text:
What happens when two players are both trying to secretly choose the highest number? (Commander Legends spoilers)
Consider the Commander Legends card Wheel of Misfortune:

Each player secretly chooses a number. Then reveal those numbers. Wheel of Misfortune deals damage equal to the greatest chosen number to each player that chose it. Then, each player who didn't choose the smallest number discards their hand, then draws seven cards.

Suppose that Alice and Norman are in a two-player game. Alice casts Wheel of Misfortune on her turn. Suppose further that each player would like to wheel, and also that each player is functionally immune to damage (e.g. can't take damage, can't lose the game, or life total can't change). Then each player wants to choose a higher number than the other.
The comprehensive rules state:

107.1c If a rule or ability instructs a player to choose “any number,” that player may choose any positive number or zero.

How may Alice and Normal specify their numbers? In what format?
I would presume that each player should write the number down on a piece of paper. The obvious way to do this is by writing the number out digit-by-digit. But the rules don't seem to require this. If a player wrote “a million”, would this be an illegal choice? If not, then what about “a googolplex”? What about “Graham's number”? What about mathematical notation, such as “10^100”?. (If Alice and Norman are both, say, theoretical computer scientists or set theorists, then things could get really complicated.)
And how long do they each have to specify a number? According to the rules, they choose consecutively in turn order. How long may Alice spend writing down a number? At what point would it become slow play? Then, how long does Norman have? He clearly has a legitimate in-game reason to take longer than Alice took (even though in a perfect world he shouldn't have any information at all about Alice's choice).
I'm interested in any of the following:

Concrete citations to the comprehensive rules, tournament rules, official rulings, and so on.
Real-world experience of how this has been handled in practice.
Opinions of judges or other official/semi-official sources about how such a situation might be handled.

I feel like the card is too new to make this determination. I imagine there will be something about this when it hits gatherer.

Maybe. I just checked, and [[Menacing Ogre]] has similar text but no relevant rulings.

Do these two players have way to mitigate millions of damage?

The question stipulates that they do. (This might be Phyrexian Unlife, Worship, Angel's Grace, or any other effect.)

Obligatory who can name the bigger number. Just to give people some ideas of what you can do. Be advised that the most powerful method mentioned there (busy beavers) is so strong that concrete comparisons, unless trivial, is most likely beyond modern mathematics (ZFC axioms), even given unlimited time and calculation space.

This is weird; the link to the card is a dead link.

The card is from Commander Legends; it isn't in Gatherer yet. Someday it will be, and the link will work. Generations of rules lawyers may yet benefit from my foresight in linking it. In the meantime, I quoted the card text in the question.

There is precedent for making secret choices in the Conspiracy game mode, you make a secret choice by writing it on a piece of paper. Players are required to make choices understandable to each player; if a player chooses a number the other player doesn't understand by "obfuscating" it through a mathematical definition or similar, the opponent may demand an intelligible explanation, otherwise they can consult a judge. Slow play rules are well established in the tournament rules.
If a choice is to be made secretly, we can infer the process from Hidden Agenda:

702.105b To secretly choose a card name, note that name on a piece of paper kept with the face-down conspiracy card.

It seems obvious that a secret choice of a number would be kept track of the same way. As always with additional game materials, any method is fine to use as long as both players agreed to it, and as long as it serves its purpose of fixing a choice and keeping it secret until the reveal.
There are rules regarding choosing a number:

107.1c If a rule or ability instructs a player to choose “any number,” that player may choose any positive number or zero.

There is no specification in what form or notation the number is to be represented. However, the choice is free information as per the tournament rules once it has been revealed, and thus every player is entitled to knowing that choice. If one player, intentionally or not, obfuscates that number through a mathematical definition you couldn't reasonably expect the average player to know, then that player has violated the rules for player communication:

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

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

The following rules govern player communication:

Players may not represent derived, free, or status information incorrectly.

Players must answer completely and honestly any specific questions pertaining to free information.

Of course, if you have two opponents who know what a Googolplex etc. is, then there is no communication issue and either player may use such terms. The end goal is that both players know the other's choice and can agree on which choice is the higher number. How you get there is irrelevant, as long as it happens, and happens in a timely fashion.
Which brings us to slow play, the rules of which are well-established in the tournament rules. If there is a dispute in a tournament setting, a judge will be called to decide.

Players must take their turns in a timely fashion regardless of the complexity of the play situation and adhere to time limits specified for the tournament. Players must maintain a pace to allow the match to be finished in the announced time limit. Stalling is not acceptable. Players may ask a judge to watch their game for slow play; such a request will be granted if feasible.

Finally, the catch-all for tournament rule questions, in case it isn't clear what constitutes slow play, or what constitutes obfuscation of free information:

The Head Judge is the final judicial authority at any DCIsanctioned tournament and all tournament participants are expected to follow their interpretations.

Good answer. Some follow-ups: First, is there an objective way to judge whether a player's choice is “obfuscated”? Suppose that Alice writes down “googlplex”, but Norman does not know that it means. Has Alice committed a violation? What if Alice explains her choice competently and in good faith, but Norman nevertheless does not understand it? Second, while the slow play rule is clearly established, it does not seem clear how to apply it here. If Alice chooses a number immediately, but it takes her several minutes to physically write it down as fast as she can, is this slow play?

Making a secret choice necessarily includes writing it down somehow, that's not a separate process that would somehow fall outside of making a choice. Also, the tournament rules don't care about such specifics anyway, they only care that whatever you do in the game happens in a timely fashion. Slow play rules rank higher than making game choices. If an otherwise legal choice would violate slow play rules, you simply can't make that choice.

Regarding objectivity: As a rule of thumb, if you start using complex mathematical terms that the average player wouldn't understand, you're most likely obfuscating. Strictly speaking, the head judge is the final authority on all questions that arise in their tournament, including yours. If the head judge says that something is obfuscation, then it is so. The tournament rules can't possibly cover every situation like that.

Suppose that before choosing a number, Alice called for a judge and asked how long she could take to choose a number before it would constitute slow play. Given that Alice has a legitimate in-game reason to choose the largest possible number, how should the judge answer? Then, if Alice spends thirty seconds choosing, then Norman has a legitimate in-game reason to spend more time than that. Should he be allowed to?

The slow play rules are what they are. Ultimately, each head judge will decide what constitutes slow play, depending on the individual situation. There are no definitve rules on how long, in seconds, each individual game choice should be. If it came down to such questions in a particular match, the head judge would have to decide depending on the situation, which is obviously impossible to answer in general. And if the judge gave an answer, I don't see why the other player should get more time. This all sounds very contrived to me.

Fundamentally, looking for strict numeric upper bounds on the amount of time you can spend on any single action is not the right way to be looking at slow play. Essentially, if the time it takes to resolve this one spell has a significant impact on how long it takes the game to end, you're probably spending too long on it.

What is the difference between "notation I don't understand" and "handwriting I can't read"? Should Alice be penalised if Bob claims he can't read a handwritten note that says "googleplex", even if Alice reads it out when asked?


text:
Deathtouch vs an indestructible creature, which then loses indestructible
I think I know how this works, but would like to confirm. Suppose my Hill Giant is equipped with Darksteel Plate, and then is dealt damage by a Deadly Recluse. That's one point of deathtouch damage. Without the equipment, that would destroy Hill Giant; with the equipment, it doesn't.
If the Darksteel Plate is unequipped that same turn, will Hill Giant be destroyed?
I believe the answer is No, because nothing in the rules says that "deathtouch-ness" is remembered. All that's left is that there's a Hill Giant with one point of damage marked on it, ergo it survives.

No, the creature will not die.
The rules for determining whether creatures die due to damage are part of state-based action, which are checked every time a player would gain priority:

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.
704.5h If a creature has toughness greater than 0, and it’s been dealt damage by a source with deathtouch since the last time state-based actions were checked, that creature is destroyed. Regeneration can replace this event.

As you can see, deathtouch damage is only handled once, the first time state-based actions are checked after the damage is dealt. So, in your situation, the creature takes the 1 deathtouch damage. Then, immediately after that, state-based actions are checked, 704.5h applies, and it tries to destroy the creature, but the creature is indestructible, so nothing happens. Later, after you remove the equipment, state-based actions will be checked again, but the creature hasn't taken damage from a source with deathtouch since the last time state-based actions were checked, so the rule doesn't apply and nothing happens.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Will Rings of Brighthearth + The Chain Veil let me use Chain Veil's ability more than once?
I have a question in regards of using The Chain Veil's Activated Ability:

{4}, {T}: For each planeswalker you control, you may activate one of its loyalty abilities once this turn as though none of its loyalty abilities have been activated this turn.

Can I use Rings of Brighthearth copying ability

Whenever you activate an ability, if it isn't a mana ability, you may pay {2}. If you do, copy that ability. You may choose new targets for the copy.

to use Chain's ability more than once in one turn?

For future reference, you can link directly to cards by writing [mtg:Card Name]

and now we have [mtg:Teferi, Temporal Archmage]

Yes. The sequence would/could be as follows:

You activate The Chain Veil, and put its ability on the stack.
The ring's triggered ability triggers, and is put on the stack.
(after all players pass priority) The triggered ability resolves, you are given the choice to pay 2 and copy the ability, and the copy is placed on the stack.
(players pass priority) The copied effect resolves.
(players pass priority) The original effect resolves.

A ruling from Gatherer confirms that The Chain Veil's ability can be repeated, i.e. each effect allows an additional loyalty ability to be played, on top of the single normal use.

Each additional time The Chain Veil’s last ability resolves will allow you to activate a loyalty ability of each planeswalker you control an additional time. For example, if you activate The Chain Veil’s last ability, untap it, then activate it again, you can activate a loyalty ability of a planeswalker you control three times that turn.

