Amisa the BlessedW Legendary Creature — Human Knight
Effects of sources you control with 'until end of turn' don't end for Amisa the Blessed. Born in the sign of Virgo. The cold stars held nothing for her fate; but she did greatly did theirs; and would change the face of them forever.
1/1
Darksteel Angel7 Artifact Creature — Angel
Flying
Darksteel Angel is indestructible.
Ignore all 'this turn' and 'until end of turn' effects of sources your opponent's control that would effect Darksteel Angel. In its heart lies the secret of being undaunted.
4/4
Kinda shaky on the wording composure. I think this is about it. I need to think of some nice flavor text. Hehe, Amisa will instantly be one of the strongest Commanders. I think she was born in the sign of Virgo. Possibly the effect needs an additional clause that covers the effects remain when the card is blinked.
Well you've gone into full on unterritory here. Staying Power. Regardless of if you can get this to function you just don't want this kind of effect in a real game. The least of all problems being memory issues.
Well you've gone into full on unterritory here. Staying Power. Regardless of if you can get this to function you just don't want this kind of effect in a real game. The least of all problems being memory issues.
Pen and paper solves said memory issues.
I thought I saw this somewhere, couldn't exactly recall it.
Do you think it should add 'this turn' effects—or isn't that obsoleted?
User is right that this is very much Un-territory and, as someone who has played with Staying Power in Unhinged drafts, it creates a lot of headaches* that you wouldn't expect. Staying Power falls into the category of "Can it be done? Yes. Should it be done? Probably not."
In your defense, limiting the effect to one creature will reduce the amount of tracking needed, and you are right that pen and paper can track changes. It is still a lot to keep track of and do so in a way that other players can be aware of as well. Further, it creates other problems, such as if an effect targets Amisa and another creature, does the effect still end for the other creature? What if the effect is somehow linked?
Interestingly for the way Amisa is worded, I think an opponent casting Act of Treason on her would keep control permanently, since that player controlled the source of the effect and Amisa when the turn ends, but then any effects that had been growing from her owner would end after that turn.
The Angel is further confusing, because it is unclear if affects with "until the end of turn" (a) don't affect the angel or (b) affect the angel and don't end at the end of turn. I feel like its supposed to be the former, either way it is a very narrow set of effects you are preventing (Act of Treason and Grasp of Darkness type effects are the only "until eot" effect an opponent would want to cast on opponent's creatures).
*My roommate and I got in a 10 minute argument about how Staying Power interacted with Frankie Peanuts that nearly resulted in a fistfight.
Interesting design space that is unlikely to be explored in a non-Un set, for obvious reasons. It's suitably legendary in that one probably doesn't want this effect in multiples (either on the board or in a set to begin with).
There really isn't that much more to say. The real power issue here is with activated abilities. I like the interesting tweak on Voltron-style legends to enable an instant/sorcery build rather than counters/auras/equipment. Though I think it should be restricted to those card types because activated abilities are going to rapidly spiral this out of control. Even a lowly Angelic Page becomes potent, I can imagine there are activated abilities that would break Amisa in half. So perhaps limit it to sorcery and instant spells you control? Still very powerful and there's likely a broken combination in there somewhere, but more realistic in the game (excepting memory issues).
User is right that this is very much Un-territory and, as someone who has played with Staying Power in Unhinged drafts, it creates a lot of headaches* that you wouldn't expect. Staying Power falls into the category of "Can it be done? Yes. Should it be done? Probably not."
In your defense, limiting the effect to one creature will reduce the amount of tracking needed, and you are right that pen and paper can track changes. It is still a lot to keep track of and do so in a way that other players can be aware of as well. Further, it creates other problems, such as if an effect targets Amisa and another creature, does the effect still end for the other creature? What if the effect is somehow linked?
Interestingly for the way Amisa is worded, I think an opponent casting Act of Treason on her would keep control permanently, since that player controlled the source of the effect and Amisa when the turn ends, but then any effects that had been growing from her owner would end after that turn.
