text:
What cards discount Ninjutsu?
Thinking about making a Satoru Umezawa deck, wondering what are some good discount options for ninjutsu ability.
I know about Silver-Fur Master, but I was wondering if Cloud Key will work too?

Silver-Fur Master and Zirda, the Dawnwaker are the only cards that reduces Ninjutsu costs.
Ninjutsu is an activated ability that cards have while they are in your hand. Cloud Key does not reduce Ninjutsu costs because it reduces the cost to cast a spell, not the cost to activate an ability.
Silver-Fur Master specifically affects Ninjutsu abilities, and Zirda affects all activated abilities that aren't mana abilities. All other ability cost reduction effects have restrictions that make them not apply to Ninjutsu.
Many cards that reduce activated ability costs refer to something like "activated abilities of creatures". "Creatures" in this case refers to creature permanents, not creature cards in any other zones, because of rule 109.2:

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

Since they don't affect creature cards in your hand, they don't reduce Ninjutsu costs.

In particular, there are a few cards that reduce "activated abilities of creatures", but a card doesn't become a creature until it's a permanent on the battlefield.

Worth noting that since Glenn is asking about this for a "Satoru Umezawa deck" they likely are asking about Commander/EDH, in which case Zirda would be illegal for their deck due to color identity.


text:
Would Westvale Abbey be tutorable with Mausoleum Secrets?
Okay so I understand that the black color indicator makes Ormendahl, Profane Prince black and thus the color identity for commander is black, but I want to make it clear that I'm wondering specifically if this makes Westvale Abbey count as a black card for in-game effects that care what color it is. Mausoleum Secrets for instance tutors for a black card of a certain mana cost, being equal to or less than # of the creatures in my grave.

Westvale Abbey is colorless, and Mausoleum Secrets cannot search for it.
Rule 712.8a says:

While a double-faced card is outside the game or in a zone other than the battlefield or stack, it has only the characteristics of its front face.

The black color indicator is only on the back face of Westvale Abbey, not the front, so it is colorless in your library, and Mausoleum Secrets cannot find it. It is only black while it is on the battlefield with its back face up.
The reason that rule doesn't stop that color indicator from counting towards color identity is that the color identity rules specifically make an exception. Rule 903.4d says:

The back face of a double-faced card (see rule 712) is included when determining a card’s color identity. This is an exception to rule 712.8a.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Does Feywild Caretaker's 2nd ability trigger only once if you have copies of it?
I don't know if I get a Faerie Dragon from each copy of Feywild Caretaker I control if I have the initiative, or if I only get one regardless of how many I have.

Each instance of the ability triggers separately, so you get one Faerie Dragon for each Feywild Caretaker. In fact, if you could somehow give two copies of the ability to the same Feywild Caretaker, that one Fewild Caretaker would give you two Faerie Dragon.

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


text:
Creatures entering modified and Tribute to the World Tree
If I have a Maja, Bretagard Protector, Trostani Discordant, and a Tribute to the World Tree on the battlefield, when I create a 1/1 token the Tribute to the World Tree would see that the token entering is a 1/1 before the buff effects modify the token so I wouldn't get the draw off of Tribute to the World Tree, correct?
Also, in a similar set up if I have a Sigil Captain on the battlefield and Tribute to the World Tree and a 1/1 token enters I can pick the order of which triggered ability goes first so I can put the two +1/+1 counters on the token and then draw off World Tree because the token is a 3/3 now right?

Your expectations here don't seem to be consistent. You think you wouldn't get the draw in the first case because the token wouldn't enter with the buff, but that you could get the draw in the second case by buffing the token after it enters.

I think the simplest case to explain is having 2 Tribute to the World Tree. The first trigger resolves, sees a 1/1 and makes it a 3/3. The second trigger resolves, sees a 3/3 and draws a card.

If a creatures enters the battlefield as a 3/3 because of continuous effects, you will draw a card from Tribute. If you would buff that creature to 3/3 with a triggered ability, you get to choose whether you want to draw a card or get the counters from the Tribute.
The buff from Maja and Trostani are static abilities. They are active all the time and creatures affected by them enter with the buffs already in effect.

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

A 1/1 token would enter as a 3/3, and Tribute to the World Tree would make you draw a card.
The buff from Sigil Captain is a triggered ability just like Tribute, and triggers off the same event (a creature enters the battlefield). Since you control both Tribute and the Captain, you get to choose their order of resolution.
What I believe you misunderstood is that Tribute checks the creature's power only once, when it resolves.

If Sigil Captain's ability resolves first, it puts 2 +1/+1 counters on it, then Tribute will see a 3/3 and you draw a card.
If Tribute resolves first, it puts 2 +1/+1 counters on it, then Sigil Captain sees a 3/3 and, since Sigil Captain only affects 1/1 creatures, nothing else happens.

You shouldn't be able get a 5/5 creature with Sigil Captain. As mentioned in the rulings, Sigil Captain's ability has an "intervening 'if' clause" so we check again if the creature is 1/1 when the ability resolves, and if it isn't then the ability does nothing.

@ZoeH Correct, thanks


text:
Zethi, Arcane Blademaster and split cards
When exiling a cards with Zethi, Arcane Blademaster. If I exile a split card that is half instant and half sorcery, I can only cast the instant half, correct? Example being Said//Done.

You can cast the sorcery side of split cards that are both.
The rule for casting copies is 707.12:

707.12. An effect that instructs a player to cast a copy of an object (and not just copy a spell) follows the rules for casting spells, except that the copy is created in the same zone the object is in and then cast while another spell or ability is resolving. Casting a copy of an object follows steps 601.2a–h of rule 601, “Casting Spells,” and then the copy becomes cast. Once cast, the copy is a spell on the stack, and just like any other spell it can resolve or be countered.

While Zethi/Chun-Li does only let you exile instant cards, there is no check when the attack trigger resolves that the card exiled with a kick counter on it is an instant. These spells are cast while Zethi's trigger is still resolving and so ignore all timing restrictions, while following the normal rules for casting spells, including choosing which half you would cast.
You are able to cast either half of a split card this way, and could even play the fuse cost for split cards with fuse, or the back side of MDFCs where the front was an instant with the back being a spell (if any of these were printed, none currently exist, all that are instants on the front side are lands on the back).


text:
How does the fight ability work when the creature instigating the fight is recast?
Suppose Brash Taunter's fight ability is activated targeting some other creature to fight with Brash Taunter. A stack is started with that ability on the bottom. Next Unsummon is cast targeting Brash Taunter and it goes to the top of the stack. Unsummon is allowed to resolve and Brash Taunter is returned to its owners hand, leaving only the fight ability left on the stack. Now suppose the owner of Brash Taunter has some way to cast Brash Taunter as an instant. They do so, so that the spell casting Brash Taunter goes to the top of the stack, just above Brash Taunter's activated ability, which has been there from the start. Brash Taunter is allowed to resolve.
Now what happens to Brash Taunter's original activated ability? Does it resolve as originally intended since Brash Taunter is back on the battlefield?

No, this does not work. When Brash Traunter re-enters the battlefield, it is a new object. See rule 400.7 in the 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. This rule has the following exceptions. [The exceptions don't apply]

But, you may ask: why does that matter? Brash Taunter's ability doesn't say anything about which object does the fighting. Unfortunately, the fine print is specific that the ability only refers to the exact same Brash Taunter.

201.5. 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.

So when the card says "Brash Taunter fights target creature." That can be translated as "this object fights target creature." And any change in zones makes a new object.
Finally, we can address what happens when a creature that has left the battlefield tries to fight:

701.12b If one or both creatures instructed to fight are no longer on the battlefield or are no longer creatures, neither of them fights or deals damage. If one or both creatures are illegal targets for a resolving spell or ability that instructs them to fight, neither of them fights or deals damage.

They don't fight and nothing happens.

Great answer. Thank you.

Hasn't this material been covered many times before here?


text:
Echo and Flicker
If I cast a Karmic Guide and on my opponents upkeep I use Blur to flicker it on my next upkeep, do I need to pay the echo cost? I'm under the assumption that I don't due to the rules of flickered creatures.

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.

So, in this case I didn't control this "new" Karmic Guide during my last upkeep so I wouldn't pay the echo right?

You have it backwards. You would pay the Echo cost during your next upkeep because you didn't control it since your previous upkeep.
The Echo ability is defined in rule 702.30a:

Echo is a triggered ability. "Echo [cost]" means "At the beginning of your upkeep, if this permanent came under your control since the beginning of your last upkeep, sacrifice it unless you pay [cost]."

In this case, the Karmic Guide came under your control during your opponent's upkeep, which is more recent than your last upkeep.

In other words, you have to pay the Echo for the "new" Karmic guide, but not for the "old" one since it's no longer on the battlefield.

Right, the "old" one doesn't exist, so its Echo ability doesn't exist. There's nothing to trigger and nothing to pay for that one.

Note to OP, you’d have it correct IF echo were a delayed trigger such as “when this enters the battlefield, at the beginning of your next upkeep sacrifice it unless you pay [cost]”.

@GendoIkari That doesn't look right to me. If a creature had such an ability, it would trigger when it reenters after being flickered, so you would still have to pay.

@GendoIkari it would have to be "when you cast [this], at the beginning of your next upkeep sacrifice it unless you pay [cost]" for flickering (or reanimation etc) to avoid the echo cost

Ah right... I almost said "when you cast this" even.

