text:
MTG: Fiend Binder and wider implications of Rule 508.1d
I am trying to figure out rule 508.1d - I initially got down this path whilst trying to figure out Fiend Binder's requirements.
Fiend Binder's text says:

Whenever Fiend Binder attacks, tap target creature defending player controls.

My friend and I cannot decide whether this reads as an implicit "must" (since most cards will say "may" when something is optional), or an implicit "may." I argue that if all my creatures are tapped, or if I have no creatures on the battlefield, he cannot use Fiend Binder to attack with; he argues otherwise.
To resolve this we turned to the rules, and I find 508.1d:

The active player checks each creature they control to see whether it’s affected by any requirements (effects that say a creature attacks if able, or that it attacks if some condition is met). If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximum possible number of requirements that could be obeyed without disobeying any restrictions, the declaration of attackers is illegal.

... so far so good, but then it says:

If a creature can’t attack unless a player pays a cost, that player is not required to pay that cost, even if attacking with that creature would increase the number of requirements being obeyed.

Which is downright weird...

If there is a cost for attacking, the player doesn't have to pay that cost and can proceed anyway? What's the point then?
the rule doesn't specify "mana cost" but I presume that is what it means, as opposed to a requirement, like "sacrifice a creature"?

Is there any extra rule or resource that can add clarity?
I really wish the card instructions conformed to RFC-2119 ...! :-P

This question has become a little muddled, because the answers show that the rule you quoted is not relevant to the ability you asked about. If you still have questions about that rule, you may want to ask them in a separate question that doesn't have the Fiend Binder baggage.

If there's no ':' in the ability description, it has no cost unless the ability itself states otherwise. The ':' is hard to see sometimes if it's a mana or tap cost because of how the font used on the cards is kerned with respect to the icons, but it is there. This means that Fiend Binder's ability has no cost, because there is no ':'.

Note that nothing stops you from using this ability to tap a creature that's already tapped. This could be important if, for example, your opponent had an illusion creature that said "When this creature becomes the target of a spell or ability, sacrifice it."

You're getting combat requirements mixed up with triggered abilities.
Triggered abilities:

603.1. Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as “[When/Whenever/At] [trigger condition or event], [effect]. [Instructions (if any).]”

Now, you know that if there isn't any targets, there's a problem, but that's handled by:

603.3d The remainder of the process for putting a triggered ability on the stack is identical to the process for casting a spell listed in rules 601.2c–d. If a choice is required when the triggered ability goes on the stack but no legal choices can be made for it, or if a rule or a continuous effect otherwise makes the ability illegal, the ability is simply removed from the stack.

So, if your opponent has no creatures, the ability triggers, but since there are no legal targets, it's immediately removed from the stack.

Aha... looks like I'll need to re-read those sections' intros then.... thanks

@taifwa You may wish to give a little time for someone else to chime in. Could be a better explanation than mine.  Also, do you want me to elaborate on rule 508?

The second part of this answer isn't correct in this situation.  Tapped creatures are legal targets for Fiend Binder's ability since there's no targeting restriction (i.e. "target untapped creature").  609.3 seems more relevant here: If an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible.  The effect attempts to tap an already tapped creature, and so it simply does nothing.

@MilesBudnek I'd say the second part is incomplete, not incorrect. If he has no creatures, there are no legal targets.  I never said anything about only tapped creatures.

"So, if your opponent has no creatures, the ability triggers, but since there are no legal targets, it's immediately removed from the stack." - It seems like there should be a clearer/more concise way to put this.  Something like "triggered abilities are ignored when they have no valid targets", maybe?

@aroth How would that wording help as an explanation? What exactly does "ignored" mean? It could be misunderstood as "it doesn't trigger/enter the stack at all", both of which would be incorrect under the rules.

It's shorter/simpler, for one, and doesn't invoke the concept of a stack, for another.  In the context of the OP, it means that Fiend Binder can attack. And in that context the vagaries of what the stack does probably don't matter. Granted there may be strategies or decks built where knowing that a triggered ability enters the stack before it fizzles matters (although...how common is it for cards to have abilities that trigger in response to other abilities triggering?), but that level of detail seems a bit far removed from what was asked.

Fiend Binder's ability is not a combat requirement or restriction. It is a triggered ability that happens as a consequence of attacking. You can attack with it if your opponent controls only tapped creatures, or even no creatures at all.
Your question has a number of incorrect assumptions:
First If a creature can't attack because of one of its abilities, it's called a restriction, not a requirement:

508.1c The active player checks each creature they control to see whether it’s affected by any restrictions (effects that say a creature can’t attack, or that it can’t attack unless some condition is met). If any restrictions are being disobeyed, the declaration of attackers is illegal.

A requirement is given when an effect says that a creature must attack:

508.1d The active player checks each creature they control to see whether it’s affected by any requirements (effects that say a creature attacks if able, or that it attacks if some condition is met). [..]

Second Since Fiend Binder's ability is neither a restriction nor a requirement, its ability can't be a cost for attacking or defending either.
Third Fiend Binder's ability is a triggered ability. It goes on the stack whenever its trigger event happens.

603.1. Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as “[When/Whenever/At] [trigger condition or event], [effect]. [Instructions (if any).]”

Whether a triggered ability can't go on the stack, is countered, or resolves without taking effect has no influence whatsoever on the event that triggered it, because that event has already happened, it's in the past.
A few things can happen between the triggering event and the ability actually doing something. A triggered ability might not go on the stack at all, because an effect says so (e.g. Hushbringer), or it's immediately removed because it lacks a valid target:

603.3d The remainder of the process for putting a triggered ability on the stack is identical to the process for casting a spell listed in rules 601.2c–d. If a choice is required when the triggered ability goes on the stack but no legal choices can be made for it, or if a rule or a continuous effect otherwise makes the ability illegal, the ability is simply removed from the stack.

This would apply to Fiend Binder if your opponent controls no creatures, or none of them could be targeted by Fiend Binder.
The ability could be countered, e.g. Disallow).
Finally, if Fiend Binder targets an already tapped creature, it will resolve but nothing happens, because, as you correctly note, a tapped creature can't be tapped. However, this is inconsequential, since in this case, tapping is an effect, not cost.

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

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

So in essence, you may freely attack with Fiend Binder, without any restriction. If you do attack, and your opponent has any creature that you could target with Fiend Binder's ability, you have to do so. If not, nothing happens, and your Fiend Binder keeps attacking.

Reading the referenced rule 609.3 regarding impossible things, did I get it right that the targeting part will still happen even if the tapping part cannot? As in, if opponent's only permanent is a tapped Ashenmoor Liege, you might still die from attacking with your Fiend Binder?

@Bass Yep, targeting is part of putting the ability on the stack, while tapping is part of its resolution. That resolution doesn't happen until the ability has been on the stack for a while, and other abilities or spells could have triggered/been cast and resolved in the meantime. Your example is a good one: the Binder's ability triggers fully and goes on the stack, then the Liege's ability triggers and goes on the stack, then the Liege's ability resolves and you lose 4 life and maybe the game. All this happens before it's decided whether the Binder's ability can tap the creature or not.

If there is a cost for attacking, the player doesn't have to pay that cost and can proceed anyway? What's the point then?

First, that's not relevant, as this is not a cost. Costs are things that must be paid to do something, not something that happens as a result of something. (If a card says "When this enters the battlefield, sacrifice a land", for instance, then sacrificing a land is not, for rule purposes, a cost, even though the card "costs" you a land in the plain English sense.)
Second, this doesn't mean you can attack with a creature even if you don't pay a cost required for it to attack. It means you can refuse to pay the cost and then not attack. For example, Trove of Temptation has the ability "Each opponent must attack you or a planeswalker you control with at least one creature each combat if able." Propaganda says "Creatures can't attack you unless their controller pays 2 for each creature they control that's attacking you." If you have both Trove of Temptation and Propaganda on the battlefield, your opponent can refuse to pay 2 and not attack you with any creatures, even though that means that they are unable to satisfy Trove of Temptation's requirement.

the rule doesn't specify "mana cost" but I presume that is what it means, as opposed to a requirement, like "sacrifice a creature"?

