603.1. Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as "[Trigger condition], [effect]," and begin with the word "when," "whenever," or "at." They can also be expressed as "[When/Whenever/At] [trigger event], [effect]."
603.7. An effect may create a delayed triggered ability that can do something at a later time. A delayed triggered ability will contain "when," "whenever," or "at," although that word won't usually begin the ability.
Can anybody shed light on this???
They really need to include lots of examples in these things. Horribly confusing without them, and that would be standard practice in a well written legal document, for instance, with similar amounts of jargon.
Sorry, to clarify, I know examples of triggered abilities. What I'm concerned about is whether delayed ones qualify the same as non-delayed ones when it comes to various cards that mention them, like Stifle.
If a triggered ability "must begin with" those three words, it implies that stifle cannot stifle delayed triggered abilities. If it can just contain those three words, then stifle can do it.
Since the rules contradict themselves about the definition of a triggered ability, it becomes ambiguous about what exactly is or isn't one in cases where it can matter.
The only way it is not logically impossible is if "delayed triggered ability" is not an example of a "triggered ability," which would be stupid as all hell, but could technically be internally consistent (just not at all in line with English language conventions)
Sorry, to clarify, I know examples of triggered abilities. What I'm concerned about is whether delayed ones qualify the same as non-delayed ones when it comes to various cards that mention them, like Stifle.
If a triggered ability "must begin with" those three words, it implies that stifle cannot stifle delayed triggered abilities. If it can just contain those three words, then stifle can do it.
Since the rules contradict themselves about the definition of a triggered ability, it becomes ambiguous about what exactly is or isn't one in cases where it can matter.
The only way it is not logically impossible is if "delayed triggered ability" is not an example of a "triggered ability," which would be stupid as all hell, but could technically be internally consistent (just not at all in line with English language conventions)
I think you're just overcomplicating it. Delayed triggered abilities are still triggered abilities. They function exactly the same way except that the wording gives them different timings. It'd probably be better if "triggered abilities" as we know them were called "immediately triggered abilities" or something, and both (immediate and delayed) would fall under the umbrella of "triggered abilities", but it works just fine as is. Delayed triggers are just special cases of triggers.
Grave Betrayal has a triggered ability that sets up a delayed triggered ability. The triggered ability is obvious, "whenever a creature you don't control dies..."
The delayed triggered ability here is, "Return it to the battlefield at the begininning of the next end step."
The card still triggers normally, but that trigger creates a delayed trigger, which is what 603.7 refers to when it says "an effect.."
Delayed triggered abilities are still triggered abilities.
But they CAN'T be as written, because triggered abilities are defined as having three specific words at the start. Delayed trigger abilities don't necessarily start with those words, so they can't be triggered abilities, at least not all of them.
It's not just silly semantics. If we just ignore the "must begin with three words" rule, then weirdness starts happening, and more ambiguity. For example, the full text of the regenerate key word is:
The next time this creature would be destroyed this turn, it isn't. Instead tap it, remove all damage from it, and remove it from combat.
This satisfies "[Trigger condition], [effect]." Notice the absense of any of the three special words. But if we are ignoring the "three special words" part (after all it's "just semantics"), then does that mean that I can stifle a regeneration effect EITHER when it is activated, OR right when the destruction actually occurs? This could be a huge difference, because if you can stifle it when the destruction occurs, not just when regeneration is activated, that means you can hold onto your stifle longer, and if, say, the creature gets exiled in the meantime by a third player using swords to plowshares, then you can avoid having to play your stifle, saving it for another (potentially game winning) moment later. Whereas if you HAVE to stifle on activation, then you would have used it up fruitlessly, and wouldn't have it at the crucial time later.
It doesn't seem like that. It seems like WOTC wants to call the second part of regenerate a "Replacement effect" that is distinct from triggered abilities. Which means the "three special words" are crucial, above and beyond the "[Trigger condition], [effect]" format
So if you ARE a stickler about the three words clause, then it makes delayed trigger effects not qualify as valid targets for stifle.
And if you AREN'T a stickler about the three words clause, then it makes regenerate, for instance, a valid target for stifle (at both points in time, not just original activation)
Either way, games could be won or lost based on the ambiguity. And WOTC doesn't seem to want either outcome, but it has to go one way or the other. So how is this resolved?