@GendoIkari It would have to trigger off of something other than ETB. For instance, Unearth gets the exile from it being cast with the Unearth cost. Also, if the permanent gets the ability from some source other than itself, that would work. For instance, if a spell says "Put a creature card from your hand onto the battlefield. At the beginning of the next upkeep, sacrifice it unless you pay [cost]", then when you flicker it, it comes back without the spell's trigger.


text:
Is a creature spell already a permanent?
I have a question, is a creature spell already a permanent?
The situation:
I played against a friend of mine, he played a creature, so I played Essence Scatter to counter it. After that he played Turn Aside, an instant that destroyed a spell, that was against a permanent that he controlled. Is this instant valid or is it against the rules?
I thought it wouldn’t work because the instant that I played, is against a spell not a permanent.

Welcome to the site, do you happen to remember exactly which cards were played here?  The exact wording might matter.

Yes ofc, I played [[Essence Scatte]] and he played [[turn aside]].

Thanks, that helped. I'm still not entirely clear on the order of events though. You played Essence Scatter to counter a creature spell, and your friend responded with Turn Aside to counter your Essence Scatter, is that correct? And you want to know whether that Turn Aside was a legal play?

Yes correct. I’m not quite sure if a creature spell is already a permanent card. So if the turn aside instant was valid. I counted it, but I would love to know the right answer.

I edited the question to remove references to "permanent card". Turn Aside counters a spell that targets a "permanent you control". It does not use the phrase "permanent card", which has a specific meaning that changes the meaning of the question. "Permanent card" refers to any card with a permanent type, such as creature, artifact, etc, in any zone. On the other hand, as the answer says, "permanent" specifically refers to something on the battlefield.

No, your friend's play was not legal. Turn Aside counters spells that target permanents, but a creature spell is still a spell and not a permanent yet.
A spell is (generally) a card on the stack. It remains there until it has resolved or been countered.

112.1. A spell is a card on the stack. [..]

A permanent is a card or token on the battlefield.

110.1. A permanent is a card or token on the battlefield. A permanent remains on the battlefield indefinitely. A card or token becomes a permanent as it enters the battlefield and it stops being a permanent as it’s moved to another zone by an effect or rule.

A spell is never a permanent, and a permanent is never a spell.
Essence Scatter targets spells, never permanents. Since Turn Aside can only target spells that target certain permanents, it can't target Essence Scatter and your friend's play was illegal.

Thank you. Now I know the right answer.

It might be worth noting that a creature card is still a permanent card, and a creature spell is a permanent spell, though neither is a permanent outside the battlefield.

@MatthewJensen technically true but that was only a confusion of terms. It being a creature card has no relevance to the question and would only muddy the waters.


text:
Can I tap a permanent for mana multiple times with multiple copies of an untap spell on the stack?
Let's say I have Thousand-Year Storm with a few triggers (or some other copy ability), then I cast Dramatic Reversal (or similar) can I tap my mana rocks between each resolve of Dramatic Reversal? Say if I had three copies, and an Empowered Autogenerator, could I untap and retap it each time, giving me a glorious bounty of sweet, sweet mana?

Yes, you can do this.
Spells and abilities on the stack resolve one at at time, and each player gets a chance to take actions in between each resolution. After each copy of Dramatic Reversal resolves, you can activate any number of mana abilities (and take other actions) before the next copy resolves. The Timing and Priority rules in section 117 lay out the system of timing that governs interactions like this. In particular, the most relevant rules are the following:

117.1. Unless a spell or ability is instructing a player to take an action, which player can take actions at any given time is determined by a system of priority. The player with priority may cast spells, activate abilities, and take special actions.
[...]
117.3. Which player has priority is determined by the following rules:

117.3a The active player receives priority at the beginning of most steps and phases, after any turn-based actions (such as drawing a card during the draw step; see rule 703) have been dealt with and abilities that trigger at the beginning of that phase or step have been put on the stack. No player receives priority during the untap step. Players usually don’t get priority during the cleanup step (see rule 514.3).

117.3b The active player receives priority after a spell or ability (other than a mana ability) resolves.

117.3c If a player has priority when they cast a spell, activate an ability, or take a special action, that player receives priority afterward.

117.3d If a player has priority and chooses not to take any actions, that player passes. If any mana is in that player’s mana pool, they announce what mana is there. Then the next player in turn order receives priority.

117.4. If all players pass in succession (that is, if all players pass without taking any actions in between passing), the spell or ability on top of the stack resolves or, if the stack is empty, the phase or step ends.

Amazing, thank you! To infinity, and beyond!!!

@NotDead you can accept answers by clicking the tick sign on the left of the answer below the voting. this makes clear that this question has been answered/solved. have a great day! :)

As I understood the situation, the ability to do this had a lot to do with the banning of Wilderness Reclamation in Pioneer (and formerly in Standard, IIRC). With a reasonable assortment of draw spells taking advantage of the extra mana, it was very easy to snowball into multiple copies of the enchantment.


text:
When a creature enchanted with Fungal Fortitude dies and returns to the battlefield, does it keep Fungal Fortitude?
Fungal Fortitude is an Enchantment - Aura , which says "When enchanted creature dies, return it to the battlefield tapped under its owner's control."
So when a creature enchanted by Fungal Fortitude dies, does the creature retain the enchantments it had before dying?
In addition, does this return trigger any abilities with "When ___ enters the battlefield..."?

No, when a creature leaves the battlefield, auras attached to it will fall off and die. The creature that returns, even if it's the same card, is a new object with no relation to its former existence.
When a creature dies or otherwise leaves the battlefield, auras attached to it will die:

704.5m If an Aura is attached to an illegal object or player, or is not attached to an object or player, that Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard.

The creature that returns is a new object that has nothing to do with its previous existence. The aura that died was never attached to that new creature.

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. [..]

So when a creature enchanted by Fungal Fortitude dies, does the creature retain the enchantments it had before dying?

No. When a permanent leaves the battlefield, all other permanents that are attached to it are sent to the graveyard as a state-based action, unless there is something else that interferes with that (for instance, equipment has the special rule that when the permanent that it is attached to leaves the battlefield, it stays on the battlefield not attached to anything). Once the first permanent returns to the battlefield, the second permanent (in this case, Fungal Fortitude) is no longer on the battlefield to be attached to the first permanent, and the permanent is another object anyway, so the second permanent previously being attached has no effect.
Two mana would be much too cheap a cost if Fungal Fortitude returned to the battlefield. Compare with Gift of Immortality, which does return itself, but  costs three mana, doesn't give +2/+0, doesn't have Flash, and waits until the end step to come back (Flash is extremely valuable, since you can wait until your opponent targets your creature with removal or blocks it, and then cast Fungal Fortitude is response and have it attach before your opponent's spell resolves or the blocking creature deals damage).

In addition, does this return trigger any abilities with "When ___ enters the battlefield..."?

Yes. This triggers regardless of how the permanent entered the battlefield or whether it's been on the battlefield before (and since it's a new object, it wouldn't be considered to have been on the battlefield before anyway). Flicker effects also trigger ETB.


text:
Can Titania, Voice of Gaea be melded on the same turn that she is brought into play with Oath of Druids?
If Oath of Druids brings Titania, Voice of Gaea into play under control of a player with Argoth, Sanctum of Nature in play and 4 lands in their graveyard, will Argoth and Titania meld into Titania, Gaea Incarnate on that turn?
Both the Oath of Druids and the melding are triggered at the beginning of the upkeep, so the underlying question is: Is the beginning of the upkeep a window of time where one thing can trigger after another and cause other beginning of the upkeep effects to trigger, or is it like a chime that happens once/turn and wouldn't effect something that wasn't there during the sole triggering?

No, Titania cannot meld during the upkeep when she enters the battlefield.
The beginning of the upkeep is a single event, and the only triggered abilities that trigger at that time are the ones that already existed as the upkeep started. Rule 503.1 says

503.1 The upkeep step has no turn-based actions. Once it begins, the active player gets priority. (See rule 117, “Timing and Priority.”)

503.1a Any abilities that triggered during the untap step and any abilities that triggered at the beginning of the upkeep are put onto the stack before the active player gets priority; the order in which they triggered doesn’t matter. (See rule 603, “Handling Triggered Abilities.”)

It is possible to meld Titania on the same turn that she enters, using Paradox Haze.

Both the Oath of Druids and the melding are triggered at the beginning of the upkeep

Yes, both are triggered at the begin of upkeep. Once they resolve, it's not "beginning" of upkeep anymore.

Is the beginning of the upkeep a window of time where one thing can trigger after another

Certainly that's possible, but you're not asking about one thing triggering another thing, you're asking about something triggering, then resolving, then that resolution being considered in an "at beginning of upkeep" trigger.
Suppose you have a card that says "Whenever a creature dies, create a Spirit token" and another that says "Whenever a creature dies, if you control a Spirit, gain one life". A creature dies, and at its moment of death, you don't control any Spirits. Do you gain a life? No; the second trigger checks the board state at the moment of death. It doesn't wait for every other trigger to resolve, and then trigger. "At the beginning of upkeep" is the same: the trigger sees the board state at the moment that it becomes upkeep.

Are you sure about that example? I would think both triggers will happen when a creature dies, and that you can choose the order in which they trigger. And "if you control a Spirit" only being checked on resolution

Nevermind. I just realized this is called an "intervening-if clause", so it won't trigger at all then.


text:
How do cost reducers affect costs that include XX?
How does Mass Manipulation work with Hinata, Dawn-Crowned? How does the mana reducing ability interact with the XXUUUU mana cost?

The cost reduction is applied to the total cost, which is determined by substituting your choice of X into the cost on the card.
In the case of Mass Manipulation and Hinata, Dawn-Crowned, you would first choose a value N for X and N targets. Then Hinata's ability would reduce the cost by {N} because the spell has N targets. The result is that the spell would cost {N}{U}{U}{U}{U}.
The steps for casting a spell are described in rules section 601.2. Choosing the value of X happens in step 601.2b, choosing targets happens in step 601.2c, and calculating the total cost happens in step 601.2f.

