text:
What are desirable planeswalker characteristics?
Some planeswalkers, such as Jace, Architect of Thought and Domri Rade have seen a lot of tournament play, while others, such as Gideon, Champion of Justice and Vraska the Unseen are rarely used in tournaments. Why is this? Gideon, for example, can turn into a huge threat pretty quickly, while Domri does little to directly improve your board.
What makes a planeswalker tournament-playable? What characteristics are desirable in planeswalker?

The various answers all list some good characteristics, but none of them lists all characteristics. This is a compilation of the other answers by @Circeus, @MosesAprico and @murgatroid99. I highly recommend checking out their answers for a more in-depth explanation and an analysis of the planeswalkers mentioned in the question.
Important characteristics
Almost all strong, tournament-playable planeswalkers have all of the following characteristics:

The planeswalker complements an existing deck archetype, or enables a new deck archetype. Either way, it needs a strong, competetive deck to be played in.
The planeswalker is appropriately costed for the deck it is in. This might be 3CMC for more aggressive decks, but can be up to 6CMC for control decks.
The planeswalker provides some kind of card advantage.

Other desirable characteristics
Strong planeswalkers often have the following characteristics, but a planeswalker lacking one or more can still be tournament-playable:

The planeswalker has an impact on the turn you play it. Since a planeswalker often draws removal and can be attacked, it needs to be worthwile even if you only get to keep it for only one turn.
The planeswalker can protect itself well. This can substitute having an immediate impact.
The planeswalker can protect you. A planeswalker can be very strong, but if it can't do anything to prevent your life total from dropping, you might still lose the game.

In general, Planeswalkers are slow to do anything by themselves, so the ones that see tournament play are the ones whose early abilities complement the deck or give immediate card advantage.
Gideon, Champion of Justice
Gideon takes about 4 turns to get out (by mana cost). His +1 doesn't do anything useful immediately, and even when he does get big he can be stopped by 1 chump blocker a turn. His ultimate is good, and will probably win you the game, but it takes a long time to activate and it puts all of your eggs in one basket, making you very vulnerable to a Swords to Plowshares
Vraska the Unseen
Vraska, again, probably doesn't get out until turn 5. Her +1 ability does nothing but deter your opponent from going after Vraska, which does nothing to stop them from killing you. Her -3 is useful, but half of her loyalty is a bit of a steep price to pay to destroy just one permanent. And her ultimate, which you're optimistically getting off on turn 8, does nothing if your opponent has 3 bears to block with.
Domri Rade
Domri, on the other hand, gets out on turn 3 and immediately starts helping you get cards. With him on the field in a creature heavy deck, you are much more likely to be able to play a creature every single turn. And if you do manage to get his ultimate off, then the double strike+trample combo makes even a few moderate powered creatures into a major threat.
Jace, Architect of Thought
Jace, like Gideon, gets out on turn 4. However, his +1 ability immediately protects both you and him by weakening your opponent's creatures, and generally just slows them down, which is very useful for a control player. His -2 ability is also one of the best effects in the game (consider that it's strictly better than "Reveal the top 3 cards of your library. Put 1 into your hand and the rest on bottom in any order"). His ultimate is very situational, but you don't really need it when the other abilities are doing so much for you.
Conclusion
Domri and Jace share two major qualities. First, they complement existing major deck archetypes: Domri accelerates a Red/Green aggro deck, and Jace helps a mono Blue control deck both by slowing the opponent down and by getting the player the cards they need when they need them. Second, they both give the player card advantage. Getting more cards into your hand from your library every turn is very useful both because it helps you play more quickly by making it more likely that you'll hit land drops and have cards to play, and because it makes it more likely that you'll have the cards you need when you need them.

Don't forget Domri's -2 ability; even if he just gets killed the next turn, it's often essentially a removal spell, which can be a pretty big deal, and some nice versatility.

I don't know. It's nice to have that option, but you're paying loyalty counters, giving up an opportunity to get another card, and trading creature for creature at worst. I'd bet that it's almost entirely the first ability that makes Domri desirable.

I'm not saying it's nearly as important as the +1, just that if it weren't there, it'd be a noticeable loss. An extra card is great, more counters is great, and you're going to use the +1 a lot more, but sometimes you really need to kill something.

Disclaimer : I don't play standard, so if you look this from standard perspective, then it maybe somewhat irrelevant.
These are basic factors that should used when evaluating a planeswalker.

How efficient is the casting cost?
Can it protect itself and you?
How good is it assuming you can't fetch its ultimate?
How much the board impact it provides if you can only get 1 activation from it? (Assuming almost every PW got killed after it comes down)

So if you ask why Vraska and Gideon doesn't see much play :

Vraska's 5cmc makes only control deck wants her, the problem is, there's no BG control in standard I guess. And, while also she protect herself quite well, it's sadly only from creature threat, so it's still, can be burned, for example. She also really bad if you can't ultimate her, and also her ultimate can easily negated with block / sweep, so it's most likely a pseudo vindicate costs 5. Not appealing at all.
Gideon is a total disaster. He goes fat quite fast, but, the problem is, no one cares to attack him. Compares to the first Gideon, this gideon doesn't protect you at all. Sadly, protection is what white deck needs at turn 4+. And, most likely, by the time you cast it, to make its +1 impactful, you already near to death. It's ultimate also a joke. Conclusion : don't play it unless you play for fun only.

Domri is a special case here, his cmc is really cheap (3) and comes in aggro color, which only cares to give a good pressure, so it doesn't really need to be able to protect himself or you. This pseudo draw, is good, in an aggro deck, and the ultimate is backbreaking (seriously).

+1; If you can't treat the PW like a modal Sorcery and still feel it warrants inclusion, it doesn't warrant inclusion.

I think a major element is that these planeswalkers all provide some form of card advantage the turn they come into play as a +1: card draw (Domri and Garruk, caller of beast's +1s fall in that category), tokens, mana, discard... Planeswalkers that majorly hobble the opponent with their +1 (Jace Architect. Kiora) are also playable. The major exception is Ashiok, but his +2 is a ticking bomb on its own (unlike those of Vraska or Ajani, caller of the pride) and he is played in shells that can protect him very well.
Otherwise, with the prevalence of Dreadbore, Heroes' Downfall and now Banishing Light, a planeswalker like Vraska, Gideon or Ral Zarek that durdles for several turns or are just an overcosted version of a cheap spell rather than having a useful + ability just won't cut it.


text:
Why is Sword of Body and Mind regarded as the weakest of the Swords?
Sword of Body and Mind is part of a 5-card cycle:

Sword of Body and Mind
Sword of War and Peace
Sword of Feast and Famine
Sword of Fire and Ice
Sword of Light and Shadow

All cards in this cycle have seen some amount of tournament play, but Sword of Body and Mind is generally regarded the weakest of the five, and is the least expensive in most stores.
Why is that? Sword of Body and Mind doesn't look any less powerful than the other swords, and it is the only one that directly improves your board position by making tokens.
Why is Sword of Body and Mind generally regarded as the weakest of the five swords? What advantages do the other swords provide that Sword of Body and Mind doesn't?

It's just not very good. Sword of Body and Mind's abilities aren't as powerful individually, and they have very poor synergy with each other.
Sword of Fire and Ice is great for a tempo deck beating down on another tempo deck:

Draw a card: +1 card advantage.
2 damage to target creature: often +1 card advantage. Lots of creatures worth killing have 1 or 2 toughness (e.g. Dark Confidant, Mother of Runes). At worst, it speeds up the clock a little.
Protection from red: negates red-base removal, which is plentiful because Lightning Bolt is SOOOO good.
Protection from blue: very marginal, but means your opponent can't win tempo by bouncing your creature.

Sword of Light and Shadow is a great card for creature-based midrange:

Return a card to your hand: consistently +1 card advantage in a deck with a reasonable number of creatures (16+).
Protection from white and protection from black together in one card: negate almost all of the non-damage-based creature removal in the game. +2 toughness also helps make your creature resistant to red removal.
Gain some life: marginal, but it can help one midrange creature deck beat another in a damage race.

Sword of Feast and Famine is superb in midrange control decks like Cawblade:

Opponent discards: often +1 card advantage. You don't get this if your opponent's already running on empty, but if that's the case you've likely already got them on the ropes.
Untap your lands: this is a massive strategic advantage. Very easy to keep up mana for counterspells or removal while still developing your board.
Protection from black: negates a lot of removal.
Protection from green: a lot of the biggest creatures are green, so it's nice to be able to slip past them. Thanks to the Sword's untap ability, you can easily attack with one dude and then move the Sword to another one so you'll have a pro-green creature to block your opponent's Tarmogoyf. The real value is that it's stapled to protection from black, though: you're giving your creature bonus toughness (to get it out of burn range) and making it immune to black's targeted removal and making it immune to damage from giant green creatures — sure to give Jund fits.

Sword of War and Peace is a massive clock swinger, useful to any reasonably fast deck:

Damage your opponent a whole bunch if they're hoarding cards: basically makes your creature a very fast clock against control.
Damage your opponent and gain life: creates significant life swings in an aggro/tempo damage race.
Protection from red and protection from white: negates a lot of removal, including cheap removal all-stars like Lightning Bolt and Swords to Plowshares/Path to Exile. Pro white also lets you bypass token swarm defenses like Lingering Souls.

