text:
Are duel deck pairs always released with an even chance of winning?
My friends and I have acquired some of the recent duel decks over time — Heroes vs Monsters, Zendikar vs Edrazi, Elspeth vs Kiora, and Speed vs Cunning.
We've tried each of them a few times, and while I'm pretty satisfied with them, some of my friends are coming out concerned that one of the decks in the pairs we've tried might simply have a greater chance of winning than the other. For Zendikar vs Eldrazi they're thinking the Eldrazi has a moderate edge; for Heroes vs Monsters they suspect Heroes have a strong advantage.
This might just be our limited number of games, who was inclined to play what, confirmation bias, etc. Trick Jarrett won with monsters 3-1 for instance, and I imagine duel decks are at least intended to be even. I haven't been able to cue Google to offer up an answer as to the odds of each deck of winning.
So, I need to turn to your expertise and shed some light that might either confirm what my friends suspect or assuage their concerns.
Are all duel deck pairings intended to have a roughly even chance of winning against each other? I'm assuming this is the case, but that's just me assuming. More importantly, do they actually tend to work out that way in practice, or are they known to sometimes come out with a strong bias toward one of the decks?
I would prefer to see citations from credible sources about developer intentions and win rates. (Official sources like the Wizards development team are credible. If there's genuinely no citations available, I can accept that, but I'd like to be informed of that.) It's pretty reasonable to assume that something called "duel decks" would be intended to have even chances of winning, but I don't want to go by assumptions — and I want something for my friends to have confidence in. It's possible they have design time constraints that prevent them from really achieving evenness, or that the product's seen as secondary and 70/30 odds is considered good enough, etc. It's more probable they want everything to be 50/50 (or 55/45 at worst) and have plenty of resources available and devote themselves to successfully achieving that every time, but I'd like to know that.

I seem to remember it being discussed in one of Wizard's columns (my brain wants to say worst case 60/40 as long as both concepts are solid), but I lack the time to dig through that archive & research it properly at the moment.

From what I'm aware, a 4 game test does not constitute good testing.

By official sources, do you mean directly from Wizards of the Coast, or do you mean any source that is credible?

I was pretty sure the question was asking for official sources (i.e. Wizards) about the intentions, and any credible sources about win rates, but of course let me know if I misinterpreted this.

@Rainbolt My thoughts were I want to know the intentions of the people whose intentions matter. Rosewater's intentions count in duel deck design, Chewbacca's don't. It looks like there's something on your mind; how do you think this should be phrased to allow the question to get answered most effectively?

@doppelgreener I left a comment on one of the answers pointing out the inherent bias in articles published by Wizards of the Coast (WotC) regarding their own product. The response I received was that you were specifically asking for articles by WotC. Of course Mark Rosewater is going to write articles that make his company's product look good. How can information that is so obviously biased inspire confidence among your friends?

I've updated it to request credible sources, with apologies to @Jefromi if this change might be a PITA somehow.

@doppelgreener I'm a little lost - as you say, Rosewater's (and other Wizards R&D folks) intentions matter, and while it's not the same as an independent 1000 game playtest, they seem reasonably credible, so I think my answer is still okay if imperfect?

@Rainbolt If I'd played a statistically insignificant number of games and was worried about them being imbalanced and reluctant to play more, finding out that a ton of folks at WotC said they tried their best to make the decks balanced would certainly be enough to get me to give them another try.

@Jefromi Your answer's good. The effort they say they put into playtests is very reassuring. I consider the developer's own words a credible source - depending on what they say, of course, since not everything a company says about themselves is always credible. Wizards employees don't tend to lie, they just aren't necessarily always allowed to say the whole truth.

the balance may be different at different skills levels. Decks that are balanced at high skills levels may be unbalanced at lower ones.

Wizards' intentions in designing/developing/releasing the decks is for them to be balanced, with 50/50 being the ideal, and further, for the gameplay itself to have plenty of back-and-forth. I found a handful of official articles on wizards.com supporting this; I'm sure it's difficult to be perfect at, but they clearly do a lot of playtesting aiming at that goal.
I'm aware that Wizards' description of their playtesting is potentially biased, but they do suggest that they manage to achieve a pretty high degree of balance and it's certainly in their own interests to do so! They're also up-front about when their playtesting can't match real-world gameplay (e.g. they commonly mention not being able to fully "solve" Standard), and they don't mention that here, suggesting that they genuinely think they do a good job.
Unfortunately I haven't found any empirical playtesting evidence from outside Wizards. The closest I've seen is forum threads where someone says "A is so much better than B" then someone else says "no way, B is way better", someone else says "they came out pretty even in my games", and no conclusion is reached. That's consistent with them actually being balanced and no one having a big enough sample size, but it's not exactly clear evidence.

Some Number of Questions about Knights vs. Dragons - 2011, on Dragons vs. Knights. This is the most explicit one, indicating that they care not only about odds but about the progression of the game feeling balanced:

Balance! This is Development's area of expertise and involves more than simply playing a bunch of test games and making sure the match-up is 50-50. There need to be moves and countermoves and counter-countermoves. In early testing of Phyrexia vs. The Coalition, for example, the decks just exchanged blowouts, which was "balanced" but not very fun.

Playing with Jace & Vraska - 2014, on Jace vs. Vraska, by Sam Stoddard (a developer!), also confirming the strategic balance aspect:

I probably played a hundred plus games of Jace vs. Chandra, and was excited about the opportunity to try to sculpt a fun and interesting matchup between two of our characters using cards from throughout the past.
[...]
When working on this Duel Deck, I tried to position the decks in such a way that the matchup between them was something that was strategically deep and allowed for both decks to have early and late game strategies. ... I definitely didn't want the entire game to come down to whether one deck survives until turn 7, at which time it would have a tremendous advantage. Instead, both decks can take the game over at any point.

Making Enemies: Designing Decks in Pairs - 2011, from the intro; the actual article is a reprint of a 1995 Duelist article from way before duel decks:

These days, Magic R&D designs and develops Duel Decks, specifically made to be balanced against each other.

Pointy Ears vs. Pointy Teeth - 2007, on Elves vs. Goblins, describing the results of playtesting:

Once we had our initial decklists, we put them through the playtesting grinder, fighting both sides of the matchup dozens of times, tweaking as we went, then handing them to other R&D members and watching them play. We knew we were getting close when one playtest pair assured us that the Goblins were better, while another playtest pair with the same decks assured us that the Elves were better.

Duel or Die - 2012, on designing Venser vs. Koth, with a weaker statement of balance:

At this stage, we do what we do best in R&D: playtest and refine. Over and over and over. We swap cards in and out. We speculatively try some cards just to see what they do (and often, what they do is come right back out of the decks). We balance the decks with one another so neither one is an auto-win.

Duel Deckin' Upgrades - 2010, Jacob van Lunen (a player this time, not someone from R&D) on Elspeth vs Tezzeret, suggesting that play skill/style may well have something to do with perceptions of imbalance:

A lot of players at my local shop have complained that the Elspeth deck wins almost every game they play. After having played a lot of games with both decks I was very surprised to hear this. In my experience, the decks present each other with a very even and exciting match.

I'm going to talk to the OP and see if he really meant for "official sources" to mean "Wizards of the Coast". I think your interpretation is probably not what he meant.

@Rainbolt Okay, sure - but whose intentions would he be asking about if not Wizards? Obviously customers intend to get balanced decks when they buy them, but I'm not sure that's a useful thing to ask about.

Why don't we just wait for him to respond to my question to find out? I see that you have addressed my first two comments via an edit (and quite prominently, at the top of the answer), so I deleted it.

@Rainbolt Okay, sure. I just thought that given that you think I read the question wrong, you might have something in mind about the right way to have read it.


text:
How can I search MagicCards.info for an exact color identity match?
My friends and I are experimenting with various potential Commander decks at the moment — we're drafting far more than we're playing, for a mix of practice, learning, and fun. This means it's semi-regular we'll look up a new commander for certain colours.
Searching for mono- or dual-colored commanders is fine with the colour identity search, using ci:r t:legendary t:creature for monocolored red commanders, or the same legendary creature filter with ci:wum for white/blue commanders.
However, every search for three-coloured commanders and above also includes every two-colour commander that could be found therein. A search for Temur commanders with ci:gurm turns up all the green-blue-red commanders, but it also turns up all green-red, green-blue, and red-blue commanders, meaning I have to mentally sift those out each time I want to explore commander options. The exclusive (!) filter of ci!gurm has no noticeable difference.
How can I perform an exclusive color identity match for commanders of three colours or more, in order to get a commander who has those exact colours, without also getting commanders that match only a subset of those colours?

When you search ci:gur on magiccards.info, you are looking for cards that match that color identity, i.e. that are legal in a deck with whose commander has a GUR color identity, including artifacts. When you append the m, it appears to search for cards that have more than one of those colors in their color identity.
So, in that context, when you are looking for a GUR commander, you are really looking for a card that matches that color identity, but does not match any subset of that color identity.. You can express that using the negation syntax to filter out those sub-combinations, like -ci:ru. The final search is t:creature t:legendary ci:gur -ci:gu -ci:ur -ci:gr. This results in a total of six creatures that have that exact color identity.