Yes, you can use Rings of Brighthearth's ability to copy The Chain Veil's ability, and yes, that will allow you to activate another additional loyalty ability of each Planeswalker you control. A ruling on The Chain Veil says

Each additional time The Chain Veil’s last ability resolves will allow you to activate a loyalty ability of each planeswalker you control an additional time. For example, if you activate The Chain Veil’s last ability, untap it, then activate it again, you can activate a loyalty ability of a planeswalker you control three times that turn.

Not only can you copy the chain veil but for each copy of the chain veil your planeswalker increases or decreases loyalty counters according to the ability you choose.
Example, if you picked a +1 ability and the chain veil activated twice, your Planeswalker will get 2 additional loyalty counters.

That's incorrect, or at least significantly misleading. If the Chain Veil ability has resolved twice, then you can activate loyalty abilities an additional two times, including paying the cost of adding or removing the counters, which could result in an outcome like you describe if you activate the same ability every time. But you don't have to activate the same ability every time, and the ability's cost does not scale with the number of times the Chain Veil's ability has resolved.

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

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


text:
Can I look up the text of my foreign cards on my phone in MTG tournaments?
Hey guys I have a question. I play commander and most of my cards are in foreign language. I use google drive to have a picture of the actual card in English. If I go to a tournament am I allowed to use my phone to check the actual meaning of my cards or no?

If you have trouble of remembering what your cards do, just play more games with them! After a few long play sessions you'll remember exactly what they are and what do they do.

@AulisRonkainen It takes quite a while to know all possible interactions though, which the oracle text often matters for - timing, ability type, keyword vs triggered version of the keyword (lifelink/spirit link or hexproof/troll shroud) can all be important differences that you get from the oracle text.

At Regular REL, you might get permission from the Judge, at any higher REL it is forbidden.

2.12 Electronic Devices
At Competitive and Professional Rules Enforcement Level
during drafting, deck construction, and playing of
matches, players may not use electronic devices capable of taking and
storing notes, communicating with other people, or accessing the
internet (except for taking brief personal calls with the opponent's
permission).
At Regular Rules Enforcement Level, electronic devices are permitted, but players may not use them to access information that contains
substantial strategic advice or information about an opponent's deck.
Device use during a match other than brief personal calls must be
visible to all players. Players wishing to view information privately
on electronic devices during matches must request permission from a
judge.

You may however, call a judge to have them provide you with the oracle text (the official version of the text in English) anytime.


text:
How does Song of Freyalise chapters 1-2 work?
I have a question about Song of Freyalise. Chapters I and II say:

Until your next turn, creatures you control gain '{T}: Add one mana of any color.'

According to the wording of this effect, my creatures will gain the {T} ability until end of turn or not? How does it work?

what part of the rules text is unclear to you?

Adding onto Glorfindel's answer, here's the exact timeline of what Song of Freyalise will do for you (assuming you don't do anything weird like adding or removing counters).
When you first cast Song of Freyalise

I, II — Until your next turn, creatures you control gain "Tap: Add one mana of any color."

Song of Freyalise enters the battlefield with a Lore Counter on it (One counter Total).  At this point, all creatures you control gain the mana ability on the card.  They will keep this ability until the start of your next turn.
First Opponent's turn after casting Song
All your creatures still have the mana ability.  You can use the ability to pay for mana costs during your opponent's turn.  You keep the ability for each of your opponent's turns (as Glorfindel says, that includes extra turns and turns for each opponent if you're playing a multiplayer game).
Once your next turn starts
All your creatures lose the mana ability.  This means that you cannot use the ability to pay for costs during your Untap, Upkeep, and Draw phases.
Once your Draw step ends

I, II — Until your next turn, creatures you control gain "Tap: Add one mana of any color."

You put a Lore Counter on Song of Freyalise (Two Counters Total).  All your creatures gain the mana ability back.
Opponent's turn after you put a second counter on Song of Freyalise
This is the same as the last cycle of opponent's turns.  All your creatures still have the ability, and they keep that ability until your next turn starts.
Once your next turn starts
This plays out exactly the same as the last time.  Your creatures lose the ability and cannot activate it to pay costs during your Untap, Upkeep, and Draw phases.
Once your draw step ends

III — Put a +1/+1 counter on each creature you control. Those creatures gain vigilance, trample, and indestructible until end of turn.

You put a Lore Counter on Song of Freyallise (Three Counters Total).  Your creatures do not regain the mana ability.  Instead you put a +1/+1 on each creature and give them Vigilance, Trample, and Indestructible.  You also now sacrifice Song of Freyalise at this point as you put a 3rd Lore Counter on it.
At the end of your turn
Your creatures lose Vigilance, Trample, and Indestructible, but keep the +1/+1 counter.

According to the wording of this effect, my creatures will gain the {T} ability until end of turn or no?

Not exactly. The card says 'Until your next turn', so that means you can use their mana ability during your opponent's next turn (or turns, if it's a multiplayer game or they cast Time Walk) as well. Only when it's your turn again will the effect stop.


text:
can keepers kill creepers in same turn over and over again?
In Monty Python Fluxx, there are keepers that kill creepers.
Can they be played and also kill in the same turn, or is it 1 turn to play them and 2nd turn to kill?
Also, can they be used over and over again?

possible duplicate of When are Keeper actions available?

Unfortunately I don't know the wording of the cards in this version of Fluxx. If the creeper says "if you have the XXX keeper, discard this" then it's constant (as with scurvy/oranges in Pirate Fluxx). If the keeper says "remove XXX creeper", then it's when you play the keeper, as described in this question.

I've found the text for Excalibur: "If you have this on the table, you may move one of your Creepers to another player during your turn." You can use this once per turn, since the card cares about already being on the table.

Disclaimer: I don't have this edition of Fluxx, so I may not have found all of the relevant keepers.
Yes. The keepers with creeper removal from this edition specifically care about being on the table. It only takes one of your plays to actually play a card, not to use an effect they provide. These "free" actions can be taken at any time (in between card plays) unless specified otherwise.
The relevant keepers are as follows:

Excalibur: If you have this on the table, you may move one of your Creepers to another player during your turn.
Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch: If you have this on the table and it's your turn, you can discard it along with any Creeper of your choice.
Finger of God: If you have this on the table you may smite (i.e. discard) any Creeper. After smiting, you must put this card back into your hand.
The Animator: Counts as the Finger of God if the real Finger of God is not on the table.

Excalibur specifies "one of your Creepers during your turn", so you can do this once per turn.
You can use this "during your turn", but only once because it's discarded, unless you have a way to recover it from the discard and play it again.
You can use this at any time between plays. If it's your turn and you have multiple plays, you can repeatedly play and use this card.
If this counts as the Finger of God, it copies all the properties of that card, so it can be used to smite.

So for example if I have the play all rule in play I could get rid of all my creepers with  the finger of god?

Well I think your turn ends immediately after your last play (I'd need to check that), but as long as you had a spare card in hand, yes.

To add to this, in Space Fluxx, there are two Keepers that can kill any kind of creeper, and two Keepers that can remove a single type of Creeper.
However, all of them start the kill description with "Once per turn".  So, these are specifically kept at this level.


text:
How can we adjust starting conditions in Twilight Struggle to favour the USSR?
My girlfriend and I play Twilight Struggle. She likes playing as USSR. I'm a bit better at the game, which leads to a frustrating situation where I win most of the games.
Are there any generally accepted thoughts on altering the starting conditions to better favour the USSR player, balancing our relative skill levels?

Me and a friend of mine play this a lot and we had to explain it a bit to a new player, so we also had to give the USSR an advantage because it would be first time player against a veteran.
We found that there are three ways to make this a bit more fair:

Give the USSR more starting influence to divide (this can be in Eastern Europe or in any other continent)
Give the USSR some starting points, that way America has to accumulate more points to win the game, I think that 5 or 3 is fair but you can choose that for yourself
In the first headline phase: USSR plays a card and America doesn't, this can give the USSR an advantage if they have good cards so it's a gamble.

EDIT

You could also give the USSR player a partial mulligan, discard the cards he doesn't want and let him pull that many new cards

I particularly like this answer because there are several options. I hadn't even considered the third option and I will have to try it out and see how it works. :)

The third option is a real gamble, the USSR can get ahead really quick with it, but they also can have a crappy hand and can't play anything to get ahead

The standard way to balance the game (However, usually towards the US), is to give the player some number of influence they can place anywhere they already have influence at the start of the game. I think this works slightly better for the US, since they can often add it to Iran, making a coup that much harder, or add a couple to France and try to score Europe quickly.
Depending on the advantage you want, I would suggest trying something like give her Iran to start instead, which would basically act as a 100% successful turn 1 coup. This way it's not a totally unfair or out-of-band start, it's more just forcing her to have good luck at the start of the game.


text:
Why does Cryptbreaker need to specify "untapped" Zombies?
The card Cryptbreaker has the following ability:

Tap three untapped Zombies you control: You draw a card and you lose 1 life.

Why is it necessary to specify that the three Zombies must be untapped? You can't tap an already tapped creature, or use tapped creatures to pay a tap cost. MtG cards usually have a very good economy of words, so why include this seemingly unnecessary text? Would the card function differently in any circumstance if it just said "Tap three Zombies you control"?

There are a couple instances of MTG using extra words simply for extra clarity. Such as when they added "base" to "base power and toughness".

And often using "when [card] or another creature enters the battlefield", even though "when a creature enters the battlefield" would work just the same.

@GendoIkari In that case, maybe the best answer is one that explains why the card would function the same way even if the word "untapped" was removed?

The CompRules are anything but economic. Not that I'm complaining, but you will often find the same rule, sometimes verbatim, in several different places, or the same basic rules such as APNAP in various wordings in different places.

@GendoIkari I don't think "base" is redundant. If the card text says 3/3, and it has a 1/1 counter, then its power is 4, but its base power is 3.

