It’s rather new, so I wouldn’t be surprised if people didn’t know that the once per turn keyword and ruling has been changed as of recent. The original rulings for once per turn had been the same for over a decade, only making a difference in the current year with some of the new sets. I want this post to discuss the implications of such changes and how it may affect the game going forward.
So I want to make it clear on how the wording actually works and how Bushiroad is modifying the effect going forward. Most notably, Bushiroad’s changes will not be affecting older series. Cards such as Fern above will not be receiving a sort of master ruling change and will operate as they have. Once per turn effects were generally quite simple to understand, at least their activation clauses. When an effect occurred that fulfilled the conditions of the “once per turn” effect, you had to immediately choose to resolve or not resolve said effect. This is because the ruling works as an activation check rather than an optional choice based on the player’s decisions.
Whether or not the player elected to resolve the “once per turn” effect, the opportunity chance would resolve immediately. This meant that the next time that same clause would activate, the player would no longer be able to resolve said once per turn ability, even if they denied the first opportunity. Fern here is a very good example of why this may confuse players. Fern is a rare card whose “once per turn” is actually multiple times a turn. However, Fern uses old rulings, and therefore, you have to immediately resolve the first three checks as they happen. This means that if you procured her effect, you would have to use Fern’s ability on the immediate checks. Even if you denied the first two checks and fulfilled the last one, you would not be able to activate Fern for a fourth check since you technically went through three opportunities.
Where the ruling is odd and has changed comes in the new blue text box rule as seen on a card like Anna above. Anna’s clause is still “once per turn”; however, you can choose which instance to activate her ability. Unlike Fern, where you would have to make a choice and use up an instance check on the first available opportunity, Anna can ignore that. Anna’s opportunity clause only applies when you actively use her ability.
For instance, when your other cards are reversed, Anna can ignore the first two reversed targets and not procure her ability. However, on the third reversal, Anna can go ahead and use her ability. Regardless, Anna has activated her “once per turn” effect then, meaning that if your opponent could somehow reverse another target, Anna’s ability would not procure.
So the ultimate question is what implications does this bring? In reality, I see this as a genuine positive change. Whereas with older “once per turn” clauses, you had no choice in the matter and had to make a hard decision to whether to use the ability or not at the first opportunity. This made it quite difficult as a decision considering the state of many variables.
Imagine you had some sort of top-check ability and rearranged the top two cards of your deck. You had no choice but to use an event, activating Hestia above. Now you do not want to draw and discard immediately because you have a better card for your situation after the top two cards. In this case, you are straight out of luck. Hestia’s ability has resolved, and if you did not use the draw and discard “once per turn” effect, it is dead.
With the new changes, players are given more agency to make decisions. Players who have better knowledge of their deck states can modify the clause to be used at their benefit to whichever situation they wish. This also adds complexity to the game as players now have to carefully consider the situations in which they would like to procure their “once per turn” abilities. Furthermore, decks that employ multiple copies of these “once per turn” cards now have far more power than before as you can modulate the “once per turn” clause with different opportunity cases. Overall, I think it’s a net positive for the game. My only worry, and a slight worry at most, is players using this new clause to stall out games. However, that’s less of an issue with the mechanics and more on tournament rules, players, and judges to curb this behaviour.