That would have been my exact suggestion. This form factor makes the effect entirely adaptable and within all reason of playability. It's fairly balanced, although very powerful. I am not seeing where the effects would have confusion. If an effect continues to remain precedent for Amisa, but ceases to remain precedent for another creature, it's officially null. You have to be able to engage both ends to successfully resolve that effect. And since you can't—then you can't resolve it. Simple as that.
Control effects like that wouldn't remain, since they wouldn't gain control of Amisa until after it resolves. It should officially null the effect by time-lapse precedence. You need to control the source at the time of casting, for the two effects to successfully engage between one another. Otherwise, technically, a spell being unresolved sees its effect is null; so you have one null effect and one active effect; this should cancel out a legitimate engagement and resolve. You can't have one effect is null and the other is active. That's how I would define the rules of engagement anyways. I think, especially for big brain players, who want to see an absolute equation; you're going to be facing this exact unhappy argument; that can't be argued against without contradiction, or a fractional result (that you're carrying over from a null value—into a legitimate value).
The Angel is further confusing, because it is unclear if affects with "until the end of turn" (a) don't affect the angel or (b) affect the angel and don't end at the end of turn. I feel like its supposed to be the former, either way it is a very narrow set of effects you are preventing (Act of Treason and Grasp of Darkness type effects are the only "until eot" effect an opponent would want to cast on opponent's creatures).
*My roommate and I got in a 10 minute argument about how Staying Power interacted with Frankie Peanuts that nearly resulted in a fistfight.
This is intended to be one of those enthusiast puzzles. It's a hard lock to pick. It's appropriately costed (matching it's Platinum Counterpart), and balanced of power to preserve challenge.
It directly says, "Ignore the effect". I don't think it's normal to have any confusion over what this means. Normal people are going to know that the effect does nothing instead for this specific card.
I would be tempted to add the 'this turn' effects condition to this card, as it effectively strengthens the lock and challenge aspect against it. However, I think it becomes overzealous at that point. And the absence of the capability (or invulnerability) should remain to have some aspect of challenge preserved for it.
The opposite is true for Amisa, in which I feel that effect would hurt the design more than help it. The single effect by itself holds more than enough power and capability and challenge to carry the card to greatness. Thinking to add the additional capability can also be overzealous and 'desperate for power' the same. But more importantly, a critical thinker should realize that 'this turn' effects are how many restrictions are applied to limit the power of/and balance powerful designs.
For example, an effect such as, "Put a +1/+1 counter on each creature you control.", might also have a, "Creatures you control can't attack this turn." clause to balance it. This would instantly pacify Amisa, and render her powerless. So, it would actually hurt the design critically to include that, being blindly desperate for more power.
Control effects like that wouldn't remain, since they wouldn't gain control of Amisa until after it resolves.
*Puts on Judge hat*
That's not how spell resolution works. All actions of a spell are completed in the order on the card, and than as the last part of resolution the card is put into the graveyard. Because of this, casting act of treason would
1. Begin resolving
2. Transfer control of the creature
3. Untap the creature
4. Grant it haste
5. Card goes to graveyard
6. Finished resolving
The new player is controlling Amisa when it finishes resolving, is the owner of the effect that gained control of it and is the controller when the ability checks at the end of turn to return control. With the current wording, the new player would retain control.
*Takes off Judge hat.*
Rules issues aside Amisa is too strong for 1 mana. All a player needs is her on turn 1 and then Gods' Willings, Giant Growths, and/or Sheltering Lights to have a permanently non-interactive permanently growing threat. That's not good for gameplay.
Rules issues aside Amisa is too strong for 1 mana. All a player needs is her on turn 1 and then Gods' Willings, Giant Growths, and/or Sheltering Lights to have a permanently non-interactive permanently growing threat. That's not good for gameplay.
No, you have a discrepancy in control.