@Acccumulation "Base" was added in the context of cards of cards that set creatures' power and toughness such as Humility. Adding "base" to the card did not change the functionality at all; previously setting a card to "1/1" would only affect the "base", but the word "base" didn't exist as part of Magic rules.

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/magic-2015-update-bulletin-2014-07-17

@GendoIkari If you're saying that wording regarding setting base power is redundant, that's arguably true, but wording regarding checking base power is not.

@Acccumulation Is there anything in the game that checks base power? To my knowledge, the word "base" was specifically added in the context of setting power/toughness; I'm not aware of it ever being used in a different context.

Rule 208.4, which is where "base" is defined, says "Effects that set a creature’s power and/or toughness[...]". As far as I can tell, a rules update would be required to even allow a card to refer to "base power" in a different context.

In a recent question, someone asked why "destroy one of those permanents at random" forces one of the non-indestructible permanents to be destroyed. The OP effectively thought it meant "choose one of those permanents at random, then destroy it" (In reality, you must choose a legal option, even when choosing randomly.) The extra word avoids that confusion here.

You are correct that the word is unnecessary; it would function the same without.
There are various times that MTG adds extra words for the sake of clarity; even when they have no effect on functionality.
A very common example are cards such as Aetherstorm Roc, which use the wording "Aetherstorm Roc or another creature enters the battlefield under your control..."
This could have simply been written "Whenever a creature enters the battlefield under your control" for the exact same effect. But there would be some less experienced players that would not know if it should count itself or not. The longer wording makes this explicit.
"Tap an untapped creature you control" works the same way. If it simply said "Tap a creature you control", then you wouldn't be able to activate it without actually tapping an untapped creature, due to the rule:

701.20a To tap a permanent, turn it sideways from an upright position. Only untapped permanents can be tapped.

However, the extra word helps make it clear that this is the case. Especially due to the fact that a "tap target creature" ability can in fact target a tapped creature, some people would wonder what stops them from choosing tapped creatures to pay the activation cost for "tap a creature you control".

I can think of a theoretical way that the 2 wordings for Aetherstorm Roc would function different; if a continuous effect were around that said that all creatures are not creatures. Then Roc would not trigger for itself under the shortened wording, but would still trigger for itself with the current wording. But that is an extreme case that I don't even know if it can exist with current cards.

@Gendolkari I'm pretty sure that Roc's ability would still work the same. The wording "Roc or another creature" implies that Roc has to be a creature to trigger its ability.

@Hackworth I'm almost sure that's not right; I remember other questions where similar things were discussed.

Could you dig that one up? Genuinely interested.

@Hackworth Couldn't find it... I do remember a question about the word "another" used in this way. A simpler example: You have
Ivy Lane Denizen and Darkest Hour, making the Denizen black. You should still get the triggered ability whenever a green creature enters the battlefield, even though "another green creature" no longer makes sense.

Let's move it to chat

It may be worth noting that new players can be confused as untapped creatures may be untapped, so they may assume that tapped creatures can also be tapped.

Also, now that I think of it, you and other players may tap creatures (of you) that are tapped. You just cannot pay their tappings as a cost for spells and abilities.
See? There is so much people can be confused about.

@SimonKlaver That is not correct. 701.20b: "Only tapped permanents can be untapped.".

@SimonKlaver No, that's not correct. 701.20a as quoted in my answer says otherwise.

You are probably thinking of the fact that a tapped creature is a legal target for an ability that says "tap target creature". The target is legal, but upon resolving, the ability will fail to do anything, because it is impossible to tap the tapped creature.

@GendoIkari I seem to be really bad at this. As you said, it is a legal target, but does not actually get tapped as that is not a legal effect. After trying to find confusing scenarios the only one confused is me! Gaaah!

@SimonKlaver I believe that your confusion is the primary reason that the extra wording is added on Cryptbreaker; which the other answer goes into more detail about. So I don't think you're alone!

@Hackworth, Re "The wording "Roc or another creature" implies that Roc has to be a creature to trigger its ability.", No. "another creature" means "a creature other than this object". There's no implied check.

@SimonKlaver, Re "you and other players may tap creatures (of you) that are tapped", That's not true. For example, if a card said "Tap or untap target creature", you would be force to toggle its status because you can't tap/untap a creature that tapped/untapped. That's why most abilities say "You may tap or untap target creature" instead. Example

@ikegami Hackworth knows this, a back-and-forth in chat resulted in this question; which cleared it up.

@Gendolkari, Thanks, I missed that. ...Except I commented on an answer, so I guess just totally blanked it out.

If I had to guess, I would say that it has to do with the fact that yes, you can't tap a tapped permanent to pay a cost, but if a spell or ability has an effect that taps a permanent, you can target a permanent that is already tapped, depending on the wording of the spell or ability.
A rule (I don't know which one, I'm not in a place where I can look up the number) says:

If an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible.

For instance, Hands of Binding is a blue Sorcery that says:

Tap target creature an opponent controls. That creature doesn't untap during its controller's next untap step.
Cipher (Then you may exile this spell card encoded on a creature you control. Whenever that creature deals combat damage to a player, its controller may cast a copy of the encoded card without paying its mana cost.)

Notice: It does not say Tap target untapped creature an opponent controls.
Let's say that your opponent has two creatures, one of whom is tapped; you have one creature. You cast Hands of Binding on your opponent's untapped creature, then cipher it onto your creature. You attack and when it deals combat damage to the player, you get to recast Hands of Binding. You can target the other creature even though it was already tapped.
When you (re)cast Hands of Binding, the creature is a legal target, because the only requirement is that the target be a creature. When the spell resolves, the target is still valid (the spell checks for legality twice). So the effects start to happen.
The first one tries and fails to happen because, as has already been mentioned, you can't tap a tapped creature, so that effect fizzles.
HOWEVER
Then the second effect happens:

That creature doesn't untap during its controller's next untap step.

That effect can happen, so it does. Presto! You now have two creatures that your opponent controls that won't untap during that player's next untap step.
I think that it's specifically this type of interaction that leads to the "extra* text on Cryptbreaker and other cards like it. Technically it's redundant, but it alleviates the confusion for people that are familiar with this interaction.


text:
can you activate abilities during a resolving stack?
So for example: I have Krenko, Mob Boss with Thornbite Staff equipped. He is targeted with Doom Blade. In response I tap Krenko to make 1 Goblin token. I also have Goblin Bombardment to sacrifice the token. Can I sacrifice the token after it has been made to untap Krenko and make more tokens before Doom Blade resolves?

What level of play is this? Tournament or casual?

@Rainbolt The question used to have the mtg-commander tag so I assume casual. Though I don't see why it matters, the answer doesn't change at all regardless of level of play.

@diego The question involves priority. In some cases, priority is passed automatically at tournament level play, but not at casual level play. The answer remains the same, but my explanation changes drastically.

@Rainbolt The only time priority is assumed to be passed is when you add an object to the stack, which doesn't matter in this case since you never need to respond to anything other than the Doom Blade.

@Rainbolt Yeah, this is not relevant to level of play at all.

@Waterseas Let us continue this discussion in chat.

It sounds like you're trying to determine which of two possible models is the real one:

If all players pass priority in succession, then every spell/ability on the stack resolves, with no further opportunities to respond until it is empty. If this is the real model, then you can't sacrifice the goblin token to Goblin Bombardment before Doom Blade resolves.
If all players pass priority in succession, then only the top spell/ability on the stack resolves, and players may continue to respond to spells/abilities remaining on the stack. If this is the real model, then you can sacrifice the goblin token to Goblin Bombardment before Doom Blade resolves.

So which is the real model? It's the second one. Items on the stack resolve one at a time, rather than all at once.

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

and

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

With these in mind, the play-by-play goes like this. I'm assuming it's your opponent's turn, but this only matters for order of priority. The outcome would be the same otherwise.

It's your opponent's turn, so he is the active player. He casts Doom Blade targeting Krenko.

Stack: Doom Blade.

Your opponent passes priority to you. You activate Krenko's tap ability.

Stack: Doom Blade, Krenko.

You pass priority. Your opponent passes priority. The top spell/ability on the stack resolves. You receive one goblin token.

Stack: Doom Blade.

Your opponent passes priority. You activate Goblin Bombardment, sacrificing a goblin and choosing a target. Krenko's "untap me" ability triggers and goes on the stack.

Stack: Doom Blade, Goblin Bombardment, Krenko's untap ability.

You pass priority. Your opponent passes priority. The top spell/ability on the stack resolves. Krenko untaps.

Stack: Doom Blade, Goblin Bombardment.

Your opponent passes priority. You pass priority. The top spell/ability on the stack resolves. Goblin Bombardment deals one damage to whatever you targeted.

Stack: Doom Blade.

Your opponent passes priority to you.

At this point, you can pass priority, letting Doom Blade resolve and destroy Krenko. Or you can go back to step 2 and make another goblin token. In fact, you could repeat the loop as many times as you wish.
(This is all assuming that your opponent has no more plays to make after Doom Blade. He could play additional spells and abilities any time during this process where it says "Your opponent passes priority". For instance, if he plays a second Doom Blade on Krenko during step 3, then your infinite damage combo will be foiled)

When you say you can "repeat the loop as many times as you wish", it might be nice to state that you don't need to explicitly go through all 7 steps, you just state the number of times the loop occurs.

Good point. You can skip the laborious passing of priority and declaring actions etc by proposing a shortcut to your opponent: "I'll do everything I just did 100 more times". The formal description of this process can be found starting at 716.2a

Yes, that works. You can activate the enchantment ability as an instant, just like you activated Krenko Mob Boss's ability. Do note that your opponent does get an opportunity to respond as each of the individual effects on the stack resolves, though.


text:
Will spells that exile enchantments also exile enchantment artifacts?
Does a spell which says "exile target enchantment" such as Erase work on enchantment artifacts? I can not seem to find an answer for this, can you help?

