text:
Was it possible to target spells placed at the bottom of a just-cast fast effects chain?
[ This is a follow-up from this question about how various effects interacted in the earliest releases of Magic: the Gathering ]
In an Alpha & Beta Series Magic Game something like this happens:

Player A cast a Lightning Bolt targeting Player B.
Player B responds with a Guardian Angel (X = 3).
Player A cast a second Lightning Bolt, and B replies again with another Guardian Angel (X = 3).

At this point, player A decides to insert an interrupt in the chain: he cast a Counterspell targeting the second Guardian Angel.
Player B, even if it is not possible to speak of an action "in response" to the Counterspell (since interrupts are faster than instants), then decides to cast an instant, continuing the chain: it is an Healing Salve,(choosing to have three more life points),which in fact is cast in the "batch" without all the fast effects having been resolved before, and probably ignoring the part of the interrupt-rule that says:

"After your rival casts another spell, it is too late to interrupt the first.".

But it is in fact a question concerning how this part of the rule should be properly interpreted.
Now, let's imagine that players do not know rules very well, and keep to cast spells and fast effects, do not taking into account the fact that the rules are probably different, but focusing on the fact that they still have mana available, and so they keep and give up priority, casting more spells.
Looking the current game, Player B decides to remedy, by trying to remove one of the spells cast at the beginning of the chain, and which are therefore at the bottom of the "bunch" of various fast effects (I call it "bunch" as it is neither a batch, nor a stack, but of a series of various mixed fast effects ...).
Player B,retaining priority, cast a Counterspell (calling it "Counterspell 2")on the second Lightning Bolt.
At this point the players are satisfied, and declare the chain of fast effects finished.
But,in fact,the chain could continue, especially in a similar way to what I had imagined in the previous draft -
(so, for example, imagining that a reverse damage is cast to be solved at the end, and that the opponent tries to neutralize in turn ) -
but which I then modified, due to some incompatibility problem between the cards in their original wording.
Notwithstanding that, following the rule on interruptions where it says that "After your rival casts another spell, it is too late to interrupt the first", it would not be possible to cast a spell after the interruptions without resolving them first, in fact the players they are all casting fast effects that are waiting to be fixed, and therefore are still "on the batch".
And then the key question is this:

Is it possible to target spells placed at the bottom of a just-cast fast-effects chain?

If so, once the chain of effects is concluded, it must be firstly purified of the interrupts cast, with the well known LIFO rule applied on interrupts.
This means that:
Counterspell 2 counters the second Lightning Bolt; the second Guardian Angel is countered.
The following effects would remain to be resolved "on the batch":
Lightning - Guardian Angel - Healing Salve
Which means, as a net result of the chain, that Player B gains 3 more life.
Well, here we go, there are two possible outcomes:

Is the just described situation correct (player B gains three life)?

Or, more likely, should it be stopped and resolved everything before the player adds an instant after an interrupt (ie Healing Salve, which means that everything happens from that spell is a completely mistaken chain effect game situation) has been cast?

There is a problem with your example.  The Alpha/Beta wording of Reverse Damage is: All damage you have taken from any one source this turn is added to your life total instead of subtracted from it.  That means it has to be used after the damage is dealt, not in response.  (The Fourth Edition version adds "retroactively", making this more clear; it is the Sixth Edition version that changes it to prevent damage.)

Oh! This is true...@m90, you're right. Ok, but the important thing with this exemplification is just the main question, that is: was it possible to target spells placed at the bottom of the batch, even if players played lots of other unresolved spells (after the targeted one)? So, let's think  about other spells to cast instead of Reverse Damage...well...ok, "ceteris paribus"...let's cast an Healing Salve! (could it be a quite good alternative spell?)

The question,in my opinion,appears to be well founded:since interrupts do not have an "ad-hoc-batch"(specific for interrupts),in general there is nothing that prevents players from continuing indefinitely,and without resolving any spell,the "batch"(the one dedicated to instants and other fast effects, excluding interrupts). There is no precise rule, in my opinion; at most, there is an interpretation, which derives precisely from the quoted sentence:-"After your rival casts another spell, it is too late to interrupt the first.".It is important to properly understand the ratio of this rule

Anyway, the example could be left as it was before the second edit, just thinking about playing it in 1996, for example (with the first rulements, but with Reverse Damage corrected)...

Yes, I think that the first described situation is correct, and therefore player B gains 3 life.
In my way of understanding the first draft of Magic's Rules (I mean the Alpha & Beta period, early '90), there is nothing that can prevent a series of effects from being internally made up of any number of instants, interrupts, and other fast effects.
Although in the regulation there is the rule, already cited at other times, according to which:

"After your rival casts another spell, it is too late to interrupt the first.";

it is also clear that, in my opinion,  this rule refers to spells that are successfully cast, and therefore not while the chain of effects - that are still in the batch - are far from being solved.
Therefore, I believe that it is possible to observe a game situation in which, after one player is just trying to cast an interrupt, the other player "responds" with an instant.
As long as the two players have priority, and decide to cast more spells, batch does not resolve.
All of this above  gives greater force to the rule that interrupts are faster than instants: in fact, they are simply resolved first.
If this were not the case, in fact, we would only have series of effects in which any interrupts would always be placed at the end of the chain of effects, and therefore,  according to the LIFO rule it would be automatic that these interrupts are resolved first -
as they are naturally placed at the bottom of the series of effects.
So, I think everything could allow to the following outcome.
What has been analysed so far must be able to allow that, in a series of effects, BEFORE its full resolution, it is permissible to be able to respond - just in the sense of casting after it - to an interrupt with an instant.
I therefore mean that what is reported in the question is possible:

after one player is just trying to cast an interrupt, the other one is able to continue the chain by casting an instant too, despite its speed being lower.

Once both players consider the chain of effects concluded, when resolving it, special precautions must then be followed.
The first of them is that the effects of the chain that must be solved first MUST be all the interrupts launched, thanks to their greater speed. Once the series has been "purified" from interrupts, it will then be possible to solve the entire batch, with the well-known LIFO rule.
Thus, the situation described in the question should end with player B gaining 3 life points: what remains once the series is purified of interrupts, and solving the only instants that remain in the batch (original or modified in a particular way by some interrupt, e.g. by Purelace).

Please let us know if this self-produced answer -
by the same author of the question , just like Murgatroid did  some time ago,f.e....! ,
and also due to the fact that, after a little too long, no one has provided an answer - could be accepted. Thank you!

Stack Exchange explicitly encourages self-answered questions, and you're welcome to accept your own answer (you won't get the reputation for it though). The community is of course welcome to vote on your answer as they see fit, which you will get reputation for.

What is your answer to the original question "Was it possible to target spells placed at the bottom of a just-cast fast effects chain?"

As I wrote in the answer I gave,the situation ends with Pl. B earning 3 life.My answer, therefore, obviously provides that the answer to the original question is YES.If,otherwise, it is not possible to continue the chain of effects AFTER the casting of an interrupt,then the described situation would end immediately after Pl. A has cast the FIRST counterspell,with which he counters the 2nd GA.As a net result, therefore,Pl. B suffers three damages,instead of earning them,since he can no longer counters the second GA, who is lower in the batch - not at the very bottom,but further down anyway.

Nothing prevents, of course, that player B will be able to cast Healing Salve once the entire first batch is resolved, and then recover the lost life points. But, He is no longer able to counters the 2nd GA with a Counterspell, which in my opinion is very important. Isn't that so, @Murgatroid? Is everything clearer, now?

I asked because I couldn't tell. You should state what your answer to the question is in the answer, directly and succinctly, probably at the beginning.

You are right@Murgatroid.But the fact is as follows:my answer comes only as a"cover"for lack of better answers from players much more experienced than me,like you for example.Even I could tell my opinion, that is:-"YES,it was possibile to target spells placed at the bottom of the batch",my answer is far from certain:I'm not sure it's right.For this reason I ask all of you at SE if,in your opinion, my answer could be considered as a correct one,and I cannot do as you claim, that you would like a clear and clear answer.But a"self-response"like mine couldn't be be what you'd like by definition.

If I were sure of my answer, why ask you if it's okay?  I have no doubt that "someone" asks questions to which he then gives self-answers, just to show off his abilities and grant reputation... but this does not seem to me to be my case. I'm far from being an experienced player, really able to provide meaningful and useful answers for other users. Just as you are capable of doing, @Murgatroid!

Anyway... come on, let's not exaggerate! My answer must only be read, and then its meaning is immediately perceptible by people who know the game. There is no reason to further specifications of the answer, as Murgatroid requires (just like: -"YES, I admit to being guilty, but it was not my fault! The grasshoppers, the house has collapsed!" - J.Belushi, The Blues Bro).My answer is composed by complete meaning sentences only,understandable for anyone with a minimum familiarity with the old Magic rules (if anything,the only difficulty is this: still remember the Magic Alpha & Beta format..!)

My comment is not false modesty on my part. Your answer is unclear, and I am trying to help you improve it. You don't have to be sure of your answer to clearly and directly state it, and doing so helps readers understand what your position is and determine whether it is correct or not. There's nothing about a self-answer that changes that. A self-answer is a regular answer to a regular question that just happens to be written by the same person.