I created a Chrome extension to help construct that search automatically. I also recently discovered EDHREC, a site with similar search functionality.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is there a term for defensive effects that only/primarily function for attacking creatures?
There's a category of effects in Magic that I'd like to be able to name & categorise effectively, but I've never known the proper label for them: effects which minimise risk & harm to attacking creatures. Usually these effects grant first strike or indestructible to attackers, or prevent damage from being dealt to them. Whilst annotating the functions of cards in decks, I'd like to have a descriptive category name saying "I included these cards to protect my attackers, but they don't really help me defend at any other time."
Some example cards:

Ankle Shanker: "Whenever Ankle Shanker attacks, creatures you control gain first strike and deathtouch until end of turn."
Iroas, God of Victory and Dolmen Gate: "Prevent all damage that would be dealt to attacking creatures you control."
Frontline Medic: "Whenever Frontline Medic and at least two other creatures attack, creatures you control gain indestructible until end of turn."
Stonehoof Chieftain: "Whenever another creature you control attacks, it gains trample and indestructible until end of turn."
Winds of Qal Sisma's Ferocious effect: "[...] prevent all combat damage that would be dealt this turn by creatures your opponents control."
Legion Loyalist: "Whenever Legion Loyalist and at least two other creatures attack, creatures you control gain first strike and trample until end of turn and can’t be blocked by creature tokens this turn."

Potentially in this category, or potentially not, are effects which let you control who's blocking, which lets you maximise damage, minimise losses, and potentially evade completely:

Brutal Hordechief: "Creatures your opponents control block if able, and you choose how those creatures block."
Odric, Master Tactician: "Whenever Odric, Master Tactician and at least three other creatures attack, you choose which creatures block this combat and how those creatures block." (A ruling suggests you can just choose that each creature won't block, which also makes this potentially an evasion effect.)

It's never felt right to call these effects any of the following:

Fog effects: they don't simply protect everyone like Fog does.
Anthem effects: they don't simply make everyone more powerful like Dictate of Heliod does.
Defence effects: they're not in the same category as Ghostly Prison or Blazing Archon.
Evasion effects: they don't evade the way Barrage of Boulders or Archetype of Imagination function.

Is there a commonly accepted name I should be using to categorise and describe these kinds of effects? If I'm actually conflating multiple categories which I should be naming separately, what are those category names I should be using? If it is commonly accepted to call them something like fog/anthem/defence/evasion effects, please do point that out to me.

Not sure why this has a primarily opinion based close vote on it as it seems a pretty cut and dry question.

Noteworthy addition to your list: Gustcloak Savior. Whenever a creature you control becomes blocked, you may untap that creature and remove it from combat.

There isn't really an overarching term for these effects (official or unofficial, that I've heard anyway), as they're so broad. For many of them, it's simply abilities that trigger off of attacking
Winds of Qal Sima, Iroas and Dolmen Gate have one-sided fogs. Also in this category would be Endure and (depending on deck construction) Moonmist. This is less of a category and more of a sub-category of fog effects.
Legion Loyalist has a word for its ability on the card itself: Battalion, which is a triggered ability that encourages attacking with multiple creatures. A little specific for widespread use though...
I've head Hordechief and Odric's abilities and their ilk described as Battle Tactics or simply Tactical, with Odric as its namesake, but again, this style of ability doesn't show up often enough to really warrant its own name.
Lastly, someone commented to add Gustcloak Savior and its ilk to the list. I've heard to this kind of ability as Gustcloaking, or Recon, the latter name coming from the similar (but not identical) ability on the enchantment Reconnaissance.

+1, I also haven't really heard of common term for these effects, but I do like the sound of Battle Tactics, or Tactical Buffs. Kind of gets the point across that they are mostly use offensively.

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


text:
What happens if I become an illegal target of Cruel Entertainment?
Cruel Entertainment is a card from Commander 2016 that says:

Choose target player and another target player. The first player controls the second player during the second player’s next turn, and the second player controls the first player during the first player’s next turn.

Let's say this is cast, and I'm one of the targets. While Cruel Entertainment is still on the stack, I give myself hexproof by flashing in Aegis of the Gods or something similar. The other player is still a valid target, so the spell resolves — but what happens when it does?

Do I still control the other player in their next turn?
Does the other player still control me in my next turn?

There aren't any Gatherer rulings about this scenario attached to the card — all the rulings but the first two just talk about how controlling a player works.

Nothing happens at all as the spell resolves. Neither player controls the other.
Under 608: Resolving spells and abilities comes these rules:

608.2b If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. [...] If the spell or ability is not countered, it will resolve normally. Illegal targets, if any, won’t be affected by parts of a resolving spell’s effect for which they’re illegal. Other parts of the effect for which those targets are not illegal may still affect them. If the spell or ability creates any continuous effects that affect game rules (see rule 613.10), those effects don’t apply to illegal targets.

Since one of the players is an illegal target:

that player can't be made to control the other player.
that player can't be made to be controlled by the other player.

Both players retain control of their own turns as normal and the spell has no actual effect on anything.

Just to clarify, this means the spell resolves but has no effect?

@ryanyuyu Yes, it has at least one legal target so it will still resolve

So if there was a hypothetical cruelest entanglement where four players were involved, where A controls B, B -> C, C -> D and D -> A, and B acquires Hexproof before resolution, then the spell resolves with C -> D and D -> A, B never controls C and A never controls B (i.e. A gets screwed!!), correct? (Note this is cruelest entanglement because obviously the one with 3 is named crueler entanglement...)

@corsiKa Probably, yeah. B can't be assigned control nor controlled. Sorry, A. Congrats, C.


text:
How does Underrealm Lich interact with Sidisi when drawing multiple cards?
Suppose I have Sidisi, Brood Tyrant out:

Whenever one or more creature cards are put into your graveyard from your library, create a 2/2 black Zombie creature token.

I also have Underrealm Lich:

If you would draw a card, instead look at the top three cards of your library, then put one into your hand and the rest into your graveyard.

I then play Concentrate:

Draw three cards.

Because of rule 120.2, I do this by drawing one card three times, each of which is replaced by Underrealm Lich's replacement effect:

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

So, three times I will look at the top three cards of my library, put one into my hand, and put the rest into my graveyard.
Let's assume for simplicity that every card near the top of my library is a creature card. In this situation, does Sidisi create:

only one zombie, because of the single "draw three cards" instruction putting creature cards into my graveyard, or
three zombies, because of three separate instructions from Underrealm Lich putting creature cards into my graveyard?

Related: https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/custom-card-creation/custom-card-rulings/778834-whenever-you-draw-one-or-more-cards

I can't find a good ruling for anything like this scenario, so I've asked on http://magicjudge.tumblr.com/.

700.1 seems relevant; but doesn't provide an answer.

You get 3 Zombie tokens.
Each card draw is processed separately from the others:

120.6b If an effect replaces a draw within a sequence of card draws, the replacement effect is completed before resuming the sequence.

As you already noted, you can only draw one card at a time:

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

The draw replacement effect ultimately causes you to move cards from your library to your graveyard ("move" for brevity). Since you can only draw one card at a time, and the replacement effects works on each draw individually in sequence, you also move 2 cards at a time, and Sidisi triggers on each of those moves.
Since the card draw is the event that, together with Lich's replacement effect, ultimately triggers Sidisi's ability, consider an analogous situation: Underworld Dreams triggers on each card draw. If you were to draw 3 cards, you would get 3 separate damage events, as the ruling on that card's gatherer page confirms. Therefore, any ability that is triggered by a replacement effect that replaced a card draw would react the same way.

This answers how Underrealm Lich's replacement effect interacts with the multiple card draws from Concentrate.  But it doesn't really answer how Sidisi's triggered ability is going to work.  Does it trigger once for all 3 card draws or does it trigger once for each draw?

@Becuzz It triggers once for each draw, assuming there's at least one creature card in the two cards you put in the graveyard each time. If you failed to find a creature card on one of those sequences, it would create one less zombie.

@chif-ii I believe that is correct, I just think the answer would be better if it addressed that more directly.  The OP didn't seem to be confused about how the replacement effect interacted with multiple card draws.  It seems the question stemmed more from if each separate card draw/replacement puts a trigger on the stack or do they all only cause one triggered ability to be placed on the stack?  If they each cause a triggered ability, you get 3 tokens.  If the game looks at all those draws as one event and only gives you one triggered ability, you would only get one token.

@Becuzz That is an exactly correct summary.

You make 3 zombie tokens

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

Based on previous answers (Is drawing multiple cards an atomic action?), we can treat "Draw three cards" as "Draw a card.  Draw a card.  Draw a card."  As separate instructions, they result in separate triggers for Sidisi.

While I agree with the conclusion, I am not sure that "Draw 3 cards" is really equivalent to "Draw a card" repeated 3 times. There are, after all, abilities that trigger or replacement effects that happen when someone draws 2 or more cards, e.g. Alms Collector. So while a sequence of card draws is handled card by card, one sequence of 3 card draws is not the same as 3 sequences of 1 card draw.

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


text:
A good counter faction to Ninja-Zombies
I just played Smash up with the second edition and the first as Bear Cavalry-tricksters against my Dad who played as          Ninja Zombies And he kicked my butt,
I'm aware that there are counter factions, like say Tricksters do awful against Ghosts since Ghosts are all about Discarding cards, and Tricksters keep making you discard.
Ninja Zombies seem to have good synergy with each other which makes it quite clever, since Zombies keep coming back from the dead when Ninjas kill everything.
Is there any counter factions towards them all?

When you say they're countering each other, do you in fact mean they have good synergy (kinda the opposite)?