Specifically in the fact that the original controlling player can tap Amisa in response; or make other executive actions. Why? Not only because of priority, but because they still also have control. So you're talking about an effect that, doesn't belong to one of the controlling players (until after the spell resolves—and priority over the true possession of that card changes). And thus, a big discrepancy in the legitimacy of the arguably null effect and its engagement with Amisa.
No question on how powerful this can be. It's not unstoppable though. It can be countered, have its damage prevented, redirected, etc; and even in Commander, has to deal with the access of the singularity factor in there only being 1 copy of every card.
I honestly don't think it makes a difference what the cost is. Moreso, any changing in the quality of softness or hardness would involve adding conditions or restrictions to the nature of 'what type of effects' don't end.
For example, increase in power or toughness only doesn't end; sorceries only; instants only; etc.
Rules issues aside Amisa is too strong for 1 mana. All a player needs is her on turn 1 and then Gods' Willings, Giant Growths, and/or Sheltering Lights to have a permanently non-interactive permanently growing threat. That's not good for gameplay.
No, you have a discrepancy in control.
Specifically in the fact that the original controlling player can tap Amisa in response; or make other executive actions. Why? Not only because of priority, but because they still also have control. So you're talking about an effect that, doesn't belong to one of the controlling players (until after the spell resolves—and priority over the true possession of that card changes). And thus, a big discrepancy in the legitimacy of the arguably null effect and its engagement with Amisa.
No question on how powerful this can be. It's not unstoppable though. It can be countered, have its damage prevented, redirected, etc; and even in Commander, has to deal with the access of the singularity factor in there only being 1 copy of every card.
I honestly don't think it makes a difference what the cost is. Moreso, any changing in the quality of softness or hardness would involve adding conditions or restrictions to the nature of 'what type of effects' don't end.
For example, increase in power or toughness only doesn't end; sorceries only; instants only; etc.
Just because you have misunderstood the rules doesn't mean that the rules work the way you want them too. You have created a static effect that turns off a normal game rule. What you just described that you wanted is a repelacemnt effect that modifies the duration of effects with a specific duration.
The importance of understanding the rules have been pointed out to you over and over again. If you understand the rules you can design cards that actually do what you want them to do rather than have to constantly explain to more informed individuals that you didnt mean for an effect to exist.
Just because you have misunderstood the rules doesn't mean that the rules work the way you want them too. You have created a static effect that turns off a normal game rule. What you just described that you wanted is a repelacemnt effect that modifies the duration of effects with a specific duration.
The importance of understanding the rules have been pointed out to you over and over again. If you understand the rules you can design cards that actually do what you want them to do rather than have to constantly explain to more informed individuals that you didnt mean for an effect to exist.
It's not that. This is a legitimate big brain conflict.
We both know when effects that contradict one another collide—don't do it. That's all I'm saying here.
Just because you have misunderstood the rules doesn't mean that the rules work the way you want them too. You have created a static effect that turns off a normal game rule. What you just described that you wanted is a repelacemnt effect that modifies the duration of effects with a specific duration.
The importance of understanding the rules have been pointed out to you over and over again. If you understand the rules you can design cards that actually do what you want them to do rather than have to constantly explain to more informed individuals that you didnt mean for an effect to exist.
It's not that. This is a legitimate big brain conflict.
We both know when effects that contradict one another collide—don't do it. That's all I'm saying here.
No this isn't a "legitimate big brain conflict" its a simple small brain rules misinterpretation. Choosing to misinterpret the rules doesn't make you a big brain. When effects contradict one another there is a clear and obvious winner based on the actual rules. Once more this is why rules knowledge is important. If you refuse to or can't obtain that then you need to listen to others as they explain how the rules do function and work with them to get your card to function.
As written if a player casts act of treason they should permanently gain control of it and end all effects on it previously set up by the original controller. If you want it to work differently change it so it works the way you want it don't just claim that its "open to interpretation" and thus your personal interpretaion is right. You want a replacement effect that modifies effects as they happen. If you have other corner cases or "features" make them clear and work with people to hammer out viable wording. That is a major point of this forum.