This question is related to your question.

Yes, any card that can exile an enchantment can exile an enchantment artifact. This is because an enchantment artifact is both an enchantment as well as an artifact.

205.2b Some objects have more than one card type (for example, an artifact creature). Such objects satisfy the criteria for any effect that applies to any of their card types.

There's also this nugget of information buried in the Basic Rulebook, to help illustrate this relationship to new players.

Artifact creatures are both artifacts and creatures. [...]  An artifact creature can be affected by anything that affects artifacts, as well as anything that affects creatures.

Trivia: The quoted piece of information was present in the M14 Basic Rulebook, but you won't find it anywhere in the M15 Basic Rulebook.
Examples
Erase can exile Whip of Erebos, because Whip of Erebos is an enchantment, and Erase targets enchantments. Being an artifact does not make this any less true.
Dryad Arbor would be affected by Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth, because Dryad Arbor is a land.
Dryad Arbor would also be affected by Anger of the Gods, because Dryad Arbor is a creature.
A Darksteel Citadel enchanted with Ensoul Artifact with an Enchanted Evening in play would be would be affected by anything that affects enchantments, creatures, artifacts, or lands.

If that rule is not in the latest rules, then is there a rule somewhere that still explains the same thing? Such a rule would be necessary wouldn't it?

@Gendolkari It's still in the comprehensive rules. Wizards just decided to leave it out of the basic rulebook.


text:
Are there differences between the different country's editions of Cards Against Humanity?
Cards Against Humanity has different country editions, like UK, US, and AU.
Are there differences between these editions other than grammar? What are those differences?

Yes, I have both the US and the UK version. There are different cards in both editions. And there are cards with slightly different texts (for example Dear Abby in the US version and Dear Agony Aunt in the UK version).
And some names are different (Margaret Thatcher only appears in the UK version). The UK version also contains Scottish warriors lifting their kilts and pronouncing the names of Welsh towns.

Yes. Further to Toon Krijthe's answer, there are a number of cards that have been adjusted for cultural resonance, particularly with local stereotypes and common words..
The base games are freely available as PDFs to print an play (indeed, this is how the game gained popularity) on their website. You can compare the US edition, UK edition and Australian edition.
Below are the differences I've found, up to and including page 11. Probably some of these will show up later in the document in the other side, and some are just spelling changes, but they serve to illustrate the changes between the editions.
WARNING - ADULT LANGUAGE WITHIN:
Cards unique to the US edition:

 Women in yogurt commercials.
 Getting naked and watching Nickelodeon.
 A bleached asshole.
 Inserting a mason jar into my anus.
 Court-ordered rehab.
 Bingeing and purging.
 The hardworking Mexican.
 Boogers.
 The Tempur-Pedic® Swedish Sleep System™.
 Skeletor.
 Figgy pudding.
 Advice from a wise, old black man.
 Five-Dollar Footlongs™.
 Chunks of dead hitchhiker.
 A ball of earwax, semen, and toenail clippings.
 Dick Cheney.
 The Amish.
 The rhythms of Africa.
 Pedophiles.
 Sarah Palin.
 Feeding Rosie O'Donnell.
 Invading Poland.
 Jobs.
 The Boy Scouts of America.
 The Care Bear Stare.
 Mr. Clean, right behind you.
 Jewish fraternities.
 Hot Pockets®.
 Judge Judy.
 Robert Downey, Jr.
 The Trail of Tears.
 Friends with benefits.
 The invisible hand.
 All-you-can-eat shrimp for $4.99.
 Heteronormativity.
 The Patriarchy.
 A sausage festival.
 The chronic.
 Fiery poops.
 White-man scalps.
 The morbidly obese.
 GoGurt®.
 Joe Biden.
 Hip hop jewels.

Cards unique to the UK edition:

 Women in yoghurt adverts.
 Getting naked and watching CBeebies.
 A bleached arsehole.
 Used knickers.
 The bloody Welsh.
 A Super Soaker™ full of cat piss.
 Blowing up Parliament.
 A Chelsea smile.
 Waking up half-naked in a Little Chef car park.
 Badger culling.
 The sudden appearance of the Go Compare man.
 Seeing Granny Naked.
 Genuine human connection.
 A ginger's freckled ballsack.
 Some bloody peace and quiet.
 Wiping her bum.
 Doing a shit in Pudsey Bear's eyehole.
 England.
 Emma Watson.
 My ex-wife.
 A Fleshlight.
 Madeleine McCann.
 A sober Irishman who doesn't care for potatoes.
 The North.
 An entrenched class system.
 Rubbing Boris Johnson's belly until he falls asleep.
 The Hillsborough Disaster.
 Ripping off the Beatles.
 The end of days.
 Establishing dominance.
 Jedward.
 A madman who lives in a police box and kidnaps women.
 The Scouts.
 The unstoppable tide of Islam.
 Ed Balls.
 Saying "I love you."
 Millwall fans.
 Holding down a child and farting all over him.
 Penis breath.
 Chivalry.
 The cool, refreshing taste of Pepsi.®
 Daniel Radcliffe's delicious arsehole.
 Crumbs all over the bloody carpet.
 Not wearing trousers.


text:
Do the draw abilities of Kor Spiritdancer and Mesa Enchantress stack?
Suppose I have both Kor Spiritdancer and Mesa Enchantress under my control. They have two similar abilities:

Kor Spiritdancer: Whenever you cast an Aura spell, you may draw a card.

Mesa Enchantress: Whenever you cast an enchantment spell, you may draw a card.

If I now cast an Enchantment — Aura card, do I draw two cards or one?

If X says do A if Z and Y says do B if z, if Zz, do I do A and B?

Welcome to the site! Note that you can auto-link to MTG cards by using [mtg:cardname].

The possible duplicate I proposed has different cards, but it's basically the same situation: you have two creatures each with a triggered ability, and they both trigger.

Disagree on duplicate. The answer is the same, but the question is not, which is the definition of duplicate. Just because a question has the same answer as another because they both can be answered by the same rule does not make it a duplicate, because that's the point of rules: cover a lot of different situations under one rule.

@Hackworth The definition of duplicate is definitely not just identical questions.  We don't want to have a question for every single possible combination of cards that'd make two things trigger at once, for example, so it's reasonable to deduplicate some things like this. So maybe this particular case is too different to be duplicates, maybe not, but don't just think of it as questions having to be identical.

I agree with Hackworth's philosophy, but I also think these questions are duplicates. The root of both questions is "Do the triggered abilities of [arbitrary object or collection of objects] stack?"

There are no real exceptions for the question asked here, but for the general case I can think of at least one or two potential exceptions and with the number of possible card combinations available I imagine answering such a general question would be painful.

I would suggest such a question might be too broad.

@Isaac I'd love to hear about the potential exceptions where triggered abilities don't stack. Want to join the site's chat room and discuss?

@Jefromi I think the linked question is not a duplicate. That one is asking about identical ability-granting abilities giving creatures duplicate abilities. This one is asking about identical triggered abilities triggering.

@murgatroid99 Ugh, I guess I picked the wrong one. The right one is probably: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/15036/do-triggered-effects-stack (though it's quite possible we could do a much better job writing a more generic question and more clear answer now)

That one is a lot better

The thing I see with this question is that its not even two cards with the same trigger... one is specific to Auras and the other to Enchantments all together. When the Aura is played it would trigger the specific aura ability and then trigger the ability for being an Enchantment. It would be a duplicate if it was the same card that gave the same effect - as the question noted is "can two of said cards stack one ability trigger twice" not two different cards that trigger for different things... However it does match as a duplicate of "Do triggered abilities stack."

You can draw 2 cards. When you cast an Aura spell, then 2 separate triggered abilities will trigger. You choose the order in which to put them on the stack (the order doesn't matter in this case), and then you will have 2 separate instances of "you may draw a card" on the stack, which will resolve one at a time.

thanks a lot :) ... Same (draw 2 cards) with two spiritdancers or two Mesa's ...am i right?

@Roman Right.  2 separate sources with 2 separate triggered abilities that each go on the stack and each resolve separately.


text:
Does Void Winnower prevent casting spells for even alternative mana costs?
I was talking to a friend who said he played a game of Magic over the weekend. He said his opponent played a Void Winnower but it was okay because he was holding a Sheer Drop in hand.
When the Void Winnower attacked, he chump blocked in and then on his turn he cast Sheer drop which only has a CMC of 3, but he said he cast it for the Awaken cost which is 6 cmc
I thought by using the Awaken cost, the CMC would now be 6 and so Void Winnower's ability would prevent it? Is anyone able to give me a definitive answer?

Void Winnower: "Yes, your opponent can’t even. We know." Best ruling ever.

The only time the converted mana cost of a spell changes is if is has an {X} in the cost and the spell is currently being cast. So Sheer Drop will always have a CMC of 3 regardless of if the Awaken cost is paid, or if anything else changes the actual amount of mana paid.

202.3. The converted mana cost of an object is a number equal to the total amount of mana in its mana cost, regardless of color.
202.1. A card’s mana cost is indicated by mana symbols near the top of the card. (See rule 107.4.) On most cards, these symbols are printed in the upper right corner. Some cards from the Future Sight set have alternate frames in which the mana symbols appear to the left of the illustration.

You will not be able to cast a spell for its alternative cost if the CMC is even regardless of whether the alternative cost is uneven. You cannot evoke Æthersnipe with this monstrosity in play even if the evoke cost is uneven.
EDIT:
Sheer Drop has uneven CMC which makes it a legal play even when cast for a even alternative cost.
The winnower only ask what is the CMC of the card played? If it is even it cannot be played regardless whether it is cast normally or with any other alternate cost (even or uneven.).