You are correct

I think that one of the best pairs to face ninja-zombies would actually be more unconventional. I have found that robot-wizards do extremely well against that match for a few reasons. The first is that they don't focus on killing your opponent's minions at all. This means that they focus entirely on their own thing and don't waste cards killing your opponent's zombies.
The second reason is that they build themselves up a lot. If your opponent manages to kill something (seeing stars), then you still have a base full of microbots and chronomages to score easily.The final reason is that ninja-zombies are very inconsistent. They cant draw as much and portions of their hand will always be useless. This makes cards like tech center and winds of change very useful because you can always have the cards you need.
I don't know what your preffered play-style is, but robot-wizards works very well against most factions. You just need to watch out for pirates and trickster because of base blocking and large removal cards.

Robots are quite probably the most powerful faction in the game by a long way. They're a combo powerhouse. You're right in that they work exceptionally well with wizards, because wizards are an enabler deck, drawing lots of cards and setting the robots up to combo reliably and repeatedly.

I don't think there's one correct answer here, but the first two factions that come to mind for me:

Pirates: This faction has the ability to take out large numbers of minions at a time. Since you may be facing lots of minions coming back from the dead, clearing out an entire base in one action could be useful. Also, Pirates can move minions around from base to base pretty efficiently. You can use this to spread out forces, or bring your own to scoring bases, or pull enemies to a base to score it for yourself.
Aliens: The Aliens faction, similar to pirates, can move minions around. Unlike the Pirates, they can send minions back into a player's hand OR to the bottom of their deck. This is most helpful against Zombies because they can no longer play those minions from the discard pile.


text:
Can I play unequipped on-the-table cards in combat?
Players can put cards down on the table unequipped. If they have a one-shot card on the table, such as a loaded die or a type of grenade, can they use those cards during combat? Or, can you only play cards that are on the table when you are not in combat?

What version of munchkin are you playing? There are no rules for a "bag" of set aside cards in the base game.

Giving to charity is an important part of the game.

You are allowed to play any items (including unusable or single-use items) to the table where the rest of your inventory is (for unusable items they must be turned sideways to indicate you aren't using them) and I think you may be confusing this for a "bag" of your own cards kept aside. Note that any cards you do play to the table, whether you can or can't use them, cannot be returned to your hand at any time, but they can be played from the table.

@JoeW: Avoiding giving to charity is also an important part of the game (as long as you do so within the rules): nothing says munchkin more than finding a legal way to play multiple cards as no-ops just so you don't have to give them away :)

@BenjaminCosman What I am referring to is the entire mechanic of giving to charity and this sounds like it is trying to remove that mechanic from the game rather then try and find a way to not do it.

@winterblood i'm using munchkin legends and start munchkin. in these the unequiped items on the side are refered to as your bag.

I can't find any reference to the word "bag" in the Legends rules. Everything in there is either "in your hand" or "on the table".

I've edited this to use actual Munchkin terminology. Could you check if it's accurate, and stick to the terminology the rulebooks use if you need to edit? In particular, there's no "pull out of bag" mechanism in the rules, so that was confusing to parse from the question as asked.

One-shot items you are "carrying" can be used just like ones in your hand. From the rules*:

All Items you have in play are considered “carried.” Items that are actually
  giving you a bonus are “equipped.” You should indicate Items that are not
  equipped by turning the cards sideways.
A Treasure card that says “Usable once only” is often called a “one-shot”
  Treasure. Most of these are used during combat to strengthen the munchkins
  or the monsters, and may be played from your hand or from the table.
Cards in play may not be returned to your hand.

Thus the main things that change when you put a one-shot card in play are

Pro: it doesn't count against your hand limit.
Con: other players can see you have it and can e.g. target it with steal-an-item effects.

Finally, I notice you are using the word "card" everywhere instead of "item", so I want to make sure you know the difference: an "Item" is any card with a gold cost (including "No Value"), and only Items may be carried. So if your hand is overfull with monsters and stuff, you'll have to give them to charity or find a different way to get rid of them.
*those are the base game rules, but to my knowledge none of the many other versions and expansions significantly change the rule in question.

so do i put one-shots one the table sideways or like normal items?

Sideways. Only items that are currently "equipped", i.e. items that are (almost always) giving you a +N combat bonus / taking up a slot like Footgear, are vertical; both one-shots and pieces of equipment you are not using are sideways.


text:
Possible to add a single build with changed value onto a preexisting build?
Got in a fight with my dad over this because I wouldn't allow the game to go on until I understood all the rules correctly.
So my dad had a single 7-build of 4 + 3, I had a single 3-build of 2 + A. He proceeds to add a 4 from his hand onto my build, changing the build value from a 3 to a 7. He then combines his new 7-build to his previous 7-build making a multiple 7-build. On his next turn he takes the multiple build with an another 7 he has in his hand.
Is it possible to add a single build with a changed value with a preexisting build?
I understand the rule below because both separate builds add up to 5 and is captured with a 5

but does this rule apply to a build that originally did not equate to the capture value of the build it was added to?

I just started to play Casino and I'm still learning so I might not be articulating the exact question I have in mind but hopefully what I wrote
  makes enough sense.

I have always played that this is allowed. However, there are rule variations that might not allow it. You'll have to agree on what rules you want to play with and use those going forward.
As an example, take a look at the rules found at pagat.com - I think this is where you pulled your rule excerpt from. Rule 5 (Adding to a Build) says there are two ways to add to a build. The second one is this:

You may add to any build, single or multiple, by playing a card from your hand which, either alone or combined with other cards on the table which are not yet in builds, matches the existing capture number of the build, provided that you hold a card which can capture the combined build.

Here it says you can add to a build by utilizing a card in your hand and cards on the table that are not yet in builds. Under this rule, your dad's move would not be allowed.
However, further down, under "Variations", the same page lists this variation:

Some players treat a single build exactly like a single card of the same value, for the purpose of capturing it or extending the build. For example, if there is a build of 6 (5+A) on the table and a loose 4, a player who holds a 10 can capture the 6-build and the 4, and a player who holds two 10's can combine one 10 from hand with the 6-build and the 4 to make a multiple 10-build.

This would allow your dad to make his move, since the 3 build that you've made would act just like a single-card 3. He could then add his 4 to it to make 7 and then a double 7 with his previous build.
There are many sites out there with Casino rules on them, many with similar small (but important!) variations. Casino does not have as set rules as something like, for example, Bridge. Since it's a family game, you should take a look at the rule variations that exist and decide on what variations you wish to use.


text:
Does lifelink apply before life loss during combat damage?
Let's say for example I'm at 1 life.
My opponent attacks with two creatures and I'm about to block one,
but my blocker has lifelink that would make me gain more life than I lose.
Do I still die due to the unblocked attacker or do I gain life before that?

You gain life from lifelink at the same time as you lose it from the attacking creatures, and you will survive.
You gain life as soon as your creature deals damage, there is no delay:

702.15b Damage dealt by a source with lifelink causes that source’s controller, or its owner if it has no controller, to gain that much life (in addition to any other results that damage causes). See rule 119.3.
119.3f Damage dealt by a source with lifelink causes that source’s controller to gain that much life, in addition to the damage’s other results.

All combat damage is dealt at the same time during the combat damage step, assuming there is no first strike or double strike involved:

510.2. Second, all combat damage that’s been assigned is dealt simultaneously. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack. No player has the chance to cast spells or activate abilities between the time combat damage is assigned and the time it’s dealt.

After combat, the active player gets priority and can cast spells etc.; before a player gets priority, state-based actions are checked. Players can lose the game from having zero or less health only when those actions are checked:

510.4. Fourth, the active player gets priority. Players may cast spells and activate abilities.
704.3. Whenever a player would get priority (see rule 116, “Timing and Priority”), the game checks for any of the listed conditions for state-based actions, then performs all applicable state-based actions simultaneously as a single event. [..]
704.5a If a player has 0 or less life, he or she loses the game.

By that time, combat damage has already been dealt and you have more than 0 life.
Note that there are some cards that cause life-gain as a triggered ability rather than through lifelink. They are superficially similar, but have a lot of differences too.
As an example, your creature didn't have lifelink but was instead enchanted with Armadillo Cloak. This would result in the following differences:

The life gain would be put on the stack as a triggered ability. It would resolve after the combat damage step, at which point you would already have lost.
Multiple Armadillo Cloaks on the same creature stack, while lifelink doesn't.
Armadillo Cloak always gives life to the Cloak's controller, no matter who controls the enchanted creature, while lifelink always gives life to the creature's controller, no matter how it got lifelink.

Your last note answers a question I've always wondered about, but hadn't bothered to ask.  (Why are there creatures/enchantments with lifelink like abilities, but no lifelink.)

Lifelink as a rule that has gone trough a few revisions. As the design of MTG has gotten better over the years, so has the wording of some keywords.

@John Lifelink doesn't stack, but abilities like Armadillo Cloak do.

Armadillo Cloak also gives life to the controller of the Cloak, no matter who controls the creature, while a creature with lifelink always gives life to the creature's controller, no matter how it got lifelink.

@John There's alot of reasons for lifelink like abilities, from the ability careing about who controls the ability source (I gain life when your creature does damage, because it's my cloak) to stacking abilities (Multiple copies of lifelink do nothing, multiple spirit link, armadillo cloak etc each trigger separately and two copies would double the life gained) to the abilities using the stack, unlike damage and lifelink, which allows some effects to trigger in the meantime (player death or Arguel's Blood Fast transforming before you gain the life back off the trigger)

@john The biggest reason is that many of these cards were designed before lifelink was a keyword, and at the time, creatures which would now have lifelink instead had triggered abilities like Armadillo Cloak. Unfortunately, there were also several different wordings of it. Under that original scheme, the player would also die before their lifelink triggers resolved, since it was worded as a trigger before it got keyworded and added to the rules as a modification of the damage dealing.