In your example, Hinita would basically remove one of the X's If you choose one target the total cost is 2UUUU which gets reduced to 1UUUU because of the one target.
If X is equal to 2 then the total cost is 4UUUU that then gets reduced back down to 2UUUU because of the two targets


text:
MTG stolen Rousing Refrain, who controls the suspend?
Someone had an effect that exiled my top card face down and later let them cast it. The card they stole was Rousing Refrain. When they cast it and the card exiles itself with time counters on it, who controls the exiled (and now suspended) card? The owner or the caster?

When the last time counter is removed, the owner casts the spell.
First, rule 702.62a describes the procedure for casting a spell from exile using suspend:

Suspend is a keyword that represents three abilities. The first is a static ability that functions while the card with suspend is in a player’s hand. The second and third are triggered abilities that function in the exile zone. “Suspend N—[cost]” means “If you could begin to cast this card by putting it onto the stack from your hand, you may pay [cost] and exile it with N time counters on it. This action doesn’t use the stack,” and “At the beginning of your upkeep, if this card is suspended, remove a time counter from it,” and “When the last time counter is removed from this card, if it’s exiled, play it without paying its mana cost if able. If you can’t, it remains exiled. If you cast a creature spell this way, it gains haste until you lose control of the spell or the permanent it becomes.”

The highlighted ability refers to "you", which is covered in rule 109.5:

The words “you” and “your” on an object refer to the object’s controller, its would-be controller (if a player is attempting to play, cast, or activate it), or its owner (if it has no controller). For a static ability, this is the current controller of the object it’s on. For an activated ability, this is the player who activated the ability. For a triggered ability, this is the controller of the object when the ability triggered, unless it’s a delayed triggered ability. To determine the controller of a delayed triggered ability, see rules 603.7d–f.

And rule 109.4 says

Only objects on the stack or on the battlefield have a controller. Objects that are neither on the stack nor on the battlefield aren’t controlled by any player. See rule 108.4. There are six exceptions to this rule:
109.4a The controller of a mana ability is determined as though it were on the stack. See rule 605, “Mana Abilities.”

And finally, rules 108.3, 108.4 and 108.4a say

108.3. The owner of a card in the game is the player who started the game with it in their deck. If a card is brought into the game from outside the game rather than starting in a player’s deck, its owner is the player who brought it into the game. If a card starts the game in the command zone, its owner is the player who put it into the command zone to start the game. Legal ownership of a card in the game is irrelevant to the game rules except for the rules for ante. (See rule 407.)
108.4. A card doesn’t have a controller unless that card represents a permanent or spell; in those cases, its controller is determined by the rules for permanents or spells. See rules 110.2 and 112.2.

108.4a If anything asks for the controller of a card that doesn’t have one (because it’s not a permanent or spell), use its owner instead.

Putting all of those together, rule 108.3 says that you own the card because it started the game in your deck. Once the card is exiled rule 109.4 says that it has no controller, just an owner. So, the third suspend ability triggers and resolves. It instructs "you" to cast the spell, and rule 109.5 says that "you" refers to the controller of the object (the card) as the ability triggered. But since the card was in exile, rule 108.4a says to use the owner when asked for the controller, so the instruction is for the owner to cast the spell.

It appears I'm incorrect... but why is suspend not a delayed triggered ability created by the resolution of the spell in this case?

It's just not written that way. The Suspend rule describes 3 separate abilities that implement the machinery of Suspend, and those are written as abilities on the card itself. The resolution of the spell just puts the counters on the card, it doesn't directly cause anything else to happen, and those counters control the behavior of the abilities.

Crikey, that's a heck of a ruling to have to make on the floor.

The floor ruling is just the first sentence. Most of the rest of the answer is me trying to rigorously connect the dots between the "controller" mentioned in the third sentence of rule 109.5 and the "owner" mentioned in rule 108.4a, and looking at it again, I might have gone a little overboard.

Suspend's second ability says "At the beginning of your upkeep, [...]". Does the logic in your answer mean that the time counters are removed during the card's owner's upkeep?

Yes. In fact, since that is part of the trigger condition, not an instruction in the triggered ability, the first sentence of 109.5 applies and it directly references the card's owner.

I can't find any flaw in your reasoning but it seems wild to me that the card would be in Player B's exile zone, triggering in Player A's upkeep and eventually cast by Player A.

There is no such thing as "Player B's exile zone". There is just the exile zone, and the cards in that zone just have an owner. So there's no real conflict there. The only zones that each player has separately are the library, hand, and graveyard.

@BenP. The only zones that exist per player are the library, hand, and graveyard. There is one battlefield, one exile zone and one command zone. People talk about the objects they own in these zones as if they were separate, but rules wise it is just objects they own inside those communal zones. Note how no card ever references your exile, or target player's exile, but just exile, compared to your graveyard or target player's graveyard. (sideboards are also per player, but they aren't zones in the game and are specifically referenced as "outside the game" by companion and wish type spells)


text:
Morritte of the Frost copying Dark Depths
Moritte of the Frost may enter the battlefield as a copy of a permanent you control.  Dark Depths enters the battlefield with 10 ice counters on it.  If I have Moritte enter as a copy of my Dark Depths, does it have 10 ice counters on it?

Dark Depths is legendary though,

@NeilMeyer the combos that use it don't care, the point is to cheat out Marit Lage as fast as you can by either removing all the counters at once (Vampire Hexmage) or having never had them there in the first place (Solemnity or Thespian's Stage) Having to sacrifice the original due to legend rule in the versions of the combo that copy the card doesn't bother the deck.

Yes. By copying Dark Depths, it acquires the ability "Dark Depths enters the battlefield with ten ice counters on it.", and thus gets the ice counters.
(In contrast, Thespian's Stage works as a combo with Dark Depths because it can turn into a copy after it has entered the battlefield, and thus without getting the ice counters.)

707.5. [...] If the text that's being copied includes any abilities that replace the enters-the-battlefield event (such as "enters the battlefield with" or "as [this] enters the battlefield" abilities), those abilities will take effect. [...]


text:
Do effects that say "from your graveyard to the battlefield" count if the card is cast?
As an example, Flayer of the Hatebound has, "Whenever Flayer of the Hatebound or another creature enters the battlefield from your graveyard, that creature deals damage equal to its power to any target."
I recently heard that when you specifically cast a creature from the graveyard it goes from graveyard > stack > battlefield and would not trigger Flayer of the Hatebound.
Is this true?
It seems like a very specific and niche ruling.

Although they do sound very similar, there are lots of differences between the two situations. For example, if a creature "enters play from your graveyard", you don't get the opportunity to pay any optional kicker costs, or the like; if you cast it from your graveyard, then you do. It turns out not to be so niche: there is quite a fundamental distinction in Magic between "casting" a card, and having that card enter play because of some other effect.

It is true that abilities like the one you mention will not trigger if a creature is cast from the graveyard. In fact, that is stated in one of Flayer of the Hatebound's Gatherer rulings:

If you cast a creature card from your graveyard, that card will be put on the stack before entering the battlefield. Flayer of the Hatebound won't trigger.

This is a simple consequence of the facts of the situation. Flayer of the Hatebound's ability specifically triggers when a creature "enters the battlefield from your graveyard". If you cast a creature from your graveyard, it enters the stack from your graveyard and then it enters the battlefield from the stack. Neither of those match the trigger condition so the ability does not trigger.

Might be worth noting that the stack is a zone like any other, not just some limbo that could be ignored when we consider an object's zone change history.

There is a similar subtlety with with Living End, IIRC.


text:
What happens if you clone Harvest Hand and sacrifice the clone?
Harvest Hand reads
"When Harvest Hand dies, return it to the battlefield transformed under your control."
If a creature copying Harvest Hand died, it wouldn't be able to transform when the dies trigger resolves because it has no back side. Would it re-enter the battlefield on its front side or not at all?

If a creature copying Harvest Hand dies, it stays in the graveyard.
Rule 702.10a says

If a spell or ability puts a transforming double-faced card onto the battlefield “transformed,” it enters the battlefield with its back face up. If a player is instructed to put a card that isn’t a transforming double-faced card onto the battlefield transformed, that card stays in its current zone.

The ability resolves while the card that was copying the Harvest Hand is in the graveyard, so the card stays in the graveyard.

Unless the card copying Harvest Hand is a transforming DFC, in which case it will return to the battlefield transformed into whatever its backside is.


text:
Ancient Greenwarden and Simic Growth Chamber
If I have Ancient Greenwarden on the field and I play Simic Growth Chamber, since Greenwarden's third ability isn't a may it means that Chambers ETB goes on the stack twice.
My question is if I can choose the same land for both the ETBs and bounce only 1 land or do I have to choose a different land for each instance of the ability.

You will need to bounce two lands.
Simic Growth Chamber's ability does not target, so you choose the land to bounce as the ability resolves. Once one instance of the ability resolves, the land you chose to bounce is no longer on the battlefield. So, it is not an available choice when the other instance of the ability resolves, which means that you have to choose a different land and bounce it too.


text:
Can Equinox counter a spell that would destroy a land only because of replacement effects?
Suppose I control Umbra Mystic and a land that's also an Aura.
(Note that I could find no combination of cards that could actually create an Aura land, so this question may just be pie in the sky. I did find a convoluted way to create an Equipment land but that's probably not relevant.)
An opponent casts a spell to destroy the creature the Aura land is attached to. With totem armor, the Aura land is to be destroyed instead. Can I tap another land enchanted with Equinox to counter that spell?
My instinct is to say no, because the replacement effect adds a layer of indirection to the spell, such that the spell is not what destroys the land.