Sword of Body and Mind is, in contrast, a mishmash of abilities that aren't so great by themselves and don't really fit together:

Make a token: technically +1 card advantage, but a Grizzly Bear is kind of a bad card. In most cases this is flat-out inferior to drawing a card, getting a creature back from your yard, or being able to blast something with a bit of damage (since you can remove weenie creatures with actual abilities).
Protection from blue and from green: these are the two colors in the game with the least removal.
Mill: meh. Mill's not always terrible, but here you only mill them when you are inflicting damage. In most cases, that's strictly inferior to any kind of effect that just lets you inflict more damage.

Also: There are many decks in several formats that would give you a kiss for adding 10 cards to their graveyard.

The only format where I don't see milling as a disadvantage is in limited. In most other formats it's free card drawing for the opponent (through flashback, reanimation, Snapcaster Mages etc.). So unless you instantly mill the whole deck, it's bad.

In short, because its protections and its effects are least relevant.  Milling 10 cards from an opponent's library, while it will (usually) eventually lead to a game win, does nothing in and of itself; and putting an additional body into play means another creature to carry the sword, but is often seldom directly relevant.  By contrast, Sword of War and Peace deals additional damage directly; Sword of Fire and Ice both deals additional damage (to a target of the attacker's choice) and draws a card; and Sword of Feast and Famine is disruptive with its discard and allows the attacker to cast spells pre-combat (during the Standard season that it dominated, for instance, a Squadron Hawk or Jace, the Mind Sculptor) and then still have their lands untapped to keep up counters on the opponent's turn.
Sword of Light and Shadow's effects are arguably worse than Sword of Body and Mind's; returning a creature to hand is arguably less useful than putting a small body into play (since mana still has to be spent on the creature) and the lifegain is as modest an effect as lifegain usually is.  But this is where the other factor comes into play: both White and Black tend to have viable removal spells, on the order of Doom Blade or Oblivion Ring, and so protection from either or both makes a creature much more viable.  All the other swords offer protection from either Red or Black, the classically removal-heavy colors; Sword of Body and Mind, on the other hand, only offers protection from Blue and Green, the two most removal-light colors.  Bounce spells tend to be viable parts of a format only rarely, and while punching through Green monsters is often useful, SoFaF provides that same ability with better effects and a more relevant secondary protection.
Of course, all of this analysis can go out the window in other environments; in particular, Sword of Body and Mind is often regarded as the best sword for limited environments, and in particular in most cube-drafting environments.  There, the mill becomes much more relevant (since often just two swings will be enough, and three virtually always will), the protections balance out somewhat, and the additional body is even more board-affecting.

I would much rather get a creature with a useful ability back to my hand, than a vanilla 2/2. Hell, if I have a sac outlet and the creature has an ETB trigger, or if the creature's ability lets/requires me to sacrifice it, I can do it every turn.

@BrianS In the case where you have some Kitchen Finks-level creature in your yard, that's definitely so - but I would argue that the 2/2 dork is more unconditionally useful than a Raise Dead, since outside of going the dedicated route it's difficult to guarantee that there will be creatures in your GY when you get to trigger the Sword's ability.

Anything a wolf token can do, nearly any creature I put in my deck can do better, plus more. ;)

Consider that Sword of Light and Shadow is typically fetching back creatures like Dark Confidant (which also makes the life gain very relevant) and Tarmogoyf.

Oh, I agree - when you have a creature to fetch back, that ability is clearly better; any guy in your deck is likely to trump a 2/2 Wolf.  It's just that in my experience the Raise Dead ability is moot often enough (either because the Sword is on the first creature you've played, or the opponent has something like a Scavenging Ooze active) that I feel like it's mostly a wash vs. SoBaM.  I can't argue that LaS gets a lot more play, though.

"Milling 10 cards from an opponent's library [...] does nothing in and of itself" It gives free draws to the opponent against any deck playing with flashback / reanimation or similar, so the problem is not that it's meh, but that it's clearly bad in most situations.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Do two creatures with protection from each other cancel out each others' protection?
I've been playing MtG for a while and recently came across protection from everything. It occurred to me: can two creatures with protection from everything block each other?
Or, can a blue creature with protection from red be blocked by a red creature with protection from blue?

See What does protection from «quality» do? - most questions about protection are explained the same way.

No. If two creatures have protection from each other, they still cannot block each other or bypass each others' protection.
If a creature has protection from red, that means only that it can't be DEBT:

D ealt damage by red sources
E nchanted, equipped or fortified with red auras, equipment or fortifications
B locked by red creatures
T argeted by red spells or abilities

And that's it. Protection falls under none of these criteria, and so is not itself protected against by protection.
Protection from everything means:

702.16i: "Protection from everything" is a variant of the protection ability. A permanent with protection from everything has protection from each object regardless of that object's characteristic values. Such a permanent can't be targeted by spells or abilities, enchanted by Auras, equipped by Equipment, fortified by Fortifications, or blocked by creatures, and all damage that would be dealt to it is prevented.

... which still doesn't cover the protection ability itself.

Could be helpful to add the DEBT anagram.

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


text:
Can I fight a monster during charity?
During Charity, the rules state to play or give away cards until there are only 5 in your hand.  Can you play a monster card and fight it at this point?

From the rules "When To Play Cards" (page 5):

Monsters
If drawn face-up, during the “Kick Open The Door” phase, they
  immediately attack the person who drew them. If acquired any other
  way, they go into your hand and may be played during “Looking For
  Trouble,” or played on another player with the Wandering Monstercard.

Monster cards can only be played during the "Kick Open The Door" phase or by other cards like Wandering Monster which explicitly allow them to be played. Thus you cannot simply play and fight them prior to charity.
Theoretically if you happened to also be holding a card that allowed you to play a monster as part of its effect, then you could play that card and the monster, depending on the conditions of the card. For instance, Wandering Monster itself doesn't help here as it is played on a player already in combat, but there could come along a new card someday (or there could be one in some expansion I don't have) that could allow it.

Thanks for the answer.  I read the rules though and did not see where it said explicitly that monsters (not including Wandering Monsters) had to be played from your hand only during Looking for Trouble.  It says in the rules that "you may play" a Monster card during Looking for Trouble, but it does not say "you may only" play it at this time.    In Charity, it states you play cards to reduce your hand to five, but it gives no clarification or mention any restrictions on what type of cards you can play.

@user6471 Did you see anywhere else in the rules where it says when you can play a monster card? If not, then it's pretty clear that that's when you can play them.

@user6471 And amcintosh's answer actually quotes the rule that explicitly states when monster cards are allowed to be played.

Playing and fighting are not the same thing. For example, Wandering Monster allows you to play a monster, but you don't get to fight it. Playing is to put on the table. Something must instruct that player to fight it if he is to fight it.
The Charity phase doesn't instruct any player to fight monsters played during Charity phase, so if you were to play a monster, you'd be left with a monster on the table that no one has a way of attacking. It would be stuck in limbo for the rest of the game. That doesn't make any sense, so playing a monster during charity doesn't either.
The Charity phase is simply giving you the chance to play cards before you have to discard, but you still have to follow the rules that cover how each type of card can be played. The section titled "When to Play Cards" details this. For monster cards, it says:

If drawn face-up, during the “Kick Open The Door” phase, they immediately attack the person who drew them.
If acquired any other way, they go into your hand and may be played during “Looking For Trouble,” or played on another player with the Wandering Monster card.

Thanks guys for the answers.  I think you can see where the confusion is for me.  It says to "play" a monster card during looking for trouble.  It also says you can "play" cards during Charity.  They use the same verb in both cases but they have a different meaning to play.  Thanks for the clarification.

No, same meaning. "play" is not the same verb as "attack", though. It's just implied that you can't play a monster that can't be attacked.

Another way they are different: "You must play or give" is another "You may play. If you don't, you must give". "May play" is merely a permission to play; one must still follow the normal rules for playing. "Play"  is an instruction to perform now; this can override timing restrictions mentioned elsewhere.


text:
How does Humility affect creatures with an Echo cost?
If I cast a card with Echo and Humility is in play do I still have to pay the echo cost?

You will not have to pay the echo cost. The comprehensive rules definition of Echo:

702.29. Echo

702.29a Echo is a triggered ability. “Echo [cost]” means “At the beginning of your upkeep, if this permanent came under your control since the beginning of your last upkeep, sacrifice it unless you pay [cost].”
702.29b Urza block cards with the echo ability were printed without an echo cost. These cards have been given errata in the Oracle card reference; each one now has an echo cost equal to its mana cost.

As you can see, echo is a triggered ability just like any other. It would normally tigger at the beginning of your upkeep, but because of humility, the creature no longer has the ability, so there's no ability to trigger.

Echo is an ability of a creature card, and humility says all creatures lose all abilities, so there is no more Echo. Cool right? But your creature is a 1/1 though.


text:
When do transformed creatures go back to their original forms?
It's not clear to me from reading Double-Faced Card Rules: do transformed creatures revert back to their original type automatically? And if so, when? End of your turn or beginning of your next turn?