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


text:
Can I run Loyal Cathar in my green-white Commander deck?
I'm running a green white Commander deck and wanted to know if I could.

Alas, you may not. This is because, per the rules posted on mtgcommander.net,

The back face of a double-faced card is included when determining a card's colour identity.

So, while Loyal Cathar is a white card, a white spell on the stack, and a white creature on the battlefield (or a black creature when it's flipped), its Commander-specific color identity is actually white+black.


text:
Do multiple take control effects let me keep a card?
If I was to cast two "take control of a creature until end of turn" spells, like Act of Treason, twice on the same creature in the same turn, do I keep it ?

It can be any two combinations of control untill end of turn spells  or copy

What leads you to suspect you'd get to keep it? Are you expecting you'd keep it until the turn after or something?

@doppelgreener My guess would be the idea is the second effect might overwrite the first somehow, and make it forget where to go back to. (Perhaps by analogy to blinking with Cloudshift or one of the ways you can keep something by turning it into a new object, but without understanding the underlying rules.)

You will keep the creature until the end of the turn (more precisely, the Cleanup Step). If you cast two separate Acts on the same creature in the same turn, they both have the same duration—"until end of turn"—so both will expire at the same time. They don't add together to let you keep the creature longer.

Ok thanks everyone i talk to and play with say it works. Based on it returns to the last person that controled it.The first spell would resolve at end secoud spell woud triger resolve.But would be like castining it on a creature you control ,own. only reason i was running it. Maybe i wont tell them.3 of them are masters of the game and all lol.


text:
How much land does a land card represent?
Thematically, how much land is a single land card supposed to represent?  (It's for a story where the Magic: The Gathering card game is going to become kind of-sort of real through ignorance and stupid amounts of raw, untapped magical talent. ...yes, it is Harry Potter.)

I'm pretty sure the answer is somewhere between "it depends" and "it's more of an abstract concept", but either way it's unlikely that the question is answerable within the scope of the site.

Thank you very much.  I'll go think something up, then.  Much appreciated.

This might be more at home on [scifi.se]'s magic the gathering tag, because it's a lore question, and we don't often deal with that topic, while fictional universe lore is their bread & butter.

Thank you for the suggestion, I may just do that.  I honestly had no idea where to start, but prefer to use already existing lore for stories when I'm using their universe for a playground, rather than make things up willy-nilly.

I think this question works fine here.

It seems obvious to me that an Island represents one entire island, a Mountain represents one entire mountain, a Forest represents one entire forest, etc. The art may depict more or less, but that doesn't change what it represents in my opinion.

Lore is as much a part of games as rules and mechanics. I don't see the scope of this site as limited to what's printed in rulebooks.

@Jefromi Lore is in scope, but primarily-opinion-based questions are not. It's one thing when there's good source for the lore, but on this question no one's found any - the accepted answer is just a very rough guess based on the pictures.

@BenjaminCosman The validity of the question doesn't hinge on what an eager new user OP chooses to accept. And while that answer could be more detailed and thorough, basing things on art is not inherently opinion-based: Wizards gives explicit instructions for artists so that the art conveys what they wish.

@Jefromi Does WotC share those instructions with the rest of the community? If so, then that seems like a great answer to this question.

@Rainbolt Not for all cards, but they do sometimes quote them in articles, and sometimes artists post about their art (process, high-res images, etc) and include them. There are also creative team members who answer questions on social media. And... they publish art books that have a lot of extra information, not just the art. Anyways, I agree that stuff like that would make a great answer, but haven't gone and researched - I really just wanted to make the point that this is not just an opinion-based question.

Many of the more special lands depict a city, or only a single structure. For example Seat of the Synod, or Strip mine. Others show a very specific patch of nature, that's probably a bit larger than city-size.
Perhaps you could assume, based on this, that the other more common lands are about county-sized?

That is an excellent suggestion and makes a great deal of sense, thank you.

Again, thank you.  I think I'm just a guest, as it wouldn't let me click the up arrow, but I'm not really on forums and such all that much, so I suppose it's fine.  Have a nice day!

I don't really get how you go from city-sized to country-sized "just because". Also, are we talking about a Canada-sized country, or the Netherlands?

@Matt Not country, but county without the R. Municipality if you will. An area akin a baronie or duchy perhaps.

@user17839 just a side note, stack exchange isn't a forums. Just saying :)

Thematically a land card (or permanent) doesn't represent any physical land, but rather represents the planeswalker's bond with the lands that they visit as they move across the multiverse, they then draw mana through that bond in order to cast spells (although most of the modern Magic stories ignore this).
Every type of land in the multiverse has a specific kind of mana tied to it, and as such forming a bond with that land will yield that specific type of mana when you tap into it (hence the term tapping a land).
Source: the Learn to Play Magic videos.

is it not the case that the mana comes from leylines within that land? such that each "land" is specifically sufficient land to contain a leyline, and that leyline generates mana based on it's surroundings? I could be conflating things here though

This sounds like correct lore, but does it address the question at all?

@Patters I'd have to go find some sources, but from memory it seemed more like the as the ley-lines flow accross particular types of land the mana in them gets 'flavoured' with the type that is associated with that land.

@BenjaminCosman Answer adjusted to more directly address the question,


text:
Can Dead Weight be sacrificed after it kills a creature?
When you cast Dead Weight on a creature, is there a time frame to sacrifice the dead weight to another instant speed card effect before the dead weight goes into the graveyard but after it killed the creature it was cast on?

No. Once a player would get priority, if Dead Weight reduces the toughness of the creature to a value less than 0, or if the damage marked on the creature is equal to or greater than its (new) toughness, State Based Actions will cause the creature to go to the graveyard.
When the creature goes to the graveyard, Dead Weight will follow since it is no longer attached to an object or player.

Your second sentence is worded strangely. Damage isn't really included in toughness reduction; rather, it is a separate thing that can be affected by damage reduction.

No, there is no opportunity to sacrifice your Dead Weight as the creature it's attached to dies. An aura attached to a creature that dies will head to the graveyard effectively in the same moment as the creature dying (unless it's something special, like a Bestow creature from Theros).
Suppose the creature dies: Dead Weight reduced its toughness to 0 or less, or it brought the toughness low enough that the damage marked on that creature met or exceeded its lowered toughness. The next time anyone would get priority (i.e. usually immediately afterwards) we check state-based actions, and do all of them we can until there's none left to do. Here, that means we would:

Move the creature to its owner's graveyard (for having 0 or less toughness [704.5f] or having enough damage to kill it [704.5g] among other possible causes)
Move the Aura that is no longer attached to anything to its owner's graveyard [704.5n]

... then you get priority, but it's too late to do anything to sacrifice that enchantment.


text:
When using the Burning Scimitar, must you remove exactly 2 meeples?
When playing the Artisans of Naqala expansion for Five Tribes, an interesting scenario came up. One player wanted to use the Burning Scimitar magic item and remove 1 meeple to empty a tile and claim it. The wording on the card indicates

Remove two meeples of any color(s) from a Tile of your choice...

Does this wording mean that you must remove exactly 2 meeples, or can you remove up to 2 meeples?

Yes you can remove just one meeple.
The designer Bruno Cathala answered this question himself on BGG questions here, here, and here


text:
Equip from same Equipment, two times on stack (Leonin Shikari)
I have Leonin Shikari on the board and want to equip a creature. Can I activate the equip ability a second time and put it on the stack? Like when giving a creature hexproof with an equipment, and an opponent casts a spell to destroy the creature before it gets hexproof, can I activate the ability a second time to have it on the stack above their spell?

You can activate the Equip ability any time during your Main Phase, when you have priority and the stack is empty.

702.6a. Equip is an activated ability of Equipment cards. "Equip [cost]" means "[Cost]: Attach this permanent to target creature you control. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery."

With Leonin Shikari on the board, aren't limited to activate it during your turn when the stack is empty (so not just "when you could cast a sorcery"). This means you're allowed to activate the ability in response to a player's attempt to remove one of your creature with a targetted spell.
Because the stack resolves last-in-first-out, your Equipment will be attached to the creature of your choice in time to give it Hexproof before the removal spell resolves. That spell will be countered by the game rules ("fizzle") for not having a legal target anymore.

608.2b. If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. (...) The spell or ability is countered if all its targets, for every instance of the word "target," are now illegal. (...) Illegal targets, if any, won't be affected by parts of a resolving spell's effect for which they’re illegal. Other parts of the effect for which those targets are not illegal may still affect them. (...)


text:
Can I kill an indestructible creature with -X/-X and sufficient damage marked on it?
Can I hit a 4/4 indestructible creature with a Lightning Bolt (3 damage) and give it -1/-1 with Tragic Slip to kill it? (Does it matter which way around I cast those?)
I read this description here and it says, damage is removed in cleanup step, so it should be on the creature still after both spells.

702.12. Indestructible
  702.12a Indestructible is a static ability.
  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).
  702.12c Multiple instances of indestructible on the same permanent are redundant.

Spell order doesn't matter; either way you cast the spells, you wind up with: a 3/3 indestructible creature with 3 damage marked on it.
You've asked if you can hit it with both Lightning Bolt and Tragic Slip... but I presume you also mean to ask "will that kill it?" and the answer is no, the indestructible creature will survive.
See the part of your quote that says: "such permanents aren't destroyed by lethal damage, and they ignore the state-based action that checks for lethal damage." By that, they are talking about the fact it's a creature with 3 toughness and 3 damage marked on it (until the turn ends) — that's lethal damage. And lethal damage doesn't kill indestructible creatures, so it will be fine.
(Please note that damage never reduces toughness. Some of the MTG video games have treated it like it does, which is unfortunate and incorrect — toughness isn't like Health. Instead, damage simply sits on the creature, not changing the Toughness, but we measure it against their Toughness to see if they should normally die. Toughness is more like a Max Health attribute if anything.)

