text:
Can Haphazard Bombardment destroy something with two aim counters?
Haphazard Bombardment says:

When Haphazard Bombardment enters the battlefield, choose four nonenchantment permanents you don't control and put an aim counter on each of them.
At the beginning of your end step, if two or more permanents you don't control have an aim counter on them, destroy one of those permanents at random.

Note the last line says "have an aim counter". It doesn't say "have at least one aim counter".
Does this mean that if a target somehow gains two aim counters (e.g. via proliferate, or because the creature gained more aim counters from Hankyu), it cannot be destroyed by Haphazard Bombardment?

Duplicate; although the other question was closed: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/49420/suggestions-about-certain-ambiguous-card-text-abzan-battle-priest?r=SearchResults

@GendoIkari admittedly, that question was closed because the OP was asking about why the phrasing was that way, not the interpretation of the rules.  He was asking that the card's text should be changed to be clearer and ended his question with "What do you think about it?"

You could also theoretically get multiple counters from another Haphazard Bombardment; although it would be nonoptimal to put the counters from the second one on the ones that got them from the first, there's no rule against it.

Checks aren't exclusive in MTG. "has a counter" => "has a counter (and possibly others)". "white creature" => "a permanent that is white (and possibly other colors) and a creature (and possibly other types)". "with flying" => "with flying (and possibly other abilities)".

Permanents with multiple aim counters can be destroyed by Haphazard Bombardment.
In standard English, "has an aim counter" means "has at least one aim counter", not "has exactly one aim counter". If someone asks "do you have a dollar?", you don't say "no" because your wallet is full of them.
I can't find any rulings that address this directly, but Gladehart Cavalry has this ability:

Whenever a creature you control with a +1/+1 counter on it dies, you gain 2 life.

and a corresponding ruling that says

You gain 2 life per creature, not per +1/+1 counter.

which is only meaningful if creatures with multiple counters can trigger it.

I think in English, it's contextual as to whether it mean 'at least' or 'exactly'. For instance; 'I have seven dollars' could mean 'at least', while 'I have seven fingers' would be a strange thing to say if you have ten. Although I do think that the difference between 'a' and 'one' has something to do with it.

Another argument: When MtG demands an exact number, it will say so: https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&text=+[exactly]

@MatthewJensen, "How much money do you have?" -- "I have seven dollars". That sounds exact enough to me, it would be weird to say that if you had a tenner in hand. On the other hand, "Hey, I need some money, do you have seven bucks?" -- "Yeah, here's a tenner" seems a bit saner.

@MatthewJensen Look at Grice's maxims https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle if you want to find out more about how and why this works.

I feel like they are between multiple rocks and hard places.  They probably don't want multiple templates for this, but some cards where space is a premium probably pushed them toward brevity (and away from "at least one * counter" or "one or more * counters").  The briefest options are either "a * counter" or "* counters" with both options being ambiguous.  If they used "* counters" people would be coming here asking if abilities like this still work when there is only one counter.  I think by choosing a shorter template, they were doomed to some level of ambiguity.

@DRF If you had just said "Grice's maxims exist"., that would have been more meta :)


text:
Arena, Triumphant surge without legal target
Just playing Arena using the Workshop:Heroes of Theros - Devotion deck.
I tried to cast Triumphant Surge when there was only my Transcendent Envoy on the battlefield. The Triumphant Surge just hung in the air over the stack part of the screen, not doing anything for about 10 turns. occasionally it would light up blue but mostly it sat in the way, I couldn't read the cards on the stack and didn't gain my 3 life. Then later in the game, when there was a legal target, I could cast the card by clicking on it where it was suspended on the rhs of the screen; it destroyed opponent's creature (4/4) and I gained 3 life.
Can I cast Triumphant Surge without a legal target to gain 3 life? Is this just a bug in Arena, or am I mistaken?

What you describe was certainly a bug in Arena. You can't cast a spell if you can't choose legal targets for it. By the rules, the spell will not hang around until there is a legal target.
Spells and abilities that require one or more targets can't be cast, activated, or enter the stack if you don't have a legal target at the time of casting/activating/triggering it. A spell that was started to be cast would be returned to where it came from, usually the hand.
The process for casting a spell, activating an ability, and triggering an ability are mostly identical for the purpose of target selection, so I'll only quote those rules for casting spells.

601.2c The player announces their choice of an appropriate object or player for each target the spell requires. [..]
601.2e The game checks to see if the proposed spell can legally be cast. If the proposed spell is illegal, the game returns to the moment before the casting of that spell was proposed (see rule 725, “Handling Illegal Actions”).

Ok thanks, good to understand. I suppose the card did not cast and it hung around on the wrong part of the screen and should have returned to my hand. Because of the weird behaviour it seemed like a lot more was going on than really was...

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Which of Magic's 1v1 tournament constructed formats is most popular?
The formats I'm interested in are:

Vintage
Legacy
Modern
Pioneer
Standard

(I'm not interested in Archenemy, Commander, 2HG, etc)
Is there some way to rank these five formats in terms of popularity? If so, how?

How are you defining “most popular”? Most number of people who play that format, how many games of that format get played per year, etc?

@GendoIkari I imagine most definitions will yield the same result (if they don't, that itself would be interesting). If it matters then I'd go with "how many games of that format are getting played per year", although if that data is not available then I'm also interested in other definitions.

In my answer I only discuss the large, official tournaments like Pro Tours and Grand Prix, since they are the only ones with readily available data. Everyone can register a sanctioned event of their own, and there doesn't seem to be an overview with attendance numbers or format used. The best numbers to obtain would probably come from WotC's own market research, but they're never going to publish that in any detail.
In terms of all-time number of events and players, Grand Prix are the most important event type. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Limited and Standard are the most common formats, accounting for 446 of total 654 GPs.

Limited: 290 events, 294,076 players
Standard: 156 events, 172,203 players
Modern: 76 events, 115,227 players
Legacy: 31 events, 47,223 players
Pioneer: 5 events (3 played, 2 planned), 4276 players
Vintage does not have any GP or PT events.

Going by average number of attendees per event, the ranking looks almost inverted:

Legacy: 1,523
Modern: 1,516
Pioneer 1,425
Standard: 1,103
Limited: 1,014

The inversion in ranking of the non-Pioneer formats from total numbers to average numbers per event seems to show that the less-supported formats still have a dedicated player base that makes use of any opportunity to play competitively, while the more supported formats spread out their player base over more events.
Pioneer meanwhile does show a strong popularity, going by average number of players per event. Since it's a brand-new format with all events played in 2020, only time will tell if its popularity is sustainable, or if it's just due the novelty of the format that will eventually wear off.
Pro Tours are harder to quantify by format since they are mostly played in mixed formats, but since their total numbers are much lower and proportionally similar to GPs, they don't change the overall picture. Combinations of Standard and Limited formats account for the plurality of players and events.
In terms of prize pool, however, PTs are much more significant. GPs range from $10K to $80K, while PTs range from $100K to $850K, an order of magnitude more.
Sources:
Mtg Pro Tour, List of events
MtG Grand Prix,
List of events

Would it be possible add the average/median frequency of time between events per format? The number might vary wildly between different years, but a rough ballpark would be nice.

@L.P. Surely it's possible. The first GP was in '97, so the average per year would be number of events divided by 23. I don't quite see the value of that number though, maybe you could explain?

Is there any indication that WotC organizes these events based on the format's popularity (as opposed to their lucrativeness)?

limited has the appeal of not having to bring your own deck. Legacy and vintage are really stymied by the reserve list, a lot of people would love to get into those formats.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Do I have to block a menace creature with a creature that "must block if able"?
Let's say I have two creatures, while opponent has one. Opponent plays Monstrous Step on his Menace creature, forcing one of my creatures to block, and attacks. Can I decline to block?
The two ways of interpreting the answer is, only one creature is forced to block "if able", but it can't block the menace creature, so I don't have to block. Alternatively, I do have a legal block (both creatures on his creature), so Monstrous Step actually forces both creatures to block in this situation.

The rulings below Monstrous Step say

If a creature is required to block a creature with menace, another creature must also block that creature if able. If none can, the creature that’s required to block can block another creature or not block at all.

so your second interpretation is correct.
A similar situation is described in the comprehensive rules:

509.1c The defending player checks each creature they control to see whether it’s affected by any requirements (effects that say a creature must block, or that it must block if some condition is met). If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximum possible number of requirements that could be obeyed without disobeying any restrictions, the declaration of blockers is illegal. If a creature can’t block unless a player pays a cost, that player is not required to pay that cost, even if blocking with that creature would increase the number of requirements being obeyed. If a requirement that says a creature blocks if able during a certain turn refers to a turn with multiple combat phases, the creature blocks if able during each declare blockers step in that turn.
Example: A player controls one creature that “blocks if able” and another creature with no abilities. If a creature with menace attacks that player, the player must block with both creatures. Having only the first creature block violates the restriction created by menace (the attacking creature can’t be blocked except by two or more creatures). Having only the second creature block violates both the menace restriction and the first creature’s blocking requirement. Having neither creature block fulfills the restriction but not the requirement.

Oops, forgot to read the rulings again ...

