Stranglehold/Mindslaver

[Meddling Mike]

Stranglehold - 3R
Enchantment (Rare)
Your opponent's can't search libraries.
If an opponent would begin an extra turn, that player skips that turn instead.

If a player controls Stranglehold and an opponent casts and activates Mindslaver
1) Is the Mindslaver turn considered to be an "extra" turn for the opponent and therefore skipped?
2) If the opponent does get the opportunity to take the Mindslaver turn, would they be able to use the effects of the Stranglehold controller's cards to search the Stranglehold controller's library?

[Demonic Attorney]

Mindslaver    6

Legendary Artifact

4, T, sacrifice Mindslaver: You control target player's turn.

By the wording on Mindslaver, it would still be your turn and not an extra turn of your opponent's. During your Mindslaver turn, they would not be able to untap their permanents, draw a card, play sorceries from their hand, attack with their creatures, or discard down to 7 cards in their hand as they would do on an extra turn of theirs.

[Joblin Velder]

Because you're telling the opponent what to do and he/she is the one doing it, you can have them search their library.

[Delha]

To rephrase what everyone else has been saying: I think the issue stems from an inconsistency lies in the word "control". When you control a creature in Magic, it's considered yours. When you control someone's turn, it's not really.

A creature, spell, or even ability/trigger on the stack... All these things are more tangible than a turn, and possession is more easily recognized. On the other hand, a turn is really just a period of time where people do stuff. The templating on the ability for Mindslaver theoretically ought to read "You make all of target player's decisions during their next turn."

[DubDub]

Note that Mindslaver's printed text was changed when it was reprinted in Scars of Mirrodin to make this more clear:

Mirrodin:
"You control target player's next turn."

Scars:
"You control target player during that player's next turn."

The Scars printed wording currently aligns with the Oracle text as well.

[ELD]

To rephrase what everyone else has been saying: I think the issue stems from an inconsistency lies in the word "control". When you control a creature in Magic, it's considered yours. When you control someone's turn, it's not really.

A creature, spell, or even ability/trigger on the stack... All these things are more tangible than a turn, and possession is more easily recognized. On the other hand, a turn is really just a period of time where people do stuff. The templating on the ability for Mindslaver theoretically ought to read "You make all of target player's decisions during their next turn."

Using non game terms, or trying to understand things based on flavor, leads to incorrect interpretations of the rules.  It's considered "YOURS" is incorrect.  "Yours" is not a game term, and it leads to confusion.  You can control creatures, and you can own them.  You can gain control of a game object that an opponent owns, and they no longer control it.  If one thinks in language of the game rules, it's not difficult at all to see that one controls a turn, just as if they control a creature, and it doesn't matter who the original owner was. 

[Delha]

Using non game terms, or trying to understand things based on flavor, leads to incorrect interpretations of the rules.  It's considered "YOURS" is incorrect.  "Yours" is not a game term, and it leads to confusion.  You can control creatures, and you can own them.  You can gain control of a game object that an opponent owns, and they no longer control it.  If one thinks in language of the game rules, it's not difficult at all to see that one controls a turn, just as if they control a creature, and it doesn't matter who the original owner was.

I'll readily admit that my phrasing was abiguous, but I dispute your claim that it's incorrect.

My point was that for most intents and purposes, a Jackal Pup that you cast is functionally idential to a Jackal Pup that you used Control Magic to take from an opponent. Both Pups attack and block in the exact same way. A Lighning Bolt on either damages you. So long as the Pup stays on the battlefield, the game overwhelmingly points towards the controller for decisions and the consequences.

Controlling an opponent's turn is different because the resources all remain associated with the "owner" of the turn as it were. If you have the opponent's activate Bargain, their life total goes down, and they draw the cards. If you have them Bolt their own Pup, they take the damage. You make the decisions, but they are affected by the consequences.

All I was saying was that Wizards chose to use the word "control" to describe two very different things.

[Daenyth]

I don't think that it means anything different. Consider a Control Magic on a Jackpul Pup equipped with Umezawa's Jitte. You don't control the Jitte. You aren't able to choose targets for the abilities. You're controlling their turn, and their turn is the decisions they are able to make, nothing more. You don't gain control of their cards any more than Control Magic gains you control of their equipped Jitte.