If your question already has answers, please do not modify it so that the existing answers no longer fully address it. I have rolled your edit back because it does that (according to your comment on the answer). You should instead ask a new question.

@murgatroid99 I have posted a new and more expansive question and voted to mark this one as a duplicate of it.

No, your instinct is correct.
There are 2 relevant gatherer ruling on Equinox:

Equinox will not counter a spell which would indirectly cause destruction of one of your lands.

Equinox will not counter a spell that deals damage to an animated land, even if it would deal more damage than the land's toughness. This is because the spell itself does not destroy the land directly. The land is destroyed by a game rule.

In your example, the spell your opponent cast to destroy the creature is not what would destroy the aura; the totem armor ability's replacement effect is.

I fail to see how the second ruling is relevant if my opponent casts a direct destruction spell like Murder.

@CainGoldhardt It's because of the last 2 sentences; which really is just a re-hash of the first rulings. Perhaps it's not helpful in the answer because it's just a more specific example of a case when the first ruling applies, and it's not the same case as your question.


text:
What happens to a reconfigured Artifact Creature when the equipped creature dies?

I have a Creature and an Artifact Creature with reconfigure on the board.
During a main phase I pay the reconfigure cost of the Artifact Creature to equip it to the Creature.
Later I block with the equipped Creature and it dies to combat damage.
Me and my friends disagree on what happens to the Artifact Creature, equipped to the Creature.

Following some research, I can't find an answer to this but I have found the following (I'm new to MTG, so I may have misunderstood);

"Equip as sourcery" is a mechanic that limits the play speed of reconfigure, it doesn't change the card type.
An Artifact Creature is both an Artifact and a Creature so rules for both apply
The combat damage that killed the equipped Creature was done soley to that Creature
Nothing was played that specifically targeted Artifacts

What I believe happens;

Artifact Creature took no combat damage
No Artifact removal was played
Equipped Creature dies
Artifact Creature returns to battlefield, as per behaviour of Artifacts.

My friends argue that when it's equipped it's more like an enchantment due to "equip only as a sourcery", as part of the reconfigure explanation on the card, so it dies with it.
What actually happens?

It probably isn't crucial here, but if you could add the exact cards you're referring to that always makes it easier for people to explain the behaviour.

Out of curiosity, when you say "Artifact Creature returns to battlefield, as per behaviour of Artifacts", what "behaviour of Artifacts" are you referring to?

You are correct, your reconfigure equipment survives combat. It turns back into a creature as soon as it becomes unattached, i.e. when the creature it had equipped dies.
When you equip your creature with an equipment through reconfigure, the equipment stops being a creature for as long as it keeps equipping, but turns back when it becomes unattached:

702.151b Attaching an Equipment with reconfigure to another creature causes the Equipment to stop being a creature until it becomes unattached from that creature.

Only creatures can be in combat, and only creatures in combat can take combat damage. Your equipment was not a creature when combat damage was assigned, and even though the creature it had equipped was in combat, the equipment itself was not. Your equipment cannot possibly take combat damage from the current combat.
When the equipped creature dies, the equipment becomes unattached and immediately turns back into its creature form, but that doesn't matter for the current combat.
Note on this remark:

Artifact Creature returns to battlefield, as per behaviour of Artifacts.

Neither attaching nor unattaching an equipment removes it from the battlefield, so that doesn't cause it to return there either.

My friends argue that when it's equipped it's more like an enchantment due to "equip only as a sourcery", as part of the reconfigure explanation on the card, so it dies with it.

Your friends are in the wrong here. "Equip as a sorcery" only refers to the timing of when you can activate the ability, i.e. at the same time you could cast a sorcery. The "sorcery speed" (as it's commonly called) of the reconfigure ability has nothing to do with what happens on unattachment, and even if it did, the regular equip ability of other equipments is also sorcery speed, so it still wouldn't make a difference.
Equipments are like aura enchantments only in that both can attach to something, and they unattach when the thing they're attached to dies or otherwise becomes illegal. However, one key difference between auras and equipments is precisely that equipments do NOT die when they become unattached:

704.5m If an Aura is attached to an illegal object or player, or is not attached to an object or player, that Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard.

704.5n If an Equipment or Fortification is attached to an illegal permanent or to a player, it becomes unattached from that permanent or player. It remains on the battlefield.

Appreciate the detailed information here, thank you!


text:
How are spells and abilities with the keyword "you" affected after they are suddenly under an opponent's control while on the stack? Who's "YOU"?
Suppose I want to dump a loss from Pact of the Titan on my opponent.
So I play Pact of the Titan. I then play Sudden Substitution.
I envision this will allow me to take one of my opponent's creatures, give them a 4/4 red Giant creature, and require them to play red mana on their turn if they don't want to lose the game.
Am I understanding rule 109.5 correctly in hoping that transferring the control of the spell on the stack to my opponent, will make them the "you" on the card, instead of me, the one who originally cast it?

This will do what you want. "You" refers to the controller of the spell or ability as it resolves.
It is important here that Pact of the Titan's triggered ability is created as the spell resolves, so it applies to whoever controlled the spell as it resolved. This is different from a card like Supernatural Rescue, which has a "When you cast that spell" triggered ability. By the time you could play Sudden Substitution, the ability has already triggered and is controlled by the player who cast that spell, and that wouldn't change if the spell's controller changes.


text:
Token Copies VS From Anywhere Triggered Abilities
Worldspine Wurm is copied by the token-creating effect of Sublime Epiphany.  Later, the token dies.  Will the triggered ability, "When Worldspine Wurm is put into a graveyard from anywhere, shuffle it into its owner's library" trigger and get put onto the stack?
It's clear that the token's other triggered ability, "When Worldspine Wurm dies, create three 5/5 green Wurm creature tokens with trample" will go off successfully, as this LTB triggered ability can look back in time to when the token was on the battlefield.  It's also clear that a Glasspool Mimic copying Worldspine Wurm would get only the LTB triggered ability and not the "from anywhere" triggered ability, since immediately after Glasspool Mimic was put into a graveyard, the game would see the printed characteristics of the card, effectively overwriting the characteristics it had as a copy, and thus its rules text would no longer include the "from anywhere" triggered ability.
Returning to the initial question, the token does exist in the graveyard at the time the "from anywhere" triggered ability would trigger (state based actions would not have been performed yet after the token was moved), and in contrast with Glasspool Mimic, it is not obvious that the token has any printed characteristics that could overwrite the rules text it had on the battlefield.  Does it become some sort of "default token" with "default characteristics" while in the graveyard awaiting state based actions (and thus the "from anywhere" triggered ability would not trigger), or does it still have its copied characteristics (and thus the "from anywhere" triggered ability would trigger)?

Yes, the token's "put into the graveyard from anywhere" ability will trigger.
The token's "printed text" is effectively the copied characteristics of Worldspine Wurm. It does not have some other set of characteristics that are modified by a continuous copy effect, the way Glasspool Mimic does. This is a consequence of rule 111.3:

The spell or ability that creates a token may define the values of any number of characteristics for the token. This becomes the token’s “text.” The characteristic values defined this way are functionally equivalent to the characteristic values that are printed on a card; for example, they define the token’s copiable values. A token doesn’t have any characteristics not defined by the spell or ability that created it.

In this case, the token's characteristics are defined as a copy of Worldspine Wurm's characteristics.
To close the loop, the token does exist in the graveyard long enough for its ability to trigger, as stated in rule 111.7:

A token that’s in a zone other than the battlefield ceases to exist. This is a state-based action; see rule 704. (Note that if a token changes zones, applicable triggered abilities will trigger before the token ceases to exist.)


text:
Does a stolen tapped card, untap after changing controllers?
My brother played Agent of Treachery and stole my "tapped" creature card.
The agent of treachery's text is as follows:

Creature — Human Rogue
Card Text:
When Agent of Treachery enters the battlefield, gain control of target permanent.
At the beginning of your end step, if you control three or more permanents you don't own, draw three cards

Now he moved onto combat like immediately after and then untapped and tried using my creature to attack, and I said it can't attack because:

It has summoning sickness,
It is still tapped.

He countered that the official Magic: The Gathering video game used this card and it let him attack right away. I said; well it's gotta either be tapped or summoning sickness for sure. We found out that yes it has summoning sickness. Once he found out, he decided it can't attack, attacked with a different creature but then also didn't fix his mistake of untapping.
When my turn came around and I attacked with everything, he was 1 short of a blocker(my claim) and literally on 1hp. I said it was still tapped and couldn't block so hence: short by one. He says it get's untapped by stealing. I've found cards that let you steal and untap so if this particular card could do so, it would be put in the text. And upon hearing this argument he claims that he wouldn't have attacked on his turn because he knew he'd be short.
I'm pretty sure I'm in the right here about it still being tapped, but if there's a specific rule that I can point him to, that'd be great.
And what do you usually do when we find out about a rule change and upon hearing it would like to change previous turns. Is there any official rule about this? Or is it more of a case by case on how the players feel. Cuz in this case, letting him take back would result him in winning next turn, and him not able to take back results in me winning.

Taking control of a creature does not inherently cause it to untap, and the creature does have summoning sickness during the turn in which control changed.
Compare Agent of Treachery's ability with Act of Treason, which has this text:

Gain control of target creature until end of turn. Untap that creature. It gains haste until end of turn.

