text:
Does killing a creature mana source that's being tapped for mana to pay for a spell counter that spell?
If an opponent is using an Avacyn Pilgrim (and three forests) to cast a Cudgel Troll, and I Lightning Bolt the monk, does that counter the Troll being cast?
Would the same be true for a Loxodon Smiter?

Mana abilities are stupidly fast:

605.3b An activated mana ability doesn't go on the stack, so it can't be targeted, countered, or otherwise responded to. Rather, it resolves immediately after it is activated. (See rule 405.6c.)

http://mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/Mana_Abilities
So, you can't do anything after the Pilgrim is tapped to stop the mana being generated.

Once your opponent is casting a spell, that's the only thing that's going on. (There are plenty of steps to the process, including activating mana abilities and paying costs, but it's all things that are part of casting the spell.) You have no chance to interrupt with a spell of your own. And if you cast Lightning Bolt on their Avacyn's Pilgrim at some point when you get priority before they're doing anything, they can always tap it in response for mana. So you can't stop them from getting mana, and it doesn't matter what they intend to do with that mana.
The only way you can reasonably do something like this to stop them from casting a spell is to kill the Pilgrim before they are actually able to cast that spell. For example, if you think they might want to cast a non-instant spell, you could kill the Pilgrim before they reach their main phase, perhaps on your own turn or during their upkeep, when they can't cast it. But this doesn't counter a spell, it just hopefully keeps your opponent from having an opportunity to cast it.
As Dragon has pointed out, mana abilities resolve immediately, without using the stack, so even if your opponent for some reason wanted to give priority to you after activating the ability, rather than just using the mana, they'd still have the mana floating in their mana pool.

Now, while Avacyn's Pilgrim's ability is a mana ability and thus can't be stopped from resolving, there are ways to produce mana besides mana abilities, and those can potentially be stopped. For an ability to be a mana ability, it has to meet a few criteria:

it does not have a target
it could produce mana
it's not a loyalty ability.

So for example, Xenagos, the Reveler's +1 loyalty ability is not a mana ability: it can produce mana, but it's a loyalty ability. It uses the stack, and you'll get a chance to respond. You could kill one of your opponent's creatures in order to reduce the amount of mana it produces. However, killing Xenagos wouldn't do anything about it; the ability exists independently and will still resolve and produce mana.
Similarly, Deathrite Shaman's first ability is not a mana ability: it can produce mana, but it has a target (a land card in a graveyard). If in response you exile that land card, the ability no longer has a legal target and it will be countered by the rules of the game, leaving your opponent without the mana. However, like with Xenagos, killing the Shaman won't stop the ability.
But of course, most things that produce mana are mana abilities, so there's no way to stop them.

Nitpick: Actually, that's not quite accurate - some spells CAN be cast at any time; they are called interrupts. For example: Counterspell. Also, triggered abilities could be triggered at any time. Finally, and I'm not sure if I remember this right, I think you might be able to play an instant after land is tapped for mana, but before that mana is spent to cast a spell.

Interrupt has not been a spell type since sixth edition...

Triggered abilities can be triggered at any time, but they will not resolve until you get priority, which is after the stack resolves. Your last point about being able to cast an instant after tapping but before the mana is spent is not really relevant to the conversation. The fact is the mana is still in the mana pool so killing the creature does not get rid of the mana.

@Pow-Ian: Does this what you are saying conflict with rule 605.3b  cited by Dragon, or do I just missunderstand what you are saying?

@Zaibis, I think you misunderstand; I was trying to reaffirm that rule. Since mana abilities do not use the stack, they resolve immediately and the mana is put into the mana pool for that phase.

@Benubird In addition to what Pow-Ian said, if a mana ability is being activated as part of casting a spell, there is definitely no chance to do anything but finish casting that spell.

@Jefromi that isn't true - they may float mana in their pool and do many things before using that mana, if they want to. We just usually don't.

@corsiKa The key part is "if a mana ability is being activated as part of casting a spell". Yes, if they've activated the mana ability outside that, all kinds of things could be happening. But unless your opponent explicitly does something like that, you have to assume you're not getting priority in the middle of them tapping lands and playing a spell.

Ooo yes you're absolutely right! I missed that part. You betchya. If you've announced a spell, no one is doing anything until you cast it.

Mana abilities resolve immediately.

605.3b An activated mana ability doesn’t go on the stack, so it can’t be targeted, countered, or otherwise responded to. Rather, it resolves immediately after it is activated.

Instant spells do not resolve immediately. You have to give your opponent a chance to respond first. (This is covered by rules on timing and priority, which are more complex than this question calls for.)
There are two ways that the situation you described could happen.
Situation A
You begin with priority.

You cast Lightning Bolt targeting Pilgrim
Your opponent activates Pilgrim for mana
Lightning Bolt resolves
Your opponent uses the mana to cast Troll

Situation B
Your opponent begins with priority.

Your opponent activates Pilgrim for mana
Your opponent uses the mana to cast Troll
You cast Lightning Bolt targeting Pilgrim
Lightning Bolt resolves, targeting Pilgrim

Although the order of events changes a little, the end result is the same. It is simply not possible for you to prevent your opponent from activating the Pilgrim. Your opponent will always have a chance to respond to your Lightning Bolt.
Side note: Depriving your opponent of mana (for example, with a card like Mana Short) does not counter a spell. It simply prevents them from casting it in the first place.


text:
How do Mistform Dreamer and Conspiracy interact?
I actually have two questions concerning Conspiracy:

If I put the enchantment Conspiracy onto my battlefield, and choose "Wall" for creature type, will all my creatures automatically become "defenders" since walls can't attack?

If I have a Mistform Dreamer on the battlefield, and play Conspiracy (and choose Wall for creature type), will the Mistform Dreamer activated ability be able to overwrite Conspiracy's effect, or will the Mistform Dreamer just get an additional creature type besides being a Wall? Or will Conspiracy overwrite Mistform Dreamer activated ability thus making it a Wall only?"

1) No; in fact, the creature subtype 'Wall' has long since lost any rules weight, and there's no reason that Walls can't attack other than that they have (either through print or via errata) the 'defender' ability: if a Wall were printed without defender, then it would be able to attack just like any other creature.  This is confirmed in the rulings you can find on the Gatherer page for Conspiracy:

8/1/2005  If you choose Wall, then your creatures can still attack because
  creature types don't confer abilities such as defender (any more than,
  say, choosing creature type Bird would confer flying).

2) This becomes a bit more complicated.  The key notion is the concept of timestamping; you can find the specific details in section 613.6 of the comprehensive rules, but the key pieces are these:

613.6. Within a layer or sublayer, determining which order effects are applied in is usually done using a timestamp system. An effect with an
  earlier timestamp is applied before an effect with a later timestamp.
613.6a A continuous effect generated by a static ability has the same timestamp as the object the static ability is on, or the timestamp of
  the effect that created the ability, whichever is later.
613.6b A continuous effect generated by the resolution of a spell or ability receives a timestamp at the time it’s created.

Because the effect generated by the resolution of Mistform Dreamer's ability to set its creature type is 'newer' than the effect generated by Conspiracy, the subtype change from Conspiracy is applied first, then the subtype change from the Dreamer's own ability, leaving the Mistform Dreamer as whatever subtype you set it with its own ability.  But note that this effect will wear off at EOT when the ability is cleaned up, and whenever you haven't activated Mistform Dreamer's ability in a turn, it will be whatever creature type Conspiracy is set to.

I think i got it now. In fact your answer was what I was leaning towards myself. Regarding my first question I was i doubt, since reading the text on "Mistform Ultimus" said, that even though MU is every creature type, it can still attack as if it wasn't a wall. The text on MD did not have that wording wich lead to my question.

@JacobLund This is true of the original version, because when MU was printed Wall did still have a rules meaning.  The official wording of MU, though, is the one that's seen on the timeshifted reprint in Time Spiral (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=111062) and you can see that it doesn't include that text.  In general, I heartily encourage checking Gatherer for the current wording of any card (the so-called Oracle wording: see http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/6349/ ) whenever you have a question about how that card works.

Question 1. No. from the ruling on gatherer:

8/1/2005  If you choose Wall, then your creatures can still attack
  because creature types don't confer abilities such as defender (any
  more than, say, choosing creature type Bird would confer flying).

Question  2. Mistform Dreamer's ability will 'overrwrite' the effect of Conspiracy (rule 613:  Interaction of Continuous Effects, specifically 613.2 which instructs you to 'apply effects in timestamp order')

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What happens if Saheeli, Sublime Artificer's target is removed?
Suppose my opponent has Saheeli, Sublime Artificer, a Servo token, and another creature in play, and uses her ability to make the Servo a copy of the creature. In response to the ability going on the stack, I cast Murder on the other creature. Does the Servo still become a copy of that creature when Saheeli's ability resolves?

The ability will resolve, but it will fail to do anything:

Resolving Spells and Abilities

608.2b If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. A target that’s no longer in the zone it was in when it was targeted is illegal. Other changes to the game state may cause a target to no longer be legal; for example, its characteristics may have changed or an effect may have changed the text of the spell. If the source of an ability has left the zone it was in, its last known information is used during this process. If all its targets, for every instance of the word “target,” are now illegal, the spell or ability doesn’t resolve. It’s removed from the stack and, if it’s a spell, put into its owner’s graveyard. Otherwise, the spell or ability will resolve normally. Illegal targets, if any, won’t be affected by parts of a resolving spell’s effect for which they’re illegal. Other parts of the effect for which those targets are not illegal may still affect them. If the spell or ability creates any continuous effects that affect game rules (see rule 613.10), those effects don’t apply to illegal targets. If part of the effect requires information about an illegal target, it fails to determine any such information. Any part of the effect that requires that information won’t happen.

So the information for the copy effect will be missing, and that effect will not happen.  The Servo will still be a Servo.

Interesting... looks like my answer is wrong, but I want to understand specifically why 608.2g does not apply in this case. Does 608.2g only work for objects that are not targets?

@Gendolkari, It's not that surprising. Targets already get special treatment in a number of other similar aspects.

