these two events, including state-based actions. Suspension Field and the returned card aren’t on the battlefield at the same time." Still nothing completely definitive, but further supports the fact that literally nothing happens between the Priest leaving and the card returning; the only question is whether the triggering event (the Priest leaving the battlefield) should be lumped in with all the many things Mirror is doing, which (as I said above) I do not belive is true.
--Buck v Bell, 1927. This case, regarding the compulsory sterilization of inmates at mental institutions, has -- somehow -- never been overturned. Just a wee PSA for ya.
Your example of The Great Aurora is actually inapplicable to the scenario given in comment 1, which involves a replacement effect that has multiple steps but which occurs during a state-based action that is nevertheless (according to C.R. 704.3) performed "simultaneously as a single event", that is (EDIT [May 7]: as I understood it when I originally wrote comment 3), there is no "time" (as far as the game is concerned) between the start of the state-based actions and their end. In the case of The Great Aurora, there is quite clearly such a "time" between the shuffling and the drawing (the spell doesn't use "simultaneously" and uses two separate action verbs to indicate the two different actions; see also C.R. 608.2c, which says a player is to "apply the rules of English to the text" of a spell when carrying out its actions), so that such an event as a card returning to the battlefield under C.R. 610.3 can come between them (another example is Warp World). [EDIT (May 7): The following sentence was edited for correctness.] That is also true for Lich's Mirror if its controller would lose the game while a spell or ability is resolving, such as if Door to Nothingness's activated ability resolves targeting that player.
[EDIT (May 7): The following is obsolete.]
In any case, I will ask Natedogg, who I know is a Wizards Rules NetRep, on this matter, and possibly ask him for an official ruling.EDIT (May 7): See comment 24.
EDIT (Jun. 21, 2018): Correctness edit.
Lich's Mirror seems (SEEMS) like multiple events because the effect makes you do x "then" y. The "then" part seems interesting because obviously you can't shuffle cards in your library and draw simultaneously. In the case of Door to Nothingness, there would be no question that there would be multiple events.
The question, I think, that decides all of this is this: does a replacement effect have the power to override the "single event" nature of a state-based action (SBA) by replacing a single event with multiple actions and, by extension, possibly multiple events?
Another example: If I control Lich's Mirror and my opponent controls Notion Thief, when I lose the game and replace that with all the actions on Lich's Mirror, does my opponent get to draw 7 cards, or only 1? If we treat the SBA as a "single event" even when it is replaced by Lich's Mirror, then they would only get to draw one and I would get to draw the other 6, since a replacement effect can only be applied once to each event.
Echo this from me.
The "immediately after" for these 'until' one-shots must be meant to be like this.
We can also consider what would happen if a replacement effect applied to what Lich's Mirror did to the State-Based Action. Replacing the shuffle-away part (more likely, some particular permanent leaving the battlefield) would still leave you with the drawing and lifegain 'immediately after'. There's no way you would argue that 704.3 would compress all those actions into one event for the purpose of a replacement effect, so why for the until one-shots? Just as a replacement effect is able to pinpoint exactly which actions, and which temporal relationships, are relevant to its specified original event, the until one-shots can do the same.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
I would be surprised, if Natedogg rules something else.
Or are you interested in a Fiora flavor cube? Conspire and win!
Level 2 Judge
EDIT (Aug. 21, 2018): Correction.
EDIT (Sep. 29, 2018): Add rule citation.
Imagine a hypothetical creature with the ability "As long as this creature is in a graveyard, players can't draw cards." If both this creature would be destroyed and Lich's Mirror's controller would lose simultaneously as SBAs, without 704.3, there would be no principled way to determine if the Mirror player draws cards or not. With 704.3, it is clear there can exist no gamestate wherein the creature is in the graveyard yet the Mirror player hasn't completed the entire multi-step SBA. Thus the player does draw.