The rules don't say that they must begin with those three words, just that they do.
The two things you just said are logically identical when talking about any card that actually exists in the game currently.
Delayed triggered abilities are a subset of Triggered abilities, hence why they are described later in section 603 of the CR.
The rules do not contradict, they are merely expanding on a single concept.
Your argument on replacement effects is not valid since delayed triggered abilities still must contain one of those three words, the only difference is the placement of said words.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"To face death, that's nothing much. But to feel really stupid when you die, well, that would be insufferable." -Nafai, The Ships of Earth
Ever wanted to know what guidelines Judges use to make rulings? Find out at the DCI Document Center.
You can also find the latest Comprehensive Rules here.
The rules do not contradict, they are merely expanding on a single concept.
"Must be at the beginning"
"Do not need to be at the beginning"
^ That is a contradiction, not an expansion. An expansion would be adding optional, additional rules that can coexist with the main ones. That's not what's going on there. These two things cannot both be true at the same time.
"Must be at the beginning"
"Do not need to be at the beginning"
^ That is a contradiction, not an expansion. An expansion would be adding optional, additional rules that can coexist with the main ones. That's not what's going on there. These two things cannot both be true at the same time.
The Rules Theory and Templating Forum is likely a better venue for your concerns. I suggest making a thread there if you consider this an issue.
Edit: The word 'Must' does not occur in rule 603.1, I'm failing to see your point.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"To face death, that's nothing much. But to feel really stupid when you die, well, that would be insufferable." -Nafai, The Ships of Earth
Ever wanted to know what guidelines Judges use to make rulings? Find out at the DCI Document Center.
You can also find the latest Comprehensive Rules here.
"Must be at the beginning"
"Do not need to be at the beginning"
^ That is a contradiction, not an expansion. An expansion would be adding optional, additional rules that can coexist with the main ones. That's not what's going on there. These two things cannot both be true at the same time.
It would be a contradiction if you could find that "must be at the beginning" statement you keep using.
The first rule states what triggered abilities are. The second rule states the wording for effects that create delayed triggered abilities. Why does an effect that creates a triggered ability later need the name wording?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you don't wear your seatbelt, the police will shoot you in the head."
- To my youngest sister when she was 6.
Everyone knows that good luck and good game are such insincere terms that any man who does not connect his right hook with the offender's jaw on the very utterance of such a phrase is no man I would consider as such.
The Rules Theory and Templating Forum is likely a better venue for your concerns. I suggest making a thread there if you consider this an issue.
This is an issue that has come up with my playgroup, and it matters for deciding games. How is that not relevant to this forum? I'm not suggesting what rules should be, I'm trying to figure out what they actually are, so that we can decide who can make which plays and who wins games. Isn't that exactly what the forum is for?
They ARE contradictory. You don't have to have a philosophy doctorate to see why. Here, I drew a venn diagram:
^That is the Venn diagram described by the rules as written. It also happens to not be a valid Venn diagram, because the red circle should not be able to exist within the largest circle. A rule either has one of those words at the beginning, or it doesn't. There's no such thing as a rule having one of the words at the beginning and also not having one at the beginning, simultaneously.
The second rule states the wording for effects that create delayed triggered abilities. Why does an effect that creates a triggered ability later need the name wording?
This is not correct. It states that an effect may create one, and then it straight up defines a delayed trigger ability. Which is obviously supposed to be a subset of triggered abilities, and thus must conform to the same rules, but it doesn't (as an explicit example: Mimic Vat's DTA states "Exile it at the beginning of the next end step."). Square brackets are mine:
603.7. An effect may create a delayed triggered ability that can do something at a later time. [<--part that talks about effects. Part that talks about DTA -->] A delayed triggered ability will contain "when," "whenever," or "at," although that word won't usually begin the ability.
Edit: The word 'Must' does not occur in rule 603.1, I'm failing to see your point.
So what? That doesn't matter. It is still contradictory to say "All of these cards have X" and then "Oh wait no, some of them don't."
I mean i understand why it happened. Everybody is human. They had the first rule at some earlier time, and then later on things got more complicated, and they added the later one. Then somebody at WOTC just didn't do their copy editing well enough. Fine okay, I'm not like disgruntled or anything. BUT it does put us in an impossible position for deciding what calls to make during certain games.