@GendoIkari Yes, I read it like the text in 608.2b is an exception to 608.2g that applies to targets specifically.

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


text:
Will an object trigger if the source is sacrificed to pay a cost?
Will "When/Whenever Foo" trigger if the source is sacrificed to pay a cost for Foo?
Examples
If I activate Birthing Pod's ability and sacrifice Kurkesh, Onakke Ancient, will Kurkesh trigger, allowing me to copy Birthing Pod's ability?
If I cast Life Legacy and sacrifice Basilica Screecher to pay for the cost, will Basilica Screecher trigger, allowing me to extort?

If anyone knows how to make the Life's Legacy link open in a window like the other cards, please teach me. I couldn't autocard it like the others because the apostrophe breaks the autocard feature.

Remove the apostrophe, and the card search will find it anyway.

@BrianS Actually you have to remove the apostrophe and the following s. The card name will look incorrect in the text of the post, but it will link correctly, and it will still be clear what card is being talked about.

In both of your examples, the trigger condition is putting something on the stack. Is that intended?

@murgtroid99 It was not intentional. If you can think of a case where paying a cost does not result in adding something to the stack (such as activating a mana ability) feel free to use that in your answer.

I don't think there are any existing cards where paying a cost by sacrificing a permanent could cause that permanent's ability to trigger, but there might be theoretically valid abilities that could lead to that happening.

On the other hand, I suspect that if any such ability was printed, it would make the interpretation of 603.6d ambiguous. So, they'd either change the rule or not print it.

If a creature with a triggered ability leaves the battlefield before the triggered ability's condition occurs, the ability is not triggered. Rule 603.6d says

Normally, objects that exist immediately after an event are checked to see if the event matched any trigger conditions. 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 must be treated specially. Leaves-the-battlefield abilities, abilities that trigger when a permanent phases out, abilities that trigger when an object that all players can see is put into a hand or library, abilities that trigger specifically when an object becomes unattached, abilities that trigger when a player loses control of an object, and abilities that trigger when a player planeswalks away from a plane will trigger based on their existence, and the appearance of objects, prior to the event rather than afterward. The game has to "look back in time" to determine if these abilities trigger.

In your specific situation, rule 601.2h says

Once the steps described in 601.2a–g are completed, the spell becomes cast. Any abilities that trigger when a spell is cast or put onto the stack trigger at this time. If the spell's controller had priority before casting it, he or she gets priority.

One of those steps is paying costs. Activated abilities follow the same steps. So in both of your examples, the creature is no longer on the battlefield by the time the spell is cast or the ability is activated.

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


text:
Will Mirror Gallery make it impossible for your Mox Amber to produce mana?
Does Mirror Gallery make it impossible to tap your Mox Amber for mana?

I slightly rewrote your question, because you can always tap your Mox Amber for mana, meaning it will always be a tap-activated mana ability. You just won't get any mana if you dont control any colored legendary creatures or planeswalkers.

@Hackworth I don't agree with that edit... your explanation of why you edited it actually involved you partially answering the actual question being asked. From the original question, it is not clear that the asker knows that they could always tap Mox Amber and simply misspoke.

@Hackworth So if you don't control any colored legendary creatures or planeswalkers, you can't tap it for colorless mana?

No, you can't. Colorless is not a color, and Mox Amber only gives you "any color" of mana.

No, legendary permanents are still legendary with Mirror Gallery on the field and will count for Mox Amber.
Mirror Gallery only makes the "legend rule" not apply. It does not change any object in the game. In particular, it does not remove the "legendary" object supertype from anything.
The only way for Mox Amber to not produce mana is if you don't control any colored, legendary creatures or planeswalkers. Note that the game makes a distinction between types of mana and colors of mana. "Colorless" is a type of mana, but not a color, so Mox Amber will not produce any mana if you control only, for example, Karn, Silver Golem or Karn Liberated.

106.1a There are five colors of mana: white, blue, black, red, and green.
106.1b There are six types of mana: white, blue, black, red, green, and colorless.
105.2c A colorless object has no color.

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


text:
Sphere of Resistance and Trinisphere
If I play lets say a artifact with CMC 1 and there is two Sphere of Resistance in play and a Trinisphere. Do you have to pay 5 mana or just 3?

You have to pay just 3. From a ruling on Trinisphere, emphasis added:

12/1/2004: Trinisphere's ability affects the total cost of the spell. It is applied after any other cost increasers or cost reducers are applied: First apply any cost increases. Next apply any cost reducers. Finally look at the amount of mana you have to pay. If it's less than three mana, you'll pay three mana.

So, after taking into account all the present Spheres of Resistance, we determine whether the spell you're casting costs less than 3 mana. Your artifact's already been beefed up to costing {3}, so Trinisphere does nothing extra to it and remains costing {3}.

The rules basis for this is in (currently) Casting Spells, 601.2f. Emphasis added again:

601.2f The player determines the total cost of the spell. Usually this is just the mana cost. Some spells have additional or alternative costs. Some effects may increase or reduce the cost to pay, or may provide other alternative costs. Costs may include paying mana, tapping permanents, sacrificing permanents, discarding cards, and so on. The total cost is the mana cost or alternative cost (as determined in rule 601.2b), plus all additional costs and cost increases, and minus all cost reductions. If multiple cost reductions apply, the player may apply them in any order. If the mana component of the total cost is reduced to nothing by cost reduction effects, it is considered to be {0}. It can’t be reduced to less than {0}. Once the total cost is determined, any effects that directly affect the total cost are applied. Then the resulting total cost becomes “locked in.” If effects would change the total cost after this time, they have no effect.

In that bolded section in the middle we're applying Sphere of Resistance, and any other cost increases and reductions. Then in the bolded section at the end, we apply effects like Trinisphere which just directly say what the total cost is.


text:
Does your Death's Shadow become bigger if you are at negative life?
Is your Death's Shadow a 16/16 if you are at minus 3 life and not dead due to something like a Platinum Angel.

No.
From the Gatherer rulings:

If your life total is negative, X is considered to be 0. (This is a change from previous rulings.)

The actual comprehensive rule that supports this is:

107.1b Most of the time, the Magic game uses only positive numbers and zero. You can’t choose a negative number, deal negative damage, gain negative life, and so on. However, it’s possible for a game value, such as a creature’s power, to be less than zero. If a calculation or comparison needs to use a negative value, it does so. If a calculation that would determine the result of an effect yields a negative number, zero is used instead, unless that effect sets a player’s life total to a specific value, doubles a player’s life total, or sets a creature’s power or toughness to a specific value.

So in other words, you can actually have negative life, and your life is treated as being negative, but not for the purposes of calculating an effect such as Death's Shadow.

Since it seems you edited the links in the question: the second link appears dead.

@Belle Thanks. Seems to be some sort of bug with Platinum Angel and the auto-linking. Even when copy-pasting directly from another post that auto-links correctly to Platinum Angel, it doesn't work right! I'll update to a normal link I guess.

It's because there is a Platinum Angel Avatar for vanguard. It's a known bug. An autocard link to any card with 2+ words in its name, where another card exists also containing those words, results in an empty search page. Lots of popular or iconic cards have Vanguard avatars, so lots of them will completely fail.  (This is that bug documented in my request we switch over to Scryfall).

@doppelgreener Thanks. But any idea how it is that older posts with the exact same markup work fine?

@GendoIkari They were generated with an older version of the autocard which used a different Gatherer link format. That format doesn't experience this bug, but does experience other link-breaking bugs. Stack Exchange posts are “baked” when we submit them or make edits -- the markdown is generated into HTML, and both are stored, but it's the pre-baked HTML that's presented to readers. This means if the markdown would generate into different HTML nowadays (such as, [mtg:card] syntax into a different link format) this doesn't matter until the post gets edited and the HTML gets baked anew.

@doppelgreener Thanks. Due to the fact that editing a post shows the [mtg] markdown, I had assumed that that was what was stored; and it changed it dynamically to the link when rendered. So I guess it also stored the markdown somewhere, so that when you open a page to edit it; it can show the original markdown.

(I made a plugin for another forum that uses similar markdown to auto-render some things; but it just does a replace when you submit the post, meaning that if you go back to edit, you'll see the new replaced items; not the original markdown).

@Gendolkari That's right, it stores both the markdown and the baked HTML, and grabs the HTML to view and the markdown to edit. Here you can intercept post rendering on display as well, Ilmari Karonen knows a lot about that from working on SOUP and taught me what I needed to know to make our Mana Symbols userscript.

Shortly put: No, but it used to.
GendoIkari already gave the current and correct answer, which is No, however it was not always the case and this change was relatively recent. 107.1b used to have one additional clause for when negative values were used in calculations which was:

"...unless that effect sets a player’s life total to a specific value, doubles a player’s life total, or sets a creature’s power or toughness to a specific value, or otherwise modifies a creature's power or toughness."

This was revised with the release of HOU to the current version we have now.

I would argue that 107.1b does not apply in the Death’s shadow result. It says if a calculation uses a negative number it does so, only replacing the value of the RESULT is negative. Since 13 - (-3) =16 the resulting value of the creatures power and toughness would not be a negative number and therefore is not altered by this rule.

The official rulings from WOTC provided by the rules manager are pretty specific that it does in fact apply. That suggests this interpretation may be wrong, and that the calculation is in fact just to get the X value.


text:
Tarfire vs the tarmogoyf
Can a Tarfire kill a Tarmogoyf when both players' graveyards are empty?

No. State based actions are checked after a spell is completely resolved. By that time, Tarfire is already in the graveyard. Tarfire counts as both a Tribal and an Instant, and so Tarmagoyf is a 2/3.

The comprehensive rule to back up this answer is too long to fit in a comment, but the relevant portion is, "704.3. Whenever a player would get priority (see rule 116, “Timing and Priority”), the game checks for any of the listed conditions for state-based actions, then performs all applicable state-based actions simultaneously as a single event."

Why is it a 2/3? If both graveyards are empty then after the spell resolves there should only be cards of the type instant in the graveyard which would make Goyf a 1/2. Is there something I'm missing?