Sacrificing a creature can be a cost. It's important to distinguish between when sacrificing a creature is a cost or an effect, since if it's a cost, you generally can refuse to do it (though you then don't get the effect that it's a cost for).


text:
doublestrike blocking with kusari-gama
I have a 4/4 creature with double strike and equipped with Kusari-Gama. I get attacked by a 5/5 and 3 2/2's. I block the 5/5 with my 4/4. Do I take damage from the 2/2's even though they die in the first strike phase?

You will take damage, because the creatures don't die
If a creature without first strike or double strike is killed during the first strike step, it will not deal damage.  It is not on the battlefield during the regular damage step, therefore it cannot deal damage.
However, Kusari-gama does not work the way you think it does.  Kusari-gama reads

Whenever equipped creature deals damage to a blocking creature, Kusari-Gama deals that much damage to each other creature defending player controls.

In the scenario you've presented, your double striking creature is dealing damage to an attacking creature.  Therefore, Kusari-gama's effect is not triggered, and no damage is dealt to the attacking 2/2s.  Since the 2/2s do not actually die in the first strike step, and they were not blocked, you take damage from them.
Were you to use a card like Brigid, Hero of Kinsbaile to deal damage to the attacking 2/2s at any point before they deal damage, then they would die and you would not take damage.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How much damage is dealt if a 1/1 creature blocks a 3/5 creature?
If a 1/1 creature is enchanted with Druid's Call and is blocked or is blocking another creature that is a 3/5 creature, does it create 1 squirrel or 3 squirrels?

The player will get 3 tokens.
The amount of damage dealt is not limited by the affected creature's toughness (or planeswalker's loyalty, or player's life). There is no explicit rule stating this fact, but if you look at the definitions of the two kinds of damage (combat and spell/ability), there is also no rule making such a limitation:

120.2a Damage may be dealt as a result of combat. Each attacking and blocking creature deals combat damage equal to its power during the combat damage step.
120.2b Damage may be dealt as an effect of a spell or ability. The spell or ability will specify which object deals that damage.

Damage dealt beyond a creature's toughness is called excess damage, which a few cards make an explicit reference to, but other than that, the amount of damage dealt is what it says.

120.4a First, if an effect is causing damage to be dealt to a creature and that effect specifies that excess damage is dealt to another object or player instead, the damage event is modified to deal damage accordingly. Excess damage is damage greater than the creature’s toughness, taking into account damage marked on that creature and other damage being dealt to it at the same time as this damage. Any damage greater than 1 is excess damage if the source dealing that damage has deathtouch.

From this rule you can also see that a creature can sustain any amount of damage, not just how much toughness it has.
Note that if the 3/5 creature was attacking and also had trample, the attacking player could choose to deal some or all of the excess damage to the defending player. In that case, the defender would get a number of squirrels equal to the damage that was actually assigned and dealt to the 1/1.

Druid's Call creates tokens equal to damage done to enchanted creature. In this case it creates 3 Squirrels. The enchanted creature dies.

While this is correct, a reference to the appropriate comprehensive rules to support this would make it a stronger answer.

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


text:
Can I use Jegantha as a companion if I have an Apex creature in my deck because of the Alternate cost?
I'm building a mutate deck and since the deck meets the conditions for Jegantha, the Wellspring I wanted to use it, but since I'm running a few of the Apex creatures and their mutate costs don't meet the requirement I wanted to know if Jegantha also looks at alternate costs or if it only looks at base cost for the requirement.

The mutate costs don't matter; you can still use Jegantha as your Companion. Jegantha states:

No card in your starting deck has more than one of the same mana symbol in its mana cost.

Mana cost is defined in the rules:

202.1. A card’s mana cost is indicated by mana symbols near the top of the card.

Costs of other abilities that may appear on a card, including mutate costs, are not the mana cost of the card itself, and that is all Jegantha is looking at.


text:
Theft: Does a Returning Creature Keep Equipment?
If I steal a creature card from my opponent with a theft card such as Wrangle, then attach an equipment such as Dead Iron Sledge to said creature.
At the end of the turn, my opponent gets his creature back. At this time, what happens to the Dead Iron Sledge or any other equipment I attached to said creature? Who controls the equipment after the creature is returned?
My argument is that if the exchange were the other way, the equipment would remain under control of the one who cast it, but the equipment would be attached to the stolen creature. This is clear in Wizards rulings.
https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/7p3h5u/stealing_an_equipped_artifact/
If I lose control of an equipped creature, does the equipment stay attached to it?
Thus, when the creature is returned, it will keep the Dead Iron Sledge attached to the opponents creature.

Your instinct is correct, there is no difference between changing control due to stealing a creature with something like Wrangle, and changing control due to something like Wrangle's effect ending. The answer provided by the linked question remains exactly the same. In both cases, control of the creature is changing from one player to another; while control of the equipment stays with the player who originally cast and controlled the equipment.
The equipment will stay attached until something changes that. As the controller of the equipment, you could use the Equip ability to attach it to a different creature.


text:
Sacrifice inferno fist after creature died
If my oponent attacks me with a 5/5 creature and I block it with a 2/2 creature with a inferno fist attached to it, can I sacrifice the Inferno Fist after damage has resolved, so I can kill the 5/5?

No, you can't.
Any time a player would get priority and the chance to do anything (in your case at the end of the combat damage step after combat damage has been dealt), so-called state-based actions are checked. These are a series of automatic effects during which no player can do anything. One of those effects cause enchantments to become unattached (they fall off) off dead creatures. Another effect is that unattached auras go to their owner's graveyard. By the time you can take any action, Inferno Fist is already in a graveyard and can no longer be sacrificed.
Combat damage step:

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

Before a player actually gets priority and can do things, state-based actions are checked first:

704.3. Whenever a player would get priority (see rule 116, “Timing and Priority”), the game checks for any of the listed conditions for state-based actions, then performs all applicable state-based actions simultaneously as a single event. If any state-based actions are performed as a result of a check, the check is repeated;
704.5g If a creature has toughness greater than 0, and the total damage marked on it is greater than or equal to its toughness, that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed. Regeneration can replace this event.
704.5n If an Aura is attached to an illegal object or player, or is not attached to an object or player, that Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard.

You're close (and correct about the outcome), but not entirely correct, as state-based actions are not checked when a creature dies by definition, but by causation. Please see my answer for details.

@TheThirdMan fixed.

By the time you could activate Inferno Fist's ability, it will already be in your graveyard. This is because state-based actions in the Combat Damage Step will see lethal damage on your enchanted creature, therefore putting it into your graveyard. State-based actions will be checked again, seeing an Aura not attached to a creature on the battlefield, which will cause that card to be put in the graveyard.
Only after this happens, the active player will actually gain priority, but since Inferno Fist isn't on the battlefield anymore, you won't be able to activate it's ability.

704.3. Whenever a player would get priority (...), the game checks for any of the listed conditions for state-based actions, then performs all applicable state-based actions simultaneously as a single event. If any state-based actions are performed as a result of a check, the check is repeated (...)
704.5g If a creature has toughness greater than 0, and the total damage marked on it is greater than or equal to its toughness, that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed. Regeneration can replace this event.
704.5n If an Aura is attached to an illegal object or player, or is not attached to an object or player, that Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard.

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


text:
Sequence of turns after two Emrakul, the Promised End
Player A and Player B both have an Emrakul, the Promised End and Player A casts his Emrakul and on Player B's turn, that he now controls, casts Player B's Emrakul. Does Player B get to control Player A's turn or not as the card states "When you cast Emrakul, you gain control of target opponent during that player's next turn". Who is you in this case? And what would the sequence of the following turns be?

Player B will control Player A's turn.
The sequence is:

Turn 1 (A): A casts Emrakul, the Promised End.

Turn 2 (B): A controls B and casts B's Emrakul, the Promised End

Turn 3 (B extra): B can do whatever he wants.

Turn 4 (A): B controls A's turn.

Turn 5 (A extra): A can do whatever he wants.

Turn 6 (B): The game progresses as normal.

Player A is not Player B. Player A and B are always opponents of each other, no matter who controls whose turn. If A makes the decision for B to cast Emrakul, the Promised End, it's as if B had cast it himself for the purposes of "you" or "your opponent" in the card text of cards. Controlling another player only means that you make the game decisions for that player and use his or her resources:

712.3. Only control of the player changes. All objects are controlled by their normal controllers. A player who’s being controlled during his or her turn is still the active player.
712.5. While controlling another player, a player makes all choices and decisions the controlled player is allowed to make or is told to make by the rules or by any objects. This includes choices and decisions about what to play, and choices and decisions called for by spells and abilities.

