text:
MTG reacting instant speed on creature entering game
When I play MTG, sometimes I can't kill creature which entered the battlefield under opponent's control right away. To give example Lurrus of the Dream-Den entered the battlefield but I could not kill him instant speed even when I had both mana and spell. But at other occasions (if I remember correctly) I could kill a creature which entered the game before it could activate its ability (not ability activated "When entered" but something like use mana to deal damage so similar to Lurrus).
Should not I be able to react instant speed on Lurrus and since his ability is casting from graveyard which is not instant speed he should not even be able to react with it on my instant removal?

I've removed the Arena references here, everything here applies just as much in paper as it does in Arena.

@Andrew Yes, it is a specific case of my general question, incidentally with Lurrus provided as an example too. If I confirm that the question to be similar, will it still stay visible to public? I think that because of less general wording of the other question you provided, someone could again ask the same question as I did again, so by keeping this open I think it can help to avoid more 'duplicates' in the future.

@eXPRESS Yes, your question will still be visible if it is closed as a duplicate, but people won't be able to add answers, instead they will be directed to the other question. They will still be able to see everything already on your question here.

This has to do with priority. When anything goes on the stack (a spell being cast, a trigger from anything etc), players get "priority" (a word to describe the chance to do something) in APNAP order (active player, non-active player).
When a creature enters the battlefield and has a triggered ability that triggers when it enters the battlefield, that trigger goes on the stack and then all players get priority before it resolves. When a creature does not have such an ability, then the active players gets priority until they either pass actively (such as "moving to end step") or cast/activate something else.
To go into your example, they have a moment with Lurrus on the battlefield where they have priority (i.e. you cannot cast/activate something) and they can for example cast a creature from their graveyard. Only when they do this, you get priority and can then kill Lurrus in response.

I understand. So maybe what happened in the case where the ability was not auto triggered but manually triggered is that opponent auto-skipped. It seemed like I had the priority to react when the creature entered the battlefield but in fact he was the activate player and could have chained another action, for example activate manually the ability of the entered creature, but he only opted not to.

First things first, there is no "speed" in Magic. Instants/abilities/flash affect when you can do something, not how fast it happens. This term leads to misconceptions like yours.
After an effect resolves, each player gets priority starting with the active player. To cast a spell or activate an ability, a player must have priority. In the example you give, it goes as follows.
Opponent casts Lurrus, (both pass priority) it resolves and enters the battlefield
Opponent gets priority since it is their turn. Opponent casts Grizzly Bears and passes priority.
There is no point in between Lurrus entering the battlefield and your opponent casting Grizzly Bears where you can cast Murder.

"There is no speed in Magic" - other than Split Second anyway.

Split second isn't really a "speed" either. It just creates restrictions on what actions players can take.

I understand, I maybe phrased myself poorly, but I heard the term "instant speed" when referring to the fact that instant can be played without waiting for certain phase but rather any time you choose to.

As a general rule, experiences magic players wait until the last second something will be useful before using their mana and abilities. The more mana you have, and the more spells in hand you have, the less your opponent knows about what you can do, and that's always an advantage. The last second to cast anything sorcery speed is the second main phase, the last second to cast something instant speed is the end of your opponent's turn before yours begins.
Players don't use Heliod, Sun Crowned to give lifelink to a creature until right before combat damage, there's no point to having lifelink until damage is going to happen. Players don't sacrifice Fanatical Firebrand as soon as they play it, they wait until they are using it to block, or it is about to die for some other reason to get a little extra out of it.
Lurrus is used this way too. Players will wait to cast Lurrus until the last second, when they want to play a card in their graveyard or they are otherwise ready to end their second main phase. If you're going to be casting something like Dead Weight using Lurrus, casting Lurrus before combat then immediately using Dead Weight to weaken or kill an opponent's creature matters. If you're going to be playing a creature with Lurrus, unless that creature is going to have haste or some other ability that will change the coming combat (like casting Charmed Stray out of the graveyard to pump ones already on the battlefield), you usually wait until you're ready to end your turn - this isn't about speed, it's about priority and strategy, and the player who's turn it is always gets priority before their opponent does.

Good general advice, unnecessary hastiness personally cost me many recent games for sure. Going only mono red and cycling from B4 to D1 (cards being kinda expensive) did not teach me much about it and after picking up Rogues my W/R went from 65% to 45% and in my opinion the problem was exactly in what you describe, one most hold, give enemy as little info as possible and prolong until the last possible chance to cast or react.

@eXPRESS in mono red, that wait is less of a thing, but it's still there. Holding off on burn spells to use them as removal so you can use Shock if your opponent plays say Daxos turn 2 rather than doing 2 damage with it directly, or using it directly if they didn't play anything worth killing immediately can make all the difference in a game.

agree, combination of dmg spell with Fervent Champion's first strike is also what came to my mind and what I missed when I picked up mono red. Just holding the mana open with 2 Fervent's attacking potentionally removing even Lovestruck Beast or at least make the opponent let extra damage pass and drop Bonecrusher Giant or Anax in the second main before Embercleave round.


text:
MTG: Yorion, Sky Nomad played into Yorion, Sky Nomad
I've been playing MTG Arena and played a game where my opponent played Yorion, Sky Nomad when another copy was already in game. If I'm correct, he chose to keep the copy which was already in the play to stay and blinked everything and the new copy.
How is this possible if the trigger is related to the copy entering the board and states that only other permanents can be blinked? Am I mistaken and did he exile the old copy? Also shouldn't blinking the old copy possibly result into infinite blinking as the copies would take turns entering the battlefield?
I'm generally very confused with this play and found nothing which would help me to understand in the rulings.

You're probably mistaken as to exactly what happened; with one Yorion (Y1) on the battlefield, the standard play here is

Play the second Yorion (Y2).
State based actions are checked, and their controller chooses one of the Yorions to remain. They choose Y1, and the legend rule moves Y2 to the graveyard.1
Y2 still entered the battlefield, so its trigger goes on the stack, and at some point resolves. This trigger can flicker Y1 as this is a trigger from Y2, and Y1 is a different permanent from Y2.
The controller of the Yorions chooses to flicker Y1 (and probably a bunch of other permanents as well).
At the beginning of their end step, another Yorion (Y3)2 and some other permanents enter the battlefield.
The ETB trigger for Y3 is put on the stack. This trigger cannot flicker Y3, so no infinite loop can occur, but it can flicker all the other permanents, including the ones which have just entered the battlefield. This trigger resolves, and Y3 stays on the battlefield for the opponent's turn.
At the beginning of the opponent's end step, all the permanents flickered with Y3's trigger enter the battlefield.

To create an infinite flicker loop with Yorion, you need a second, differently named permanent; Charming Prince is probably the most common card in standard for this as of December 2020.
Notes:
1. The legend rule doesn't exile - it instead just moves all but one copy of the legendary permanent to the graveyard.
2. While this Yorion is represented by the same card as Y1, it is a different object. This probably doesn't matter very much here.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Moss-Pit Skeleton and Skyclave Shadowcat - sacrificing as cost of a triggered ability and triggering another ability when the first one resolves
Suppose Alice has Moss-Pit Skeleton and Skyclave Shadowcat in game and Bob has a Kazandu Stomper (or some other strong creature, it does not matter).
It is Bob's turn and he attacks with his Kazandu Stomper. In return Alice blocks with Moss-Pit Skeleton. After blocking and before damage is dealt she wants to sacrifice Moss-Pit Skeleton to Skyclave Shadowcat (knowing that Kazandu Stomper stays blocked but no damage is dealt and Kazandu Stomper isn't damaged nor killed, that does not matter here). Her plan is the following (and here is my question, i want to get sure whether i understood everything correctly):

Skyclave Shadowcat's first ability is activated, mana is paid and Moss-Pit Skeleton is sacrificed as additional cost of this ability.
Moss-Pit Skeleton is placed in her graveyard because of the cost of Skyclave Shadowcat's first ability.
Skyclave Shadowcat's second ability is triggered, as Moss-Pit Skeleton had +1/+1 counters on it and Alice therefore draws a card.
Skyclave Shadowcat's first ability resolves and it gets a +1/+1 counter.
A +1/+1 counter is put on one of Alice's creatures and Moss-Pit Skeleton is in her graveyard, therefore Moss-Pit Skeleton's last ability triggers and Alice can put it on top of her library.

I am especially unsure about the last point. In short: Is it possible in this case to sacrifice Moss-Pit Skeleton as part of the activated ability cost of Skyclave Shadowcat and directly afterwards put Moss-Pit Skeleton on top of the library when the activated ability of Skyclave Shadowcat resolves? Or is there some waiting mechanism that places Moss-Pit Skeleton only in the graveyard after the ability of Skyclave Shadowcat is finished?
In even shorter: Is Alice in this case allowed to put Moss-Pit Skeleton on top of her library?

Stomper has trample, so sacrificing the skeleton would mean all of stomper's damage is dealt to Alice as if it had never been blocked.

Moss-Pit Skeleton can go back to your library after the ability resolves.
You are correct in saying that the ability on Skyclave Shadowcat includes sacrificing a creature as part of the cost.  The Skeleton would go to your graveyard and then the ability to put a +1/+1 counter on Shadowcat will go on the stacke.  At this point, both players would have to pass priority in order for the ability to resolve.  Note that the +1/+1 counter has not gone on Shadowcat yet but the Skeleton has already entered the graveyard.
Once the ability resolves, Skeleton is in your graveyard and therefore it's ability would trigger, allowing you to put it on top of your library.