My interpretation of the question was "Can I cast a spell for its alternative cost if the alternative cost is even but the regular cost is odd?" I don't think you answered that, so you might consider expanding your answer. The information you have so far is good.


text:
How can I improve my Chandra, Acolyte of Flame plus Cavalcade of Calamity deck?
Currently I have a mono-red deck built around the synergy of Chandra, Acolyte of Flame and Cavalcade of Calamity. I'd like to improve the deck but I don't have the deck building chops. Most of the good ideas in the deck were stolen from other versions of the deck that beat me up. The current deck list is:

4 Scorch Spitter
2 Shock
4 Cavalcade of Calamity
2 Chandra's Pyrohelix
1 Chandra's Regulator
1 Scorching Dragonfire
4 Chandra, Acolyte of Flame
4 Chandra's Spitfire
1 Leyline of Combustion
4 Scampering Scorcher
4 Torbran, Thane of Red Fell
2 Chandra's Flame Wave
1 Chandra, Awakened Inferno
1 Chandra, Flame's Fury
1 Embercleave
4 Dwarven Mine
20 Mountain

The break-out's shown in MTG Arena are:

Some things I've considered include:

Replacing Chandra, Awakened Inferno and/or Chandra, Flame's Fury with Jaya, Venerated Firemage. The logic being she'd be quicker to get out and be a low level Torbran replacement and/or buff. My concern is I don't see her being ran on Arena. Plus I like the board clearing ability of Chandra, Awakened Inferno and Chandra's Flame Wave. I'm hesitant to keep Chandra's Flame Wave while dropping Chandra, Flame's Fury because I feel like I'm losing value.
Replacing Scampering Scorcher with a goblin alternative like Legion Warboss, Krenko, Tin Street Kingpin, or Goblin Gathering. I like that these other options are cheaper but they are vulnerable to Chandra, Awakened Inferno's board wipe since they aren't elementals. On the other hand that can be a benefit when someone declares a protection from a type....
Replacing Leyline of Combustion with something else. Most times it is kind of a dead draw unless I can put it out for free in my opening hand.
Trying to work in some Grim Initiates but I don't know what I'd drop to include them.
Adding Runaway Steam-Kin to the deck, but once again I don't know what I'd drop to include it. Maybe Leyline of Combustion??

How do you think I could improve the deck? The best answers will include details as to why they're making the suggestions they're making so I can improve my deck building skills.

In order to get a good answer, you need to state the problem you're trying to solve. "Improving the deck" doesn't count because it's too broad. Are you having trouble in specific matchups? Which? Do you play BO1 or BO3 with this deck? If BO3, what does your sideboard look like?

@Hackworth I had to look up BO1/3. I mostly play best of one. I don't know the terms to describe the decks that beat me but I have trouble with control (I think that's the term) and 3 Mana Oko decks. I don't have a sideboard except for a redcap something that's 4 damage for 1 Mana against red targets. Mostly I feel like I do okay but I could win more matches if my deck was put together better since I get into places where I'm stuck and can't do anything to prevent my upcoming demise 3 to 4 turns in the future. Hope that helps. Sorry I don't have better info for you.

I play the Cavalty/Torbran deck and had a lot of wins with it. The problem in my opinion with your deck is inconsistency. A lot of 1 or 2 offs of cards wont help you with consistency. In my eyes you should make your deck faster (more aggro) as a red deck should be.
I would lose the Chandra's Pyrohelix, Chandra's Regulator, Scorching Dragonfire, Leyline of Combustion, Chandra's Flame Wave, Embercleave and the Dwarven Mines.
As mentioned before 1 Leyline and/or regulator isnt going to do anything, and run more of it makes your deck to slow. The burn spells are outclassed by the simple Shock,(so i would run 4 of those) and skewer the critics. (3-4 as see fit)
Embercleave and dwarven mines are buffing your 1 power creatures and that is something you dont want in the Cavalty of Camality deck.
Chandra, Flame's Fury and Chandra, Awakened Inferno I am not a fan of in this deck (to slow/high on your mana curve.) But can be included if really wanted as finishers.
There is al lot of room now to add things to the deck. So after adding the staple burn spells (shock and skewer) I would add a lot of good 1 power creatures, or something that makes them. As you mentioned, Legion Warboss and Krenko, Street Kingpin are a perfect fit in my eyes. 4x Legion Warboss and 2/3 Krenkos will do. They create a lot of 1/1 goblins which even if only attacking will do dmg thanks to cavalty. Also Fervent Champion is nice to have 4 of. Haste and first strike on a 1/1 1 mana creature screams aggro. I myself do like to add Tin Street Dodger as an evasive 1/1 creature with haste, but this one is up to debate.
Last, while playing Red aggro, you will run in the fact that you run out of steam. To counter this we need carddraw. In mono Red this comes down too: Light up the Stage, Experimental Frenzy and/or Chandra, Fire Artisan. I always include Light up the Stage (3-4 copies) and 2 of Experimental or Chandra.
So you should end up with a wave of 1/1 creatures (with haste) that already do damage on attacking through Cavalty of Camality, Burn spells and all this damage will be buffed by Torbran. And in the later turns you are prepared with some effective card draw.
Just my 2 cents.
(edit) I confused the dwarven mine with the red castle. This makes it even worse in my opinion. Dwarven mine is to slow, you cant have that you play dwarven mine the first 3 turns

Thanks for the feedback this is helpful. I'm going to look at it in more depth tonight.

I also play cavalcade, and I note that you don't have Lava Coil or Heartfire for removal, a playset of at least one of those (or Skewer) are necessary adds. Other than that, Light up the stage, shock, tin street dodger, torch courier are all good options. Cut pyrohelix, regulator, dragonfire, leyline, flame wave, embercleave, awakened inferno, and flame's fury. Cut the 4 dwarven mines and add 3 or 2 castle embereth, you don't need 24 lands in this deck. Maybe 22, 19 mountains and 3 embereths?


text:
Can I untap an attacking creature and avoid exchanging combat damage?
Can I untap an opponent's attacking creature with Kiora's Follower's ability, and avoid the combat damage that I would be dealt by that creature in the combat phase?

No.

506.4b Tapping or untapping a creature that’s already been declared as an attacker or blocker doesn’t remove it from combat and doesn’t prevent its combat damage.

You need something that specifically removes it from combat, like Maze of Ith. Actually causing it to leave the battlefield will also stop its attack, even if it comes back right away.


text:
Does Forbidden Words affect the character or player or both?
In mansions of madness 2nd edition, there is an insanity card called 'Forbidden Words'.  The text specifies "You cannot speak.  You win or lose the game as normal."  There was some confusion as to if 'you' meant the player or the character.  That is, must the player stop talking or can the character no longer interact with person tokens on the map? Or is it both?

My take was that the physical player is not allowed to speak anymore, as else I think there would be specific instructions like you cannot use spells anymore. I think the goal is to create a more interesting interaction by forcing the player to communicate with gestures/pointing on the board.

This is how we've been playing it as well.  Lacking any other information, this will have to be the correct answer.  I really dislike this card though, as within a group, once the card has happened once, everyone knows how it works, and removes some of the fun "what kind of insane is that player" questions.

@Tal my group had run into that problem, but it evolved once they realized they could fake having the "Forbidden Words", to run around freely acting on their actual Insanity card. So now we keep asking our selves if some one is actually mute or not.


text:
When you use 'Rebound' does the card go to the graveyard?
Someone suggested I read the basic guide of mtg because I'm new to the game, so I was reading it and on page 7 (Game Zones) where it talks about Exile it says:

If a spell or ability exiles a card, that card is put in a game area that's set apart from the rest of the game. The card will remain there forever, unless whatever put it there is able to bring it back. Exiled cards are normally face up. This zone is shared by both players.

So if you played a card like Staggershock and next turn you use rebound, spell happens, does it remain in exile or go to the graveyard?
(Also, not a question but a side note, all players share the same exile? Thats interesting I didn't know that till just now.)

If you really want to know more about your side note (a single exile zone) you should probably ask a separate question.

@Jefromi I wasn't trying to ask a question about the single exile I was just saying it was something sorta interesting on the same part of the rules I was reading, sorry.

Re "All players share the same exile?", There's only one Battlefield, Stack and Exile zone. Each player has a Library, Hand, Graveyard and Commander zone.

@ikegami I guess I did say it as a question, I guess in my head is was like when someone tells you something and you say 'Really? That's interesting', sorry for the confusion I'll try not to do it in future questions, thanks for you're help everyone!

does it remain in exile or go to the graveyard?

Neither. It's moved to the stack when you cast it. From there, it will go to the graveyard on resolution (or upon being countered) as normal.

If you exercise the option to Rebound a previously-exiled Staggershock, you cast Staggershock. The first step of casting a spell is to move the card from the zone in which it's located (usually your hand, but exile in this case) to the stack.

601.2a The player announces that he or she is casting the spell. That card (or that copy of a card) moves from where it is to the stack. [...]

At that point, it leaves exile. This is that to which "unless whatever put it there is able to bring it back" refers.
When the spell resolves, it will then go from the stack to the graveyard as normal since it was cast from exile rather than your hand.

702.87a Rebound appears on some instants and sorceries. It represents a static ability that functions while the spell is on the stack and may create a delayed triggered ability. “Rebound” means “If this spell was cast from your hand, instead of putting it into your graveyard as it resolves, exile it and, at the beginning of your next upkeep, you may cast this card from exile without paying its mana cost.”
608.2k As the final part of an instant or sorcery spell’s resolution, the spell is put into its owner’s graveyard. [...]

When you cast the spell a second time off rebound (from exile), it ends up in your graveyard. This is actually one of the Gatherer rulings on Staggershock:

If you cast a card from exile this way, it will go to your graveyard when it resolves or is countered. It won't go back to exile.