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


text:
Eye of the Storm and Kicker Costs
If Rite of Replication is exiled with Eye of the Storm, can people pay the kicker cost to still get 5 tokens?

I think Imprint on Isochron Scepter and copy by Eye of the Storm are sufficiently distinct to allow both questions.

@Hackworth Imprint has no actual rules meaning. And honestly, Isochron Scepter's first ability (the Imprint ability) is not the subject of the other question. Isochron Scepter's second ability allows you to copy an exiled spell and then cast the copy. Eye of the Storm allows you to copy an exiled spell and then cast the copy. They seem the same to me.

Yes, you can pay the kicker costs for the each copy if you want the extra tokens.
Some cards copy spells on the stack directly. You cannot choose to pay kicker for those spells, the choice and additional costs are copied from the original.
In this case, however, the whole card is copied, and you may cast it as a new spell without paying its mana cost. In that case, you are free to decide whether or not to pay the kicker costs, which are additional costs and have nothing to do with the spell's mana costs:

702.32a Kicker is a static ability that functions while the spell with kicker is on the stack. “Kicker [cost]” means “You may pay an additional [cost] as you cast this spell.” Paying a spell’s kicker cost(s) follows the rules for paying additional costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2f–h.

Note that you may also pay the kicker costs for the original Rite, but that would be a waste of mana, because the original is exiled and does not resolve. Neither paying nor not paying the kicker on the original Rite has any effect on the copies.

Yes, you can use Kicker.

The total cost to cast a spell = (mana cost or alternative cost) + (additional costs and cost increases) - cost reductions
Eye of the Storm's ability allows you to cast the spell for an alternative cost ("for free").
Kicker can be used when you cast a spell by imposing an additional cost. Nothing about casting a spell using an alternative cost prevents this.

From the gatherer entry for Eye of the Storm:

The player chooses modes, pays additional costs, chooses targets, and so on for the copies when casting them

and

When a spell with Replicate is copied by Eye of the Storm, you have the  opportunity to pay additional costs

Replicate was used in the reminder above, as that was an additional cost mechanic in that block. Kicker follows the same rules in this matter.


text:
If the only target of a spell is cloudshifted, is the spell countered?
If a spell or ability is cast targeting a specific creature, would casting Cloudshift on the creature counter the spell or ability?

Yes. (Assuming that the spell is targeting only the 1 creature in question.)
When an object changes zones, as it does when you cast Cloudshift on it, it becomes an entirely new object. The object that the original spell was targeting no longer exists, and so the spell is countered for having an invalid target upon resolution.

400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. There are eight exceptions to this rule:

(None of the eight exceptions apply here.)
And the rules for what happens when a spell resolves:

608.2b If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. A target that’s no longer in the zone it was in when it was targeted is illegal. Other changes to the game state may cause a target to no longer be legal; for example, its characteristics may have changed or an effect may have changed the text of the spell. If the source of an ability has left the zone it was in, its last known information is used during this process. The spell or ability is countered if all its targets, for every instance of the word “target,” are now illegal.


text:
How does Shield Dancer's ability work with a creature that has Trample?
I have a Shield Dancer, 1/3, whose activated ability states:

The next time target attacking creature would deal combat damage to Shield Dancer this turn, that creature deals that damage to itself instead.

He blocks a 6/1 creature with Trample, such as Ball Lightning. Trample states that leftover damage carries over to the 'defending' player. With the Shield Dancer's ability activated and the damage reversed, what happens with the left over trample damage?

The attacking Ball Lightning would deal 3-6 damage to itself and the rest to the defending player.
Assigning combat damage and actually dealing combat damage are two different actions during the combat damage step:

510.1. First, the active player announces how each attacking creature assigns its combat damage [..]
510.2. Second, all combat damage that’s been assigned is dealt simultaneously [..]

Shield dancer's ability modifies how damage is dealt, but the rules for assigning combat damage from an attacking creature with trample remain the same:

702.19b The controller of an attacking creature with trample first assigns damage to the creature(s) blocking it. Once all those blocking creatures are assigned lethal damage, any remaining damage is assigned as its controller chooses among those blocking creatures and the player or planeswalker the creature is attacking. [..]

When determining what constitutes lethal damage, the Shield Dancer's ability is not taken into account. 702.19b continues:

702.19b [..] When checking for assigned lethal damage, take into account damage already marked on the creature and damage from other creatures that’s being assigned during the same combat damage step, but not any abilities or effects that might change the amount of damage that’s actually dealt. The attacking creature’s controller need not assign lethal damage to all those blocking creatures but in that case can’t assign any damage to the player or planeswalker it’s attacking.

Therefore, the attacking player has to assign at least 3 and at most all 6 points of damage to the Shield Dancer, so it would receive lethal damage. The rest is assigned to the defending player. Then when the damage is actually dealt, the Shield Dancer's replacement effect happens, the damage assigned to the Shield Dancer is dealt to the Ball Lightning instead, and the damage assigned to the defending player is dealt to that player.

Does this also mean that a 6/6 creature with Trample would be able to survive the reflected damage? That's not what I'd intuitively expect reading the ability, perhaps it's worth pointing out explicitly?

What do you expect when you read the ability, what is unclear about it?

I would expect that the redirect effect happens before assigning the amount of damage, so you'd have to assign 1 to the Ball Lightning and trample 5, and would have to assign 6 to a 6/6 trample blocker.

I see. So I take it my answer does not clear that up for you? In particular the part where I separate damage assignment and damage dealing, and how the Shield Dancer only affects damage dealing.

@Erik that's what makes intuitive sense, perhaps, but it's not the way redirection works in magic - redirection like this only affects the damage when it's being dealt, but not when it's being assigned, so a 6/6 with trample would survive, but a 6/6 without trample would not.

I have added a bit about what constitutes lethal damage and that Shield Dancer's ability does not force the attacker to assign 6 damage to the Shield Dancer if it only has 3 toughness.

@Andrew I think you meant 6/1 in the second part, to late to edit so figured I would clarify

@Hackworth The same rulings would affect prevention like when a creature has protection and blocks a trample creature right? I know from experience it works this way but not what comprehensive rules are associated with it. If so it might be worth mentioning that this works the same way as prevention of damage.

@Erik This gets even more interesting when ball lightning has trample and death touch because death touch means you only have to assign one damage for lethal damage so he would trample over for 5 against your creature no matter how much toughness it had and you would redirect 1 damage to it.

@MaxYoung Correct, if the defending creature has protection or any other damage prevention/reduction, the attacker still only has to assign as much damage as the creature has toughness, the rest can go to the defending player.

@MaxYoung I doubted this when you first mentioned it, but it turns out this is true, per rule 702.2c:  "Any nonzero amount of combat damage assigned to a creature by a source with deathtouch is considered to be lethal damage for the purposes of determining if a proposed combat damage assignment is valid, regardless of that creature’s toughness."

@BradC I only know this because I watched a friend taking lessons from a judge. The judge had built packs of cards that he put in sleeves. The front of the sleeve contained a note card that said what the scenario was and the judge had organized them together by difficulty. I didn't know what comprehensive rule dictated it but figured it would be interesting for the purposes of this question because it shows the difference between damage assignment and damage dealt which the OP was struggling with. So in this case lethal damage must be assigned first but lethal damage is not always toughness.

@MaxYoung i did not, a 6/6 without trample would assign 6 damage to shield dancer and have all 6 redirected, which is enough to kill itself. A 6/1 would die with or without trample.

@Andrew I reread your comment I see what you meant now, sorry about that. I am leaving my old post for context.


text:
In Warhammer 40k is it possible to have your army use vehicles from other factions?
Is there anything in the rules that say you can have your army use vehicles from another faction?
I use Harlequins and I always thought about trying something new and using some Eldar vehicles like a War Walker or a Wraithknight. I figured it would work since Harlequins and Eldars are the same race. Or with human races like a Militarum Tempestus army using a Space Marine Land Raider or two.
Is this possible?

It might be worth tagging this with an edition. Allies have changed significantly in 8th.