Just to point out in your example, however.  Your statement

After blocking and before damage is dealt she wants to sacrifice Moss-Pit Skeleton to Skyclave Shadowcat (knowing that Kazandu Stomper stays blocked but no damage is dealt and Kazandu Stomper isn't damaged nor killed, that does not matter here)

If you replace Kazandu Stomper with a generic 6/5 creature, this statement would be correct.  However, Kazandu Stomper has Trample.  This changes how combat damage is dealt, and therefore Kazandu Stomper would still do 6 damage to you if it was attacking.

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


text:
How long can the spells exiled with Lukka, Coppercoat Outcast be cast?
The question is simple when does a creature exiled by Lukka, Coppercoat Outcast's first ability lose "You may cast this card from exile as long as you control a Lukka planeswalker" ability? Is it when it is cast from exile? Is it when it gets put back in exile? Or is it when the game is over? On the off chance it is the last one then one could recycle a creature like "Farfinder" if it was one of the creatures marked by Lukka's first ability, right?
The thing tripping me up is that normally cards that give abilities like this state something like "until end of turn" or "until the beginning of your next upkeep" but this one doesn't which is throwing me off and making me feel like it must be something or that it must be affected by a rule I am that is along the lines of one that states something along the lines of "...when a card changes zones it is treat as a new copy of the same card...".

You can cast a card exiled with Lukka until the end of the game, but only once. As soon as you cast the card (or it leaves exile for any other reason), it loses that effect.
Lukka's ability creates a continuous effect that modifies the game rules for the creature cards it exiles. As you noted, it has no duration, so it lasts until the end of the game.

611.2a A continuous effect generated by the resolution of a spell or ability lasts as long as stated by the spell or ability creating it (such as “until end of turn”). If no duration is stated, it lasts until the end of the game.

However, once you do cast one of these cards, it moves from exile to the stack. In that moment, it becomes a new object that no longer has that ability:

400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. [..]

Likewise, if that creature is later exiled through other means, for example Eat to Extinction, it will again become a new object, and you cannot cast it again through Lukka even though it is exiled.

That was what I thought just wasn't sure, I had heard some people try to argue the contrary among my local play group so thought I might as well bring it up here. Cheers.

That's not a duration, but a condition. If you stop controlling Lukka, and then control another, you can cast the cards again. It's like "creatures you control have flying as long as it's your turn" or similar effects.

I don't think this is right.  The card itself gains the ability, it's not the ability that allows the cast.

I think it was correct originally... 611.2b says "for as long as";  Lukka doesn't say "for as long as". It says "as long as". Without the word "for", it's a different wording. "For as long as" is a duration. "As long as" is a condition.

Master Thief also says "for as long as".

If Lukka were a duration, then you wouldn't be able to cast the card if you lost Lukka and then played a new Lukka.

JonTheMon and GendoIkari are right. I didn't read the ability carefully enough and I looked at the wrong rule. Lukka's ability creates a continuous effect without a duration that grants a static ability with a condition to the exiled card.

It is a shame that they chose to use such similar wordings to mean 2 different things; "as long as" vs "for as long as", because it would be easy to misread.

I have rolled back the last edit because it was made as a result of incorrect statements I posted in comments.


text:
Who owns tokens?
If I hit someone with Blim, Comedic Genius, should I count treasure tokens they control as unowned permanents? What if I gave them the tokens with Forbidden Orchard?

There is no such thing as an unowned permanent in Magic the Gathering.

The token is owned by the player who created it:

111.2. The player who creates a token is its owner. The token enters the battlefield under that player’s control.

If you use Forbidden Orchard, the target opponent is the one who creates the token, so they are the owner.
Note that this depends on using the current oracle wording of Forbidden Orchard:

target opponent creates a 1/1 colorless Spirit creature token

Under the older wording that's printed on older editions of the card, it instead says that you "put... into play under your opponent's control", which means you would be the one who created it. But "create" didn't exist as a keyword back then, it was added later.

701.6. Create

701.6a To create one or more tokens with certain characteristics, put the specified number of tokens with the specified characteristics onto the battlefield.

So what is the answer with forbidden orchard?

@Euphorbium "target opponent creates a 1/1 colorless Spirit creature token." seems pretty clear to me who is creating it and therefore who is the owner. What is unclear?

“put a 1/1 colorless spirit token into play under target oponents controll”. It seems like I am the one doing the putting.

@PhilipKendall Yeah I had actually edited my answer to say that you would be the owner/creator, because I also saw the old wording first.

@Euphorbium You are missing an important point about MtG: the effective wording of any card is the Oracle wording (that in Gatherer), not what happens to be on the printing of the card that you are using.

@Euphorbium that wording is out of date, often cards are updated with new oracle text and errata because their wording is ambiguous or because rules change that means the way card are worded needs to change to keep them working as intended. The text on gatherer is the official definitive source, the text on the card was just (with one or two exceptions) the wording on the card as of the time of printing.


text:
Do Obosh and Brash Taunter together cause quadruple damage to an opponent?
With the recent spoiling of Brash Taunter in M21, what would be the interaction for a combination like Obosh, the Preypiercer and Brash Taunter?
Obosh causes Odd CMC (Coverted Mana cost) spells to do double damage.
Brash Taunter is an odd CMC creature that deals damage to target player equal to the damage dealt to it.
Let's say I have Brash Taunter fight a red creature I control that also has an odd CMC, let's just say it's Obosh, on the field. What is the damage Brash Taunter would be dealing out at that point? Would it be 6 or 12?

If your Brash Taunter would fight your own Obosh, the Preypiercer, Brash Taunter would deal 12 damage to your opponent.
Fighting means two creatures deal damage equal to their power to each other:

701.12a A spell or ability may instruct a creature to fight another creature or it may instruct two creatures to fight each other. Each of those creatures deals damage equal to its power to the other creature.

Obosh doubles all damage from sources with odd CMC. Obosh is such a source, so it deals 3 damage to Brash Taunter, doubled to 6. Taking damage triggers Brash Taunter, so it deals 6 damage to a target opponent, again doubled to 12.
Obosh's doubling ability is a replacement effect, which can only apply once to any given event.

614.5. A replacement effect doesn’t invoke itself repeatedly; it gets only one opportunity to affect an event or any modified events that may replace that event.

However, the damage from Obosh to Taunter, and from Taunter to opponent are two separate events that can both be replaced by Obosh's ability, so you end up with quadruple the total damage to your opponent.

Right, when Taunter is dealing “that much damage”; it doesn’t know that the 6 damage was originally 3 and has been doubled. All the triggered ability sees is that it was dealt 6 damage.


text:
Can Form of the Dragon be given Infect?
I'm play primarily EDH and like to play jank ideas. One thing I've been thinking about is the card Form of the Dragon. Is it possible to give Form of the Dragon the infect mechanic?

Yes, you can, but it's not trivial.
While Infect works on objects of any type, you can generally only grant Infect to creatures. Therefore, you have to turn Form of the Dragon into a creature first. You can do that through e.g. Liquimetal Coating, then animate that artifact through e.g. Skilled Animator. Or you can turn it into a creature directly with Opalescence.
Then you can give the resulting creature Infect through e.g. Grafted Exoskeleton.

Shorter route to creaturedom: Opalescence

@jwodder That'd stop it from doing damage to things with its ability, though.

@nick012000 Opalescence does not affect abilities.

@Douglas Oh, right. I had it confused with one of the other white "everything becomes a creature" cards that do result in losing abilities.

@nick012000 That would be Humility. The Humility + Opalescence combo is the proverbial textbook example for learning about the timestamp system.

I searched Gatherer for cards with "infect" in their rules text, and "creature" neither in their rules text nor their type. Results
There are, at time of writing, only two results. One has reminder text telling us that damage causes loss of life (I guess someone at WotC thought we needed reminding of that fact), but with the qualification that this applies only to non-infect damage.
The other card is Phyrexian Unlife, which has

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.)

So if your opponent controls Phryxian Unlife, it could cause Form of the Dragon to deal damage as if it has infect, but it wouldn't technically have infect.
So it appears that there are no cards that grant non-creatures infect (there does seem to be a trend to allow abilities only on permanents for which they "make sense"), so you can't give FotD infect unless you make it a creature. One way to do so would be to use Opalescence, which has

Each other non-Aura enchantment is a creature in addition to its other types and has base power and base toughness each equal to its converted mana cost.

Thus, this would make FoTD a 7/7 creature. You could then use a card such as Tainted Strike, which has

Target creature gets +1/+0 and gains infect until end of turn.

BTW, although you can't give non-creatures infect, AFAIK there's no rule that says you can't have a non-creature with infect. If you make FotD a creature and then cast Tainted Strike on it, and then it ceases to be a creature, it will still have infect. (With Hackworth's suggestion of using Grafted Exoskeleton, however, if FotD ceased to be a creature, then since Grafted Exoskelton is an equipment, it would fall off next time SBA are checked.)


text:
Would Mirko Vosk, Mind Drinker trigger Waste Not?
I play Mirko Vosk, Mind Drinker as a commander and his ability states that an opponent needs to put cards in their graveyard. Waste Not says when a player discards a card then one of three things happens. My question is in the fine details of what "discard" means: will Mirko trigger Waste Not?

No.
“Discard” specifically means to move a card from your hand to the graveyard:

701.8. Discard

701.8a To discard a card, move it from its owner’s hand to that player’s graveyard.

Further, MTG cards are very precise with their language. Only an effect that tells you to “discard” a card would count as discarding.

What I thought but disappointing!