So basically I guess I'm asking in general "What do you do when the rules don't give you an answer, or give you two different ones?"
It's saying triggered abilities start with those words because they happen to. Delayed triggered abilities don't.
There is no contradiction, it's just that the word "triggered ability" has two meanings: those that start with those three words and those that start with those three words or contain them (delayed triggers.)
Just because you found two definitions doesn't mean they both can't be true. You choose the one that is appropriate in context, just like you would for "counter."
BUT it does put us in an impossible position for deciding what calls to make during certain games.
Name an example? I've never heard of this problem.
It's saying triggered abilities start with those words because they happen to
But they don't...
I am, right at this moment, sitting at my desk with a card in front of me that has a triggered ability that does NOT start with "at" "whenever" or "when."
If you take issue with my wording and don't want to say that they "contradict" for some reason, fine, whatever. But if so, then instead, you at least have to admit that at the very least, either rule 603.1 is wrong, yes? it's telling me that all TAs have a certain wording, and I'm holding proof in my hand that they do not.
At the end of the day, the bottom line is the same: the rules are messed up and are not sufficiently telling me and my playgroup who is correct about our argument. So what are you officially supposed to do in that situation?
For example, is there some superordinate level rule that says "If ambiguous, just default to it not being allowed as a play?" or something?
that still doesn't solve the debate between my playgroup. i played a Mimic Vat, and then tried to stifle it's delayed trigger so as to keep the token forever. My friend told me I can't, because the ability isn't triggered, as it begins with none of the three special words.
Stifle doesn't specify "vanilla" versus "delayed" TAs. It just says trigger ability. So dividing them into two separate groups doesn't solve anything.
112.3c Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as "[Trigger condition], [effect]," and include (and usually begin with) the word "when," "whenever," or "at." Whenever the trigger event occurs, the ability is put on the stack the next time a player would receive priority and stays there until it's countered, it resolves, or it otherwise leaves the stack. See rule 603, "Handling Triggered Abilities."
I am, right at this moment, sitting at my desk with a card in front of me that has a triggered ability that does NOT start with "at" "whenever" or "when."
So it's a delayed triggered ability, which means it's a triggered ability under the second definition of triggered ability. Like I said, the term is overloaded. A delayed triggered ability is a generalization of a triggered ability. It applies the concept of "triggered ability" to something else. At the same time, it generalizes the term "triggered ability" to encompass itself.
The language is complex because it's English. Context will resolve the issue.
that still doesn't solve the debate between my playgroup. i played a Mimic Vat, and then tried to stifle it's delayed trigger so as to keep the token forever. My friend told me I can't, because the ability isn't triggered, as it begins with none of the three special words.
Your friend is wrong, since delayed triggered abilities are triggered abilities. A delayed triggered ability is triggered ability with a delay attached. Attaching the delay changes the sentence structure. They do this so they don't have to say "THIS IS A DELAYED TRIGGERED ABILITY" in the middle of every ability. It's done for readability and elegance.
Again, they type of the ability is clear from context. That's how the English language works -- you have to resolve the ambiguity that way. Here's some context to help:
603.3a A triggered ability is controlled by the player who controlled its source at the time it triggered, unless it's a delayed triggered ability. To determine the controller of a delayed triggered ability, see rules 603.7d-f.
The structure of this sentence makes it pretty clear that delayed triggered abilities are a subset of triggered abilities. In fact, all uses of these terms imply the same thing except the part you pointed out. Fortunately, those rules don't exist in isolation. You have to consider the whole document -- that's how this problem is resolved.
It's only ambiguous if you ignore parts of the rules and focus only on small subsections like you are.
112.3c Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as "[Trigger condition], [effect]," and include (and usually begin with) the word "when," "whenever," or "at."
Thanks for bringing this up, Yeef.
This does not resolve the contradiction, because it just introduces yet another contradictory rule that also disagrees with 603.1.
However, it is useful, because it implies by "majority vote" (two rules to one), that 603.1 is the one that is in error, not 603.7. So for now, that might be the best we have to work with, and enough to resolve the immediate dispute in practical terms.
And here we have the core of this logical fallacy. They are not seperate. One is a subset of the other. The rules also describe another subset, triggered abilities with intervening if clause, but that doesn't seem to bother you.