My answer is long and deliberately not concise - and it seems to me that even some of your answers are not,@Murgatroid ... - but it is so because this answer is closer to an interpretative hypothesis rather than to a truthful answer.It is so because,although I believe that we cannot properly speak of a"regulatory vacuum"on the question posed, however,it is a fact that no answers have been received to this question.But the question posed must certainly be ordered,and resolved better.Even YOU,Murg,may be required to fill that vacuum.Otherwise, the main purpose for which SE exists, is missing...

If no one is able to give another adequate answer to this question, I hope at least that someone here at SE will be able to read my "hypothesis of answer", and let it be known - not necessarily with an explicit vote - if it appears a correct interpretation of an aspect of the old game that I think it needs to be filled. This can also be made known with a simple adequate comment, or (but only if you prefer) also with a vote to the answer. Excuse me, but I really need to know somehow if the answer I gave can work. Thank you!!


text:
Is it possible to copy a Legend that is on the battlefield on your side?
Following up on this question: in the current rules a player can't control two Legends of the same name simultaneously. However, suppose I do one of the following:

I summon a Clone copying another Legendary Creature I control.
I summon Copy Artifact copying another Legendary Artifact I control, such as Traxos, Scourge of Kroog.

In these cases should one of these immediately go to their owner's graveyard?
It is not obvious to me since the two cards (the original and the copy) do not have actually the same "name", but only the same appearance.
That makes me suspect the Legend Rule might not apply in these situations:

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

(emphasis mine)

An object's name is among the values that get copied when copying an object:

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

That means that if you copy your Nicol Bolas with Vesuvan Doppelganger you will control two legendary permanents named "Nicol Bolas" and will have to put all but one of them into your graveyard the next time any player would gain priority as per rule 704.5j.
There are a few effects that circumvent this.  Sakashima the Impostor does so by explicitly retaining its original name when it copies another creature.  Helm of the Host does so by removing the "Legendary" supertype from the copies it makes.  In either case, you would not control multiple legendary permanents with the same name, and so the "legend rule" wouldn't apply.

worth mentioning: Sakashima the Impostor circumvents this.

Ok. But does this mean that, when Vesuvan Doppelganger takes on the characteristics of a legend in play, is it not "called" Vesuvan Doppelganger anymore? In this case, what about his original name? No longer exists? Is it simply replaced with that of the copied creature?
In these cases, Vesuvan Doppelganger will never be called "Vesuvan Doppelganger" when he is on the battlefield...I find it strange.

@ManoFromBerlin see the bolded part of the rules quote. The name, just like other things such as power and type, are copied from the original card. So the original name simply no longer exists.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Responding to planeswalker with doubling season in play
If I had Doubling Season in play, then I cast any planeswalker, would my opponent be able to destroy it with Hero's Downfall or exile it with Anguished Unmaking before I am able to activate any of its loyalty abilities?
I know the way priority typically works: you can activate the ability first, but since doubling season is a trigger, I am curious if my opponent could cast an instant while it is on the stack or if the planeswalker would be doubled as it entered, and then my opponent could not respond before I am able to activate it.

But doubling season is not a trigger, it's a replacement effect - triggers are written as when or whenever X do Y, replacements are If x, y instead

Reopened; the questions are related but not duplicates. Reading through the other question would not only have not answered this person's question; it would have given this person the wrong answer since they thought it was a triggered ability.

It's true, Gendolkari is right. In addition, @cody linkous is also a new contributor, and it is fair to answer his question, although in many ways it is really similar to what many had referred to as a duplicate,including me. The point is that this question contains, however, some important mistakes: such as the wrong reference to the "trigger" ... but now I've changed my mind:I think it is right to reopen it and answer it.

You can activate the ability immediately, before any opponent has a chance to respond, because Doubling Season's ability is not a triggered ability.
Doubling Season's relevant ability says this:

If an effect would put one or more counters on a permanent you control, it puts twice that many of those counters on that permanent instead.

This is a replacement effect, as indicated by the word "instead". It modifies events as they happen. In this particular situation, it modifies the event of the Planeswalker entering the battlefield by making it enter with twice as many loyalty counters as usual. The rest works the same as always: it enters the battlefield and then you have priority first, with nothing on the stack, so you can immediately activate one of it's abilities.

As additional note: The OP mentioned anguished unmaking. The opponent can respond to the cast: OP casts a PW, passes priority and then an opponent casts anguished unmaking targeting doubling season  to exile the season before the planeswalker can enter the battlefield with the doubled amount of loyality counters.

Note that if the Doubling Season was worded differently, like "Whenever a planeswalker enters the battlefield, double the number of loyalty counters on it", then you would be able to kill it before a player could activate one of the planeswalker's abilities. (Because in this case, it is a triggered ability, so players get priority before the trigger resolves.)

Re "The rest works the same way",  See Destroying a Planewalker before its ability is used for details.

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


text:
Can a blocking creature tap for its ability while blocking?
I've declared my attack, and my opponent declares their blocker. I then use an instant that boosts and gives first strike to my attacking creature, then in the middle of combat they tap the creature to activate its ability. Can they do this?

Why is your opponent tapping his creature? Is there an ability on the creature that he is trying to activate? Or is he trying to get out of blocking your buffed creature?

@Malco The title did say "for its ability", so yes, the former. I edited to add that to the body too.

@Jefromi Just wanted some clarity, thought it might be something along the lines of "only untapped creatures can block, so if I tap my creature now I am not blocking anymore and it won't die."

Sure.  As long as the creature is able to block at the beginning of the declare blockers step (typically this means untapped) it can be declared as a blocker.  What happens after that doesn't affect it's status as a blocker.  There are also no restrictions on whether it can tap to use an ability, pay a cost, etc.

Re "What happens after that doesn't affect it's status as a blocker", Unless it's one of the things that removes the creature from combat.

Yes.
A blocking creature may be tapped to pay a cost or as the result of an effect.[1]
This has no effect on its status as a blocker.[2] It will still deal and receive damage as normal.

It can't be tapped for no reason.
The only way to stop a creature from being a blocker before the end of combat is to remove the creature from combat.

506.4. A permanent is removed from combat if it leaves the battlefield, if its controller changes, if it phases out, if an effect specifically removes it from combat, if it’s a planeswalker that’s being attacked and stops being a planeswalker, or if it’s an attacking or blocking creature that regenerates (see rule 701.13) or stops being a creature. A creature that’s removed from combat stops being an attacking, blocking, blocked, and/or unblocked creature. A planeswalker that’s removed from combat stops being attacked.

Yes.
During combat, players each get priority to activate abilities or cast spells after attackers have been declared and after blockers have been declared.
The fact that a creature is blocking doesn't change anything.

Recommend including a disclaimer that this does not apply to abilities that can be activated only when the player could cast a sorcery.

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


text:
Is there a method that gets beneficial diminishing returns when adding more dice, yet stays random?
Short Story: I want to find a dice system where multiple dice are rolled and compared at once, but rolling more dice is only slightly more effective than rolling fewer dice, while still being fairly chaotic no matter how many dice are rolled.

Long Story:
I'm designing a game that involves assigning dice to various cards for bonus stats to those cards.  Cards fight, victor wins, etc.
The formula right now involves starting at 5d6, getting a die each time you are hit, up to 10d6.
Problem is, it's hard to balance a card around an expectation of having both one die (a 3.5 average) and 10 dice (35 average).    Set an average expectation of "10 points", and now the person with 5 dice is only effective with 1 card, while the person with 10 dice is effective with 3.
We ended up with an issue where it mostly became about dice-trading, where the victor was almost always the one with more dice, as well as the dice mattering more than the card itself.  The cards ended up feeling like "placeholders" for stacking dice on rather than strategic choices to invest in.
What we really want is to have the system reward assigning dice to multiple things on the board, so that the game becomes more chaotic and stressful the later into the game it gets, not more predictable or even necessarily much easier for the player with more dice.
We've looked at rolling all the dice you would for a card, keeping your highest roll. The good thing about it was that it was relatively balanced, but it was far too predictable.
We've looked at exploding dice + keeping high, where you keep the highest value + any dice that match it.  It was chaotic, but it basically ended up being an excessive "crit" system that we didn't like and wasn't easy to balance.
In case it helps, dice are colored differently for each player.

Does anyone know of a dice resolution system that can do this?
(EDIT) This is the RPG.SE question that turns the resolution method that solved this question (Roll high, add +1 for each match of that die) into an Anydice formula that can be reviewed.

One option you could try is having the dice go from 0 to 5. This would make it so that the minimum with 5 dice and 6 dice are both 0. You could alternatively try going from -1 to 4 (or -2 to 3) to add a push your luck element to having more dice..

A website like https://anydice.com/ will help you calculate complex probabilities including functions for exploding dice.

What do you mean when you say that the highest value method was "too predictable"?

@ArcanistLupus Rolling 1d6 has a 33% chance of getting a 5 or higher.  Rolling 2d6k1 (2d6, keep 1) has a 55% chance of getting a 5 or higher. Rolling 3d6k1 has a 70% chance of getting a 5 or higher.
The more dice you add, the more predictable they get, and this still holds true even if you're only keeping a single die.

Look into "Pocket Tactics" by Ill Gotten Games. It uses a system of dice rolling where more dice isn't nearly as helpful as simply adding dice amounts together.
To summarize it, you roll x amount of dice (x=1-3) and the difficulty/opposing force rolls x amount of dice. You compare the highest results. If the defense is higher, the roll is a failure. If the offence is higher, the roll is a success. If they are tied, move onto the next highest results, comparing them in the same way.

There's a lot of ways to weaken the effects of the dice.