Yeah, Wizards does a decent job of predicting Boardgames.SE questions in advance :)

On a tangent, I'm mildly surprised by this rule, because it looks like it could make determining the legality of declared blockers take exponential time as a function of the number of creatures that could block. (A fact which, apparently, some people have actually proved mathematically!) Then again, we already knew that MtG can be computationally hard.

This rule surprised me. Based on my knowledge of MTG, I would've assumed since the creature is not able to block alone, and it says "if able", that creatures has to block if and only if the defending player chooses to assign one or more other creatures to block that attacker. I don't think I've ever seen a spell or ability that forces an action on a card that wasn't explicitly mentioned in the text of the spell or ability (whether targeted or not).

@NotThatGuy I guess the idea is that it's not really the effect of the spell that makes this happen, it's the game rules for attacking and blocking. When determining whether an attack or block is legal, you have to (theoretically) consider all possible attacks or blocks that could have been declared, involving all creatures on the battlefield, and in that way it's certainly possible that other creatures besides one affected by a spell will be caught up in attacking or blocking requirements.

What happens if opponent has two Menace creatures and opponent targets both of them with Monstrous Step, while I have three creatures two of which are forced to block?

@Allure You choose one of the menace attackers, and must block it with the creature targeted by its Monstrous Step and one (doesn't matter which) or both of the other two. This satisfies the maximum possible number of restrictions and requirements.

@Douglas Nitpick: if I understand correctly, you must always satisfy all restrictions. The "maximum number" only applies to requirements. Restrictions only prevent attacking or blocking, so shouldn't be able to contradict one another. Requirements, on the other hand, could contradict one another or restrictions by "forcing" you to do something impossible like needing to block with a creature that's already required to block something else or attacking with a creature that can't attack.

@NotThatGuy True. So, replace that last sentence with "This satisfies all the restrictions and the maximum possible number of requirements."


text:
How does your opponent verify you have not more than 4 of a particular card in your deck?
Inspired by How does your opponent verify that you're able to cast a Companion card?
As of time of writing the top-voted answer basically says you don't verify that the opponent can cast a Companion card, until proven otherwise. So for example if opponent is playing Keruga, the Macrosage, then they can't play any 2-drops. They could conceivably draw them, but since they can't play them, there's no unfair advantage gained.
Let's say instead I'm playing a Fires of Invention deck, which is heavily reliant on drawing the Fires of Invention. So I play eight copies of it. That's illegal, but it doubles my chances of drawing the card. How is my opponent going to verify I'm cheating now? After all, they need to see five copies of Fires of Invention before they can verify that I'm cheating, and that's not very likely in a real game. Otherwise:

I can decline to play the fifth copy if I draw it (this works because I don't usually need to have more than one Fires of Invention in play at a time).
If opponent casts Thoughtseize, I can concede before revealing my hand. Same goes for opponent casting cards like Peek, Surgical Extraction, etc.
If opponent casts something like Glimpse the Unthinkable, I can put the cards in the graveyard one at a time, and concede if the fourth Fires of Invention is milled (thereby ensuring that the 5th-8th copies will never be milled).

I'm pretty sure I'm gaining a legitimate advantage by doing this, but since one can never prove that I'm cheating, one can't call a judge either. How is the opponent supposed to verify that I'm not cheating then?

Shouldn't it read "gaining an illegitimate advantage" in your last paragraph?

@I'mwithMonica I used the word to mean "genuine" - the advantage of running 8 copies of a card is a real one. It's an illegally obtained, but still genuine, advantage.

In general, your opponent cannot conclusively verify that your deck is legal. As you mention, you can always concede to prevent them from seeing certain cards.
However, this statement that you made in your question is incorrect:

since one can never prove that I'm cheating, one can't call a judge either

Players can call a judge for any number of reasons, including suspicion that their opponent is cheating. And the fact is that conceding in response to a Thoughtsieze or Surgical Extraction is very suspicious, especially if you are otherwise winning the game.
If a judge wants to investigate a deck construction problem, they have the right to perform a deck check, and look through your whole deck and sideboard to verify that it matches your registered deck. If they do that, you can't avoid getting caught.
In addition, in higher-level tournaments decks are randomly checked, so even if you avoid drawing suspicion you would still have to get lucky to avoid disqualification.

More generally, it's pretty clear that this method of cheating has significant downsides. You have cards in your deck that are completely dead if you draw them, because you can't let your opponent see them. You have to concede if you opponent would see them in some other way, tanking your win rate. And you risk disqualification because if a judge decides to look into it, they can easily prove that you are cheating. You may not even experience a net benefit from this strategy, even without accounting for the fact that cheating is wrong.

But it's not like having four fully dead cards just shuffled in, since only the fifth to eighth copies drawn are dead. Basically, the four live ones are always stacked on top of the dead ones, and if the game ends either way before seeing them, the dead ones don't matter.

I didn't say it was. But the cards are dead if you get to them, and that is a downside.

@ilkkachu In a tournament it's a non-issue because you need to register your deck. In a friendly game, it would be a silly way to cheat since every card that allows your opponent to search your deck would force you to concede, as does (sometimes) hand destruction. In short, it's really not a big practical problem.

I think the assumption here is that a player would register their deck falsely to cheat in this way.

Forget extra cards. People accidentally having their sideboard cards in their main decks were caught. You were not the first person to try this, and unfortunately not the last.

The assumption is people are playing with legal decks - this is enforced at higher rules level events by random deck checks (where players are randomly selected and their decks compared to the decklist they submitted) and being able to call a judge when you find that your opponent's deck is not legal for whatever reason (including a 5th copy of a card)
Games in general are played in good faith - the general idea is to assume everyone is playing by the rules. This is done partly because of how intrusive and difficult actually constantly verifying everyone is following the rules would be. A deck check at the start of the event wouldn't stop someone from adding cards in during sideboarding from somewhere other than the sideboard, so to truly ensure this a deck check of every player would need to be made before every single game, not just match, starts - which would make events that already often spread across multiple days take twice, perhaps three times as long.
You are correct there is an advantage given by having extra copies of cards beyond the allowed limit - consistency - you are more likely to draw a card if you have more copies of it in the deck. If a player is cheating and does have more copies of the card in deck, are never caught in this, they would have the advantage earlier on in getting these cards sooner when they want them, but a disadvantage later if the game drags on, as drawing the extra copies would then be dead, unplayable cards.
For your specific examples - conceding rather than revealing your hand, allowing an opponent to search your deck, or during a mill is extremely suspect - and would be reasonable reasons to suspect an opponent of cheating. And there's no way to claim an innocent mistake in these cases. I've had a 5th copy of a card in a deck before accidentally, and ran a deck with only 59 cards before, again not intentional - but with such obvious avoidance to letting an opponent see cards in your deck would be enough for most judges to upgrade punishment for an illegal deck.


text:
Can a player return a card to discard pile if they are still touching it?
My family believes that you may pick up a card from the discard pile and return it, as long as you are still touching the card, and then draw From the draw pile in the same turn. I disagree and think once the card is picked up it is yours to keep or discard and end your turn.
What is the correct rule?

TL;DR : They are technically breaking the rules but you should allow it as it doesn't affect the game.
Looking at the rules here it says :-

Draw a card from either the Draw Pile or the Discard Pile, and add it
  to your hand. And then, discard any card that you want onto the
  Discard Pile.

There is also nothing in the rules about 'still touching' anywhere that I can see.  So technically the answer to your question is no that is not allowed.
However, there is also an answer about just being nice person when playing games.  If a player picks up a publicly visible discard and decides that is not what they want to do, and the next player has not taken a turn, I see no good reason why they shouldn't put it be back and be able to draw a card.  Nothing has changed that can not be undone.  No new information was available.
Of course if a player drew a card from the deck and saw it then that would have to stick and shouldn't be returned as they have new information that was not available at the start of the turn.

It seems like you all agree on the rule on drawing from either one pile or the other, but you disagree on what constitutes a drawing of a card from a pile (or stated another way: whether physically examining the card on the discard pile constitutes "drawing" that card).
Since either definition is suitable (though one may be more common than the other), and since choosing one over the other has no effect on the game, just agree on a definition and play the game.


text:
Should I mill myself if I have graveyard synergies in my deck, but haven't drawn them yet?
It's well-established that one should usually choose to loot if one can. It's the strictly superior play, and there are only a few valid reasons not to do so.
This question is about a different scenario. If I have cards that use the graveyard in my deck, but have not drawn them yet, under what circumstances should I mill myself? Concrete example:

My board: 20 life, no cards in hand, no cards in graveyard, 40 cards in deck, lots of lands, a Hill Giant, Skull Prophet.
Opponent's board: 20 life, no cards in hand, lots of lands, two Grizzly Bears.