It could however be killed by tragic slip's -13/-13 effect (use the lightning bolt to kill something else for this), or by Grasp of Darkness, either of which will reduce its toughness to 0 or less, which removes even indestructible creatures. This is because lethal damage "destroys" a creature, but toughness 0 or less merely puts that creature into its owner's graveyard (without counting as "destroys"):

State-based actions:

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

Your red/black options also include exiling the indestructible creature, such as with Gild or Oblivion Strike, or using special workaround cards which nullify its abilities like Burn from Within.

Ok I think i misunderstood the part with combat damage. So i can't say damage marked = toughness reduced? When i make damage it is in form of counters and doesn't reduce the toughness?

Damage does not reduce toughness, no. One of the MTG computer games portrays things like that's how it works, which I consider a pretty bad decision on the part of its creators. Damage is just... damage, it's not counters or anything. You remember or take note of how much damage is on something, and whenever that damage equals or exceeds its toughness, that thing's destroyed.

Magic Duels (formerly Duels of the Planeswalkers) is the one that shows decreased toughness for damage. It is annoying, I liked one Magic computer game I had from around 6th that used a heart with a sword in it symbol for damage marked on a creature.


text:
Sliding Tile Board Game--Lingo Bingo?
I'm looking for a board game that was one of my mother's favorites growing up. This would have been in the early to mid 70's.
It was a game for four people, each with a 4x4 (with one empty) sliding tile setup with letters. A paper wheel in the middle of the board could be turned and would reveal four words for each player, and the players would race to spell those words with their sliding tiles.
She thought the name of this game was Lingo Bingo, but I can't seem to find even a mention of a board game with that name anywhere. Does it sound familiar to anyone? Is there a place where I can buy it?

Since it might help us narrow down our searching: what year or decade would your mother have had this?

This would have been early to mid-70's.

Good idea. I appreciate it.

I've been able to find a partial match for what you're describing. It isn't your exact game, but I'm posting it hoping it'll help someone find that game — it sounds like a possible ancestor or derivative.
The former Ideal Toy Company produced Logus Sr. and Logus Jr. in 1971. This is a 2-player game that gives the players a 4×5 grid of letters, two spaces missing, making for 18 letter tiles. You're assigned challenges of various formats by cards. There's no wheel and there's no 4-player.

First: Logus Sr. Image credit: Bagherra on Board Game Geek. // Second: Logus Jr. Image credit: Amazon
(Logus found thanks to Graham Toal, Steffan O'Sullivan, and the wordgame-programmers mailing list.)

That's definitely close, and I agree that it might be from the same game lineage. It's as if the one I'm talking about has evaporated, and I've seen the game myself (my mother still had it when I was a kid, but has since misplaced it), so I know she's not just mis-remembering the mechanics of it.


text:
Can activated abilities be used multiple times on a single target?
If I have one creature card in my graveyard and my opponent gains control of my turn using Cruel Entertainment, could my opponent activate my Phyrexian Reclamation multiple times by targeting the same creature in the graveyard?
For instance, I have ten life and ten black mana open. Could my opponent activate the ability on my Phyrexian Reclamation 5 times and win the game even though there is only one creature card in my graveyard?

This appears just to be a re-asking of http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/33392/can-one-spend-their-entire-mana-on-an-activated-ability. Is the intention for this to be a canonical question that is less narrow than the other one? One of these 2 should be closed either way, but not knowing the context behind why this was created, I don't know which one.

@GendoIkari I disagree that they're very similar questions, even if they look similar. "Can I repeatedly target something with an ability that would remove the only valid target" is a question about timing and the stack. "Can I pick a target with no targets" is about the casting sequence. They should be closed if there are other questions which answer the same thing, but not because of each other.

@Samthere, the other question was updated (to an earlier version) after I made this comment; at one point the other question was asking about having just 1 valid target.

@GendoIkari So it was :D

Activated abilities can be activated as many times as a player can pay for it, assuming it can legally be activated.
In this case, the ability requires to pay 2 life, two mana, and target a creature card in their graveyard.

117.3. A player can’t pay a cost unless he or she has the necessary resources to pay it fully. For example, a player with only 1 life can’t pay a cost of 2 life, (...)
602.2b. The remainder of the process for activating an ability is identical to the process for casting a spell listed in rules 601.2b–i. Those rules apply to activating an ability just as they apply to casting a spell. An activated ability’s analog to a spell’s mana cost (as referenced in rule 601.2f) is its activation cost.
601.2c. The player announces his or her choice of an appropriate player, object, or zone for each target the spell requires. (...) The chosen players, objects, and/or zones each become a target of that spell. (Any abilities that trigger when those players, objects, and/or zones become the target of a spell trigger at this point; they’ll wait to be put on the stack until the spell has finished being cast.)

Your opponent still has priority after activating and putting one ability on the stack, to activate another in response before the first one resolves. That way, even if there's only one creature in the graveyard, since it's still a legal target until one of the abilities resolves and removes it from the graveyard.

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.

note that in tournament scenarios, you have to explicitly mention that you intend to retain priority
In other words, they couldn't return the same card five times to your hand, but nothing keeps them from trying. Once they activate the ability the fifth time and pay the costs, state-based actions see you at 0 life, and you lose the game.


text:
Does monocolored hybrid mana count within that color's identity?
Is Beseech the Queen in my commander colors identity? My commander is Drana, Kalastria Bloodchief.

Is there a particular reason why you think it wouldn't be included in Drana's color identity?

Yes, its color identity is black so you can play it in any deck that includes black in its commander's color identity (like Drana).
A hybrid mana symbol grants the color of both sides of the symbol to the color identity of the card. However Beseech the Queen uses {2/B} hybrid symbols which are colorless and black. Since colorless is not a color black is the only color added to the cards color identity.

107.4e Hybrid mana symbols are also colored mana symbols. Each one represents a cost that can be paid in one of two ways, as represented by the two halves of the symbol. A hybrid symbol such as {W/U} can be paid with either white or blue mana, and a monocolored hybrid symbol such as {2/B} can be paid with either one black mana or two mana of any type. A hybrid mana symbol is all of its component colors.
903.4. The Commander variant uses color identity to determine what cards can be in a deck with a certain commander. The color identity of a card is the color or colors of any mana symbols in that card’s mana cost or rules text, plus any colors defined by its characteristic-defining abilities (see rule 604.3) or color indicator (see rule 204).


text:
Can I sacrifice and regenerate Augur of Skulls multiple times in the same turn?
Augur of Skulls has

{1}{B}: Regenerate Augur of Skulls.

and

Sacrifice Augur of Skulls: Target player discards two cards. Activate this ability only during your upkeep.

Can I sacrifice and regenerate Augur of Skulls multiple times in the same turn as long as I have the mana open?

No, that won't work
Regeneration prevents the destruction of a permanent, but sacrificing a permanent is different from destroying it:

701.16. Sacrifice
701.16a 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.

In short, Regeneration does not fix a Sacrifice.  If you Sacrifice a Permanent as a Cost (Left hand of the colon, it goes to the graveyard.  Nothing can prevent this from happening, because it is a cost.

@Nelson It has nothing to do with being a cost or an effect. If the cost was "destroy a creature you control", regeneration would save the creature. If "sacrifice a creature" was the effect, regeneration still wouldn't save it.

Sacrifice as an effect can be prevented, or redirected, or replaced.  I'm not really alluding that regeneration can save a sacrifice, but a sacrifice as an effect isn't nearly as final as sacrifice as a cost.  The bottom line is, in no situation, will you be able to save a creature from Sacrifice as a Cost.  You can save a creature from sacrifice as an effect, but not through regeneration.

No, you can't do that, because Regeneration doesn't protect against a Sacrifice.
The rules for Sacrifice even explicitly assert as much:

701.15a To sacrifice a permanent, its controller moves it from the battlefield directly to its owner’s graveyard. A player can’t sacrifice something that isn’t a permanent, or something that’s a permanent he or she doesn’t control. Sacrificing a permanent doesn’t destroy it, so regeneration or other effects that replace destruction can’t affect this action.

For clarity, Regenerate in an ability means "The next time [permanent] would be destroyed this turn, instead remove all damage marked on it and tap it. If it’s an attacking or blocking creature, remove it from combat."


text:
Does Harvester of Souls trigger its own death trigger when it dies
Specifically, does a player draw a card when Harvester of Souls dies?

For the abilities that don't say "another creature" see http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/q/18269/409

No, Harvester of Souls does not trigger its own death trigger
Read the card carefully, it says

Whenever another nontoken creature dies, you may draw a card.

It specifically doesn't count itself. For other creatures, it depends on the exact wording of that card and cannot be stated generally.

Oh duh... but I'm curious now. If "another" was changed to "any" would a player still draw a card?

Yes, of course. Although the wording would be "whenever a nontoken creatures dies..."

Why of course? Is it just a no brainer or some kind of rule? If a triggering event occurs at the same time the trigger disappears from the battle field, how can a trigger be triggered? Mind = blown

They said "of course" because it's a very very common thing

If a triggering event occurs at the same time the trigger disappears from the battle field, how can a trigger be triggered?

