text:
What does Counterbalance counter, when revealing a split card?
Split cards have 2 Converted Mana Costs everywhere except the stack. I saw a similar question relating to Dark Confidant explaining that you lose life for each converted mana cost, however the way it was explained (you get 2 answers) made me unsure if you can counter a spell with either converted mana cost, or the sum of the converted mana costs.
If you reveal (for example) Life // Death with Counterbalance, what CMC spells can you counter?

there is a significant rules change being announced in the near future which will change the answer to this question

New answer: While it's not on the stack, Life // Death has a CMC of 3.
Amonkhet introduced a rules change in 2017 to simplify split cards. When not on the stack, a split card's CMC is the sum of its halves. When on the stack, it has the CMC of whichever side is being cast, or both combined in the case of split cards cast using the Fuse ability (Both halves are treated as one single spell, with the characteristics of each half combined). From the Comprehensive Rules:

708.3 A player chooses which half of a split card they are casting before putting it onto the stack.

708.3b While on the stack, only the characteristics of the half being cast exist. The other half's characteristics are treated as though they didn't exist.

708.4 In every zone except the stack, the characteristics of a split card are those of its two halves combined. This is a change from previous rules.

708.4b The mana cost of a split card is the combined mana costs of its two halves. A split card's colors and converted mana cost are determined from its combined mana cost.
Example: Assault/Battery's mana cost is {3}{R}{G}. It's a red and green card with a converted mana cost of 5. If you cast Assault, the resulting spell is a red spell with a converted mana cost of 1.
708.4d The characteristics of a fused split spell on the stack are also those of its two halves combined (see rule 702.101, "Fuse").

Old answer:
If the spell has converted mana cost 1 or 2, it will be countered.
This answer may seem different to the Dark Confidant question. While rule 708.5 adequately answers that question, there are further split card rules relevant to Counterbalance.

708.5 An effect that asks for a particular characteristic of a split card while it’s in a zone other than the stack gets two answers (one for each of the split card’s two halves).
708.6 Some effects perform comparisons involving characteristics of one or more split cards in a zone other than the stack.

708.6a An effect that performs a positive comparison (such as asking if a card is red) or a relative comparison (such as asking if a card’s converted mana cost is less than 2) involving characteristics of one or more split cards in any zone other than the stack gets only one answer. This answer is “yes” if either side of each split card in the comparison would return a “yes” answer if compared individually.

With Dark Confidant and Life // Death, you lose 3 life. This is not because Life // Death has a converted mana cost of 3, but because Dark Confidant receives both answers (1 and 2) and reacts to each of them.
Counterbalance is a positive comparison: does the revealed card have the same converted mana cost as the cast spell? The converted mana cost of Life // Death is both 1 and 2, so if the revealed card has that a mana cost of either 1 or 2 then the answer to the question is yes, and the spell is countered.
So, results that receive more than one answer apply to each of those answers. Positive comparisons that receive more than one answer use the or comparison (one or more "yes" = "yes"). Negative comparisons (rule 708.6b) use the nor comparison (one or more "yes" = "no).


text:
Where can I find a Complete Spoiler list of Risk Legacy's packets & pockets?
In short, I need a list of all the cards contained in all the packets and pockets.
Background: I completely played through a copy of Risk Legacy with some friends at the beginning of this year, it was great, we all enjoyed ourselves and noted we would like to do it again. However, one of the friends involved in Risk Legacy play through has moved to the otherside of the country and I am setting up to run a campaign of it on Roll20, but I realized our lack of meticulous documenting on our physical playthrough has now caught up to us (we tore up all the cards we were told to destroy after using them) as I am missing a bunch of cards and faction stickers to recreate the vanilla game. Does anyone know where i could find such a list?

A complete list of what is in each packet can be found in this PDF I have made publicly available.
I wasn't able to find any one distinct source, however by reconstructing the starting powers with the help of this question Which Faction Power will result in the greatest bonus troops and/or fewest troop losses? and reading a series of blogposts giving a breakdown of a campaign on BoardgameGeek I was able to come up with a comprehensive list to help me and my friends play a new campaign with our existing map.

I'd like to know if anyone have access to Joshua's Word doc he mentioned. I try to access it but it appears to be offline.

@marcospanontin I have upfated this with a new, non broken link

Does the general distaste for link only answers apply here?

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Effect of Pixie Guide in Planechase
In planechase, what is the effect of cards like Pixie Guide and Barbarian Class on rolling the planar die?
Rule 901.9d mentions triggered abilities, which doesn't match what happens as it is not a triggered ability.

901.9d Rolling the planar die will cause any ability that triggers whenever a player rolls one or more dice to trigger. However, any effect that refers to a numerical result of a die roll, including ones that compare the results of that roll to other rolls or to a given number, ignores the rolling of the planar die. See 706, “Rolling a Die.”

But you also can't ignore the lowest because there is nothing to compare. So with rule 901.9d, would that mean I do not role any additional dice?

With Pixie Guide or Barbarian Class, you will only roll one planar die.
The second sentence of rule 901.9d refers to "any effect", which is a broader category than triggered abilities and includes the replacement effects on those two cards. The way those effects "ignore the rolling of the planer die" has been clarified by the MTG rules manager @Dunkatog on Twitter in this conversation:

@PeteroUPC: @dunkatog: How does Pixie Guide handle rolling a planar die?  What does it mean to "ignore the lowest roll" of a planar die?
@Dunkatog: The planar die is ignored for any effect that cares about the numerical value of a result (including comparative value).
@PeteroUPC: To be clear, does that mean that Pixie Guide's effect does not turn, e.g., rolling one planar die into rolling two planar dice and "ignor[ing] the lowest roll", whatever that means?
@Dunkatog: That’s correct. You won’t roll an additional planar die.

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


text:
How does this interaction between Black Sun's Zenith and Geralf's Messenger resolve?
My opponent has a Geralf's Messenger in play with a single +1/+1 counter on it. He also has a Diregraf Captain in play. Due to the combined effects, the Messenger is a 5/4.
When I cast a Black Sun's Zenith with X declared as 3, what happens to the Messenger?
From a first glance, the messenger would die while it still had a +1/+1 counter on it. Is this correct?

Interestingly not, state based actions are performed in batches.  Before a player would receive priority the game checks for state based actions and sees a conflicting +1/+1 and -1/-1 counter, and a creature with zero or less toughness.  So it annihilates the counters and bins the captain.  Now the game does another check for state based actions and sees another creature with zero or less toughness, so it bins him, after the +1/+1 has been annihilated.

Thanks! It's a pretty unintuitive call. A BSZ for 4 would definitely kill both, though.

In this particular instance, the Messenger comes back.
For the general reasoning, take a look at this answer: "Why doesn't Undying trigger if a creature with +1/+1 counters dies from -1/-1 counters?"
The important thing in this specific scenario is that the game checks state-based actions in multiple "waves":

704.3. ... If any state-based actions are performed as a result of a check, the check is repeated; otherwise all triggered abilities that
  are waiting to be put on the stack are put on the stack, then the
  check is repeated. Once no more state-based actions have been
  performed as the result of a check and no triggered abilities are
  waiting to be put on the stack, the appropriate player gets priority.

What happens when you BSZ for 3 with a Diregraf Captain and a 5/4 Geralf's Messenger in play?
When BSZ resolves, you put three -1/-1 counters on both creatures. Then, after it has resolved, you check state-based actions:

Diregraf Captain is at -1/-1, so it would die. Geralf's Messenger is at 2/1 (3/2, +1/+1 from its +1/+1 counter, -3/-3 from the -1/-1 counters, +1/+1 from Diregraf Captain), so it stays on the battlefield.
Simultaneously, +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters cancel, leaving the Geralf's Messenger with zero +1/+1 counters and two -1/-1 counters.

So, now you put Diregraf Captain in the graveyard. Then, before anyone gets priority or any triggers are checked (e.g. Blood Artist's), check SBAs again:

Now Geralf's Messenger is a 1/0 (3/2, -2/-2 from counters), so it dies.

When the Messenger dies, its unambiguously last state on the battlefield was having no +1/+1 counters. So, its undying ability triggers. You'll check SBAs again to make sure there are no new ones, then put the trigger on the stack, and then the active players gets priority  (with the undying ability still on the stack).

I have no idea why this was downvoted?

Super-fussy nitpick, the trigger happens during resolution of SBAs, but the object doesn't actually go on the stack until there are no more SBAs to perform.  There was probably a time when I knew of an example of why this mattered, but can't think of it at the moment :)  (+1 for citing comp rules!)

@Affe You mean super-awesome nitpick! Thanks. I corrected it!

I'll add one thing: Diregraf Captain won't trigger when Geralf's Messenger dies, basically for the same reason: Diregraf Captain dies in the first wave of state-based actions checks, and won't be around when Geralf's Messenger dies.

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


text:
How does Mitotic Slime work with Devour?
Say that I have a Mitotic Slime in play and then play Thromok the Insatiable. When I sacrifice the Slime due to Thromok's Devour ability, I get two 2/2 Slime tokens. Am I able to sacrifice those Slime tokens to Thromok as well, or do they not come into play until Thromok is completely resolved? Since the 2/2 Slime tokens make two 1/1 Slime tokens as well, could I potentially get seven devour triggers from this one creature?