Another analogy: Did you ever wonder why a Wrath of God destroys Ornithopters? They are artifact creatures, after all, not creatures. This is the same logical argument you are making. But of course a *** will destroy all creatures (including artifact creatures), and Stifle is able to counter any triggered abililty.
The if clause doesn't bother me, because it only adds something, and doesn't contradict anything. It's like this (the if clause, and also the wrath of God thing):
X
or in a more specific subset:
X + Y (still abides by X)
Whereas the situation as described in the OP (603.1 and 603.7) is logically totally different than the above two situations. It's like this:
X
or in a more specific subset:
not(X) (invalid logic. This is no longer a subset, because it contradicts the main set it is supposed to belong to)
It's not just adding on an additional optional feature. it's going back and undermining the thing that they said earlier on was ALWAYS the case, and suddenly saying that no it isn't.
Name an example? I've never heard of this problem.
I DID name an example already. I played Mimic Vat, and then I tried to stifle it's exile clause at the end of the turn.
603.1 implies I shouldn't be allowed to do that. Because it states that ALL triggered abilities start with one of those three words. Which implies that the exile effect is NOT a triggered ability (as it does not start with any), and thus I shouldn't be allowed to stifle it.
603.7 Implies that I should be allowed, though, because delayed triggered abilities don't have to start with those three words, so it is a triggered ability after all, and stifle should work.
Depending which of the two rules you give precedence to, the play is legal or not legal.
Thanks for bringing this up, Yeef. This would suggest that I am right about the dispute I had with my friend. but yet now it brings up another weird situation. 112.3c implies that the ONLY requirement for a triggered ability is in fact that it have a trigger condition, then a comma, then the effect.
As I pointed out earlier, the delayed portion of "Regenerate" as a keyword fits this definition. For example, Wall of Bone:
1) Somebody attacks with a lethal amount of power.
2) You pay the B to activate regenerate.
3) The regenerate activation resolves, creating a delayed trigger ability (according to the definition in 112.3c) that is delayed until/if destruction occurs.
4) Combat destruction resolves, and then the regenerate cancellation of it goes on the stack.
5) I can THEN play a Stifle for that delayed trigger, and stop it.
6) Creature is destroyed.
^
I'm pretty sure that this is not intended by WOTC. but if you go by the 112.3c (and/or if you don't take 603.1 too seriously, same thing), it implies that it should be the way it works.
So it seems to just be creating a new problem then...
Regenerating works using the mechanic of replacement effects, not triggers. You will note that 112.3c requires a triggered ability to contain (but not necessarily start with) when/whenever/at, something that regenerate lacks.
As has been pointed out, you are running into the problem of conflating two definitions of the same phrase. The first, more general definition is found in 112.3c and the second, more specific definition is found in 603.1.
I will point you to the heading, rule 603, to highlight the use of the phrase to encompass all variations described in the 603.xx section of the rules.
Can anybody shed light on this???
They really need to include lots of examples in these things. Horribly confusing without them, and that would be standard practice in a well written legal document, for instance, with similar amounts of jargon.
If a triggered ability "must begin with" those three words, it implies that stifle cannot stifle delayed triggered abilities. If it can just contain those three words, then stifle can do it.
Since the rules contradict themselves about the definition of a triggered ability, it becomes ambiguous about what exactly is or isn't one in cases where it can matter.
The only way it is not logically impossible is if "delayed triggered ability" is not an example of a "triggered ability," which would be stupid as all hell, but could technically be internally consistent (just not at all in line with English language conventions)
Cards do what they say they do. No more. No less.
I think you're just overcomplicating it. Delayed triggered abilities are still triggered abilities. They function exactly the same way except that the wording gives them different timings. It'd probably be better if "triggered abilities" as we know them were called "immediately triggered abilities" or something, and both (immediate and delayed) would fall under the umbrella of "triggered abilities", but it works just fine as is. Delayed triggers are just special cases of triggers.
The delayed triggered ability here is, "Return it to the battlefield at the begininning of the next end step."
The card still triggers normally, but that trigger creates a delayed trigger, which is what 603.7 refers to when it says "an effect.."
But they CAN'T be as written, because triggered abilities are defined as having three specific words at the start. Delayed trigger abilities don't necessarily start with those words, so they can't be triggered abilities, at least not all of them.