@ikegami I think my last paragraph clarifies that... I actually had almost added a specific sentence discussing that exact wording, but I wasn't sure on any rule or example to point to.

"Draw" has 121.5 to state specifically that it doesn't count as drawing if you just move a card from your library to your hand. "Discard" does not seem to have an equivalent rule.

@Gendolkari, There's no need for such a rule because that's always the case. 121.5 is what I call a "reminder rule". (I bet there's currently nothing other than discard moves a card from hand to a graveyard.)

It is presumably the same way that "destroy" doesn't happen every time a permanent moves from the battlefield to a graveyard.

@Arthur, Correct. And conversely, a creature can be destroyed but not die (because of a replacement effect that exiles it instead)

On the other hand, this does seem like a reasonable question to ask—because "die" is defined to mean "moves from the battlefield to the graveyard", so it's believable that "discard" could be defined similarly.

@Draconis Noone said it was a bad question :) In fact, it has 6 upvotes right now. Incidentally, my answer explains why "dies" is different.

No.
Waste Not's abilities only trigger when a player is instructed to discard a card, period. If the word "discard" was not used, then no card was discarded. If a card is moved from a player's hand to a graveyard by some other means, none of Waste Not's abilities will trigger. If a card is move from a library to a graveyard, they definitely won't trigger.
This is always the case for keywords in Magic. For example, Ob Nixilis, the Hate-Twisted's ability only triggers if the word "draw" was used. It doesn't trigger if a card is otherwise moved from the library to someone's hand, such as with Beast Hunt.
Note that no keyword action or keyword ability corresponds to "move", "put" and "return". Because these terms are not defined in the rules, they use their standard English meaning, and they are therefore synonymous.
Note that no keyword action or keyword ability corresponds to "dies". Any permanent that moves to the graveyard is said to have died.

Last sentence is inaccurate; only creatures and planeswalkers "die".

Now I'm confused... the glossary seems to contradict 700.4....

"A creature or planeswalker “dies” if it is put into a graveyard from the battlefield. See rule 700.4."

@Gendolkari, "Dies" will only be used on cards in a situation where the permanent is expected to be a creature or Planeswalker (e.g. "Whenever a creature dies" vs "Whenever an artifact is put into a graveyard from the battlefield"). However, it is possible for non-creatures to die because of type-changing effects and such. The glossary is meant to be a quick reference, so they used a clearer definition that's right 99.999% of the time while referencing the precise definition.

@Gendolkari, I can't remember an example. But yeah, 99.999% might be an under-estimate :)

I deleted my comment because I think that this question which I linked to in the comment might actually serve as an example.


text:
Is it possible to put an instant onto the stack without casting it?
My opponent has cast Archon of Valor's Reach, naming Instant as the spell type that can't be cast by players.
Is it still possible to get Instants onto the stack somehow, from the hand or other zones, after it is put onto the battlefield?

Note, that the opponent doesn't name instant when they cast Archon.  They name instant after Archon enters the battlefield.  So, if you are concerned they "might" pick instant, you do have a window of opportunity to respond.

Two ways of placing instants on the stack: Through casting and through copying. Also, in theory, something could become an instant after being placed on the stack.

tl;dr: no.
To state the obvious answer first: the most obvious way is to remove the Archon from play, most likely either with a sorcery, an activated ability or a triggered ability. Other possibilities exist such as taunting the Archon into combat or fighting it.
If you can't do that, the next most likely is to remove its ability, for example with Humility or Dress Down.
Beyond that and to answer the question as written, the most usual way to get a spell onto the stack without casting it is for it to be a copy of a spell. However, with the exception of epic spells which are not useful in this scenario, I'm not sure there's a way to trigger the copy effect without casting the spell in the first place.


text:
Which, and how many, dual lands?
Pretty new to playing magic, even newer to building my own decks. When playing multicolored, which and how many dual lands should be played? Also, if putting let's say 4 dual lands into a deck. Do I then take out 4 lands of the one color it produces and 4 of the other (or do I then have to little lands in my deck)?

What do you mean with 'double lands'? Lands that can produce multiple colors of mana, like Bayou or lands that produce two mana per tap, like Gruul Turf

@steenbergh One mana of either color per tap.

When you say double lands, do you have some in mind?  There's a vast difference in what you can get away with using Sacred Foundry vs. Boros Guildgate.

Many MTG players are unreasonably strict when naming Multi-lands. Assuming you are looking for lands which produce only two colors. There are... Ones that come in untapped, no condition, often called 'Dual-Lands.' The ones from the Ravnica sets that come in tapped or deal you 2 damage, are 'shock-lands'. ones that enter tapped- no exceptions are (Often) 'Guildgates'. Then 'Check lands', These are the more popular names you'll come across. But @Suimon edit your post to say "Dual-Land" to avoid further comments like this. Save yourself a headache.

I think this is way too broad.  I could try to answer the question in Standard, but even then putting land into a 2 color deck, 3 color deck, or maybe 2 color splashing 1 or 2 other colors are all very different

No one can give you an exact answer without seeing your deck. There are too many factors here. This question is too broad and also attracts opinion based answers.

This is way too broad.  Are you playing an even split or splashing a color?  How many colors are you in? Is green one of the colors? How much ramp do you have, and can it produce colored mana? Are your spells colored mana intensive?  Do you need basic land types on your two color lands?  Do you have fetch lands?  What format are you in?  How competitive is your playgroup?  What's your budget for your lands?

Depending on the format, normally 35-40% of your deck should be lands or mana ramping card ( such as artefact).
I have a commander deck ( 100 cards) in which discarding lands is important and I have around 40 lands + few artefacts/enchantments.
My friend only put 30, and many artefacts.
It depends on you and the style you want to play.
Regarding "Double land", if you are meaning "Dual land", it doesn't really matter, cause what you want is to be able to constantly draw lands, its not the "total of mana" that you have, its the chance to get some land/mana. So if you are putting 4 dual lands, remove 4 lands, to have the same amount.
I would add that the color of your deck might change the number of land needed. Green deck tend to have some enchantment that add value to basic lands, while some Black deck won't need as much since you are going to sacrifice some creature.


text:
Do Native Help cards apply when replacing another player's settlers?
In Century: A New World, Native Help cards allow one to use less settlers than normal when activating a location. When a location already has opposing settlers, you usually need to place the number of settlers already present +1, regardless of the location's cost. Does this also get reduced by having Native Help cards or do they only apply to the base location cost?
For example, if a location has 3 of an opponent's settlers and I want to oust them while having an appropriate Native Help card, do I need to use 3 or 4 settlers to do so?

Yes they do.  Looking at rules from link here it says the following (emphasis mine)

Native Help cards have the following permanent benefit: Whenever you
use a location that includes the depicted icon in the circle, the
required number of settlers you need to place on this location is reduced by 1. If you have several cards of the matching symbol, each
of them reduces the required number by 1. However, you must always
place at least one settler.

Earlier in the rules the term 'required number' has two definitions.  One is the number printed on the board.  The other is the number of workers on a space plus one.  BOTH are consider a 'required number'. So if that is the case the benefit of the native card applies in both situation you describe.
Secondly there is this thread on BGG where a user says they asked the publisher your same question and it was answered-

Yes they do reduce the number of settlers needed to bump another
player from a tile to a minimum of 1.


text:
How are storage costs computed for RMUs and FIUS?
In Business Strategy, at the beginning of each month, each player must pay storage costs for their RMUs and FIUs.
For RMUs, the costs written on the player board are the following :

«... storing 7 or less costs $300 per unit, storing 8 or more costs
$200 per unit.»

How should this rule be interpreted?
$300 per unit for the first 7 units and $200 for each unit over 7 ? $2300 for 8 units
OR
$200 per unit for all of the units, if the number of units is over 7 ? $1600 for 8 units
Avalon-Hill's 1973 game Business Strategy

It should be read as each unit costs that much. Something else to note is that once you hit 8 units you will actual pay less than you would for 7 units until you get up to 11 where it costs more than 7 units but is still cheaper per unit.

1 unit: $300 - $300 per unit
2 units: $600
3 units: $900
4 units: $1200
5 units: $1500
6 units: $1800
7 units: $2100
8 units: $1600 - $200 per unit
9 units: $1800
10 units: $2000
11 units: $2200


text:
Niko, Light of Hope and creature-land interaction
I have a question about how Niko, Light of Hope's ability interact with type-changing effects such as those from creature-lands.
If I animate ex. a Mutavault I can now exile it with Niko's ability, making all my Shards into Mutavaults that are just lands since the type-changing effect isn't copied. I can then animate my Shards (now Mutavaults) into land creatures. So far I understand, what I'm confused about is what happens during my end step.
Niko's ability stops at the beginning of my end step, but Mutavault's ability lasts until end of turn. So when my Shards go back to being Shards during the end step, will they still be land creatures due to Mutavaults ability, will they just be creatures since the base card is no longer a land, or will they switch to becoming enchantment creatures?

Your animated Shards will be 2/2 land creatures until the beginning of your end step, and afterwards 2/2 enchantment creatures until the end of turn.
Your shards start out as Shard enchantments.
After you've made them copies of Mutavault, they are Mutavault lands. They lose their enchantment type because Niko's effect overwrites it.
As you correctly note, you have to animate your shards separately after you've made them copies of Mutavault. When you do, this effect is added on top of Niko's and they are 2/2 Mutavault land creatures. The Mutavault animating effect does not grant them the land type, but lets them retain it from Niko's effect:

205.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [type, supertype, or subtype].”