Only the best X dice count - this means the more dice you have the more likely you will get a better overall result, but you are still stuck in the same x to 6x range of values - kind of like how D&D uses rolled ability scores (roll 4 keep 3) or how texas holdem works with hands (best 5 out of 7 cards).
Count each die that beats a target - Shadowrun rolls a lot of dice, as does the game Zombicide in some situations (I've rolled 163d6 for one attack in that game) but in both games there is a target for each dice to be a hit, counting as 1, and anything under that is a miss, counting as 0. Maximum number of hits is set by total number of dice, and you can have the cards set the target number, zombicide does this, some weapons hit on 4+ some on 5+. (Optional exploding 6s, where 6s are hits and you reroll to try for more)
Smaller dice - the 1 to 6 d6 are standard, but not the only dice out there. a lot of tabletop RPGs use D4 as well, which change how much each die can add to the overall result. You can enhance this by having the base dice everyone gets be larger, then adding smaller dice as more dice get added, say everyone gets 5d10, then add 2d8, then 2d6 and any more are d4 - guaranteeing diminishing returns by diminishing dice size.
Custom dice  - In addition to dice not all being the same size, not every die goes from 1 to X for X sides. Betrayal at House on the Hill uses 6 sided dice with 0, 1 and 2 each on two faces, leading to an roll between 0 and 2x for x dice, with an average result equal to x, the number of dice rolled.
Have a penalty for additional dice, say -2x for x dice, so a roll would give you between -1 and 4 for each d6, still a positive average, but much lower than the default. This also creates the possibility of dice reducing effectiveness over all, if a player rolls all 1s and 2s.

Only your first suggestion actually achieves the desired result.  Counting each die that beats a target, using smaller dice, or subtracting an amount for each die rolled (which is effectively your third and fourth suggestion) all result in linear increases in the expected value based on number of dice rolled.  While these suggestions reduce the linear gain from each die, non of them actually create diminishing returns.  All you've done is reduced the first derivative, but you still have a second derivative of 0.  Diminishing returns requires a negative second derivative

Your second suggestion could create diminishing returns if paired with a "target number of successes", but it's the target number for the dice overall, not the target per die, that creates the diminishing returns.

@Zags The asker talks about wanting to have rolling "more dice is only slightly more effective than rolling fewer dice" outside the diminishing returns in the main question (which by the way I will say option 3 does, by reducing dice size and thus the maximum and average results) meet the effect requested without being pedantic on the wording in the title.

You're actually asking two questions:

How can I design a function that computes a result on a dice roll that gives asymptotically decreasing benefit to adding more dice?

How can I have a system where adding more dice doesn't lead to a predictable result?

The first question is simple.  Take the highest X dice of a roll.  Alternatively, set some threshold that you need to roll above, such as roll at least one six, or roll a total of at least 15.  Under any of these schemes, as you roll more dice, you are more likely to have dice with better results, but there is a fundamental limit on how high you can go.  In the case of highest X dice, your limit is X times the highest value on one die, and in the case of targets, the limit is a 100% chance of success.
By way of a simple example, let's say you use D6's, and you need to roll at least one 6 to succeed.  Your chance of getting a 6 based on how many dice you roll looks like this:

But while this satisfies your goal of the first question, it is directly contradictory to the goal of your second question.  As you add more dice, the result gets more predictable.  This is a general principle in probability; the more independent random events you aggregate, the lower the collective variance.
Given this, I believe that the answer to your second question is that "it's impossible without a re-framing of the question".  Adding more dice will decrease the variance of the result, and therefore increase the predictability.
The way to re-frame the question is to not have all of the dice be the same.  Here's a simple example, to illustrate the concept, though you likely will want to do something more complex.
You have two kinds of dice, white and red.  White dice contribute to success, red represent risk.  Each item, skill, etc can add some amount of dice, in one color or both.  Most will add small amounts of white dice (1 or 2), but some better items may add larger amounts of white dice (3 - 5) but some red dice as well (1 - 2).  Some skills could even do something non-roll related (like double the effect of a spell) but only add red dice.  When you roll the dice, you take the highest three white dice... unless any of the red dice came up as a "1", in which case you treat the whole role as a 0.  Through a system like this, you have to make trade-offs between getting increasingly marginal benefit from more white dice vs the risk of catastrophic failure from an additional red die.  Maybe even have everyone roll 1 red die at baseline to prevent people from getting too powerful from stacking exclusively white die bonuses.
That's the type of idea you're probably looking for.  Obviously you have to make it your own and fit it to your game.  You can tweak the number of top dice you take.  You could change the failure condition based on the circumstance.  You could use different sized dice (D8s, D12s, etc.).  You could add a third kind of die.  The list goes on.

How about "number of dice that show a 6", as is used in games like Neanderthal by Phil Eklund?

With 5 Dice, you can expect to roll at least one 6 about 60% of the time
With 10 Dice, you can expect to roll at least one 6 about 84% of the time

So you are more effective with more dice, but it's diminishing returns.
You can tweak the probabilities by requiring more 6s, or allowing 5s or 6s, etc.

"Number of dice that show a 6" is statistically increases linearly with the number of dice rolled.  Each die adds 1/6 to the expected total.  It sounds like you're talking about rolling a target number of 6s.  If that's the case, you should edit your answer for clarity

You don't have to actually use all of the dice that you roll. For example you could be looking at the results of the best 3 dice of the 5 that you rolled.
Example for needing a roll of 12 on 3 dice:

Roll 5 dice get 1, 2, 3, 6, 6
Chose the 3, 6, 6 for a total of 15
Meet the goal

Example for Rolling 10 dice

Roll 10 dice get 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 5, 5, 6, 6
Chose the 5, 6, 6 for 17
Meet the goal

There are some quick things you can do to balance it out such as having a roll of 1 remove another dice of the highest value
Example for needing a roll of 12 on 3 dice:

Roll 5 dice get 1, 2, 3, 6, 6
Remove the 1 and a 6
Chose the 2, 3, 6 for a total of 11
Don't meet the goal

Example for Rolling 10 dice

Roll 10 dice get 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 5, 5, 6, 6
Remove the 1, 1, 6, 6
Chose the 3, 5, 5 for 13
Meet the goal

Another limitation on it is you can limit how often extra dice can be rolled but keep a minimum amount around. Players can regain dice naturally over time or need to require them from some mechanic in the game.
This would allow you to roll more dice to get an advantage but not get a straight benefit from summing the total off all the extra dice and can even make it a little more risky to roll more if you get back luck.

You might also consider having good and bad results from a roll. For instance, Blades in the dark uses d6, but a 1 is a failure, 4-5 a success, and 6 a crit. But if you have more fails than successes (critical or otherwise) it's a critical failure. Otherwise every fail cancels a success. More dice is generally good, but it's possible to fail worse as well as succeed better. Add in bonus/malus dice (which remove the worst or best rolls respectively) or DM/Player Rerolls and more dice isn't always good. Especially if a reroll affects ALL rolls of a particular number.

For every x number of dice, one of them e.g. a different coloured one, counts negative to the total. It's still random and won't have a huge impact if x is set sensibly.

I think the key would be finding some interaction that gives bonuses.
At tier 1, you just get 5d6 - this has a low of 5, a high of 30, and an EV of 17.5
At tier 2, you get 5d6 but if you get a triple, you get an extra 1. This has a low of 9, a high of 36, and an EV of 17.7746. This isn't a huge improvement, but it is an improvement nevertheless.
At higher tiers you could give bonuses for pairs, mini-straights, and straights. And obviously the more dice you add, the more powerful these bonuses become. For example, upon reaching 7d5 you are guaranteed a pair (although, you were almost virtually guaranteed a pair before...)
Ask yourself what can you do with the dice you have already? Could you make one of them a different color that acts as a bonus die what special interactions? If you pair your bonus die you get +3?

Have a set number of dice per roll: say, 10 or so. Rather than cards giving you more dice, they give you more rerolls. Playing 5 rerolls worth of dice lets you reroll five die.
If you want to make it more tactical (that is, more microdecisions required), start with 5 dice per roll. Cards may either give you rerolls or additional dice (with additional dice generally more rare/valuable than rerolls), or some combination of the two.
Here's a quick simulator I whipped up. Just press run. https://replit.com/@hengstam/dicererollexample


text:
Maelstrom Pulse, targeting a face-down creature. Does it destroy other face-down creatures?
The big issue that needs to be addressed is that face-down creatures don't actually have a name.
So while Maelstrom Pulse would normally remove most creature tokens just fine, its effect on face-down creatures is a bit ambiguous.
What's the rule on this?

A Gatherer ruling on Maelstrom Pulse addresses this:

A face-down creature has no name, so it doesn’t have the same name as anything else.

So, if you target a face-down creature with Maelstrom Pulse, nothing else will be destroyed.


text:
Does a face-down creature with morph retain its damage when it is turned face up?
I have a face-down morph creature that has received 1 point of damage. If my opponent casts Shock or another thing to kill it, can I flip at that point to make the damage disappear or my card still have it (now flipped) until the end of my turn?

After turning the creature face up, the damage is still marked on the creature, it doesn't somehow disappear. It's still the same creature, only in a different 'state'.

120.6. Damage marked on a creature remains until the cleanup step
707.8. As a face-down permanent is turned face up, its copiable values revert to its normal copiable values. Any effects that have been applied to the face-down permanent still apply to the face-up permanent.