Yes and no
In the current edition, all armies (except unbound armies) are made up of formations.  For example, you might take the Combined Arms Detachment from the basic rules, or any other formation from your codex.  Which army you are using is basically determined by which faction your warlord is from.  You can take formations from other armies and books, however, as long as you follow the rules for allies, located in the rule book.  (I don't have my book with me to get a page reference).
So, you could take a Harlequin Combined Arms Detachment and also take an Eldar Warhost, which would give you the ability to take a lot of Eldar stuff, as long as you fulfill the requirements of the formation.  I'm sure there are other Eldar formations that would have less stringent requirements, as well.
Additionally, you could take an unbound army, which has no force org requirements, but also grants none of the special rules associated with formations (no objective secured or warlord trait reroll, for example).  In that case, you can take exactly whatever models you want.  You would still have to follow the rules for allies, though, which can make movement or deployment difficult if you pick armies that do not like each other.

To my knowledge Harlequins are battler brothers with both Eldar and Dark Eldar so deploying them together would not be a problem

Yes, this is entirely possible under certain circumstances
You see, the core rules have a section where you can make your war-band. One of the options that you have is taking multiple detachments. Since there are no real restrictions on transports on what they move, unless they are "Allies of Convenience" or worse, so long as they are paid for, you can have them.
However in order to make this work RAW, you need to build in a specific way. The only ways that make sense is to make the transporter and the riders their own Combined Arms Detachment, or downgrade so that the riders are an Allied Detatchment (see the following image).
In either case, this means that you need at least an HQ and 2 troop units (the troops can take dedicated transports) in order to use that factions' transports (between 3-6 depending if the factions' Heavy Support options have transports). The only other stipulation is that since the units are split between 2 formations, the troops of the rider faction cannot start the game inside of a transport faction vehicle (however they can embark inside of the transport when you start your turn)

Ynnari allows you to put any infantry that falls under the same detachment as a Ynnari leader into any transport in that same detachment. Herald of Ynnaed - check it out.

Do you have any supporting information for this?

If the armies are Battle Brothers you can share transports, for example have Howling Banshees in a Dark Eldar Raider. Or put Harlequins in a Wave Serpent.
If you want Formation benefits (like Objective Secured) you'll need to field 0-1 CADS, plus any number of Allied Detachments or Formations. Many tournaments will require you to field at least one CAD. If it's a friendly game you can field whatever you want, though of course you won't get any benefits, and only Battle Brothers can share transports. If you go that route, do check the allies rules, as you may need to setup different faction units (and will probably want to keep) a certain distance away from each other.

Why the downvote?


text:
Ulamog, the ceaseless hunger and strionic resonator combo
Let's assume Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger's ability gets copied to a differently named card. When Ulamog is the only attacking creature, will the total number of exiled cards be 20 or 40? Because of the triggered ability of Strionic Resonator?

Are you asking 2 different questions here? One about copying Ulamog's abilities to a different creature, and one about Ulamog and Strionic Resonator?

@Hackworth I assume there's a misunderstanding about how the copying is applied through the Resonator.

You seem to misunderstand how Strionic Resonator works. Whenever a source you control has an ability that triggers, this ability is placed on the stack. You can react to this by activating the Resonator and copy the effect on the stack. When you placed the first effect on the stack (say, for instance "Whenever >name-a-card< attacks, tap target creature") you chose a creature to tap. With the Resonator, when you copy this effect, you can choose another target creature to tap. The Resonator does not copy the text of the ability onto another creature. Using  the Resonator, you can't copy a triggered ability from one creature to another, you can only interact with an effect on the stack that has a triggered ability as its source.
Then, using the Resonator on Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger: You can copy both abilities with the Resonator and both of the effects will be applied twice. The line abount 'choosing new targets' on the Resonator is only relevant for the 'when cast'-trigger, the 'when it attacks'-trigger does not target.
Finally, if a card's ability refers to itself by name at any point, that's a shortcut for "this card/object"; it doesn't refer to other cards with the same name. So if you have two copies of Basking Rootwalla, and you activate its pump on one of them, it only affects that one Basking Rootwalla.

Just for clarification based on the OP's implied combo: After attacking with Ulamog and then activating Strionic Resonator (and the Resonator resolving), there would be two separate "Exile the top 20 cards of defender's deck" effects on the stack, correct?

@DavidCEllis Yes, that's right. I've tried to convey that in my answer with  "You can copy both abilities with the Resonator and both of the effects will be applied twice." - Is this sentence formulated unclearly?

No, it is clear now, I just wanted to make sure I understood the resulting stack correctly. Thank you!


text:
Does Glorious Anthem increase damage from Pandemonium?
If I control Glorious Anthem and Pandemonium, and then I play Suntail Hawk, how much damage do I get to deal with Pandemonium?

Suntail Hawk (not Pandemonium) will deal 2 damage, because it enters the battlefield as a 2/2.
As Pandemonium states, the creature that enters the battlefield deals the damage.

Whenever a creature enters the battlefield, that creature's controller may have it deal damage equal to its power to any target of their choice.

"It" refers to "that creature".
To answer your actual question: Glorious Anthem is a static ability with a continuous effect:

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

604.2. Static abilities create continuous effects, some of which are prevention effects or replacement effects. These effects are active as long as the permanent with the ability remains on the battlefield and has the ability, or as long as the object with the ability remains in the appropriate zone, as described in rule 113.6.

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

All your creatures on the battlefield have +1/+1 as soon as they enter the battlefield. The game never sees a 1/1 Hawk entering the battlefield, it's a 2/2 immediately and will trigger Pandemonium for 2 damage.

That's what I wanted to hear. Thanks for the rules citations. ::pulls Infinite Hourglass from binder::

Worth noting you can reduce the creature's power in response to the pandemonium trigger to reduce the damage. The power is checked when the ability triggers and again when it resolves.

@NeilMeyer The creature's power is only checked on resolution. Other than that yes, Pandemonium will use the power at resolution, allowing you to manipulate it through instant spells and abilities.


text:
Fiery Temper and Electrostatic Pummeler on the Stack
So I've been trying to play these two scenarios in my head, but I'm a little confused.
1). A person casts an Electrostatic Pummeler, and while it is on the stack, I cast a Fiery Temper. The person in response plays a Blossoming Defense. Would this player be able to do that since EP is still technically on the stack?
2). A person casts an EP, and while it is on the stack, I cast a Fiery Temper. The person originally had 3 energy counters. Once the person allows the stack to resolve, would they get another 3 energy counter, and be able to pay them to make EP a 4/4, allowing EP to survive?
I'm new to magic, so I don't understand these things fully yet.

Your question is rather unclear - are you trying to cast the Fiery Temper targetting the EP while it's on the stack, or are you simply casting a spell targetting i.e. the opponent or another creature they control, and wonder whether they may put multiple spells on the stack at the same time? Also, if you have multiple questions that mechanic-wise aren't closely related (such as these), please separate them into different questions. Either way, please edit your post or provide additional details.

Why the close votes? It's quite clear what OP's asking, and it shows that OP has a thorough misunderstanding of the rules. Let that misunderstanding be fixed with the answers here, the question itself is valid.

For each Case, what are you targeting with Fiery Temper? The existing answers are making the assumption that you're targeting Electrostatic Pummeler. If you are, than you've demonstrated a misunderstanding of how Fiery Temper and the stack work, that a complete answer needs to address.

You generally cannot cast a spell that requires a creature as a target while that creature is still on the stack, because by that time it's still a spell.
While a creature card is on the stack, it's not a creature, but a creature spell. On the stack, only spells/abilities can exist, and spells/abilities can only exist on the stack.

111.1. A spell is a card on the stack. As the first step of being cast (see rule 601, “Casting Spells”), the card becomes a spell and is moved to the top of the stack from the zone it was in, which is usually its owner’s hand. (See rule 405, “Stack.”) A spell remains on the stack as a spell until it resolves (see rule 608, “Resolving Spells and Abilities”), is countered (see rule 701.5), or otherwise leaves the stack. [..]”

When a spell or ability says, for example, "creature" without further specifying the type of object, it means "creature permanent":

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

A creature, on the other hand, is a certain type of permanent, and permanents can only exist on the battlefield; everything on the battlefield is a permanent.