Specifically in the fact that the original controlling player can tap Amisa in response; or make other executive actions. Why? Not only because of priority, but because they still also have control. So you're talking about an effect that, doesn't belong to one of the controlling players (until after the spell resolves—and priority over the true possession of that card changes). And thus, a big discrepancy in the legitimacy of the arguably null effect and its engagement with Amisa.
Sigh
*puts Judge hat back on*
I'm sorry player, you are confusing casting and resolving a spell. Casting a spell is the action of declaring, pay for and putting the spell on the stack after which, yes, priority will pass and the other player may choose to take actions such as tapping the creature. However once all players have passed priority and taken any further actions, the spell will resole (Act of Treason in this case) and all of the spells actions are completed in their entirety before priority will pass again.
As a matter of game rules, the control of the creature (Amisa in this case) will change while resolving. When the new player controlling Amisa and their opponent both pass priority at the end of their turn, Act of Treason's effect will be due to end. As Amisa says "Effects of sources you control with 'until end of turn' don't end for Amisa the Blessed." and the player both controls Amisa and controlled the Act of Treason, the effect does not end.
You are welcome to contact a Level 2 judge or higher if you wish to appeal the ruling. Otherwise, further argument of the point will result in a warning or disqualification for Unsportsmanlike Conduct - Stalling.
As I said, find a higher level judge than me to ask if you don't believe me.
Call it a little less comprehensive than you need, but let's not claim the details were nonsense. They haven't been disproven.
Unquestioned domain doesn't exist until the card leaves the stack. You're creating a 'micro-adjustment' that doesn't exist. The shift in control, or full domain only exists in theory.
Science can't exist in only theory. It needs a physical or metaphysical element to connect it with reality.
Even though the effect lasts until the end of turn, no physical element exists until after-the-fact-of, thus in conflict you should just null engagement between the two effects. It doesn't gain unquestioned domain until post-ex-facto, but that physical element/domain should exist while it's on the stack for the engagement to be true and have unquestionable domain.
If you cast a spell, then bounce the permanent that it targets; what happens? Why is that? It's almost the exact same principal.
If you cast a spell, then bounce the permanent that it targets; what happens? Why is that? It's almost the exact same principal.
Its a shame you don't actually understand the things you're saying. Because this right here is the prefect example. What happens is clearly defined by the rules as is the case in all but the most obscure cases and you act like its some grand mystery.
If you cast a spell, then bounce the permanent that it targets; what happens? Why is that? It's almost the exact same principal.
a) That is irrelevant to the discussion
b) Again that is not during spell resolution; that is after casting, resolving an ability or spell that was put on the stack after the spell being responded to.
If you look at the static ability on your card it says, "Effects of sources you control with 'until end of turn' don't end for Amisa the Blessed."
At the end of turn, you ask "Would this effect end? Yes. Did I control that effect? Yes. Then it doesn't end." I'm not saying this as theory, I am a certified judge who is trained to solve rules questions like this. This is how the card works as you have worded it, and your analysis is wrong.
As an aside, saying things like "doesn't gain unquestioned domain until post-ex-facto" or "you should just null engagement" are both meaningless jargon and bad grammar. People take you less seriously when you try to sound philosophically deep and then do so badly.
If you cast a spell, then bounce the permanent that it targets; what happens? Why is that? It's almost the exact same principal.
a) That is irrelevant to the discussion
No—once again allow me to explain further.
It was there—but isn't there anymore.
And in your case—it's going to be there—but isn't there yet.
Again, you are wrong. Your card isn't creating some kind of delayed trigger, it is a static replacement effect. Who controlled her when the spell was cast is irrelevant. When the effect would end, Amisa's controller and the effect's controller are the same so, per how you wrote the card, the effect doesn't end.
If you cast a spell, then bounce the permanent that it targets; what happens? Why is that? It's almost the exact same principal.
a) That is irrelevant to the discussion
No—once again allow me to explain further.
It was there—but isn't there anymore.
And in your case—it's going to be there—but isn't there yet.