Act of Treason specifically untaps the creature, because gaining control of it does not untap the creature. And it grants the creature haste because the creature would have summoning sickness otherwise.
There's no specific rule that says that changing control of a creature doesn't untap it, there just isn't a rule that says that that does happen. But there is a blog post from a site run by some Magic judges which spells it out more clearly: When an object changes controller it does not untap unless the effect that causes this change in control specifically says to untap it.
As for taking back previous decisions, that is not covered by the rules. It is something that players need to decide amongst themselves. If you ever encounter a situation like that in a tournament, you should call a judge, and the judge will make a determination based on the tournament rules.


text:
Does transforming a card thats been temporarily stolen remove its target status from it?
Ok so let's say you've stolen a creature from an opponent with Zealous Conscripts.  You then play Mystic Reflection and then flicker it with Ghostly Flicker, which puts it back onto the battlefield under your control, and transformed into a Blightsteel Colossus.  Since it is no longer the Target creature from Zealous Conscripts, would it still return to its opponent's control?

I want to note that "transform" has a specific meaning in Magic: it refers to changing which face is currently up on a transforming double-faced card.

Ah ok thanks, sorry. Still relatively new to the game and haven't gotten all of the terminology down just yet

You do keep the creature, but not because of Mystic Reflection.
Whenever an object changes zones, it becomes a completely new object, with no memory of its previous existence (other than some exceptions that don't apply here). In this case, Ghostly Flicker moves the creature to exile then back to the battlefield. Once that happens, it is no longer "the creature that was taken by Zealous Conscripts" and it is instead "a new creature that entered the battlefield under your control". So, there is no previous controller for it to return to. You just control it.
Mystic Reflection doesn't matter here because changing an object's characteristics doesn't change which object it is, and that is the thing that matters for an effect like on Zealous Conscripts. In fact, if you used an effect like True Polymorph to turn the creature into a Blightsteel Colossus without it leaving the battlefield, it would still return to the opponent's control at the end of the turn.

Ah, ok, I'd wondered about that as well.  Thank you for your help!

@Tavian Consider clicking "Accept answer" if this answer helped you sufficiently and was the best (of 1 in this case).


text:
If a creature equipped with assault suit changes controllers, can that creature attack me?
I was playing a game of commander with a friend, and I was wondering if I were to attach Assault Suit to Evil Eye of Orms-by-Gore. Then transfer the evil eye to him would the equipment fall off? Would he gain control of it's effects? Or would it not be able to attack me?

There aren't any restrictions on equipment controlled by one player being on a creature controlled by another player. The restriction is only on the equip ability itself: "equip" means "put this equipment on a creature you control". You can't use the equip ability to put equipment on another player's creature.

The equip ability can target only a creature you control. It's okay if Equipment gets onto a creature your opponent controls (such as via your opponent playing Confiscate on your equipped creature), but you can't do this using the equip ability. Also, you can play the ability only any time you could play a sorcery.

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/rules-equipment-2003-09-02#:~:text=The%20equip%20ability%20can%20target,you%20could%20play%20a%20sorcery.
Also, the control of a permanent is separate from the control of any permanent it may be attached to. So your opponent gaining control of Evil Eye of Orms-by-Gore doesn't affect control of Assault Suit and "you" on Assault Suit still refers to you, so they can't attack you.


text:
If I mutate onto a creature that will be exiled later, will it still be exiled?
I was wondering if I played Wake to Slaughter and then mutated on top of that card, would the creature still be exiled at the end step?

You will exile the merged creature at the end of turn, losing both the original creature and the mutate card you cast on it.
From the rulings listed here:

The merged creature is the same creature it was before the merge

So mutating it doesn’t have any effect on the delayed triggered ability that was set up.


text:
Can I proliferate counters on a Skullbriar in the graveyard?
So if Skullbriar, the Walking Grave dies with a +1/+1 counter on it; in the graveyard he'd still have it.
So my question is:
Can I proliferate the counters on him while he's still in the graveyard?

No. Proliferate is defined as (CR 701.27a):

To proliferate means to choose any number of permanents and/or players that have a counter, then give each one additional counter of each kind that permanent or player already has.

A card in a graveyard is not a permanent (or a player!) so it cannot be chosen. From CR 110.1:

A permanent is a card or token on the battlefield.

No
Proliferate is defined in rule 701.27a:

To proliferate means to choose any number of permanents and/or players that have a counter, then give each one additional counter of each kind that permanent or player already has.

Permanents are objects on the battlefield, so you cannot proliferate counters on objects in other zones, including the graveyard.


text:
Why don't I get the choice of order of abilities of some permanents to maximise +1/+1 counters?
This is regarding playing MTG:A, with the option "Auto Order Triggered Abilities" turned off.
I have a green deck that utilises counters and multipliers.
Three of the cards in question are:
Branching Evolution - (If one of more +1/+1 counters would be put on a creature you control, twice that many +1/+1 counters are put on it instead)
Hardened Scales - (If one of more +1/+1 counters would be put on a creature you control, that many plus one +1/+1 counters are put on it instead)
Vorinclex, Monstrous Raider - (If you would put one or more counters on a permanent or player, put twice that many of each of those kinds of counters on that permanent or player instead)
Now, I have the option turned on that allows me to select the order that abilities resolve in.
If I do something that involves adding a +1/+1, I get the choice of which order Vorinclex and Branching Evolution resolve in, but, not Hardened scales - which I just can't understand.
For example, if I did something to add a +1/+1 - I would like it to go, Hardened Scales (to go to 2), Branching Evolution (to go to 4), Vorinclex (to go to 8), however, it usually goes Branching Evolution (to go to 2), Vorcinclex (to go to 4), Hardened Scales (to go to 5).
I've been playing MTG on and off for many years and this is something I can't find in the rules and I'm quite confused about.

The effects from Hardened Scales, Branching Evolution and Vorinclex, Monstrous Raider are not triggered abilities; triggered abilities are defined by Comprehensive Rule 603:

603.1. Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as “[When/Whenever/At] [trigger condition or event], [effect]. [Instructions (if any).]”

None of the three effects above meet that pattern so they are not triggered abilities. So what are they? The answer is they are replacement effects, defined by CR 614:

614.1. Some continuous effects are replacement effects. [...]
replacement effects apply continuously as events happen—they aren’t locked in ahead of time. Such effects watch for a particular event that would happen and completely or partially replace that event with a different event. They act like “shields” around whatever they’re affecting.
614.1a Effects that use the word “instead” are replacement effects. Most replacement effects use the word “instead” to indicate what events will be replaced with other events.

This explains why Arena's "Auto Order Triggered Abilities" option has no effect on these. You instead want Arena's "Auto Choose Replacement Effects" option from the same place in the settings; selecting this will allow you to choose the order in which the effects are applied.

Are you saying that if I turn on the auto triggered ability setting, I would still have got the option to select between Branching Evolution and Monstrous Raider? - In any case, thank you and marking as answer! :)

No, "Auto Order Triggered Abilities" has no effect on any of this as none of the cards you mention have a triggered ability.

That's the thing that confused me so much... I do get that popup asking me to select... but as both of them double the counters, it obviously made no difference.... I never had the popup before changing the setting. In any case, both are now off and it is doing what I want. Thank you so much for explaining.

There's no game rules basis for this; this is a game client error.
If you control all three of these permanents and put a +1/+1 counter on something you control, they are all replacement effects applying to that event and you can choose the order of all three.
This is normal behaviour in the paper game: the usual advice is to apply effects like Hardened Scales before doublers.
You should report this to the Arena team.

Or potentially the OP is misunderstanding the Arena interface - in particular, "Auto Choose Replacement Effects" is a different option from "Auto Order Triggered Abilities".

@PhilipKendall Even so, I would expect auto-choosing of replacement effects to know how to maximize counters, since more is almost always better.

@Cadence Arena is massively under-resourced from a development point of view, and I don't think think this interaction has ever really been important from a competitive point of view (especially as its Historic only, and Historic has been even more ignored from a development point of view).

@Cadence That would not only be a much larger development effort than, say, just ordering by timestamp, but also a performance hit on the server that would have to simulate all possible orderings and their consequences on the game state, posing the risk of a combinatorial explosion. And yes, there are always those pesky exceptions where getting more counters is worse.

The applicable game rule in this case is 616, Interaction of Replacement and/or Prevention Effects. (Effects which modify the number of counters another effect puts on a permanent are replacement effects; they replace the original event of putting X counters with a new event of putting Y counters. You can tell they're replacement effects because they use the word "instead".)

616.1. If two or more replacement and/or prevention effects are attempting to modify the way an event affects an object or player, the affected object’s controller (or its owner if it has no controller) or the affected player chooses one to apply, following the steps listed below.

Rules 616.1a through d list replacement effects which must come first: self-replacement (when a card modifies its own text, such as the Cleave keyword), effects that change whose control a card enters under, cards that become copies as they enter, and cards that enter transformed. Since none of these apply, 616.1e allows them to be chosen in any order.

Thanks, however, all three cards say instead... Why is Hardened Scales the only one that is excluded from allowing me to select the order?

All the cards allow you to choose the order, which is why you can get the desired effect if you turn off "Auto Order Replacement Effects". Why it doesn't work by default is because Arena has some heuristics for ordering these things and they happen not to work in this case. If you're playing on MTGO, you always have to manually choose the order of replacement effects, so just be grateful Arena (mostly) gets this right.


text:
What happens when a manifested creature dies?
My opponent made me manifest a Sorcery card using Reality Shift. Later that creature died. Should it stay manifested in the graveyard? Should I put it back in my library instead of the graveyard?

Was the card Reality Shift?

Yes  and the card wasnt a creature it was a sorcery he turned into a 2/2

I have edited the question to ask about the specific mechanic (manifest) used on that card. If it does not capture the original intent of the question, feel free to change it.

As a note for your original wording, being face down does not make a card a token, a token is specifically defined as an object that is not a card.