Right now neither of us can attack. If I do, he double blocks and I trade down. If he attacks I simply eat his creature. The board is stalled.
It's the end of my opponent's turn. I have Survivors' Bond still in my deck, but I haven't drawn it yet. Should I activate Skull Prophet?
I'm wondering if the answer is "yes" (because I can potentially mill good cards for Survivors' Bond), or "no" (because I can potentially mill the Survivors' Bond itself). If the answer is "it depends", then I'd like to know under what circumstances it becomes desirable - e.g. how many copies of Survivors' Bond vs. good creatures do I need in my deck before it's preferable to mill myself?
Edit: Since this question became a HNQ, here's a nontechnical version.
There are two zones for cards, "in the deck", and "in the graveyard". I have a deck of X cards, from which I draw a card every turn. There are Y copies of a card ("Survivors' Bond") in the deck that prefer cards to be "in the graveyard". Every turn I'm given the option to put two cards from my deck into the graveyard. Should I do it because it makes my Survivors' Bond better, or should I not do it because I could end up putting Survivors' Bond into the graveyard? If it depends on what X and Y are, for what parameter range does it become preferable?

Let's assume the game will end within 13 turns. In those 13 turns, you will draw 13 cards, and since you have no information where the Survivors' Bonds are, the milling has no effect on how fast you draw one or how likely you are to draw one. If you don't mill at all, you will draw the top 13 cards; if you mill every turn, you'll draw the cards at positions divisible by three. (Well, if you're unlucky enough to mill all of them, you can stop milling of course.)
Milling does however increase the value of a Survivors' Bond; without creatures, it's a dead card, and the more options you have, the better.
So bottom line: always activate Skull Prophet.

"...since you have no information where the Survivors' Bonds are, the milling has no effect on how fast you draw one or how likely you are to draw one." This is very counter-intuitive, is a powerful tool to help you make good, logical decisions. The game was, after all, created by a mathematician.

It's not entirely true though. If I were to mill my entire library, then that would certainly affect my chance of drawing a specific card next turn. You have to look at the chance of milling away a card you want to draw.

It may be counter-intuitive, but given the assumption (the game ends with 13 turns) it's true.

@Glorfindel not necessarily. your goal is presumably to mill cards useful in graveyard and not mill all copies of survivors bond. each next turn your chances of that depend on results of drawing and milling of previous turn

@Gnudiff But milling all copies of survivors bond and losing isn't any worse than losing before you draw a survivors bond. Either way you don't get to play the survivors bond goodness.

Thanks for answer. I take it that means that if I already have my best reanimation target in my graveyard, I should not mill (because there's no advantage, but some very small disadvantages, like potentially decking myself eventually).

@Allure yes, unless you have a chance of drawing another copy of Survivors' Bond and could use another reanimation target.

Yes. If you have no information about the order of cards in your deck, then you should practically always mill yourself.
Milling yourself is your strategy. It's the main purpose of your Skull Prophet. Ignoring the other 3 Bonds for the moment, and absent any information about the order of cards in your library, your Survivors' Bond has a 2/40 (5%) chance to be in the top 2 cards and be wasted by the mill, and a 38/40 (95%) to get closer to the top spot instead.
Only when those percentages flip around, i.e. the chance to mill them away becomes bigger than the chance of moving them up, should you stop milling. But that only happens when you have only very few cards left in the library, usually not a concern in even remotely competitive games.
Of course, the counterargument would be that if you mill 2 cards for every card you draw, you can expect to lose 2-3 Bonds to milling each game. To ensure that you're going to draw a key card that you need in your hand rather than your graveyard is a matter for deck construction, either by including multiple similar cards (or tutors), or more generic card draw.

The conclusion here might be correct, but for the wrong reasons. As long as you don't run out of cards in your library, the probabilities cancel out and milling ends up having no effect on your chances. It only helps by putting better creatures in your graveyard.

Milling:

doesn't make drawing a card more or less likely.

could add potentially good usable cards to your graveyard.

won't feel good if you mill the card you want to draw, and this is fairly likely to happen (especially if you're milling more cards than you're drawing). It might feel good if you manage to draw it after a lot of milling, but probably not as bad as you'd feel if you accidentally mill it.

is a significantly worse idea if you have any sort of deck searching or scry (that you haven't used yet), because you wouldn't be able to search cards you've milled. But I assume this doesn't apply.

is not a great idea if there's a risk of running out of cards in your library. I assume this also doesn't apply.

So milling is good, from a strictly mathematical point of view.
But psychologically it's not great. This probably shouldn't be that important, but it's worth keeping in mind.
Why doesn't milling make drawing a card more or less likely?
Intuitively:
You can consider milling to be equivalent to putting those cards at the bottom of your library. Either way, you won't draw those cards and the order of the rest of the cards are the same. Since you have no knowledge of the order of the cards, reordering your library in this way can be considered equivalent to simply shuffling your library. Shuffling your library doesn't make it more likely to draw any given card (if you have no information about the order of the cards).
More concretely:
To determine the probability of drawing a specific card: Assuming the cards in your library are in a random order, you can just look at the amount of cards you're drawing. Then ask: out of the N cards you currently have in your library, what's the probability of getting the card you want in K cards you draw? You're drawing K out of N cards regardless of whether or not you mill yourself. So the milling is irrelevant.
The probabilities can change as you mill yourself, but this would only be due to information gain. By this I mean knowing what cards you can no longer draw makes drawing any of the other cards more likely. But the information gained would cancel out with the chance of gaining that information. If you didn't know what you were milling (say you remove the top card of your library face-down), it wouldn't change the probabilities. From a probability point of view, this would be exactly equivalent to removing the bottom card of your library (face-up or face-down, respectively).
If you have 1 copy of the card in a deck of 40 cards, the maths for 1 draw goes as follows:
Chance of getting the card before mill = 1/40
Chance of getting the card after mill
    = chance of milling the card * chance of drawing it from deck without card
      + chance of not milling the card * chance of drawing it from smaller deck
    = 1/40 * 0/39 + 39/40 * 1/39
    = 0 + 1/40
    = 1/40
    = Chance of getting a card before mill

More generally, for K copies of the card in a deck of N cards, you'd have:
Chance of getting a card before mill = K/N
Chance of getting a card after mill
    = chance of milling the card * chance of drawing it from deck with 1 fewer copy
      + chance of not milling the card * chance of drawing it from smaller deck
    = K/N * (K-1)/(N-1) + (N-K)/N * K/(N-1)
    = K(K-1)/N(N-1) + K(N-K)/N(N-1)
    = (K(K-1) + K(N-K))/N(N-1)
    = K(K-1 + N-K)/N(N-1)
    = K(N-1)/N(N-1)
    = K/N
    = Chance of getting a card before mill


text:
Is there a Magic card that rearranges the stack?
I'm thinking of a card that can do this:

I have Niv-Mizzet, Parun on the battlefield.
Opponent casts Aether Gust on Niv-Mizzet. Niv-Mizzet triggers.
Usually the trigger would resolve before Aether Gust. Instead I cast [mystery card] (or activate [mystery ability]) which rearranges the stack to make Aether Gust resolve first, which allows Niv-Mizzet to draw itself.

Does the mystery card/ability exist? Using the Scryfall database, I'm not getting results for the words "rearrange" and "stack", but it's possible I'm looking for the wrong words.

No, there is no such card.
This search lists all cards interacting with the stack, excluding Split Second, ending the turn, and cards from Un-sets.

No card rearranges the stack, but you could copy the Aether Gust with a spell (e.g. Fork) or ability (a leveled up Echo Mage) so that you can still draw Niv-Mizzet. Note that Fork would trigger Niv-Mizzet again, and the original Aether Gust will fizzle because it doesn't have a valid target anymore.

The mystery booster playtest card Queue of Beetles technically rearranges the stack as a game mechanic overall, though you need to cast it with flash to rearrange a particular stack in the process of resolving.

It only changes the order of evaluation, though. New additions still get handled last.

I may be mistaken, but aren't new additions usually handled first?  So wouldn't new additions being handled last be rearranging the stack?

You're right. The positions on the stack stay the same but the order of evaluation of the stack is reversed for the turn.

Animate Spell moves a spell from the stack to the battlefield,
Stack of Paperwork makes combat damage use the stack,
and Sudden Substitution changes a spell's owner and targets.

Animate Spell and Stack of Paperwork were made exclusively for Chaos Draft and are not Standard-legal. (They even say "Not for constructed play" on them.) Even ignoring that, though, they mess with things on the stack or remove things from the stack (a.la. countering) - they do not change the order of things on the stack as OP is asking for and would not produce the effect OP is describing.

Removal of an element inside the stack alters the order in which spells are executed (1 sooner for those below it).

It doesn't "alter" the order since those spells are still executed in the same order, it only changes the spells' timing. Changing the order would be like having two spells on the stack where A resolves before B and changing it so now B resolves before A. Order and timing are different concepts, otherwise this question could be answered by simply naming off one of hundreds counter spells.

Okay, then remove B from the stack to the battlefield and then back to the stack.

The only way that would work is if, after Animate Spell resolves (which, again, is about as non-Standard a card as it gets) another spell removes it from the battlefield, at which point it can be recast back onto the stack. However, it's up to the spell's original owner to do so, and I doubt that OP's opponent would be so accomodating.