Again, you are wrong. Your card isn't creating some kind of delayed trigger, it is a static replacement effect. Who controlled her when the spell was cast is irrelevant. When the effect would end, Amisa's controller and the effect's controller are the same so, per how you wrote the card, the effect doesn't end.
Which is assigning domain in bias in this case, because there was a conflict of control when it was cast. There should not be.
Just like there is no conflict on control of a creature you gain, then empowered by Shared Triumph.
Because you don't control the card when the spell is cast, this engagement should be null.
Which is assigning domain in bias in this case, because there was a conflict of control when it was cast. There should not be.
Just like there is no conflict on control of a creature you gain, then empowered by Shared Triumph.
Because you don't control the card when the spell is cast, this engagement should be null.
One says yes, one says no. Don't do it.
Your Shared Triumph example just makes my point. It is a static ability and it applies creatures controlled my its controller, regardless if they cast it or not.
Look, long-story-short, you are wrong and if you tried to apply card effects in the way you are describing you would be laughed out of whatever play group you happened to be in.
Also, what exactly do you think the word "domain" means? As with "force majeure", it doesn't make sense in the sentences the way you are using it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Legendary Creature — Human Knight
Effects of sources you control with 'until end of turn' don't end for Amisa the Blessed.
Born in the sign of Virgo. The cold stars held nothing for her fate; but she did greatly did theirs; and would change the face of them forever.
1/1
Darksteel Angel 7
Artifact Creature — Angel
Flying
Darksteel Angel is indestructible.
Ignore all 'this turn' and 'until end of turn' effects of sources your opponent's control that would effect Darksteel Angel.
In its heart lies the secret of being undaunted.
4/4
Kinda shaky on the wording composure. I think this is about it. I need to think of some nice flavor text. Hehe, Amisa will instantly be one of the strongest Commanders. I think she was born in the sign of Virgo. Possibly the effect needs an additional clause that covers the effects remain when the card is blinked.
Pen and paper solves said memory issues.
I thought I saw this somewhere, couldn't exactly recall it.
Do you think it should add 'this turn' effects—or isn't that obsoleted?
In your defense, limiting the effect to one creature will reduce the amount of tracking needed, and you are right that pen and paper can track changes. It is still a lot to keep track of and do so in a way that other players can be aware of as well. Further, it creates other problems, such as if an effect targets Amisa and another creature, does the effect still end for the other creature? What if the effect is somehow linked?
Interestingly for the way Amisa is worded, I think an opponent casting Act of Treason on her would keep control permanently, since that player controlled the source of the effect and Amisa when the turn ends, but then any effects that had been growing from her owner would end after that turn.
The Angel is further confusing, because it is unclear if affects with "until the end of turn" (a) don't affect the angel or (b) affect the angel and don't end at the end of turn. I feel like its supposed to be the former, either way it is a very narrow set of effects you are preventing (Act of Treason and Grasp of Darkness type effects are the only "until eot" effect an opponent would want to cast on opponent's creatures).
*My roommate and I got in a 10 minute argument about how Staying Power interacted with Frankie Peanuts that nearly resulted in a fistfight.
There really isn't that much more to say. The real power issue here is with activated abilities. I like the interesting tweak on Voltron-style legends to enable an instant/sorcery build rather than counters/auras/equipment. Though I think it should be restricted to those card types because activated abilities are going to rapidly spiral this out of control. Even a lowly Angelic Page becomes potent, I can imagine there are activated abilities that would break Amisa in half. So perhaps limit it to sorcery and instant spells you control? Still very powerful and there's likely a broken combination in there somewhere, but more realistic in the game (excepting memory issues).
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
That would have been my exact suggestion. This form factor makes the effect entirely adaptable and within all reason of playability. It's fairly balanced, although very powerful. I am not seeing where the effects would have confusion. If an effect continues to remain precedent for Amisa, but ceases to remain precedent for another creature, it's officially null. You have to be able to engage both ends to successfully resolve that effect. And since you can't—then you can't resolve it. Simple as that.