Double-faced cards only transform when they (or another effect like Moonmist) explicitly say they transform.  For example, Ulvenwald Mystics says on its front side:

At the beginning of each upkeep, if no spells were cast last turn, transform Ulvenwald Mystics.

and the back side (Ulvenwald Primordials) says:

{G}: Regenerate Ulvenwald Primordials.
At the beginning of each upkeep, if a player cast two or more spells last turn, transform Ulvenwald Primordials.

Thus, the conditions for transforming in both directions are printed on the card.
Loyal Cathar, on the other hand, has a transformation-causing ability on its front side but no transformation-related abilities on its back, so once it transforms, it stays that way until it leaves the battlefield.

Since this subsumes just about everything I was going to say (and says it better), I'll add one tiny note from my answer: this is implicit (but could be much better spelled out) in the informal article pointed to: "not all double-faced cards transform in both directions."

Your answer covers when they transform, but the OP asked when they changed face. There's is one case of the latter that transforming doesn't cover. They change to their default face when they change zone (become a new object). You hint at this at the end, but I thought I'd mention it explicitly.


text:
Will Boartusk Liege give +1/+1 to Goblins if Dralnu's Crusade is in play?
Say I have Boartusk Liege and Dralnu's Crusade in play. Boartusk Liege gives all other red creatures +1/+1 and Dralnu's Crusade says "all Goblins are black and are Zombies in addition to their other creature types". I assume that means that Boartusk Liege does not give +1/+1 to Goblins?

You are correct: when both cards are in play, Boartusk Liege does not give Goblins +1/+1. A ruling on Dralnu's Crusade says

The Goblins are both Goblins and Zombies and they are black (they lose their previous color(s)).

Since they lose their previous colors, they are not red.
In regards to how this works in general, rule 105.3 says

Effects may change an object's color or give a color to a colorless object. If an effect gives an object a new color, the new color replaces all previous colors the object had (unless the effect said the object became that color "in addition" to its other colors). Effects may also make a colored object become colorless.

The reason that the Goblin doesn't get +1/+1 from Boartusk Liege before you change its color to black is that Magic uses a layer system to determine in what order effects get applied. Effects that change color are on layer 5 and effects that change power and toughness are on layer 7, so the color changing effects get applied first.


text:
Can Dash from Fate Reforged be used at instant speed?
Fate Reforged is introducing a new mechanic called dash. It's reminder text is as follows:

You may cast this spell for its dash cost. If you do, it gains haste,
  and it's returned from the battlefield to its owner's hand at the
  beginning of the next end step.

My question is...  can dash be played at flash (instant) speed?

It wouldn't really make sense to play dash spells at instant speed. In general, if you're playing a creature, giving it haste, and it leaves the battlefield at the end of the turn, it's because you want to attack with it. In that case you're just going to play it during your first main phase anyway. Plus, there's nothing in the text you quoted that indicates that you can cast those spells at instant speed.

does it say "flash" or "instant"?

The official rules are not out yet, but my guess is no. The templating on the reminder text strongly suggests that "Dash" will function as an alternative cost that does not affect when you can cast a spell. In this regard, it would be similar to the "Evoke" mechanic.
For creatures with flash, you would be able to "Dash" at instant-speed (similar to Briarhorn)

Fully agree. Dash isn't an activated ability that causes you to cast the creature; it's a static ability that functions in any zone from which you can cast the card (to modify casting). Like with Flashback, it doesn't allow you to cast the creature when you otherwise couldn't.

From the Mechanics of Fate Reforged

Dash doesn't change when you can cast creature spells—usually only during your main phase.

This means that if the creature has flash you can cast it at instant speed, but otherwise you can only do it during your main phase.


text:
Do Gild's Gold tokens go into play under the caster's control?
Gild says "Exile target creature. Put a colorless artifact token named Gold onto the battlefield. It has "Sacrifice this artifact: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool."". I assume that that means that the token goes into play under your control (assuming you were the one who cast Gild) and not the person who's creature you exiled?

Yes, the token comes into play under the control of the player who played Gild. This is specified by rule 110.2a:

If an effect instructs a player to put an object onto the battlefield, that object enters the battlefield under that player's control unless the effect states otherwise.

Gild's effect instructs you (the player who controls the spell) to put the token into play, so it comes into play under your control.
A ruling on the Gatherer page states this explicitly:

You will control the token, no matter who controls the target creature.

Rapid Hybridization is a good example where the token goes to the other player, showing how it's explicitly stated. "Destroy target creature. It can't be regenerated. That creature's controller puts a 3/3 green Frog Lizard creature token onto the battlefield."

It's also an explicit Oracle ruling: You will control the token, no matter who controls the target creature.

Yes, it is, but the rules are sufficient to know what happens.

@murgatroid99 The big reason to mention the rulings is that a lot of people don't think to look there, and it'll help them get quick answers in the future, rather than having to post a question here or try to search/understand the comp rules.

Not quite.
It enters the battlefield under the control of Gild's controller.

110.2a. If an effect instructs a player to put an object onto the battlefield, that object enters the battlefield under that player's control unless the effect states otherwise.

That's Gild's controller when it resolved.
By default, that's the player who cast Gild.
By default, that's the player who owns Gild.
So by default, it'll come under control of the player who owns Gild, but as you can see, there are some variables.

A couple of technicalities: there are no triggered abilities in this scenario. Gild doesn't enter the battlefield because it's a sorcery. And I'm pretty sure that there's no way to change the controller of an effect of a spell once the spell starts resolving. Really, the only variable here is the controller of the spell when it resolves.

@murgatroid99, Yeah, I seem to have seriously misread the card. Fixed.

(And while I know you two both know it, of course the controller of the spell could be swapped on the stack by, e.g., Perplexing Chimera; so 'when it resolves' is still necessary text.)


text:
What color are Nissa, Worldwaker's lands?
Nissa, Worldwaker turns lands into 4/4 Elemental creatures. My question is...  what color are these tokens? Are they green, the color that the land in question produces, or are they colorless since the card doesn't specify?

Normally lands are colorless (there is currently only one exception). Nissa does not assign a color to the lands she turns into elementals, so they would remain colorless.
Also worth noting, there are no tokens created. I am not exactly sure what you mean by this. What happens when you use Nissa's ability is that a land becomes a 4/4 Elemental creature, while also retaining its previous properties as a land (tapping for mana, having the "Land" type, etc).

One land isn't colorless by default. The color of a card has nothing to do with its type. That's why I posted my answer.

@ikegami While that is technically true in the rules, there has never been, and almost certainly never will be, a land with a mana cost.

If a land had a mana cost, you wouldn't have to pay it as per 202.1b. That doesn't mean that they could not decide to color a land again, like they did with Dryad Arbor. If you Nissa a Dryad Arbor, it's a green elemental.

@GendoIkari, Correct, but irrelevant. I don't know why you're saying that unless you're trying to imply there has never been or will never be a land that isn't colorless out of the box, but that's clearly false: Dryad Arbor.

@ikegami I guess the point was that "Lands by default are colorless", while technically untrue and incorrect; is a fair way to explain colors and lands to someone who isn't familiar with the complexities of the actual MTG rules.

@GendoIkari, Right, figuring out the color of a card isn't commonly required knowledge, so we might as well tell them that color is based on the card's type. ...Oh wait, it is commonly needed knowledge, and as such, telling them it's based on the card type when it's not will cause confusion.

@ikegami: Lands are default colorless seems safe to say. Lands do not have a casting cost and thus are colorless. Color indicators are rare enough to be considered an exception you have to think about, and any card with a type land and no color indicator would be colorless (since again, lands don't have mana symbols).

It's colorless.

202.2. An object is the color or colors of the mana symbols in its mana cost, regardless of the color of its frame.

202.2b Objects with no colored mana symbols in their mana costs are colorless.

202.2e An object may have a color indicator printed to the left of the type line. That object is each color denoted by that color indicator. (See rule 204.)

202.2f Effects may change an object’s color, give a color to a colorless object, or make a colored object become colorless; see rule 105.3.

The land-become-creature has no mana symbols in its mana cost, it has no color indicator, and no continuous effect sets its color, so it is colorless. Just like it was before becoming a creature.

As previously mentioned, there are no token involved. A token is a created object that isn't represented by a card. No object is created, some characteristic of the cards have simply changed. Just like when Giant Growth is used.

I think it's an important part of the answer that Nissa doesn't assign a color as well though.

@Gendolkari, Fixed.


text:
Who is "You" when the creature controller is not the owner?
Assume I have both a Firedrinker Satyr and a Daring Thief out in play. My Daring Thief untaps and I swap ownership of the Firedrinker with another creature of theirs. If I then proceed to Lightning Strike the Firedrinker Satyr (which is now on their side) - who receives that damage that the Satyr deals?
The key line that is confusing me is:

Whenever Firedrinker Satyr is dealt damage, it deals that much damage to you.

The main question appears to be whether "you" woud refer to the owner or the controller. My assumption is that it is the controller, as the owner is rarely needed or used - but that's not based on much but experience.