At the beginning of your next end step, Niko's effect ends. Your Shards lose the land type but regain the enchantment type because it's  the Shard base characteristic and is no longer overwritten. In total, your Shards are now 2/2 enchantment creatures.
Finally, at the end of turn (meaning during the cleanup step), Mutavault's effect ends and your Shards return to their base type of enchantment only.

I think the key point here is that "It's still a land" actually means "It's still whatever types it was before (which under normal circumstances is Land)"


text:
Using Liege of the Tangle to awaken a manland
I have a Liege of the Tangle on the battlefield that has struck a player. I've resolved the ability and put an awakening counter on a Stirring Wildwood, a "manland," so to speak. What happens when I go to trigger the ability of the Stirring Wildwood? Does the land remain an 8/8? Or does it turn into an 11/12 with reach?

When multiple overlapping effects occur in Magic, they are resolved by the "layer system", or formally Comprehensive Rule 613 "Interaction of Continuous Effects"; effects in lower (sub)layers are resolved before effects in higher (sub)layers.
The power and toughness effects of both Liege of the Tangle's "is an 8/8 green Elemental creature" and Stirring Wildwood's "becomes a 3/4 green and white Elemental creature with reach" effects are in

Layer 7b: Effects that set power and/or toughness to a specific number or value are applied.

This means that Rule 613.7 applies:

613.7 Within a layer or sublayer, determining which order effects are applied in is usually done using a timestamp system. An effect with an earlier timestamp is applied before an effect with a later timestamp.

There are a lot of subclauses in 613.7 but basically it is "things that resolve first have a lower timestamp". In your case, Liege of the Tangle's effect resolved first so has the lower timestamp, and therefore Liege of the Tangle's effect is applied first, and Stirring Wildwood's effect second. This results in you having a 3/4 creature.
For the other effects:

Types and subtypes are set in Layer 4, but as both effects are changing the type to "Creature Land" and subtype to "Elemental" there is nothing complicated to resolve here.
The conflicting colour effects are resolved in timestamp order in Layer 5, and again in favour of the later Stirring Wildwood's effect, making the object green and white.
The adding of reach from Stirring Wildwood happens in Layer 6.

Therefore after all this, you have a 3/4 green and white Creature Land with the Elemental subtype and reach. Unless you really wanted your creature to be white or to have reach, you probably didn't want to do this.


text:
Does recasting Omnath, Locus of creation, reset it's "Landfall Counter?"
I have Omnath, Locus of Creation out. I play 3 lands, triggering his landfall ability 3 times. I gain 4 life, add some mana, deal some damage. I decide I want to gain some more life, get some more mana, and deal some more damage. So I return Omnath to my hand, then recast him. My understanding is that if I now play another land, Omnath's landfall will trigger and I will gain 4 life, because this Omnath has no memories of his previous triggers. Is this correct? Does bouncing or flickering Omnath reset his landfall ability?

Yes. Comprehensive rules 400.7:

An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence.

Followed by some exceptions, none of which apply here. As it's moved from the battlefield to your hand and then back to the battlefield again, it's a new object, so the next land entering the battlefield is the first one it's seen and you gain 4 life.

Although, strictly speaking, it's the fact that the ability is new that's relevant.


text:
Off-turn Basri Ket and Blocking
This is a question my friend posed to me the other day, that I'm stumped by.
Let's say it's the opponent's turn and I have:

The emblem from Teferi, Temporal Archmage: "You may activate loyalty abilities of planeswalkers you control on any player's turn any time you could cast an instant.".
Basri Ket's -2 loyalty ability activated: "Whenever one or more nontoken creatures attack this turn, create that many 1/1 white Soldier creature tokens that are tapped and attacking."

The opponent attacks with at least 1 non-token creature, causing me to put out that many tapped and attacking white soldier tokens. Can the opponent block them, assuming they have creatures they haven't used or attackers with vigilance?
Normally I would say yes, but the rules say this [bolding mine]:

506.2. During the combat phase, the active player is the attacking player; creatures that player controls may attack. During the combat phase of a two-player game, the nonactive player is the defending player; that player and planeswalkers they control may be attacked.

509.1. First, the defending player declares blockers. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack. To declare blockers, the defending player follows the steps below, in order. If at any point during the declaration of blockers, the defending player is unable to comply with any of the steps listed below, the declaration is illegal; the game returns to the moment before the declaration (see rule 726, “Handling Illegal Actions”).

As weird as it seems, given that only the defending player is allowed to assign blockers, it appears that the opponent would not be able to block, allowing me to freely use ninjutsu or similar abilities. Is this correct?
Additionally, if I had Masako the Humorless or some way for my tokens to come in untapped, and used my attacking tokens to block, how would damage be assigned? Would the tokens deal damage to both the opponent and the attacking creature, or just one or the other?

As per 506.2 as quoted in the question, you are the defending player in this scenario. 506.3b is now relevant:

If an effect would put a creature onto the battlefield attacking under the control of any player except an attacking player, that creature does enter the battlefield, but it’s never considered to be an attacking creature.

So your tokens enter the battlefield tapped, but are not attacking; the rest of your question now becomes moot.


text:
Does Rayami's ability still function if it is in a mutate stack?
How do abilities that refer to their cards' names work when the name is changed, or the ability is "stolen" by a card with a different name?
Rayami, First of the Fallen has two abilities:

If a nontoken creature would die, exile that card with a blood counter on it instead.

And:

As long as an exiled creature card with a blood counter on it has flying, Rayami, First of the Fallen has flying. The same is true for first strike, double strike, deathtouch, haste, hexproof, indestructible, lifelink, menace, protection, reach, trample, and vigilance.

My question is related to these rules in regards to Mutate, and the "Top vs Bottom" aspect of the ability.
If Rayami is on top, it seems unambiguous that both abilities would affect her
If she is underneath (i.e. a Mutate creature is played onto her), it seems to me that because this creature is not named "Rayami, First of the Fallen", the second ability will not apply, but the first will (i.e. if that creature dies, it gets exiled with a counter, along with any others that die while it is on the battlefield). So the mutated creature with Rayami's abilities will not gain the abilities of cards exiled with counters on them.
Am I reading this right?

Although not a duplicate; the answer works out the same to this question: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/35535/how-does-having-multiple-permanents-with-the-same-name-affect-those-permanents

I wish you had made this a more general question. There are several existing effects that can bring up the question "An ability that refers to the card it's on by name is on an object with a different name. How does that work?", and they all have the same answer, which is basically quoting rule 201.4. This is clearly just another variant of that.

You need only ask; I regularly make the same request of others

Gendolkari, if you add this example to your answer then this one can be closed as a duplicate referring to that. It was different enough that my search didn't turn anything up. Until then I'll reference 201.4 in my answer and make the question more generic.

The question GendoIkari linked is not a duplicate. That one is asking about those kinds of abilities affecting other cards with the same name. This is asking about those abilities affecting the card they're on with a different name. It's basically the opposite.

Anyway, adding a single sentence with a relevant search keyword does not make a question generic. That would be something like "How do abilities that refer to their cards' names work on cards with other names?" with examples like Mutate, gaining abilities (e.g. Mairsil, Experiment Kraj, etc.), and copying with a different name (e.g. either Lazav). I think editing this question to that is borderline allowed; that would expand the question beyond what is currently asked, but the current answer would very nearly address it.

@murgatroid99 I agree; while both questions have the same answer of quoting 201.4; there are 2 different and unrelated scenarios involving that rule. I really wish the MTG had just used “this [creature]” instead of the card’s name!

Yeah, that's why I suggested he add the example, I also felt it was too different to be a duplicate, but if you think it stands alone as a different question then I'll make your suggested edit and accept the answer.

From the article

Some creatures, like Bristling Boar above, have abilities that refer to themselves by name. Remember that from a rules perspective, a card using its own name in an ability really just means "me." For example, if Cloudpiercer ends up on top of Bristling Boar, that ability will work on the resulting creature.

As per Rule 201.4:

Text that refers to the object it’s on by name means just that particular object and not any other objects with that name, regardless of any name changes caused by game effects.

From this it is clear that the second ability will apply to the resulting creature, even if it is not named "Rayami, First of the Fallen"


text:
Is regular rent also paid with the "advance to utility" chance card?
Two utilities are owned by a player. Another player lands on chance and the chance card directs the player to pay ten times the role of the dice to the utilities owner. Is the player also obligated to pay "rent" for landing on the utility in addition to the payment indicated on the chance card?
The card says:

Advance token to nearest Utility. If unowned, you may buy it from the Bank. If owned, throw dice and pay owner a total ten times the amount thrown

what rules is this? From my understanding it is 4x  for one owned and 10x for both

What is full text of Chance card?  I've not played this for years (thankfully!) but I'm aware of cards asking players to pay money or asking players to "advance to...." but not both.

@StartPlayer I added the text

I am still unclear as to where you are getting 19x from.

@JoeW I assume that was just a typo for 10.  I've edited it out.

Furthermore, you should pay the amount even if the property is mortgaged. The card mentions neither rent, as do the cards that send you to railroads, nor the property's mortgage state The card simply states that, if the property is owned, you should throw the dice and pay 10 times the amount. So, you should pay the amount, even if the property is mortgaged.

Do what is written on the card.

Advance token to nearest Utility. If unowned, you may buy it from the Bank. If owned, throw dice and pay owner a total 10 times the amount thrown.

The card does move the player without a roll and demands a specific payment to a specified player, altering normal behavior. So just the alternate, always x10, payment from the roll.