@the_prole Creatures see themselves enter or leave the battlefield (as well as anything else that comes and goes at the same time). This is necessary for many simple effects to work. For example, Filigree Familiar. If it didn't see itself enter, its first ability wouldn't work. If it didn't see itself leave, its second wouldn't. Because they want simple "when this dies, do X" effects to work, they make the rules work for this.


text:
Playing Hidden Predators after an opponent already controls a large creature
What if my opponent ALREADY has a creature with power 4 or greater in play when I play Hidden Predators?

Hidden Predators has what is called a 'state trigger', this means that it looks for a specific thing to be true and then it triggers. So if your opponent already controls a creature with power 4+ when Hidden Predators enters the battlefield it will see that the game state it is looking for is true and trigger. Hidden Predators will then become a creature when the ability resolves.

603.8. Some triggered abilities trigger when a game state (such as a player controlling no permanents of a particular card type) is true, rather than triggering when an event occurs. These abilities trigger as soon as the game state matches the condition. They’ll go onto the stack at the next available opportunity. These are called state triggers. [...] A state-triggered ability doesn’t trigger again until the ability has resolved, has been countered, or has otherwise left the stack. Then, if the object with the ability is still in the same zone and the game state still matches its trigger condition, the ability will trigger again.

State triggers seems strange for things like this. Maybe this could be its own question, but any idea why it doesn't simply use a continuous effect such as "as long as an opponent controls a creature with power 4 or greater, Hidden Predators is a 4/4 beast creature".

@GendoIkari That would mean that if they lost their creature with 4+ power Hidden Predators would stop being a creature, with the current template it will stay a creature even if they lose their 4+ power creature.

Then Hidden Predators will trigger and turn into a creature when the trigger resolves. The card doesn't mention anything about playing a creature, or creatures entering the battlefield, or anything like that. If the opponent controls a creature with power 4 or greater, Hidden Predators will turn into a creature.
Note that this also applies if creatures on the battlefield get pumped up. If my opponent gives his 1/1 creature +3/+3, he now has a 4/4 which triggers Hidden Predators.


text:
How do I activate Dauntless Cathar's ability?
Dauntless Cathar has the following ability:

{1}{W}, Exile Dauntless Cathar from your graveyard: Put a 1/1 white Spirit creature token with flying onto the battlefield. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.

Please clarify. If the card is IN my hand, how can I exile if FROM the graveyard if it is not there? Did the writers mean SEND it to graveyard, or actually exile it? Confused, the writing does not make sense.

In general, if a card's ability says to move it from a particular zone, then that ability can only be activated (or trigger, as the case may be) when the card is in that zone. On this particular card, part of the cost of the activated ability is "Exile Dauntless Cathar from your graveyard", so you can only activate the ability when the card is already in your graveyard.
Keep in mind that in general, activated abilities cannot be activated while the card is in your hand. Most activated abilities can only be activated while the card is on the battlefield.
The specific rule that covers this is 112.6:

112.6. Abilities of an instant or sorcery spell usually function only while that object is on the stack. Abilities of all other objects usually function only while that object is on the battlefield. The exceptions are as follows:

[...]

112.6k An ability whose cost or effect specifies that it moves the object it’s on out of a particular zone functions only in that zone, unless that ability’s trigger condition, or a previous part of that ability’s cost or effect, specifies that the object is put into that zone. The same is true if the effect of that ability creates a delayed triggered ability whose effect moves the object out of a particular zone.

@Octomjbber So, to elaborate a bit on the gameplay aspect of this - the general idea behind Dauntless Cathar is that you plan it normally from your hand as a 3/2, then it dies somehow (maybe you blocked something, maybe it got killed by a spell), and then, when the Cathar went to the graveyard, you can use her second ability, remove the dead Cathar from the graveyard and put a 1/1 token onto the battlefield (think of it like that - the dead Cathar now resurrects as a 1/1 spirit).

Thank you. I'm a noob, only been playing for about a month. My opponent is intermediate in skill, but has been out of MTG for 4+ years. I appreciate your input! White, Blue and Black are my colors.


text:
What's the use of blinking a creature out (such as with Essence Flux)?
Essence Flux says:

Exile target creature you control, then return that card to the battlefield under its owner's control. If it's a Spirit, put a +1/+1 counter on it.

So, say I have a 1/1 Sanctuary Cat cast onto the battlefield. According to above, I would exile it, then return it right back? Is that right? I don't see what purpose this serves unless it was a spirit. Could you clarify if I have this right and what the benefit is?

There are many uses for so-called "flicker" effects like from Essence Flux.
The namesake Flicker was the first card to exile and immediately return the target. This is where the mechanic got its unofficial name.
The creature that returns is a whole new object without any relation to its previous existence. That means that, for example:

The creature will trigger all applicable "enters the battlefield" and "leaves the battlefield" abilities.
If the creature you blink is being targeted by a spell or ability, then it will lose track of the creature and not affect it, or will fizzle if that creature was the only target.
Auras and equipments attached to the creature will fall off of it, and counters get removed.
It will return untapped.
All temporary effects, such as from Giant Growth or Death Wind, will be removed.
The new creature has no damage marked on it, so it's like an improved regeneration effect.
If you blink the creature during combat, it will be removed from combat and will neither deal nor take any damage, but (if it was already assigned as a blocker), the creature blocked by it will still be blocked.

Other blink cards such as Flicker can also target enemy creatures (though not at instant speed), which can be a very valuable play at the right time.
In short, blink effects are a powerful trick that can throw a wrench in your opponent's plans at a crucial moment. The +1/+1 counter for spirits is more of a bonus in most cases, but of course it allows you to get even more utility out of this spell.

I edited Wild Growth to Giant Growth; I assume that's what you meant.

In general blinking can be done to an enemy creature, but not with this card as it says "target creature you control".

@RemcoGerlich Correct, thanks. Interestingly enough, when I looked it up, most blink effects can only target permanents you control, and those that can target any are either sorcery speed or tied to a permanent, so there are apparently no real instants to blink permanents controlled by others.

@Hackworth; which makes sense to me; the ability to stop your opponent's creatures from attacking, or remove all Auras on them, would probably be quite powerful.

I get this is an old post and this doesn't apply to Essence Flux, but my favorite use for flicker effects isn't on the list - it allows you take back control of stolen creatures.  Flicker effects are almost universally worded "...return it to the battlefield under its owner's control".  I've used a Flickerform on a creature with abilities that cause opponents to gain control of it to excellent effect.

@gatherer818 and it can do the reverse too - certain flicker effects, most notably Cloudshift don't return the creature to the owner, but say they are put back in under your control, removing the until end of turn from a stolen creature (via Act of Treason type spells)


text:
Can I bring multiple prerelease packs into a prerelease tournament?
So... Kaladesh Prerelease. I'm wanting to purchase two prerelease packs. My question ISN'T: "Can I fuse boxes and have more rares than anyone else and dominate?" My question is, can I open both boxes at the event and choose which card pool I would like to use? Or can you only use one predetermined box and open the other later? Are there even rules regarding this?

What do you mean by "both boxes"? Don't you normally get one box with six packs at a prerelease?

@KSFT Well, I'm going to purchase two. LGSes let you do that barring ridiculous amounts, at least mine does. The question pertains to whether or not I can choose from the two.

@KSFT What are you talking about?

How do you not see this as an unfair advantage over every other player who is stuck with the single box they were issued?

You cannot bring extra prerelease packs into the tournament like that.
Limited tournaments (such as drafts) work like this: The tournament officials (such as the game store owners running the pre-release) issue you boosters/cards, and they must issue everyone the exact same amount of cards. They will issue you one pre-release box, because if they issue you two, they have to issue everyone else two as well. That is the one and only box you get to use.
If you happen to possess other boosters or pre-release boxes, they don't count (even if you bought them from the tournament organisers, since they weren't issued to you for use in the tournament). They're outside the tournament scope, and you can't bring them into the tournament and use the cards inside them for that tournament, even to pick between them and another box. You use exclusively the box and boosters given for the tournament entry, or you're breaking tournament rules. (Suffice to say, breaking those rules will get you a stern talking to from your hosts, and/or disqualificiation from the tournament.)
MTG Tournament Rules as of May 2014:

7.3 Card Use in Limited Tournaments
Cards must be received directly from tournament officials. This product must be new and previously unopened. Pro Tour, Grand Prix, World Magic Cup, and World Championship events may have had boosters opened in order to stamp them. Each player (or team) must be given exactly the same quantity and type of product as all other players participating in the tournament. For example, if one player receives three Return to Ravnica boosters for a booster draft, all other players must also receive three Return to Ravnica boosters.

Emphasis added. If you bought extras, they're just extras you'll use in your own time. Don't bring them into the tournament.

Buying a box of cards is not the same thing as buying entry into an event. If the store lets you buy spare boxes, that's cool, but when you play in the event it's still just the normal event.
From Wizards' page on prereleases:

Prereleases are Sealed Deck format events, where you build a minimum 40-card minimum deck using the contents of a themed Prerelease Pack.

That's a pack, not as many as you happen to own. To be very specific, you open a pack, and build from it. You do not open two and pick among them.

You still haven't answered my question. I gain entry, can I choose between my boxes?

Yes, I have (you use a pack), but okay, I'll clarify.

A pack. I'll only be using one in this scenario.


text:
Can I use Smite the Monstrous on creatures given increased power/toughness?
Please clarify this situation.
My opponent has a 3/3 creature and in his turn plays an enchantment that adds +1/+1 to his creature.
I react to this with an instant, Smite The Monstrous, which states: "Destroy target creature with a power of 4 or greater."
He argues that his creature's core power is really 3, the +1 enchantment is not a permanent change - if the enchantment is exiled/countered, the creature would revert to the 3/3.
I disagree (of course), since at the time the instant was played, the creature in fact had 4 power.
Please break our disagreement and cite rules if you can. Thanks!