"You" always refers to the controller of the ability, which is the controller of the creature at the time the ability triggers. So in this case, the player who controls Firedrinker Satyr at the time the damage is dealt to it - your opponent - will have the Satyr deal damage to them.

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

from the comprehensive rules (or HTML version).


text:
What happens after using Spinal Embrace on a Theros God?
Spinal Embrace:

Cast Spinal Embrace only during combat. Untap target creature you
  don't control and gain control of it. It gains haste until end of
  turn. At the beginning of the next end step, sacrifice it. If you do,
  you gain life equal to its toughness.

Phenax, God of Deception

As long as your devotion to blue and black is less than seven, Phenax
  isn't a creature.

If I have Phenax in play, and my opponent plays Spinal Embrace targeting it, and then gains control of it, but does not have enough devotion to make Phenax a creature, what happens? Do they gain control of Phenax permanently?

"Sacrifice it" means sacrifice the object you had targeted. There's no check to make sure it's still creature. That's the case even if the ability said "Sacrifice the creature" to resolve some grammar ambiguity.

Maybe you think only creatures can be sacrificed, but that's not the case. 701.14a To sacrifice a permanent, its controller moves it from the battlefield directly to its owner’s graveyard. A player can’t sacrifice something that isn’t a permanent, or something that’s a permanent he or she doesn’t control. Sacrificing a permanent doesn’t destroy it, so regeneration or other effects that replace destruction can’t affect this action.

Your opponent will gain control of Phenax, then at the end of your turn they will sacrifice it and gain zero life.
When Spinal Embrace resolves, it creates two continuous effects:

You control that Phenax.
Phenax gains haste until end of turn.

and a delayed triggered ability:

At the beginning of the next end step, sacrifice Phenax. If you do, you gain life equal to its toughness.

So, right after Spinal Embrace resolves, your opponent controls Phenax and it has haste. Then, at the beginning of the next end step, the delayed triggered ability triggers and they sacrifice Phenax. Then they gain life equal to its toughness. However, rule 302.4 says

Power and toughness are characteristics only creatures have.

and rule 107.2 says

If anything needs to use a number that can't be determined, either as a result or in a calculation, it uses 0 instead.

When you sacrifice Phenax, it is not a creature, so it doesn't have a toughness. So, they gain zero life.

Your opponent will gain control of Phenax, not you.

Oh, right, I missed who was who in the question.

So Phenax will have haste even when it isn't a creature?

Yes, haste is just an ability like any other, so it can be on any kind of permanent. But non-creatures are not affected by summoning sickness anyway, so haste doesn't do anything for them.

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


text:
Voracious Wurm and Wall of Reverence: which trigger happens first?
Suppose Wall of Reverence is already in play. I play my Voracious Wurm, which has the following ability:

Voracious Wurm enters the battlefield with X +1/+1 counters on it, where X is the amount of life you've gained this turn.

Seeing as this is not a triggered ability, but a replacement effect, would I be able to gain life at my end step with Wall of Reverence's triggered ability, then add to the stack my Wurm's ability to gain X +1/+1 counters? (After all, that's life I gained in my turn.)
The following rules seem relevant here:

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

614.1. Some continuous effects are replacement effects. Like prevention effects (see rule 615), replacement effects apply continuously as events happen -- they aren't locked in ahead of time. Such effects watch for a particular event that would happen and completely or partially replace that event with a different event. They act like "shields" around whatever they're affecting.

614.1d Continuous effects that read "[This permanent] enters the battlefield . . ." or "[Objects] enter the battlefield . . ." are replacement effects.

Aside: if you have two voracious wurms and Astral Slide, you can alternate sliding out one worm and the other. If you stack triggers such that Wall of Reverence gains you life from one wurm before the other comes back, the slided one will have X times +1/+1 where X is the power of (not the number of counters on(!)) the other wurm. Next turn slide the other wurm. Each wurm grows by 2 each round. Not an UBERAWESUM combo, but neat.

No.  Replacement effects do not use the stack; as rule 614.1 (which you quoted) says, "[R]eplacement effects apply continuously as events happen" — i.e., they happen immediately, at the same time as the event being replaced/modified (in this case, Voracious Wurm entering the battlefield).  Thus, if Voracious Wurm enters the battlefield before the beginning of the end step, it won't benefit from Wall of Reverence's lifegain (but the Wall will be able to target the Wurm later).
However, if the Wurm somehow (say, by giving it flash) enters the battlefield during the end step (or, less likely, the cleanup step) after the Wall's ability resolves, its P/T will be boosted by the lifegain from the Wall — but, of course, the Wall can't target the Wurm until your next end step.
And if, for some strange reason, the Wurm enters the battlefield while the Wall's ability is still on the stack, the replacement effect will happen before the Wall's ability resolves, so the counters won't be boosted, and as targets for the Wall's ability must have already been chosen by that point, the Wall won't be able to target the Wurm that turn either.


text:
Can I cast an instant in the middle of an ability resolving?
Suppose my opponent has Nahiri, the Lithomancer and an equipment card on the battlefield, then uses Nahiri's +2 ability to create a 1/1 soldier and attach the equip to it.

+2: Put a 1/1 white Kor Soldier creature token onto the battlefield. You may attach an Equipment you control to it.

Is it possible to cast an instant that would kill the soldier before the equipment is equipped, or does the entire action happen at once?

Related (and about spells rather than abilities): Can I cast spells in the middle of another spell resolving?

It isn't possible. While the creation of the solider and the attaching of the equipment aren't simultaneous[CR 608.2c], you do not get priority (the permission to cast instants and other actions) in the middle of the resolution of a spell or ability.

116.2e Resolving spells and abilities may instruct players to make choices or take actions, or may allow players to activate mana abilities. Even if a player is doing so, no player has priority while a spell or ability is resolving. See rule 608, “Resolving Spells and Abilities.”

116.3. Which player has priority is determined by the following rules:

116.3a The active player receives priority at the beginning of most steps and phases, after any turn-based actions (such as drawing a card during the draw step; see rule 703) have been dealt with and abilities that trigger at the beginning of that phase or step have been put on the stack. No player receives priority during the untap step. Players usually don’t get priority during the cleanup step (see rule 514.3).

116.3b The active player receives priority after a spell or ability (other than a mana ability) resolves.

116.3c If a player has priority when he or she casts a spell, activates an ability, or takes a special action, that player receives priority afterward.

116.3d If a player has priority and chooses not to take any actions, that player passes. If any mana is in that player’s mana pool, he or she announces what mana is there. Then the next player in turn order receives priority.

Side notes:

An existing Night of Souls' Betrayal would temporarily make the Soldier a 0/0, but it wouldn't kill it if an Equipment boosting toughness is attached to the Soldier by the ability. It survives because State-Based Actions (what moves a creature with non-positive toughness to the graveyard) aren't performed in the middle of the resolution of spells either.

Even when you can cast a spell in the middle of a spell's or ability's resolution, as possible with Epic Experiment, it will still resolve when the stack unwinds as normal, not in the middle of the resolution of a spell or ability. For example,

You cast Epic Experiment with X=2.
Instants can be cast here.
Epic Experiment resolves:

You exile Shock and a Mountain from your library.
You cast Shock.
Put the Mountain in your graveyard.

Instants can be cast here.
Shock resolves.

Can I hijack your answer with a quick question? Does rule 116.3c imply that a player could stack several consecutive effects without giving an opponent a chance to respond?

@alecov, Unless the rules have changed (and I strongly doubt that), yes


text:
How do two Doubling Seasons affect each other?
If an effect would put one 1/1 creature token onto the battlefield, and I control two Doubling Seasons, how many tokens would be put into play? 3 or 4?

related: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/5746/interactions-of-multiple-parallel-lives

Four tokens will enter the battlefield. This is actually spelled out in a Ruling on Doubling Season:

10/1/2005: If there are two Doubling Seasons on the battlefield, then the number of tokens or counters is four times the original number. If there are three on the battlefield, then the number of tokens or counters is eight times the original number, and so on.

For reference, the token ability says:

If an effect would put one or more tokens onto the battlefield under your control, it puts twice that many of those tokens onto the battlefield instead.

This is a replacement effect, so rather than merely responding to the effect that places a 1/1 creature token onto the battlefield (and adding one more), it completely replaces that effect with a new one that places twice as many tokens onto the battlefield. So it works out like this:

The first Doubling Season will replace the original effect, which places 1 token, with one that places 2 tokens instead.
The second Doubling Season will then replace that effect with one that places 4 tokens.
When your effect finally puts tokens on the battlefield, you get 4 1/1 tokens.

A slight nitpick, but I wouldn't use the word "resolve" in this context because it could cause confusion with spells and abilities resolving.

That's the exact kind of resolve I mean though: the effect that provides the tokens does so. Is there a better way to put it?

My point was that effects don't resolve, e.g. they don't go on the stack. I'd use "happens" or "takes effect" or "finishes" or something of that nature.

@David How does that look to you?

Very nice now :-)


text:
In terms of game design, what's the role of the dice in 30 Seconds?
In the game "30 seconds" before a team's turn, they roll a handicap dice that subtracts either 0, 1 or 2 from their number of guessed answers. What does this mechanic bring to the game? What game design problem does it solve?