Thromok the Insatiable, or other Devour card has a static ability that modifies how that permanent enters that battlefield. Mitotic Slime has a triggered ability, which means that if it triggers during the resolution of another spell or ability (such as Devour, placing the Mitotic Slime in the graveyard), it must wait until the next time any player would receive priority before being put on the stack and finally resolving when both players pass in succession.
Spells and abilities on the stack do not resolve immediately, so it would be impossible to sacrifice the Mitotic Slime and the tokens that it produces when the Die trigger resolves, before the Devour ability that initially caused the Die trigger finishes resolving. The Devour ability must finish resolving before any player receives priority.

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

603.3  Once an ability has triggered, its controller puts it on the stack as an object that’s not a card the next time a player would receive priority. See rule 116, "Timing and Priority."

116.2a  Triggered abilities can trigger at any time, including while a spell is being cast, an ability is being activated, or a spell or ability is resolving. (See rule 603, "Handling Triggered Abilities.") However, nothing actually happens at the time an ability triggers. Each time a player would receive priority, each ability that has triggered but hasn’t yet been put on the stack is put on the stack. See rule 116.5.

The Mitotic Slime's "put two 2/2 Ooze creatures onto the battlefield" ability triggers, but does not resolve, in the course of Thromok's Devour ability.  So you won't get to Devour any of the Slime tokens.
Thromok is already on the battlefield by the time the mitotically-created subslimes appear, and can't go back for seconds!


text:
Do i have to have a spell target to tap a wizard creature with Patron Wizard?
Patron Wizard says I have to tap an untapped wizard. That is before the ":", which means that is the cost. However, does there have to be a spell to target to use this ability, or can I just tap an untapped wizard and let the ability fizzle?

You absolutely do have to have a target in order to use the ability.

602.2  To activate an ability is to put it onto the stack and pay its costs,
  so that it will even tually resolve and have its effect. Only an
  object’s controller (or its owner, if it doesn’t have a controller)
  can activate its activated ability unless the object specifically says
  otherwise. Activating an ability follows the steps listed below, in
  order. If, at any point during the activation of an ability, a player
  is unable to comply with any of those steps, the activation is
  illegal; the game returns to the moment before that ability started to
  be activated (see rule 717, “Handling Illegal Actions”). Announcements
  and payments can’t be altered after they’ve been made.

And you have to choose a target in order to cast a spell or activate an ability.

601.2c The player announces his or her choice of an appropriate player, object, or zone for each target the spell requires. A spell
  may require some targets only if an alternative or additional cost
  (such as a buyback or kicker cost), or a particular mode, was chosen
  for it; otherwise, the spell is cast as though it did not require
  those targets. If the spell has a variable number of targets, the
  player announces how many targets he or she will choose before he or
  she announces those targets. The same target can’t be chosen multiple
  times for any one instance of the word “target” on the spell. However,
  if the spell uses the word “target” in multiple places, the same
  object, player, or zone can be chosen once for each instance of the
  word “target” (as long as it fits the targeting criteria). If any
  effects say that an object or player must be chosen as a target, the
  player chooses targets so that he or she obeys the maximum possible
  number of such effects without violating any rules or effects that say
  that an object or player can’t be chosen as a target. The chosen
  players, objects, and/or zones each become a target of that spell.
  (Any abilities that trigger when those players, objects, and/or zones
  become the target of a spell trigger at this point; they’ll wait to be
  put on the stack until the spell has finished being cast.)

602.2b The remainder of the process for activating an ability is identical to the process for casting a spell listed in rules 601.2b –
  h. Those rules apply to activating an a bility just as they apply to
  casting a spell. An activated ability’s analog to a spell’s mana cost
  (as referenced in rule 601.2e) is its activation cost.

Another appropriate rule is 601.2c The player announces his or her choice of an appropriate player, object, or zone for each target the spell requires....

@Pow-Ian he's asking if he can pay the cost without actually using the ability on a legal target.

@Pow-Ian to list all the revelant rules would require me to list 601.2c through 601.2g and 602.2b, all of which together  would bring my answer below the fold

@Pow-Ian I think that it's quite sufficient to understand that if you are unable to comply with one of the parts of activating an ability, then you can't do any of the parts of it at all.

Actually he asked, "However, does there have to be a spell to target for me to be able to use this ability?" which is not directly addressed by stating you have to complete all the steps. At first galnce choosing a target does not seem like a required step since a spell/ability on the stack can easily end up without a legal target which made me origianlly think that there did not need to be a target when you cast/activated it.

@Pow-Ian It seemed to me that the source of the OP's confusion is regarding whether you can pay the costs for the ability even if you can't legally cast it, although I might have been primed to think that way by the OP's previous question

Can you use this ability to target an Abrupt Decay, only to have the ability fizzle because Abrupt Decay cannot be countered? (Let's say, for instance, you REALLY wanted it tapped so a Backlash spell targeting it fizzles...)

@corsiKa yes, you can target abrupt decay with any counterspell.  It's inability to be countered doesn't make it an illegal target, It just won't be countered.  just as the same as you can use quirion ranger to untap creatures that are untapped.  because


text:
When should I open a particular envelope in Risk Legacy?
Risk Legacy, oddly enough, has spoilers, so I'll go ahead and use the spoiler tags.
Description of the envelope:

 There is an envelope in Risk Legacy, hidden in the box, marked "Do not open. Ever."

This game is intended to be played 15 times over its lifetime, after which it gets (in theory) locked down in a playable, final state.  My question is about when to open this envelope.
Question about when to open it:

 Obviously I want to open it sometime.  I mean, they told me not to open it, so of course I want to open it.  The question is: when?
 Should we wait until after the 15 games are played?  Or should we open it sometime near the end, say after 12 or 13 plays?

Answers without spoilers as to the contents of the envelope are of course preferred.

It would be difficult to go into the reasoning without spoiling anything, but you should probably open it before the 15th signature. Waiting until after that will make some of the packet not matter.
The designer's opinion, RobDaviau wrote:

I would open at least two envelopes and one pocket first.

There are at least a few different versions of this packet and they all do something to modify the game play in one way or the other.
I guess I'll have to answer the question with a question: Do you want to "upset" the status quo? If so, open it.
But an even better question: Are you afraid that it might turn things upside down? If so, definitely open it!
If you're afraid, then that makes the envelope exciting and if the game's becoming humdrum you need to open it too. Otherwise, open it after the 17th game or so.


text:
When does "Targeting" happen in MTG?
Here is a hypothetical situation I am wondering about:

I have in play a Omnath, Locus of Mana and 500 Green mana in my mana pool.

My opponent plays a removal spell on Omnath (Path to Exile, Doom Blade etc)

In response I play a Vines of Vastwood on Omnath (Vines makes Omnath not targetable).

Rule 114.1 says that:

targets are declared as part of the process of putting the spell or ability on the stack

So Omnath was declared as the target when the removal spell was played.  Is it too late then for my Vines of the Vastwood to save Omnath?
Or is there somekind of rechecking of the target before the spell resolves (I could not find it in the targeting rules section.)

As you said, you declare the targets of a spell while you are putting the spell on the stack. Then, when a spell starts to resolve, if it no longer has valid targets, it fails to resolve.
From rule 601.2c, the third step of casting a spell is:

The player announces his or her choice of an appropriate player, object, or zone for each target the spell requires.

and from rule 608.2b, as part of resolving a spell or ability,

If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal... 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... The spell or ability is countered if all its targets, for every instance of the word "target," are now illegal... if any of its targets are illegal, the part of the spell or ability's effect for which it is an illegal target can't perform any actions on that target or make that target perform any actions.

So in your example, once Vines of the Vastwood resolves, the removal spell no longer has a valid target, so the removal spell fails to resolve and Omnath stays in play.

Reader's Digest condensed version: the spell checks for "targetability" both when it is cast and when it resolves.


text:
Auras on creatures with protection
I have a question about a new Born of the Gods card.  The card is called Silent Sentinel.  It has the text that says:

Whenever Silent Sentinel attacks, you may return target enchantment
card from your graveyard to the battlefield.

I was listening to podcast Limited Resources episode 218 with Judge Joe Bono.  In that episode he says that Silent Sentinel could attach a Enchantment Aura to a creature that was protected from the color of the aura.  He then says that it would just drop off immediately. (This was right around the 1 hour mark in the show.)
I got to thinking about this and I wondered if any of the effects of the Enchantment would have any effect before they dropped off.
Here is an example to illustrate: My opponent has a White Knight in play. I have a Silent Sentinel in play along with 7 Swamps.  I have a Quag Sickness in my graveyard.
In my combat phase, I attack with my Silent Sentinel.  This allows me to bring back a Quag Sickness from my graveyard.  I attach Quag Sickness to the White Knight.  (Note: Because bringing an aura back with Silent Sentinel it does not require targeting to attach it.  So it can attach to White Knight despite it having protection from Black).
Now the arua will fall off right away, but before it falls off does any of the effects of it do anything?  (Meaning could it kill the White Knight.)
If the Quag Sickness in this example does not do anything, is there a scenario that would?

murgatroid99 is correct. If that's indeed what JJB said, he made a mistake.

Probably he was thinking about the interaction with, say, creatures with shroud or hexproof. Since those are restrictions on targeting and not enchanting the interaction would work as stated.

@Chad Miller, No, "drop off immediately" wouldn't happen in that case.

The Quag Sickness cannot be returned to the battlefield enchanting the White Knight.
The relevant rule about Protection, 702.16c, says

A permanent or player with protection can’t be enchanted by Auras that have the stated quality.

and the relevant rule about Auras, 303.4f, says

If an Aura is entering the battlefield under a player’s control by any means other than by resolving as an Aura spell, and the effect putting it onto the battlefield doesn’t specify the object or player the Aura will enchant, that player chooses what it will enchant as the Aura enters the battlefield. The player must choose a legal object or player according to the Aura’s enchant ability and any other applicable effects.