403.3. Permanents exist only on the battlefield. Every object on the battlefield is a permanent. [..]

Since both Fiery Temper and Blossoming Defense require a "creature" (= "creature permanent") as a target, not a creature spell, neither of you can cast Fiery Temper or Blossoming Defense on the Electrostatic Pummeler while it's on the stack. The creature spell has to resolve first, which results in the Pummeler entering the battlefield as a creature permanent.
Once the Pummeler is on the battlefield and both of you can start casting spells on it, the usual "last in, first out" stack resolution procedure commences.
Note that whenever a spell or ability resolves, either player may play new spells or abilities, even if the stack hasn't fully resolved yet. So if the enemy Electrostatic Pummeler is on the battlefield and you cast Fiery Temper on it, your opponent can respond with Blossoming Defense, let the BD resolve, then activate the EP's ability to make it a 6/6 before your Fiery Temper resolves, thereby saving the EP.

While it may answer what the question is asking about, it's still not correct in general - you can perfectly cast spells such as Cancel that target a spell, just not ones targetting creatures.

A spell that requires a creature as a target cannot be cast on a creature spell, that's what my answer tries to say.  I'll clarify the bolded part.

"On the stack, only spells can exist [...]" What about abilities? I went ahead and corrected that.

One thing to keep in mind is that for the second case in your question (Person Plays EP then other responds with Firey Temper), the EP can still be killed. If you cast fiery temper in response to the EP's enter the battlefield trigger (gain 3 energy) Player 1 won't be able to receive the energy to save the EP until after the Fiery Temper Resolves (And kills it).

@Malco The scenario states that the EP controller already has 3 energy.

Fiery Temper doesn't require a creature to cast; the player is a valid target.

If the Opponent responds to Fiery Temper with Blossoming Defense targeting Electrostatic Pummeler, and Blossoming Defense resolves, than Fiery Temper will fizzle. When it tries to resolve, it will attempt to validate targets; since Electrostatic Pummeler has Hexproof, it is no longer a legal target. Fiery Temper has no legal targets, and will not resolve. No damage is done to Electrostatic Pummeler.

@Hackworth That the opponent already has 3 energy is insufficient, dependent on when the player casts Fiery Temper. If it is cast while the Enter the battlefield trigger is on the stack, the Pummeler dies. If it is cast after the Enter the Battlefield Trigger resolves, the Pummeler can live.

@Hackworth The main point being the Plummer needs to double its power and toughness twice to live (1/1 --double--> 2/2 --double--> 4/4), and without the ETB the player only has the resources to double it once.

@Malco the EP controller plays blossoming defense (+2/+2), lets it resolve for a 3/3 EP, then spends the already present 3 energy to give it another +3/+3

@Hackworth Ahh I think I see the misunderstanding now, I was referring to case 2 in the Original Question. In case 2 there is no blossoming defense, the player is just trying to save the EP only using the EP's own ability.

The other answer correctly explains the difference between a creature spell, which exists on the stack, and a creature, which is a permanent that exists on the battlefield. A spell that refers to a "target creature" can therefore only be cast targeting a creature permanent that is already on the battlefield.
Because the proposed scenarios are therefore not actually possible, to further address them in any meaningful way we must assume that the Electrostatic Pummeler has resolved and is now a creature permanent on the battlefield. I make that assumption in the following explanations.
The other answer does not clarify that Blossoming Defense gives its target hexproof, which makes a creature an illegal target for the spells and abilities of opponents. If you cast Fiery Temper targeting Electrostatic Pummeler and your opponent casts Blossoming Defense in response, the Pummeler will be made an illegal target for your Fiery Temper. This means that when Fiery Temper tries to resolve, it will instead be countered because its target is illegal, so Fiery Temper will deal no damage and there will be no need to spend energy to pump.
Finally, one commenter noted that even if your opponent had 3 energy already available, if you responded to the Enters-The-Battlefield trigger of Electrostatic Pummeler by casting Fiery Temper on it, your spell would resolve before they got the +3 energy. This means they would not have enough energy for the second pump activation, they could only make the Pummeler a 2/2.

While this is true, it's only true if the pummeler has already resolved. The scenario being presented in the question assumes all of these spells are cast while it's still on the stack. You might want to update your answer to make that clear you're explaining a different scenario to the one presented.

I've updated my answer to clarify the assumption made. Fortunately the two points I wanted to address have been discussed further in other comments.

The question demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of Magic the Gathering and how cards interact. In order for the player to target the Electrostatic Pummeler with Fiery Temper, the creature has to be in play, not on the stack. You can't target it while it is on the Stack, because it isn't a creature.. Thus, the opening assumption must be that Electrostatic Pummeler resolves, entering the battlefield.
Case 1
The entering the battlefield ability has triggered, and is on the stack.
In response, the Player casts Fiery Temper targeting Electrostatic Pummeler. In response, the opponent casts Blossoming Defense targeting Electrostatic Pummeler. Assuming no other effects, Blossoming Defense resolves, and Electrostatic Pummeler gets +2/+2 and Hexproof until end of turn. When Fiery Temper tries to resolve, it first validates that the target is still legal; Electrostatic Pummeler has Hexproof, so is not a legal Target. Fiery Temper fizzles.
Case 2 - A
The entering the battlefield ability has triggered, and is on the stack.
Opponent has 3 energy, and Electrostatic Pummeler in play. Player casts Fiery Temper, targeting the Pummeler. In response, Opponent expends 3 energy to pump the Electrostatic Pummeler. At 2/2, Electrostatic Pummeler dies to Fiery Temper.
Case 2 - B
The entering the battlefield ability has triggered, and has Resolved
Opponent has 6 energy, and Electrostatic Pummeler in play. Player casts Fiery Temper Targeting the Pummeler. In response, Opponent expends 6 energy, 3 energy twice, to pump the Electrostatic Pummeler. At 4/4, Electrostatic Pummeler survives Fiery Temper.


text:
Electrostatic Pummeler with Animation Module
If you use Electrostatic Pummeler's ability to turn him into a 2/2 and then you use Animation Module to add an additional +1/+1 counter. Would both of those +1/+1 counters be removed at the end of turn or only one?

This question assumes '+1/+1' is equal to a (temporary) '+1/+1' counter. That is a misconception, but it's not a duplicate of the question linked.. The duped question has never entered OP's mind.

@steenbergh You may see that duplicate's description is "This question already has an answer here". And this question is indeed answered there.
The duped question hasn't entered OP's mind, but that's the issue they actually have. Had OP knew that question and it's answer, they wouldn't ask this question.

Electrostatic Pummeler has no ability that puts +1/+1 counters on it. Its second ability modifies its power and toughness until end of turn, and Animation Module's first ability does not trigger.

AM = Animation module as per question title.


text:
Turn Aside and Noxious Gearhulk
When Noxious Gearhulk is played can it be countered by Turn Aside?
I've noticed that some cards say "counter target spell or creature" but turn aside only says "counter target spell ..."

"Counter target spell or creature" is not a valid wording for any Magic card. If you are thinking of a specific example of the wording you're thinking about, please name the card.

No, Turn aside cannot counter Noxious Gearhulk.
There seems to be some confusion here. When a player plays a creature spell such as the Gearhulk, it is indeed a spell while it is on the stack and does fulfill one of the conditions of Turn Aside's possible targets. However, a creature spell (generally, all permanent spells except Auras) never targets anything, and is therefore never a valid target for Turn Aside. A creature spell is simply on the stack, and when it resolves, it puts the creature it represents onto the battlefield.
Only the Gearhulk's enters-the-battlefield ability can target something. It goes on the stack when the Gearhulk has resolved and entered the battlefield. However, an ability is not the same as a spell, Turn Aside can counter only spells, so Turn Aside cannot counter that ability either.

No, you cannot counter a Gearhulk with Turn Aside.
The Gearhulk is not a spell that targets anything. When it's cast, it's just a creature spell on the stack, without any targets and doing nothing special. Its ability isn't doing anything yet.
After Gearhulk resolves and enters the battlefield as a creature (too late to counter it), its "When Noxious Gearhulk enters the battlefield..." ability triggers and goes on the stack. Now there is a triggered ability on the stack that's targeting something. You'd have to cast a card like Stifle which counters that ability.


text:
Chandra, Awakened Inferno vs Gods Willing
If Chandra, Awakened Inferno does its last ability for -x to my creature and I respond with Gods Willing to give my creature protection from red, does Chandra's -x to my creature fizzle?
I guess the specific question also, does Chandra's ability considered to be red colored?

Correct, protection from red would cause the ability to fizzle and your creature to survive.
A creature with protection from red can't be targeted by abilities from a red source:

702.16b A permanent or player with protection can’t be targeted by spells with the stated quality and can’t be targeted by abilities from a source with the stated quality.