Pairing a counterspell with a copy effect would come the closest to what OP is describing, but strictly speaking, that's still not affecting the order of the stack. That's just making so instead of the stack changing from A-B to B-A, it becomes A-B-C (where C is a copy of A) and then B-C after A is countered. Glorfindel's answer already covers this interpretation, which achieves OP's desired effect but not in the way OP is asking for.


text:
What happens if I tap a creature in response to Tolarian Kraken's ability?
Tolarian Kraken says:

Whenever you draw a card, you may pay {1}. When you do, you may tap or untap target creature.

Let's say I pay {1} and target my opponent's Merfolk Looter with this ability. Merfolk Looter has a tap ability, and my opponent uses it in response to my Tolarian Kraken trigger. Does my Tolarian Kraken wind up untapping the Merfolk Looter? That is, which interpretation of the ability is correct:

When you pay {1}, you have already chosen to switch the creature's state, so if it's tapped it becomes untapped and if it's untapped it becomes tapped.
You may pay {1}, and then when this ability resolves, you can choose if you want to switch the creature between tapped & untapped.

Somehow in a couple of games on Arena, my opponent's Kraken wound up untapping my creature even though it's to my benefit the creature is untapped. I'm not sure if it's because my opponent misplayed, or if #1 is the correct interpretation.

Arena takes a lot of little shortcuts, like choosing the order in which triggered abilities go on the stack unless you have "full control" turned on.  I'd guess that this is one such shortcut, which is being improperly applied.

Minor point: it's not full control but an option in the gameplay menu which determines whether Arena auto-orders triggers on the stack.

When you draw a card, the Kraken's ability triggers. When that ability resolves, you can choose to pay {1}. If you do, the second part triggers, and you have to choose a target if you can. What to do with that target is not decided until resolution, whether you want to tap it, untap it, or just leave it be (the ability says "may").

Historical note: Many cards used to say "tap or untap" instead of "may tap or untap", forcing the ability to change its status even if it wasn't beneficial to the ability's controller (because one can't tap a tapped permanent, one can't untap an untapped permanent, and it's illegal to choose an illegal option). This was not intentional, so the cards were erratad. Example


text:
Is there a way to Bring to Life my Lucky Clover and still cast Animating Faerie?
Say I have Lucky Clover on the battlefield, which I want to Bring to Life (this is the adventure side of Animating Faerie). So I cast Bring to Life. Lucky Clover triggers, and there's a 2nd Bring to Life on the stack. Lucky Clover is the only artifact I have, so I only have one legal target, so the 2nd Bring to Life must target Lucky Clover as well.
Now the stack resolves. The copied Bring to Life resolves first, which turns Lucky Clover into a 4/4 creature. The original Bring to Life now perceives that the Lucky Clover is no longer a legal target (since it can only target noncreature artifacts), so it's sent to the graveyard without any effect.
This interaction seems pretty silly to me - my own permanents are hurting my own cards - so I'm wondering if there's anything I could've done to prevent this from happening. Do I have a way to get Animating Faerie to the adventure zone while simultaneously animating Lucky Clover?

Nope, your analysis of what should happen is spot on.  Short of having another card or ability to use, there's nothing you could have done.  You'd need to have a way to stop the triggered ability (Stifle), counter the copy or have another legal target.
Silly as it might seem, sometimes normally beneficial effects have detrimental edge cases.  That's just part of Magic.

It’s worth noting that this is a big drawback with Lucky Clover and Adventure. I’ve lost so many Brazen Borrowers this way. I find it a fairly unfun, unintuitive interaction, but I had enough success with Adventure that I’m not sure I can complain about it having this drawback.

Could've been avoided just by making Lucky Clover's trigger a "may" trigger. Oh well.

It seems like the drawback only becomes relevant when you cast an adventure spell that only has a single reasonable target. That's a rare enough situation that calling it a big drawback seems like overselling it to me.

@KRyan that sounds like a "win more" problem though, particularly with brazen borrower, if you've reached the point where the opponent's field is completely clear so your original fizzles - it's not a big drawback when the times it comes up you're already coming out ahead.

@Andrew Not always, but yeah, while it frustrates me just because it “feels” wrong, I can’t complain that it weakens the interaction “too much” since clearly it works pretty well even if you do get jammed like that sometimes. (Cases where it’s messed with me is when I’m trying to top-deck something and I have ways I could bounce Brazen Borrower so I could use Petty Theft again once they recast whatever I bounce, to buy another turn to see if the deck was going to offer what I need.)

@DavidZ Brazen Borrower and Murderous Rider were mainstays of my WAR–ELD MTGA deck, so it came up kind of often for me.

@KRyan Of the 30 spells with adventure, only 8 of them can possibly have this issue (7 that move targeted objects to another zone, and animating faerie, which changes the type of the target to make it no longer legal) I still think that it's a minor issue when it comes up and you come out ahead either way, after all if you didn't you wouldn't cast the adventure, thus it's a win more issue.

@Andrew hardly, e.g. if your opponent plays Nissa, Who Shakes the World, you had better bounce it even if it's the only non-land permanent they have on the board, because of how threatening that card is. Not bouncing Nissa means opponent gets tons of mana the next turn and can e.g. play a huge Hydroid Krasis. Brazen Borrower going to the graveyard can have serious consequences, since it could even have attacked the Nissa when she's replayed since it flies over the 3/3 lands that Nissa makes.

No, there is no simple way to prevent this interaction. You will need to play more cards to prevent it.
In the scenario you describe, you have a two options, none of which are "free" as in no extra card investment:
The first option is to change the card type of the newly animated artifact back into non-creature.
Blinking the Clover (e.g. Momentary Blink) in between the two instances of Bring to Life would do the trick, but that would result in the Lucky Clover becoming a new object, which would cause Bring to Life to lose track of its target and also be removed from the stack, meaning you didn't gain anything.
Most type-changing effects are animating effects, the opposite of what you want to do. Effects that directly remove types from objects are rare, and those that remove creature types are even rarer. One with the Stars is the most recent card that would have the desired effect, but it is an enchantment that you would have to play at instant speed, meaning even more card investment.
The second, and probably more practical option would be to bounce your own spell to your hand, e.g. with Unsubstantiate and let the copy do the animating.

Or better yet unsubstantiate the copy so the original spell resolves, is exiled and can be cast from exile as adventures work normally.


text:
How does Liliana's Standard Bearer work if Kaervek the Spiteful is on the battlefield?
Let's say one creature has died this turn. I have Kaervek, the Spiteful on the battlefield, and then I flash in Liliana's Standard Bearer. This card has an enters-the-battlefield trigger which says "draw X cards where X is the number of creatures that died this turn".
Obviously the Standard Bearer is going to die immediately to Kaervek's static ability. When the enters-the-battlefield trigger resolves, does it count the Standard Bearer as a creature that died this turn?

Yes, you will draw a card for the Standard Bearer as well. This is explained in the rulings under the card in Gatherer:

The value of X is determined only as the triggered ability resolves. If Liliana’s Standard Bearer dies while that ability’s on the stack, it will count itself.

My God, I got to start reading the Gatherer rulings before asking questions.

@Allure I kinda think there should be stickied question and answer pointing out that if you have a MtG question, and you link to a card in your question, you should check whether there is an answer to your question at the bottom of the linked page.

@Acccumulation good idea, I've proposed something that uses an existing Stack Exchange feature.


text:
In Catan, should development cards be drawn one at a time?
In Catan, multiple actions can be taken per turn, so multiple development cards can be drawn. However, I realized that if somebody has 9 VPs and the draw 2 development cards, they could get 11 VPs, but in tournament play where amount of VPs matter, drawing extra VPs would help. But technically, the person would have after drawing only 1 VP card, so the 2nd one was basically drawn after winning the game, which would be technically spending cards and getting an extra victory point after the game was won, so, my question is, should Development card be drawn one at a time to stop extra VPs?

It sounds like you're talking about having them count at the same time, instead of in the order they are bought. In the video game version I play, they automatically count in the order they're bought (so you wouldn't be able to buy additional ones after the winning one)--but that's not the board game.

Buying multiple Development Cards at once is a legal play.
The rules state this:

Build
Now you can build. Through building, you can increase your victory points, expand your road network, improve your resource production, and/or buy useful development cards. To build, you must pay specific combinations of resource cards (see the Building Costs Card). Take the appropriate number of roads, settlements, and/or cities from your supply and place them on the game board. Keep development cards hidden in your hand.

(Taken from this answer: In Settlers of Catan, are all actions on the same turn simultaneous?)
So, spending resources can be done in bulk, with no distinction between roads, villages/cities or development cards.
The Rules Almanac, an appendix to the main rules book, has some clarifications and additional limitations to playing Development Cards. These are that you cannot play development cards on the turn you buy them, and can only play one development card per turn. VP cards are an exception to both of these rules however, as you don't play them but reveal them when you get to 10VP.
Although the almanac states that buying your tenth VP ends the game, it also allows for buying in bulk.

The FAQ doesn't exactly clear things up either:

Victory Conditions
May I continue scoring points after having reached the number of victory points required for a win?
Answer
This could make sense in a private tournament where the scores from several games are added up. For individual games and official tournaments, the following applies: You have won as soon as you have reached the required number of victory points on your turn – and then the game is over.

That seems inconclusive. You can buy multiple but you should stop buying as you reached 10VP, because game ends at this point. Can you build several settlements / towns at the same turn to go over 10VP, or does the game end before you have a chance to build additional buildings? Whatever the answer is it would be logical it applies to the cards as well.