Control effects like that wouldn't remain, since they wouldn't gain control of Amisa until after it resolves. It should officially null the effect by time-lapse precedence. You need to control the source at the time of casting, for the two effects to successfully engage between one another. Otherwise, technically, a spell being unresolved sees its effect is null; so you have one null effect and one active effect; this should cancel out a legitimate engagement and resolve. You can't have one effect is null and the other is active. That's how I would define the rules of engagement anyways. I think, especially for big brain players, who want to see an absolute equation; you're going to be facing this exact unhappy argument; that can't be argued against without contradiction, or a fractional result (that you're carrying over from a null value—into a legitimate value).
This is intended to be one of those enthusiast puzzles. It's a hard lock to pick. It's appropriately costed (matching it's Platinum Counterpart), and balanced of power to preserve challenge.
It directly says, "Ignore the effect". I don't think it's normal to have any confusion over what this means. Normal people are going to know that the effect does nothing instead for this specific card.
I would be tempted to add the 'this turn' effects condition to this card, as it effectively strengthens the lock and challenge aspect against it. However, I think it becomes overzealous at that point. And the absence of the capability (or invulnerability) should remain to have some aspect of challenge preserved for it.
The opposite is true for Amisa, in which I feel that effect would hurt the design more than help it. The single effect by itself holds more than enough power and capability and challenge to carry the card to greatness. Thinking to add the additional capability can also be overzealous and 'desperate for power' the same. But more importantly, a critical thinker should realize that 'this turn' effects are how many restrictions are applied to limit the power of/and balance powerful designs.
For example, an effect such as, "Put a +1/+1 counter on each creature you control.", might also have a, "Creatures you control can't attack this turn." clause to balance it. This would instantly pacify Amisa, and render her powerless. So, it would actually hurt the design critically to include that, being blindly desperate for more power.
*Puts on Judge hat*
That's not how spell resolution works. All actions of a spell are completed in the order on the card, and than as the last part of resolution the card is put into the graveyard. Because of this, casting act of treason would
1. Begin resolving
2. Transfer control of the creature
3. Untap the creature
4. Grant it haste
5. Card goes to graveyard
6. Finished resolving
The new player is controlling Amisa when it finishes resolving, is the owner of the effect that gained control of it and is the controller when the ability checks at the end of turn to return control. With the current wording, the new player would retain control.
*Takes off Judge hat.*
Rules issues aside Amisa is too strong for 1 mana. All a player needs is her on turn 1 and then Gods' Willings, Giant Growths, and/or Sheltering Lights to have a permanently non-interactive permanently growing threat. That's not good for gameplay.
No, you have a discrepancy in control.
Specifically in the fact that the original controlling player can tap Amisa in response; or make other executive actions. Why? Not only because of priority, but because they still also have control. So you're talking about an effect that, doesn't belong to one of the controlling players (until after the spell resolves—and priority over the true possession of that card changes). And thus, a big discrepancy in the legitimacy of the arguably null effect and its engagement with Amisa.
No question on how powerful this can be. It's not unstoppable though. It can be countered, have its damage prevented, redirected, etc; and even in Commander, has to deal with the access of the singularity factor in there only being 1 copy of every card.
I honestly don't think it makes a difference what the cost is. Moreso, any changing in the quality of softness or hardness would involve adding conditions or restrictions to the nature of 'what type of effects' don't end.
For example, increase in power or toughness only doesn't end; sorceries only; instants only; etc.
The importance of understanding the rules have been pointed out to you over and over again. If you understand the rules you can design cards that actually do what you want them to do rather than have to constantly explain to more informed individuals that you didnt mean for an effect to exist.
It's not that. This is a legitimate big brain conflict.
We both know when effects that contradict one another collide—don't do it. That's all I'm saying here.
As written if a player casts act of treason they should permanently gain control of it and end all effects on it previously set up by the original controller. If you want it to work differently change it so it works the way you want it don't just claim that its "open to interpretation" and thus your personal interpretaion is right. You want a replacement effect that modifies effects as they happen. If you have other corner cases or "features" make them clear and work with people to hammer out viable wording. That is a major point of this forum.