But if the creature has a high enough toughness (4 or more) or protection from red, it might still survive the Shock.
Note that turning a creature face up doesn't use the stack, so an opponent cannot cast a Shock in response to turning a creature face up to kill it while it's still morphed.

A creature that unmorphs has not left play.   It is still the same game object as before, and any effects or damage applied to it will still apply.


text:
Does my opponent need to prove his creature has morph?
I'm playing against an opponent who, for whatever reason, doesn't want to give away more information than they have to. (Perhaps they're trying to limit what is known about their strategy, their decklist, or their tells)
My opponent is one damage off lethal, but any creature will get him there. (Let's say I know he has a Might of the Masses in hand.) He plays a morph creature face down, swings (and casts his might of the Masses) and wins. Can I demand he prove the card had morph? Doing so gives me information in our next round that I shouldn't have, but it also proves that he didn't put just any card face down for {3}
Is the only solution to get a judge involved? What if he already started scooping his cards back into his deck? Should I have asked a judge to verify that the facedown creature had morph before it resolved? If so, it seems unreasonable to call over a judge every time a morph creature is played. In this instance it's clear the creature was crucial in the moment, but in other cases the creature could have been on the field for several turns, and it didn't look so conspicuous when it was played.

Rule 708.9 says this:

If a face-down permanent or a face-down component of a merged permanent moves from the battlefield to any other zone, its owner must reveal it to all players as they move it. If a face-down spell moves from the stack to any zone other than the battlefield, its owner must reveal it to all players as they move it. If a player leaves the game, all face-down permanents, face-down components of merged permanents, and face-down spells owned by that player must be revealed to all players. At the end of each game, all face-down permanents, face-down components of merged permanents, and face-down spells must be revealed to all players.

There is no way for a game to end without one of these things happening to each face down permanent, so every face down permanent must be revealed one way or another by the end of the game.

Right, the player at some point will have to prove that the card does have morph, but doesn't do so when playing it. The proof comes at essentially the last opportunity - when the morphed permanent moves zones and stops being a morphed permanent, or when the game ends.

Failing to reveal a face down creature with Morph at the end of the game is treated as a Game Loss.
Per the MTG Infraction Procedure Guide:

3.2.  Game Play Error —  Hidden Card Error
Penalty
Warning
Definition
A player commits an error in the game that cannot be corrected by only publicly available information. It is not a Hidden Card Error if  the opponent acknowledges the action or controls the continuous effect modifying the game rule that was violated. This infraction only applies when a card whose identity is known to only one player is in a hidden set of cards both beforeand after the error.
(...)
Upgrade
If a face-down card cast using a morph ability is discovered during the game to not have a morph ability, the penalty is a Game Loss. If the player has one or more cards   with a morph ability in hand, has not added previously unknown cards to their hand since casting the card found in violation, and has discovered the error themselves, the upgrade does not apply and they may swap the card for a card with the morph ability in hand

This is reinforced by rule 707.9 of the Magic Comprehensive rules.

707.9. If a face-down permanent moves from the battlefield to any other zone, its owner must reveal it to all players as theymove it. If a face-down spell moves from the stack to any zone other than the battlefield, its owner must reveal it to all playersas theymove it. If a player leaves the game, all face-down permanents and spells owned by that player must be revealed to all players. At the end of each game, all face-down permanents and spells must be revealed to all players.

That's an old version of the guide, the new version is: https://media.wpn.wizards.com/attachements/mtg_ipg_12jul19_en.pdf and the section you'd want to reference is 2.3 Game Play Error — Hidden Card Error

@firedraco Fixed

It seems a little weird to say that the comprehensive rules "reinforce" the IPG. The comprehensive rules are the core rules, and the IPG is about how to enforce the rules.

Also, keep in mind that the question is tagged with "mtg-regular-rel", and Regular REL is a rules enforcement level the IPG doesn't apply to. Even more so, it doesn't apply to kitchen table Magic (which you didn't claim, but I'll add for completeness's sake).

Right, for regular REL, the document that applies is Judging at Regular REL instead of the IPG.

Could a player abuse the section described in Upgrade by having two creatures with Morph in hand which could be useful in different situations, playing a land face down as a creature with Morph, then at the end of the opponent's next turn (i.e. with more information) "realizing" their own "mistake" and replacing the land with the creature that is now most convenient?

If they do that accidentally, then they must call a judge, who will give them a Warning and allow them to correct the problem. If they actually did it on purpose, then this is cheating and should result in disqualification, but it's true that they might fool the judge. However, they would still get a Warning for the Hidden Card Error, even though under the circumstances it would not be upgraded to a Game Loss. It seems unlikely that a cheater could get away with such a remarkable “accident” more than once.

The text that you've quoted doesn't seem to support your initial summary. You write "Failing to reveal a face down creature with Morph at the end of the game is treated as a Game Loss"; but the text that you quote says that this is only a Warning, and only becomes a "Game Loss" if it's discovered that the face-down creature really doesn't have Morph.

I remember that this type of problem arose from what was the first card with a morph-like ability:Illusionary Mask.One of the currentRulings ofIM reads:"If you use the ability to cast aCreatureCardFaceDown,you must keep track of the amount and types ofMana you spent on X.If that creature spell is moved from the stack to anywhere other than the battlefield, the resulting creature leaves the battlefield,orGame ends, the face-down card is revealed.If itsManaCost couldn't be paid by some amount of,or all of,theMana you spent on X,all applicable penalties for casting a card illegally are assessed".

Imagining that the part concerning the loss of the game also applies to all actual cards with morph, that is very similar to Illusionary Mask ability,I believe this is the right treatment to be reserved for cheaters.


text:
Am I required to correct my opponent's assumptions about my morph creatures?
The comprehensive rules state that

You must ensure that your face-down spells and permanents can easily be differentiated from each other. You’re not allowed to mix up the cards that represent them on the battlefield in order to confuse other players. The order they entered the battlefield should remain clear. Common methods for doing this include using markers or dice, or simply placing them in order on the battlefield

If my opponent makes an assumption about a facedown card based on public information that is wrong, am I required to correct his assumption?
For example, suppose I'm using a red, green, and blue markers to differentiate my morph creatures. I have a blue marked, red marked, and green marked creature on the field. I turn the red marked creature face up, triggering Deathmist Raptor's ability. I choose to return it to the battlefield face down, and put the red marker on it. Since it came from a public zone, my opponent knows that Deathmist Raptor is the red marked card.
Later, I attack with all three morph creatures and my opponent is thinking out loud when blocking. If he says something like "Deathmist Raptor is the blue marked creature", am I obligated to correct him? Alternatively, is he allowed to ask, "when Deathmist Raptor entered the battlefield face down, what color marker did you put on it?"

You are required to say which card was the Deathmist Raptor when asked, and you are required to correct their mistake if they get it wrong.
The Magic Tournament Rules define free information as follows:

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 name of any visible object.
The number and type of any counter that isn’t defined as status information.
The state (whether it’s tapped, attached to another permanent, face down, etc.) and current zone of
  any object or player.
The game score of the current match.
The current step and/or phase and which player(s) are active

Putting the Deathmist Raptor onto the battlefield face down was a past game action that still affects the game state. The details of that action include the name of the card that was moved from the graveyard (which was free information at the time), and which face down permanent that card became (because you need to distinguish which face-down permanent is which as mentioned in the question). You must provide that information when asked, and you must correct them if they get it wrong so that you are not hiding the information by omission.
Strictly speaking, the current identity of the face down Deathmist Raptor probably counts as private information, because that information is not explicitly listed as free or derived information:

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

Any information that is not status, free or derived is automatically private information

There is no rule against misrepresenting private information, but the distinction between "This permanent is currently a face-down Deathmist Raptor" (private) and "This permanent was previously a visible Deathmist Raptor card that was put onto the battlefield face down" (free) is so small that I suspect that most judges would not look kindly on using it as a reason to misrepresent or omit that information.

I see that our interpretations of the question are different. The question mentions the opponent asking about the card name specifically, which is hidden information; but of course which card is the one that returned from the graveyard to the battlefield is free information as you stated. Is it safe to assume that the phrasing of the opponent's question is relevant to the answer?

@TheThirdMan I'm not sure that distinction is actually relevant... it was free information that a Deathmist Raptor was the card that was moved from the graveyard to the battlefield and marked with a red marker. Not just that "a card" was returned.

My opinion is that splitting hairs between "This permanent is the Deathmist Raptor" and "This permanent was the Deathmist Raptor" is playing with semantics in a way judges wouldn't appreciate.

I'm tempted to agree, but I have my doubts based on the rules. If you care to discuss this any further, I raised some additional points in chat

I'm not convinced by this answer. My understanding has been that if your opponent asks something like "Deathmist Raptor came in with the blue marker, right?" then you can't lie (because it's not private information) and you can't decline to answer (because it's not derived information). But I have never heard anything that says you have to actively listen for and correct statements your opponent makes, when they're not seeking any interaction from you. I can believe what you say here if (and only if) I see a reliable source backing it up, e.g. an explicit statement from a judge.

That's fair; that's the part of the answer I was less sure about. I interpreted "without omission" to include "you can't let your opponent persist in a misconception you are aware of" but I can understand also interpreting it as applying only to direct questions.

Can you make explicit the reasoning about "correct mistakes"?  That is sort of central, and the answer glosses over it.