This means that, since White Knight has protection from black and Quag Sickness is black, White Knight is not a legal object according to "other applicable effects".

Murgatroid has answered this correctly and thoroughly.
When we talked about Silent Sentinel on the show I wanted to discuss the interaction with Hexproof and Shroud, which is where we started the discussion. Brian then asked bout the interaction with protection and I gave an off-the-cuff answer without thinking, which was basically "well, if an enchantment is enchanting something that has protection from that enchantment, the enchantment will fall off next time we check SBAs." That is a technically correct answer, but it wasn't the right answer to this question because the issue isn't what happens if an object is illegally enchanted, but rather "under these circumstances, can this object become enchanted in the first place." To which the answer is "no."
The most common situation you run into with protection and illegally attached auras is when an object gains protection while it is already enchanted, which is where I was coming from addressing Brian's question. I didn't take the time to actually step back and think things through, which, while it is an essential part of handling rules questions, doesn't make for good radio. Clearly this is a question I should have been prepared to answer given that I knew we were going to discuss Silent Sentinel, so I'm definitely at fault here and I apologize for the misinformation.


text:
Can Aura of Dominion be used with Inspire Creatures?
If I put Aura of Dominion on Arbiter of the Ideal, can I pay 1 mana and tap Arbiter of the Ideal (as the cost of Aura of Dominion's ability) and then have Arbiter untap (as the effect of Aura of Dominion's ability)?
If so, am I right in thinking that this will let me use Arbiter of the Ideal's Inspire ability as many times as I have untapped mana?

True, or until your top card is not a creature/land/artifact :p

Well, you can keep doing it. It just wouldn't do anything but repeatedly reveal the same card.

Yes, you can use Aura of Dominion to repeatedly trigger Inspired.
Basically, when you activate the ability, you tap the enchanted creature (and pay 1 mana) to pay for it. Then when it resolves, the enchanted creature untaps and the Inspired ability triggers. Then the game has basically returned to the state it started in, so you can do it until you run out of mana.


text:
Does a Life Gain deck have any hope against a Stigma Lasher?
Is there anything that can be done against a Stigma Lasher if you have a life gain deck?
This card seems quite broken.  2 mana for a 2/2 wither is a good card.  But to have it ruin any hope of lifegain for the rest of the game seems unfair.  (The rulings say that you still cannot gain life even if you kill Stigma Lasher.)
I was planning to build a life gain deck to counter my friends burn deck.  But that seems pointless now.
He can add a few of these and some cards like Soul's Fire or Power of Fire (letting a creature damage a player without a chance to block) and I will be done for the rest of the game.
Is there any way to remove the effect of Stigma Lasher once it has done combat damage?

"Do I have any hope?" Of course you do. It's a 2/2 2-drop without haste. Just kill it before it can do its thing.

Circle of protection: red could be usefull against burn and stigma lasher

In general, for any particular strategy, there's probably a card out there somewhere that totally hoses it. If your opponent is trying to beat just your deck, this kind of thing will happen.

How about instead of building a lifegain deck, you build a regular creature deck that can gain some life with things like thragtusk(now only $2) and kitchen finks.  That way, playing stigma lasher will be underwhelming

Stigma Lasher's effect cannot be removed while the game is still going on — so, obviously, the only way around it is to abandon the current game and replace it with a new one by using Karn Liberated's third ability, which gets rid of the effect and also everything you've accomplished so far.

Very clever....

There is no way to remove the effect, but you could play around it.
Transcendence prevents you from losing for having negative life, but instead you lose for having 20+ life (which you no longer have to worry about).

You can do some interesting things with Lich effects too, but that requires a B/W deck.

Transcendence doesn't seem like a very good card in a life gain deck except as a hard counter to a Stigma Lasher based burn deck. Actually, there's never a point when having life gain will help you while transcendence is on the field.

@murgatroid99, Sideboard, since it is only useful versus Stigma Lasher

The problem I see is that sideboarding it in would devalue the life-gain cards in your deck.

If the deck was a life gain Lich deck, it would be unaffected by Stigma lasher. Transcendence would be key to the deck as well. The OP hasn't said what kind of life gain deck they are making.

@murgatroid99 Moreover, a 6-drop generally isn't a useful answer to a burn deck. :)

@AlexP, life gain should,give enough of a cushion to hit a 6 drop. I never said this was the best answer, but the OP mentioned his opponent was using cards like Power of Fire, so he isn't playing against a good burn deck.

No. Effects that say "until the end of the game" are never removed or negated by any other effect.
More specifically, when Stigma Lasher deals damage to a player, the triggered ability creates a continuous effect. This effect is not attached to any permanent or targetable game object, so there are no Magic cards that will enable you to gain life after that effect resolves.

While you can't stop the ability once it's happened, there are a few things that can be done to work around Stigma Lasher's effect.

Start a new game - Karn Liberated lets you end the current game and start a new one with some special changes. This new game won't still have Stigma Lasher's effect in place.
Change your loss conditions - Transcendence will actually make Stigma Lasher's effect work for you, not against you, if you can't gain life but lose when you have a high life total instead of life less than or equal to 0, you can't lose due to life totals. Just don't play it unless you're already below 20 or you lose instantly.
Prevent life loss also - Worship and Platinum Emperion will prevent you from losing due to life loss, Worship stops you from losing that last point of life if you have a creature, Emperion stops your life total from changing, up or down, for any reason.
Don't let the lasher hit you - Combat damage you can block, damage due to effects like Power of Fire or Soul's Fire you can't stop that way, but you can prevent that from hitting you. Leyline of Sanctity is one of the common ways to give a player hexproof, if they can't target you with the non combat damage, then power of fire on the Lasher just doesn't work.
Prevent yourself from losing - Platinum Angel Stops a player from losing the game, if you can't lose you still have a chance there.

Since your opponent is playing burn, likely mono red, they can't deal with enchantments. Leyline of Sanctity, Transcendence and Worship will both also be permanent effects once you get them out there. These cards will turn a game you can't win into a game your opponent can't win with a mono red burn deck.

There is no way of removing Stigma Lasher's effect unless you use Karn Liberated's last planeswalker ability (restarts the game).
I'd suggest just eliminating the Lasher once its out. I'd suggest cards like Oblivion Ring or Detention Sphere to deny him the Lasher.


text:
How to describe the strengths and weaknesses of white to a new mtg player?
When I'm teaching Magic: The Gathering to a new player, one of the things I usually give them early on is a run down of each of the different colors and its pros and cons. I usually try to come up with 2 sentences and no more than 3 example cards to describe the color. Normally, I use descriptions that are something like this:

Red: Uses the power of fire to damage life totals, creatures, and
destroy lands/artifacts. Has trouble dealing with enchantments,
flying, and tricky spells. Examples: Shock, Shatter, Demolish.
Black: Uses the power of death and evil to profit from other misery
with powerful removal, creatures, discard spells, and detrimental
enchantments. Has trouble dealing with enchantments, vulnerable to
removal, and has slightly weaker creatures. Examples: Doom Blade, Mind Rot, Sorin's Thirst
Blue: Uses the power of the mind to manipulate the field of battle by
drawing cards, countering spells, messing with opponents' plans in
general, and playing flying creatures. Has the weakest creatures in
the game, even though it has many of the best flying creatures.
Examples: Divination, Cancel, Darkslick Drake (or any other good
flying creature)
Green: Uses the power of nature to grow and expand until its massive
creatures are too much for opponents to handle. Good at dealing with
artifacts/enchantments, and has strongest creatures in the game, but
also has worst flying creatures and very little removal. Examples:
Llanowar Elves, Leatherback Baloth, Naturalize
White: Uses the power of life and justice to play powerful creatures,
life-gain spells, sweeper spells, small creatures, and good defenses.
Second best in flying and creatures overall, but weak against ??????
Examples: ?????

While these are rough examples that could all use a bit of polishing, I definitely feel like my understanding and explanation of white looks the weakest. Currently, I look at white as the 'all-around color' with fewer strengths and weaknesses than the others, but I'm having trouble characterizing it in more specific ways.
How would you explain the pros and cons of the color white to newcomers to MTG? What example cards and general characteristics of white decks would you include? What might you add to my other explanations to make them more helpful and accurate, but still keep them clean and concise?

You might not be aware but Wizards already has a page describing to a new player what the core concepts of each colour of magic are. Here's what they have to say, even more concisely than how you explain the colours:
##White: The color of Justice
White spellcasters use superior tactics, efficient creatures, and the power of righteousness against their foes.
##Blue: The color of Wisdom
Blue mages focus on using superior knowledge to gain control of a battle, and slowly gain the upper hand.
##Black: The color of Ambition
Black sorcerers are willing to do whatever it takes to win a battle, even if it means sacrificing everything to do so.
##Red: The color of Chaos
Red conjurers try to win as quickly and dramatically as possible, smashing and burning their way to a quick victory.
##Green: The color of Nature
Green shamans win duels through the brute force of mother nature, summoning giant creatures to squash their enemies.
I think some of your explanations need a bit of work. For example, black isn't (always) explicitly evil, just selfish and ambitious; and red isn't just "the power of fire" (although the element of fire is associated with it) just like blue isn't "the power of water".