If you have a closer look at the reminder text (emphasis added):

Rebound (If you cast this spell from your hand, exile it as it resolves. At the beginning of your next upkeep, you may cast this card from exile without paying its mana cost.)

You only exile it as it resolves when you cast it from your hand. Any other time, like when you're casting it the second time (from exile) you follow the normal process for casting a spell, including putting it into your graveyard as it resolves.
Reminder text isn't actually the full binding rules, but it's generally accurate and in this case it's only very slightly different from the full rules:

If this spell was cast from your hand, instead of putting it into your graveyard as it resolves, exile it and, at the beginning of your next upkeep, you may cast this card from exile without paying its mana cost.


text:
What happens with trample when a boost is cast during damage assignment?
So imagine this:

My 5/5 with trample attacks.
It's blocked by a 1/1 and a 2/2.
I assign damage as 1 to the 1/1, 2 to the 2/2, and 2 to the player.
And then they play a card to boost their 1/1, making it a 5/5.

What happens?

They cannot boost after you have assigned your damage. The last chance that players have to activate abilities and cast instants is in the declare blockers step, after all blockers have been assigned. They could cast a boost at that point, but you would already know the actual toughness when assigning damage, and you would have to assign lethal damage to the first creature before moving on to the second.
Note that prior to the 10th edition, released in 2006, damage DID use the stack, so after damage went on the stack, there would be a chance to respond before it resolved.


text:
Is it common in Munchkin to allow characters to reach higher than level 9
I only recently learned that you're not allowed to go above level 9, unless it's from combat (or some special cards).
I had played for years allowing higher levels, except you didn't win until you killed a monster.
Is this a common house rule? Or something similar?

It probably is a common mistake, although it seems pretty clear to me from the rules, page 1 under Starting and Finishing the Game

The first player to reach 10th level wins ... but you must reach 10th level by killing a monster, unless a card specifically allows you to win another way.

Some amount of people must make the same mistake since it is the first rule included in their FAQ.

Important Note #1: Reaching Level 10
The general rule is that you may not reach Level 10 except by killing a monster. If you are at Level 9 and something else happens that would normally let you go up a level . . . you don't. You stay at Level 9. If you have a card or an ability that lets you mess with another player and get a level in return, you cannot play that card or use that ability.

This is all under the assumption that you aren't playing Epic Munchkin, where the rule wouldn't apply. (But, a similar 19th & 20th level rule would apply instead)

Basically, if you want to play further, that's completely up to you. You can play to any level, just make sure to respect the "Winning Level" rule.
So if you're playing to level 25 or 30, you can keep going, however, you cannot go from 24 to 25 or 29 to 30 by purchasing a level, or using a go up a level-type card.
This does not apply to cards that specifically allow you to gain the winning level.
For example: The Divine Intervention card makes all clerics to go up a level, even to the winning level.

Not true in point 2. Consult this thread: http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?p=1192286

It is not a common house rule and it does affect the balance of the game (such as there is a thing of balance in the game. By limiting you to 9 the game gives you a base level chance of defeating a monster. If you start allowing higher levels it makes you unfairly strong enough to defeat the terminal monster.
If Alice is at level 19 and Bob is at level 9 and they both need to defeat one monster to win. Alice is at an unfair advantage. If however both need to get to level 19 before the terminal kill  then it's more fair. Munchkin is a fairly unbalanced game already but this particular home rule doesn't help. In the first scenario it's much easier for Bob to lose his next monster and fall back to level 8 whereas Alice loses her next monster and falls to 18 and still has only to fight a single other monster for victory whereas Bob needs to defeat two monsters.
You can set the victory level to whatever number you see fit as a house rule but allowing people to use, for instance, level up cards, or sell items beyond that victory point will unbalance a game that's precious already.


text:
Is there any "simultaneous-turn" based game where all players play till the end of the game?
I use to play diplomacy with my work mates, the good thing of this game is that we can play with long turns (36 hours) so anyone can play whenever they can, and the turn is resolved when the time passes or when everybody has declared their movements. We use http://webdiplomacy.net/ to manage the movements.
The bad thing of diplomacy is that the usual thing is that around mid-game some players are destroyed and they stop playing, having to wait till the end of the game (what can mean even weeks) to start playing again in a new game. Playing more than one game in parallel is not an option, we tried that and is a bit crazy, and requires much more time every day.
Do you know any game with similar turn-based rules but where the players can keep playing along the whole game?
UPDATE: After some discussion, more explicit requirements:

All turns are played asynchronously (each player can choose all
their actions for the turn at any time).
All actions of each turn are played simultaneously.
All players can play along the whole game (no player elimination).

Nice to have:

During the turn time some type of negotiation is encouraged between players.
Web version.
Game for more than 4 players.

As an example, Diplomacy would fit with all requirements except the third one, and also with the nices to have.

Republic of Rome?

Does the game need to be able to be played asynchronously? As an example, would 7 wonders (a card drafting game) satisfy your requirements?

Good one, I know 7 wonders but I'd have never though on it for that, maybe we give a try, but I wonder if it can be fun with long turns. Thanks!

I will also take a look to Republic of Rome, I've never played it.

We really should have closed this question. Game Recommendations are not good fits for the Q&A format. Chat would be a better place.

Well, it's not so a "What's the best game for...?" question that uses to be answered with lists of subjective answers, the requirements are quite specific now. But it's fine to close it if you think it should have never existed here :)

I have heard good things about the games here. http://triton.ironhelmet.com/#landing They are real time so I think they meet your criteria. However I have never played them myself so I cannot be certain. Also a downside is that it seems to host private games you have to pay for a membership (which is why I have not tried them yet).

Yes, A Game of Thrones is such a game. While a complete elimination is possible, the game plays in 10 rounds, and it is very difficult to achieve a complete elimination.
Many people say the game plays similarly to Diplomacy.

To begin the game, each player receives an army of Footman, Knight, Siege Engine, and Ship units, as well as a set of Order tokens and other necessary components. Each player also receives a deck of unique House Cards, which are used as leaders in battles against rival Houses.
Each round in the game is made up of three phases: the Westeros Phase, the Planning Phase, and the Action Phase. The Westeros Phase represents special events and day-to-day activities in Westeros. There are three different Westeros Decks, and each denotes a different global action, potentially affecting all players.
The Planning Phase is perhaps the most important. Here you secretly assign orders to all of your units by placing one order token face down on each area you control that contains at least one unit (Knight, Footman, Ship, or Siege Engine). This portion of the game emphasizes diplomacy and deduction. Can you trust the alliance that you made? Will you betray your ally and march upon him? Players may make promises to each other (for aid or peace, for example), but these promises are never binding. The result is tense and compelling negotiations, often ending in backstabbing worthy of Westeros!
During the Action Phase, the orders are resolved and battle is entered! When armies meet in combat, they secretly choose one of their House cards to add strength to the battle. Finally, the Houses can consolidate their power in the areas they control and use that power in future turns to influence their position in the court of the Iron Throne and to stand against the wildling Hordes.

I know this game, and I really like it, I appreciate all the things it has in common with Diplomacy. But I think it doesn't fit so well with how we play diplomacy. In Game of Thrones you cannot declare your whole turn at once, and as in diplomacy, a player can be eliminated some time before the end of the game, that is one of the main things we'd like to avoid.

Race for the Galaxy might fit the bill, though the game is so different from Diplomacy that it may not be what you have in mind.
Players simultaneously secretly choose (then reveal) the phases for a given turn. Each player simultaneously plays out each phase of that turn. Players cannot be eliminated from the game, but it is possible to fall so far behind that winning becomes pretty much impossible. However, playing a game takes around 30 minutes so being far behind in the last few minutes of a game isn't that big a deal.

The worst feature of this game is getting started. The iconography is dense and cumbersome. So most people (including me) feel totally lost first few games. Play at least 10 games before you decide whether or not you like this game. You won't after game 1.

@JaimeSoriano I'm not sure this is a good fit. The possible phases for each turn happen in a specific sequence (explore, develop, settle, consume, produce), everyone does every phase that anyone has picked, and what others choose each time is potentially relevant, so if you're playing asynchronously, you'll be chopping into pretty small bits with a lot of synchronization points.

Yes - this would be a poor game to play asynchronously, especially considering that it's a fast game. I think you'll get better answers to your question if you explicitly list the requirements in bullet points - I just reread the question and see how I didn't pick up that asynchronous was a requirement.

I have updated the question with more explicit requirements, thanks for all the contributons!


text:
Brass: Are shipyards "industries"?
At the end of the canal phase all 'level 1 industry' tiles are removed.  Does this include level 1 shipyards?
If so - then why does the level 1 shipyard tile not have a canal marker on it, like all the other canal-phase-only tiles?
(EDIT for future clarity: The canal symbol is missing on first edition copies of the game. Thanks to Xi Huan for this info.)
I know that level 0 shipyards need to be developed before any can be built, and that level-2 shipyards can only be built during the railway phase.  Level-1 shipyards seem to fall into an ambiguous hole.  Only one can ever actually be built, the Liverpool one, because of the coal connectivity requirements.  This half suggests it could stay there when the railway phase is started.

It's just a mistake that the canal symbol is missing. If you look at the second edition rule book, you see the canal symbol on a level 1 shipyard:

The rules also say

If you have just completed the Canal Period then remove all canal
  and Tech level 1 Industry counters, along with any cubes on them,
  from the map.

No mention of the canal/rail road symbols. They a just reminders.
Since level 1 shipyards are also tech level 1 industries (they look and behave like the other industries and the shipyard counters are listed in the rules as industries counters), they are removed as well when the canal period is completed.
So the short answer is: yes.