[ELD]

My point was that for most intents and purposes

Like a parachute, if your logic only works most of the time, it's not good enough.

I'm not the one who gets confused on this stuff.  I was simply trying to show you how you could think more effectively.  Daenyth and a million others could try and explain it, and they'd be correct, but it all comes down to using phrases that do not sync up with the game terminology.  Saying "a creature you control" is "yours" is no more helpful than saying it's on "Team Jacob" or however else you want to think about your "team."

[Delha]

Just realized I missed DubDub's post. I didn't know that they reworded Slaver, but the change pretty much covers everything I wanted.

My point was that for most intents and purposes

Like a parachute, if your logic only works most of the time, it's not good enough.

Parachutes DO only work most of the time. That doesn't mean people should stop using them. Cars only work most of the time, but that doesn't mean they're "not good enough". I'd assume that you use one.

I'm not the one who gets confused on this stuff.  I was simply trying to show you how you could think more effectively.  Daenyth and a million others could try and explain it, and they'd be correct, but it all comes down to using phrases that do not sync up with the game terminology.  Saying "a creature you control" is "yours" is no more helpful than saying it's on "Team Jacob" or however else you want to think about your "team."

I'm not confused. It ought to be pretty clear from just my posts in this subforum that I've got a solid grasp of the rules. I've long understood the mechanics of Slaver, my position was simply that the (old) wording on the ability was misleading, and apparently Wizards agreed.

[DubDub]

I could have sworn there was an article covering the wording change in depth, but I can't find it.  I did find these:

Sorin Markov
Our favorite bloodsucking planeswalker gets an update to his "ultimate" to go with Mindslaver's update.

New wording
+2: Sorin Markov deals 2 damage to target creature or player and you gain 2 life.
-3: Target opponent's life total becomes 10.
-7: You control target player during that player's next turn.

Source.

Word of Command
Completing the unholy trifecta of my first month as rules manager (along with Transmute Artifact and Lich), we have Word of Command. Mark Gottlieb realized that we could employ the new "controlling another player" technology being rolled out for Mindslaver and Sorin Markov (which lets you control another player instead of just his or her turn, opening up the possibility of controlling a player at some time other than his or her turn). It's not perfect, but it's really close, and more sensible under the current rules.

New wording
Look at target opponent's hand and choose a card from it. You control that player until Word of Command finishes resolving. The player plays that card if able. While doing so, the player can activate mana abilities only if they're from lands he or she controls and only if mana they produce is spent to activate other mana abilities of lands he or she controls and/or play that card. If the chosen card is cast as a spell, you control the player while that spell is resolving.

Source.

* Although the template for Mindslaver has changed since its original printing
in the _Mirrodin_ set, the functionality of this card has not.

That from the Set FAQ sourced here.

Something else from that FAQ about Mindslaver I did not know:

* Controlling a player's turn won't let you look at that player's sideboard
under any circumstances. During a tournament, if you have that player cast a
card such as Glittering Wish that lets that player choose a card with certain
characteristics from outside the game, no card can be chosen.

[Diakonov]

Something else from that FAQ about Mindslaver I did not know:

* Controlling a player's turn won't let you look at that player's sideboard
under any circumstances. During a tournament, if you have that player cast a
card such as Glittering Wish that lets that player choose a card with certain
characteristics from outside the game, no card can be chosen.

That is very strange.  I wonder what the purpose of that ruling is.

Also, their example could be better.  The way it's worded ("with certain characteristics") might lead some to believe that you can Death Wish during a Mindslaver turn.

[ELD]

You can cast the wishes.  They typically results in being unable to choose a card. For Death Wish, the card is chosen at random from the possible cards.  Since there are no characteristics, you are able to find one.  This is similar to casting Demonic Tutor.  You are able to find a card as long as there is a card to find.  Tournament rules, not game rules, allow players to look at their Sideboard. 

[Clariax]

With Mindslaver and Sorin you can see your opponent's sideboard.  The rules have changed since that FAQ was printed.