White: Uses the power justice to play efficient creatures and deal with combat threats. Best at manipulating enchantments, artifact equipment, and life gain, and second best in flying. Worst at direct damage: white relies on superior tactics in combat to deal the lethal blow. Examples: Elite Vanguard, Pacifism, Lifelink.

I would not associated white directly with western concepts of 'justice.'  White is definitely "law and order" but there a plenty of planes in the multiverse where the law and order it imposes would definitely be unjust or outright evil to us.
White's all time greatest strength is 'imprisonment' style creature removal.  Super efficient spells that get rid of a creature for little mana but either give some benefit to the victim in exchange for the efficiency or are restricted in timing/aren't permanent.
White's overall focus is really still on small creatures coming together to form a more powerful army.  Latest sets aside, I think Angels are a secondary theme to the idea of a united army being stronger than the individual little humans or knights or whatever.
White's greatest weakness mechanically is placing high value on lifegain, which is generally not a powerful mechanic, and a lack of ways to replenish your hand.  Even Green has better options for picking up some more cards.

Uses a single minded devotion to Law and Order to deal with enemy
trouble makers and unite small creatures together into armies that are
greater than the sum of their parts.  Has objectively the best removal
spells in the game, but they come with a 'benefit' to the opponent or
are not 'permanent.'  White also includes the iconic Angels that are
among the most recognized cards in magic and some of the most powerful
creatures ever printed.  Examples: Oblivion Ring, Honor of the Pure,
Baneslayer Angel

My gripe about your lifegain statement is this: you can just throw out the bad lifegain cards and play the rest of white, just like you can throw out the overcosted casual-play Dragons and play the rest of red. Then you're left with lifelink, which is actually superb as a creature ability.

I take issue with your disassociation of Justice and White. Even Wizards' introductory “What Is Magic?” page says: “ White: The color of Justice White spellcasters use superior tactics, efficient creatures, and the power of righteousness against their foes.” In my mind, Justice is not associated with Good/Evil. An eye for an eye isn't a good concept, but it is a prototypical concept of justice, and totally in line with white magic mechanics.

There's a lot of detail that can be gone into here, but I'm just going to focus on a couple of points:
First of all, I disagree that white "has good creatures".  White, aside from a few powerful Angels at the top end, has good small creatures.  You'll rarely find cost-effective white creatures in the middle or at the top end of the mana curve.
White's primary weakness from my point of view is that, while it may be a combat colour, its main strengths are defensive.  White direct damage is practically nonexistent; its removal is strongly conditional on having been attacked first, or temporarily rather than permanently disables a threat.  Lifegain is the key example, but in other ways too white is a very reactive rather than proactive colour.  Red, black and green have different ways of dishing out pain to the opponent, but apart from its "weenie swarm" strategy, white, like blue, generally contains threats rather than presents them.  Whether that is ultimately a strength or a weakness depends in the long run on your play style!

What about Hero of Bladehold, Baneslayer Angel, and something like half of all the viable reanimator targets?

@AlexP - I think Magic has become a vast and sprawling game where you'll be lucky to find any rule that doesn't have a counterexample.  All colours tend to have highly playable creatures at all points on the mana curve during all eras of the game: otherwise the ones that didn't would almost certainly cease to be competitive!  But you can safely say that, in general, white will have fewer options for Hero-of-Bladehold-sized creatures at around 4cc than green.  Just because all 5 colours got good (e.g.) Titans out of fairness didn't mean there's nothing to choose between them.

Reanimator targets I think are special cases because once you get to 7 or 8 mana your cards are going to be at a fairly ridiculous power level whatever colour they're in.

Fewer than green, but does it compare poorly to red, blue, or black?

Beyond the bottom end of the curve (1 and 2 drops) I'd say definitely and observably yes.  The classic "3/3 for 4" type creature is something you'll see much more often in every colour but white.

Counterpoint: Assault Griffin, Siege Mastodon.

@Alex: The first dies to Shock; the second's virtually unplayable (except as a 23rd card in limited).  I don't think those are examples of strong 4/5 drops at all.

They're examples of fairly reliable "3/3 for 4" (or close enough) cards at low rarities for Limited. Look at Restoration Angel, Hero of Bladehold, Baneslayer Angel, or Ranger of Eos in constructed -- such high-powered midrange white creatures are few and far between, but how many constructed-playable black four-drop creatures are there?

@AlexP I don't know how many there are, but
Phyrexian Obliterator, Murderous Redcap, Mortivore and Mirri the Cursed all say "hi". ;)

Even at the 4-level, Bloodline Keeper makes Assault Griffin look pretty sad.  3/2 Flyer is incontrovertibly below the power curve for 4 mana.

@thesunneversets There's a Limited power curve and a Constructed power curve. Check the rarity.

@AlexP We're talking about Limited now?  When you started this discussion with Hero of Bladehold and reanimation targets?  Okay, granted, but even in M12 at common I think it's possible to argue that the Flying pumpable shade is better than the Griffin, and the 4/4 (bloodthirsted) lifelink guys are certainly better, at 4cc.

@thesunneversets I kinda assumed we were talking about both. In any case, this seems like a discussion that should move to chat.

White: Has really good cheap creatures. Not necessarily big ones, but they often have useful abilities or come in numbers. A classic deck concept is "White weenie".
White has the best unconditional sweepers and really strong spot removal, though the spot removal always has a drawback. White is the strongest defensive color with protection, damage prevention, life gain and spells that are only able affect creatures attacking them.
(Card examples: Gather the Townsfolk, Mirran crusader, Wrath of God, Condemn, Honor of the Pure.)
If I were to add more it would be about good at handling (offense/defense) enchantments and possibly mention their top end bombs. Though I think it's of less importance.

Let me try to complete your proposition without adding too many words:
White: Uses the power of life and justice to play powerful creatures, life-gain spells, sweeper spells, small creatures, and good defenses. Second best in flying and creatures overall, but weak against decks constructed specifically against white and some blue contrlling and countering decks; it also lacks direct damage options.  Examples: Serra Angel, White Knight, Disenchant, Swords to Plowshares, Armageddon, Wrath of God, Righteousness, Circles of Protection.
Enjoy!

Many of the card examples you cite are at best old-school, and some obsolete. Circles of Protection haven't seen print since Eighth Edition; and Swords to Plowshares, although recently reprinted in a Duel Deck, isn't Modern legal. I'd use cards a new player could relate to but highlight White's mechanics/strengths like Lifelink and Pacifism.

You're right, apologies! These are the cards that represent white uniqueness TO ME, and I'm obviously and old school, obsolete player ;-)

White: Excels at creating hoards of small creatures to overwhelm the opponent. It is also the color able to most easily handle any permanent type. It's weaknesses come from the restrictions placed on it's removal. Every spell has a drawback, whether it be sorcery speed, temporary nature, or hitting your creatures as well as your opponents. Ex: Gather the Townsfolk, Day of Judgement, Oblivion Ring

Every spell that can remove a creature or land has a drawback. Its artifact/enchantment removal usually has no drawbacks, or even benefits.


text:
Can I use a Corpse Cur to get a Vector Asp back from the graveyard?
I attack with a Vector Asp and use his activated ability to give him infect until the end of the turn. It's blocked by a 2/2 creature and goes to the graveyard.
If I cast Corpse Cur next, can I return Vector Asp to my hand from the graveyard?
On the one hand, the Vector Asp did have infect until the end of the turn. On the other, he may have lost that by going to the graveyard. Which is it?

I found the answer in the comprehensive rules:

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

So once the Vector Asp goes to my graveyard, it has no memory of the infect I gave it with its activated ability. So, I can't use the Corpse Cur to get it back.

I realize this is a very old answer, but it's worth noting that the above answer includes something very important that this one does not. There is a very important distinction between a "creature" and a "creature card." A "creature" is a permanent on the battlefield; that is what had infect. Corpse Cur can only target a "creature card with infect", and the Vector Asp card doesn't have infect, whether or not it could represent a creature that does.

Corpse Cur says "return target creature card with infect." Although Vector Asp had infect when it went to the graveyard, the creature card Vector Asp in the 'yard doesn't have it. Not a valid target.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/


text:
If Blightsteel Colossus loses its abilities through an effect like Lignify, can it be put into my graveyard?
If I cast Lignify on my opponent's Blightsteel Colossus and then deal 5 damage to it with one of my creatures, does it go to the graveyard since it has no abilities? Or is this ability regained once it is removed from the field since Lignify is destroyed at the same time?

The event Blightsteel Colossus normally replaces is "moving from anywhere to the graveyard" not "being in the graveyard."

The Colossus would be put into the graveyard because it doesn't have its "shuffle into its owner's library" ability when replacement effects would be checked.
At the moment that your Lignified Colossus dies, it's still a 0/4 with no abilities.
From the comp rules for replacement effects:

614.4. Replacement effects must exist before the appropriate event occurs—they can’t “go back in    time” and change something that’s
already happened. Spells or abilities that generate these effects
are often cast or activated in response to whatever would produce the
event and thus resolve before    that event would occur.
Example: A player can activate an ability to regenerate a creature in response to a spell
that would destroy it. Once the spell resolves, though, it’s too late to regenerate the
creature.

It regains its shuffle ability once it hits your graveyard (since Lignify is gone). But the time for checking replacement effects has already passed. It stays in your graveyard.

Absolutely correct, nothing tricky about it. By the time it would regain its indestructible and shuffle into library abilities, it's too late.