That's perfect, thanks.  My copy is first edition and we were wondering whether to draw a canal symbol on the tile. It was clear Level 1 industries needed to be removed, but not clear that shipyards were industries within the definition of the game.


text:
Do the 'Charizard EX' sets automatically come with a Mega Charizard EX card?
My nine-year-old has asked for a 'Mega Charizard EX set' of Pokémon cards. I googled that. I found the individual Mega Charizard EX card for $20-$25 and I found the Charizard EX set of Pokémon cards. He battles other kids with the cards, of course.
Do the Charizard EX sets automatically come with a Mega Charizard EX? Or do I have to buy the individual card to be sure he'll get THAT particular card?
I want to get it for him for Christmas. It would be a bummer to get the set and not find that card in it on Christmas morning, right? Or am I wrong? Of course, I'd rather not pay so much for a single card...

The OP's account is already a deleted user after 8 hours?  What did we do?!

@Nelson I don't think the OP's account is deleted, it is still active on Arqade. Given that it was a migrated question, the OP probably just hasn't join this community yet. I see this a lot when questions are migrated

@Wondercricket that's got to be confusing for people just joining the site for the first time

@LateralTerminal - It's why I wish SE treated accounts as 'network-wide' instead of having to 'join and link' individual site accounts. But that's a whole other mess for another time :)

I'll attempt to give you the best help I can with the information you've provided.
This might be a bit confusing to someone who knows nothing about the card game. If you can in the comments or your question, define what you mean when you say "set" and what your child means when they say "set". I suspect you are using "set" to mean a product that includes a "set of cards", and your child is using "set" to either mean a set of one card (2-4 of the same card for use in a deck) or a "set" as in "a set of both".
"Set" can mean one of several things. "Set" could mean he wants a set of both; it could mean he wants a "playset" - a term used in competitive Pokemon indicating having several of one card to use in a deck (generally 2 - 4).
First off, there are two types of "Mega Charizard". One is "Mega Charizard X", which is black and blue. The other is "Mega Charizard Y", which is orange.

Mega Charizard X
(There are two printings of this card. One is from the booster pack series Flashfire; the other is from the booster pack series Generations).

Mega Charizard Y
(This one is from the booster pack series XY Evolutions).

It would be useful, if you can, to provide links to the "sets" of product you've found for M Charizard EX. Are these boxes with a single card and packs? Tins? Single cards? The Pokemon TCG includes a lot of product including sealed packs of cards, boxes with certain cards, tins, etc.
When you use "the Charizard EX set of Pokémon cards" I'm assuming you mean a product that includes Charizard EX, which is probably this box:

If that is the case: No, this does not come with either M Charizard EX card. This sealed product comes with four booster packs as shown (which contain random cards, of which M Charizard or any other EX card is fairly rare), a single Charizard EX card, and an oversized version of the card.
Alternatively, you could have found these products on Amazon:

If that is the case: No, this ALSO does not come with either M Charizard EX card! This sealed product comes with four booster packs as shown (which contain random cards, of which M Charizard or any other EX card is fairly rare), a single Charizard card (much less valuable than an EX) and a small statue. Also looks like your selection is random!
This also shows up on Amazon!

Unsurprisingly... this also will not give you either M Charizard EX card. Similar to the first box, you'll get four packs, a single Charizard EX, and a jumbo card.
Regardless of what version your child wants, the only reliable, 100% way to obtain either M Charizard EX card is to buy the single card.
It doesn't look like these were available in any promotional boxes. Buying packs to try and get one is a terrible idea - the odds of getting even a single EX rarity card, of which there are very many, is about 1/6 of these booster packs which retail for around $3-4 each.

Great first answer!
Welcome aboard.

@ToonKrijthe Thanks! I flew over from Arqade after seeing this migrated - I play the TCG and I can understand how confusing this can be to a parent. Just hope she moves her account over here and can figure out what her child wants!

Thank You!!!! You have probably saved me a ton of grief. The funny part is that I'll bet my son is more excited about the prospect of "maybe" getting that particular card, but getting a lot of new cards at the very least, than he is about that specific card. I hope.    He's smart enough to understand "odds" and I'm thinking he'd rather have a huge set of different new cards than to have one Mega EX card of a specific type. The sets and the individual Mega EX are about the same price from what I've seen.   And the X and Y is definitely what was tripping me up.  Thank you! Merry Christmas!

@mom So glad you found this question over here! I was worried that it got lost in the migration. The rare cards can always be a bit of a doozy to get. I'm happy to help - if you want to mark this as the answer to your question, there should be a check mark you can click near my answer to mark it as the answer. Good luck with your son!

This is going to be a great opportunity to understand probability. Most kids have a hard time in high school because they have never dealt with it in real life.


text:
Does Portal count as a Spell Die?
The Assistant is a Basic Card, but it explicitly counts as a Creature Die at the same time. The Portal card belongs to the Basic Cards as well, but its faces are akin to those of spells: there are no faces that show creatures, rather it has one face that provides Quiddity and the portal immediate effect on the other five faces similar to  e.g. the Growth spell cards.
When the Strong Devotee of the Holy Query with burst scores, it permits you to capture one Spell Die that costs up to four Quiddity. Discriminating Incantation allows you to capture a Spell Die from the Wilds for free when you cast it. Does the Portal count as a Spell Die in this vein?

No, Portal dice can yield either Quiddity or an immediate effect, but it has no "spell" sides (spells are kept and used later rather than when rolled; see phase 3 in the rules), so there's nothing to indicate that it's a spell die. Portals are just basic resource dice; neither creature nor spell.

Thank you. Your explanation what exactly makes a spell die was exactly what I was missing.


text:
Which Game of Thrones LCG house/expansions best reflect a play style similar to 'blue' decks in MTG?
I've recently committed to buying the Game of Thrones Living Card Game from Fantasy Flight so I can play with a number of friends who also have it.
At this stage, I know will be buying the Core set, but am a bit overwhelmed at all the available expansions and chapter packs. To be competitive amongst my friends (not tournaments), I know I need to get additional cards beyond those in the core set.
I really enjoyed playing 'blue' decks in Magic due to their control of the field and 'tricks' up their sleeve by being able to cancel or negate the effects of my opponents.  I really dislike rush/monster heavy decks as well.
So, my question is, which Game of Thrones LCG house/expansions best reflect a play style similar to 'blue' decks in MTG as described above?

I will reword the question so it is not a recommendation

The Lannisters. As for expansions, I'm uncertain.

So I've been playing the game now for almost a year. Have gotten to the finals in a store championship and won some private tournaments amongst my meta (about 6-8 players) :)
To answer my own question,  it would be the lannisters due to the sheer amount of kneeling effects that they have. Martell would be a close second in terms of annoying events and the general 'negative play experience' it gives to your opponents via icon stripping and challenge denial


text:
Why do cards like Isochron Scepter have more than one "may" clause?
Isochron Scepter reads, in part,

You may copy the exiled card. If you do, you may cast the copy without paying its mana cost.

There are a number of other cards that give you the option of copying a card, and then give you the option of casting that copy.

Spellbinder
Spellweaver Helix
Panoptic Mirror
Reversal of Fortune (noteworthy for being the only one that doesn't have Imprint)

Effectively, each of these cards offers three options:

Don't copy the card.
Copy the card, but don't cast the copy.
Copy the card and cast the copy.

Why would I ever choose option 2? Is there ever a situation where choosing option 2 results in a different game state than if I had chosen option 1?
My perception is that WoTC usually tries very hard to avoid redundancy in card text, so I'm curious why they would choose a wording like this over something like,

You may copy the exiled card and cast the copy without paying its mana cost.

Edit: and in fact now that I look at the images of the original Mirrodin block printings, the cards did originally have only one instance of "may" in the instructions for casting the copy. So by issuing this errata, WoTC very deliberately wants there to be two opportunities to make a choice. But why?

Not an answer, but you can think about the timing of when these choices are made. ie: you tap scepter to put ability on stack, opp responds with something, when scepter ability resolves you decide you don't actually want to cast the thing after all.

I agree that there are times when you would prefer not to copy the card and cast the copy. For instance, you might not want to cast an imprinted Doom Blade if your opponent sacrifices his only creature in response to your activation. But in that case, you can simply choose option #1 and never copy Doom Blade to begin with.

Interesting that Spellbinder as printed (as opposed to Oracle wording), does not have the second "may". So it was given errata for that at some point.

Well spotted. Googling "Spellbinder errata", I see https://www.wizards.com/dci/judge/resources/mtg_rtr_0502.doc, which says "The text has been clarified to indicate that each action is an optional choice. [...] There is no functional change in the way these cards are played". So this confirms that WoTC definitely wants there to be separate optional choices, but it doesn't give much indication of why that is important.

The only indication I can see is "if the spell can't be legally played", which was already on my mind before I saw that. As worded now; if the spell can't be legally played, then you aren't allowed to choose to play it after copying it due to the "can't make illegal choice" rule. Under the old wording, if the spell can't be legally played, you could choose to copy it, but if you did it would fail to do be cast as part of "does as much as possible". So a different rule ends up being applied (to the same ultimate effect).

Actually that might be wrong... reading the Oracle update doc again, it sounds like you could always make 2 separate choices; though the original wording wasn't clear that you could.

@Malco Your opponent can't respond in the middle of an ability. You make the two choices back to back, when the ability resolves. The only things I know of that could interfere with this process is a replacement effect or quitting the game.

@Rainbolt ah, ya I know that an opponent can't take actions mid-resolution, seems like I blanked on the first "may" in Iso Scepters description. :/

You may copy the exiled card and cast the copy without paying its mana cost.

That wording is ambiguous[1]. Fixed:

You may copy the exiled card. If you do, cast the copy without paying its mana cost.