You pay rent exactly once for the utilities when moving with the chance card.
First, the chance card text is clearly intended as a replacement effect for the rent you would normally pay.  The evidence for this is the use of the word "total" to indicate the amount that you pay, and the parallel language to the railroad chance card, which says:

Advance token to the nearest Railroad and pay owner twice the rental to which he/she is otherwise entitled. If Railroad is unowned, you may buy it from the Bank.

Second, the utilities charge you rent based on the roll that brought you to them.  In this case, you didn't make a roll to get to the utility in question (you were moved by a chance card), so the rent you would pay based on your movement is 0.
Thus, the only rent you pay is for the roll you make because of the chance card.


text:
Ability to cast for overload cost or just cast
Dreadhorde Arcanist allows you to "cast target instant or sorcery card with converted mana cost equal to or less than dreadhorde arcanists power from your graveyard without paying its mana cost" but for cards with overload costs that state in it's own separate ruling that we "may" cast it for its overload cost, can I use dreadhorde archanist to reach and have the ability to cast a card like "weapon surge", then choose to pay its overload cost for its overload effect?

No, you cannot pay the overload cost for spells cast that way.
Dreadhorde Arcanist allows you to cast a spell with an alternate cost of "without paying its mana cost", as described in rule 118.9:

Some spells have alternative costs. An alternative cost is a cost listed in a spell's text, or applied to it from another effect, that its controller may pay rather than paying the spell's mana cost. Alternative costs are usually phrased, "You may [action] rather than pay [this object's] mana cost," or "You may cast [this object] without paying its mana cost." Note that some alternative costs are listed in keywords; see rule 702.

The Overload ability also defines an alternate cost in rule 702.95a:

Overload is a keyword that represents two static abilities that function while the spell with overload is on the stack. Overload [cost] means "You may choose to pay [cost] rather than pay this spell's mana cost" and "If you chose to pay this spell's overload cost, change its text by replacing all instances of the word 'target' with the word 'each.'" Using the overload ability follows the rules for paying alternative costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2f-h.

Then rule 118.9a says this:

Only one alternative cost can be applied to any one spell as it's being cast. The controller of the spell announces their intentions to pay that cost as described in rule 601.2b.

Since Dreadhorde Arcanist's effect specifically allows you to cast the spell with its alternate cost, you cannot choose to pay the overload cost.

"Since Dreadhorde Arcanist's effect specifically allows you to cast the spell with ITS alternate cost, you cannot choose to pay the overload cost". Very Good Murgatroid, I just edit you this orthographic error (I tried to edit your answer, but it takes at least 6 characters to edit it), then your edited answer is really the truth. As usual ... you're right,and  I'm sorry. But I'm sure I made some correct observations in my answer, which made you change your answer.

I believe that a player has the right to choose an instant or sorcery card with  overload, and to play it through his overloaded ability too.
This is also because Gatherer's rulings on Weapon Surge card explicity say that (15/4/2013):

"Casting a spell with overload doesn’t change that spell’s mana cost. You just pay the overload cost instead".

The fact that the overload cost is reduced to zero means nothing.
The Gatherer's rulings that say:

"If you are instructed to cast a spell with overload "without paying its mana cost", you can't choose to pay its overload cost instead"

it only means that,if the player,for some strange reason,want to pay the mana, would not however: he cannot choose to pay the mana indicated by the overload ability even if he wanted to.
But it doesn't mean that the overload ability can't be played for this reason.
Thus, since Dreadhorde Arcanist has a power equal to 1, and Weapon Surge converted mana cost is 1 too, then everything is ok, and it would seem that the answer to this question could be:- "Yes" .
(In fact, my first answer to this question was just that. The following is not all flour of my bag, but is rather due to the inspiration followed by the vision of the excellent response of Murgatroid99, to which I refer).
But it is now important to say that:

Only one alternative cost can be applied to any one spell as it's being cast. The controller of the spell announces their intentions to pay that cost as described in rule 601.2b.

Thus, it is for this reason that the answer to this question cannot be positive.
Since you are already forced to pay an alternative cost (that is "without paying its mana cost"), you cannot choose to pay for a different one.
In other words,you cannot pay the overload cost,since it is a kind of alternative cost.

This is not correct. I've edited my own answer with a more complete explanation of how this works.

I don't think I want to reconsider my answer, although I must admit that, since overload is an "alternative cost", the operation that I describe with my answer is really at the limit of legitimacy. This is also because Dreadhorde Arcanist  offers no instructions regarding how to behave with any additional costs. And then, more often than not, we always end up answering such questions: - "No". but The Murgatroid's edited question is the correct one, I must admit...

However, I congratulate Austin Duesing, since in my opinion he has found a really good question, I thought it was some sort of regulatory vacuum before Murgatroid found the correct answer. I must say that this is why I preferred to answer: - "Yes", to your question, in contrast with what it usually happens. If someone finds an anomaly, not for this reason, one should immediately say "No" to his proposal. Then, Murgatroid found the key to the problem, and I think his answer is the best.

Your first sentence (“I believe that a player has the right to choose an instant or sorcery card with overload, and to play it through his overloaded ability too.”) and last sentence (“In other words,you cannot pay the overload cost,since it is a kind of alternative cost.”) provide contradictory advice. I suggest revising this answer if you want to keep it. It's not important to keep a journey of discovery about the answer: if you first answer “yes” and then realise the answer is “no”, we would prefer to see an answer that says just “no”, not one that says “yes, wait, actually no.”

Consider that e.g. Encyclopedias do not keep information they later discover to be incorrect, they remove it. Or they give the clear correct information, then may acknowledge commonly held incorrect beliefs.

There is no contradiction. The answer at the end clearly says that: -"Thus, it is for this reason that the answer to this question cannot be positive". My answer clearly clarifies all the steps that are intuitively done to get to the right answer. I leave them all.Murgatroid99 instead does not tell you that, before my answer, he too had been wrong, because he had said "No", but motivating everything incorrectly.

Murgatroid99 right answer is also due to the fact that I pointed out that :-"The fact that the overload cost is reduced to zero means nothing", when you put it in relation to the ruling that says:- "Casting a spell with overload doesn't change that spell's mana cost. You just pay the overload cost instead ". But of course I only highlighted this notation. I like to keep mistakes clearly visible, and think about how the applicant would do.Many, however, correct them because they fear the consequences of an incorrect answer, in terms of reputation ... It is easy to correct errors in this way!

Anyway I understand you, DoppelGreener: you criticized my answer because you didn't follow the times of this post in the way you should have; that is, following the way in which the various answers have alternated each other.But,next time, wait or ask to find out more, before criticizing, and rating down the answer... However, it's true, and I admitted it immediately and explicitly: Murgatroid's answer is really great,and I refer to this one for giving a right answer (Since mine, however, remains a correct answer: edited, but still a correct one).


text:
What counts as a coastline in Catan Seafarers?
I was wondering about the coastline on islands not the main lands.
Does the coastline refer to the whole island? Where it's either road or boat?
Or are they separate coastlines on the same island.
So let's say one side of the island I use ships, then on the exact same island on the other side I use roads...
Or is the coastline refering as one, whether its boat or ship that surrounds a whole island

Yes but does the coastline refer to the entire outline of an island?

"Coastline" is used three times in the rules. The following is the first instance:

Roads and ships may not be built along the same coastline.

The very next sentence explains what this means.

There can only be one ship OR one road along any given coastal hex side

As such, the rules define "coastline" as "coastal hex side". And for any given coastal hex side, you can't use both a ship and and road.

The following are the other two instances:

If your shipping route reaches a coastline, you can then build a new settlement on that coast

[You] may elect to place either or both of their starting settlements on the coastline. If you do so, you have the option of placing a ship, instead of a road, adjacent to that settlement.

Since settlements can't be placed on hex sides, this is obviously a different usage of the term. The standard English definition applies here: The coast or coastline is the line that separates water from land.

It's not necessarily different usages of "coastline". If we interpret "along" as meaning covering the line, and "on" as meaning covering one of the ends, then this can be a consistent usage of "coastline" to mean "the edge of a hex".

No, it doesn't have two different definitions. It's the part of the board between two hexes. Ships are placed along this border, while settlements are placed on it.

I don't see why not.

@Acccumulation, Ships can't reach sides --they reach corners-- so your definition doesn't work for the second instance. /// Ships can be built on any water hex side, not just one, so your definition doesn't work for the third instance.

Then you should revisit the difference between "a" and "the".

A side contains a corner. As for the third instance, you are still being quite oblique.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

The choice between road or ship is made independently for every single coastal hex side (defined as the boundary between a land hex and a sea hex).
There is no restriction about the road/ship choice that has been made elsewhere either by you or other players, on the same island or on a different one.
Note however that the rules say that an adjacent road and ship are not considered connected unless there is a settlement or city in between acting as an interface.
This means that in practice you usually have to stick to either one but you are allowed to switch if you build a settlement/city in between and if you have two independent branches on the same island they do not have to match.
It is technically not forbidden to build a ship and a road touching each other (sharing a vertex) if both of them are otherwise connected to your network in a valid way. However they would not count as being connected, so you would need an extremely contrived situation for that to be of any use.