@RobertWertz Tarfire isn't just an instant, it's also a tribal. And yes tribal is a card type, not a supertype

@IvoBeckers maybe you could incorporate that as part or your answer.

Note that if can kill if the Tarfire fails to go to the graveyard, such as if it was cast using flashback granted by Snapcaster Mage, or if there's an effect preventing card from going to the graveyard, such as Rest in Peace


text:
Discard pile should face up or down?
In Arctic Scavengers, should the players' discard pile face up or down? It seems that the rulebook does not specify this.

The discard pile should go face down. The rules are not super-clear about this, but in the "Sample Round", it says:

The player draws 1 card from the
  junkyard (dig of 1) and places that card face-down in her discard pile.

You can find a discussion about this rule here.


text:
Does Master of the Wild Hunt deal damage multiple times?
The text on the Master of the Wild Hunt card:

At the beginning of your upkeep, put a 2/2 green Wolf creature token onto the battlefield.

Tap: Tap all untapped Wolf creatures you control. Each Wolf tapped this way deals damage equal to its power to target creature. That creature deals damage equal to its power divided as its controller chooses among any number of those Wolves.

The text states that each wolf deals damage.  This implies that there are multiple damage sources.  Can all of this damage be prevented at once, or need it be prevented from each source individually?
For example, look at Unbreathing Horde:

Unbreathing Horde enters the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter on it for each other Zombie you control and each Zombie card in your graveyard.

If Unbreathing Horde would be dealt damage, prevent that damage and remove a +1/+1 counter from it.

If multiple wolves deal damage to Unbreathing Horde simultaneously per Master of the Wild Hunt's activated ability, does it remove one +1/+1 counter per wolf, or just one +1/+1 counter?

no, not unless first strike is involved. See: http://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=37113 for card with similar text and a ruling stating as much.

@ColinD First strike doesn't have anything to do with this, because this isn't an attack, just damage being dealt.

The text states that each wolf deals damage. This implies that there are multiple damage sources.

This is correct, but it's not relevant.
If you used Master of the Wild Hunt's second ability targeting an Unbreathing Horde, at most one counter would end up being removed no matter how many wolves you have.  All the wolves deal their damage simultaneously, so the Horde is only dealt damage once, even if the damage comes from multiple sources. Unbreathing Horde's replaces the receiving of damage, not the receiving of damage by a source.
Compare
"If Unbreathing Horde would be dealt damage,"
with
"If Unbreathing Horde would be dealt damage by a source,"
Phantom Nishoba has a ruling confirming this.

I am confused. Wouldn't Unbreathing Horde get dealt damage a number of times equal to the wolves in play? Then it's ability would trigger that many times? So if there were 7 wolves, then it would end up losing 7 +1/+1 counters?

@Milo Gertjejansen, Nope, all the wolves deal their damage simultaneously, so the Horde is only dealt damage once. If it meant to replace damage dealt by a source, it would say so.

I see. It has more to do with the timing of the damage, not the number of sources. Thanks for clearing that up!

Yep, and similarly, when creatures in combat deal damage, they all do so at the same time (unless first strike or double strike are involved). So all combat damage in this case counts as one instance of dealing damage, even if it is coming from multiple sources.

@David Z, What are you talking about? There is no combat damage in this case.

@ikegami I was simply pointing out that combat is another case where multiple sources deal damage at the same time.


text:
Does Leyline of Singularity works on tokens?
If Leyline of Singularity is in play, will  my opponent be able to have multiple "2/2 zombie tokens" in play?

It does count for tokens; you will not be able to have multiple tokens with the same name. The name of a token is defined by the spell that created it:

110.5c A spell or ability that creates a creature token sets both its name and its creature type. If the spell or ability doesn’t specify the name of the creature token, its name is the same as its creature type(s). A “Goblin Scout creature token,” for example, is named “Goblin Scout” and has the creature subtypes Goblin and Scout. Once a token is on the battlefield, changing its name doesn’t change its creature type, and vice versa.

So in your example, if an effect creates a 2/2 Zombie token, then the name of that token will be "Zombie."
Furthermore, the legendary rule does apply to tokens:

205.4d Any permanent with the supertype “legendary” is subject to the state-based action for legendary permanents, also called the “legend rule” (see rule 704.5k).

and

110.5e A token is subject to anything that affects permanents in general or that affects the token’s card type or subtype. A token isn’t a card (even if represented by a card that has a Magic back or that came from a Magic booster pack).

@ikegami, I copied from http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/Token. I see now that it mentions "2008" next to the rules quote... is mtgsalvation not reliable? I've used that for a lot of rule lookups! Anyway, thanks for updating with the latest rules quotes!

for more, see Dark Depths. It creates a legendary token.

@GendoIkari Most of the comprehensive rules don't change that often, so most of what you find on MTGSalvation should be accurate, but you never know where something might have changed. It's probably better to refer to the actual CR from Wizards' site. There's also this, which is kept up to date, but is technically still not canonical.

A permanent is a card or token on the battlefield.[CR 110.1] If you have tokens on the battlefield, Leyline of Singularity will make them Legendary.
The legendary rule affects permanents, so it does affect tokens.[CR 704.5k]
The token's type is irrelevant. The legendary rule compares names.[CR 704.5k] However, a token's name is usually the same as the type as which it was created. Some effects that create tokens give them a name (e.g. Cloudseeder).[CR 110.5c] For the rest, the token's name is the same as its creature type. For example, the token created by Vile Rebirth is named "zombie".
If your opponent's 2/2 zombie tokens are named "zombie", they will have to put all but one in their graveyard.

110.1. A permanent is a card or token on the battlefield. [...]

110.5c A spell or ability that creates a creature token sets both its name and its creature type. If the spell or ability doesn’t specify the name of the creature token, its name is the same as its creature type(s). A “Goblin Scout creature token,” for example, is named “Goblin Scout” and has the creature subtypes Goblin and Scout. Once a token is on the battlefield, changing its name doesn’t change its creature type, and vice versa.

704.5k If a player controls two or more legendary permanents with the same name, that player chooses one of them, and the rest are put into their owners’ graveyards. This is called the “legend rule.”


text:
Agricola Family Growth by 2 (or more)
Is it legal to use the Family Growth action to extend your family by 2 or even 3 if you have enough rooms? The rules do not forbid it, but they only talk in singular about the new family member.

You can add at most one newborn regardless of the number of empty rooms you might have.
The rules are clear on this:

After Family Growth, also 1 Minor Improvement (Stage 2): A player may only use this Family growth space if he has more empty rooms than Family members.
A player who chooses a Family growth action adds their newborn offspring to the Action space
In the Return home phase, the new Family member is taken home ...  A Player who takes the Family growth action will therefore have one additional (adult) Family
member to use from the following round onwards.

Each 'Family Growth' action gets you one additional person.  You can do more than one 'Family Growth' action in a turn (getting multiple people) if the spaces are available.


text:
MTG: Mutavault - how does it work?
How does this card work?
How do you effectively play this card?
What happens when it gets killed as a creature?
What makes this card so expensive?
http://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=152724

The card works in much the same way as other "Manland" type cards. You pay the activation cost, it becomes a 2/2 creature with all creature types, and for the rest of the turn it behaves exactly as if it was a 2/2 colourless Llanowar elves (NOTE: this includes summoning sickness. As long as its just a land you can tap it for mana as you could a regular land. If you turn it into a creature straight after playing it however, it has summoning sickness and you CANNOT tap it for mana).
You effectively play this card by utilising its attacking abilities at the right times, it is essentially a "free creature" at the cost (which can be a benefit) of turning it into a creature for 1 mana per turn.
The fact that it starts out and reverts to a land makes it safe from sorcery speed removal much of the time, the fact that it is all creature types makes it very potent in some tribal decks (legacy/modern merfolk), and the fact that it acts as a land until the point that you need it to be a creature makes your deck much more stable for casting expensive spells.
If it dies as a creature, it dies. Note that spells that say "target non-land permanent" can't target it, it may be a creature, but its still a land. It doesn't revert to being a land if it dies, it goes to the graveyard just like anything else.
The card is expensive because of it's proven track record, and it is a very powerful example of a man land due to its low activation cost and positive tribal interactions. Merfolk decks will commonly activate this as a 4/4 or 5/5 creature.

In the present environment, it synergizes well with slivers. It could easily be a 3/3 vigilance, meaning you can still tap it as a land in your second main phase to pay for a spell. Sure it's not that big, but how many times do you have to sneak in 3 damage for it to be worth it?

How can having to pay a cost of {1} be an advantage?

@GendoIkari I think Rawrgramming meant that the fact that you turn it into a creature (and it's not always one) is a benefit.

@Gendolkari as Jefromi says, the "cost" of mutavault is that it isn't always a creature and you have to choose to make it one, this cost is a often benefit against decks which play supreme verdict as an example, or Liliana of the Veil.

To add to the "why is this card so expensive," because of the draft structure at the time and the small size of the Morningtide expansion, fewer packs were opened than, say, in a large set that was drafted more consistently. (The format went from LOR-LOR-LOR to LOR-LOR-MOR and then to SHM-SHM-SHM.) This scarcity helped to raise the price.

I think this information is less relevant due to the reprint in M14. scarcity is much less an issue now than it would have been previously.

Say you have a magic deck. In that deck you want to fit as many good spells as possible that takes you closer to winning but you also need enough mana sources to be able to cast those spells. Common numbers would be 37 spells, 23 lands. What Mutavault does is that some of your lands now also, apart from giving you mana, takes you closer to winning the game. So if you add 3 of those, you're suddenly up to 40 cards that help you win the game.
Mutavault does this at the reasonable cost of only being able to produce colorless mana.
Utility lands often rise in price because they can be included in so many different decks. Mutavault is colorless which makes it even easier to include.


text:
Can Act of Treason allow a Detained creature to attack?
Suppose an opponent plays a card such as Lyev Decree to detain one or two of my creatures until the opponents next turn. If I have Act of Treason in my hand, would I be able to use Act of Treason to gain control of, and attack, with target creature once my turn comes around again?
I know Act of Treason states that I gain control of target creature until end of turn and that creature also gains haste until eot. Just wondering if Lyev Decree would prevent me from gaining control again of my creature, basically countering Act of Treason.