But is it the creature that's indestructible? Or the card that's indestructible?

@corsiKa Indestructibility only applies to permanents -- I mean, how would you "destroy" a card in hand, for instance? "Blightsteel Colossus is indestructible" is a static ability that makes Blightsteel Colossus indestructible (indestructibility itself isn't an ability).

Blightsteel Colossus is both a creature and a card - the creature isn't in the graveyard, the card is. Consider Animate Dead which says "Return enchanted creature card..." even on its oracle text.


text:
Copying Soul Seizer
In a recent sealed queue I entered, my opponent had a Soul Seizer on the board, and a Cackling Counterpart in his hand. Soul Seizer has the following ability:

When Soul Seizer deals combat damage to a player, you may transform it. If you do, attach it to target creature that player controls.

What would happen if my opponent targeted the Soul Seizer with his Cackling Counterpart, and then damaged me with the token?

From this official article on double-faced card rules:

If an effect copies a double-faced card, it copies the characteristics
  of whichever face is currently showing. It doesn't copy any
  characteristics of the other face.
The only objects that can transform are cards that physically have two
  faces. If a token or a card with a regular Magic back is instructed to
  transform, instead nothing will happen. Even if a token or
  non-double-faced card is a copy of one face of a double-faced card, it
  can't transform.

If your opponent used his Cackling Counterpart to copy a Soul Seizer, he'd
better hope he had a good use for a plain old 1/3 Flyer, because that's all
he was going to get!

As to the Comprehensive rules, it's 706.8 (which is really just a specific case of 711.3): "When copying a double-faced permanent, only the copiable values of the face that‘s currently up are copied."


text:
Can the Mirror-Mad Phantasm rescue itself?
If I use a Mirror-Mad Phantasm in combat against a creature that does at least 1 damage, is it possible to activate its ability after combat damage has been applied but before the Phantasm enters the graveyard? I'd really like to do 5 damage and return to the battlefield unscathed.

Unfortunately that's quite against the law!  Even the laws of the spirit world...
The way the timings work in Magic are basically as follows: after you announce the beginning of combat, both players have a chance to play spells and effects.  After attackers are declared, both players have a chance to play spells and effects; after blockers are declared, both players have a chance to play spells and effects.  Once all of that is finished with, we go directly to combat damage.  There is no window of opportunity for the Phantasm to activate its ability before it deals and receives combat damage and goes to the graveyard.
Well, I say that... there is one way!  If you can manage to give the Mirror-Mad Phantasm first strike, it will deal its 5 damage in the first strike combat damage phase, and then there will be a chance for you to activate its ability before the normal combat damage step.  It's probably not what you wanted to hear, but that's the only way to do it.
Are you getting as excited for Innistrad as I am?  I can't remember the last time a Magic set had so much sheer flavour about it...

I hadn't thought of the first-strike trick, but that would obviously work. Is there no timing slot between "damage applies" and "creatures enter graveyard"? In my old play group we used to do things in that slot all the time as the "last chance" to use abilities on creatures that were about to die.

@JSB, in the old rules you could assign damage and then play spells and abilities "with damage on the stack".  This was very explicitly changed in a major rules overhaul a couple of years ago.  It still causes huge amounts of confusion to all players with hazy memories of playing the game years back... things just don't work the same way any more!

(Self-answering:) I believe that creature death is a state-based effect, not a stack-based effect, so it actually isn't possible to cast instants in the moment between when the creature dies and when it enters the graveyard. However, I think our old play style was still technically legal while combat damage used the stack, as you could activate abilities and put them on the stack before damage resolved, then resolve them even if the activating creature had died.

You beat me to it :).


text:
Playing around a flag bearer
I'm playing a mono-Green infect Pauper deck that relies heavily on instant-speed pump spells in order to win. My opponent ruins my day pretty badly by playing a Standard Bearer:
Fortunately, my deck also has Vines of Vastwood and Ranger's Guile.
It occurs to me that I might be able to play one of these spells on the Standard Bearer, rendering it an illegal target for that turn, then play my other spells on my own creatures as intended. But will this actually work? I'm not sure about the subtleties of interpreting these effects when the target creature and the spell have different controllers, and I didn't get a chance to try it before the match ended.

Unfortunately, neither of these spells will help you in this situation.
Vines of Vastwood, sadly, doesn't actually grant hexproof.  It appears to, as it has the same wording (and the latest Oracle text keeps this wording), but it doesn't actually give hexproof to the creature. This is an important distinction, because even if you play it on an opponent's creature, it doesn't prevent your spells or abilities, only those of your opponents, as worded.
(It really should be reworded to hexproof, but it hasn't been.)
Ranger's Guile is no use for a simpler reason: you can't cast it on the Standard Bearer, because it can only target a creature you control. Even the Standard Bearer's ability doesn't redirect Ranger's Guile; as the bearer isn't a legal target for the Guile, the ability never triggers.

It's quite possible that the reason Vines of Vastwood hasn't been (and perhaps arguably shouldn't be) reworded to say "hexproof" is that it would change the functionality of the card in situations like this. It certainly wouldn't be the first time a card has not been retroactively errata'd with a keyword ability because of some obscure corner case.

I suspect that the targeting restriction on Ranger's Guile was added specifically to prevent people from being confused about what happens when you make your opponent's creature hexproof.

@DavidZaslavsky: I agree, that's probably why Vines hasn't been reworded. I was arguing that it should be changed; I think it would be better to be consistent with hexproof cards, even at the cost of wider card effect choice.

Neither of your ideas work, sadly enough; look closely at the wording, Ranger's Guile can only ever target creatures you control, and as such is never affected by the lightning-rod effect, and Vines of Vastwood only blocks off spells and abilities your opponents control.
There are solutions, though.
The simplest I can think of is a good and healthy batch of Gut Shots and/or Hornet Stings in your sideboard. The coolest and most playable though  would probably be Apostle's Blessing - a spell that can be used to make your creatures dodge blockers, but just as well can be dropped on the Flagbearer to give it protection from green, making him an illegal target for all of your other spells. And If your infecting attacker is an artifact, there is virtually no downside in doing so.


text:
Will Elesh Norn kill creatures if I don't pay the extra cost for Flash?
Suppose I use Flash to bring Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite into play, then choose to sacrifice her rather than pay her mana cost. Will my opponent's creatures with two or less toughness die?

No, Elesh Norn's static abilities have no effect on the battlefield in that case.
Bringing Elesh Norn into play with Flash and deciding whether or not to sacrifice it is all part of Flash's resolution. Killing creatures with her -2/-2 would require state-based effects to be checked, but that only happens after Flash has finished resolving, at which point Eles Norn is already gone.
If you sacrifice a creature brought into play with the spell Flash, basically all you get are "enters the battlefield" and "leaves the battlefield" effects.

No, since no player receives priority between Elesh Norn entering and leaving the battlefield during the resolution of Flash. State-based actions that would place creatures with 0 toughness in their owners graveyards, are not checked until just before a player would receive priority. Rule 704.4 gives a nice example of a creature that has 0 toughness temporarily, that isn't sent to the graveyard, because its toughness is greater than 0 the next time it would be checked.

116.5. Each time a player would get priority, the game first performs all applicable state-based actions as a single event (see rule 704, “State-Based Actions”), ...

704.4. Unlike triggered abilities, state-based actions pay no attention to what happens during the resolution of a spell or ability.

Example: A player controls a creature with the ability “This creature’s power and
toughness are each equal to the number of cards in your hand” and casts a spell whose
effect is “Discard your hand, then draw seven cards.” The creature will temporarily have
toughness 0 in the middle of the spell’s resolution but will be back up to toughness 7 when
the spell finishes resolving. Thus the creature will survive when state-based actions are
checked. In contrast, an ability that triggers when the player has no cards in hand goes on
the stack after the spell resolves, because its trigger event happened during resolution.

704.5f If a creature has toughness 0 or less, it’s put into its owner’s graveyard. Regeneration can’t replace this event.


text:
Why play Land Grant?
When looking through recent results of Pauper daily events in Magic Online, I noticed that some of the Infect decks are using Land Grant.
For the life of me, I can't figure out what this card is doing in the deck.

It doesn't accelerate your mana
It doesn't find lands other than Forests
You have to reveal your hand to use it (or pay 1G, but I'm pretty sure that no one ever does that)

In other words, it's functionally identical to just having another Forest in your deck, except with additional downside. So why are they playing it? Pauper is a very competitive format on MTGO, so I don't expect people to put cards in their deck for no good reason... but I can't figure out what the reason is.

The card has a lot of uses, similarly to fetch lands and cantrip spells. Generally:

It lets you play less actual lands (like in 1-land Belcher Decks).
It lets you find the right land (when you are using dual lands).
It's a free way to shuffle your deck.
It's a free way to increase storm count.
It filters your deck making it slightly smaller. By using free cantrips
like Land Grant and Gitaxian Probe you make your deck virtually
smaller, thus increasing the chances of all the other cards showing up
during a match.

In this particular case, knowing how infect decks work in Pauper, I would say it's basically reason #5 (deck thinning).

I don't see how #1 and #2 apply in this case, since the card can only ever fetch Forests and is therefore functionally equivalent to just drawing a Forest. #5 much more relevant.

@JSBᾶngs A Taiga is a forest. But, yes, in Pauper, it's just deck-thinning. Similar to Gitaxian Probe.

@JSBᾶngs They don't apply here at all. I just wanted to leave a more complete answer so that anyone who reads this can extrapolate for other cases. I will highlight the answer to be clearer.