The manifested card goes to the graveyard face up after it dies.
First, a manifested card is just a face down card. It does not become a token, but there is a placeholder token that can be put on top of it to help remember that it is a manifested creature. It is just a memory aid, and does not actually change anything about the creature.
If a permanent dies, it goes to the graveyard. This isn't different for face down permanents. Cards can only be face up in the graveyard, so the manifested card turns face up as it goes to the graveyard.


text:
Does a creature's enters the battlefield ability trigger if the creature is exiled in response?
I was playing commander and played Cultivator Colossus which says:

Cultivator Colossus's power and toughness are each equal to the number of lands you control.
When Cultivator Colossus enters the battlefield, you may put a land card from your hand onto the battlefield tapped. If you do, draw a card and repeat this process.

And as a response Vanishing Verse was played and that cards says:

Exile target monocolored permanent.

The issue is that we don't know if the ability that says "when creature enters the battlefield" activates or not. Any help on this issue would be great.

I don't think so because the main difference is that for that post the triggered ability is due to tapping while in this case the ability triggers naturally. That was actually the question we looked at before asking this question I'd say that question answers this question partially but not fully.

@PandasINC The linked question isn't a triggered ability, it's an activated ability, however the rule that covers them is the same, removing the source after the ability is on stack does not stop the ability from resolving (and the ability goes on stack once it's triggered before they can cast spells in response to ETB)

If you cast cultivator colossus, and your opponent wants to use vanishing verse, they have to let the cultivator colossus resolve (and thus enter the battlefield) in order to stop being a "spell" and start being a "permanent".
Then we get into what Accumulation said; the ability is triggered, so if Cultivator Colossus is gone, the effect is already on the stack and isn't affected by its source being removed from the battlefield.

ETB effects are triggered abilities. When the permanent enters the battlefield, the effect is put on the stack. The source of an effect being removed from the battlefield doesn't affect that effect, so you will still be able to put lands onto the battlefield.

113.7a Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source.
Destruction or removal of the source after that time won’t affect the ability.


text:
Remove counters from creature after an effect like fling
Let's say I have a 3/3 creature with two +1/+1 counters in it making it a  5/5. I then use an ability or spell like Fling that sacrifices a creature to deal damage equal to the sacrificed creatures power. Can I then use Ooze Flux to remove the counters from the sacrificed creature to create my Ooze token? And if I can would Fling continue to do 5 damage or would it be reduced to 3?

Related: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/39633/can-a-flung-creature-that-is-destroyed-still-deal-damage

No, you cannot do that.
Sacrificing the creature is a cost to cast Fling. Casting a spell includes paying its costs, so once you have finished casting it, by the time you can do anything in response, the creature is already dead.

Using an effect like Ooze Flux you have two options:

Remove the counters before casting fling - thus doing less damage.
Fling with the counters still on - thus unable to move the counters.

Since sacrificing the creature is a cost to cast fling, there's no point where fling is on the stack, the damage it will do has been calculated, and the creature is still on the battlefield to be interacted with.
There are other ways to "save" those counters however - if you are flinging a creature with the Modular keyword, the creature will still have the counters for the purposes of Fling, but the counters will "move" when it dies because of the effect of Modular, or with a card like The Ozolith which sees the creature having counters when it died and "moves" them onto itself.
Note, I use quotes around "save" and "move" because MtG doesn't really move counters between permanents much anymore - new counters are placed on the other permanent, this means that having both Modular and The Ozolith can allow you to get twice as many counters as the creature had before.


text:
Is there a standard definition of "optimal losing strategy" in games with a winning strategy; Chess, Connect 4, etc?
I'm thinking about sequential, rules-based games where both players have perfect information about each other and what moves they'll be able to make (such as Chess, Connect 4, tic-tack-toe, Nim, etc.).
In such games, it is typical that either one player has a winning strategy (or a strategy to draw). This leads to a position in the game being declared "winnable" or "unwinnable".
I've been reading about the solutions to such games. Connect 4 is an example of a solved game, whereas Chess and Go are not solved yet.

The problem is that, while for the player in the winnable position some strategies can be said to be strictly better than others, for the player who isn't in the winning position, this makes no sense. The definition cannot be used for that player since there are no good moves that they can make.

It is common in this subject to hear things like: "if both players play with their optimal strategy, here is how the game will end up". Like in Numberphile's YouTube video about Connect 4 for example (I suggest you watch it, but anyways), how can they compare strategies for losing player? From a strict perspective their moves don't matter, but it if you're playing Connect 4 against a fellow human than A) you typically don't know which player has the advantage and B) it's idiotic to resign on move 1 just because you are the second player - if your playing against a human you could still win. The concept of winning strategy becomes totally irrelevant in games where you don't know if you're winning or not; if you're probably losing, then perhaps you should make moves to throw off you're opponent, or to survive as long as possible. But the point is that to play "optimally" in such games you must know whether you're winning or losing (which again as humans neither us nor our opponents tend not to know), because they have possibly separate objectives. It would be better imo if the best moves in any position (winning or losing) could fall under the same definition too, but that's a bonus I suppose.

What are these objectives? What are some of the ways in which optimal strategies are defined for losing players?

Many algorithms prefer moves that win more quickly or that lose more slowly. Delaying the inevitable loss is certainly how computers play chess once the outcome (with perfect play) is known (likewise choosing mate-in-3 over mate-in-5 moves). But those are just artificial/spurious goals placed into the game by the programmers. They don't reflect the reality of the game: a win in any number of moves is equally good as any other win. Likewise a loss is a loss no matter how delayed.

Well, there'd definitely be optimal losing strategies for a misere game where you win if you lose.

I think you might get some traction asking a similar question over on the math stack exchange. At its heart, I think this is an applied game theory question

This reminds me of a learning AI that learned to play Tetris.  The developers gave it access to all of the same controls a human player would have, and let if find the best solution.  The AI quickly learned when it became unable to score more points that it could pause the game thus preventing it from ever losing.  This particular Optimal Losing Strategy is called a Rage Quit and is the optimal solution for not loosing in most games.

Maximising the number of turns until the loss occurs is a common one.
Chess endgame tablebases often use "distance to zeroing" – the number of turns until either a reset of the count towards the fifty-move rule (that is, a capture or a pawn move) or the end of the game. This can be thought of as optimising for how close to being a draw in that way the game gets. It is useful because under this criterion, the optimal move does not depend on the existing count towards the fifty-move rule.

This is mostly just intuition, but it might be helpful. The "winnable" and "unwinnable" position definitions are based on the assumption that the player in the winnable position always makes a move that puts the other player in an unwinnable position. But, if you do not assume a priori that either player plays optimally, then you have to consider all of the possible moves in a winnable position, not just the best move.
For simplicity, I'll define a "winning" move as one that puts the opponent in an unwinnable position.
That gives us a way to compare winnable positions: one winnable position is better than another winnable position if a greater proportion of the available moves are winning moves. So, you could say that the optimal move in any "unwinnable" position is the move that puts the opponent in the worst available winnable position, i.e. maximizing the opponent's opportunity to blunder away the win.
We can easily generalize that to both players: the optimal move in any position is the one that gives the opponent the smallest proportion of winning moves out of all of their available moves. By definition, the winning player always has at least one move that gives the opponent zero winning moves, and those are exactly the optimal moves under the existing definition.

If you have or can calculate a probability distribution over the opponent's moves, you can alternatively define optimal play as maximizing the probability of ever being in a winnable position, which can be calculated by recursively evaluating every subtree for every possible move. This again lines up with the existing optimal move definition: if a player is already in a winnable position, a winning move puts them in another winnable position with probability 1.

This analysis is pretty much the only thing I could come up with as well, but I wasn't happy with it because it assumes all moves by the opponent are equally likely; in reality, that's not going to be the case - I think you'll actually win more from a losing position by setting a "trap" which is sprung in 3 moves time than a blatant threat which is trivial to counter. For example, playing a third piece into a line in Connect 4 gives the opponent only 1 in 7 moves which are winning, but given an even reasonably competent opponent they're going to block that.

@PhilipKendall, yes, you need to meta-analyse the opponent, to figure out how likely they're going to find the correct move in each situation and then play the one they're most likely to miss. Of course, depending on the game and the situation, that might well be different for different opponents...

The "optimal" in "optimal losing strategy" precludes the "if you do not assume a priori that either player plays optimally" conjecture (aka "hope chess").

@PhilipKendall I added another section to address variable probability moves and analysis of multi-move lines of play.

@L.ScottJohnson I don't understand the point you are raising here. Can you elaborate?

@murgatroid99 The question explicitly says "optimal play". This answer hangs its hopes on non-optimal play.

If the player in the winning position plays optimally, the other player can never possibly win, so the whole exercise is pointless. That's the issue raised in the question that I'm trying to address. I never said to assume that either player plays badly, or even that they don't play optimally. You just have to allow for the possibility that a player can ever make a mistake for the other player to even potentially have the opportunity to win in what would otherwise be a losing position.

The statement "do not assume a priori that either player plays optimally" is exactly that: the OP says to assume both players play optimally. Your answer says not to.

An answer can challenge the premise of the question, and I believe that in this case, doing so by presenting that alternate assumption is a useful way to answer the question.

Or, without any probability distribution on the opponent's moves, you can go with the first idea but try to push the position into branches of the gametree where long-term there will be only a small proportion of opponent moves that can maintain the theoretical result. This precludes something like a 1-move trap because often if the opponent doesn't fall for it then play is simpler after that (consider how in chess, if you capture a piece, there is often only one good response - recapture - and with fewer pieces, draw / comeback chances drop).

I'm curious, though, whether any of the ideas in this excellent answer have actually been implemented or are used in practice by any agents/engines for any game. Or indeed whether they've even been suggested or discussed in any mathematical/game-theoretic research or papers.