@AndrewSavinykh If two development cards are considered to belong to a single transaction, then you could draw both before viewing them, see that one is a victory point, and keep both regardless of their order in the deck. The question is whether this concept of a transaction is valid for Catan.

@Grault That's my question, do you stop drawing once you get to 10 (Which would make it necessary to draw one development card at a time) or are they bought in bulk?

@BenjaminErickson IIRC my group plays with the idea that you can buy in bulk. I don't know whether the rules actually specify. I'm leaning toward single buys being more balanced.

@Grault The rules allow for buying in bulk, as stated in my answer.

@steenbergh None of what you listed says that.

@Grault Added emphasis on the rule that says to take the correct number of pieces (because you've bought them in bulk) from your supply and place them on the board. Though this deals with roads/settlements, the same applies for Development Cards as they are not excepted in this rule and are mentioned (in plural) in the very next sentence.

@steenbergh I'm not convinced the plural means that at all (or that the sentence structure corresponds with the sequence of game events), but either way I'm a little annoyed at the authors for lazy writing.

@steenbergh Tournament Rule suggest Bulk buying is not permissible. 2.13.

The Catan Studio Tournament rules for national tournaments make clear points above 10 are irrelevant.

2.10 A player has won if they have 10 or more victory points (although only 10 will be counted for the ranking) and it is the player’s turn. If a player does not notice that they have 10 points, the player must wait until the next turn before winning the game (assuming no earlier player wins, and the player still has 10 points).

Note that this also contradicts the accepted wisdom of Winning without Declaring from the standard Catan rules.

this doesn't answer my question.

@BenjaminErickson only the tournament organisers can really help you then. Standard tournament rules make the question irrelevant, so if they are not using them, we cannot predict what else they are changing.

@Jonita it dosen't help as the tournament organizers are playing by 5th edition Catan rules only.


text:
Under what circumstances can Carrion Grub trigger Garruk's Uprising?
Garruk's Uprising triggers whenever a creature with power >4 enters the battlefield. A ruling on the card says "If a creature is entering the battlefield under your control, consider static abilities to determine whether its power is 4 or greater. Spells, activated abilities, and triggered abilities can’t be used to raise the creature’s power in time to have Garruk’s Uprising’s last ability trigger or to lower it in time to stop it from triggering."
Meanwhile, a ruling on Carrion Grub says "Carrion Grub’s first ability applies only while it is on the battlefield. In all other zones, its power is 0."
In which of these scenarios will Carrion Grub trigger Garruk's Uprising?

I have no cards in my graveyard and Garruk's Uprising in play. I play Carrion Grub, which mills a 4-power creature.
I have a creature with >4 power in my graveyard when I play Carrion Grub.

I'm guessing that in the first case it will not trigger (because Garruk's Uprising explicitly says triggered abilities aren't in time) but I am not so sure about the second. The ruling on Carrion Grub explicitly says it has zero power until it's on the battlefield, which could be before or after Garruk's Uprising checks for a creature entering.

Your guess is correct; in the first case Garruk's Uprising will not trigger; in the second case it will.
Because Carrion Grub's mill ability is a triggered enters-the-battlefield ability, it doesn't do anything until it is too late for it to help with Garruk's Uprising. First a creature with power 0 enters the battlefield, and then later that creature grows into a 4-power creature. It never happened that a 4-power creature entered the battlefield. It is similar to a land that is on the battlefield later becoming a creature; you don't get "when a creature enters the battlefield" effects.
In the second case, Garruk's Uprising will trigger because Carrion Grub's first ability is a static ability, it is always true while Carrion Grub is on the battlefield. The moment it enters the battlefield, the game checks to see what happened, and it will see that there is a creature on the battlefield with 4 power that wasn't on the battlefield before.

603.6b Continuous effects that modify characteristics of a permanent do so the moment the permanent is on the battlefield (and not before then). The permanent is never on the battlefield with its unmodified characteristics. Continuous effects don’t apply before the permanent is on the battlefield, however (see rule 603.6d).

603.6d Some permanents have text that reads “[This permanent] enters the battlefield with . . . ,” “As [this permanent] enters the battlefield . . . ,” “[This permanent] enters the battlefield as . . . ,” or “[This permanent] enters the battlefield tapped.” Such text is a static ability—not a triggered ability—whose effect occurs as part of the event that puts the permanent onto the battlefield.


text:
How does The Ozolith work with Modular?
The Ozolith has this ability:

Whenever a creature you control leaves the battlefield, if it had counters on it, put those counters on The Ozolith.

Let's say I control Arcbound Worker, which has Modular 1:

This creature enters the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter on it. When it dies, you may put its +1/+1 counters on target artifact creature.

If I have two Arcbound Workers in play as well as The Ozolith, and one of the Arcbound Workers die, do both The Ozolith and the other Arcbound worker get counters? If not, which one does?

The other Arcbound Worker and the Ozolith both get the counters.
Functionally, The Ozolith is not actually moving counters around or taking those counters away. It is simply saying: “whatever counters that thing had as it died, put those kinds of counters on the Ozolith.” These are brand new counters, unrelated to the other ones, they just happen to be the same types and quantities. This is clarified in a ruling on The Ozolith itself:

The Ozolith’s first ability doesn’t move counters off the creature that’s left the battlefield. Instead, it causes you to put a number of counters of each kind of counter that was on that creature onto The Ozolith. Notably, if you somehow control a second The Ozolith, each one will receive the same number and kinds of counters that were on the creature that left the battlefield. [...]

This is also covered by rule 122.8, which was added specifically for the Ozolith:

122.8. If a triggered ability instructs a player to put one object’s counters on another object and that ability’s trigger condition or effect checks that the object with those counters left the battlefield, the player doesn’t move counters from one object to the other. Rather, the player puts the same number of each kind of counter the first object had onto the second object.

Modular is similarly not moving the exact counters around or taking them away. In fact, the rules on Modular clarify that it comes with two abilities, one of which is this:

When this permanent is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, you may put a +1/+1 counter on target artifact creature for each +1/+1 counter on this permanent.

Just like the Ozolith, this isn't actually moving the counters themselves around, it just happens to be creating new, unrelated counters that happen to be the same type and quantity.
So in this situation, we effectively have two abilities:

Modular's ability, which functionally in this situation says “When Arcbound Ravager dies, because it had one +1/+1 counter on it, you may put one +1/+1 counter on another target artifact creature.”
The Ozolith's ability, which functionally in this situation says: “When Arcbound Ravager dies, because it had one +1/+1 counter on it, put one +1/+1 counter on The Ozolith.”

Both trigger, and both resolve, both handing out brand new counters to the Ozolith and any one artifact creature.

Somewhat ironic that what was supposed to be more "user-friendly" wound up being more confusingly worded too ...

Both The Ozolith and the other Arcbound Worker get the full number of +1/+1 counters from the first worker.
Modular reads:

702.42a Modular represents both a static ability and a triggered ability. “Modular N” means “This permanent enters the battlefield with N +1/+1 counters on it” and “When this permanent is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, you may put a +1/+1 counter on target artifact creature for each +1/+1 counter on this permanent.”

Neither Modular nor The Ozolith move the counters, which might cause them to be unavailable for the other. Both are triggered abilities that simply create new counters equal to the counters on the dead Worker, on the Ozolith and the target of Modular respectively. The counters on the first Worker that died simply cease to exist, as normal.

122.2. Counters on an object are not retained if that object moves from one zone to another. The counters are not “removed”; they simply cease to exist. See rule 400.7.

If you somehow controlled several Ozoliths, e.g. through Mirror Gallery, then each Ozolith would get the full number of counters from a dying creature. Similarly, if you copied the Modular ability on the stack, or the dying creature had two instances of modular, it would create the counters twice.


text:
How competitive are MTG Arena qualifier events?
I finished last season ranked mythic on MTG Arena. I wasn't paying attention to the season, had no idea something was up, and was simply playing for fun (like, if I'd known what was at stake and was playing to qualify, I would've stopped playing immediately after reaching mythic at rank ~150). Therefore it came at a great surprise to receive this email from Wizards:

Looking at the magic.gg website, it seems this is going to be a BO3 constructed event coinciding with a set release. I suspect this format is not my forte, because making and testing completely new decks is not something I'm very interested in - I usually just copy some established deck and change some cards. If there is a new set then everything is in flux and I would have to figure out the metagame.
Questions:

How competitive are these events? In particular, how do they compare against paper Magic events such as Friday Night Magic, Grands Prix, GP Day 2s, Pro Tours?
How much preparation is necessary to succeed in these events? How do people even prepare? I'm not part of a testing team or anything like that.
If I decide not to play, can I pass the invite to someone else?

I would've stopped playing immediately after reaching mythic at rank ~150

Slightly an aside: that probably wouldn't have qualified you; your rank goes down if you don't play as others get wins and move up.

How competitive are these events?

Pretty competitive. They include what are by some definitions the best 1200 players in the world1. That puts them well above the "entry level competitive" FNM. The closest analogy to "the old world" is probably a Grand Prix, but it isn't a perfect match at all; certainly below the old Pro Tour level, which had only a few hundred of the best players in the world.