It's not solving any problem, unless having the outcome determined by the players is seen as a problem. It just makes the game more random / less determined by player actions.

At the start of each round, the team throws a special 30 Seconds die
to determine a handicap. The die has six sides with values of 0, 1 or
2. This handicap will be subtracted from the number of correct guesses during that turn to determine how many squares their token may
advance, therefore 0 is preferable. Source

Therefore a higher number makes sure you need to have at least a certain minimum of correct answers per round to be able to advance. If both teams are equally strong, it adds a slight variance/ random element into it who is winning - if everyone answers everything correctly, the team with the lowest numbers thrown on the dice wins.

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


text:
Do Surge triggers happen "on cast" or when the spell resolves?
Consider this new card from Oath of the Gatewatch -- Crush of Tentacles.
I realize the first part -- "Return all nonland permanents to their owners' hands" -- happens when the spell resolves, but what about the second part of the card text -- "If Crush of Tentacles surge cost was paid, put an 8/8 blue Octopus creature token onto the battlefield."
Does that trigger when the card is cast or when the spell resolves?

Reality check - why return all creatures to their owner's hand if you're also going to put a token on the battlefield - I don't think the "vanilla creature enters-the-battlefield matters" deck is a thing =)

Note that "trigger" is a bad word to use here, this effect is not a triggered ability.

@GendoIkari I used triggered because I was confused whether it triggered "on cast" or if it just resolved with the spell.

Except the second ability in the paragraph is a triggered ability: "If [card name]'s surge cost was paid, put an 8/8 blue Octopus creature token onto the battlefield." follows the [trigger condition], effect format. It is a state based trigger that checks to see if the alternative cost was paid.

That is incorrect. An ability is only a triggered ability if it starts with the word "when", "whenever", or "at" [CR 603.1]. There is no such thing as a state-based trigger. This is simply a spell effect that only happens conditionally.

The effect that checks whether the Surge cost was paid resolves when the spell resolves. This is because abilities of Instants and Sorceries are by default "spell abilities", and resolve when the spell resolves. Rule 112.3a says

Spell abilities are abilities that are followed as instructions while an instant or sorcery spell is resolving. Any text on an instant or sorcery spell is a spell ability unless it’s an activated ability, a triggered ability, or a static ability that fits the criteria described in rule 112.6.

None of those exceptions apply here. It's not an activated ability, because it doesn't have the form "[cost]: [effect]" [CR 112.3b]. It's not a triggered ability because it doesn't start with the word "At", "When", or "Whenever" [CR 112.3c]. And it's not a static ability, because it's written as an instruction, not a statement [CR 112.3d].
When you are resolving the spell, rule 608.2c says

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

so the Octopus token enters the battlefield immediately after the other creatures return to their owners' hands, and it does not itself get returned.

The Surge effect will occur when the Card resolves, since it is in the same paragraph as the spell's effect, per 112.2c.

112.2c An object may have multiple abilities. If the object is represented by a card, then aside from certain defined abilities that may be strung together on a single line (see rule 702, “Keyword Abilities”), each paragraph break in a card’s text marks a separate ability. If the object is not represented by a card, the effect that created it may have given it multiple abilities. An object may also be granted additional abilities by a spell or ability. If an object has  multiple instances of the same ability, each instance functions independently.  This may or may not produce more effects than a single instance; refer to the specific ability for more information.

If it were to happen when you cast the spell with Surge, it would be worded more like Genesis Hydra:

When you cast XX for its surge cost, do this thing.

@murgatroid99 I'm not really sure what you're asking here.

@murgatroid99 The Question correctly identifies that effect A occurs during spell resolution. Didn't see a need to reinforce a correct understanding.

You're right. I should have read the question more carefully. But, on further examination, I think your answer is actually wrong for a different reason: effects in the same paragraph don't necessarily resolve at the same time. Berserk and Death Frenzy are examples of this. So your rules quote doesn't actually show that they resolve together.

CR 603.1:

603.1. Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as “[Trigger condition], [effect],” and begin with the word “when,” “whenever,” or “at.” They can also be expressed as “[When/Whenever/At] [trigger event], [effect].”

Crush of Tentacles doesn't say “when,” “whenever,” or “at,” it says "if". Thus it can't have a trigger. Consequentially it must do it's thing when it resolves.


text:
Do negative counters trigger Protean Hydra?
Damage to Protean Hydra is prevented by removing +1/+1 counters from it. The card states:

Whenever a +1/+1 counter is removed from Protean Hydra, put two +1/+1 counters on it at the beginning of the next end step.

So if a -1/-1 counter is placed on it, it cancels out one +1/+1 counter. Is the counter still considered to be 'removed' or does it just disappear?
Main Question: If Protean Hydra has a -1/-1 counter placed on it (say for example by Contagion Clasp), will it receive 2 +1/+1 counters?

Yes, it is removed and you get the EOT trigger. Per Gatherer:

If a -1/-1 counter is put on Protean Hydra while it has +1/+1 counters on it, that -1/-1 counter and a +1/+1 counter will be removed from it as a state-based action. This will cause Protean Hydra's last ability to trigger.

Yes.

704.5r If a permanent has both a +1/+1 counter and a -1/-1 counter on it, N +1/+1 and N -1/-1 counters are removed from it, where N is the smaller of the number of +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters on it.

There is actually a time where both the +1/+1 and the -1/-1 counters are on the Hydra. They are both removed the next time Stated-Based Actions are performed (State-based actions are performed right before a player would get priority. e.g. after a spell resolves, but not during the resolution of a spell).

State-based actions are performed right before a player would get priority.

So if there were a card like "Put a -1/-1 counter on target creature. Then gain X life, where X i the number of counters on that creature", then you would get the life from both the +1/+1 counter and the -1/-1 counter, because they are both there at the time. Correct?

@GendoIkari Yes, that's correct. A real example would be the modular mechanic. See the ruling on Arcbound Ravager

@GendoIkari, Correct. Here's an another scenario: Say you have a creature with a single +1/+1 counter with a total P/T of 1/1 and you gave it a -1/-1 counter. It would go to the graveyard, and Undying wouldn't trigger.


text:
Mana Ramp for White and Blue?
What are some ramp cards for White or Blue decks (excluding High Tide in Blue)?
Formats: All excluding Vintage.

What format? Mana ramp isn't really white or blue's slice of the pie, so a lot of the answers are weirder older cards.

Tolarian Academy

Agreed that this could use more information. There are a large number of colorless mana artifacts and mana creatures. What are you looking to do?

@Jefromi: All except Vintage

Imprisoned in the Moon can be used against one of your own creatures to give you an extra land.

White and Blue don't have much in the way of mana ramp. However, since you're looking at everything but Vintage, you do have some options:
White cards dealing with land tend towards restoring balance, and as such there are several card which can only get you land if an opponent has more already.

Knight of the White Orchid
Kor Cartographer
Oath of Lieges
Planar Birth (if you can dump lands into your graveyard)

Blue can, of course, steal land. It also has several card which cheat permanents into play, and happen to include land as an option.

Annex (in addition to many other cards which can steal any kind of permanent)
Arbiter of the Ideal
Braids, Conjurer Adept
Dreamscape Artist (this is Harrow, both color shifted and turned into a spellshaper at the same time; Planar Chaos be wacky)
Eternal Dominion (of course, you don't need mana for casting spells afterwards, but you could still use mana for activating abilities)
Show and Tell

In addition to adding more land to the battlefield, you can get more mileage out of your lands. "Twiddle" effects are fairly common in blue, and Urza block had a slew of creatures and spells which would untap the same number of lands as their own mana cost, making the spell very nearly free, or if you had lands that tap for more than one mana, you could get more mana than you otherwise would have had.

Cloud of Faeries
Frantic Search
Great Whale
Palinchron
Peregrine Drake
Reset
Rewind
Snap
Time Spiral
Treachery
Turnabout

You can also reduce your costs; you don't actually have more mana, but you can do more with the mana you have. (Affinity for Artifacts in particular is on many Blue cards.)

Arcane Melee
Ballyrush Banneret
Council of the Absolute
Daru Warchief
Etherium Sculptor
Grand Arbiter Agustin IV
Herald of War
Hero of Iroas
Mistform Warchief
Stonybrook Banneret
Stormscape Familiar
Sunscape Familiar
Warden of Evos Isle

Finally, artifacts can do all of the above, from putting land onto the battlefield (Burnished Hart, Explorers Scope), to tapping for mana (Sol Ring, Darksteel Ingot), to making your lands tap for more mana (Gauntlet of Power, Caged Sun), to reducing costs (Cloud Key, Helm of Awakening), and even Twiddle effects (Candelabra of Tawnos, Sword of Feast and Famine).
It ought to be obvious, but this answer is by no means an exhaustive listing of your options. You're not going to vomit a deck full of lands onto the table playing a White/Blue deck, but there are still ways for you to get ahead in the game.

No one has yet mentioned Tithe or Weathered Wayfarer.

@HaoYe, While excellent cards, neither are mana ramp.