Sigh
*puts Judge hat back on*
I'm sorry player, you are confusing casting and resolving a spell. Casting a spell is the action of declaring, pay for and putting the spell on the stack after which, yes, priority will pass and the other player may choose to take actions such as tapping the creature. However once all players have passed priority and taken any further actions, the spell will resole (Act of Treason in this case) and all of the spells actions are completed in their entirety before priority will pass again.
As a matter of game rules, the control of the creature (Amisa in this case) will change while resolving. When the new player controlling Amisa and their opponent both pass priority at the end of their turn, Act of Treason's effect will be due to end. As Amisa says "Effects of sources you control with 'until end of turn' don't end for Amisa the Blessed." and the player both controls Amisa and controlled the Act of Treason, the effect does not end.
You are welcome to contact a Level 2 judge or higher if you wish to appeal the ruling. Otherwise, further argument of the point will result in a warning or disqualification for Unsportsmanlike Conduct - Stalling.
*takes off Judge hat*
One side is null, and has no relativity to a controlling player, until after the fact of.
It should require unquestioned domain, but you're assigning domain in bias.
You shouldn't do it that way—but nobody's trying to force you to do anything.
Image Removed - mod
That post is a bunch on meaningless gobbledegook.
As I said, find a higher level judge than me to ask if you don't believe me.
Call it a little less comprehensive than you need, but let's not claim the details were nonsense. They haven't been disproven.
Unquestioned domain doesn't exist until the card leaves the stack. You're creating a 'micro-adjustment' that doesn't exist. The shift in control, or full domain only exists in theory.
Science can't exist in only theory. It needs a physical or metaphysical element to connect it with reality.
Even though the effect lasts until the end of turn, no physical element exists until after-the-fact-of, thus in conflict you should just null engagement between the two effects. It doesn't gain unquestioned domain until post-ex-facto, but that physical element/domain should exist while it's on the stack for the engagement to be true and have unquestionable domain.
If you cast a spell, then bounce the permanent that it targets; what happens? Why is that? It's almost the exact same principal.
Image Removed - mod
a) That is irrelevant to the discussion
b) Again that is not during spell resolution; that is after casting, resolving an ability or spell that was put on the stack after the spell being responded to.
If you look at the static ability on your card it says, "Effects of sources you control with 'until end of turn' don't end for Amisa the Blessed."
At the end of turn, you ask "Would this effect end? Yes. Did I control that effect? Yes. Then it doesn't end." I'm not saying this as theory, I am a certified judge who is trained to solve rules questions like this. This is how the card works as you have worded it, and your analysis is wrong.
As an aside, saying things like "doesn't gain unquestioned domain until post-ex-facto" or "you should just null engagement" are both meaningless jargon and bad grammar. People take you less seriously when you try to sound philosophically deep and then do so badly.
No—once again allow me to explain further.
It was there—but isn't there anymore.
And in your case—it's going to be there—but isn't there yet.
Image Removed - mod
Again, you are wrong. Your card isn't creating some kind of delayed trigger, it is a static replacement effect. Who controlled her when the spell was cast is irrelevant. When the effect would end, Amisa's controller and the effect's controller are the same so, per how you wrote the card, the effect doesn't end.
Which is assigning domain in bias in this case, because there was a conflict of control when it was cast. There should not be.
Just like there is no conflict on control of a creature you gain, then empowered by Shared Triumph.
Because you don't control the card when the spell is cast, this engagement should be null.
One says yes, one says no. Don't do it.
Image Removed - mod
Your Shared Triumph example just makes my point. It is a static ability and it applies creatures controlled my its controller, regardless if they cast it or not.
Look, long-story-short, you are wrong and if you tried to apply card effects in the way you are describing you would be laughed out of whatever play group you happened to be in.
Also, what exactly do you think the word "domain" means? As with "force majeure", it doesn't make sense in the sentences the way you are using it.