Act of Treason would give you control of your creature, but your creature still can't attack or block, and its activated abilities still can't be activated. It hasn't been Lyev Decree's controller's next turn yet.

No, you cannot do that. Changing control of the creatures would have no effect on the fact that they are detained. This is because changing control, just like changing characteristics of an object on the battlefield, doesn't cause it to become a new object, or reenter the battlefield, or anything like that. Even if you changed it into a non-creature, then back into a creature, it would still be unable to attack.
Note that you never lost control of your creatures, so Act of Treason would not cause the creatures to change control. Lyev Decree isn't preventing you from gaining control; you already have control. You simply can't attack or block with those creatures.
If you were able to blink the creature with something like Momentary Blink; this would work, because when an object changes zones; it becomes a completely new object.

@ikegami Edited. Is control like what indestructible used to be; just something that's true about the object?

I suppose you could say that. In object-oriented programming, we call that an attribute. The characteristics and status of an object are attributes of the object too, but not all attributes are characteristics or status.


text:
What happens if 2 separate abilities require you to sacrifice a creature?
If i have two cards that force opponents to sacrifice every upkeep like for example
Mogis God of Slaughter "At the beginning of each opponent’s upkeep, Mogis deals 2 damage to that player unless he or she sacrifices a creature."
And Indulgent tormentor "At the beginning of your upkeep, draw a card unless target opponent sacrifices a creature or pays 3 life."
Does the oppenent have to sacrifice twice? Or if they sacrifice Mogis's ability have they not allowed me to draw from indulgent tormentor?

Note that Mogis only triggers on your opponents' upkeeps and Indulgent Tormentor only triggers on your upkeep. If you control both of them, they never happen on the same upkeep.

Your opponent has to sacrifice a different creature to each effect to stop that effect from happening. Note, however, that in your particular example, Mogis triggers only on your opponents' upkeeps and Indulgent Tormentor triggers only on your upkeep. However, if we consider the case where you control two Indulgent Tormentors, it's still basically the same question. And in that case, your opponent will have to sacrifice two creatures to stop you from drawing any cards.
More specifically, here's the order of actions:

As your upkeep begins, you choose who to target with each Tormentor trigger. In the interesting case, they both target the same player.
Assuming nobody does anything else in between, the first triggered ability resolves. Your opponent chooses whether or not to sacrifice a creature. If they don't, you draw a card.
The second triggered ability resolves. Your opponent again chooses whether or not to sacrifice a creature. If they don't, you draw a card, independent of what happened in step 2.

there is also a step of picking which one comes first, which the owner of the ability decides (they are added to the stack in APNAP order, where multiples from the same player are ordered by that player, correct me if that is wrong). This can be super relevant. If both of these triggers happened at the same time, you would stack whichever effect you wanted more (Drawing a card or dealing damage) first, so that it would resolve second. Most obvious example of using this is Awakening Zone and Eldrazi Monument. You would always want to put the monument trigger first, and the zone trigger second.

Right, of course, in other cases it can be very relevant which trigger resolves first. This question, though, is about abilities where the opponent makes a choice on resolution, so because they know about all of the choices  when the abilities go on the stack, it doesn't matter what order they resolve. I'll add a mention in my answer, though.

re-reading the cards in this question you are right, I had assumed that the effects were both required sacrifices, and in the case the opponent couldn't, the downside happens.

Alice the Bully comes to you and says "I'll clobber you unless you give your lunch money." You give her your money to avoid the beating.
A few minutes later, Bob the Bully comes to you and says "I'll clobber you unless you give your lunch money." Do you think telling him that you already gave it to Alice will help at all?
No.
Let's say you have two Indulgent Tormentor on the battlefield, and it's the beginning of your upkeep. Each Tormentor's ability goes on the stack. One of them resolves.

draw a card unless target opponent sacrifices a creature or pays 3 life.

The opponent you targeted now chooses to sacrifice a creature, to pay 3 life, or to do neither. Then he either sacrifices a creature, loses 3 life or you draw a card. It doesn't matter what other creatures he might have sacrificed or what other life he payed earlier in the game.
Then the other ability resolves.

draw a card unless target opponent sacrifices a creature or pays 3 life.

The opponent you targeted now chooses to sacrifice a creature, to pay 3 life, or to do neither. Then he either sacrifices a creature, loses 3 life or you draw a card. It doesn't matter what other creatures he might have sacrificed or what other life he payed earlier in the game.

They will have to sacrifice 1 creature for each ability that triggers. So in this case, he would need to sacrifice 2 creatures to not lose life or let you draw a card.
When an event (such as the beginning of upkeep) causes multiple triggered abilities to trigger; those abilities are dealt with completely independently of each other.
As was pointed out in a comment; this is not relevant for your specific example, because in your example, each creature triggers at a different time; during different upkeeps. But if you had 2 Mogis, God of Slaughters on the battlefield, your opponent would have to sacrifice 2 creatures at the beginning of his upkeep to not take damage.
Notice that similarly, if you have a Mogg Fanatic, you cannot sacrifice it both to pay for its ability and at the same time count that as sacrificing a creature to prevent the damage or card draw.


text:
Phyrexian unlife and life gain
Phyrexian Unlife
If your opponent has ten poison counters, he loses the game, so you just need to get your opponent to zero, then deal ten more damage to him. He'll take it in the form of poison counters, and lose. It will buy him time - maybe he was almost dead and suddenly you need to get him to 0 then deal ten more damage - but he's not invincible.
After reading this it got me thinking; and correct me if I have missed something.
If you are at 1 life, and you get hit by a  5/5 creature, do you get 4 poison counters, or none, as you are now at zero life? (Excluding trample of course.)
That being said, once you're at zero life, can you gain 1 life and repeat this?

Fun fact: this behavior is actually key to an unusual modern deck that utilizes Phyrexian Unlife/Form of the Dragon/Dovescape to never take lethal damage.

You can beat the lock @Kevin describes with a sufficiently large creature with double strike (such as Avatar of Slaughter)

You will not get any poison counters in that case. All damage is done simultaneously, and at the time you took damage you were at 1 life, not 0 or less life. So, you will take 5 normal damage, and be at -4 life. Normally you would lose now, but Phyrexian Unlife keeps you alive instead, and the next time you would take damage, that damage will be in the form of poison counters.
If you do gain life to above 0 again, then Phyrexian Unlife will again stop you from losing the next time you take damage.
Also, trample does not interact in anyway with this, so when you say "Excluding trample of course" it makes me think that there's a basic rule you aren't understanding about how combat or trample works.

thank you , for some reason I though trample  would of affected the  dmg carrying over. but I now realize that  effect hapen  when block by creature.


text:
Crypt Incursion stack help
So me and my mate are just looking for clarification about Crypt Incursion.
For example, I play Crypt Incursion, targeting my graveyard. In response he plays Crypt Incursion and also wants to target my graveyard.
Which Crypt Incursion goes first? And if his does go first, am I then able to respond and target his graveyard instead?

When you cast a spell, it goes on the stack before it resolves and takes effect. While it is on the stack, both players can cast instants or activate abilities "in response" to the spell or ability on the stack, and these responses will go on TOP of the stack. Once both players say that they don't wish to do anything else, the spell or ability on the TOP of the stack resolves. This means that the second Crypt Incursion will resolve first, so when the first one resolves, your graveyard will no longer have creatures.
You cannot change which graveyard you wish to target in response. You choose your targets as you cast the spell (as you put it on the stack), and you cannot change that choice later.
From the Basic Rulebook:

The spell doesn’t resolve (have its effect) right away—it has
to wait on the stack. Each player, including you, now gets
a chance to cast an instant or activate an activated ability
in response. If a player does, that instant or ability goes on
the stack on top of what was already waiting there. When
all players decline to do anything, the top spell or ability
on the stack will resolve.

and

You choose the targets for a spell when you cast it, and
you choose targets for an activated ability when you
activate it. If you can’t meet the targeting requirements,
you can’t cast the spell or activate the activated ability.
Once you choose targets, you can’t change your mind
later.

You have to choose targets when you cast the spell. You cast the spell first, so your spell is on the bottom of the stack. Then your friend casts his spell which goes on top.
You resolve the stack from top to bottom, so his spell resolves first and exiles all the creatures in your graveyard, gaining him life. Then your spell resolves and exiles all the zero creatures in your graveyard, gaining you zero life.
You could always play some other spells after his spell resolves, which might put some creatures into your graveyard. You can't just change the target of your spell once you have cast it though, unless another card lets you.


text:
Dominion: Doctor + Rats
I play Doctor and name Rats.  I reveal the top 3 cards and find 1 Rats, so I trash it.  Which happens first: re-ordering the other cards, or drawing my card from trashing Rats?  And if the draw happens first, what do I draw?  The first non-Rats card that Doctor revealed, or the first unrevealed card in my deck?

Dominion cards are always processed from the top down:

To play an Action, the player takes an Action card from his hand
  and lays it face-up in his play area. He announces which card he is
  playing and follows the instructions written on that card from top
  to bottom.

-- Base rules PDF
However, "when you trash" cards interrupt the existing Action:

Many cards in Dark Ages do something "when you trash" that card. These abilities function no matter whose turn the card is trashed on. The player that a "when you trash this" ability functions for is the player that had that card, regardless of whose card trashed the card. These abilities happen directly after the card is put into the trash, and can function in the middle of resolving effects for an Action card; for example, if a player plays Graverobber and uses it to trash a Cultist, he first draws three cards for trashing Cultist, then continues with resolving Graverobber and gains a card costing up to $8.

-- Dark Ages rules PDF
Therefore, you draw the card from trashing the Rats before the cards would be put back on top of your deck because Doctor has "Trash the matches." before "Put the rest back on top in any order." and the Rats trashing resolves during the "Trash the matches" section of Doctor.