When someone activates a targeted ability, the player has to check twice whether the target is legal: once on activation, and again on resolution. If all targets of that ability become illegal between the checks, the ability "fizzles", i.e. it is removed from the stack without having an effect.

Casting Spells

601.2c The player announces their choice of an appropriate object or player for each target the spell requires. [..]

The rules for casting spells and activating abilities are the same as far as targeting is concerned.

Resolving Spells and Abilities

608.2b If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. [..] If all its targets, for every instance of the word “target,” are now illegal, the spell or ability doesn’t resolve. It’s removed from the stack and, if it’s a spell, put into its owner’s graveyard. [..]

https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Protection

However, protection is defined by a relatively narrow set of rules, which are often communicated using the mnemonic acronym DEBT. The object with protection cannot be:
  Damaged by sources with the specified quality. (All such damage is prevented.)
  ...
  Targeted by spells with the specified quality, or by abilities from sources of that quality.

https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Source

Source, in the context of Magic rules, can mean one of two things: source of an ability and source of damage.

So protection does not look at the color of the ability, it looks at the color of the source of the ability, which in this case is Chandra.
The wording of the ability is

Chandra, Awakened Inferno deals X damage to target creature or planeswalker.

Since it's Chandra that's dealing the damage, and Chandra is red, protection applies.


text:
MTG question about stack/effect resolving
Lets say my opponent have Zada, Hedron Grinder in play. Then proceeds to use instant spell that target Zada to trigger its effect. Then i play Stasis Snare in response to his instant spell. Does Zada, Hedron Grinder still resolves even if my Stasis Snare resolves first by exiling Zada? If its effect still resolves, how do you prevent Zada from using its ability if i have the instant removal (stasis snare, lightning axe, grasp of darkness etc...) in my hand that can be played in response ?

What happens:

Your opponent casts The Instant targetting Zada. The Instant goes to the stack.
Zada's ability triggers and goes to the stack.
You cast Stasis Snare. Stasis Snare goes to the stack.
(I assume at this point you're both passing priorities until the whole stack resolves)
Stasis Snare resolves and enters the battlefield. It's ability triggers and goes to the stack.
Stasis Snare's ability resolves and exiles Zada.
Zada's ability resolves and creates copies of The Instant on the stack.
The copies of The Instant resolve, one by one.
The (original) Instant looks around to see if it's targets are still legal. They're not as Zada is not on the battlefield. The (original) Instant is countered by the game rules (and is put into the graveyard without resolving, as usual with countered spells).

As for the second question:
Once Zada's on the battlefield, removal won't allow you to counter it's ability.
Some other effects might, like "counter all spells" which will also counter the created copies.

So you agree that it's a duplicate but you still want to grab those sweet internet points?

@Hackworth You edited the question and also marked it as dupe. Seems we're all here for them sweet internet points...

@steenbergh With Hackworth's reputation he doesn't gain any more points for an edit.

@tsuma534 will the SO rep system never cease to surprise me?

@steenbergh It should cease, after this: http://stackoverflow.com/help/whats-reputation


text:
Do instants active before combat damage is dealt?
I activated Ætherize do I still receive the combat damage from the monsters

It sounds like you're asking the following, could you confirm?: Someone's attacking you, you want to aetherize their creatures -- are you able to do that between attacker declaration and combat damage, and will their creatures still deal damage to you and/or your blockers?

There are a few times during the combat step when you can cast instants between the declaration of attackers and when combat damage is dealt.
The Steps in the Combat Phase are

Beginning of Combat
Declare Attackers
Declare Blockers
Combat Damage
End of Combat

During each of these you will have a chance to cast instants (and activate abilities), so you could cast it anytime in the Declare Attackers Step or the Declare Blockers Step. Dealing combat damage is the very first thing that happens in the Combat Damage Step so if you wait that long, you won't have a chance to cast anything before that happens.
Also a note on terminology, you don't activate Aetherize, you cast it. Abilities like Azure Mage's get activated.

There's a timing window in which you can cast Instants after blockers are declared but before damage is dealt. Or you can cast them before blockers are declared. Either works if you're trying to avoid combat damage.
Alternately, you can choose to take combat damage and bounce them back during the end of combat.

The question is "do I still receive the combat damage from the monsters?" Are you sure the answer is "Yes"? Your further explanation seems to indicate you meant the opposite.


text:
"Repeat this process" Rulings
How does repeat this process work?
If for example I cast Hoarder's Greed and win the clashes all the time until I deck myself or am out of life. Do I have priority between the repeat this process clause? Before I repeat what is standing on such a card?
If not, do I have to repeat the process, even if I am out of life? Does the "you lose 2 life" part in hoarders greed come at the end, after repeating as long as I win the clash? Or do I lose life each time before I repeat the process and die before the spell is fully resolved?

No, you won't get priority during a spell's or ability's resolution. If the effect instructs you to 'repeat this process', then you have to repeat the process for as long as you can.
Instructions of effects are always mandatory, unless the effect itself offers you a choice. "If you win, repeat this process" does not involve a choice. You keep clashing, losing life, and drawing cards, until you fail to win a clash. There are cards that allow you to either continue or stop a process, but they include "may" somewhere in their wording, as do all cards when taking an action is voluntary.

Resolving Spells and Abilities

608.2c The controller of the spell or ability follows its instructions in the order written. [..]

The active player gets priority only after the current spell or ability has finished resolving:

117.3b The active player receives priority after a spell or ability (other than a mana ability) resolves.

Each instance of "lose 2 life" is separate. If there is an ability in your game that triggers on you losing life, it will trigger each time you lose 2 life during Hoarder's Greed. Since you can lose life regardless of your current life total, as opposed to "paying 2 life" which you can only do if you do have 2 or more life, the lower limit to your resulting health depends only on the number of repetitions of the process, and thus on the number of cards in your library.

119.3. If an effect causes a player to gain life or lose life, that player’s life total is adjusted accordingly.
119.4. If a cost or effect allows a player to pay an amount of life greater than 0, the player may do so only if their life total is greater than or equal to the amount of the payment.

The process stops only when you fail to win a clash, i.e. you reveal a card with lower or equal CMC, or when you can't reveal a card at all because your library is empty.

701.22d A player wins a clash if that player revealed a card with a higher converted mana cost than all other cards revealed in that clash.

Note that you don't lose the game during the resolution of a spell, since state-based actions are not being checked at that time.

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

If, in the process of resolving Hoarder's Greed, you go to 0 life or less, or try to draw from an empty library, you will lose as soon as the spell has resolved and the active player would gain priority, because at that time, state-based actions are checked.

704.3. Whenever a player would get priority (see rule 117, “Timing and Priority”), the game checks for any of the listed conditions for state-based actions, then performs all applicable state-based actions simultaneously as a single event.

Can you add a rule showing why you will lose the clash once your library becomes completely empty?

so, even if i am at 1 life and still have cards in the lib to show for clashing and i keep winning, i lose life till -XX and after I lose a clash the spell resolves and I lose the game.
And when i clash with an empty library, is the cmc of the card 0? Because no card is no cmc?

@GendoIkari it's not mentioned in the CR explicitely, but if you don't reveal a card at all, 701.22d certainly applies - if you don't reveal a card at all, you did not reveal a card with higher CMC and can't win the clash.

@Hackworth Thanks; that definitely works. It hinges on the fact that clashing only cares about "winning", not about "losing".

@Eggi To expand upon what Hacksworth was saying with 701.22d, it's not so much that no card is no cmc; but rather that to win a clash, you must reveal a card with a higher cmc than any revealed. If you don't reveal any card, then you didn't reveal a card with the highest cmc.


text:
Can I cast Rootgrapple via Leaf-Crowned Elder?
Leaf-Crowned Elder has:

Kinship — At the beginning of your upkeep, you may look at the top card of your library. If it shares a creature type with Leaf-Crowned Elder, you may reveal it. If you do, you may play that card without paying its mana cost.

Leaf-Crowned Elder is a Treefolk Shaman. Does it allow me to cast Rootgrapple, a Tribal Instant — Treefolk, from the top of my deck?
I wouldn't have this doubt if it said subtype instead of creature type (in this case I'd know I can).