'You're not going to vomit a deck full of lands onto the table...' That is such a fantastic way of putting it. I always felt like my green ramp decks were somehow 'vomiting' or 'expelling' their mana because of all the shuffle and draw.

Azorius Signet

Land Tax

Saprazzan Skerry and Remote Farm (I don't see people using this, but maybe?)

Land Tax is not mana ramp. It can help make sure you don't miss your land drops, but it doesn't accelerate your mana in any way.

yes Brian, not exactly, I thought I should remind of this one, maybe it's useful in other forms (if you are use using moxes and petals). White has nothing good like Dark Rituals, so it's good exploring other possibilites...


text:
What do I say when an opponent asks if I'm "tapped out", especially if I still have a means of casting a spell?
When my opponent asks if I am "tapped out" is it reasonable to assume they are referring to land only?
Say for example my opponent goes to declare attackers and asks if I am "tapped out". I have no land available but 3 untapped white creatures on the field and and Devouring Light in my hand. I might mention them as blockers, but if they could not block his creatures for some reason I might just say yes. Would that be considered dishonest? What is the best way to answer this question?

Why would your opponent need to ask this?  As far as I understand it, whether someone is "tapped out" can be determined just by looking at the board.

I've heard players ask questions like that just for confirmation, to make sure they're not missing anything.

Or sometimes to badger people who purposely play with messy or confusing boards thinking it gives them some kind of pro edge.  e.g., "Yes I am going to ask you if your inkmoth nexus is tapped every time it's relevant until you take it out from under that stack of darksteel citadels you tried to slip it into and put it where I can see it." :)

@Affe, Some players just suck at tapping cards well. One of the players in my meta frequently taps his cards... diagonally, making it hard to distinguish them from cards that just rotated a bit because you looked at them funny. It's not out of malice, though, it's just a bad habit.

@BrianS: that's not messy, that's old school. Back in the days of Revised, the tap symbol was a diagonally placed T. I used to tap like that.

@SQB, as far as I'm aware, the rules have always instructed you to tap cards by turning them fully horizontal. However, I never even saw a magic card prior to the release of Exodus, so I admit that I could be mistaken.

First, let me tell you about your obligations with regards to providing information.

There are three categories of information: free, derived and private.
Free information is information to which all players are entitled access without contamination or omissions made by their opponents. If a player is ever unable or unwilling to provide free information to an opponent that has requested it, he or she should call a judge and explain the situation. Free information includes:

[...]
The physical status (tapped/flipped/unattached/phased) and current zone of any object.
[...]

Derived information is information to which all players are entitled access, but opponents are not obliged to assist in determining and may require some skill or calculation to determine. Derived information includes:

[...]

Private information is information to which players have access only if they are able to determine it from the current visual game state or their own record of previous game actions.

[...]

Also,

At Regular REL, all derived information is instead considered free.

If he's seeking to know which of your permanents are tapped, you are obligated to answer.
If he's seeking for more than that, you are only obligated to answer when Regular Rule Enforcement Level is in effect. (This is the REL used at events such as FNM.) Determining which of your permanents are lands or which of them have mana abilities is derived information.
Whether you are obligated to answer or not, all answers must be truthful and without omission.

On to your question. Given that he didn't mention lands or mana, I see three alternatives.

You can could ask what he means.
You could overload him with information. For example, "I have many untapped permanents. J, K, L and M are untapped." For all you know, he's asking if you have any potential blockers. If not, "Oh, you just wanted to know about land? Dully noted."
You could misdirect while being fully truthful. For example, "only non-lands aren't tapped".

I almost always do the third option. If someone asks me if I am "tapped out" or things like that, I tell them "I have all but X lands tapped." or "All my lands are tapped." I sort of make my opponent look for things (i.e. a Voyagin Satyr untapped, etc.) without lying or just giving away information. Alternatively, at FNM if I suspect it's a newer player, I help them out and tell them I can produce mana (or whatever).

Could you provide a link to the document quoted? I'd like to read up on the differences between free and derived information.

Go to MTG's rule page, follow Magic Tournament Rules, find the document titled "Magic: The Gathering Tournament Rules". It's in section 4.1, Player Communication.

In situations like this, it's probably best to just respond more specifically, and see if they ask anything else. They are likely asking about available mana, so you could say "I have no untapped lands" or "I can't tap anything for mana." Then you can let them probe further if that's not what they meant.

Personally, the way I would respond to this question depends on what type of event I'm playing in (if any) and who I'm playing against.
I'd always interpret "tapped out" as referring to land.
At the kitchen table with friends, you might err on the side of providing ample information with a response such as "Yes, all my lands are tapped and I can't produce any mana."  Of course, you shouldn't say anything that indicates you can't cast any spells because that would be misinformation.  You're also not obligated to provide any information that indicates you can cast any spells, if your opponent wants to call your bluff he or she should do so in-game.
At a competitive event, your opponent may be asking this question because they can't tell whether or not your lands are tapped.  A truly sporting player probably isn't asking this question to trick you into revealing your hand, but rather to deduce what cards you may be representing by your board state.  In a competitive setting, "yes" is an ethical and honest response to the question.


text:
What happens when I target an indestructible card with an "if that would die this turn, exile it instead" effect?
Annihilating Fire says:

Annihilating Fire deals 3 damage to target creature or player. If a creature dealt damage this way would die this turn, exile it instead.

If I deal lethal damage to an indestructible creature with Annihilating Fire or after Annihilating Fire has been played on it this turn will the the creature be exiled?

No.
Lethal damage will not cause an indestructible creature to die.

700.4. The term dies means "is put into a graveyard from the battlefield."
702.12b A permanent with indestructible can’t be destroyed. Such permanents aren’t destroyed by lethal damage, and they ignore the
  state-based action that checks for lethal damage (see rule 704.5g).
704.5g If a creature has toughness greater than 0, and the total damage marked on it is greater than or equal to its toughness, that
  creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed. Regeneration
  can replace this event.

However, if another effect causes the indestructible creature to die (for example through sacrificing), Annihilating Fire's effect will cause the card to be exiled.
A ruling on gatherer:

10/1/2012     A creature dealt damage by Annihilating Fire will be exiled
  no matter why the creature would die. It could be destroyed by another
  spell or ability.

In other words, Annihilating Fire's ability is equivalent to "Annihilating Fire deals 3 damage to target creature or player. If a creature dealt damage this way would be placed in the graveyard from the battlefield this turn, exile it instead." It doesn't get moved to the graveyard, so it doesn't get exiled.

I had some hope that the death state-based action would be checked and then the death event it would create could change into an exile event before indestructible stops it. But since indestructible prevents the entire state-based action that checks for lethal damage no such thing can happen.

Even regeneration doesn't bring back from the graveyard. It would affect creatures with Undying, though.

@ikegami True, but if they regenerate and I kill it later that turn it will still be exiled since only the damage was removed, not the exile effect.


text:
Why is the ruling on Torbran the way it is?
Someone today asked me about an interaction between Torbran, Thane of Red Fell and the newly previewed card Fiery Emancipation.
I checked rule 616 and which states the "affected object's controller [or] affected player" decides the order in which to apply the replacement effects.  My interpretation of this is that the spell or permanent who's damage is being increased/tripled is the affected object and that they would chose the order to apply.
Then I was shown the ruling on Torbran which reads:

If another effect modifies how much damage your red source would deal, including preventing some of it, the player being dealt damage or the controller of the permanent being dealt damage chooses an order in which to apply those effects. If all of the damage is prevented, Torbran’s effect no longer applies.

What am I missing in my interpretation of the rules? I've been looking at it for awhile and I just don't understand how they came to this conclusion.

616.1. If two or more replacement and/or prevention effects are attempting to modify the way an event affects an object or player, the affected object’s controller (or its owner if it has no controller) or the affected player chooses one to apply, following the steps listed below. If two or more players have to make these choices at the same time, choices are made in APNAP order (see rule 101.4).

Affected here means the 'target' of the event, not the 'source'. This is confirmed by the example on 616.1e:

Example: Two permanents are on the battlefield. One is an enchantment that reads “If a card would be put into a graveyard from anywhere, instead exile it,” and the other is a creature that reads “If [this creature] would die, instead shuffle it into its owner’s library.” If the creature is destroyed, its controller decides which replacement to apply first; the other does nothing.

You may be right but I'm not sure that the example quoted reinforced your definition. In that case the creature that is leaving the battlefield is both the 'source' and 'target' of the event so under both interpretations the example makes sense.

The important thing here is that the rule is referring to the object or player affected by the event, not whatever is affected by the replacement effect. In this case the event is the damage, so the affected player or object is the one the damage is being dealt to.

Would it be a violation of the tournament rules for the player to suggest the order, though, knowing that the player that they're playing against may not know that they get to pick?


text:
Can I turn a manifested God face up?
Say I have an empty battlefield and use Cloudform to manifest the top card of my library. The manifested card is Heliod, God of the Sun. Can I turn this card face up for the mana cost if I do not have enough devotion to white for it to be a creature?
The rule of thumb I've been told is "it's a creature everywhere but on the battlefield" which would seem to indicate you can't, but I know this is a simplification of the relevant rules. If this can be done, what makes it possible?