This is bad. Casting the copy might become illegal during casting.
In that case, one would have to roll back the casting and choose to do something else instead. But because casting the copy is mandatory, and because casting a spell that becomes illegal to cast is not illegal itself, that's not possible. The game would enter into an undefined state, at least in theory. Making the casting optional avoids this issue.

But what about

Copy the exiled card. You may cast the copy without paying its mana cost.

While that would be equivalent given the cards that current exist[2], I think people would find that weirder and/or more confusing than two "may".

See Hackworth's answer for details.
See Hackworth's answer for details.

If casting were illegal, wouldn’t it just fall under “if an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does as much as possible”?

Now this is an interesting idea. But what's stopping the game from rewinding even farther back, to the "you may copy..." choice? 721.1 discusses reversing illegal actions. What constitutes an "action"? Since it's not in the glossary, one might be expected to use whatever plain English definition that makes the most sense in context. I'd be inclined to use the definition that doesn't lead to an undefined game state.

@Kevin What stops the game from rewinding even further back? "601.2 [...] If, at any point during the casting of a spell, a player is unable to comply with any of the steps listed below, the casting of the spell is illegal; the game returns to the moment before the casting of that spell was proposed [...]."

@GendoIkari, Casting a spell that will become illegal to cast is not illegal, so doing as much as possible requires that you cast the spell. That's why casting spells can be rolled back, and that's why "may" is used.

@ikegami If that were the case, then 601.2 would allow you to choose to cast it again and again, even though you now know that it will be illegal. I think the wording of "the casting of the spell is illegal" implies that you cannot try to cast it again (and similarly you would ignore instructions telling you to cast it, as it's an impossible action).

@GendoIkari, The rules indeed allow you to do that. And you can't necessarily know that it will become illegal again.

Can you clarify? Are you saying that it is within the rules to, for example, start to cast a Shock even if you cannot produce any red mana? And then the game will simply unwind, and you can attempt to cast Shock again? Of course, tournament slow-play rules would prevent this; but do the regular comprehensive rules allow it?

@Gendolkari, Nothing stops you. There's a good question related to this which I'll dig up for you once my cat gets off of me so I can use my computer.

If that part is right, then this seems like this would be the answer. An example might help to clarify though.

@Gendolkari, The aforementioned question is about something slightly different. It covers willful non-production of mana once you've discovered you wanted to cast a different spell. Either way, adding "may" avoids all of that. Yeah, I'll elaborate a bit

Warning: Clicking on the first link will download a .doc file.

From A Summary of Recent Rulings published by the Magic Rules Team in February 2005:

ERRATA -- ORACLE WORDING CHANGES

Isochron Scepter and Similar Cards

The Mirrodin(R) block contains a group of cards that create copies of cards and allow a player to play those copies.  The creation of the copy and then the playing of the copy are both optional.  The text has been clarified to indicate that each action is an optional choice.  If the spell can't be legally played, choosing not to use either option is acceptable.  There is no functional change in the way these cards are played.  The new Oracle text for the cards is as follows:
[...]

As spelled out here, the errata was not a functional change, which means that despite how the printed text may be interpreted today, each action has always been optional.

Why would I ever choose option 2? Is there ever a situation where choosing option 2 results in a different game state than if I had chosen option 1?

At the time this answer was written, option 1 and option 2 are identical. However, if a card were printed tomorrow with the text...

Whenever you copy a card, you gain 1 life.

... then suddenly the two options would be different.

Regarding your hypothetical at the end, the cards in question do not actually copy spells; they copy cards, then cast the copies.

In practice, there is no difference between not copying the card and not playing the copy, because there are no cards or interactions that care about either. In theory, "game state" is an official, yet ill-defined term and at the moment, there is no correct rules-based answer whether or not the different options could have different effects on the game state.
A copy of a card is created in the same zone the original is in:

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

If you choose to copy a card but don't cast it, it ceases to exist as a state-based action the next time a player would get priority:

704.5e If a copy of a spell is in a zone other than the stack, it ceases to exist. If a copy of a card is in any zone other than the stack or the battlefield, it ceases to exist.

Since to my knowledge there are no effects that care about a copy of a card, or any object for that matter, ceasing to exist, there is no practical difference between not copying a card and not casting the copy.
As for effects on game state: The term is used loosely in the CR. It is used 16 times throughout the current rules, but is never clearly defined - it doesn't even have an entry in the glossary, even though state-based triggers depend on it:

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.  [..]

The shortcut rules come closest to defining game state as "anything that happens in the game that some ability or effect might care about", which isn't all too helpful, because the definition is essentially circular: the game state determines what the game state is.

720.3. Sometimes a loop can be fragmented, meaning that each player involved in the loop performs an independent action that results in the same game state being reached multiple times. [..]
Example: In a two-player game, the active player controls a creature with the ability “{0}: [This creature] gains flying,” the nonactive player controls a permanent with the ability “{0}: Target creature loses flying,” and nothing in the game cares how many times an ability has been activated. Say the active player activates his creature’s ability, it resolves, then the nonactive player activates her permanent’s ability targeting that creature, and it resolves. This returns the game to a game state it was at before. [..]

In the loop example, activating the two abilities once each is game state neutral. However, if something else was in the game that cared about the activations, the activations would not be neutral. Especially in a game with hidden information, having an ill-defined game state is unfortunate, to say the least.
The point is, going by the example of 720.3, creating a copy of a card and not casting it is the same as not creating a copy of a card, because nothing cares about either of the two options. But there is no rules reference to say for sure either way.
As for your wording: I do not find it equivalent to the current wording. I take it you mean to say that

You may (copy the exiled card and cast the copy without paying its mana cost.)

However, a player could also understand

(You may copy the exiled card) and (cast the copy without paying its mana cost.)

There is potential for confusion, since a player could rightly ask how to cast the copy if I declined to create it? The current wording leaves no room for interpretation and reduces player confusion, which is good design outside of the mechanical details.
As for rules interactions, combining the two instructions of copying and playing the card is equivalent to the current wording of two separate decisions. However, if anything in the future ever cared about copying cards and/or letting them cease to exist by not casting them, all cards with your proposed wording would require errata, or rather, could have unintended interactions such as being required to cast a spell just in order to get a copy first, if all you want is a copy.

I agree that there is potential for confusion with my proposed wording (and by extension, the wording as it appears on the card). But if WoTC were only interested in clarifying that the casting is dependent on the copying, I might expect the errata to be "You may copy the exiled card. If you do, cast the copy without paying its mana cost." I also agree that there could one day be a card that cares about copies of cards. But this seems like an unusually narrow design space to worry about when choosing wording for existing cards.

Just to be clear; it's not possible to cast the copy using mana if you decline to do it for free? It's an exiled card at that point, right?

@JollyJoker Correct. Cards like Isochron Scepter give you a one time option to cast a card from exile. You must accept or decline during resolution. There is no "I'll choose later." option. On the other hand, continuous effects from cards like Outpost Siege allow you to cast a card from exile until the end of your turn.


text:
Does Rageblood Shaman give itself +1/+1?
So I was playing a game and this card came out and we couldn't decide if by "Other Minotaur creatures" it means not this creature, or if it included it.
Also, we assumed that it would give Trample to Minotaurs as soon as it was cast, rather than when its summoning sickness had passed.
Please can someone clarify for me, thanks!

I'm wondering what your group thought that the word 'other' meant in this context? I can't see how they could have possibly worded it less ambiguously.

@VolleyJosh "Minotaur creatures that are not this creature", perhaps

@murgatroid99, That's very clear, but no more than the original. If you read English, you need to know what "other" means, and they both share the same oddity of omitting the leading "the". It's also needlessly long for a common descriptor.

That comment was intended mostly to be tongue-in-cheek; I agree that the original wording is basically unambiguous. But this isn't the first time that people on this site have had trouble with that usage of the word "other," like here, and here. I'm not actually suggesting that the wording should change, but it's not obvious to everyone.

@murgatroid99, The first link is about a person thinking "each" could refer to only one the players, so the alternate wording wouldn't have helped. The alternate wording would avoid the second question, but it would cause another question to be asked instead ("What if the permanent ceases to be a creature?").

Can this creature give its self trample? - This creature already has trample. Read first line of that card

Wow, pretty angry community on here. I guess you're not beginner friendly. I'll ask questions elsewhere. Apologies.

@DavidYell If you edit your question to explain why you and your friends think "other" could possibly mean "all", then I imagine you will get a more positive response. VolleyJosh commented about this within an hour after you posted, and you have yet to respond to him.

@DavidYell yes, this is an uppity bunch here.  But deeply knowledgeable.

@DavidYell Some people might've been less than diplomatic, and the discussion got sidetracked, but I think a lot of people are just trying to figure out how to explain something that seems to them like it's just the meaning of the words on the card. Asking you how you read it would usually help with that - either you'd say "I thought it meant X" and answers could explain otherwise, or you'd say "oh duh that's what it says, never mind" and either way things would be clear for you.

Thanks for the pointers, that's helpful. I'll be more verbose with questions including assumptions and reasoning in the future.

The Shaman has what is called a Static Ability. These kinds of abilities are active as long as their source is on the battlefield. So it will be active from the moment the Shaman enters the battlefield until the moment it leaves.
As for what it effects, "Other Minotaurs" means exactly that, any Minotaur other than the one with the ability gets the +1/+1 and trample. If you happen to control 2 of the Shamans they will each effect the other one, but they will not effect themselves.
In order for an ability like that to grant itself that ability it needs to drop the "Other" and just say "Minotaur creatures you control get +1/+1 and have trample." An example of this template is almost any Sliver.
Also note that the Shaman already has trample, so the part of the ability that you should be caring about is the +1/+1.

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

Re "These kinds of abilities are active as long as their source is on the battlefield", meaning it takes effect as soon as the Shaman resolves (not when it's cast, and not when it "loses summoning sickness").