Yes, Leaf-Crowned Elder's ability allows you to cast Rootgrapple.
The term "creature type" is defined in rule 302.3:

Creature subtypes are always a single word and are listed after a long dash: “Creature — Human Soldier,” “Artifact Creature — Golem,” and so on. Creature subtypes are also called creature types. Creatures may have multiple subtypes. See rule 205.3m for the complete list of creature types.

So, when Leaf-Crowned Elder's ability says "creature types", it is referring to creature subtypes.
In addition, rule 308.2 explicitly states that tribal subtypes are the same as creature subtypes.

Tribal subtypes are always a single word and are listed after a long dash: “Tribal Enchantment — Merfolk.” The set of tribal subtypes is the same as the set of creature subtypes; these subtypes are called creature types. Tribals may have multiple subtypes. See rule 205.3m for the complete list of creature types.

Thank you. By the way, if Elder's rules text had "card subtype" written instead of "creature type", would it be the same?

That kind of thing would just say "subtype", and it would work a little differently if you had a creature that was also another type, like artifact. Then it would allow you to cast non-creature artifacts with the same artifact subtype as that artifact creature. For example , if you controlled a Gingerbrute, that alternate ability would allow you to cast Golden Egg.


text:
Can X be 0 when casting Avacyn's Judgment with madness?
If I discard Avacyn's Judgment, can I choose to cast it with madness with X = 0? My goal is to be able to cast it just to increase my storm count; I expect the spell itself to do nothing in this case. Is this possible?

0 is always a valid choice for X, unless the effect forbids it, like some cards time spiral block

Yes, you can generally choose any value for X, including zero. Exceptions apply, though not in this case.
There are cards where you can't choose X to be zero, or where X is already defined. Those will always be noted on the card itself. Otherwise, you're free to choose any value zero or greater for X.

107.3a If a spell or activated ability has a mana cost, alternative cost, additional cost, and/or activation cost with an {X}, [-X], or X in it, and the value of X isn’t defined by the text of that spell or ability, the controller of that spell or ability chooses and announces the value of X as part of casting the spell or activating the ability

If you cast a spell "without paying its mana cost", X must be zero.

107.3b If a player is casting a spell that has an {X} in its mana cost, the value of X isn’t defined by the text of that spell, and an effect lets that player cast that spell while paying neither its mana cost nor an alternative cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0. [..]

And in my case, how many targets can I choose? Can I choose zero targets? Can I choose as many targets as possible, even though nothing will happen?

You can choose any number of targets, regardless of your choice of X.

What about 601.2d?

@PedroA You have to choose no targets, as per 601.2d: "If the spell requires the player to divide or distribute an effect (such as damage or counters)
among one or more targets, the player announces the division. Each of these targets must
receive at least one of whatever is being divided." Also, Conflagrate (a card with a very similar effect) includes the ruling "If X is 0, Conflagrate has no targets and deals no damage" on Gatherer.

Thank you!! @Hackworth could you add this info about the targets into your answer?


text:
What happens in MTG if I remove the ability of a card that is exiling one of my cards
If my opponents has played a card such as Deputy of Detention that exiles X amount of my permanents, what would happen if I played Merfolk Trickster that removes all abilities of Deputy of Detention?

Deputy of Detention's ability would still resolve and function normally. You would have to, among others, destroy or exile the Deputy to prevent the effect from exiling your permanents.
Deputy of Detention's ability is a triggered ability that triggers when the Deputy enters the battlefield. You can't affect the Deputy with the Trickster before the Deputy has entered the battlefield, and afterwards, it's too late. Once the ability has triggered, the ability that is created on the stack functions independently of its source.

113.7a Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. [..]

Even if you remove the Deputy's abilities through Merfolk Trickster in response to the trigger, it doesn't matter. You'd just remove the ability after it has already done its job, which is to create an ability on the stack. That ability on the stack will still resolve and exile its targets until the Deputy that created it leaves the battlefield.
You can, however, prevent your permanents from being exiled. The most common way is to remove the Deputy from the battlefield before its ability resolves, such as by destroying or exiling the Deputy. In that case, the ability still resolves (it's independent of the Deputy, remember) but it won't do anything to your permanents:

610.3. Some one-shot effects cause an object to change zones “until” a specified event occurs. A second one-shot effect is created immediately after the specified event. This second one-shot effect returns the object to its previous zone.

Deputy of Detention's ability is such a one-shot effect.

610.3b If a resolving triggered ability creates the initial one-shot effect that causes the object to change zones, and the specified event has already occurred before that one-shot effect would occur but after that ability triggered, the object doesn’t move.

The Deputy says that the targeted permanents are exiled "until Deputy of Detention leaves the battlefield", and 610.3b says that if the Deputy has already left the battlefield before its ability has exiled its targets, nothing is exiled at all.

Is it worth the time to add a bit about older-style banisher effects like Oblivion Ring and Faceless Butcher and how they work differently?

I considered it, but don't think so. My discussion of actually countering Deputy was already a tangent, not strictly necessary for answering the question. Oblivion Ring-style exiles have been obsoleted AFAIK and would thus be an even further tangent without practical use for most formats.

I also think Oblivion Ring-style abilities are much more straight-forward in answering the question, there's simply no reason to think that a triggered ability that has already finished doing everything it does would be possibly impacted by removing that ability.

There are literally 3 cards with OR-style exile, not counting the Champion mechanic, whereas there are 53 cards with the "until" exile. It's pretty clear which flavor of exile is more relevant.

@Hackworth Your search isn't perfect. It didn't catch Faceless Butcher, or more exotic variations like Petradon, Gravegouger or Worldgorger Dragon. This kind of exiling was pretty common in Torment, and if I recall correctly, abusing the timing was part of the point of these cards.

@Arthurt thanks for the examples, though the point stands: It's a mechanic that has been replaced with something the designers felt to be better for the game, and the modern version vastly outnumbers the old one.

@Hackworth The difference in quantity isn't so large: my searches find 31 with the separate ability and 58 with the "until" version. (The reason your initial search found very few was that you included the word "another".)

Removing Deputy of Detention's abilities has no effect.
Deputy of Detention has a triggered ability that creates a one-shot effect that exiles chosen cards, and a delayed one-shot effect that returns those cards to the battlefield. Once the triggered ability resolves, those effects exist independent of what abilities Deputy of Detention later has.
Even if you play Merfolk Trickster as soon as possible after Deputy of Detention enters the battlefield, it would still have no effect because at that point the triggered ability is already on the stack.


text:
What happens if I gain control of my opponent's Rekindling Phoenix until end of turn, and it dies?
If I gain control of Rekindling Phoenix and it dies, I know it goes to it's owners graveyard, which is my opponents graveyard, but does the token get created under my control which means my opponent won't get the phoenix back at his next upkeep?

it is a good idea to wait a little bit before accepting an answer; to see if a better or different answer comes along. In this case, the answer as given has a mistake in it.

My answer no longer contains the error.

You get the 0/1 token, but you don't sacrifice it unless you have another Rekindling Phoenix in your own graveyard.
The Phoenix's triggered ability triggers for the current controller of the Phoenix, which is you. Therefore, you put the 0/1 token on the battlefield under your control. The Phoenix, however, goes to its owner's graveyard, which is your opponent.

109.5. The words “you” and “your” on an object refer to the object’s controller, its would-be controller (if a player is attempting to play, cast, or activate it), or its owner (if it has no controller). For a static ability, this is the current controller of the object it’s on. For an activated ability, this is the player who activated the ability. For a triggered ability, this is the controller of the object when the ability triggered, unless it’s a delayed triggered ability. To determine the controller of a delayed triggered ability, see rules 603.7d–f.
404.1. A player’s graveyard is their discard pile. Any object that’s countered, discarded, destroyed, or sacrificed is put on top of its owner’s graveyard, as is any instant or sorcery spell that’s finished resolving. Each player’s graveyard starts out empty.

While the Phoenix lands in your opponent's graveyard, the ability triggers for you, because you were its last controller before it left the battlefield:

603.10a Some zone-change triggers look back in time. These are leaves-the-battlefield abilities, abilities that trigger when a card leaves a graveyard, and abilities that trigger when an object that all players can see is put into a hand or library.

You own and control the 0/1 token, because (in this case, not generally) you controlled the effect that created it:

110.5a The player who creates a token is its owner. The token enters the battlefield under that player’s control.