It's not just silly semantics. If we just ignore the "must begin with three words" rule, then weirdness starts happening, and more ambiguity. For example, the full text of the regenerate key word is:
This satisfies "[Trigger condition], [effect]." Notice the absense of any of the three special words. But if we are ignoring the "three special words" part (after all it's "just semantics"), then does that mean that I can stifle a regeneration effect EITHER when it is activated, OR right when the destruction actually occurs? This could be a huge difference, because if you can stifle it when the destruction occurs, not just when regeneration is activated, that means you can hold onto your stifle longer, and if, say, the creature gets exiled in the meantime by a third player using swords to plowshares, then you can avoid having to play your stifle, saving it for another (potentially game winning) moment later. Whereas if you HAVE to stifle on activation, then you would have used it up fruitlessly, and wouldn't have it at the crucial time later.
It doesn't seem like that. It seems like WOTC wants to call the second part of regenerate a "Replacement effect" that is distinct from triggered abilities. Which means the "three special words" are crucial, above and beyond the "[Trigger condition], [effect]" format
So if you ARE a stickler about the three words clause, then it makes delayed trigger effects not qualify as valid targets for stifle.
And if you AREN'T a stickler about the three words clause, then it makes regenerate, for instance, a valid target for stifle (at both points in time, not just original activation)
Either way, games could be won or lost based on the ambiguity. And WOTC doesn't seem to want either outcome, but it has to go one way or the other. So how is this resolved?
The two things you just said are logically identical when talking about any card that actually exists in the game currently.
The rules do not contradict, they are merely expanding on a single concept.
Your argument on replacement effects is not valid since delayed triggered abilities still must contain one of those three words, the only difference is the placement of said words.
Ever wanted to know what guidelines Judges use to make rulings? Find out at the DCI Document Center.
You can also find the latest Comprehensive Rules here.
"Must be at the beginning"
"Do not need to be at the beginning"
^ That is a contradiction, not an expansion. An expansion would be adding optional, additional rules that can coexist with the main ones. That's not what's going on there. These two things cannot both be true at the same time.
The Rules Theory and Templating Forum is likely a better venue for your concerns. I suggest making a thread there if you consider this an issue.
Edit: The word 'Must' does not occur in rule 603.1, I'm failing to see your point.
Ever wanted to know what guidelines Judges use to make rulings? Find out at the DCI Document Center.
You can also find the latest Comprehensive Rules here.
It would be a contradiction if you could find that "must be at the beginning" statement you keep using.
The first rule states what triggered abilities are. The second rule states the wording for effects that create delayed triggered abilities. Why does an effect that creates a triggered ability later need the name wording?
- To my youngest sister when she was 6.
603.7 Describes another.
The ability described in 603.1 has the same name as the umbrella term that encompasses both.
This is only confusing if you try very hard.
This is an issue that has come up with my playgroup, and it matters for deciding games. How is that not relevant to this forum? I'm not suggesting what rules should be, I'm trying to figure out what they actually are, so that we can decide who can make which plays and who wins games. Isn't that exactly what the forum is for?
They ARE contradictory. You don't have to have a philosophy doctorate to see why. Here, I drew a venn diagram:
^That is the Venn diagram described by the rules as written. It also happens to not be a valid Venn diagram, because the red circle should not be able to exist within the largest circle. A rule either has one of those words at the beginning, or it doesn't. There's no such thing as a rule having one of the words at the beginning and also not having one at the beginning, simultaneously.
This is not correct. It states that an effect may create one, and then it straight up defines a delayed trigger ability. Which is obviously supposed to be a subset of triggered abilities, and thus must conform to the same rules, but it doesn't (as an explicit example: Mimic Vat's DTA states "Exile it at the beginning of the next end step."). Square brackets are mine:
603.7. An effect may create a delayed triggered ability that can do something at a later time. [<--part that talks about effects. Part that talks about DTA -->] A delayed triggered ability will contain "when," "whenever," or "at," although that word won't usually begin the ability.
So what? That doesn't matter. It is still contradictory to say "All of these cards have X" and then "Oh wait no, some of them don't."
So basically I guess I'm asking in general "What do you do when the rules don't give you an answer, or give you two different ones?"