@JSBᾶngs Notice the difference between a "Forest" and a "Basic Forest".

#4 amuses me. I don't know of a Storm deck that has ever needed G, but of course that wouldn't stop you, would it? You just reveal this card, search for a Forest (and fail to find it), then go about your business.

@JSBᾶngs Don't forget that Belcher can also work like a storm deck when it's going off on Empty the Warrens. I have played a lot of Land Grants with nothing to fetch just to increase storm count.

@JSBձոգչ #4, since you are not paying the cost of the spell, you can use it in a storm deck that doesn't even play green. You have the option of playing dual lands that have a type, like Taiga, or Breeding Pool, to get more land, or just getting the free storm count.

@AlexP Yes Taiga is a forest but this is about Pauper, where Taiga would not be legal due to rarity. Commons only. Considering we're talking pauper, the only lands legal in the format typed forest are basics.

@Andrew Only basic forests... and these other common dual lands which are pauper legal.

There's nothing "functionally identical" about a card which puts a forest into play and a card which puts a forest into play and removes a card from your deck.  q.v. Street Wraith, Urza's Bauble, Mishra's Bauble, Gitaxian Probe; all cards which have a very minor upside (if any!) but which allow you to play a deck that's functionally less than 60 cards big.
If you don't feel a 56-card deck has a significant competitive advantage over a 60-card deck then, no, you probably won't understand why anyone would play Land Grant over a basic forest.  But let's notice that the 40- and 60-card minimum deck sizes in various Magic formats are not just arbitrary!  They exist to make deck construction suitably challenging.  But almost every rule in Magic can be broken somehow, and Land Grant and friends effectively break the minimum deck size rule.
Yes, there's only a small competitive advantage in drawing from a library that contains 9 lands instead of 10.  But every little helps, especially in a deck like Infect that basically only wants to draw one or two lands at most, and then as much aggressive business as possible.

@AlexP, good point, wasn't meant to sound snotty, but I've toned it down a bit.

The deck thinning+tutoring alone would be considered by many to be a useful effect. A card with an even more useless effect, Gather Your Mind was once a very popular thinner in YGO TCG. I don't think the revealing effect is surprising. It's par for the course in Magic (in any card game, in fact, now that I think of it) when something relies on presence or absence of something in the hand.

I don't know how to read YGO cards. Does it cost anything to play or is it purely a freebie?

@Alex P Unlike with Magic and its progeny, Yu-Gi-Oh! has no "basic cost" system (except for some monsters).


text:
MTG Multiplayer—Card Control and Losing the Game
I just need a bit of rules clarification that I'm confused about. If I Donate an enchantment to an opponent in a multiplayer game, and then lose the game myself, does the enchantment leave play with me or does it remain under the control of my opponent until they lose or the game ends?

When you leave a multiplayer game, all cards and permanents you own, including the ones that other players control, leave the game. Specifically, this means that the enchantment you Donated will leave the game. The relevant rule is 800.4a:

When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule 109) owned by that player leave the game and any effects which give that player control of any objects or players end. Then, if that player controlled any objects on the stack not represented by cards, those objects cease to exist. Then, if there are any objects still controlled by that player, those objects are exiled.


text:
What happens if Genesis Wave puts Fists of Ironwood onto a battlefield with no creatures?
This question arose as a response to a recent question about putting Auras onto creatures with Shroud.
What happens if I cast Genesis Wave, let's say for 2, and reveal Fists of Ironwood on an otherwise creatureless battlefield.  Does Fists still come into play for a while without creatures to enchant, giving me two 1/1 Saprolings?  Or do I even get two 1/1 Saprolings one of which has an enchantment giving it Trample (lucky me)?
Bonus question: what happens if I Genesis Wave for 5 instead and reveal 3 instants, Fists of Ironwood and Bramble Elemental?
There's a possible clue in Bramble Elemental's Oracle text (I'll leave finding that as a treasure hunt for the reader) but it still leaves me unclear - when Genesis Wave does its work, does it Fists of Ironwood come into play already attached to the Elemental, or do they both come into play and then get attached by the player?

I notice to my amusement that Bramble Elemental has had its Oracle wording changed (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/214b&page=2) - glad to see it wasn't just me who was having trouble wrapping their head around this stuff ;)

GW + FoI + no other creatures
Let's say you cast Genesis Wave and reveal Fists of Ironwood, with no creatures in play and no creatures revealed by GW. Genesis Wave talks about putting cards in play, not casting them as spells, so this situation is covered by rule 303.4g:

303.4g If an Aura is entering the battlefield and there is no legal object or player for it to enchant, the Aura remains in its current zone, unless that zone is the stack. In that case, the Aura is put into its owner‘s graveyard instead of entering the battlefield.

To see how this interacts with Genesis Wave, note that the resolution of Genesis Wave contains three actions:

Reveal the top X cards from your library. This doesn't say to put the cards anywhere else, so the revealed cards are still considered to be in your library while they are revealed.
Put any number of revealed permanent cards on to the battlefield. If the only permanent you reveal is an Aura but it has nothing to enchant, rule 303.4g specifies that it remains in your library.
Put all revealed cards that weren't put on the battlefield into your graveyard. This includes the Aura that wasn't put on the battlefield since there was nothing for it to enchant.

So Fists of Ironwood would wind up in the graveyard.
Bear in mind that (in general) it is not possible for Fists of Ironwood to come into play enchanting one of the tokens it creates. Those tokens are created by a triggered ability that only triggers (and goes on the stack) when Fists of Ironwood enters the battlefield. But the enchantment needs something to enchant right from the moment it enters the battlefield; it can't wait for the triggered ability to resolve to create a creature for it to be attached to. But the tokens don't come into existence until the triggered ability resolves, which occurs later, after both players have had a chance to respond.
GW + FoI + another creature revealed
If Genesis Wave does reveal a creature that would be a legal target for Fists of Ironwood, this post on the Wizards community forums states that you still can't put the Aura into play enchanting the creature. The reason is basically what I guessed before. Placing a permanent on the battlefield consists of two "substeps:"

Make any choices required prior to placing the permanent in play. For an Aura, this includes determining whether it can legally enchant something, and if there are multiple options, choosing which one it will enchant.
Actually put the permanent on the battlefield subject to the choices (if any) made in the previous substep.

(I don't think this is specifically detailed in the rules, but it should make sense that you have to choose what an Aura will enchant before putting the Aura into play enchanting that thing.) When multiple permanents are revealed with Genesis Wave, substep 2 occurs simultaneously for all of them (rules 101.4, 608.2e), so substep 1 necessarily happens prior to putting any of the permanents in play. And you can't choose something that's not on the battlefield for an Aura to be attached to.
This also covers the case with Bramble Elemental: Fists of Ironwood can't be put on the battlefield enchanting Bramble Elemental if both are revealed with Genesis Wave.

Excellent (and quick!) work that man.  I'm pleased that some of your conclusions are slightly guess-based... clearly that means I've come up with a good question!  I'll leave it open in case you or anyone else can add any more, but definitely +1 from me for doing the spadework...

I found a reference on the Wizards forums so I edited it in, and took the opportunity to clarify the rest of the answer.

As much as it pains me to ever encourage someone to use inductive reasoning for something related to magic card rules, Warp World is a helpful reminder for point 2.  It's written out the way it is for a reason!

Can you answer the question I posed to godswearhats below: in what circumstances could an Aura "enter the battlefield attached to Bramble Elemental", as per that card's Oracle text?  Is it something to do with Phasing (or should I not open that particular can of worms)?  I think you've basically covered all the bases here though...

@Affe: Great point about Warp World.  Love to see that Wizards decided to deliberately fudge the wording so that a million Magic players NOT intimately acquainted with the finer points of the Comprehensive Rules wouldn't completely misplay the card...

@thesunneversets: Phasing doesn't actually cause a permanent to enter or leave the battlefield, even though it is treated as not being on the battlefield while it's phased out (rule 702.24d). Further evidence that that is one seriously messed up ability ;-) There are cards that specifically allow for putting an Aura on the battlefield attached to a permanent, like Sovereigns of Lost Alara. (cont.)

(cont.) I can't think of anything offhand that would cause an Aura to enter the battlefield attached to a permanent without it becoming attached to that permanent, though. I guess you would need to have a card that puts a creature on the battlefield with an Aura enchanting it. The card would need to contain wording that specifically mentions both the creature (or other permanent) and the Aura to make that happen.

Update to my last comment: the latest rules update (603.2d) has some wording that may be relevant to that - it suggests that in fact if an aura entered the battlefield attached to a permanent, it would not have been considered to become attached to that permanent.

303.4f If an Aura is entering the battlefield under a player's control by any means other than by resolving as an Aura spell, and the effect putting it onto the battlefield doesn't specify the object or player the Aura will enchant, that player chooses what it will enchant as the Aura enters the battlefield. The player must choose a legal object or player according to the Aura's enchant ability and any other applicable effects.

(emphasis mine)
In your first question, there are no legal targets to choose, and so the Fists of Ironwood goes to the graveyard (either due to 303.4f and 303.4g as pointed out above, or because the player can choose to do so).
In your second question, the Bramble Elemental and the Fists of Ironwood would be entering the battlefield at the same time, therefore there would be no legal target for the Fists of Ironwood and it would go into the graveyard, again to due 303.4f and 303.4g.
Hope this helps!