Please clarify when you cast it. With the enchantment on the stack or after it resolved

Yep, if the enchantment is still on the stack then you can't Smite it, because at that time it is still a 3/3. But if the enchantement resolved making it a 4/4 then you can use smite to destroy it.

I am voting to close as unclear so we can get some clarification on Ivar's question. If you do not know the answer to that question or don't understand it, please let us know as well, since it may mean we can provide you with an understanding of something critical that is the deciding factor in this situation, which you'd benefit from. (No harm in not understanding the question, since it's a thing we're well used to helping people understand.)

if the enchantment is exiled/countered, the creature would revert to the 3/3.

This sentence is ambiguous. If the Enchantment spell was countered, the creature was never 4/4 in the first place. If the Enchantment was destroyed while enchanting the creature, then the creature would revert to 3/3. Let's go through both situations:

When your opponent plays the enchantment card it goes to the stack.
At this time it's a spell, not an enchantment.
You then have a chance to respond to it.
In this case, you need a counterspell to counter the enchantment spell. (Something that says "target spell")
(You can't cast Smite the Monstrous because the creature is still 3/3 at this time.)
If you do, the spell is then countered.

The creature was never 4/4 because the enchantment spell was countered. It never became an Enchantment and never did its thing.

Alternatively, you can let the spell resolve. It then becomes an Enchantment and will make the creature 4/4.
At a later time, when you have priority to play spells, you can cast Smite the Monstrous. Since the creature is 4/4, it is destroyed.

It doesn't matter if a bonus to power/toughness is temporary; it's 4/4 at this time. The whole point of playing the Enchantment was to give the creature +1/+1. You can't just pick and choose when it benefits you. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
(If I had a dime for every time a player tried to do that...)

I think OP here means counter as saying he used his "smite the monstrous" and not actually a counterspell.

@Lyrion Then he used the wrong term and I think that should be explained anyway.

if the enchantment is exiled/countered, the creature would revert to the 3/3. - That was a VALID part of my question. If the Enchantment was resolved, and later on countered, the creature WOULD in fact revert to a 3/3. This underscores the change is not permanent. At the time it was resolved, I had nothing to counter it, only the Smite to exile the creature.

It's because "counter" has a specific meaning in MtG. Countering a spell means it never happens and the creature was never 4/4, so it doesn't "revert to 3/3". You don't counter an enchantment, you counter a spell. "Exile" also has a specific meaning. You don't need to exile the enchantment, just destroying it is enough. I know what you mean, but people can get confused when you use the wrong words for stuff.

When you play Smite the Monstrous, your opponent's creature is a valid target because his power is 4 or greater. Whether that power comes from the creature itself, an instant (Giant Growth), enchantment (Unholy Strength) or an activated ability (Timberwatch Elf) is besides the point.
What DOES matter is whether the effect is already applied to the creature in question. If your opponent has a 3/3 and casts Giant Growth, you have to wait until this spell resolves and is off the stack before that creature becomes a valid target for Smite the Monstrous.

As we are both Noobs, we don't really use the stack phase, we just resolve everything at once. However, given the multiple explanations, I can see the relevance of doing such, even with just 2 players.

@Octomjbber The stack is a pretty vital part of Magic. For a basic understanding of what the stack is and how it works, see also this answer I gave to a similar question: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/32468/can-i-use-pump-spells-with-fighting/32472#32472


text:
How do dual lands and their mana work?
Certain lands, such as Coastal Tower, state that they can add two types of land, but when does that happen? When I cast it, it enters the battlefield as just one land, right? So does it add the additional land when tapped?

Lands and mana are not the same thing. Lands (generally) have abilities that let them tap to produce mana. For example, a basic Island can tap to produce one blue mana, and a basic Plains can tap to produce one white mana. (On modern printings, this is implicit, but on old ones it was actually written out on the card.) The land itself is just an object on the battlefield; it's the mana it produces that you spend to cast spells.
Similarly, some nonbasic lands have abilities that let them produce more than one kind of mana. Your Coastal Tower can tap to produce mana just like a Plains or Island could, except you get to choose: you can produce a blue mana or a white mana. It's sort of like being able to play an Island and a Plains in one card, with the downside that it enters tapped and is not actually an Island or a Plains.
For example, if you want to cast a New Prahv Guildmage, which costs a white mana and a blue mana, and have an Island and a Coastal Tower on the battlefield, you can tap the Island for a blue mana and the Coastal Tower for a white mana. Or if instead you had a Plains and a Coastal Tower, you could tap the Plains for a white mana and the Coastal Tower for a blue mana.
A final note, you don't cast lands. They're not spells. You simply play them.

Basic lands have an implicit "{tap}: Add {mana} to your mana pool" ability, which may not be apparent on modern printings that just have the mana symbol. Look at old versions of basic lands and you'll see that their abilities are not so different than many nonbasic lands like Coastal Tower.

Thank you. I'm a noob, only been playing for about a month. My opponent is intermediate in skill, but has been out of MTG for 4+ years. I appreciate your input! White, Blue and Black are my colors.

@Octomjbber Note that this is an incredibly common misunderstanding for new players, probably the most common major mistake new players make, so I wouldn't beat your self up about it.

Since Dominaria, the template for mana abilities is "{tap}: Add {mana}", except on basic lands where it's still "{mana}" (filling the text box)

You don't have a sound understanding of how lands and mana work yet, I'm afraid. I think you haven't read a good explanation of what's going on with them, unless Jefromi's answer did the trick.
I think your mental model is that merely having lands means you can cast spells (e.g. you can cast Herald of Kozilek as soon as you have 1 mountain, 1 island, and 1 of any other land), and therefore dual-color lands must be two types of land — but this is wholly incorrect, so if that's what's going on it's no wonder you're getting confused. You're missing some big parts of the picture, the biggest of which is mana.
Coastal Tower is just a land that sits there. It's never two types of land; it's just Coastal Tower. It doesn't count as an island or a plains and doesn't have to. It has an activated ability that lets you tap it to get one of two kinds of mana (white or blue, your choice) and you can choose differently or the same each time you use that ability. You use that mana (not the land) to cast spells.
I recommend you read the official Quick Start Rules (that's a link to the PDF for them) to get that basic explanation, or the slightly longer 2011 Basic Rules. In particular, you need to read the Quick Start Rules' section on lands (page 4) and casting spells (page 6). The rest will also be a useful read; the quick start rules explain things a bit better than the fold-up sheet distributed in products nowadays.
Mana symbols ≠ land
Lands are used to give you mana (white, blue, black, red, green, or colorless1), which is a resource or currency you gather and then spend on spells or abilities. Mana doesn't come just from the "types of land" or even just lands: Forest will give you green mana, but so will Blossoming Sands or Woodland Stream, despite neither one being a forest. Creatures like Elvish Mystic or Opaline Unicorn can also add mana to your mana pool, and they are not any kind of land.
When you cast spells, you'll do it by spending the mana you acquired from various sources (lands, creatures, etc). You don't cast spells merely by having lands sitting there: merely having three forests and a Blossoming Sands doesn't all on its own let you cast Glare of Subdual; you actually have to tap them and get the mana from them and use that to cast it. (Which means you don't also get to spend that mana on other spells this turn.)
All of these cards I've mentioned have an activated ability which is what you use to get mana. The 2011 Basic Rules explain activated abilities on page 11. Nowadays basic lands just have that activated ability implied; older basic lands had it written down explicitly.

1: White, blue, black, red, green, and colorless are represented by the letters {W} {U} {B} {R} {G} {C} in that order. In cards before the Oath of the Gatewatch set (printed in 2016), cards that gave you colorless mana just represented it with a number that looked exactly like the generic component of a mana cost, e.g. {1}.

Thank you. I'm a noob, only been playing for about a month. My opponent is intermediate in skill, but has been out of MTG for 4+ years. I appreciate your input! White, Blue and Black are my colors.


text:
Penalties involved in withholding knowledge of a rule violation
Player 1 won Game 1, Player 2 won Game 2, and it is at some point during Game 3 now. In Game 2, P2's Venser, Sojourner exiled a number of P1's cards and P1 doesn't remember the exiled cards when presenting his deck to P2 for Game 3, but P2 did notice but did not notify P1.
As the game progresses, P2 realizes he is losing and then calls a judge, telling him or her that P1's deck is illegal as it is under 60 cards. It should be mentioned that P2 knew the deck was illegal and withheld this information until it was opportune for him or her.
What are the specific rule violations on both players, specifically P2? Does it change if P2 did not know the deck was illegal and only just noticed it? Just curious if P2's failure to notify P1 of their illegal deck changes the penalty for P1.

How is it inopportune to report your opponent's illegal deck right away? This is important for answering the question.

@Hackworth maybe P2 is unsure of what a judge will do. Maybe a judge would give P1 some lenience the earlier it is caught.

@Hackworth I'm not very familiar with tournament rules, but I would think that if a deck were discovered to be missing a few cards during the initial shuffling, before any game play had begun, then a judge would just tell you to put the cards back before starting the game.

Player 1 would be committing a Tournament Error (Deck/Decklist Problem) under item 1 of section 3.9 of the IPG:

The deck and/or decklist contain an illegal number
   of cards for the format.