There is no contradiction, it's just that the word "triggered ability" has two meanings: those that start with those three words and those that start with those three words or contain them (delayed triggers.)
Just because you found two definitions doesn't mean they both can't be true. You choose the one that is appropriate in context, just like you would for "counter."
Name an example? I've never heard of this problem.
https://www.imageshack.com/i/0vei5rj
If you think the text document that describes the rules fails to adequately convey this take it to RT&T.
But they don't...
I am, right at this moment, sitting at my desk with a card in front of me that has a triggered ability that does NOT start with "at" "whenever" or "when."
Mimic Vat
If you take issue with my wording and don't want to say that they "contradict" for some reason, fine, whatever. But if so, then instead, you at least have to admit that at the very least, either rule 603.1 is wrong, yes? it's telling me that all TAs have a certain wording, and I'm holding proof in my hand that they do not.
At the end of the day, the bottom line is the same: the rules are messed up and are not sufficiently telling me and my playgroup who is correct about our argument. So what are you officially supposed to do in that situation?
For example, is there some superordinate level rule that says "If ambiguous, just default to it not being allowed as a play?" or something?
that still doesn't solve the debate between my playgroup. i played a Mimic Vat, and then tried to stifle it's delayed trigger so as to keep the token forever. My friend told me I can't, because the ability isn't triggered, as it begins with none of the three special words.
Stifle doesn't specify "vanilla" versus "delayed" TAs. It just says trigger ability. So dividing them into two separate groups doesn't solve anything.
So it's a delayed triggered ability, which means it's a triggered ability under the second definition of triggered ability. Like I said, the term is overloaded. A delayed triggered ability is a generalization of a triggered ability. It applies the concept of "triggered ability" to something else. At the same time, it generalizes the term "triggered ability" to encompass itself.
The language is complex because it's English. Context will resolve the issue.
Your friend is wrong, since delayed triggered abilities are triggered abilities. A delayed triggered ability is triggered ability with a delay attached. Attaching the delay changes the sentence structure. They do this so they don't have to say "THIS IS A DELAYED TRIGGERED ABILITY" in the middle of every ability. It's done for readability and elegance.
Again, they type of the ability is clear from context. That's how the English language works -- you have to resolve the ambiguity that way. Here's some context to help:
The structure of this sentence makes it pretty clear that delayed triggered abilities are a subset of triggered abilities. In fact, all uses of these terms imply the same thing except the part you pointed out. Fortunately, those rules don't exist in isolation. You have to consider the whole document -- that's how this problem is resolved.
It's only ambiguous if you ignore parts of the rules and focus only on small subsections like you are.
Thanks for bringing this up, Yeef.
This does not resolve the contradiction, because it just introduces yet another contradictory rule that also disagrees with 603.1.
However, it is useful, because it implies by "majority vote" (two rules to one), that 603.1 is the one that is in error, not 603.7. So for now, that might be the best we have to work with, and enough to resolve the immediate dispute in practical terms.
The if clause doesn't bother me, because it only adds something, and doesn't contradict anything. It's like this (the if clause, and also the wrath of God thing):
Whereas the situation as described in the OP (603.1 and 603.7) is logically totally different than the above two situations. It's like this:
It's not just adding on an additional optional feature. it's going back and undermining the thing that they said earlier on was ALWAYS the case, and suddenly saying that no it isn't.
I DID name an example already. I played Mimic Vat, and then I tried to stifle it's exile clause at the end of the turn.
603.1 implies I shouldn't be allowed to do that. Because it states that ALL triggered abilities start with one of those three words. Which implies that the exile effect is NOT a triggered ability (as it does not start with any), and thus I shouldn't be allowed to stifle it.
603.7 Implies that I should be allowed, though, because delayed triggered abilities don't have to start with those three words, so it is a triggered ability after all, and stifle should work.
Depending which of the two rules you give precedence to, the play is legal or not legal.
Regenerating works using the mechanic of replacement effects, not triggers. You will note that 112.3c requires a triggered ability to contain (but not necessarily start with) when/whenever/at, something that regenerate lacks.
As has been pointed out, you are running into the problem of conflating two definitions of the same phrase. The first, more general definition is found in 112.3c and the second, more specific definition is found in 603.1.
I will point you to the heading, rule 603, to highlight the use of the phrase to encompass all variations described in the 603.xx section of the rules.