Hmm, so "Whenever an Aura becomes attached to Bramble Elemental or enters the battlefield attached to Bramble Elemental" in that card's Oracle text doesn't refer to a Bramble Elemental coming into play with an Aura attached, but just to an Aura coming into play "pre-attached" to the Elemental as it were?

Well, there are cards (like Aura Finesse) that allow auras to move from creature to creature, which I would imagine is what the "becomes attached" part means. The "enters the battlefield" part is just what normally happens when you cast an aura - you must choose a target for it to enter attached to.


text:
How does Jandor's Ring work with modern Magic rules?
A 2004 Oracle ruling for Jandor Ring, above, states:

If you do not have the card still in your hand, you can't pay the cost. There is currently no way to prove that it was the card you drew except to get a judge or 3rd party involved, or to put cards you draw aside until you decide whether or not to use this.

This sounds incredibly mimsy in an age where the Miracle mechanic exists and is (I would hope) watertight for tournament play.
How does Jandor's Ring work under latest MtG rules?
ETA: If you (say) just resolved Divination, and wanted to use Jandor's Ring, could you discard either of the two cards drawn, just the last one drawn, or what? (Sorry to be so obsessed about the arcane workings of a card which presumably never actually sees non-casual play...)

Jandor Ring doesn't work under the current MtG rules. Luckily, it is too expensive in converted mana cost to see serious tournament play, but if it was your answer exists within the ruling you quoted. The current rules don't support a way of doing this, technically. (Edit: You added an additional question regarding which card could be discarded from a multi-card draw spell. If you examine the Oracle wording in the online Gatherer, you will note that you can only discard the last drawn card.)

402.3. A player may arrange his or her hand in any convenient fashion and look at it as much as he or she wishes. A player can’t look at the cards in another player’s hand but may count those cards at any time.

Because the current rules don't support the card, because there is no easy way to achieve the desired behavior, the rulings tell you how to handle using the card.

get a judge or put cards you draw aside until you decide whether or not to use this.

This is similar to the effect, but even more restrictive than a card like Sylvan Library (which has seen tournament play). With this card, you must keep cards you drew this turn separate from the cards that are in your hand if you intend on returning one of those cards this turn. (example: Brainstorm cast during your upkeep). The rules don't specifically tell you to keep your hand separate from the Brainstorm cards, but if you intend to return a Brainstorm card, you must keep them separate to preserve the game state.
You might be interested in this thread on the subject of cards currently not supported by the rules.

Mm, I guess there's no realistic way of working this apart from keeping drawn cards separate, until you make the decision to use the Ring or not.  The judge thing perplexed me a bit, does it really mean try to persuade a judge to stand behind you while you have Jandor's Ring in play, to watch that you only discard legally from your hand?  I guess that's feasible if they're not too overstretched...

@thesunneversets, like I said in my answer, you don't need to keep it physically separate; you could simply mark it somehow. For example, you could take it out of its sleeve. You could slide a bookmark into its sleeve. You could use a paperclip. You could reveal it and keep it revealed like one does for Miracle. etc.

I read the thread mentioned in the last paragraph and it gave me a headache.

I would advise you to not under any circumstances in a sanctioned match at CREL or higher to intentionally cause a card to become a marked card without first verifying with the head judge that this is an acceptable way to manage the ability in their tournament. (I would tell you not to do it and keep the card separate, since I basically have no choice but to give you an infraction if you accidentally shuffle it back in without un-marking it.)

The nice thing about Jandor's Ring from a rules perspective is that the discard is a cost, so if you lose track of the last drawn card a judge can just declare that the cost can't be paid. With Sylvan Library, on the other hand, it's possible to enter a broken game state where you can't identify which cards to put back and you don't have enough life to pay to keep them.

To answer your edit, "Draw two cards" is parsed by the rules as "Draw a card.  Draw a card."  For the current oracle wording of Jandor's Ring, "the last card you drew this turn" is in fact distinctly the second one picked up from Divination.  It's two draw events in succession, not a simultaneous addition of two cards.

120.2. Cards may only be drawn one at a time. If a player is instructed to draw multiple cards, that player performs that many
  individual card draws.

Miracle achieves it's function by revealing the card and keeping it revealed.

702.93b If a player chooses to reveal a card using its miracle ability, he or she plays with that card revealed until that card leaves his or her hand, that ability resolves, or that ability otherwise leaves the stack.

Jandor's Ring is better that Miracle since you don't have to reveal the card. All you have to do is set it aside (literally or by marking it). For example, you could take it out of its sleeve. You could slide a bookmark into its sleeve. You could use a paperclip. You could reveal it and keep it revealed like one does for Miracle. etc.

put cards you draw aside until you decide whether or not to use this.

(From a ruling for Jandor's Ring.)


text:
Timings of Mana Costs vs Mana Payments
If I have 7 lands and a Wild Cantor (or another creature that sacrifices to produce mana, e.g. an Eldrazi Spawn token) in play, and there are no other creatures on the battlefield, can I cast Blasphemous Act?
I seem to have hazy memories that a Wild Cantor didn't interact particularly well with cards with Convoke, so I was wondering if it was a similar story here...

tsk tsk, 'magic' tag? ;)

@Hackworth: Sounds like that tag's cruisin' for a burninatin'.

From my interpretation, it should work.

601 Casting Spells
601.2e 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 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.
601.2f If the total cost includes a mana payment, the player then has a chance to activate mana abilities (see rule 605, "Mana Abilities"). Mana abilities must be activated before costs are paid.
Example: You cast Altar's Reap, which costs {1}{B} and has an additional cost of sacrificing a creature. You sacrifice Thunderscape Familiar, whose effect makes your black spells cost {1} less to cast. Because a spell's total cost is "locked in" before payments are actually made, you pay {B}, not {1}{B}, even though you're sacrificing the Familiar.

So first you determine and lock the mana cost, then you can activate mana abilities, then you have to pay the mana cost.
As for the definition of a Mana Ability:

Mana Abilities

605.1a An activated ability is a mana ability if it meets three criteria: it doesn't have a target, it could put mana into a player's mana pool when it resolves, and it's not a loyalty ability. (See rule 606, "Loyalty Abilities.")

The cantor meets all 3 criteria, so its ability is a mana ability. Therefore, you should gain both the cost reduction and the mana through saccing.
As for why a cantor should not play nicely with Convoke, I don't know - do you have an authoritative source that it really doesn't work? "Tapping a creature" is an optional, additional cost by Convoke, and after tapping for convoke you should still be able to sac the Cantor with its mana ability.
Here is an explanation why the cantor can only reduce convoke spells by 1. However, that does not affect my answer to your actual question. The subtle difference between the two is that Blasphemous Act has a cost reduction, which is locked after you determined it. Convoke, OTOH, offers an alternative way of paying the mana costs and requires you to tap creatures to pay for its cost. You can announce to tap the cantor, but once you sacced it for mana, you can of course no longer do so, and the game rewinds to before you announced Blasphemous Act.

Yep, I think that fully clears up my confusion.  Convoke was a complicated beast rules-wise: it's nice that Blasphemous Act works more simply (if not necessarily intuitively...)


text:
Bludgeon Brawl & Puresteel Paladin
I have Puresteel Paladin and Bludgeon Brawl in play.  I play an Ichor Wellspring.  How many cards do I draw, one or two?
Puresteel Paladin says

Whenever an Equipment enters the battlefield under your control, you may draw a card.

Bludgeon Brawl says

Each noncreature, non-Equipment artifact is an Equipment with equip X and "Equipped creature gets +X/+0," where X is that artifact's converted mana cost.

and Ichor Wellspring says

When Ichor Wellspring enters the battlefield or is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, draw a card.

As a side question, what's a good way of linking to card images, as I've seen people do in recent MtG questions?  Would certainly make my question more aesthetically appealing!

Personally I would just just link to the cards on gatherer.wizards.com …

There was actually a deck using that very interaction featured on Channel Fireball: http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/channel-conley-deck-doctor-7-1/

@David: Yes, I watched some of those videos.  (Conley may not be the best player on that site, but he's definitely the most entertaining.)  This interaction didn't come up during the time I was watching, but I was wondering what would have happened if it did...

I have been linking to images on gatherer and rather than choosing the insert a link icon, choose insert a picture, and change from your computer to web.  I believe this is preferred as it appears to copy the image to the stack imgur space, and it can tell when you're pointing to the same image someone else has in the past.  In time, the whole library might end up ported over.

At first I thought you would only draw one card. But I think the rules have been tweaked on this since I last did dastardly stuff like this…

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

Thus the Bludgeon Brawl enchantment only refers to noncreature, non-Equipment cards already on the battlefield. It's a continuous effect. Note it does not affect cards in your hand or spells on the stack. That's why I thought maybe you'd only draw one card.
But here's the relevant rules. Emphasis is mine.

603.6b Continuous effects that modify characteristics of a permanent do so the moment the permanent is on the battlefield (and not before then). The permanent is never on the battlefield with its unmodified characteristics. Continuous effects don't apply before the permanent is on the battlefield, however (see rule 603.6e).
  Example: If an effect reads "All lands are creatures" and a land card is played, the effect makes the land card into a creature the moment it enters the battlefield, so it would trigger abilities that trigger when a creature enters the battlefield. Conversely, if an effect reads "All creatures lose all abilities" and a creature card with an enters-the-battlefield triggered ability enters the battlefield, that effect will cause it to lose its abilities the moment it enters the battlefield, so the enters-the-battlefield ability won't trigger.