The definition of "optimal" varies from game to game, but I see similarities in definitions across different game types. Generally speaking, "optimal" play is taking a game action that maximizes the likelihood of victory in the given situation, with the resource available. As you have noticed, in games that mix luck and skill (like Magic, poker, backgammon) optimal plays give you more opportunities ("outs") to get lucky and win, while simultaneous reducing the number of ways you can get unlucky and lose.
So how does this translate to a purely deterministic game like chess? The fact that people do not play perfectly at all times allows for some moves in "lost" positions to be better than other moves. Moves that require your opponent to play more perfectly are optimal. Or put another way, optimal play makes it harder and more tedious for you opponent to win from the current position, even if the current position is a losing position. It's easier to get "lucky" if your moves offer more opportunities for your opponent to make a mistake. Or if you examine a search tree, there will be a higher proportion of "bad decision" for your opponent to make.
For any chess players, this analogy will make a lot of sense. It is widely known that certain endgames are a force win with perfect play. King and Rook (KR) vs King is an easy win for the side with rook. King, Knight, Bishop (KNB) vs King is a harder to execute forced win. That is, the percentage of players who can for checkmate with KR is much higher than the percentage who can for KNB. So if you find yourself in a situation where you have a choice between playing a move that turns the endgame into either KR or KNB, you should choose the move that lets you defend the KNB endgame.

"optimal" in perfect information games is well-defined (note the CGT tag), and has nothing to do with hoping the other player plays sub-optimally. When not considering optimal play, then yeah, players (especially human players) may choose to play some moves over others in the hopes that this gives rise to error (aka "hope chess").

This question can only have a defined solution with reference to a particular fault injection model to be applied to the move selection algorithm of the player in the won position. The way to optimize against a perfect player who has a 1% chance of moving at random instead is very different from the way to optimize against a perfect player who has a 1% chance of making the second-best move instead.
I think that latter case is more interesting, so here's an attempt at a definition with respect to fault-injection models that worsen play without throwing out the baseline evaluation entirely:
Optimal play from a losing position is the move that maximizes the value of the highest-value losing move the opponent could make in response.


text:
Chances of getting a card in Commander
I have four different tutors in my Commander deck of 100 cards.  What are the odds that I will draw at least one of them in my first seven cards drawn for my hand?  Back in the day I knew how to do this, but haven't touched statistics in many years.

The easy method is to multiply the probability that each of your starting 7 isn't one of the cards you want, then subtract that total from 1.
Assuming you desire any of the tutors, or the card to be tutored, there are 94 cards that aren't what you want out of the 99 in your deck when you start drawing.
1 - ((94/99) * (93/98) * (92/97) * (91/96) * (90/95) * (89/94) * (88/93))
= 31%

I think that including "the card to be tutored" here is not valid. The value of a tutor in many deck is that it can be used reactively to get whatever card fits the situation best. So in many cases, there isn't a specific "card to be tutored" at all at the start of the game.

I think you are right bout the "card to be tutored", as I don't think I know on turn one what I need.  But an approximation is all I was looking for.  So 31% is a good thing to know.  Thanks.

You can change the formula to count only the 4 tutors just by increasing the numerator of each fraction by 1. In that case, it works out to about 26%.


text:
Can Tawnos, Urza's Apprentice be used to name two cards for Phyrexian Revoker? Or for Stuffy Doll?
I have Tawnos, Urza's Apprentice as my commander for a deck I'm building. And looking over Phyrexian Revoker I wondered if I could copy its ability and name a second card as it comes down to lock down 2 potential threats. And since Stuffy Doll is written the same way, Could you name 2 players and have them both linked to Stuffy Doll?

No, that does not work. Those abilities are not activated or triggered abilities, so Tawnos can't copy them.
Phyrexian Revoker and Stuffy Doll have abilities that start with

As [card name] enters the battlefield...

These are replacement effects, as specified in rule 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.

Tawnos's ability's effect says

Copy target activated or triggered ability...

So it doesn't copy replacement effects. Replacement effects do not go on the stack, so other cards can't copy them either except by copying the whole creature.

Besides them not being classified as "triggered" as murgatroid99 points out, there would still be

607.2d If an object has an ability printed on it that causes a player to “choose a [value]” and an
ability printed on it that refers to “the chosen [value],” “the last chosen [value],” or similar,
those abilities are linked. The second ability refers only to a choice made as a result of the first
ability

So even if you were able to copy the ETB ability, doing so wouldn't do any good; the static ability would refer only to the last chosen value (since the stack is resolved in reverse order, that means that whichever choice you made with the first copy that you put on the stack would control the static ability).

In situations with some other kinds of linked abilities that can be copied, the results of all of those copies can be used (607.3). As a result I think it's not really reasonable to say that linked ability rules like the one you quote necessarily mean that only one choice is used. It would be more accurate to say that the rules do not explicitly address what happens when you make multiple choices, because that is never possible.

That's not actually how that reads - there are some abilities that let you change what the chosen linked ability is, those specify they only work on the last chosen one, like Sanctuary Blade (changes when equipped) or Mystic Barrier (changes each turn). While there is no real way to choose multiple values for these replacement effects, that rule wouldn't stop multiple ones from working if you could.

@Andrew What isn't how what reads? How is my answer wrong?

I think they're saying that "[the interpretation in your last paragraph] isn't how [the rule you quoted] reads". They reference two cards that use the wording "the last chosen [color/direction]" to explicitly only use one choice, in contrast with the cards referenced in the question, which do not use that wording. If we assume that the "last chosen" wording is functionally significant, it's reasonable to conclude that without that wording, other cards might not only use the last chosen value by default.

exactly what @murgatroid99 said, the word "last" is functionally significant, if it were possible to choose multiple cards with Revoker or players with Stuffy Doll, they don't include the word "last" in their text. There is no specific rule to handle this situation, because it's impossible to happen with all current cards and rules.


text:
Emerge cost reduction interaction
If I were to sacrifice Warden of Evos Isle as part of the Emerge cost of Wretched Gryff, would its cost be 1U?

Yes, it would cost 1U.
First, when casting a spell, you choose modes and cost.  In this case, it's the alternative cost by casting it with Emerge (5U).  But, since it's a spell with flying, that cost is reduced by {1} down to 4U.
Then, you pay the costs of the spell. The cost is set at 4U, so by sacrificing the Warden, you're left with 1U remaining to be paid.
The rules actually have an example in 601.2h:

Example: You cast Altar’s Reap, which costs {1}{B} and has an additional cost of sacrificing a creature. You sacrifice Thunderscape Familiar, whose effect makes your black spells cost {1} less to cast. Because a spell’s total cost is “locked in” before payments are actually made, you pay {B}, not {1}{B}, even though you’re sacrificing the Familiar.

This answer to a different question shows how you can set costs before actually paying.

This makes sense, I didn't think of costs being "locked in" before payments are made prior to seeing this.

@MervYEEEEAOUGH Yeah, there are a lot of things you "just do" when playing that are actually laid out in an orderly fashion.

There's a ruling on the Gatherer page for Wretched Gryff (I assume, all creatures with Emerge) that starts: "The creature chosen to be sacrificed is still on the battlefield up through the time that you activate mana abilities. Its abilities may affect the spell’s cost,..." (my emphasis)

Did that mean that the cost reduction from the sacrificed creature technically happens before the creature is sacrificed?

@ArcanistLupus Yes, since you calculate costs, then you pay them.


text:
Does Ranar the Ever-Watchful's last ability trigger if he is exiled?
I have bought a commander deck for Kaldheim (Ranar the Ever-Watchful). I'm confused about Ranar's ability:

Whenever a spell or ability you control exiles one or more cards from your hand and/or permanents from the battlefield, create a 1/1 white Spirit creature token with flying.

If I exile Ranar which is the one with the ability? Do I still get that spirit token or do I have to exile another creature?

Yes, Ranar's ability will trigger if he is exiled.
Ranar's ability can trigger when objects leave the battlefield, so it is a "leaves-the-battlefield" ability, which are defined in rule 603.6c:

Leaves-the-battlefield abilities trigger when a permanent moves from the battlefield to another zone, or when a phased-in permanent leaves the game because its owner leaves the game. These are written as, but aren’t limited to, “When [this object] leaves the battlefield, . . .” or “Whenever [something] is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, . . . .” (See also rule 603.10.) An ability that attempts to do something to the card that left the battlefield checks for it only in the first zone that it went to. An ability that triggers when a card is put into a certain zone “from anywhere” is never treated as a leaves-the-battlefield ability, even if an object is put into that zone from the battlefield.

As a result, rule 603.10 applies:

Normally, objects that exist immediately after an event are checked to see if the event matched any trigger conditions, and continuous effects that exist at that time are used to determine what the trigger conditions are and what the objects involved in the event look like. However, some triggered abilities are exceptions to this rule; the game “looks back in time” to determine if those abilities trigger, using the existence of those abilities and the appearance of objects immediately prior to the event. The list of exceptions is as follows:

603.10a Some zone-change triggers look back in time. These are leaves-the-battlefield abilities, abilities that trigger when a card leaves a graveyard, and abilities that trigger when an object that all players can see is put into a hand or library.

When you exile Ranar, the game "looks back in time" to before he was exiled to check what abilities trigger. Since his ability existed at that time, it triggers from that event.


text:
Does Abandoned Sarcophagus exile Rebuild if I cast it?
I have recently built a cycling commander deck and have a question about an interaction between Abandoned Sarcophagus and Rebuild. If I have Abandoned Sarcophagus on the battlefield and cast Rebuild, is Rebuild exiled from Abandoned Sarcophagus's ability or does Abandoned Sarcophagus's ability not apply because the Abandoned Sarcophagus has been returned to my hand?