As I stated in my last comment, the basic reasoning is that responding to an opponent's incorrect statement about information that they are entitled to by not correcting them qualifies as an omission, and intentionally committing such an omission is in violation of the first sentence of the first rule I quoted.

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

You are not required to correct opponent's statements about hidden characteristics of face-down cards
If your opponent had gained information about a card's characteristics such as its name (for example by you revealing it to them), but it currently is face-down, the card's identity is not public information, but hidden information (from the Magic Tournament Rules):

Hidden information refers to the faces of cards and other objects at which the rules of the game and format do not allow you to look.

From this rule, the definition of hidden information is not specific to cards never shown to the opponent(s), but instead relates to their current status. As soon as you stop revealing your card to the opponent (of course assuming you've given them an opportunity to read the card), all information about characteristics of the card become hidden information again, simply because it is now information your opponent isn't allowed to look at.
So if your opponent is asking specifically about a card name, as the question suggests, you are not required to point out which of your face-down cards has that name.
There are, however, circumstances that might be reason enough to be more lenient with a rules interpretation in such a case, such as this one brought up by Gendolkari in the comments:

I think the biggest issue [...] is that both players know that there is only one way that the player should know the face-down permanent's name; and that is that it was the card that was publicly returned from the graveyard. There's a big difference between saying "is this a Deathmist Raptor?" in a situation where a random card had been manifested or played as a face-down morph; and saying "is this a Deathmist Raptor?" in the situation described. Even though the words are the same, the context makes a big difference. In other words, in the context described, asking "is this a Deathmist Raptor?" is simply a clear shorthand for "Is this the Deathmist Raptor that you returned from your graveyard?"

(For a case in which they ask about the origins of the card instead, see murgatroid99's answer.)

That said, you are allowed to correct your opponent about such information at your own discretion:

However, players may choose to reveal their hands or any other hidden information available to them, (...).

This is entirely up to you, though. You may be tempted to do so for example out of sportsmanship, or if you feel one of your actions (such as a switch in marker colors they glanced over in the heat of a match) had caused their misinterpretation of the situation - yet you're never required to do so.

I think the biggest issue, which was touched on somewhat in the chat room, is that both players know that there is only one way that the player should know the face-down permanent's name; and that is that it was the card that was publicly returned from the graveyard. There's a big difference between saying "is this a Deathmist Raptor?" in a situation where a random card had been manifested or played as a face-down morph; and saying "is this a Deathmist Raptor?" in the situation described. Even though the words are the same, the context makes a big difference.

In other words, in the context described, asking "is this a Deathmist Raptor?" is simply a clear shorthand for "Is this the Deathmist Raptor that you returned from your graveyard?"

@GendoIkari That's a good point, actually. I edited my answer to point to your comment.

Don't refer to "valid points in comments" - comments should be treated as "will go away".  Fold the issues into the answer and address them directly.

@Yakk: It seems sensible to me to refer to the comments in an answer when there's been elaboration that would simply be quoted in the post. I see no reason to treat comments as "will go away", as you said, as they're part of the site just like the answers themselves, and if the user deletes those comments for any reason, chances are they would like for the quote to be removed from the answer as well. The site's guidelines, as far as I can see, specifically mention providing context around external answers, but as for internal material (such as comments, answers, questions), I see no issues.

@TheThirdMan Comments can be deleted without moderator action.  Comments are ephemeral.  This is a standard stack exchange rule.  https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130975/are-comments-ephemeral-and-what-should-be-done-with-informative-comments .  I'm letting you know how to improve your answer, you are free to not improve your answer.

@Yakk While that meta threat seems to enquire about another issue for the most part, there indeed seems to be a consensus that comments are to be treated as ephemeral. I struggle to see how it is a "standard stack exchange rule" because I still cannot find it anywhere in the help center, but given the aforementioned consensus, I will happily opt to err on the side of caution. Thanks for providing that link - as I said earlier, my methodology is based on what I have read, not on any kind of ignorance towards the site's rules or intent.

There's a bit of a distinction between "is this a Deathmist Raptor?" and "is this the Deathmist Raptor?" If they point to one of the cards that isn't the card that was previously visible, you aren't obligated to tell them whether it is a Deathmist Raptor, but you are obligated to them that it wasn't the Deathmist Raptor that was public. You could have more than one Deathmist Raptor, and only for one do you have to answer.

You mean "discretion," not "digression."


text:
MTG: Ixidron vs Morph
I couldn't find the answer to this but what happens if you have a face down morph on the field and someone plays Ixidron? Does my morph creature stay face down or do they get turned up?

The text printed on the Ixidron reads as follows:

As Ixidron enters the battlefield, turn all other nontoken creatures
  face down. (They're 2/2 creatures.) Ixidron's power and toughness are
  each equal to the number of face-down creatures on the battlefield.

As morphed creatures are already face-down they are unaffected.
This is reflected in the Ruling made in 2006:

2006-09-25 : Turning a face-down creature face-down typically has no effect; the creature’s status is unchanged.

Basically, it's like asking you to tap all creatures, and you control a tapped creature. Nothing happens to it. Also, it is considered good form to quote official sources that directly address the issue at hand. Like the Gatherer page you linked: "Turning a face-down creature face-down typically has no effect; the creature’s status is unchanged."


text:
Can cards turned face-down by Ixidron be turned face up again?
For example, assume that both my opponent and I have a face-up creature with Morph on the battlefield.
I cast Ixidron and it enters the battlefield.
Can both creatures be turned face-up again later in the game, by paying the Morph cost, even though they weren't turned face-down "normally"?

Yes, you can.
It doesn't matter how a creature got turned face-down. All morph cares about is that the creature is indeed face-down. Face-down is a status like e.g. tapped/untapped.

110.6. A permanent’s status is its physical state. There are four status categories, each of which has two possible values: tapped/untapped, flipped/unflipped, face up/face down, and phased in/phased out. Each permanent always has one of these values for each of these categories.
702.36a Morph is a static ability that functions in any zone from which you could play the card it’s on, and the morph effect works any time the card is face down. [..]

Note that if those creatures do not have morph, then there is normally no way to make them turn face-up again by themselves. You will have to use other cards to turn them back, or make them leave the battlefield and return (in which case they will return face-up unless explicitly told otherwise).


text:
How can a Morph ability counter split second spells?
Voidmage Apprentice is a creature with Morph that counters target spell when it is turned face up.
I've read that it can counter spells with split second.  How does it do this?  Is it that the ability is an added effect of the morph action and does not use the stack?  Or is it a triggered ability that split second cannot prevent from being placed on the stack?

This is a most excellent question.  I hadn't put together this way to counter split second spells.  Amazingly cool!

Split second means  “As long as this spell is on the stack, players can’t cast other spells or activate abilities that aren’t mana abilities.” This specifies casting spells and activating abilities, triggered abilities function as normal.

The Gatherer ruling on Voidmage Apprentice explains it fairly well:

If a spell with split second is on the stack, you can still respond by turning this creature face up and targeting that spell with the trigger. This is because split second only stops players from casting spells or activating abilities, while turning a creature face up is a special action.

The triggered ability still does use the stack, but split second doesn't stop it. And of course, you're able to turn it face up in the first place because that's a special action, not an activated ability that uses the stack.

Unmorphing a card does not use the stack.  This is how it gets around the split second effect.
This behavior is very similar to mana source behaviors of creatures as discussed in this recent post:  Does killing a creature mana source that's being tapped for mana to pay for a spell counter that spell?
The reason this behavior exists, is it prohibits your opponent from smoking your morphling with a lightning bolt when you declare you wish to unmorph.  It makes morphing more useful.
Here's the rule for unmorphing, that shows it doesn't use the stack.

702.36e Any time you have priority, you may turn a face-down permanent you control with a morph ability face up. This is a special action; it
  doesn’t use the stack (see rule 115).  ...[stuff deleted]...

It's more likely that this rule exists because face-down creatures have no abilities, and if turning a creature face-up were the effect of an activated ability, then you would have to pay the morph cost (which differs from creature to creature) before you reveal the morph cost.

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


text:
What happens when, and can I return face-down non-creature cards to my hand?
Say I manifest an instant or sorcery card which I'd like to use, and I have a card like Temur Sabertooth in play. Can I use Temur Sabertooth's ability to return the card to my hand, and do I have to reveal it?

Why would you think you wouldn't be able to return it to your hand?

Related: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/q/22594/6692

Yes, you can return the face-down card to your hand, and yes, you do have to reveal it.
The first rule about Manifest, 701.31a says

"Manifest [a card]" means "Put [that card] onto the battlefield face down." That permanent is a 2/2 creature with no text, no name, no subtypes, and no mana cost. That permanent is a manifested permanent as long as it's face down. The effect defining its characteristics works any time the card is face down and ends when it's turned face up.

In addition, rule 707.9 says

If a face-down permanent moves from the battlefield to any other zone, its owner must reveal it to all players as he or she moves it. If a face-down spell moves from the stack to any zone other than the battlefield, its owner must reveal it to all players as he or she moves it. At the end of each game, all face-down permanents and spells must be revealed to all players.


text:
If I try to kill a face down creature, can my opponent save it by flipping it?
I played a Lightning Bolt during my turn (3 damage to target creature or player) to kill a face down creature. Then, my opponent said he was going to morph the creature which was a 0/5 defender with flying (Monastery Flock).
Can my opponent morph a dead creature, or does morphing the creature save it because it is a 0/5 and Lightning Bolt only deals 3 damage?