603.6b is confirmed and reframed by 611.3c:

611.3c Continuous effects that modify characteristics of permanents do so simultaneously with the permanent entering the battlefield. They don't wait until the permanent is on the battlefield and then change it. Because such effects apply as the permanent enters the battlefield, they are applied before determining whether the permanent will cause an ability to trigger when it enters the battlefield.
  Example: A permanent with the static ability "All white creatures get +1/+1" is on the battlefield. A creature spell that would normally create a 1/1 white creature instead creates a 2/2 white creature. The creature doesn't enter the battlefield as 1/1 and then change to 2/2.

Therefore, guess what Johnny? When Ichor Wellspring enters the battlefield, due to the continuous effect of the Bludgeon Brawl, it thinks that it has always been an Equipment and triggers Puresteel Paladin's ability! You get to draw two cards!

PS. When you create this crazy deck, don't forget to add Mycosynth Lattice for the lulz.

Note that to turn all your permanents into equipment as they come into play, you'll need to cast the Lattice first. See rule 613. We're into the serious mind-bending territory here. I want to see your Puresteel Paladin equip the Bludgeon Brawl and swing with +3/+0.

Let's not forget he can equip with the Lattice too for +6/+0!  Sadly all your now-Artifact lands won't give you a power boost when they're equipped, but I recommend equipping all of them to your Kemba, Kha Regent anyway...

And then play the Simple half of Pure // Simple to wipe out most of the board, just because you CAN.


text:
How does Elemental Resonance convert a Mana Cost to a Mana Source?
With the new updates to how mana is shown and displayed, someone pointed out to me that Elemental Resonance effectively converts the generic mana in its target's casting cost to colourless mana.
While I can see the gatherer rulings, is there anything more fundamental in the comprehensive rules about converting mana costs to mana sources?

Short Answer
As of Oath of the Gatewatch, rule 106.10 says

106.10. If an effect would add mana represented by a generic mana symbol to a player’s mana pool, that much colorless mana is added to that player’s mana pool.

Old Answer
A couple of subrules of rule 106 concern adding converting mana cost to mana:

106.8. If an effect would add mana represented by a hybrid mana symbol to a player’s mana pool, that player chooses one half of that symbol. If a colored half is chosen, one mana of that color is added to that player’s mana pool. If a colorless half is chosen, an amount of colorless mana represented by that half’s number is added to that player’s mana pool.
106.9. If an effect would add mana represented by a Phyrexian mana symbol to a player’s mana pool, one mana of the color of that symbol is added to that player’s mana pool.

The last part of 106.8 is relevant, because it explicitly says that the generic part of a monocolored hybrid mana symbol (which it calls the "colorless half") is converted to colorless mana. Unfortunately, this only tangentially touches on the issue of how generic mana costs are converted. However, rule 107.4c arguably applies:

Numeral symbols (such as {1}) and variable symbols (such as {X}) can also represent colorless mana if they appear in the effect of a spell or ability that reads “add [mana symbol] to your mana pool” or something similar. (See rule 107.3e.)

Combined with the subrules of 106 quoted above, we can interpret Elemental Resonance's ability to mean

For each symbol in enchanted permanent's mana cost, add that to your mana pool.

If we look at it that way, then the conversion of generic mana cost to colorless mana is simply a consequence of moving the symbol from a mana cost context to a mana generation context. In other words, it adds colorless mana to your mana pool because that's what would have happened if we had inserted the mana cost symbolically into a mana generating ability.

The current rules don't indicate unambiguously how Elemental Resonance will interact with the new rules, but with the rulings we have and the information that Wizards has published so far, we can make some strong educated guesses.
First, in a Twitter Q&A session regarding the new colorless symbol, Wizards Community Manager Trick Jarrett tweeted

There is no functional errata planned with this change.

This was in response to a question about cost reduction, but the wording seems to imply that there will be no functional errata to any cards because of the new symbol.
This implies that all of the current rulings will still be accurate. In particular, this means that when Elemental Resonance converts a cost with generic mana, it will add the corresponding amount of {C} to your mana pool.
We can also extrapolate from the existing rulings that if a cost contains {C}, then Elemental Resonance will add {C} to your mana pool for each corresponding symbol in the cost. In other words, Elemental Resonance attached to the new Kozilek, which costs {8}{C}{C}, will add ten colorless mana to your mana pool.

In terms of new rules, you could also think of this in terms of errata for the symbols. As you point out, this ability was already relying on for example reinterpreting the {1} in the cost (where it's generic) as a {1} to add to your mana pool (where it's colorless). And since cards that produce {1} will become cards that produce {C}, presumably the same thing would happen here.

@Jefromi you make a good point, but I think the logical progression for that argument is pretty complicated. The point of this change is to explicitly disentangle generic mana costs from colorless mana, so I'm not sure how to get from there to "generic mana cost will still become colorless mana".

Indeed, I meant that as an ugly interim argument, not one I'd expect to be the final state. Presumably preserving this card would require explicit mention in the rules (not just relying on symbols), or explicit errata on the card.

Sure, I fully expect them to add a rule like "106.10. If an effect would add mana represented by a generic mana symbol to a player's mana pool, that amount of colorless mana is added to that player's mana pool". I just don't think I can directly argue from "colorless is being separated from generic" to "generic costs will still generate colorless mana".

I suspect rule 107.4c is going to disappear with the OGW rules update, or at least get a disclaimer along the lines of "Some old cards used the generic mana symbol to represent colorless mana...." so that it becomes irrelevant if you're using Oracle text. From the Expeditions that have been spoiled, we know that the OGW-current rules text of lands with colorless-mana-producing abilities will use the colorless mana symbol, and that suggests that all old cards with such abilities will receive errata to make the change.

yeah I was thinking about this and wondering kinda the same thing... the tron lands for example... will they now add 1{C} (or 3{C}) or will it still be {1} (or {3})?

While this answer is purely conjecture, I think it's rooted in sound logic and has a high probability of being spot on when official rulings are released.

@thatdude1087 We know that Urza's Factory will add {C} or {C}{C}. My other Q&A combo has more details, but we definitely know that every ability that adds colorless mana will be errata'd to use the new symbol.

So the expected rule was indeed added: "106.10. If an effect would add mana represented by a generic mana symbol to a player’s mana pool, that much colorless mana is added to that player’s mana pool." (only "that amount of" vs "that much" different from your guess!)


text:
Can Circle of Protection:White prevent the damage from Leeches (Circle of Protection / Leeches Combo)?
Can the damage caused by removing poison counters using Leeches be avoided using a Circle of Protection:White?  If it can be avoided, would the damage be considered "once" and cost {1}, or would it be {1} times the number of poison counters?

The current Gatherer text for Leeches is the following:

Target player loses all poison counters. Leeches deals that much damage to that player.

Circle of Protection White:

{1}: The next time a white source of your choice would deal damage to you this turn, prevent that damage.

When you cast the spell, there is only one copy on the stack. All the damage is dealt at once. You only need to activate the CoP:White once.
Leeches is a white source of damage by 609.7a and thus may be prevented by CoP:W

609.7a If an effect requires a player to choose a source of damage, he or she may choose a permanent; a spell on the stack (including a permanent spell); any object referred to by an object on the stack, by a replacement or prevention effect that's waiting to apply, or by a delayed triggered ability that's waiting to trigger (even if that object is no longer in the zone it used to be in); or, for certain casual variant games, a face-up card in the command zone. A source doesn't need to be capable of dealing damage to be a legal choice. The source is chosen when the effect is created. If the player chooses a permanent, the effect will apply to the next damage dealt by that permanent, regardless of whether it's combat damage or damage dealt as the result of a spell or ability. If the player chooses a permanent spell, the effect will apply to any damage dealt by that spell and any damage dealt by the permanent that spell becomes when it resolves.

So in principle at least, you agree that CoP:W can be used to prevent the damage?

@Stephen: Not just in principle! It definitely works. :)

@Stephen Of course it works, Leeches would be a white spell on the stack, see rule 609.7a of the comprehensive rules.


text:
What's the missing white card in this New Phyrexia cycle?
There's a cycle of instants and sorceries in New Phyrexia that have an effect and adds at the end a loss of life to the targeted player or the targeted permanent's controller: Vapor Snag, Geth's Verdict, Victorious Destruction and Glissa's Scorn.
Or, at least I think it's a cycle. Problem is, I can't find the white one! Is there one, and I'm missing it? Was this lack of symmetry intentional by WotC?

These aren't a cycle per se.
Note the fifth one, Psychic Barrier:

It's more that "loses 1 life" (or "gets a poison counter") was seen as an easy thing to tack onto staple effects to make them feel more "Phyrexian".

D'oh, totally forgot about this guy!

The thing is, "controller loses 1 life" isn't really a white thing to do.
If I were to choose a common instant/sorcery in white to fit into the cycle, I would choose War Report.
Instead of "hating" something and then having the controller lose life, White "loves" something (creatures and artifacts) and has the caster gain life. Yeah, not a perfect fit, but rather the counterpoint of the other 4 colour cycle.

Well, blue, red and green don't usually get "opponent loses X life" either! All of the colours got a black-ish feel in New Phyrexia, even white as shown by Suture Priest.

See, I actually think of white as the king of "hate". Balance! Swords to Plowshares! Path to Exile! Disenchant! Wrath of God! Rule of Law! Ghostly Prison! Gaddock Teeg! Aven Mindcensor! Suture Priest! Elesh Norn! There is almost nothing that white doesn't punish in one way or another.