Rebuild will go to the graveyard, not exile, because the Abandoned Sarcophagus has already been returned to your hand.
The most important thing to note here is that Abandoned Sarcophagus's second ability is a replacement effect. You can tell because it uses the word "instead" [CR 614.1a]. This means that it applies at the time that the event it replaces occurs. In this case, that event is Rebuild going to the graveyard. By the time Rebuild finishes resolving and goes to the graveyard, it has already returned Abandoned Sarcophagus to your hand, so that replacement effect no longer exists and it no longer moves the Rebuild to exile.

608.2m As the final part of an instant or sorcery spell’s resolution, the spell is put into its owner’s graveyard. As the final part of an ability’s resolution, the ability is removed from the stack and ceases to exist.

So, here's the order:

You cast Rebuild.
When Rebuild resolves, you first perform the text of the card: "Return all artifacts to their owners' hands."
As the final step of resolving Rebuild, you put the card into your graveyard. At this point, Abandoned Sarcophagus is not on the battlefield anymore, so its ability does not apply.

You fully perform the action of returning artifacts to owners' hands before performing the action of putting Abandoned Sarcophagus in your graveyard.


text:
What's the golgari stance on an "earth god" like Gaia?
From my understanding of Golgari philosophy Gaia would at least not be a problem/conflict. But in fact be a great symbol for what they believe in in the first place.
Reasoning: Things living and dying is part just part of Gaia's existence. Like the metabolism of god.
Is there any canon material on this topic?

The first issue is planes are all separate, and each plane has it's own beliefs, systems, and in many cases actual godly figures and gods. So while Gaia, spelled as Gaea within magic cards such as Gaea's Cradle, does exist within the planes of blind eternities, she exists tied to the plane of Dominaria and doesn't actually exist on Ravnica. The closest thing to it as far as a spirit of the plane itself is Soul of Ravnica.
As for the idea of what a godess like Gaea would represent, there would be no conflict there with the Golgari - Gaea represents the natural world, including the cycle of life and death, something which is actually pretty core to the Golgari.
This is based mostly on my own understanding of this though, as again, Gaea does not exist as far as Ravnica is concerned.

Ravnica’s Worldsoul
Ravnica does actually have a “Gaia” type entity but sadly they are sometimes at odds with it. Mat'Selesnya the voice and song behind the Selesnya Guild is Ravnica’s Worldsoul. This fact is not directly referenced in the cards themselves but the best representation would be: Song of the Worldsoul
It is more directly referred to as the world soul in the original Ravnica Trilogy novels**, in the Return to Ravnica/Dragon’s Maze Story, hinted at in War of the Spark when Nissa ‘spoke’ to Mat'Selesnya, and further reinforced through several short stories and even in Dack Fayden’s comics.
** Return to Ravnica does have six~ish cards which mention it but they are kind of cryptic without further context.
** The original Ravnica novels predate the term Worldsoul, describing her originally as "the very Heart and Soul of Ravnica itself" But she got a title change shortly after Alara.
How the Golgari Deal with “Gaia”
With difficulty. Mat'Selesnya was stated to be a more intune with nature in the past as the Gruul Clans also recall a time when they revered her amongst their pantheon. However in moderns time Ms. Selesnya is more focused on not just it’s people being harmonious but also how manufactured stone and concrete blends with natural trees and life. This is a point of view the Gruul are not in favor of, and truth be told the Golgari don’t really care for either. This implies that as the world-city-Ravnica grew and grew it changed the very nature of the Worldsoul itself, it’s people changing it’s point of view.
The novels Ravnica (novel), Dissension (novel), and The Gathering Storm (Online Story), show that the Golgori actually get along with the Selesnyains more than any of the other guilds. In some rare cases the Elves even have cross-guild children with each other. What is really keeping the two guilds from merging is the fact that while the Golgori believe the Selesnyas are doing "the right thing", they also think they are too soft. Which is where most of their guild conflicts come from. In addition many of the subfactions within the Golgori prefer there to be a Ranking Hierarchy so they can scheme and plot for more power. Something Golgori leaders have openly admitted in the past, and a structure is something the Selesnyas lack.
The Soul of…
The “Soul of..” cards are a bane to my existence as they constantly confuse people.
As stated bluntly by a snarky Mr. Rosewater. Here:
https://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/186943031108/mark-since-we-were-talking-about-the-soul-cycle
Ravnica’s Worldsoul (Mat'Selesnya) is not the same thing as the “Soul of Ravnica”
To further drive this home:
https://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/105672907948/i-remember-that-you-once-described-theros-as-being
The design team intentionally used "incorrect colors" for some of the Souls Of (Theros vs Zendikar in this example) so they could complete the color cycle. Keep in mind the main focus for the Soul Of cards were the play pattern for the Draft format first, lore came secondary- Although truly lore not at all because there is no lore associated with this cycle of cards, not even flavor text.
Other
It should be noted that many of the other Ravnican guilds are dubious or out right disbelieve that Mat'Selesnya is the Worldsoul or "God of Ravnica" because it’s teaching clashes with their own beliefs. The Golgori for the most part know exactly who she is, and choose to only partly follow her, in their own way.
The Primal Gruul nature Gods (Mentioned in Guildpact Novel, and RtR Stories) were finally shown creditability with Ilharg, the Raze-Boar showing that there are other nature gods out there, but only one confirmed at the moment. To date the Golgori have no comment on them.
Of note: The parallel between Gaia and Mat'Selesnya is actually pretty strong since in recent years with the The Brothers' War online stories the Dominaria’s Worldsoul was confirmed to be Gaia (or Gaea). Although that has add some contractions to older lore, so don’t dig too deep into that.


text:
How does Myrkul, Lord of Bones interact with Feign Death
Myrkul, Lord of Bones says:

Whenever another nontoken creature you control dies, you may exile it. If you do, create a token that's a copy of that card, except it's an enchantment and loses all other card types.

Feign Death says:

Until end of turn, target creature gains "When this creature dies, return it to the battlefield tapped under its owner's control with a +1/+1 counter on it."

If I have a creature on the battlefield, and I target that creature with Feign Death, then it dies, can I target it with Myrkul? If I do, what happens? Options I can see:

The Feign Death spell fizzles and I get the enchantment token.
The Myrkul trigger fizzles and I get the creature back from feign death.
The creature is exiled instead of sent to the graveyard, then returns from feign death and also gives the enchantment token from Myrkle.
Somehow, neither work.
I simply cannot target the creature with Myrkul.

Which of these would happen?

You can get exactly one of the effects. You choose which one you get.
First, both of these effects are triggered abilities. When the specified event happens, in this case when the creature dies, the abilities trigger and then are put on the stack. You choose the order they go on the stack, and that determines the order they resolve in. Once the first one resolves the other one doesn't work, so that is how you choose which effect to get.
You can also put Myrkul's ability on top of the stack and then choose not to exile the card as the ability resolves. Then Feign Death's ability will work. This is the same outcome as putting Feign Death's ability on top of the stack.

Rule 603.3b is the one that says that you choose the order of the abilities:

If multiple abilities have triggered since the last time a player received priority, the abilities are placed on the stack in a two-part process. First, each player, in APNAP order, puts each triggered ability they control with a trigger condition that isn’t another ability triggering on the stack in any order they choose. (See rule 101.4.) Second, each player, in APNAP order, puts all remaining triggered abilities they control on the stack in any order they choose. Then the game once again checks for and performs 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.

The main reason that only the first ability to resolve works is rule 400.7b and 400.7d:

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. There are nine exceptions to this rule:

[...]
400.7d Abilities that trigger when an object moves from one zone to another (for example, “When Rancor is put into a graveyard from the battlefield”) can find the new object that it became in the zone it moved to when the ability triggered, if that zone is a public zone.

Each ability triggers when the creature dies (moves from the battlefield to the graveyard), so they can find the card in the graveyard. But each ability also moves the card out of the graveyard into another zone, so the other ability can't find and act on the card in whichever new zone it moves to.


text:
If my creature is temporarily under my opponents control, and it dies, do they get the ‘when this creature dies’ effect or do I?
If my opponent takes control of my creature with Act of Treason, or a similar spell, and the creature they take control dies, do I control the when this creature dies effects, or does my opponent?
For example, my opponent takes control of my Roalesk, Apex Hybrid, with an act of treason, then kills it, does he get to proliferate twice or do I?

Whoever controls a creature when it dies controls the triggered abilities that creature has that happen when it dies, just like any other triggered ability. Like most abilities that involve a creature dying, the game looks at the last known information for that creature while it was on the battlefield, in this case it cares about who controlled that creature when the ability triggered, not who's graveyard it goes into.
To answer the specific question, since your opponent controlled it when Roalesk died, your opponent will get to proliferate twice.


text:
What happens to permanents modified by effects like Chance for Glory that change their card type?
For instance, Chance for Glory grants creatures indefinite indestructibility. What if said creature was a temporarily animated artifact, land, or enchantment that then loses the creature card type at a later time?
I can see arguments for both versions: since they were an eligible target their text has been modified and they don't lose the indestructibility since it's just on the permanent, at the same time, chance for glory does specifically say creatures are granted indestructibility, really not sure about this one.

They will still be indestructible. This is because granting indestructible is a continuous effect that happens as part of Chance for Glory resolving, and the set of objects affected is determined at that time. Once the creature has been granted indestructible, there is nothing that would cause it to lose that just because it changes types.
Note that this is different than a static ability such as Eldrazi Monument. In that case, it only affects creatures, and anything that stops being a creature would stop being affected.

611.2c If a continuous effect generated by the resolution of a spell or ability modifies the characteristics or changes the controller of any objects, the set of objects it affects is determined when that continuous effect begins. After that point, the set won’t change. (Note that this works differently than a continuous effect from a static ability.)