You might want to have a look at the basic rules, which will answer a lot of questions you might run into. (For this case, they'll mention the stack.)

Just an aside, Morphing doesn't use the stack.

Yes morphing will save it because your opponent will get a chance to respond after you cast your spell and there is a ruling related to morphing the card that would apply here.

Any time you have priority, you may turn the face-down creature face up by revealing what its morph cost is and paying that cost. This is a special action. It doesn’t use the stack and can’t be responded to. Only a face-down permanent can be turned face up this way; a face-down spell cannot.

So this would allow him to morph it and turn it into a 0/5 creature which would save it.

I think this warrants a bit of explanation - the OP said "can he morph a dead creature?" But the creature isn't dead yet when they cast Lightning Bolt targeting it; Lightning Bolt goes on the stack and everyone gets a chance to respond (as you say) with things including morph but also other instants and activated abilities, and only when that's all done does it resolve and (maybe) kill the creature.

Thanks guys, I really appreciate the input. I am still learning things and it is good to have a place like this to ask direct questions and get answers from people in the know! Thanks again everyone!

@user12298 If an answer satisfies your question, click on the green check mark to accept it. This rewards the author with a small amount of bonus reputation. You are not obligated to accept an answer if none of them satisfy you, and you can always change the accepted answer if someone writes a better one.

As Cascabel said in a comment, the phrasing "Can my opponent morph a dead creature" is a bit inappropriate, because the creature isn't dead. What happens is that when Lightning Bolt is cast, it's put on the stack. If it were to resolve at that point, it would deal damage to the creature, and then the creature would die as a State Based Action. However, before it resolves, your opponent gets priority, and if they use their priority to morph their creature at that point, the Lightning Bolt hasn't resolved yet, and the creature hasn't received damage or died yet.
Since morphing doesn't use the stack, the creature would immediately become a 0/5. There would then be another round of priority, so if you have another Lightning Bolt, you could cast it at this time. But if nothing else happens, the Lightning Bolt would then resolve, and by this time the creature is 0/5, and so would not die.


text:
Does Master of the Veil work on Megamorphs?
Assuming I have Master of the Veil face down and Stratus Dancer face up, can I flip Stratus Dancer back over with Master of the Veil? I do not know of Megamorph falls under Morph. Are they completely different, or is Megamorph and instance of Morph?

Master of the Veil is able to turn Stratus Dancer facedown.
Rule 702.36b defines Megamorph as a morph variant, and so Master of the Veil's oracle'd ability can target a face up Stratus Dancer.

Oracle text:

When Master of the Veil is turned face up, you may turn target creature with a morph ability face down.

702.36. Morph:

702.36a Morph is a static ability that functions in any zone from which you could play the card it’s on, and the morph effect works any time the card is face down. “Morph [cost]” means “You may cast this card as a 2/2 face-down creature with no text, no name, no subtypes, and no mana cost by paying {3} rather than paying its mana cost.” (See rule 707, “Face-Down Spells and Permanents.”)
702.36b Megamorph is a variant of the morph ability. “Megamorph [cost]” means “You may cast this card as a 2/2 face-down creature with no text, no name, no subtypes, and no mana cost by paying {3} rather than paying its mana cost” and “As this permanent is turned face up, put a +1/+1 counter on it if its megamorph cost was paid to turn it face up.” A megamorph cost is a morph cost.

Alright, I did not know if Megamorph fell under the Morph umbrella or not.

@ShadowZ. Even without looking through the comprehensive rules, your Gatherer link for the Dancer says "Megamorph is a variant of the morph ability. You can find more information on morph on cards with morph from the Khans of Tarkir set."

@arthur I did not read too much on Stratus Dancer as it was just meant to be an example of Megamorph, and I instead focused on reading about the Master of the Veil instead, checking it's gatherer page more. My bad, it was a mistake/oversight on my part.


text:
Do Manifested or Morphed creatures count as tokens?
Does a manifested creature or even a morph creature count as a token? I was told yes, but I was also told that a card can never be considered a token! So I'm asking you guys!

A card is never a token. 110.5. Some effects put tokens onto the battlefield. A token is a marker used to represent any permanent that isn’t represented by a card.

No.
Both the morph and manifest abilities that allow you to have a face-down permanent apply only to cards (morph works on creature cards in your hand, and manifest on cards from your library). The other two ways to have face-down permanents (Illusionary Mask and Ixidron) apply either to creature cards or nontoken creatures.
If some effect (e.g., Fated Infatuation) makes a token copy of a face-down creature, it will simply be a 2/2 creature with no text, name, type, nor mana cost. It cannot be turned "face up" because being "face down" is NOT a copiable characteristic. Therefore the token is not actually "face down".

Thx people's!  I knew they weren't tokens! But  people out numbered me on the subject!

The confusion is likely due to the morph and manifest indicator "cards" in KTK and FRF packs that are similar to the token "cards" that are also found in packs. I'm curious about what these people think happens when you bounce a morph - since a token that leaves the battlefield ceases to exist.


text:
If I concede with a morph card on the stack, do I have to reveal the card to my opponent?
I understand that if a morph card is on the battlefield at the end of the game, I have to reveal it to my opponent, but what if my opponent responds to me casting the morph with a counterspell.  If I concede with the morph still on the stack, do I have to reveal it?

I wonder, you clearly read my answer to the other face-down question since you proposed an edit to it, what was unclear about the rule I quoted?

@Hackworth Re-reading the rule again, I guess the part i'm not clear on is the bit about 'face-down spell'.  Is it referring to a spell on the stack? Or is it referring to instants/sorceries that are face down in the battlefield?

"Spell" always implies a card on the stack, because spells can't exist anywhere else, see rule 111.1. On the battlefield, only permanents exist, not spells, see rule 110.1.

A spell is a card on the stack, or a copy of a card on the stack.

Yes, you must reveal the card to all players.

707.9. If a face-down permanent moves from the battlefield to any other zone, its owner must reveal it to all players as he or she moves it. If a face-down spell moves from the stack to any zone other than the battlefield, its owner must reveal it to all players as he or she moves it. If a player leaves the game, all face-down permanents and spells owned by that player must be revealed to all players. At the end of each game, all face-down permanents and spells must be revealed to all players.

The other players must be able to check that you were allowed to play that card face-down. Otherwise, you could cheat by playing a non-morph card as a morph creature and never be forced to reveal that card.

Thanks for bolding it, the third time reading the rule, with the explanation above, it is pretty clear.


text:
Does turning a card face up cause it to lose any counters it had on it?
If a card is played face down for some reason, like Guardian Shield-Bearer:

Megamorph 3G (You may cast this card face down as a 2/2 creature for 3. Turn it face up any time for its megamorph cost and put a +1/+1 counter on it.)

When Guardian Shield-Bearer is turned face up, put a +1/+1 counter on another creature you control.

Let's say I play Guardian face down, and then I get a card that says I can put a +1/+1 counter on one of my creatures. I choose to put it on my face-down Guardian to make it a 3/3.
When I turn Guardian up, does it lose the +1/+1 counter, since it is transforming (or rather, morphing) into a new creature? What about enchantments or other things attached to it?
What type of creature is the 2/2 when it is face down? Just a "Creature" type creature?

Try to ask one question per post, unless they are so closely related that it just makes sense to ask them together. "Does it keep the counter?" and "What type of creature is it?" are fairly unrelated questions. Also, you can use [mtg:Card Name] to tag cards automatically. And finally, welcome to Board and Card Games!

Okay thanks for the tips I will keep those in mind for future questions

Any enchantments or counters that were on the creature when it was face down will remain when it is turned face up. The creature never changed zones. It is still the same object.
Morphs and Manifests have the "Creature" card type, but no subtypes.

701.31a, 702.36a It becomes a 2/2 face-down creature card with no text, no name, no subtypes, and no mana cost.

When it gets turned face up, it just regains its normal characteristics, but it is otherwise the same object:

702.36e Any time you have priority, you may turn [a morphed card] face up. The morph effect on it ends, and it regains its normal characteristics.

Transform means something special and is not what happens with morphed cards. I like to say "morph" and "turn it face up".

Just adding to Rainbolt's answer since I can't comment.
If the creature is not leaving play then the counters will stay. If you activate a Mutavault or Sarkhan, the Dragonspeaker and then are able to put +1/+1 counters on them those counters will stay there even after they stop being creatures. They will just be irrelevant to the cards new status as a land or planeswalker.
However, if you do this with the new Liliana the counter will fall off as you have to exile her as part of her "transformation".


text:
Commander status as hidden information
Inspired by Ivo Beckers' comment on the answer to Is your commander still a "commander" if it gets turned face down?
If Akroma, Angel of Fury is your commander and is returned to your hand, followed by casting her as a morph creature for {3}, how is her commander status handled?
Naturally, by CR 903.3, the face-down object still is your commander. However, that fact is hidden information. Normally, if a commander has been turned face down, since everyone is permitted to know what the morphed creature was, dealing commander damage with the nameless 2/2 isn't an issue. But if the commander was cast as a morph, that doesn't help.
The most relevant specific question to this situation, I suppose, is "can you deal commander damage to your opponent without them knowing it?" (ie, connect for combat damage with the morph creature without revealing that the creature is your commander)

Re "However, that fact is hidden information", Is it?

Tournament rules 3.12: "Hidden information refers to the faces of cards and other objects at which the rules of the game and format do not
allow you to look." CR 707.5: "You can’t look at face-down cards in any other
zone or face-down spells or permanents controlled by another player." The identity of a morphed card played from your hand is thus hidden information.