How much preparation is necessary to succeed in these events?

That's not a question we can answer, particularly given that Magic is a high variance game. Some people will put hours and hours into understanding the metagame, then designing and tuning decks to find what they think will be most successful... and drop at 0-4 after some unlucky draws. Other people will just take their favourite deck unchanged and make Day 2.

How do people even prepare?

Test, test, test. Perhaps the important thing to note here is that the tournament metagame is likely to be significantly different from the Arena ladder metagame - the ladder always features a lot more aggro than tournaments as aggro decks allow players to play more games quickly on the ladder and move up quicker. As an example, while the infamous Temur (or 4c) Reclamation decks made up 25-30% of the top end of the Arena ladder, they made up 55% of the recent Players Tour Finals decks.

If I decide not to play, can I pass the invite to someone else?

No.
1. Yes, Arena ladder to some extent rewards quantity of play over quality of play. But the old qualification systems rewarded spiking a couple of tournaments over sustained quality of play, so neither were perfect.


text:
If an attempt to equip fails, does the equipment fall off?
Let's say I have two Grizzly Bears, one of which is equipped with Short Sword. If I attempt to equip the other Bear and opponent responds with a kill spell, does the Short Sword cease to be equipped to the first bear?
I looked through the rules for equip and don't see why it would, but it's conceivable (certainly if opponent lets me equip before using the kill spell it would fall off), so I would like to check.

The Equipment remains attached to the previous creature.

701.3a To attach an Aura, Equipment, or Fortification to an object or player means to take it from where it currently is and put it onto
that object or player. [...]

701.3b If an effect tries to attach an Aura, Equipment, or Fortification to an object or player it can’t be attached to, the
Aura, Equipment, or Fortification doesn’t move. [...]

Unattaching the equipment from the previous creature is part of the equip ability's resolution, not part of it's cost. Since the target of the ability is illegal when it tries to resolve, it does not resolve and therefore the Sword remains attached to the previous wielder.
Note: 701.3b does not apply in this case because the effect doesn't happen in the first place, but it helps reinforcing the idea that Equipment stays where it is unless explicitly moved.

702.6a Equip is an activated ability of Equipment cards. “Equip [cost]” means “[Cost]: Attach this permanent to target creature you control. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.”

The now-dead bear is no longer a valid target so the equip ability doesn't resolve, and the sword remains equipped on the original creature.

The rule doesn't say the sword remains equipped on the original creature, however. How do we know it stays equipped?

@Allure Why would it not? The effect doesn't resolve, so nothing is changed.
Announcing that you are going to use an equip effect doesn't cause the equipment to unattach from its current creature, that only happens as the effect resolves. up until it does, it stays wherever it currently is

@JamesOtter Reminds me of this comic: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/388425/rob-bank The rules don't say it becomes unattached, but they don't say it stays attached either. I guess the default assumption if the rules don't say anything is to assume nothing changes.

@Allure Indeed. "Failing to resolve" in MtG means that nothing happens - all the costs you paid (mana, but potentially also things like tapping or sacrificing permanents etc.) remain paid - they are not refunded - but no effect happens. Moving the equipment is part of the effect, so since no effect happens, the equipment stays where it is.

@Allure, note that, if I've got it right, when the sole target of a spell/ability becomes invalid, the whole thing fizzles. Even if the effect explicitly said to detach the equipment first, or that something else happened too, the result would still be "nothing happens". See e.g. Battlefield Promotion, where the life gain also doesn't apply if the target becomes invalid.


text:
In Settlers of Catan, are all actions on the same turn simultaneous?
In Settlers of Catan, multiple action can be taken per turn, so you may want to go back and undo an action after you think about it more. I am wondering whether actions can be undone after proceeding on to something else. Such  as building a road, building a settlement then, after realizing the road shouldn't be built, removing it. So, my question is, can action be undone after moving on?

All building is simultaneous within a build action
Here is what the Catan rulebook has to say on the subject of building.

Build
Now you can build.  Through building, you can increase your victory points, expand your road network, improve your resource production, and/or buy useful development cards.  To build, you must pay specific combinations of resource cards (see the Building Costs Card).  Take the appropriate number of roads, settlements, and/or cities from your supply and place them on the game board.  Keep development cards hidden in your hand.

emphasis mine.
This implies that all the building is chosen and paid for all at once.
However, that is not to say you can roll back your entire turn.

Combined Trade/Build Phase
The separation of the trade and build phases was introduced to make the sequence easier to learn for beginners.  We recommend experienced players ignore this separation.
After rolling for resource production, you can trade and build in any order (you can trade, build, trade again and build again, etc.). You can even use a harbor on the same turn you build a settlement there.  Using this method speeds up the game a lot.

This means that there is separation between builds done before and after trade actions.  You cannot build a city, trade with another player, and then roll back the decision to build that city and use the new cards to instead build something else.  Those were separate actions.
And arguably, this means that it's allowable to take two separate build actions in a row.  After all, you could take a trade action and not do any trading, which gives you two consecutive build actions.  Which is useful, because building a development card reveals new information to you, and might change how you want to do the rest of your building.
How much 'undoing' is allowed will depend on your play group.
Ultimately, it's up to your play group to decide what constitutes formally 'taking' an action.  Does declaring that you're building a city count as taking the action?  Placing the city on the map?  Depositing the resource cards?
This doesn't have to be a formal decision the group makes.  Many groups are informal about this process, and frequently allow a decision to be reversed as long as it is easy to do so, no other players have made decisions in the meantime, and no new information (like looking at a newly build development card) has been revealed.  However, rewinding and adjusting a turn takes time and energy on the part of all involved, and if invoked frequently can quickly get wearing.  Groups who have members who have a tendency to waffle on their decisions are far more likely to require clear decision points after which decisions cannot be undone.  Additionally, tournament play tends to require clear decision points, as action rewinds can be used to deliberately confuse and frustrate the opponents by interrupting and changing their planning.


text:
Does Stony Silence stop Salvage Titan's activated ability from the graveyard?
Salvage Titan is a black artifact with the ability "Exile three artifact cards from your graveyard: Return Salvage Titan from your graveyard to your hand."
If Salvage Titan is in the graveyard and opponent has Stony Silence in play (which says "activated abilities of artifacts can't be activated"), can I still activate Salvage Titan's ability to return it from graveyard to hand? In other words, does Stony Silence's ability extend to artifacts in the graveyard?

No, Stony Silence does not affect that ability on Salvage Titan.
Rule 109.2 says

If a spell or ability uses a description of an object that includes a card type or subtype, but doesn’t include the word “card,” “spell,” “source,” or “scheme,” it means a permanent of that card type or subtype on the battlefield.

Stony Silence refers to "artifacts", so it is talking about artifact permanents on the battlefield. So, while Salvage Titan is in the graveyard, Stony Silence's effect does not apply to it.

Also Gatherer ruling on the Silence: "Stony Silence’s ability affects only artifacts on the battlefield. Activated abilities that work in other zones (such as cycling) can still be activated. Triggered abilities (starting with “when,” “whenever,” or “at”) are unaffected."


text:
What tactical concerns should I keep in mind as I charge, shoot, or retreat?
I'm playing a round of cooperative Necromunda, and am controlling a specific character on the field. Our party has just begun to engage with the enemy, and I'm looking for advice from experienced players on what to do for my next turn. My character's stat sheet is below:

The current layout of the board is below. My character is standing on the bridge at the top of the photo, blue hair clearly visible, her gun pointed at a rapidly approaching bad guy:

The bad guy directly in front of me is described as armed with a sword and an autopistol, to be heavily armored, and to not appear to be either a leader or champion.
The other visible bad guy that I am concerned about, at the top of the tall tower on the right, is armed with a bolter.
There is an additional piece of cover one move to the left on the bridge I am standing on (it's a bit hard to tell in the photo, but the big metal panel to my left is a diagonally-aligned cover wall).
You can see my team scattered across the other upper bridge (2 models), in cover behind pillars on the ground (2 models), and advancing over the bridge at ground level (1 model).
I'd like to accomplish the following with my two actions, in priority order:

Not hang my teammates out to dry
Not do anything wildly ineffective
Either now or on a future turn, maximize my chances of taking out the bolter-equipped bad guy in the tower threatening my entire team
Survive

I am thinking about charging the enemy in front of me and stabbing them with my knife. I'm unclear if I am allowed to attack twice in one turn. I've also considered:

Firing twice at the charging enemy with my stub gun, if I am allowed to do so
Firing twice at the bolter-equipped figure at the top of the tower with my lasgun, if I am allowed to do so
Retreating to the cover behind me and firing at the advancing enemy with my stub gun


text:
Do I lose if I have an empty library and cast Brainstorm?
Brainstorm says "Draw three cards, then put two cards from your hand on top of your library in any order."
If I have no cards in my library when I cast Brainstorm, do I lose? I imagine so - it feel pretty weird if I don't - but apparently state-based actions aren't checked during spell resolution, and by the time Brainstorm resolves I no longer have an empty library, so just checking.

Does this answer your question? What happens if you are unable to draw because your library is empty?