I don't have the rules in front of me, but AFAIR you cannot mix roads and ships within a single connection. Between two settlements (or towns) a connection along the coastline has to be either ships only or roads only.


text:
How to defeat Alolan Nintales with Guzzlord-GX deck
I play the Pokémon TCG, and this is the deck I run:
3x Guzzlord-GX
4x Talonflame (Steam Seige 96)
1x Bridget
3x Wishful Baton
2x Repel
47x Darkness energy
In theory, this is how the deck should work:
Start with a Talonflame.  I use him to grab a Bridget and Wishful Baton.  I play Bridget to grab the three Guzzlord, then use Talonflame to grab the other Wishful Batons. Next turn, I retreat to a Guzzlord with a Wishful Baton and eat sloppily.  Due to the large number of Darkness energies, I am almost always guaranteed 4 or 5 dark energies, allowing me to do 180 damage or 100 with two extra prize cards on turn three.  When he is KOed, his wishful baton lets me give his energies to a different Guzzlord so that it can attack.
If I start with a Guzzlord, I eat sloppily turn one and then I can KO nearly any other Pokemon turn two.
I have one main problem with the deck.  My opponents will send out an Alolan Nintales or Hoopa, stopping me from hurting them.  The Repels help, but it's hard to pull them out if I start with only Guzzlord-GX.  Also, my opponents usually choose some benched GX with 190 HP or more.  What would be the best way to counter this strategy?

Welcome to the site, you may want to try focusing down your questions into one single specific question to make it a bit more answerable. So instead of "How can I make my deck better?" try "I have been struggling with Strategy X, how can I mitigate that?" or "My deck is weak in area Y, how can I mitigate that?"


text:
Gifts ungiven vs. hexproof
What happens when my opponent cast Gifts Ungiven while I have hexproof (like from Veil of Summer)? Does it fizzle or give them all four of the cards?

If you already have hexproof when your opponent attempts to cast Gifts Ungiven, then Gifts Ungiven cannot be cast because it cannot target an opponent; attempting to do this is an illegal action and results in the game returning to the state before your opponent attempted to cast the spell (CR 601.2c, 601.2e).
If you acquired hexproof between the spell being cast and the spell resolving (e.g. by casting Veil of Summer in response to Gifts Ungiven going on the stack), then it will fizzle as all its targets are now invalid, or more formally not resolve and be placed into its owner's gravecard (CR 608.2b).

If someone proposes to cast the card, searches their library for four cards, reveals them, and then their opponent points out that they have hexproof, I take it "return to the state before" means that the cards are shuffled back into the library, even though this isn't exactly the same state?

@Acccumulation In a competitive situation, you call for a judge because the player should not have searched their library: that is part of the spell resolving, not part of it being cast.

@Accumulation "return to the state before" might mean things like untapping lands which were tapped during the process of casting the spell, and moving the card from the stack back into the player's hand. Usually not much more than that.

@DavidZ Nothing more than that, with the very small change that any mana abilities can be reversed, not just tapping lands, and stuff like a spell which was cast from the graveyard goes back there rather than going into hand (obviously). Specifically here, actions which caused cards to be revealed from a library explicitly cannot be reversed (all from CR 723.1).

@Philip Yes, that's exactly what I meant by "usually not much more than that." I intentionally did not try to give a comprehensive list of details.

While I will definitely be using that typo on purpose in the future, I think it's the "owner's graveyard".  but the rest of the answer is so tight I can't edit it out myself.


text:
Cloning a permanent, that is not a creature by itself
Lets say, I have a noncreature artifact (Manalith for example) and something, which temporarily turns it into creature, like Karn, the Great Creator's +1 ability. So I have a 3/3 Manalith and I cast Clone copying the Manalith.
From the rulings for Clone:

Clone copies exactly what was printed on the original creature and
nothing more (unless that creature is copying something else or is a
token; see below). It doesn't copy whether that creature is tapped or
untapped, whether it has any counters on it or Auras attached to it,
or any non-copy effects that have changed its power, toughness, types,
color, or so on.

Does this mean, that I get a plain Manalith? Or do I get a Manalith creature, which dies, because Manalith doesn't have any power or toughness? Or something different?
(I am asking this question, because once a long time ago, I heard a judge talking about some kind of an interaction like this making the clone/copy die, but I am not sure what cards it involved (or even if there actually is such an interaction))

Big +1 for adding the exact cards and interaction you are referring to, thank you! Only small note is that we have a special [mtg:CARDNAME] syntax here which saves you getting Gatherer links yourself, I'll edit that in.

You get a Manalith.
Comp Rule 707, which handles copying objects, actually has an example that is very similar to your scenario:

707.2. When copying an object, the copy acquires the copiable values of the original object’s characteristics.... The copiable values are the values derived from the text printed on the object... as modified by other copy effects, by its face-down status, and by “as . . . enters the
battlefield” and “as . . . is turned face up” abilities that set power and toughness (and may also set additional characteristics). Other effects (including type-changing and text-changing effects), status, and counters are not copied.
Example: Chimeric Staff is an artifact that reads, “{X}: Chimeric Staff becomes an X/X artifact creature until end of turn.” Clone is a creature that reads, “You may have Clone enter the battlefield as a copy of any creature on the battlefield.” After a Staff has become a 5/5 artifact creature, a Clone enters the battlefield as a copy of it. The Clone is an artifact, not a 5/5 artifact creature. (The copy has the Staff’s ability, however, and will become a creature if that ability is activated.)

Karn's ability is not in any of the classes of abilities that change copiable values, so it is ignored. Clone sees the Manalith exactly as printed and copies that card, even though by doing so it becomes a non-creature permanent.


text:
Is there a budget version of Collected Company for this Modern elf deck?
I wanted to buy a Modern deck (a competitive one) for a private tournament which will be in a nearest future. I'm bored with the ones I already have so I wanted to build a new one... I'm currently working on an elf deck and I need some budget alternative to a Collected Company if there are any of those... I can afford to add only 2 Collected Companies at this moment but I think that something more consistent as a 4 of will be better. Any suggestions?
My deck also contains:

4 x Arbor Elf
4 x Elvish Mystic
2 x Joraga Warcaller
4 x Elvish Archdruid
4 x Imperious Perfect
2 x Ezuri, Renegade Leader
4 x Elvish Clancaller

That's what I came up with for now. I'm thinking of having 16-17 lands here and I need any suggestions about it.


text:
What happens if multiple triggers on the stack would cause both players to drop to 0 life if fully resolved?
In Magic: The Gathering, if when the stack has been fully resolved both players will have dropped to 0 life, is the game considered a draw? Or alternatively, does the player who reaches 0 life first lose and the other player wins?
Here's the situation that caused me to ask this question:

I was playing a match where both my opponent and I were using Poison-Tip Archer. I had two of them on the field, my opponent had one.
I was on 4 life, my opponent was on 7.
I attacked with three 3/3 saproling tokens (I had a Tendershoot Dryad in play).
All three were blocked, killing them all and one blocker.
As the active player I ordered the stack so that the triggered abilities of my Archers resolved first. My opponent took 8 damage, but then if the stack was fully resolved I would take 4 damage, reducing us both to 0 life.

As you might imagine, I think I won but my opponent thinks it was a draw. Which one of us is correct?

Welcome to the site, good first question! You may want to consider rewording the title to drop the "In Magic: The Gathering," (we use tags for that) and maybe clarify that it is multiple triggers that are causing the life loss. Initially I thought you were asking about what happens if something like if [mtg:Blood Toll Harpy] enters the battlefield when both players are at 1.

Thanks @Malco, I've edited the title of my question as you suggested, I hope it's clearer now.

Perfect Looks great!

In the situation you describe, both you and your opponent were incorrect. You would have died first because your opponent's triggered abilities would have resolved first. You do not get to arrange all triggered abilities, only the ones you control. Nobody has control over which player's abilities as a whole go on the stack first, because that is defined by the rules.
You misunderstood the rules for multiple ability triggers at the same time:

603.3b If multiple abilities have triggered since the last time a player received priority, each player, in APNAP order, puts triggered abilities they control on the stack in any order they choose. (See rule 101.4.) Then the game once again checks for and resolves state-based actions until none are performed, then abilities that triggered during this process go on the stack. This process repeats until no new state-based actions are performed and no abilities trigger. Then the appropriate player gets priority.

In other words, triggered abilities that trigger at the same time go on the stack in blocks, where each block consists of all triggered abilities a certain player controls. These blocks go on the stack in APNAP order, and only the order of abilities within each block can be determined by its respective controller.
It was your turn, so you were the active player. Your and your opponent's Poison Tip Archer triggered at the same time. According to 603.3b, you are the first to put your 8 triggers on the stack in any order you choose, followed by the opponent's 4 in the order the opponent chooses. Therefore, your opponent's triggers resolve first. You lose 1 life for each trigger, and when you are at zero life, before the next ability can resolve, you would lose the game.

"Your and your opponent's Poison Tip Archer triggered at the same time." It's not even that important that it happened at the same time. It only matters that all triggers happened since the last time anyone had priority. It's not relevant here, but consider if I have an ability that lets me draw a card, then discard a card. Clearly the discard happens after the draw, and I'm allowed to discard the card I drew. But if there is an ability on the battlefield which triggers when I draw a card and one which triggers when I discard a card, they won't care about which happened first.

Ah I see! Thanks for answering my question and highlighting my misunderstanding - really useful!

Does priority pass at any time during the block of triggered abilities? If not, does that mean you can arrange things to hit 0 or less and then get back above before dying?

@ImperialJustinian Whenever a spell or ability resolves, each player in APNAP order gets priority and can play any number of spells and abilities that go on top of the stack.

@Arthur There is never a situation where the difference matters, including your example. Events can happen in order, and technically, that means triggered abilities can trigger in order, but in practice, the order of abilities is determined by the player controllling them.Therefore, at least as far as triggered abilities are concerned, everything that happens between two consecutive instances of a player gaining priority is simultaneous.