The drawing (from trashing rats) happens first. The cards you draw are the unrevealed cards.

Colin is right, the Dark Ages rule book says:
" If Rats is trashed, you draw a card. This happens whether it is your
turn or another player's, and regardless of which player has the
card that trashed Rats."
Also from the Original rule book:
“Reveal” – when a player reveals a card, he shows a card to all players and
then returns it to wherever it came from (unless instructed specifically to
put it elsewhere)
So revealed cards are not "part of the deck" else how could they be "returned" to it?


text:
Platinum Emperion and Tree of Redemption
If I have a Platinum Emperion on the battlefield and I tap my Tree of Redemption, will the Tree still change it's toughness to my current life total, or will the Platinum Emperion negate that effect, since my life total is unable to change?

The Tree of Redemption will not be changed.

701.8. Exchange
701.8a A spell or ability may instruct players to exchange something (for example, life totals or control of two permanents) as part of its resolution. When such a spell or ability resolves, if the entire exchange can’t be completed, no part of the exchange occurs.

Also see this ruling on Platinum Emperion:

If an effect would cause you to exchange life totals with another player, the exchange won't happen. Neither player's life total changes.

Well.... no room for interpretation there :)


text:
What would Resolve first?
If my opponent has one Timberwatch Elf tapped, and I use Yamabushi Flame on it, can my opponent respond with a Wirewood Lodge and then use Timberwatch Elf to protect it?

Yes. Wirewood Lodge's ability will go on the stack. Once it resolves, Timberwatch Elf will be untapped and the active player will get priority. Yamabushi's Flame won't resolve until all players pass priority, so your opponent has a chance to activate Timberwatch Elf's ability targeting itself.
Of course, there will need to be at least one other elf in play in order for the ability to actually save it from the 3 damage Yamabushi's Flame will deal.

Yes. The full sequence of events goes:

You cast Yamabushi's Flame
Your opponent activates Wirewood Lodge
Your opponent taps Timberwatch Elf targeting itself
Timberwatch Elf gets pumped
Yamabushi's Flame deals 3 damage to Timberwatch Elf

Now, between literally every step there is an implicit "both players pass priority"; you can both still respond at every juncture. So, for instance, if you want to respond to his Wirewood Lodge activation with another burn spell, you could do so and probably kill it (causing all the other steps to be countered for illegal targets)

Wouldn't, between numbers 2 and 3, the opponent not pass priority and activate all his abilities in a row? I might be confused on priority though, since I am not well versed in it.

@MiloGertjejansen Villain has to pass priority to let the Wirewood Lodge effect resolve. Nonmana abilities of lands still use the stack and you still have to let your opponent respond to them. If the Timberwatch Elf were untapped, villain could activate both in a row without passing, but in this case it's tapped so villain needs the lodge to resolve before using its tap ability.

Ah, but of course. Didn't even think of that. Thanks for the clarification!


text:
Survival of the Fittest activations and priority
Can someone please explain the ability of Survival of the Fittest and the stack?
Let say I have Survival of the Fittest out, and I have 1 creature in my hand, and I have priority.  Assuming I have unlimited mana, can I keep discarding a creature card and search for a creature card without an opponent casting any instant spell?
In other words, I will discard a creature card and have not pass priority, can an opponent cast instants like disenchant on the survival to stop me to continue searching?  If an opponent can cast disenchant before priority was pass, would I still need another creature card in my hand to be able to discard and search again?
I am unclear of how this would work.

NB: Survival of the Fittest has an activated ability, not a triggered ability.  Triggered abilities always use the words "When", "Whenever", or "At".
You must discard a creature card (and pay green) as an activation cost in order to put the ability on the stack.  It now goes on the stack and your opponent gets priority before it resolves.  So they could destroy Survival of The Fittest before you get to search and add a card to your hand.
You still get to do your search and add the card, but obviously you cannot now use the ability again.
You can discard as many cards to it as you already have in your hand while retaining priority and not allowing your opponent to respond.  However, they will have a chance to respond before you're allowed to tutor up the new ones.

From reading an article on priority and the stack, an example was given:

Player a would cast Ancestral Recall, Player B would counter it, Player A use Mystical Tutor to search for cancel and put it on top of his library, then Player A plays Brainstorm to get Cancel in his hand, and counter Player B Counter Spell.

If that is the case, wouldn't discarding a creature card and searching for a creature card would resolved allowing me to get a creature card in my hand, then I can play it again before my opponenet cast disenchant?  In other words, when I discard, my ability is on top of the stack, that would resolved and then I can put another survival ability ontop of that stack and keep on going before the disenchant would resolve?  Is this correct?

Your first Survival is on the bottom of the stack, Disenchant goes above it and will resolve first.  If you had a second creature you could discard, you could then put that on top of disenchant and keep on survivaling until there are not more creatures in your library, keeping disenchant trapped on the stack.

Thanks for clarifying that Affe!  The only thing I'm unclear of now is when it talks about priority.  It says that I can play as many spells or abilities before I pass priority. Once I pass priority, then my oponenet can response.  Am I missing the point with Priority and Passinbg Priority and what it really mean?  If so, can you please clarify? Thanks.

Suppose you had 7 creatures in your hand, if you wanted you could say "I put 7 activations on the stack without passing priority." and discard all 7 to the survival.  Obviously this is kind of a bad play, because then if they cast disenchant in response to all 7, it will be on top and destroy your survival before you do any tutoring, so you couldn't carry on the tutor.  In the vast majority of cases you want to pass priority after each play and see if your opponent has any response.  (Maybe you would do it if you just looked at their hand and saw a [mtg:Krosan Grip]!)

I believe I still get to tutor even if I play 7 tutor on the survival.  I will get all my tutor but my survival will be disenchanted. If you look at Prodigical Sorcerer scenerio, Once I tap it to deal 1 damage to you, you can response by lightning bolt him.  He will die but you will still receive the 1 damage.

Yes you will get the 7 you paid for, you won't be able to continue digging beyond that.


text:
What are some card in MTG that can change a creature's color?
I was creating a deck on deck builder and I wanted to make a Corrosive Mentor combination in which I can change a powerful creature's color to black so that it can have the wither effect. Anyone know any cards that can do that? Thanks.

Why not just go the simpler route and use large black creatures?

@murgatroid99 Because then he wouldn't be building a Corrosive Mentor combination deck which alters colours to use a wider variety of base creatures!

If you're looking for advice on building that deck (or any other), you may have some luck putting together what you have on http://tappedout.net and describing how you want the deck to work.

There are a few cards that can do this. Some specifically turn creatures black:

Darkest Hour
Grave Servitude
Sinister Strength

Others let you choose a color, and make creatures that color:

Alchor's Tomb
Blind Seer
Distorting Lens
Illusion
Painter's Servant
Shifting Sky
Sway of Illusion
Tidal Visionary

And, finally, there are some cards that let you change the word "black" on Corrosive Mentor, so that it affects green creatures instead of black ones, for example:

Alter Reality
Crystal Spray
Glamerdye
Mind Bend
Sleight of Mind
Spectral Shift
Swirl the Mists
Trait Doctoring
Whim of Volrath

I've bolded all of the cards that are either black or colorless (so they don't restrict what other cards you can play). Across the last two lists, blue is the most common color, so blue is probably a good second color for this purpose.

You're right, Painter's Servant should be bold. I fixed that. And your other statement looks correct to me.


text:
Can Fog Bank be killed by combat damage?
Let's say I have a 4/4 Serra Angel and my opponent has defender 0/2 Fog Bank, which has Defender, flying, prevent all combat damage that would be dealt to and dealt by Fog Bank. Since my Serra Angel has enough power to defeat Fog Bank, would it kill it? Or would I follow the card text and let it remove all combat damage dealt by it? If so, how could I kill Fog Bank?
I think it's an easy answer, but I just wanted to make sure about the rules of combat when it comes to Fog Bank.

Tip: You can use [mtg:Card Name] to link to a card.

"Would I follow the card text?" The answer is always yes for the up-to-date text of the card on the Wizards site.

Fog Bank would not be destroyed. This is because of the way "prevent" works. When something is prevented, that thing never happens:

615.6. If damage that would be dealt is prevented, it never happens.

It sounds like from your wording that you think that to prevent damage means to remove that damage from the creature after it is dealt, but this is not the case. Fog Bank will not take any combat damage; the damage simply doesn't happen to it.
You can kill Fog Bank with non-combat damage, such as shock.

Relevant is using Fog Bank to block something with lifelink causes no life to be gained, since the damage never happened. Same with deathtouch - no deathtouch damage is dealt. If Fog Bank blocks Sengir Vampire, and then you shock it later in the turn, Vampire does not get a +1/+1 counter. Stuff like that.

The Serra Angel would not destroy the Fog Bank in combat. As the Fog Bank says, all combat damage dealt to it is prevented.
In general, if you just do what the card says, everything will work correctly.
There are numerous other ways you could get rid of a Fog Bank. You could deal damage to it with a spell, which doesn't count as combat damage. You could also destroy it or exile it directly. If you just need to attack without it blocking, you could also return it to its owner's hand or tap it.

An additionally options would be to utilize a Fight Effect. Doesn't count as combat damage.

Strictly speaking, yes, you can kill a Fog Bank through combat damage. I can think of 2 general ways:
(1) Remove Fog Bank's ability (the one that prevents combat damage). An example would be if you resolved the spell Turn to Frog before combat damage. Without the relevant ability, combat damage to Fog Bank would no longer be prevented.
(2) Use an effect that does not allow combat damage to be prevented. For example, if you resolved the spell Skullcrack before combat damage or if Fog Bank were blocking a creature whose damage can't be prevented, such as Malignus, then the damage would NOT be prevented. This interaction is governed by the following rule:

101.2. When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can't happen, the "can't" effect takes precedence.

In this case, Fog Bank says "prevent combat damage" and another effect says "damage can't be prevented", and so the "can't" effect will win out and Fog Bank will not be able to prevent damage.