Yes, you can turn it face up.

701.31a To manifest a card, turn it face down. It becomes a 2/2 face-down creature card with no text, no name, no subtypes, and no mana cost. Put that card onto the battlefield face down. That permanent is a manifested permanent as long as it remains face down. The effect defining its characteristics works while the card is face down and ends when it’s turned face up.
701.31b Any time you have priority, you may turn a manifested permanent you control face up. This is a special action that doesn’t use the stack (see rule 115.2b). To do this, show all players that the card representing that permanent is a creature card and what that card’s mana cost is, pay that cost, then turn the permanent face up. The effect defining its characteristics while it was face down ends, and it regains its normal characteristics. (If the card representing that permanent isn’t a creature card or it doesn’t have a mana cost, it can’t be turned face up this way.)

The type of the card on the battlefield is no secret. It's almost surely going to be a creature. ("It becomes a 2/2 face-down creature card [...]"). That means "to show all players that the card represents a creature card" clearly refers to the physical card (rather than the game object), so "represents a creature card" means "would be a creature card if outside of the game".
As such, you only look at its type line, and any characteristic-defining abilities that alter its type (since those function everywhere, including outside of the game).
There's absolutely no chance that Heliod's second ability has any effect because it's an ability that only functions on the battlefield, and the object on the battlefield has no abilities ("It becomes a 2/2 face-down creature card with no text, [...]")

Note that you'll lose Clouldform if you turn Heliod face-up without the devotion needed to make it a creature. Clouldform can only legally enchant a creature.

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

So, it's a creature card, but not a creature once it's flipped over because of lack of devotion? (Not questioning, just confirming/clarifying)

@Allen Gould, The card on the battlefield is a creature card ("It becomes a 2/2 face-down creature card [...]"), so "the card represents a creature card" refers to the physical card (not the game object), so "represents a creature card" means "would be a creature card if outside of the game".

One thing I haven't seen either answer handle is what happens to Cloudform when its turned face up. Does the lack of devotion mean it's not a creature and therefore no longer eligible to be the target of cloudform?

@Robert Wertz, Only abilities and spells on the stack target. Auras on the battlefield enchant. But yeah, it's enchanting something it can't enchant, so it will go to the graveyard. Added a note to my answer.

@Ikegami, thanks! You answered the question I was attempting ask haha, I guess I should have phrased it as "no longer eligible to be enchanted by cloudform". Thanks!

Yes, you can pay the card's mana cost to turn it face up, because it is a creature card. The rules for Manifest, specifically 701.31b say

Any time you have priority, you may turn a manifested permanent you control face up. This is a special action that doesn't use the stack (see rule 115.2b). To do this, show all players that the card representing that permanent is a creature card and what its mana cost is, pay that cost, then turn the permanent face up. The effect defining its characteristics while it was face down ends, and it regains its normal characteristics. If the card representing that permanent isn't a creature card or doesn't have a mana cost, it can't be turned face up this way.

As long as Heliod is face down, just like when it is in another zone, it doesn't have the ability that says it is not a creature, so the card is still a creature card.
The reminder text for Manifest (from Cloudform) also hints at this

To manifest a card, put it onto the battlefield face down as a 2/2 creature. Turn it face up any time for its mana cost if it's a creature card.


text:
In what kind of deck is Aether Vial good?
I'm pretty much a beginner at deck building, and I'm toying around with a Modern GR Shaman tribal deck. It's too slow to be competitive, but there are a lot of options and things to try out.
I find it hard to decide whether Aether Vial is good in it, and what adjustments I should make to the deck if I decide to include it. Aether Vial seems like an awesome card at first sight (putting creatures on the board for free, at instant speed, for an initial 1 mana? Huh?) but I note that very few competitive decks run it.
Arguments against and for I can think of: by itself, it doesn't do anything yet, and having multiple in your starting hand means you probably have too few creatures. You can only use it for creatures with the right CMC, and you can only add counters, not remove them. On the other hand, it does save mana that can be left up for other things, and instant speed is nothing to sneeze at. My creatures have CMC of 1, 2, 3, 4 (too spread out?) but I don't have many 1-drops, and Vial is one, so that helps. Those are things I see. But I can't decide.
What kind of reasoning should I use to decide whether Aether Vial is worth it in any given Modern deck?

I don't have an answer, but this article has a lot of info: http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/woo-brews-aether-vial-and-pack-rat/

The other thing vial does is make your creatures instant speed.  Such as the use of Vial + Flickerwisp in some HateBears builds.  Flickerwisp is suddenly much more interesting when you can use it to counter removal spells or rescue chump blocks.

Obviously Aether Vial does best in a creature-heavy deck where many of the creatures have low CMC. Having to tick up a Vial to 3 or 4 means waiting 3 or 4 turns before it gives you any value.
In addition to the points you listed above, one advantage that you missed is that creatures put into play by Vial are not cast, and therefore sidestep counterspells and related effects.
This property also enables the Vial to break symmetry on effects that prevent players from casting spells, or affect the costs to cast spells: (e.g., Trinisphere, Standstill, Sphere of Resistance, Rule of Law).
Multiples are not completely redundant: in addition to being able to vial in multiple creatures per turn, you can hold the vials at different number of counters, for creatures with different CMC.
I would say the reason you don't see it more often in competitive play is that simply putting more creatures on the board isn't always that strong of an effect. Many decks with lots of cheap creatures are on an aggro plan, and so Vial is both tempo loss and card disadvantage. The positive benefits of Vial accrue over multiple turns, so it does the most work in a deck that wants somewhat longer games, and also has lots of cheap creatures, preferably with redundant synergy (e.g., Fish).

Merfolk decks in Legacy are a good use of AEther Vial, because they're packed with 1- to 3-cost creatures and their play strategy is to dump a bunch of them on the board quickly. To take an arbitrarily selected decklist:

Lands:

4 Cavern of Souls
4 Mutavault
12 Island

1-cost Creatures:

4 Cursecatcher

2-cost creatures:

4 Silvergill Adept
4 Lord of Atlantis
4 Master of the Pearl Trident
3 Phantasmal Image

3-cost creatures:

3 Merrow Reejerey
4 True-Name Nemesis

Noncreature spells:

1 Relic of Progenitus
2 Umezawa's Jitte
4 Æther Vial
3 Daze
4 Force of Will

A web search for legacy merfolk will find you plenty of other sample decklists with similar distributions. The point is, this is the kind of mana curve it takes to make AEther Vial good, but it's also important that the creatures have strong synergies, because any random bunch of small creatures doesn't make a competitive deck. (anymore :-P)
That's why putting together this kind of deck is not quite as viable in Modern; it doesn't have as many synergistic creatures. You can still do it though.
Maybe there are some cool tricks you can pull using AEther Vial to put out a giant creature late in the game, but I don't see that being very likely, and as far as I know it's never been exploited successfully in a competitive deck.

Modern merfolk is also sometimes a thing. It loses TNN, Jitte, and the free counterspells, but is otherwise a very similar list.

Ah, well then I'll edit accordingly. I haven't followed Modern that closely so I guess I missed it.

Besides the fact that you need a critical mass of creatures with a certain curve to make vial good you should probably look at the format you want to play it in.
Things to consider here include:
How long do games last, do you have manasinks in your deck, how prevalent is countermagic, do you need to play around (mass-)removal, can your creatures provide tricks when they etb, are there some special synergies your deck can make use of (e.g. Standstill, Affinity), etc.
Legacy Merfolk is one of the decks that profit from almost all of these points.
Since the Counterbalance/Sensei's Divining Top two card combo is so strong in Legacy Vial is much better there than in Modern.


text:
Why can the activated ability of Genju of the Fields stack multiple times?
According to a ruling on Genju of the Fields, its activated ability can be activated multiple times to enhance its lifelink effects:

8/1/2005: When activated multiple times, it will have the triggered ability multiple times. When the animated Plains deals damage, the ability will trigger once for each copy of the ability. If, for example, you activate the ability three times, the Plains will deal two damage, and you'll gain six life.

I would like to know why because I interpret it differently.
I think that the ruling was made with the thought that the creature and ability were separate, such that even though the land becomes a creature multiple times with no effect, the ability accumulates.
This confuses me because I've always had the notion that when a land becomes a creature with its abilities listed out, it replaces the other types. This (misconception?) is reinforced by the fact that when lands become creatures, they inherently stop being lands unless they say otherwise.
Can somebody point me to the comprehensive guide ruling that causes this behavior?

Genju of the Fields' activated ability creates multiple separate effects:

Enchanted Plains is a Spirit Creature until end of turn. It's still a land.
Enchanted Plains is white until end of turn.
Enchanted Plains gains the ability "Whenever this creature deals damage, its controller gains that much life." until end of turn.
Enchanted Plains has power 2 and toughness 5 until end of turn.