Last I checked, the commander attribute is not present on the face of cards, so neither of those two passages are applicable. So again I ask, is the Commander attribute hidden information?

@ikegami, So you say it isn't hidden, how would you handle that situation? "I am playing this card face-down but by the way it is also my commander"? If so, are you obliged to reveal the face up side of your card to prove it is your commander? It seems weird that you have to, but on the other hand you could ofcourse have lied about the fact that your facedown card is a commander

@Ivo Beckers, Re "So you say it isn't hidden", No, I'm not. I'm asking if it is. If it isn't hidden, that's exactly what you would have to do. But not the reveal. There's no reason to do that. Of course, you can cheat, but you will be caught, and when you do, you'll get disqualified and people will stop playing with you. (It's actually easier to cheat if it is hidden information.)

Commanderness is never hidden information. It's an attribute of a card, not of a card face.

Is it my commander?
To reiterate what is stated in the question, your commander is always your commander, and nothing can change that. This is because of the following rule:

903.3. [...] This [commander] designation it is an attribute of the card itself. The card retains this designation even when it changes zones.

Does a commander deal commander damage?
Yes, obviously.
Even if it's morphed?
Yes. Commanderness cannot be hidden. It's an attribute of a card, not a card face. This is specifically covered by an example under rule 903.3.

A commander that’s been turned face down (due to Ixidron’s effect, for example) is still a commander.

Even if it's morphed from my hand?
Yes. Being unable to immediately prove* commanderness is not a legitimate argument for ignoring the rules. To illustrate this very clearly, consider these two rules:

Correct rule 903.3

The commander designation is an attribute of the card itself.

Incorrect rule 903.3

The commander designation an attribute of the card itself if and only if you can prove what card it is.

*Note that you will eventually be required to reveal your morph via comprehensive rule 707.9.
Am I required to immediately tell the truth if asked if a morph is my commander?
It's not clear. The EDH Rules Committee previously stated on their forum:

Face Down Commanders
Since the card itself is designated as the commander, face down commanders still deal commander damage. Your opponents are also allowed to know which morph creature is your commander.

MTGCommander.net is cited in the comprehensive rules as being a source of "additional resources", so rulings made by the EDH Rules Committee are pseudo-authoritative. However, the forum has since been taken down, and with it the ruling. For lack of an authoritative source, it is unclear if "commanderness" is free information.

So when you morph it from your hand and someone immediately asks if it's the commander, you have to tell them? And if it really can't be hidden, what if it gets shuffled into your library - do you have to tell people if you draw it?

"You will eventually be required to prove that your morph is indeed a commander, and you therefore cannot cheat without being caught." I think we all agree on this, but the real question is when does it become required?

An answer to @bengoesboom's question would complete this answer

"The rules allow you to cheat" is a nonsensical phrase. If the rules allow something, that thing can't be cheating by definition. If something is cheating, then by definition the rules cannot allow it. If what you mean is that the rules don't have accountability built in to stop you from cheating, then that's something that's true of lots of games and lots of rules. Most rules are written with the assumption that the players playing the game will obey the rules.

Excellent. Great answer. :)

@Gendolkari I probably would have used your wording if doppelgreener hadn't found the comprehensive rule that made that paragraph obsolete.

I could not find anything that specifically says that everybody knows that it is your commander. Being a commander is an attribute of the card itself, however nowhere in the rules is the word 'attribute' defined as it applies to a card, it isn't a characteristic or status as those are both defined in the CR. Morph creatures only lose characteristics they don't lose any other properties of the card. As such I would say that everyone should know when you cast the card that it is your commander. If you do decide that you don't need to tell people when you cast it you would have to tell them when combat damage is dealt as life totals are free information so you have to tell someone if they are dealt commander damage.
Regardless, currently the only Legendary Creature with Morph is Akroma, which means you are mono-Red, and there are very few playable mono-Red morph creatures, so you should pretty much always assume it is her if they play a morph creature.
References:

109.3. An object’s characteristics are name, mana cost, color, color indicator, card type, subtype,
  supertype, rules text, abilities, power, toughness, loyalty, hand modifier, and life modifier. Objects
  can have some or all of these characteristics. Any other information about an object isn’t a
  characteristic. For example, characteristics don’t include whether a permanent is tapped, a spell’s
  target, an object’s owner or controller, what an Aura enchants, and so on.
110.6. A permanent’s status is its physical state. There are four status categories, each of which has two
  possible values: tapped/untapped, flipped/unflipped, face up/face down, and phased in/phased out.
  Each permanent always has one of these values for each of these categories.
707.2. Face-down spells and face-down permanents have no characteristics other than those listed by
  the ability or rules that allowed the spell or permanent to be face down. Any listed characteristics
  are the copiable values of that object’s characteristics. (See rule 613, “Interaction of Continuous
  Effects,” and rule 706, “Copying Objects.”)


text:
Am I obligated to distinguish between morphs and megamorphs when I'm casting a card face-down?
I cast a card with megamorph and state "I'll pay {3} and morph this." Is this particular method of communication for casting a face-down creature legal? The reason I ask is because morph and megamorph mean different things.
If I control a face down creature with megamorph, and my opponent asks if it was morphed or megamorphed, am I obligated to respond? If I'm not obligated to respond, but I choose to do so, am I obligated to respond truthfully?
I know that I have to distinguish between manifests and morphs. I'm just not sure if I have to distinguish between morphs and megamorphs. Nearly all of my opponents at my Dragons of Tarkir prerelease events just said "Morph this guy." and it turned out to be a megamorph (surprise!). Given the non-existence of regular morph cards in Dragons of Tarkir, I decided to not ask a judge because I knew they were really all megamorphs. I want to know in case I run into this later.

Some form of consensus appears to have been reached - removed comments.

As long as you make it clear that you are casting the card as a 2/2 face-down creature with no text, no name, no subtypes, and no mana cost, it doesn't matter what you say. The comprehensive rules aren't specific about what you can legally say, and the tournament rules only say that everyone has to be clear about what's going on.
When you cast a Megamorph creature, you are casting it as a Morph creature, so there is no need to distinguish. The Dragons of Tarkir release notes add this to the morph rules:

702.36e Megamorph is a variant of the morph ability. “Megamorph [cost]” means “You may cast this card as a 2/2 face-down creature with no text, no name, no subtypes, and no mana cost by paying 3 rather than paying its mana cost” and “As this permanent is turned face up, put a +1/+1 counter on it if its megamorph cost was paid to turn it face up.” A megamorph cost is a morph cost.

In addition, as Jefromi points out, the Mechanics of Dragons of Tarkir says

If you understand how morph works, megamorph is almost exactly the same. The only difference is that if you turn a face-down creature with megamorph face up by paying its megamorph cost, not only will it suddenly have its normal characteristics, but you'll put a +1/+1 counter on it as well!

Morph and Megamorph use the exact same wording for the bolded section, so you should just be able to say "I cast this face down" and pay {3}.

Cleared some back and forth comments that resulted in edits.

At the prerelease we asked the tournament organiser (a DCI judge) and we were told to say "morph" whether we were casting a morph or megamorph.

Did you read his answer ? As long as everyone know's what going on it's fine. By saying morph your oponent knows it's a 2/2 with no text. I was simply pointing out a ruling by a DCI judge as the op mentions he did not ask on the prerelease

Whups, my bad, misunderstood your answer. Never mind - I might tweak it to avoid others having the same misunderstanding. (and so that I can upvote)


text:
If face down permanents have no abilities, why are they affected by "loses all abilities"?
The Khans of Tarkir Release Notes say:

If a face-down creature loses its abilities, it can’t be turned face up [...]

This implies that Morph is an ability. However, the community here seems fairly certain that Morph is not an ability.

Answer - Why is Morph not considered an ability?

If Morph is not an ability, then how does losing all abilities prevent a face down permanent from being turned face up?

The question you reference has an incorrect premise. Morph is an ability, but the face-down creature does not have it because it is face down.
Rule 702.36d says

If you have priority, you may turn a face-down permanent you control face up. This is a special action; it doesn‘t use the stack (see rule 115). To do this, show all players what the permanent‘s morph cost would be if it were face up, pay that cost, then turn the permanent face up. (If the permanent wouldn‘t have a morph cost if it were face up, it can‘t be turned face up this way.) The morph effect on it ends, and it regains its normal characteristics. Any abilities relating to the permanent entering the battlefield don‘t trigger when it‘s turned face up and don‘t have any effect, because the permanent has already entered the battlefield.

If the face-down permanent loses its abilities, then it wouldn't have the ability or the morph cost if it were face up because it would be the same object.

the community here seems fairly certain that Morph is not an ability.

Morph is an ability.

702.36a Morph is a static ability that functions in any zone from which you could play the card it’s on [...]

But the face-down permanent doesn't have it.

707.2. Face-down spells and face-down permanents have no characteristics other than those listed by the ability or rules that allowed the spell or permanent to be face down. [...]
702.36b To cast a card using its morph ability, turn it face down. It becomes a 2/2 face-down creature card, with no text, no name, no subtypes, and no mana cost. [...]

This is confirmed by a ruling on Muraganda Petroglyphs.