I don't think the asker was looking for crazy combos that would make it possible.  They were just wondering how to resolve their specific scenario.


text:
Tutors for Sorceries?
I'm building a budget Natural Order deck, so I'm looking for tutors that can find sorcerys in green and black, preferably that have CMC 3 or less. I hope you can help.

Natural Order is budget?

"Budget" natural order use some tutors and 2 Natural Orders to reduce the cost by a bit. Less Natural Orders.

The following cards in black and green will allow you to search your library for a sorcery, and possibly other cards:

Bringer of the Black Dawn
Cruel Tutor
Demonic Collusion
Demonic Tutor
Diabolic Intent
Diabolic Revelation
Diabolic Tutor
Entomb (tutors to the graveyard)
Grim Tutor
Imperial Seal (tutors to the top of the library)
Increasing Ambition
Infernal Tutor
Insidious Dreams
Liliana Vess (tutors to the top of the library)
Rhystic Tutor
Rune-Scarred Demon
Sidisi, Undead Vizier
Vampiric Tutor (tutors to the top of the library)

I've highlighted the cards with converted mana cost 3 or less.
There are also black cards with Transmute, which allows you to pay {1}{B}{B} and discard that card to search for a card with the same CMC:

Brainspoil
Dimir House Guard
Dimir Machinations
Netherborn Phalanx
Shred Memory

In addition, Demonic Consultation isn't exactly a tutor, but it does let you get a specific card out of your library into your hand, at the cost of exiling every card above it, and with a chance of exiling your whole library without finding it. Spoils of the Vault has a similar effect, except that you're guaranteed to find the card if it's in there, but you lose 1 life for each card exiled.

Spoils of the Vault, "only" one mana!

@Jefromi But if you are really unlucky you can kill yourself with it, or if you misname a card :p

+1 from me. You might mention that you used the advanced search features of the Gatherer to compile this list (teach the OP to fish).

@Rainbolt I considered it, but most of it was just looking at every card in the given colors with "search your library" in the text. I didn't know until after I compiled the list that every card would be of the "search your library for a card" variety.

For reference, I missed Beseech the Queen because I omitted the word "land" to avoid looking through the 500 or so green land tutors, I missed Phyrexian Portal and Ring of Three wishes because I didn't think to search artifacts, and I missed Maralen because it's worded oddly ("searches" instead of "search").


text:
What are artifact creatures in Magic lore?
In terms of flavor/lore, what is an artifact creatures in Magic?  How are they made and how do they run?  Is it different on different planes, in different sets, or for different creature types?
I feel like there are a number of possible explanations.  Here's a starting list:

They are something in the realm of mechanical AI (similar to the clanks from Girl Genius).
They are very complex wind-up dolls and have nothing approximating intelligence (in line with the old Phyrexian Hulk flavor text "It doesn’t think. It doesn’t feel. It doesn’t laugh or cry. All it does from dusk till dawn Is make the soldiers die. —Onean children’s rhymeby").
They are magically animated (Pinocchio is unfortunately my best fictional analogue here; somebody please come up with a better example).
They are vehicles with an organic pilot bundled together into a single card (as distinct from the new Vehicle artifact type).
They are biological in origin but have become mostly machine through modification (like Robocop or General Grievous).
They are the combination of a person/creature's spirit and a machine (such as Ghost in the Shell).

Karn, Silver Golem is likely a special case.  This is exemplified by the fact that none of the Karn Planeswalkers (such as Karn Liberated) are artifacts.

What does “robot” mean for purposes of this question?

@RyanVeeder I had a definition of robot, but I have reorganized the question a bit to make it more clear.

@murgatroid99 Fixed.  I'm not trying to have a philosophical question about what is or is not a robot, but rather about how artifact creatures work

Artifact creatures don't have consistent origins or properties.
The name "Artifact creature" represents the intersection of two fuzzy categories. "Creature" would seem to mean "animate being," but it also includes illusions, walls, and illusionary walls. "Artifact" usually refers to something that someone built, but it includes some natural phenomena like eggs and flowers.
A creature can have artificial material grafted into its body and become an artifact, like Breya, or Robocop. The Mirari possessed intelligence and a will of its own as a non-creature artifact; then it became/gave rise to Memnarch, an artifact creature (arguably "the same thing as the Mirari" but able to walk around).
I'm not sure why Karn should be treated as a special case: Prior to his tenure as a planeswalker, he had a long and illustrious career as an artifact creature: Built by wizards, without any organic components, but with his own intelligence, volition, and personality—essentially the same kind of entity as Bosh. (The fact that he's not an Artifact on his planeswalker cards probably has more to do with the designers' willingness to let him be destroyed by Naturalize, or the amount of space on the type line, than his nature in lore.)
The flavor text on Saheeli's Silverwing indicates that it's intelligent enough to understand spoken instructions. Akroan Horse is clearly inanimate, but still qualifies as a creature (in another decade it would have been a "Horse Wall")—but, still on the plane of Theros, Gold-Forged Sentinel is "beholden to neither" gods nor mortals, and flies around doing whatever it wants.
The "Construct" creature type evidently denoted artifact creatures that were not created magically—according to someone, at some point in time. This proposition does not track with the evidence. There doesn't seem to be anything magical about the Akroan Horse, but it's still a Horse and not a Construct. Creepy Doll, a Construct, was probably nonmagical when it was first built, but if it's not magical, then how does it stab things to death?
Artifact creatures can be intelligent or mindless. They can be magical or nonmagical. They can be animate or inanimate. They can be robots or cyborgs or neither. Their nature isn't consistent within a plane, and it isn't consistent within a creature type. There's no set of criteria that define artifact creatures, but rather a family resemblance that characterizes them in the minds of the artists, loreweavers, and designers.
The nature of that family resemblance is hard to put into words without sounding dismissive, but I believe it really boils down to "An artifact creature is a creature that is, or at least seems, artificial."

On that point about Karn not having the Artifact type: Liliana doesn't have the Human type either, but we know she's a human along with most of the other planeswalkers; she doesn't have the creature type, but we know she's a living being. Planeswalkers just aren't given additional types aside from their planeswalker types.

Planeswalkers don't have creature types, but Artifact is a card type, so an Artifact Planeswalker is "legal" in the same way as the Enchantment Creatures of Theros. I guess they could also make a "Tribal Planeswalker — Human Liliana" without technically breaking any rules. (Heck, they write the rules; they can do whatever they want.)

Oh, sure, I agree. I just mean this helps demonstrate that just because a character's card doesn't include a type, doesn't mean lore-wise they aren't that type. Karn's an artifact, Liliana's a human, even if their cards don't ever have those types. This could be pointed out by e.g. amending your third paragraph with “Note that Liliana's still considered a human even if her Planeswalker cards never have the Human type attached.” If you don't want to do this, that's fine too, you can flag these comments as no longer needed. :)

I’d rather leave things as they are, since I think each comment expands usefully on a point that, while interesting, isn’t vital to the answer itself. Each comment, that is, except for this one right here!

Lorewise, the only similarity I see among artifact creatures is that they are made at least partially out of non-biological materials, especially metal.  Beyond that, the composition, genesis, and sentience of artifact creatures varies widely.
Remember that Artifact and Creature are game mechanics first and foremost.  Some are mostly artifact until they become creatures (Keyrunes, Vehicles etc).  Others are creatures (even humans), who have been enhanced with metals to become artifacts.  The only reason that the Karn Planeswalkers are not also artifacts is due to game mechanics.  It would be pretty bad for a Planewalker to just die to a Naturalize.

Is it different on different planes, in different sets, or for different creature types?

Yes, the plane the card depicts is the most important in the background behind the origin of the artifact creatures.  With the exception of Core Sets (like M19), each set and block is designed to take place within a specific plane.  MtG lore is as complex as the game, but there were some clearly artifact focused planes and sets:

Phyrexia, a plane whose inhabitants are often a weird hybrid between machine and decay.  Phyrexian oil helps corrupt other creatures and artifact to make them more like the rest of the Phyrexians.
Mirrodin was a plane created by Karn that became infected with Phyrexian oil.  It eventually turned into New Phyrexia.
Kaladesh block had a heavy artifact (even steampunk) theme, but this was flavored as part of the Inventor's Fair.  Artifact creatures here are solidly in the machine/automaton category.
Esper's inhabitants (like Breya and Sharuum) use Etherium to enhance their bodies and ward off the effects of aging.

As other answers have noted, certain artifact creature subtypes do have similarities.  But the most important factor in the flavor of an Artifact Creature is the plane it originates from.

The MTG WIKI answers a lot of your questions.

By and large, most artifact creatures are robots of some sort, and
  were fashioned out of metal, glass or stone by other creatures or
  planeswalkers. As such, decks heavy on artifact creatures are often
  called "Robots" decks.
Here are a number of creature types are usually associated with
  artifact creatures.

Construct

A Construct is the Magic equivalent of a robot, a magically or
  mechanically animated device, usually with a pedal propulsion method.
  They come in a wide variety, but often imitate organical lifeforms.

Golem

A Golem is a magically or mechanically animated statue. The most well
  known Golem is Karn who has since his construction become a
  planeswalker.

Myr

The Myr are a race of small creatures with beak-like heads native to
  Mirrodin. They were created by Memnarch to act as spies.

Scarecrow

Scarecrows are artifact creatures native to Shadowmoor and lead by the
  Reaper King. Originally they were constructed by the Kithkin to help
  them with farming, but outlived the Kithkin and have taken lives for
  their own. Mechanically they often deal with colors and -1/-1
  counters.

Thopter

A Thopter is a small flying device, Ornithopter being the most well
  known.

SOURCE

I found that page pretty unhelpful.  It only gives partial explanations for the animation mechanism of Constructs and Golems ("magically or mechanically animated" doesn't narrow it down much) and gives no explanation for the other types.

The use of "thopter" as a root perturbs me slightly, since ornithopter comes from "ornithos" + "ptera". But "copter" is short for helicopter, so it's not like there isn't precedent.


text:
In King of Tokyo, can you get more than 1 evolution per turn?
In the rules, it states that you must roll AT LEAST three hearts to earn an evolution card.  If you are able to roll/use card(s) to garner, for example, 6 stars, can you apply the 'at least' statement to mean per heart, or does AT LEAST indicate that a maximum of 1 evolution can be earned per turn?