When the ability is activated, each of these effects is created. If it's activated again, another copy of each effect is created. Each of the other effects has the same outcome if there are multiples (making a permanent white multiple times still results in it being white), but the ability granting effect grants a new ability for each copy.
It's important to remember that permanents don't lose abilities unless something explicitly says so. When you activate Genju of the Fields' ability, the permanent it's attached to keeps all of its abilities, including the ability to tap to add white mana to your mana pool, and it gains a new ability that is similar to lifelink. Rule 112.10 specifies this:

Effects can add or remove abilities of objects. An effect that adds an ability will state that the object "gains" or "has" that ability. An effect that removes an ability will state that the object "loses" that ability. Effects that remove an ability remove all instances of it. If two or more effects add and remove the same ability, in general the most recent one prevails. (See rule 613, "Interaction of Continuous Effects.")

There are 2 rules that don't apply to this situation, but which you may be over-generalizing.
First, rule 305.7, which only applies when a land subtype is set (and not "in addition to its other land types", e.g. Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth). This doesn't matter here, because the ability isn't changing the land subtype.

305.7. If an effect sets a land's subtype to one or more of the basic land types, the land no longer has its old land type. It loses all abilities generated from its rules text, its old land types, and any copy effects affecting that land, and it gains the appropriate mana ability for each new basic land type. Note that this doesn't remove any abilities that were granted to the land by other effects. Setting a land's subtype doesn't add or remove any card types (such as creature) or supertypes (such as basic, legendary, and snow) the land may have. If a land gains one or more land types in addition to its own, it keeps its land types and rules text, and it gains the new land types and mana abilities.

Second is rule 205.1b, which tells us how type changing effects can override other types. This doesn't affect abilities except for those that are intrinsic to subtypes. (the only ones that come to mind are the mana-producing abilities for basic landtypes)

205.1b. Some effects change an object's card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object's prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase "in addition to its types" or that state that something is "still a [type, supertype, or subtype]." Some effects state that an object becomes an "artifact creature"; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.

I think rule 305.7 was messing with me a bit. I looked at rule 205.1b before asking (just going through the PDF of comprehensive rules searching for the word "becomes"), but I wasn't sure because the ability isn't a type, so it would be inferred that if the types didn't change, then neither did the abilities. This makes sense, thanks.


text:
Should a judge assume that any triggers not mentioned have been missed when providing a ruling?
Alice and Nathan are playing a friendly game of magic in a tournament run at Competitive REL. They run into a situation that they don't quite understand, and so they call for a judge. Jason arrives, hears the situation, and now needs to hand down his ruling.
Jason notices that a trigger was missed that would affect his ruling if it were noticed. Should Jason simply assume that the trigger was missed while making his ruling?
Actual Example
Alive controls a Bloodfire Expert. Nathan taps three Mountains and casts Lightning Strike (which only costs {1}{R}). Alice casts Stubborn Denial, thinking that Nathan has no mana to pay. Nathan pays for it, and Alice calls for a judge because Nathan forgot to announce that he had remaining mana in his pool.
Jason arrives, and notices that Alice did not mention the Prowess trigger on Bloodfire Expert. If she had remembered the trigger, Stubborn Denial would simply counter the Lightning Bolt because Alice would meet the conditions for Ferocious. What questions should Jason ask, and how should Jason rule?

Can you give an example? I'm having trouble thinking of a situation where a trigger is relevant to the question they are asking the judge, but the combination of the question and public information do not provide sufficient information to determine whether the trigger was missed.

@murgatroid99 Sure, give me a few minutes to construct one. Would you mind helping me out in the site chat?

Jason should feel free to ask questions that may reveal that a trigger was missed, or even to ask directly whether an ability triggered.
One kind of "free information" as defined in in section 4.1 of the tournament rules is

Details of current game actions and past game actions that still affect the game state.

This includes abilities that created continuous effects that still affect the game state, like the Prowess ability in the example would have if it triggered. That section of the rules then makes the following statements about judges and free information:

Players must answer all questions asked of them by a judge completely and honestly, regardless of the type of information requested. Players may request to do so away from the match.

Judges are encouraged to help players in determining free information

If anything, the last sentence seems to encourage Jason to ask whether a triggered ability triggered, if it affects his ruling.
Of course, if Jason's questions do remind the player of a triggered ability that they had in fact forgotten, Jason may have to make another ruling about whether the trigger actually counts as missed. But neither the possibility of giving that reminder nor the possibility of having to make that ruling should deter Jason from asking any questions that are relevant to the ruling.

I don't think Jason needs to ask about the triggered ability; he can just confirm how Stubborn Denial is being resolved. If it is without ferocious, then Alice has indeed missed her trigger, but there may be a CPV for Nathan (and possible rewind). If Alice indicates that ferocious is enabled, then allowing Nathan to pay mana is a GRV, and both players may be in for warnings.


text:
Can my opponent force me to play out a demonstrated loop?
We are at a Competitive REL tournament. With ten minutes left on the clock in game three, my opponent is at 5000 life. I control two Elite Arcanists. Each of them have Time Stop exiled. I also control a Subversion.

Subversion triggers and resolves (my opponent loses one life)
I activate Elite Arcanist and end my turn
I activate the other Elite Arcanist and end my opponent's turn

I demonstrate this loop to my opponent and offer to shortcut 5000 iterations. My opponent asks me to play it out. If I comply, the game will certainly end in a draw.
Can I call a judge and force my opponent to accept the shortcut unless he has an action to take?

Aren't you going to draw each time this happens? And your opponent as well? Further, can't spells and abilities be cast during the cleanup step? What if your opponent casts Shock during the cleanup step on one of the Arcanists? Or a quickened Time Ebb?

@durron597 Upkeep step happens before draw step; he activates the end turn during upkeep; so draw never happens. And no, players do not get priority during cleanup. The do at the end of turn step, which is before cleanup and skipped by Time Stop.

His opponent could cast shock during upkeep, in response to Time Stop, but he would need to have a combo-ending card in hand or on the battlefield. In that case he can reject the shortcut and instead end the combo.

@durron597 If my opponent casts Shock on my Elite Arcanist, it will die.

@Rainbolt Quick answer, ALWAYS call a judge if you're uncertain on something. Can't hurt to do so.

They can't refuse a shortcut[1]; they can merely shorten it by naming a place where they will deviate from the shortcut. The game then advances to that point, and they must take a different action than the shortcut.

716.2b Each other player, in turn order starting after the player who suggested the shortcut, may either accept the proposed sequence, or shorten it by naming a place where he or she will make a game choice that’s different than what’s been proposed. (The player doesn’t need to specify at this time what the new choice will be.) This place becomes the new ending point of the proposed sequence.
716.2c Once the last player has either accepted or shortened the shortcut proposal, the shortcut is taken. The game advances to the last proposed ending point, with all game choices contained in the shortcut proposal having been taken. If the shortcut was shortened from the original proposal, the player who now has priority must make a different game choice than what was originally proposed for that player.

What you should do: After your opponent refuses the shortcut, ask at what point of the shortcut they would like to do something different. If they refuse to name one, call for a judge as they are refusing to take a mandatory action. If they name one, they gain priority. If they don't do anything different than your shortcut had proposed, call for a judge as they just violated 716.2c.

Obviously, they can refuse a shortcut if it's illegal. For example, they could refuse the shortcut by pointing a point at which the complete game state would no longer be known

So if the opponent had something like Mana Screw in play (or some legal card that he can tap for a coin flip; even if the result of the flip wouldn't matter), could he say it needs to be played out because the flip result is part of the game state?

@Gendolkari, You won't find Mana Screw in Competitive play, but you could find a card with the same ability, so let's assume such a card exists. The game would jump to where he uses the ability. If he were to get the mana and not use it, I'd call the judge.`

Wirefly Hive could work as an example. Every turn, in response to Time Stop being cast, you could flip a coin to possibly create a new Wirefly; or to destroy your Wireflies. Neither result can help end the combo, but you are certainly changing the gamestate with every flip.

Or Tavern Swindler. (Ok, that one is a bad example because you would be on average gaining 3 life every turn, so the other combo won't ever kill you)

@Gendolkari, You'd have to play it out with Tavern Swindler. What you'd get on average doesn't matter. I'd call a judge for Wirefly Hive. I'd hope the judge would ask my opponent if there's something he could do with any amount of Wasps, but like Mana Screw, he might allow for it to be played out.

@GendoIkari Doppelgreener found the answer to the question about Wirefy Hive and Tavern Swindler. Here is a permalink.

@Rainbolt, What are you talking about? My answer already says it's illegal since the game state is not predictable.

@ikegami My apologies for leaving you out. You found the answer before doppelgreener did.

@Rainbolt, It's not about being left out; it's that you think it needed to be shown it was illegal. The fact that I pointed it was illegal is what prompted GendoIkari's comments.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Would tapping a land be sufficient to change the game state and shortcut the loop?

@Arcanist Lupus, Of course. If that's all you do before passing, keep in mind that slowing the game is an offense.

@GendoIkari Super old thread, but Tavern Swindler, on average, is life-neutral: winning a flip gains 3 (3 paid + 6 gained), losing a flip loses 3 (3 paid + 0 gained). So over the long term (assuming fair flips and absent other effects) it wouldn't reliably counteract the other lose-one-life-a-turn combo. Still an uncertain game state, though, so probably not short-cuttable.