@Hackworth Now you're drawing out the pedantic edge case detector in me, but there are times where order in which events within a single resolution matters. For instance if I have something which triggers when you have no cards in hand, and I only had a single card when I activated the draw-and-discard. It would clearly care about the timing of draw versus discard. But the timing between the putting-on-the-stack (including picking targets) and subsequent resolution of two separate triggered abilities is not dependent on the order in which they triggered, no.

@Arthur You are nitpicking in the wrong place. I never said that the order of game events doesn't matter, that would be silly. I said the order of game events doesn't matter as far as triggered abilities are concerned and between instances of gaining priority. I don't know how to explain it better that these sentences have different meanings.

I'm nit picking at your phrasing "order of game events doesn't matter as far as triggered abilities are concerned". I just demonstrated that there is a triggered ability which does care (like Veiled Crocodile, which as far as I can tell is alone in having this trigger). But yes, I am most definitely nitpicking.

@Arthur Okay, a sample question then to illustrate  my point. An effect you control reads "Deal 1 damage to any target. Draw a card." and you target your Nested Ghoul with it. You also control Psychic Corrosion. In what way, if any, does it matter for those triggered abilities if the effect instead said "Draw a card. Deal 1 damage to any target"? If the answer is "in no way", then we agree.

I agree with that completely. Those are functionally equivalent (until the time when the card you draw triggers on damage being dealt while it's in your hand). The specific ordering of game events within a single resolution does not affect the timing between multiple resulting triggered abilities (I think I said as much two comments back). This was about your phrase "There is never a situation where the difference matters", which didn't really sound right to me. I think my example illustrates what makes me think that there are actually situations where the difference matters.

And your phrase "the order of game events doesn't matter as far as triggered abilities are concerned" has the same flaw of generalizing. I illustrated a triggered ability which cared. But again, that is within a single triggered ability. And once again, I agree entirely that for two separate triggered abilities, triggering on two different game events happening within a single resolution, the order of those events doesn't affect the timing between those abilities.


text:
Which game does this die belong to?
My brother found a d6 die that had numbers 50, 100, 200, 500, 50 and 200 instead of normal 1-6. Which game is this die from?

Looks like there's a train on the 200. That might help your searches.

Showing the go to jail side would have made it much more obvious it's a monopoly game, since I've never seen another game using that symbol.

@Andrew go-to-jail side is on a different die: OP's brother found a die without it.

Looks like this belongs to Monopoly Express:

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
How do Moldgraf Monstrosity and Feldon of the Third Path interact?
Say I'm discarding to hand size and I discard a Moldgraf Monstrosity. When I create a token copy of it with Feldon of the Third Path and I sacrifice it at the end of the turn, would I be able to return two creatures? I'm thinking that the token needs to go to the graveyard in order to "die" and once it does it immediately disappears?

I like this combo... sort of a red version of unlimited Gravepurge. Provided you have three+ creatures in your graveyard.

@ThunderToes Not really, since Moldgraf says at random, there's always an even chance that the original Moldgraf will be one of the cards returned as any other creature.

You would get to return two creatures from your graveyard.
Feldon of the Third Path's ability's effect says

Create a token that's a copy of target creature card in your graveyard, except it's an artifact in addition to its other types. It gains haste. Sacrifice it at the beginning of the next end step.

"Sacrifice" is defined in rule 701.15a:

To sacrifice a permanent, its controller moves it from the battlefield directly to its owner’s graveyard. A player can’t sacrifice something that isn’t a permanent, or something that’s a permanent he or she doesn’t control. Sacrificing a permanent doesn’t destroy it, so regeneration or other effects that replace destruction can’t affect this action.

And what it means for a creature to "die" is defined in 700.4:

The term dies means “is put into a graveyard from the battlefield.”

Moldgraf Monstrosity's ability says

When Moldgraf Monstrosity dies, exile it, then return two creature cards at random from your graveyard to the battlefield.

So, sacrificing it triggers its ability. One other thing to note is that the effect has two different instructions, "exile it", and "return two creature card at random from your graveyard to the battlefield". These are two separate instructions, so if you can't complete one, you should still follow the other. This is specified in rule 101.3, which says

Any part of an instruction that’s impossible to perform is ignored. (In many cases the card will specify consequences for this; if it doesn’t, there’s no effect.)

Specifically, the exact order of events plays out like this:

The delayed triggered ability from Feldon's activated ability goes on the stack.
The triggered ability resolves. You sacrifice the token copy of Moldgraf Monstrosity. Moldgraf Monstrosity's ability triggers.
State-based actions are evaluated, and the token disappears.
The triggered ability is put on the stack.
The triggered ability resolves, and you can't exile the token, but you still get two creatures back.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
What happens when a creature gains the Riot keyword ability twice?
This new keyword ability from the Gruul guild in Ravnica Allegiance is bugging me. If I play a creature with Riot, like Rampaging Rendhorn, and I have Rhythm of the Wild in play, it has two instances of Riot. Do I have to choose to put a +1/+1 counter on the creature AND Haste or may I choose 2 instances of the same choice? Like two +1/+1 counters or Haste twice?

You can make any of those combinations of those two choices.
Riot is an ability that creates a replacement effect that modifies how a creature enters the battlefield. As the creature enters the battlefield, you apply each instance of Riot and make your choice of haste or a +1/+1 counter. Those choices are independent, and there is nothing wrong with a creature having two +1/+1 counters or two instances of haste.
A ruling on the card Rhythm of the Wild confirms this:

If a creature enters the battlefield with two instances of riot, you may choose to have it get two +1/+1 counters, one +1/+1 counter and haste, or two instances of haste. Multiple instances of haste on the same creature are redundant, but we’re not going to tell the Gruul how to live their lives.

To clarify the last sentence, haste does not work any differently if you have more than one instance of it, and rule 112.10b says "Effects that remove an ability remove all instances of it." So, if you choose to give the creature haste twice, it's no different than giving it haste once.

"we’re not going to tell the Gruul how to live their lives" - This is why I love magic

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

The issue of multiple instances of haste has now been addressed, so I have removed the comments on the subject.

Multiple instances of riot are cumulative and independent of each other. The creature enters with any combination of +1/+1 counters and/or instances of haste.
From the wording, riot creates a replacement effect that modifies how the permanent it's on enters the battlefield:

614.1c Effects that read “[This permanent] enters the battlefield with . . . ,” “As [this permanent] enters the battlefield . . . ,” or “[This permanent] enters the battlefield as . . . “ are replacement effects.

Multiple replacement effects can be chained on the same original event, as long as the event that results after each step can itself be replaced. Riot works on the creature entering the battlefield, and after it's applied, it's still entering the battlefield, therefore any number of instances of riot can apply to the same creature entering the battlefield:

616.2. A replacement or prevention effect can become applicable to an event as the result of another replacement or prevention effect that modifies the event.
  Example: One effect reads “If you would gain life, draw that many cards instead,” and another reads “If you would draw a card, return a card from your graveyard to your hand instead.” Both effects combine (regardless of the order they came into existence): Instead of gaining 1 life, the player puts a card from their graveyard into their hand.

Since each replacement effect is handled separately, for each instance of riot you make a separate, independent choice. Multiple instances of haste are generally redundant, but it's a possible choice, and might make sense in corner cases when you want the creature to enter with less power/toughness than possible.

The two instances of riot will be independent of each other, you will make the choice for each instance of Riot, either to give haste or add a +1/+1 counter. Giving haste twice is possible but the second instance of haste will be redundant so you will likely put at least 1 +1/+1 counter on the creature, if you choose to though you can have 2 +1/+1 counters or have the creature have haste, haste.
I can think of a few reasons to avoid putting any counters, though they will be edge cases:

Mikaeus, the Unhallowed - If your creature would be haste and undying, you could very well want that first swing to not have the counter on it, either the opponent takes the hit or the creature comes back into play from Undying, now after combat, and you can put the 2 +1/+1 counters on then, for a total of +3/+3.
Kulrath Knight - If your opponent has this in play, counters on your creature are a bad idea in general, not being able to attack or block with anything that has a counter of any kind on it makes it hard to win, particularly in the Gruul colors which are usually about getting big things out fast and having them hit hard.

UPDATE
There has been a ruling attached to Rhythm of the Wild dated 1/25/2019(release date):

If a creature enters the battlefield with two instances of riot, you may choose to have it get two +1/+1 counters, one +1/+1 counter and haste, or two instances of haste. Multiple instances of haste on the same creature are redundant, but we’re not going to tell the Gruul how to live their lives.

The correct answer is that we don't know yet. The Comprehensive Rules haven't been updated, since the new set isn't released yet. The rules do say

112.2c ... If an object has multiple instances of the same ability, each instance functions independently. This may or may not produce more effects than a single instance; refer to the specific ability for more information.

Some abilities explicitly specify they're redundant, which is obvious for e.g. flying and shroud. On the other hand, an ability like lifelink that could theoretically work twice like lifelink (you'd gain 2 life for each damage dealt) doesn't, because the rules say it doesn't:

702.15f Multiple instances of lifelink on the same object are redundant.

On the other hand, a lesser known (and more riot-like ability) like amplify is non-redundant:

702.37a Amplify is a static ability. “Amplify N” means “As this object enters the battlefield, reveal any number of cards from your hand that share a creature type with it. This permanent enters the battlefield with N +1/+1 counters on it for each card revealed this way. You can’t reveal this card or any other cards that are entering the battlefield at the same time as this card.”
702.37b If a creature has multiple instances of amplify, each one works separately.