@JoeW that'd usually be the case, but by the time Brainstorm resolves I don't have an empty library anymore (?)

I think this answers the question because it shows the rules state you lose the next time a player gets priority and the loss is from a draw attempt and not an empty deck so having the ability to draw cards later doesn't matter.

Your loss isn't from an empty library but from attempting to draw cards and not being able too.

I think 704.5b says it all. 704.5b If a player attempted to draw a card from a library with no cards in it since the last time state-based actions were checked, he or she loses the game.

@JoeW sounds like an answer to this question. I don't have any comments on whether it should be a duplicate, though.

I don't think this is a duplicate, because even though the answer to the other question does also answer this question, this question is specifically dealing with the situation where your library stops being empty before state-based actions are checked. The rules could have been written in such a way that the 2 questions did have different answers.

@GendoIkari Thanks for that information, I wasn't fully sure and I retracted my vote.

@JoeW the answer is the same, but this specific situation is unique enough that someone could read that answer and not be sure it applies.

Looking for a case where the answer turns out different: suppose I control Mirrodin Besieged with Phyrexian selected. I reach my end-step, I fail to draw because I have an empty library, then I discard a card. If I now have fifteen artifacts in my graveyard, my opponent loses (because Middorin Besieged's ability gets resolved in full before state-based actions are checked). Is that correct?

@JamesMartin interesting question. Probably ask that separately!

You will still lose, even though your library will not be empty when you lose.
You will fully resolve Brainstorm, including drawing as many as you can from your library (none in this case), and then putting 2 cards onto your library. After Brainstorm resolves, state-based actions will be checked, including this one:

704.5b If a player attempted to draw a card from a library with no cards in it since the last time state-based actions were checked, he or she loses the game.

So because you had made an attempt to draw a card from a library with no cards in it, you will lose, even though your library now has cards in it.

I think the point is that even though SBAs are not checked during resolution, the game still remembers what happened, and 704.5b can access that.


text:
If a permanent is tapped, are enchantments on it also tapped?
Say I have a Forest in play enchanted with Utopia Sprawl. Opponent has a Mesmeric Orb in play, which has this text:

Whenever a permanent becomes untapped, that permanent's controller mills a card.

On my turn I tap the Forest for mana. On my next turn when the Forest untaps, do I mill one card or two?
Intuitively I'm guessing one card, but I'm not aware of any rule that says it should be one card, so I'd like to check.

While most people physically tap the entire stack of auras and equipment/fortifications along with creatures/lands when they tap them, it's actually incredibly rare for equipment and auras to tap - it's just done visibly for convenience but not done mechanically.

@Andrew It's a good thing, then, that the game rarely cares about tapped enchantments. Tapped artifacts are slightly worse. But if you're ever in such a situation, you can make the extra physical effort then. Now I'm suddenly curious how this is done in official high-end tournaments.

@Arthur those tournaments, at least tge later games, are often streamed. Itcwouldnt be hard to find footage on say YouTube and check.

@Andrew Yeah I'm quite sure it's easy to figure out. It's mostly just a question that struck me as I wrote the comment.

For a while, I ran an improvise deck with equipment. I could attack with an equipped creature and then later tap the equipment to cast another spell.

No, each permanent individually can be tapped or untapped; tapping or untapping a permanent does not tap or untap any enchantments on it. Similarly, tapping or untapping an aura enchantment does not affect the permanent it is enchanting.

110.5. A permanent’s status is its physical state. There are four status categories, each of which has two possible values: tapped/untapped, flipped/unflipped, face up/face down, and phased in/phased out. Each permanent always has one of these values for each of these categories.

Of course, it would be an absolutely confusing mechanic for a designer to put a tap mechanic on an Aura or Equipment... But still, it would be possible, and I'm sure there are some cases where it matters.

They actually did it with https://scryfall.com/card/fut/113/flowstone-embrace

Ah, Future Sight.  The gift that keeps on giving.  :D

Second Wind too

Improvise is the "tap mechanic for Equipment" (more because it's an artifact than it's equipment, but still).  It was important to have independent tapping of the creature and the Equipment (even when the creature was also an artifact).


text:
If I cast Path to Exile on Leonin Arbiter, can the owner search without paying {2}?
Leonin Arbiter says:

Players can't search libraries. Any player may pay {2} for that player to ignore this effect until end of turn.

If I cast Path to Exile on the Arbiter, its controller would usually be able to search for a basic land. Arbiter makes it so that they can't search the library unless they pay {2}, but the Path also removes Arbiter, and once it's no longer on the battlefield presumably its effect doesn't apply anymore. Can the Arbiter's controller search for a basic land or not?

Leonin Arbiter's ability stops working immediately when it's exiled, even during the resolution of a spell or ability. If you exile it with Path to Exile, Leonin's controller may search their library whether or not they paid the cost this turn.
Leonin Arbiter's ability is a static ability that modifies the game rules.

604.1. Static abilities do something all the time rather than being activated or triggered. They are written as statements, and they’re simply true.

It creates its effect while Leonin Arbiter is on the battlefield. As soon as the Arbiter has left the battlefield, it stops working. Spells and abilities resolve all their steps in the order written.

608.2c The controller of the spell or ability follows its instructions in the order written. [..]

So by the time Path of Exile's resolution comes to the "search your library" step, Leonin Arbiter is already exiled, its ability no longer applies, and its controller may search their library.

So, triggered abilities "look back at the state of the board when they were triggered" but replacement abilities, "look at the state of the board this exact instant"?  That's an interesting subtlety I was unaware of.

That's not really accurate. First, I want to note that the ability in question here is simply a static ability that modifies the rules. It does not create any replacement effects. Replacement effects modify events in place, so they are looking at the current state of the board. Triggered abilities have different parts that look at different things. At resolution triggered abilities generally look at the current state of the board at that time, but they may sometimes look at "last known information" of objects, which may or may not correspond to when they triggered.

It’s only certain triggered abilities that “look back”. 603.10.

@John The static ability creates a continuous effect that changes the rules.  Some continuous effects are replacement effects, but not this one.


text:
Does Containment Priest exile Dryad Arbor?
Containment Priest has this effect:

If a nontoken creature would enter the battlefield and it wasn't cast, exile it instead.

Dryad Arbor is a Land Creature — Forest Dryad. If I play Dryad Arbor as my land for the turn does it get exiled by Containment Priest?
A strict reading of the rules indicate "yes", but it's very weird (since playing a land is apparently a special action that cannot be responded to) so I'd like to check.

You can't cast a land, only play it:

Cast
To take a card from where it is (usually the hand), put it on the stack, and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect. See rule 601, “Casting Spells.”

601.1a Some effects still refer to “playing” a card. “Playing a card” means playing that card as a land or casting that card as a spell, whichever is appropriate.

305.1. A player who has priority may play a land card from their hand during a main phase of their turn when the stack is empty. Playing a land is a special action; it doesn’t use the stack (see rule 116). Rather, the player simply puts the land onto the battlefield. Since the land doesn’t go on the stack, it is never a spell, and players can’t respond to it with instants or activated abilities.

That means Dryad Arbor isn't cast, and Containment Priest's ability will exile it.

since playing a land is apparently a special action that cannot be responded to

That's right, but the rules talk about a situation when an opponent would like to cast/activate something that would resolve before the land enters the battlefield. Aether Flash would trigger for Dryad Arbor too.

Honestly, I think the Gatherer page ought to have a ruling specifying that lands played the regular way are affected.

There's a subtlety though, in that because dryad arbor doesn't use the stack you can't flash in containment priest in response. It had to be already sitting on the battlefield

@Arthur Dryad Arbor is the only land that isn't handled by existing rulings and would be covered by that ruling. Since other lands aren't inherently creatures, they would be covered by the ruling that says "If a noncreature card wasn’t cast and is entering the battlefield as a creature (due to an effect such as that of March of the Machines), it will be exiled." That does expect that you have the general knowledge that playing a land is not casting a spell, but rulings can't reasonably cover all of the basic information that is potentially relevant to the card's functionality.

Do you know if Containment Priest also exiles ordinary Forests played from the hand if Living Lands is in play (Living Lands is an enchantment that turns all Forests into 1/1s)? I can ask that as a separate question if you prefer.

@Allure I think it does; there's a ruling in Gather which talks about March of the Machines (for artifacts) and I can't imagine it's different for lands.

A strict reading of the rules indicate "yes", but it's very weird (since playing a land is apparently a special action that cannot be responded to) so I'd like to check.

This suggests that you have a misunderstanding of how the term "respond" is used in MtG. I'm not sure whether it has an official definition in the rules, but in common parlance, it refers to acting while something has gone onto the stack, but has not resolved yet (and thus is still on the stack). Playing a land does not use the stack, so you cannot "respond" to it; it is never on the stack, so "doing something while it's on the stack" is not possible.
"If a nontoken creature would enter the battlefield and it wasn't cast, exile it instead." is not an effect, it is an ability that creates the effect "exile it instead". "exile it instead" is a replacement effect. Replacement effect do not use the stack, or require priority. This effect does not need Dryad Arbor entering the battlefield to be on the stack; replacement effects simply replace the effect they are replacing. They are not a "response" to the effect they are replacing, they replace the effect. The original effect does not ever happen.


text:
Steam Park: Should danari count be secret from other players?
In Steam Park, the danari values are only printed on one side, and the other sides are all the same. This suggests to me that a player's total should be kept hidden.
If it's intended to be an option, it's not documented.