It doesn't say "For each three hearts a monster has when they end their rolls", the wording that would allow multiple evolutions to be obtained on one turn.

No, you may only draw one Evolution per set of rolls.
The rulebook states:

If a monster ends their rolls with at least 3 [hearts], they draw the top Evolution of their deck

Firstly, the term "at least 3" indicates that any number above 2 will match the condition, thus 3 or 6 or anything between will give you the same result.
Secondly since the card effect happens at the time that you end your rolls, only one card can be on top of your Evolution deck at that time.


text:
Can Legion's Initiative save permanents from Bearer of Heavens's destruction ability?
When Bearer of Heavens dies, it destroys all permanents. If my opponent's creature destroys Bearer of Heavens can he activate Legion Initiative's ability (to exile his creatures until the start of his next combat) before Bearer destroys all permanents? Or does Bearer's ability activate straight away on death?

The first ability of Bearer of the Heavens creates a delayed trigger:

When Bearer of the Heavens dies, destroy all permanents at the beginning of the next end step.

So if, for example, the Bearer dies during combat, it simply goes to the graveyard and nothing happens yet. During the second main phase, your opponent can activate Legion's Initiative and exile his creatures. When your end step begins, the delayed trigger from Bearer of the Heavens goes on the stack and resolves, destroying all permanents that are in in play, which doesn't include the creature cards your opponent has exiled.
Alternatively, he could wait until the Bearer's trigger goes on the stack, then activate the ability of Legion's Initiative in response. Either way, the your opponent's creatures are exiled before the Bearer's ability resolves, and his creatures are saved.

Creatures would be saved, but all lands, enchantments and artifacts would still be destroyed.  So you'd have a hand full of creatures with no way to play them.  Would it be worth doing?  I know that's not the question, but I'm still new to this game and am interested.


text:
How is damage dealt when a creature is blocking multiple creatures?
Let's say I have a Wall of Essence and a Brave the Sands on the battlefield. My opponent has two Mardu Woe-Reapers on the battlefield. Based on Brave the Sands description I can block both Woe-Reapers, but does that also mean my Wall of Essence will be destroyed since the accumulated power of the two Woe-Reapers is four?

What's the point of confusion that makes you think it wouldn't?

Yes, your Wall of Essence can block both Mardu Woe-Reapers. And yes, the combined power of the Woe-Reapers will destroy the Wall of Essence.
Here's how combat proceeds in this situation:

Combat starts. The Declare Attackers Step starts, and your opponent declares both Mardu Woe-Reapers as attackers.
The Declare Blockers Step starts, and you declare your Wall of Essence as a blocker of both Woe-Reapers.
The Combat Damage Step starts. Each unblocked creature deals damage equal to its power to the defending player, each blocked creature deals damage equal to its power divided among its blockers, and each blocking creature deals damage equal to its power divided among the creatures it is blocking. In total, this means that each Woe-Reaper deals 2 damage to the Wall.
State Based Effects are checked. The Wall has 4 damage marked on it and 4 toughness, so it dies as a state based effect.


text:
Enchantment Legal only because of it's Effect. Remains on target?
This happened this weekend, and we were unsure how to resolve it.
Opponent casts Progenitus.
On my turn, I cast Polymorphist Jest.
Then I cast, Darksteel Mutation targeting the Progenitus.
Normally, I could not target the Progenitus because it has Protection from Everything, but since it lost all abilities and became a frog, it was a valid target (We thought so anyway). It was at the end of this turn that we were unsure. Polymorphist's Jest effect ended, but the Darksteel Mutation was still enchanting the creature. This is what we thought:

Progentius has Protection from Everything and the Enchantment "falls off" as it is no longer a valid target.
The Insect has no abilities apart from Indestructible, and the Enchantment stays.
Something Else???

I'm really hoping this is #2 since this combo would allow for targeting of things with shroud and hexproof, etc. on the turn I cast Polymorphist's Jest.

Incidentally, shroud/hexproof only care about targeting the creature with the aura; they don't make auras fall off like protection does. This is useful if the aura doesn't have the "loses all abilities" clause that Darksteel Mutation has.

Choice number 2 is the correct one: the Progenitus is an Insect with no abilities except Indestructible and the Aura stays attached to it. Rule 613.1 says

The values of an object's characteristics are determined by starting with the actual object. For a card, that means the values of the characteristics printed on that card. For a token or a copy of a spell or card, that means the values of the characteristics defined by the effect that created it. Then all applicable continuous effects are applied in a series of layers

The key point is that determining the values of an objects characteristics involves applying all applicable continuous effects. Also, since we start with "the actual object", any effect that causes Progenitus to lose the ability is applied after its own ability, it ends up without the ability no matter what the relative timestamps are. So, as long as the Aura is attached, whenever state-based actions are checked, the Progenitus doesn't have Protection, so the Aura stays on.


text:
Is it a player's whole turn if they are chosen for a Showdown?
If I play a showdown card and play against the person next to me, what happens after the showdown? Does the person I challenged still get their turn, or was the showdown their turn?

I've never played this game, but I've now read the rules pdf from here
I couldn't find anything in the rules that indicated when the next player would start their turn!  I can only assume passing a turn works in the same way as basic Uno rules, where play passes clockwise after a player plays a card.
The rules for showdowns say

The player who played the card takes the Showdown unit and places it
between themselves and the next player in the current order of play
(unless they played a Wild Showdown Card – more on that later).

the Wild Showdown Card is then expanded on later with

When you play this card, you get to choose which player to have a
showdown with

There is nothing in these rules which indicates that taking part in a showdown is the target player's whole turn.  It seems to me that a showdown just happens with the next player in turn order, who then takes their turn afterwards as normal.
If it was the next player's whole turn I would expect the rules for a wild showdown to suggest play continue from the player chosen for the wild showdown, but they do not.
As a general rule for games, if something is not stated clearly in the rules then it almost certainly is not a rule.


text:
Dina Soul Steeper & Lifelink Combo
I recently pulled a Dina, Soul Steeper from a Strixhaven, School of Mages pack. I realized that Dina's activated ability, when given lifelink, could instantly win you the game. The ability reads "Whenever you gain life, each opponent loses one life." Lifelink affects creature abilities, so it would affect this. Therefore, if I gave Dina lifelink (from, say, an Alchemist's Gift, though it's irrelevant, so long as it grants lifelink) then gained life, I would win the game. I'd be dealing damage because of the ability, which would go on the stack before the lifelink, which would give me more life. It would be an endless loop, me gaining life and draining my opponents' life. My question is: Would this work? I do not know how thorough the Magic card developers are when checking if cards are too overpowered, but this seems too big to overlook. If this is legal, would it work the way I described? If not, why not? Is there any potential there?

This would not work as you are thinking.
The key is that Dina's ability does not do damage to your opponent. Although taking damage results in a loss of life, the effect "loses life" does not count as taking damage.
Lifelink only works when the source with lifelink actually deals damage:

702.15b Damage dealt by a source with lifelink causes that source’s controller, or its owner if it has no controller, to gain that much life (in addition to any other results that damage causes).

See this question for more details on the differences between "loss of life" and "damage".


text:
Can you cheat out a card using Clone and Spy Kit?
Say I had a Ornithopter with Spy Kit attached could I use Clone to make a Spy Kit? Does Clone target the name or the actual card?

The rulings on Clone seem pretty clear to me: "Clone copies exactly what was printed on the original creature and nothing more" What makes you think something else would apply?

@PhilipKendall The comprehensive rules would make me think otherwise - copy effects are also copied. A clone copying another clone would not enter as a 0/0, but as whatever the first clone is copying.

@Hackworth: It's a fair point, but I'll point out that those aren't mutually exclusive if you allow for the "original creature" to be a different card than the targetted creature.

Also a minor but important note: "target" has a specific technical meaning in Magic, and Clone doesn't target.

No, this does not work for multiple reasons.

Clone copies a creature, it does not copy a name. Even you were allowed to use Clone as you suggest to create a "Spy Kit", it would be a "Spy Kit" that is a 0/2 creature with flying; it would not be a Spy Kit that's an artifact equipment with Spy Kit's ability.

Characteristics caused by equipment and other static effects are not copyable.

706.2. When copying an object, the copy acquires the copiable values of the original object’s characteristics and, for an object on the stack, choices made when casting or activating it (mode, targets, the value of X, whether it was kicked, how it will affect multiple targets, and so on). The copiable values are the values derived from the text printed on the object (that text being name, mana cost, color indicator, card type, subtype, supertype, rules text, power, toughness, and/or loyalty), as modified by other copy effects, by its face-down status, and by “as . . . enters the battlefield” and “as . . . is turned face up” abilities that set power and toughness (and may also set additional characteristics). Other effects (including type-changing and text-changing effects), status, and counters are not copied.

So Spy Kit or any other equipments or auras would have no effect on what the Clone becomes.

Spy Kit does not grant the name "Spy Kit" to the equipped creature. Spy Kit says:

Equipped creature gets +1/+1 and has all names of nonlegendary creature cards in addition to its name.

Note that it says "creature cards", so it would only give your Ornithopter the names of creature cards, and Spy Kit is not a creature card. So Ornithopter will have a lot of names, but Spy Kit will not be one of them.


text:
May I move a hex number in Catan Europe if there is a robber on that hex?
In Catan Europe Board Game there are some hexes without a number. When we come there, we get a number from an already taken hex and place that number on a new hex.
So, my question is:
May I move a hex number in Catan Europe from the old hex to a new one if there is a robber on that old hex?

Yes, you can.
While there is no rule specifically stating this, the rules simply don't say or imply any sort of restriction that would make the robber relevant here:

Place and move a number token: If a newly built trading post
is adjacent to a terrain hex without number in the center of the
hex, choose one of the face-down number tokens from the supply
and place it on the token space of that terrain hex. The number
token must have the same color as the hex’s token space. If there
are no more face-down number tokens of matching color in the
supply, you must move a number token has already been placed.
Remove any number token of matching color from another
terrain hex and place it on the empty token space of your new
terrain hex.