I agree with murgatroid99 that it will likely be cumulative, if so, you can make an different choice for each instance of riot.

That is certainly not the correct answer. The wording clearly means that riot is a replacement effect, and multiple instances of a replacement effect can chain together, as long as the new event can be replaced as well.

Those "multiple instance" rules you're looking at are not just arbitrary, there are very simple and consistent patterns for which keyword abilities work which way: for triggered abilities, replacement effects, and casting cost modifiers, multiple instances work separately, and for others, multiple instances are redundant.

I don't think that 702.15f actually changes the way Lifelink works. I think it just preemptively corrects what could be a common misunderstanding. The actual definition of Lifelink, without specific mention that multiple instances are redundant, is actually enough to conclude that multiple instances are redundant.


text:
How fast should a competitive combo deck win?
I have a home brew Legacy combo deck that can win by about turn 4-5 reliably. If I change the deck a little to Modern it can win probably on turn 6-7. It is weak to burn and has a few counterspells to protect my assets.
My question is, how fast do competitive combo decks typically win in the various formats? By that I mean in Legacy, Modern, Vintage, Standard, and EDH. Is a turn 5 win slow for Legacy?

This is a very broad question, considering the number of formats and the limitless number of decks in each format. What is a typical deck? What is its typical speed? Those answers also depend at least on the current card pool for each format, rules, and restricted/ban list. As such, answers to this questions are also unlikely to help future visitors.

As a minimal partial answer: Yes, 5 turns in Legacy is way too slow. If you can't get a 90% win by turn 2 with Legacy combo, it's too slow.

@Hackworth I don't think the question is too broad. There are many possible decks, but the same kinds of decks are seen over and over. There are probably competitive combo decks in each format and I want to know how soon they combo. I edited my question to specify the formats.

The problem with the question is that different types of decks aim to have games of different lengths. Some decks win by killing the opponent on turn 2, while other decks win by dragging the game out to turn 7 or later. So "fast" isn't the only consideration.

I think it's reasonable to say that a pure combo deck always tries to win the game as fast as possible. A competitive combo deck that goes longer and then tries to win is really more of a control deck with a combo finish.

With that being said, there is often still variance in combo speed within a single format, making a tradeoff with consistency and taking into account disruption the opponent might play.

Is a turn 5 win slow for Legacy?

Yes.
As of the current meta (from May 24th, 2018), Turbo/Dark Depths is the most represented Legacy combo deck, having around 6% of the field. This specific archetype can combo as fast as "Turn 0" with as few as 5 cards (a land that produces green mana, Crop Rotation, Vampire Hexmage and two Lotus Petal). It can consistently combo on turn 2 or 3, so this is usually what a combo deck should aim for.
The next 4 most represented decks are Storm, Show and Tell, Elves and Reanimator, all of which can consistently combo as soon as turn 2, but usually go off on turn 3-4.

When talking about Vintage, the most represented combo decks are PO Storm and Dredge.
Vintage has a huge amount of 0 and 1 CMC mana accelerants, most of which are artifacts. Since the whole idea of the deck is to go off with Paradoxical Outcome, the PO Storm deck consistently goes off on turn 2, sometimes on turn 1.
Dredge decks don't benefit as much from the 0 and 1 CMC mana rocks, but it can usually go off on turn 2 or 3 with a couple of Bazaar of Baghdads.

The Modern metagame is all over the place, and it's mostly aggro decks, having 54% of the field.
The most represented combo decks are Scapeshift, U/R Storm, GWx Devoted Company and Living End, all of which usually combo on turns 3-6, depending on mana acceleration and card draws.

The current Standard meta has no combo decks. The last time a combo decks had any relevant appearance in standard was during the BFZ-AKH standard, where both Aetherworks Marvel and Saheeli Cat decks worked more in a control role until they could go off. They're considered combo decks because their wincon is a combo, but they were not particularly fast.

Combo decks in duel commander (aka "The French list") are currently much underrepresented. The three most played decks still only represent about 3% of the field.
They're Iname, Death Aspect, which is a control/reanimator deck, and Prossh, Skyraider of Kher, which is a "cast my commander, hit you for 21" kind of deck.
Teferi, Temporal Archmage is represented in both MTGO (9% of the field) and Duel commander (1%) and it is really a control deck that controls the game long enough to cast either Emrakul, the Aeons Torn (in MTGO) or Emrakul, the Promised End (in Duel).

Disclaimer: Every number mentioned in this answer was taken directly from MTGTop8, which really mostly takes MTGO into account when breaking down the metagame, so some of the numbers might be slightly off when talking about physical decks. Also, the information on how long a particular deck takes to combo comes from personal experience playing either with or against said decks and watching tournaments and streams.

I'm a bit confused about the Prossh, Skyraider of Kher explanation. I'm pretty sure if it was "cast my commander, swing for 21," it wouldn't be listed as combo, which makes me think it is probably food chain.


text:
Can you directly purchase a hotel if all the houses are gone?
Assuming all houses are already claimed, can a player purchase a hotel directly by paying the value of 5 houses in order to directly purchase a hotel?

Related: Does the “housing shortage” rule suggest that you should often refrain from buying hotels in monopoly?

Possible duplicate of What happens when you need to tear-down a hotel but no houses are in the bank in Monopoly?

No.
You can only build a hotel if you have four houses on your properties.
You must build houses evenly.  That is, if you have three properties, then you must buy 1 house for A, 1 house for B, 1 house for C, 2nd house for A, 2nd house for B, 2nd house for C, and so on.
You cannot buy a hotel on one property.
If the houses are gone, then you cannot buy them.
https://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/monins.pdf

I heard that some people intentionally avoid building hotels to run down the supply of houses to prevent their opponents from getting enough houses to build hotels.

If there are three properties in a color, all owned by me, and I have 4, 4 and 3 houses on 'm, can I buy 2 houses to make a Hotel on the 3 even if there are no houses in the supply?

No. If there are no houses in the supply, you can't buy houses. If your properties don't have enough houses on them, you can't buy hotels.

A clarification on "You cannot buy a hotel on one property" - you can if the other properties in the group each have four houses. You do not need to buy hotels for all properties in the group at once.

@steenbergh you could build a hotel on one of the properties with 4 houses, then build a house on the 3, but that defeats the object of using the housing shortage to your advantage

@WhatsThePoint No, you can't do that, because the number of houses would not be equally distributed between the properties.

@steenbergh ah yes my bad, apologies

@steenbergh : "... can I buy 2 houses to make a Hotel on the 3 ..." Even if there were 2 houses available, you would only need to buy 1 house more and build a hotel after that. You only need 4 houses on the property in order to build a hotel, not 5 houses...

@RobertMiller, Yeah, I meant 'buying 2 houses' to mean 'paying for 2 more upgrades, going from 3 houses, to 4, to hotel.' My question was if I could skip placing house #4 as they are out of supply...

No
Building shortages are explicitly a part of the game.

BUILDING SHORTAGES… When the Bank has no houses to sell,
  players wishing to build must wait for some player to return or sell
  his/her houses to the Bank before building. If there are a limited
  number of houses and hotels available and two or more players wish
  to buy more than the Bank has, the houses or hotels must be sold at
  auction to the highest bidder.
Monopoly instructions on Hasbro.com

The rules for building a hotel state the following.

HOTELS… When a player has four houses on each property of a
  complete color-group, he/she may buy a hotel from the Bank and
  erect it on any property of the color-group. He/she returns the four
  houses from that property to the Bank and pays the price for the hotel
  as shown on the Title Deed card.
ibid.

Taking those two rules together makes not upgrading to hotels an important part of the strategy of the game; creating a monopoly.
It can't be stated often enough: the objective of the game is not to get rich; the objective of the game is bankrupting your opponents. The way to do that is to create a monopoly and deny them the resources they need.
For example, even if your opponent owns most of yellow, green, and dark blue, if you own light blue and pink with the maximum number of houses on each, you will have removed 24 houses from the stock of 32 in total. The only colour your opponent can now max out on houses and possibly upgrade to a hotel is dark blue, with Park Lane and Mayfair. But of course you refused to trade Park Lane with them and kept it for yourself, didn't you?


text:
Are powers cumulative in Smallworld?
when playing Smallworld, we were wondering how to handle some cumulative effects. It says in the rules that all effects are cumulative unless otherwise stated. Still, we had mounted Tritons and we were wondering if they get really a +2 bonus on all hills and farmland next to the lake or coast (+1 because triton get that for any region next to water, and +1 for being mounted on hills and farmland)?

The rule you reference is correct: powers are cumulative so you can get a +2 bonus like that. Some race/power combinations are indeed much more powerful than others in Small World; a key balancing feature is that powerful options will usually be claimed higher up the list, which means you have to pay several points to claim them, while weaker options will sit around at the bottom collecting those points until they're not looking so bad anymore. Also, remember that you always need at least one token to conquer a region, so a +2 bonus does not help any more than a +1 if the region is empty.

If you want further confirmation, here's a similar BGG thread.

Thanks a lot! That is useful. It does not necessarily make sense from a logical point of view as you can only either ride or swim, but you could argue with split armies etc, so fair enough. Cheers.

Powerful options are usually also balanced by having fewer tokens.

I'd say the primary balance comes from the freedom of choosing how to mess with other players. The other players should focus on harming the player in the strongest position. This is why the game doesn't work well with two players.

@GiantAlchemist If you found the answer useful, I'd appreciate it if you'd click the Accept Answer checkmark - helps me reap the rewards :)