From what I see every gain of danari are in set amounts so a player would know how many you have if they are keeping track. I am guessing they come in multiple values just to keep the number of tokens down.

FWIW, Tom Vasel agrees that you can keep your total hidden. T=7:40 of his review here: https://boardgamegeek.com/video/37496/steam-park/dice-tower-reviews-steam-park

It looks like you have it correct.
The designer demonstrates hiding his income when explaining the prototype of the game in 2012. (T=8:23 of this video)
He says explicitly in this video from Spiel 2013: "Money are kept secret." (T=9:48)
Later video reviews and/or game play explainer videos also concur:

Tom Vasel (T=7:40)
Dice Tower (T=10:02)

Wow, impressive research!

Thanks. I'd prefer clear rules text that make the rule explicit, of course, though. :-)


text:
What happens if I take damage with Worship out while at negative life?
Let's say I'm at -10 life but Phyrexian Unlife is keeping me alive. I have a random creature in play as well as Worship when opponent hits me for 5 damage. Does my life total go back up to 1? -10 life is less than 1, so presumably Worship's effect would occur, but if I go from -10 to 1 life, my life total wouldn't be "reduced".
What about Phyrexian Unlife's effect - do I gain 5 poison counters? What if instead of Phyrexian Unlife it is some other effect like Platinum Angel keeping me alive?
Text of relevant cards:

Worship: If you control a creature, damage that would reduce your life total to less than 1 reduces it to 1 instead.

Phyrexian Unlife: You don't lose the game for having 0 or less life. As long as you have 0 or less life, all damage is dealt to you as though its source had infect. (Damage is dealt to you in the form of poison counters.)

Platinum Angel: You can't lose the game and your opponents can't win the game.

You will get the 5 poison counters if you have Phyrexian Unlife, and lose 5 life if you have Platinum Angel.
The card Serra the Benevolent has an ultimate ability that creates an emblem with Worship's ability. It has a ruling that says this:

If you have less than 1 life and somehow haven’t lost the game, damage dealt to you reduces your life total further below 0 (as normal).

So, Worship has no effect if you have less than 1 life, so damage will be dealt to you as normal and Phyrexian Unlife will modify it as normal.

Odd they have this ruling on Serra the Benevolent, but not on Worship (I checked for it before asking the question!). In fact, now that I look for it, Angel's Grace has this ruling as well.

No, it doesn't. Angel's Grace has a similar ruling, but that one doesn't really directly address this question.

I think it might be worth explaining the process that makes Phyrexian Unlife not work - in part for future readers as much as the current asker (so specifically that it prevents the damage, so Worship doesn't effect it because damage isn't dealt)

I don't understand what you're asking for. I said that Phyrexian Unlife does work, and there is no damage prevention involved in this question.

Normally, "deal X damage to a player" means "reduce life total by X". However, if a source has infect, then "deal X damage to a player" means "give X poison totals". So with Phyrexian Unlife, there is no "damage that would reduce your life total to less than 1": damage does not reduce your life total. This isn't a prevention or replacement effect, it simply changes the form of damage. So even if Worship said "If you control a creature, damage that would reduce your life total to less than 1 sets it to 1 instead." your life total would not change with Phyrexian Unlife.
With Platinum Angel, your life total would decrease. With both, your life total would remain the same, and you would get poison counters, but you would not lose the game, no matter poison tokens you get, as long as you have Platinum Angel.

I think it's not clear that your alternate Worship wording would actually ever function differently. In most of the relevant commentary I was able to find about the card, the common thinking (that matches the ruling) is that the real Worship's wording should be interpreted as "...damage that would reduce your life total from 1 or greater to less than 1 reduces it to 1 instead," i.e. that it does not function at less than 1 life because the condition is unmet, not because the modified action doesn't make sense.


text:
How do V.I.R.s interact with the Barker?
This Q/A requires both Steam Park expansions:
Play Dirty rulebook
Robots rulebook

First, we need to have a definition of "wrong", here. That will define if it's even possible for a V.I.R. to be allowed on the Barker tile.

When you draw Visitors of the wrong color, put them on the Barker tile
instead of the Visitors pool.

If you want e.g. a red robot , but you draw a V.I.R., the V.I.R. can go to the red spot, but you may not want it to—hence, I think the V.I.R. can be considered "right" or "wrong", per the player's decision.

Given that, imagine that there is a V.I.R. on the Barker tile already. I interpret the rules, then, to be that…

You may only gain that V.I.R. when you spend only one visitor die for your Attract action.
You then can either take another non-V.I.R. Visitor off of the Barker tile, or throw one more into the bag, and draw one.

Correct?
Relevant rules:

When you Attract Visitors, for each that you spend, you can choose to
directly take a Visitor from the Barker tile instead of the normal
action. You immediately gain 1 Dirt token for each Visitor you take
from the Barker tile.

When you perform the Attract Visitors action by spending only 1, you
may choose and take 1 regular Visitor AND one V.I.R. Visitor from the
Visitors pool and put them both in the bag. If you do, when you draw
Visitors to complete the action, you must draw out TWO Visitors
instead of only ONE.

Judging by the rules for the wild visitor type that the V.I.R belongs to and the stingy one from the same rules as the barker these types of visitors have their own color and qualify for all rides and can't be considered the wrong type of color.

When you draw a Stingy Visitor out of the bag, you can place
them on any Ride regardless of its color, and they will stay
there until the end of the game giving you money each turn
like a regular Visitor. But, during the Income Phase, each Stingy
Visitor only pays you 2 Danari (instead of the normal 3 Danari
per Visitor). Moreover, during the Dirt Phase, you don’t gain
any Dirt token for any Stingy Visitors you have in your park.

When you draw a Wild Visitor out of the bag, you can place them on any Ride, regardless of its
color, and they will stay there until the end of the game. There are also special rules for how
to attract them and How they behave (see next page).

There are bonuses which require visitors of a certain color, and the wild visitors don't satisfy those bonuses.

@Jessy From my understanding the color is critical to the ride and only visitors that match can count for a ride and the V.I.R. is special and matches all colors.

What you and I said are true simultaneously.

@Jessy I think you missed my point which was as far as color matching goes for a cards purpose they match every color even if they don't match it later for a bonus.


text:
Skulk Hollow: what information is available in a discard pile?
Knowing what has been discarded already can be beneficial to both players.
Is the rulebook maybe going with a standard definition of "discard pile" that I'm not aware of?
This sponsored how-to video shows it as having the top card visible. But I'm thinking that might just be for the sake of the camera frame, and conciseness. (i.e. Rodney didn't feel a need to explain this.)

EDIT:  I posted the question on BGG here and game designer Eduardo Baraf has clarified.  Discards are face up and both piles can be reviewed by either player at any time.
A discard pile is almost always face up. (this is based my own experience over last 15 years so so of attending UK based games clubs and conventions)
If a discard pile was face down then you run the risk of a player drawing a card from discard pile by mistake. If a discard pile was meant to be face down and its contents secret I would expect this to be specified by that games rules
However, there is an argument that Skulk Hollow should be played with a face down discard even though this isn't explicitly stated.
The Prepare action allows a player to discard a card a draw two cards. It might be the intention to not let your opponent know what card you discarded.  Also the recall ability says:-

A hero unit with the RECALL ability may spend one power to allow the
hero player to examine the contents of their discard pile, choose one
card, and return it to their hand.

Even though the rules don't explicitly state you may not examine your discard pile this ability explicit states you may when taking that action.  You could infer from that that normally you would not be able to.
The difficulty here is the the rules are not specific about this.   Personally I would play with a face up discard as that's what I'm used to in other games but in your situation I would suggest agreeing with who you were playing against first how you play it.

Many of my rulebooks specifically point out that discard piles may be freely looked through at any time, and by which players. I don't discount your anecdote, but I'm not convinced by it without some kind of biblical reference.

A discard pile is almost always face up - citation needed. In my experience it's the other way around.

I've posted a twitter poll as I'm interested now.  Maybe this kind of a regional/dialect thing but with boardgames.   I was at a Ticket to Ride tournament once where a play from out of region placed cards face down in the discard pile and was quickly corrected by another player as it was "not a rule". but looking jus now the rules don't say.  All I can go by is my experience of gaming, games clubs and games conventions and only ever seen face down discards when the rules specifically state it to be (this is primarily in UK/Northern England).

https://twitter.com/StartPlayer/status/1330971909257879560?s=20.  I've stuck a poll on twitter to discuss this as its probably to opinion based for here.

Ive added edit on this games discard pile following clarification from the designer for this game.   I've been asking around a lot about if a face up discard in normal.  my Twitter poll with 218 votes showed most people seem to default to a face up discard pile.  However about 1 in 6 people say they would default to a face down if rules don't say.  so whilst I don't think I can give a citation other than my own experience it does seems some people default to face down discards which id never come across before.