Muraganda Petroglyphs gives a bonus only to creatures that have no rules text at all. This includes true vanilla creatures (such as Grizzly Bears), face-down creatures, many tokens, and creatures that have lost their abilities (due to Ovinize, for example). [...]

how does losing all abilities prevent a face down permanent from being turned face up?

The special action that allows a face-down card to be turned face-up checks the morph cost of the card as if it were face-up.

702.36d If you have priority, you may turn a face-down permanent you control face up. This is a special action; it doesn’t use the stack (see rule 115). To do this, show all players what the permanent’s morph cost would be if it were face up, pay that cost, then turn the permanent face up. (If the permanent wouldn’t have a morph cost if it were face up, it can’t be turned face up this way.) The morph effect on it ends, and it regains its normal characteristics. Any abilities relating to the permanent entering the battlefield don’t trigger when it’s turned face up and don’t have any effect, because the permanent has already entered the battlefield.

The effect suppressing the abilities of a face-down card with morph would continue to affect it once it's turned face-up too[1], so it wouldn't have a morph cost if it were face-up, so it cannot be turned face-up by the special action described in 702.36d.
This is confirmed by the The Khans of Tarkir Release Notes.

If a face-down creature loses its abilities, it can't be turned face up because it no longer has morph (or a morph cost).

If the effect wouldn't affect the face-up permanent (e.g. "Permanents with no names lose all abilities" created by a static ability), then you could morph it.

Your footnote is incorrect for spells and non-static abilities. 611.2c ensures that the affected permanents are locked in at time of resolution.

@Fax, Fixed. . .


text:
What happens if you manifest a creature card with morph?
If a player manifests a creature card with the morph ability, can that player pay the morph cost to turn it face up?
For example, if Anthony casts Formless Nurturing to manifest Abomination of Gudul, can he pay the morph cost of {2}{B}{G}{U} instead of the creature cost of {3}{B}{G}{U} to turn it face up?

Yes. If a creature card with Morph is manifested, the permanent it becomes may be flipped for either its creature cost or its morph cost. This is covered by the following rule introduced in Fate Reforged:

701.31c If a card with morph is manifested, its controller may use the procedure described in rule 702.36d to turn a face-down permanent with morph face up rather than the procedure described above to turn a manifested permanent face up.

In your specific example, Anthony may choose to pay either {2}{B}{G}{U} or {3}{B}{G}{U} to flip Abomination of Gudul at any time he has priority.
For reference:

702.36d Any time you have priority, you may turn a face-down permanent you control face up. This is a special action; it doesn’t use the stack (see rule 115). To do this, show all players what the permanent’s morph cost would be if it were face up, pay that cost, then turn the permanent face up.

I think it might be helpful to also quote rule 702.36d.

@murgtroid99 Done. Now that I am actually reading 702.36d, it seems to cover everything that 701.31c covers. Do you have any thoughts as to how the two rules are different? In other words, does 701.31c add anything above and beyond what 702.36d already states? Just curious.

I think 701.31c clarifies that the manifest rules do not place any restrictions on 702.36d. It's probably technically redundant because 702.36d is so general, but with both mechanics in the same set, this question is going to come up a lot, so it's probably easier to answer it explicitly in the rules.

Also, it is not expected that someone will read through and remember all the rules, so it makes sense for someone reading through the section on manifest (701.31) to be pointed towards the relevant rules on morph (702.36).

You can pay either the morph cost or the creature's normal mana cost to flip it up.
Manifest is covered in Mechanics of Fate Reforged. The relevant snippet for this question:

If you happen to manifest a card with morph, you can turn it face up either by paying its mana cost (if it's a creature card) or by paying its morph cost.

In general, when you have a question about a mechanic from a new set, a really good place to find answers about it is the mechanics article Wizards posts for the set. The title is always in the same form as this article ("Mechanics of {set name}") so they're really easy to search for.
If you want the full technical details, the comprehensive rules are the place to go (see Rainbolt's answer), but if you want a practical, easy to understand answer, these articles are really useful. As a bonus, they're often published a bit before the comprehensive rules updates, so you can satisfy your curiosity sooner.


text:
What happens if you manifest a Zoetic Cavern?
If I manifest Zoetic Cavern can I use it's morph cost as usual, the reason why I ask is because manifest says you can turn it face-up only if it is a creature card, which it is not, so I was wondering if that applied to only the manifest, face-up cost or if it keeps you from turning it face-up with other morph costs?
I'm assuming a card can have multiple morph costs that don't necessarily interact with each other?

Yes, you can use the morph cost of the Cavern.
In the rules for manifest rule 701.33c says:

If a card with morph is manifested, its controller may turn that card face up using either the procedure described in rule 702.36e to turn a face-down permanent with morph face up or the procedure described above to turn a manifested permanent face up.

So if you are turning a card face up using the morph procedure, the manifest procedure and its restrictions become irrelevant.
Manifest is a separate, though similar, mechanic from morph and it is incorrect to call the cost of turning a card face up using the manifest procedure a morph cost.


text:
Does Humility stop all creatures from being able to morph?
This question is related to this one. Does Humility stop all face-down creatures from being able to morph?

Yes, it stops morph:

702.36e Any time you have priority, you may turn a face-down permanent you control with a morph ability face up. This is a special action; it doesn’t use the stack (see rule 115). To do this, show all players what the permanent’s morph cost would be if it were face up, pay that cost, then turn the permanent face up. (If the permanent wouldn’t have a morph cost if it were face up, it can’t be turned face up this way.) The morph effect on it ends, and it regains its normal characteristics. Any abilities relating to the permanent entering the battlefield don’t trigger when it’s turned face up and don’t have any effect, because the permanent has already entered the battlefield.

(emphasis mine)
Humility makes a creature lose all abilities, including morph and its cost, which is part of the ability itself:

702.36a Morph is a static ability that functions in any zone from which you could play the card it’s on, and the morph effect works any time the card is face down. “Morph [cost]” means “You may cast this card as a 2/2 face-down creature with no text, no name, no subtypes, and no mana cost by paying {3} rather than paying its mana cost.” (See rule 707, “Face-Down Spells and Permanents.”)


text:
Cloning a face-down creature
What happens when you clone a face-down creature, for example with the cards Clone and Sagu Mauler? Does the clone become a 2/2 with no abilities?

Thought on the side: You usually wont know which face-down creature is which, so you wouldn't know, which to clone (if you clone the face down creature). As long as the face-downy is not your creature.

Correct, a copy of a face-down 2/2 creature is also a 2/2 creature.
A copy effect can only ever copy what's visible to all players. Any characteristics of an object that are not visible to all players can have no effect on gameplay, unless they are revealed to everyone before or as they affect the gameplay.

707.2a If a face-up permanent is turned face down by a spell or ability that doesn't list any characteristics for that object, it becomes a 2/2 face-down creature with no text, no name, no subtypes, and no mana cost. A permanent that enters the battlefield face down also has these characteristics unless otherwise specified by the effect that put it onto the battlefield face down or allowed it to be cast face down. These values are the copiable values of that object's characteristics.


text:
Does Kill Shot-ing a morph during combat prevent damage?
I just started playing Magic this year, so this might a super-newb question, but here it goes:

My opponent declares that he will attack with this 2/2 colorless morph.
I declare no blockers because I figure I can take 2 damage.
My opponent pays the morph cost to morph his attacking creature into a 5/3 Krumar Bond-Kin.
Then I decide to play Kill Shot.

What happens now? Do I take 5 damage? Do I take 2 damage? Can I even play Kill Shot?
Also, technically speaking, during what phases are the steps I've detailed above happening? I was under the assumption that you can morph whenever you want, but I've read that you can't morph during combat damage resolution, which leads me to believe that I take no damage.

possible duplicate of Can instants be played after I decide not to block?

I don't think it's a duplicate of that. The mechanics of morph are also important to this question.

@murgtroid99 How is morph relevant to this question? Dead creature deal no damage. Dead creatures with morph also deal no damage. The crux was really "Can I Kill Shot after I declare blockers, but before I take damage?", and that question has already been asked and answered.

@Rainbolt The previous question has no confusion around how Morph relates to the attack process & the spell. This one does, and so requires different explanation. It's clear to us it's the same kinda deal, but clearly not to the asker, or they wouldn't be asking this. Not the same question, not a duplicate.

The end result of these plays is that the Krumar Bond-Kin dies, and deals you no damage. If you did not play the Kill Shot, you would take 5 damage instead. If your opponent did not morph the creature, and you played Kill Shot, the creature would still be dead and you would still take no damage. I think that covers it.
More specifically, the actions happened in this order:

During your opponent's Declare Attackers Step, they declared a face-down 2/2 creature as an attacker.
During your opponent's Declare Blockers Step, you chose to declare no blockers.

Your opponent then gained priority and morphed their creature. Morphing a creature is a special action, and it does not use the stack. It happens immediately, and cannot be responded to. The face up creature counts as the same object that the face down creature was. It is still tapped and attacking.
You gained priority, and cast Kill Shot targeting the face up Krumar Bond-Kin.
The Kill Shot resolves, and destroys the Krumar Bond-Kin.

The Combat Damage Step starts. There are no attacking creatures, so no damage is dealt.

@murgatroid99 Is it worth explicitly calling out that the "can't be responded to" thing means you can't Shock a Pine Walker between it being revealed and finishing morphing (going from 2 toughness to 5), or do you think that might be implicit enough?

The specific implications of "can't be responded to" aren't really relevant to this question. And I also think that "It happens immediately and cannot be responded to" is sufficient to convey those implications.