Technically, the rules (or, at least, the basic rules) do say "If you roll a “7,” ... You must move the robber Y immediately to the number token of any other terrain hex or to the desert Y hex." Thus, moving the number token requires moving the robber (because the robber is on top of the number token, so at the very least you have to move the robber to another part of the hex).


text:
In ONO 99, what is the rule for a player holding 3 99's and a -10, when the new total would be negative?
There is seemingly no rule in the ONO 99 rule book to cover this case. It is your turn to play, and you hold three 99's and a -10, and the total on the pile is less than 10. Are you eliminated?

In the original 1980s game, there is no need to address the situation because it follows the rules exactly.
The player cannot play any of the 99 cards, because this is disallowed by the rules, and they cannot discard the hand to replace it, because they are only holding three 99 cards, not four.
They are not eliminated because they can play a card that will not take the pile's total above 99, because a negative number is always less than 99, so that is what they must do.
Then they draw another card, and the game continues.
In the 2022 game version, the pile's total cannot go below zero. The player is unable to play an acceptable card, therefore they are eliminated.

When playing the 2022 printed version, the rules say "the pile's cannot go below zero", but there are 2 valid ways to interpret that: "You cannot play a card that would make the pile go below zero" or "if the sum would go below zero, it stays at zero instead". The second interpretation would allow you to play the -10 card. Are those rules clear on which it is?

Nothing beyond that simple expression. But based on the presence of two places they could have specified that it's locked at zero-or-more, rather than just starting there and not allowed lower, and that this is a game advertised as suitable for children below the usual age of learning about negatives, and that the game is meant to be short and is based on player elimination, I'd say pragmatically if not technically, it's "you can't play, you go out".

No, you are not eliminated.
Update: Mattel's customer service rep confirms that the rules are not explicit on how to handle this case but declines to resolve the rules, with the usual manufacturer-of-games-made-for-children appeal to "you can play the way you want to make it fun for you" boilerplate (ignoring those of us who find that "fun" means playing by the official rules).
Quote from Mattel email:

there is going to be time to time when you and your players make the game more unique and decide how the experience is going to play out.
In this case scenario where the count is 5 and it is Bob's turn and he holds three 99s and a Minus Ten, then what does Bob do? Well, the rules are simple, he can't make the count go below 0 so the -10 won't do, [he can't] put down the three 99s because he needs four to actually do it.
You can decide how your game is going to work in this type of case, let say for example you decide any -10 used when the count is below ten actually makes de count go down to zero, if you abide by this rule then Bob would be able to use -10 card and set the game on 0.
Another option would be to make Bob pass, you would skip his turn because he has actually a completely useless hand at the moment.

(Of particular note: the rep uses "skip" and "at the moment" rather than "is eliminated", leaving "Bob" free to play again the next round, assuming the count rises to 10 or more -- according to the rep, this is not one of the ways to be eliminated from the game)
My original answer continues, which matches the "clamp to zero" option from the rep (or the original rules, if you're using those):
You can play the minus ten. You are only prohibited from playing the 99s (the prohibition is against bringing the total to 99 or more).
You can play the Minus 10. This will bring the total to negative (or to zero in the 2021/2022 version -- in the new version, the count never drops below zero, even if a -10 would bring it to the negatives).
Original:

There is no restriction on when you can play the Minus Ten card.

Note: A minus 10 card may be played if the total is 0, then making the total a minus 10.

New version:

When you play the -10 card, you will subtract ten from the current total. The discard pile total can never go below zero.

Note: In the 1980s version of the game, you can make the total go below zero and into the negatives.

You're not out, even in the new version, unless "you are unable to play any card in your hand without causing the total to hit or
exceed 99", and playing a -10 doesn't meet that criteria.
New Rules:

ONO 99 IN A NUTSHELL
If you are unable to play a card without making the total hit 99 or above, you are out of the game.

and

On Your Turn
If you are unable to play any card in your hand without causing the total to hit or exceed 99, you’re out – DON’T PLAY ANY CARD!

No other mechanism for being eliminated is given in the rules.
Conjecture: in addition to simplifying the rules from the standpoint of not dealing with negative numbers, this also removes the contradiction that the 99 cards "cannot be played" when it seems like they could be played if the count were negative. In my opinion, that latter issue is the most likely reason for changing the rules to disallow the count from dipping into the negative range.
Rules:

The bad news: if you are dealt or draw an ONO 99 card, you must keep it and you may not play it.

The rules I have say, for the -10 card: "The -10 card subtracts 10 from the pile. Negative totals are not allowed." seems to be a 2021 version, based on the copyright statement.

@Benjamin Ah, thanks. Maybe the "2022" rules Eric Mortensen is using are actually the 2021 rules (or the rules in the 2022 printing were actually set in 2021). But both allow the the Minus Ten to be played; they only clamp the lower bound of the count to zero: if the count falls into the negatives, it is instead clamped to zero.


text:
Can I cast an Adventure spell with Codie in play?
I'm playing a Codie, Vociferous Codex deck and was wondering if Adventure spells synergizes with codie.
Question:

Does casting the adventure half of the spells count as casting a permanent spell? Or can I cast adventure spells when codie's in play.
I'm assuming casting the adventure spell is viable when codie's in
play because you can negate adventure spells.

If Q1 is true, while the card is "adventuring", and when codie is in play, can I play the other half of the adventure spell? Does playing the adventured permanent count as casting?

Does casting the adventure half of the spells count as casting a permanent spell?

No. Comprehensive Rule 716.3a:

When casting an adventurer card as an Adventure, only the alternative characteristics are evaluated to see if it can be cast.

where "alternative characteristics" refers to the "adventure half" of the card. Assuming the alternative characteristics are of a non-permanent (which is the case for all Adventurer cards as of May 2022), you can cast it while Codie is in play.

can I play the other half of the adventure spell? Does playing the adventured permanent count as casting?

No and yes respectively. CR 716.3d:

Instead of putting a spell that was cast as an Adventure into its owner’s graveyard as it resolves, its controller exiles it. For as long as that card remains exiled, that player may cast it. It can’t be cast as an Adventure this way

(Assuming the non-Adventure half of the card is a permanent. Once again, that is the case for all Adventurer cards as of May 2022)


text:
Can tapping for another card, also activate that card ability?
If I have in play a Selesnya Evangel and tap Tolsimir Wolfblood to create a Saproling, can I create the 2/2 green/white Voja too? Thank you.

Not in the way you describe; both abilities require tapping the Wolfblood as part of their cost; you can't pay one cost to pay for both abilities.
Think of it this way: if a fries and a soda each cost $1 (and you only have $1), you can get one or the other, but not both.
Abilities in Magic the Gathering are written as {cost}:{effect}.
Selesnya Evangel's ability says:

1, T, Tap an untapped creature you control: Create a 1/1 green Saproling creature token.

Paying for this ability requires 1 mana, tapping the Evangel, and tapping another untapped creature you control.
Tolsimir Wolfblood's ability says:

T: Put a legendary 2/2 green and white Wolf creature token named Voja into play.

Paying for this ability only requires tapping Tolsimir.
You could, however, change the order and do the following:

Activate Tolsimir's ability to create the wolf token
Then activate Selesnya Evangel, tapping the newly created wolf token, to creature a Saproling.

Note that there are abilities that work more like your original idea, but they're worded much differently. For example, check out Emmara, Soul of the Accord:

Whenever Emmara, Soul of the Accord becomes tapped, create a 1/1 white Soldier creature token with lifelink.

Emmara has a triggered ability that creates a token whenever it becomes tapped, for any reason (when she attacks, or tapping her for the Evangel's ability, or if it got tapped down by an opponent's Benalish Trapper).

I see, so is it possible to tap permanents during the turn they are played if its not to attack or it works just because the permanent is a token created from an ability instead that from the deck? Sorry for the confusion, it's been quite a while and I'm trying to re-learn.

@IStoleTheMuffin you will want to read https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/25234/what-is-summoning-sickness-and-how-does-it-affect-my-creatures

No problem, and you've hit on a key point: you can't tap a creature for its own ability on the turn it comes into play (unless it has haste), but the Evangel's "Tap an untapped creature you control" cost doesn't have that restriction, so you can tap the newly-created wolf token to help pay for this ability.

Not exactly true. It's the tap symbol. Abilities like [mtg:Heritage Druid] can tap themselves the turn they come in.


text:
Power Grid Benelux phase 2 without one player having 8 houses
In this 5 player game, it appears to be impossible to reach the 8 house threshold for phase 2, so we house ruled phase 2 if all phase 1 houses are sold. Was that a good call?
I'm told it's the Benelux version with new plants, and the other side of the board (Middle Europe) does have enough cities.

The Benelux map only has 5x7=35 cities, which is too few for 5 players. We should have played the Middle Europe map limited to 40 cities, but the house rule of starting phase 2 when phase 1 houses are sold out still made for a close and fun game:

You have the rules wrong
In a 5 player game, 7 cities are required to trigger step 2. I'm finding it difficult to find an online copy of the official rules for the original (non-"recharged") variant, but here's the table from page 7 of my Rio Grande copy (copyright 2004, 2011 2F-Spiele):

The official Benelux rules from the Rio Grande website do not change the trigger conditions, so my current theory is that whoever did the "translation" of the rules into the Dutch version you have shown took some fairly large liberties they shouldn't have taken.

How do you know OP's not recharged? (FWIW, this particular aspect seems to be the same in both)

@AndrewSavinykh Fair point. I sort of assumed they would have said "Recharged" if they were playing that version but I admit that may not be a correct assumption. But as you say, doesn't matter.

It's my first time, new plants Benelux, not Recharged, and this map has only 5x7=35 cities.

@CeesTimmerman Hmmm, interesting. Updated this answer to show that the offical Rio Grande rules do not have that table you have shown.