If decklists are registered, it's also a violation of item 4:

The contents of the presented deck and sideboard do not match the decklist registered.

The penalty for this is a game loss.
Player 2 would be Cheating under section 4.8, which a player commits if he or she "notices an offense committed in his or her (or a teammate's) match and does not call attention to it", if these two conditions are met:

The player must be attempting to gain advantage from his or her action.
The player must be aware that he or she is doing something illegal.

The penalty for this is disqualification.
Player 2 might also be committing a Game Play Error under section 2.6, which is defined like this:

A player allows another player in the game to commit a Game Play Error involving an effect or action that he or she does not control, and has not pointed it out immediately.

Player 1 would have to be committing a Game Play Error for this to apply. Section 2.5, which defines Game Rule Violation, "handles violations of the Comprehensive Rules that are not covered by the other Game Play Errors". A Tournament Error is not a violation of the comprehensive rules, but the comprehensive rules do say this:

100.2a In constructed play (a way of playing in which each player creates his or her own deck ahead of time), each deck must contain at least sixty cards
  Even if this means sections 2.5 and 2.6 apply, the penalties for both are less than the penalties for violations under sections 3.9 and 4.8. Also, the IPG suggests using the latter two in this case:
If a judge believes a player is intentionally not pointing out
  other players’ illegal actions, either for his or her own advantage, or in the hope of bringing it up at a more
  strategically advantageous time, they should consider an Unsporting Conduct — Cheating infraction.

The question asked, "What are the specific rule violations for both players?" This answer only covers P2.

Is P2 doing anything illegal though? You would also need to quote a rule that says that players are required to point out a violation by their opponent.

@GendoIkari From a slightly different section (2.6) of the rules: "If a judge believes a player is intentionally not pointing out other players’ illegal actions, either for his or her own advantage, or in the hope of bringing it up at a more strategically advantageous time, they should consider an Unsporting Conduct — Cheating infraction."

Also, the immediately preceding text in section 4.8 reads: "A person breaks a rule defined by the tournament documents, lies to a tournament official, or notices an offense committed in his or her (or a teammate's) match and does not call attention to it." (emphasis mine)

In a situation where P1 is awarded a game loss and P2 is disqualified, is P2 actually awarded a game win? Not sure how this scenario affects ranking at sanctioned play.


text:
Playing a card on Hanabi: choose the pile first, or play it and then check?
My playgroup and I are a little confused on this part of the rules. Say the piles are as below:

Blue: 1
  Green: 2
  Red: 2
  White: 3
  Yellow: 4

I have a Green-3, but only know the number. Before playing it, do I announce "I'm playing this in the green pile" and check if it works, or do I show the 3, see that it is Green, and put it there?
It makes sense you'd select a pile before playing the card, else it's too ambiguous and easy to stack piles. If the card is green, it goes on the green pile, but if it was red, it also goes in a pile.

You announce the card you are playing, then it is played. Checking for legitimacy is a separate act. Play proceeds as follows:

Play the chosen card face-up on the table (not on a pile).
Check whether it can be legally placed on an existing pile. Do so if possible, increasing that pile by one.
Otherwise, check whether it can be legally placed to start a new pile (i.e. it is the first number one card in a colour). Do so if possible, starting a new pile.
Otherwise, discard the played card and lose a fuse token.

The ability to play a legal card before knowing precisely how it is legal, is intentional. Latter stages of the game rely increasingly on the tactical use and provision of information to others.
If it was necessary to know the precise pile on which to play a card before doing so in order to succeed, the game would be made far more difficult than it already is.

In your example, you would play the Green-3, then, seeing it is a legal card on the Green pile, place it there.

Ah, alright. My group thought as you do but I thought you needed to select a pile to play the card before checking its legality. My argument was if you have five piles of 2, a player need only tell you that you have a 3 in order to make a play; no one would tell you the colors and only the numbers which seemed too easy in this circumstance.

@gator the thing is that circumstance can't be supported throughout the entire game. It will get you to about 3 on all piles, but with no information tokens left, and a majority of the table not knowing a majority of their cards. Hence, piecewise information sharing in context, and logical consideration of both, as well as meta-information, become crucial.

One of the best parts of Hanabi to me is the meta-information and inferred best moves. If someone tells me a 3, the underlying message is "play this 3". Great game just ambiguous at times.

It also allows for the fun moves like "I give this clue, which normally implies that you have the blue 3, because you actually have the red 3 and I want you to play it".


text:
When do I discard a card for Skeleton Key?
Skeleton Key states: "whenever equipped creature deals combat damage to a player you may draw a card. If you do, discard a card."
My question is - do you discard the card before you draw the card or do you get to see the drawn card before you discard?

You draw the card first. You can even discard the card that you drew. In general, you always follow instructions in the order written on the card.
Interestingly, this doesn't appear to be specified in the basic rulebook or quick start guide. But here's the rule from the comprehensive rules for it:

608.2c The controller of the spell or ability follows its instructions in the order written. However, replacement effects may modify these actions [...]

@Gendolkari While the comprehensive rules are, well, comprehensive, I think it's not in the basic rulebook because it is fairly intuitive. I mean, what other order should you execute the instructions on a card? I think in this case it's quite clear that you draw first by the instructions: “If you do, [draw a card], discard a card.”

To draw a card you have to put it in your hand.
While you have it in your hand, you see it.
From the game's point of view there's no in-between time when the card is no longer in your library but not yet in your hand.
So yes, you get to see the card before you perform the discard.


text:
Can I use pump spells with Fighting?
In a "fight," can "pump" spells be used?
As an example, I have my 2/2 fight my opponent's 4/4, then I add a +3/3 pump to my 2/2. Would his 4/4 die to my now 5/5?

This depends on the order in which spells are played. I'm assuming you know about the stack: When spells are played or effects are triggered, they are placed on the top of the stack. When no player wants to add spells or effects to the stack, the stack gets resolved top-to-bottom; in effect in reverse order of placing things on it.
Having said that, I also assume that with "fight" you are not referring to regular combat but to spells that pit two creatures against each other. Then it matters in what order spells are played:

You play Giant Growth on your creature, the stack resolves and you now own a 5/5. You or your opponent set up a 'fight' between your 5/5 and his 4/4. Your creature survives, his dies.
Your opponent casts a fight-spell on his 4/4 and your 2/2. While that's still on the stack, you react with an instant to make your 2/2 a 5/5. Same result.
You cast a Giant Growth on your 2/2 and your opponent reacts with a fight-spell pitting your Grizzly Bears against his 4/4. In this instance, the Giant Growth hasn't resolved yet, and the 4/4 will win the duel, killing your 2/2. Giant Growth will fizzle when it resolves because its target is no longer legal.

On a side note, in the last scenario you could react to the fight-spell with another Giant Growth if you have a second spell in your hand and the mana available.

When two creatures fight they deal damage to each other based on their power. A Grizzly Bear that has had Giant Growth cast on it will be a 5/5 creature until the end of the current turn. Therefore it will deal 5 damage when it fights. The 4/4 creature will then have 5 damage marked on it after fighting which is more than its 4 toughness so it will die.

701.10a A spell or ability may instruct a creature to fight another creature or it may instruct two creatures to fight each other. Each of those creatures deals damage equal to its power to the other creature.


text:
How is Inventor's Apprentice affected by multiple artifacts?
If I have 3 artifacts and 1 Inventor's Apprentice. Does my apprentice get +1/+1 or +3/+3?

Inventor's Apprentice gets +1/+1 as long as you control an artifact. It's only +1/+1, and this is true no matter how many artifacts you control. If it was the other way, it would say "Inventor's Apprentice gets +1/+1 for each artifact you control", as it does for Cranial Plating.

Thanks.  I was pretty sure that was the case, I was just reminding myself.


text:
What happens if a creature's ETB would bounce Thalia, Heretic Cathar?
So during a game I had this scenario:
On my battlefield I have Thalia, Heretic Cathar, whose ability says

Creatures and nonbasic lands your opponent control enters the battlefield tapped.

Now the opponent played a creature that said

Whenever [this creature] enters the battlefield, return target creature an opponent controls to its owner's hand.

Now the question is, even if my Thalia is returning to my hand, I think that her ability still triggers or am I wrong? Would that creature be tapped?
In theory, since Thalia says that the creatures enter the battlefield tapped, this should resolve before the opponent's ability that says whenever the creature enters the battlefield, so according to the wording the opponent creature is already tapped before the ability resolves.
Is that correct?

Yes, this is correct. Thalia's ability is a so-called replacement effect

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.

which doesn't go on the stack. Only when the new creature actually enters the battlefield (tapped), its enter the battlefield ability will trigger.

Absolutely correct, but perhaps worth pointing out that the end result would be the same even if this weren't a replacement effect (if it said, for example, "When a creature or nonbasic land your opponent controls enters the battlefield, tap that creature or land"). Thalia's ability would trigger along with the bounce effect, they'd both resolve (order depending on whose turn it is), and in the end Thalia gets bounced and the opponent's creature is tapped.

@NuclearWang If you note that, it's perhaps also worth noting that there are differences between Thalia's ability and "When a creature or nonbasic land your opponent controls enters the battlefield, tap that creature or land", as creatures with haste and nonbasic lands can tap immediately (before that triggered ability taps them), but with Thalia they cannot.

@Spitemaster Technically, abilities that have tapping as a cost can be used. Tapping a permanent, as an atomic act rather than as a cost or effect, is not allowed.

@Acccumulation Yes, I suppose that was not completely clear.  I just wanted to be pedantic about "the end result would be the same even if this weren't a replacement effect". ;)