Since the triggered ability of the token requires a Rekindling Phoenix card as a target in your graveyard, if you don't have one in your graveyard, the ability immediately leaves the stack without resolving. It will keep triggering that way on each of your upkeeps. It will not find the Phoenix that has landed in your opponent's graveyard, and the effect will not return the Phoenix.
Note that if you had a Rekindling Phoenix in your own graveyard, for example because you had to discard it, or the opponent destroyed your 0/1 token before you could sacrifice it, the token generated by the opponent's Phoenix would allow you to return your own Phoenix. That's because the token's ability is not directly connected to the Phoenix that created it, and allows you to find any Rekindling Phoenix in your graveyard, no matter how it got there.
The same goes for your opponent. If he took control of your 0/1 token and then later sacrificed it to its ability, he would get his Phoenix back to the battlefield, whether or not the token was generated by a Rekindling Phoenix he owns.

If you do not have a Rekindling Phoenix in your graveyard you do not sacrifice the token, because the sacrificing ability needs a target. See the ruling: "If you don’t have a card named Rekindling Phoenix in your graveyard, the Elemental token’s ability is immediately removed from the stack after it triggers and you won’t sacrifice the token. If that target becomes illegal after the ability has triggered but before it resolves, you also won’t sacrifice the Elemental token. In either case, it will trigger again during your next upkeep."

In addition to Michał's comment, I think this answer is missing rule 603.10/603.10a, which explains how we know that you are considered the controller; even though the Phoenix is currently in your opponent's graveyard.

@GendoIkari I think 603.10 is only required to explain why the Phoenix' ability works at all. 109.5 has already determined that OP controls the Phoenix, and for its ability it doesn't matter to whose graveyard it goes, only who controlled the Phoenix at the time.

@Hackworth 109.5 says that the controller of the triggered ability is the controller of the creature when it triggered, but because it didn't trigger until is was in the owner's graveyard, I don't think it's obvious that you would be considered the controller of the creature at that point.

In other words, "who controlled the Phoenix at the time" is no one; the Phoenix is in a graveyard and thus not controlled by anyone. We need 601.10 to know that we actually care about who the controller was before "the time".

@GendoIkari While we agree on the purpose of 603.10, I'm still not convinced of the necessity for including it in the answer, because if it was necessary here, it would be necessary to include it for literally every question about death triggers, to show that they actually work. But in order to avoid extended an extended discussion, I'll include it.


text:
Can I remove the targeted creature in response to Lukka, Coppercoat Outcast's -2 ability?
If my opponent casts Lukka, Coppercoat Outcast and uses its -2 ability to target a creature to be exiled, can I destroy the creature in response to the ability to prevent them from revealing cards until they find a creature etc, since the card reads "Exile target creature you control, then reveal cards...".
So if the creature is destroyed before it can be exiled, the rest of the ability fizzles?

Yes, if the targeted creature becomes an illegal target for any reason before the ability resolves, the ability will not do anything.
Lukka's -2 is a targeted ability. The legality of its only target is checked again as part of resolving it. If you destroyed the creature, or it became an illegal target for any other reason, the ability will simply leave the stack and no part of the ability will do anything.

Resolving Spells and Abilities

608.2b If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. [..] If all its targets, for every instance of the word “target,” are now illegal, the spell or ability doesn’t resolve. It’s removed from the stack and, if it’s a spell, put into its owner’s graveyard.


text:
Does Wild Onslaught put counters on Hallar, the Firefletcher before or after it's ability triggers
If I have a Hallar, the Firefletcher in play with no +1/+1 counters on it, and I cast Wild Onslaught and pay it's kicker cost would Hallar, the Firefletcher get the two +1/+1 counters from Wild Onslaught before or after Hallar, the Firefletcher's ability triggers?

"Hallar’s last ability resolves before the spell that caused it to trigger." from Gatherer.

Hallar's ability will resolve first, dealing 1 damage.
Triggers that react to a spell being cast trigger at the end of the spell-casting process. By the time Hallar's ability triggers and goes on the stack, Wild Onslaught is already on the stack and will resolve second.

Casting Spells

601.2a To propose the casting of a spell, a player first moves that card (or that copy of a card) from where it is to the stack. It becomes the topmost object on the stack. It has all the characteristics of the card (or the copy of a card) associated with it, and that player becomes its controller. The spell remains on the stack until it’s countered, it resolves, or an effect moves it elsewhere.
601.2i Once the steps described in 601.2a–h are completed, effects that modify the characteristics of the spell as it’s cast are applied, then the spell becomes cast. Any abilities that trigger when a spell is cast or put onto the stack trigger at this time. If the spell’s controller had priority before casting it, he or she gets priority.


text:
Deathbringer Regent and Phantasmal Image ETB Clause
Deathbringer Regent is a dragon that reads

When Deathbringer Regent enters the battlefield, if you cast it from your hand and there are five or more other creatures on the battlefield, destroy all other creatures.

And Phantasmal Image:

You may have ~ enter the battlefield as a copy of any  creature on the battlefield, except it’s an Illusion in addition to its  other types and it gains “When this creature becomes the target of a spell or ability, sacrifice it.

My question is if I play Phantasmal Image copying a Deathbringer Regent, it does copy the ETB but does it also count as "cast from your hand" and destroy all other creatures if there are 5 or more other creatures?

Yes, it will count as having been cast from your hand.
It's important to note that a creature spell and the creature it eventually creates are different objects; putting a creature on the battlefield is the effect of a creature spell. If you cast a creature spell from your hand, and if an effect changes the characteristics of that creature as it enters the battlefield, the creature spell was still cast from the hand.

601.2. To cast a spell is to take it from where it is (usually the hand), put it on the stack, and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect.
608.3. If the object that’s resolving is a permanent spell, its resolution involves a single step (unless it’s an Aura). The spell card becomes a permanent and is put onto the battlefield under the control of the spell’s controller.

Phantasmal Image's effect is a replacement effect.

614.1c Effects that read “[This permanent] enters the battlefield with . . . ,” “As [this permanent] enters the battlefield . . . ,” or “[This permanent] enters the battlefield as . . . “ are replacement effects.

In your case, it replaces the effect "put a Phantasmal Image creature on the battlefield" with "put a copy of a particular Deathbringer Regent creature on the battlefield". All other things remain the same, in particular that the spell was originally cast from the hand.

It's probably worth mentioning CR706.5: An object that enters the battlefield “as a copy” or “that’s a copy” of another object becomes a copy as it enters the battlefield. It doesn’t enter the battlefield, and then become a copy of that permanent. If the text that’s being copied includes any abilities that replace the enters-the-battlefield  event (such as “enters the battlefield with” or “as [this] enters the battlefield” abilities), those abilities will take effect. Also, any enters-the-battlefield triggered abilities of the copy will have a chance to trigger.

@J.Sallé As a comment it's fine, but that rule concerns the question whether or not the copied dragon will trigger its ETB at all, which OP already knows will happen, so it's redundant to mention again. 706.5 has no bearing on whether it was cast from hand or not, which was the core of the question.

Possibly worth noting that effects that trigger when the spell is cast (such as Cascade) won't trigger.


text:
Scrap Trawler triggers
If I control a Scrap Trawler, a Krark-Clan Ironworks, and a Chromatic Sphere, with a Mox Opal in the graveyard. When I sacrifice the sphere to Ironworks, do I have to return the opal to my hand or can I decline to choose a target?

Worth noting that if you sack a 0 CMC artifact with the trawler it is impossible to bring anything back from the yard.

You have to choose and return a valid target if there is one.
You have to follow instructions of all spells and abilities that resolve. Scrap Trawler's ability requires you to target a valid card in your graveyard if possible, and you have to return that card to your hand if it's still a legal target by the time the ability resolves.
In the general case, we have to differentiate between choosing targets and performing actions on them.
If the ability simply says "target [object or player with a certain quality]", then you have to choose a valid target to satisfy that instruction, for each instance of the word "target". Some abilities say "any number of targets", or "up to N targets". In those cases, you don't have to choose any objects or players. This matters for abilities that trigger when a player or object becomes the target of a spell or ability.
The action to be performed on the chosen targets, if any, can be preceeded by the word "may", such as "you may return that card to your hand". In that case, you choose whether or not to perform that action on the chosen targets on resolution of that spell or ability.


text:
When an effect says “you may cast” something, how can I tell when timing rules apply?
Some effects that say “you may cast” let you ignore timing rules. For example, Descendants' Path lets you cast creature spells during your upkeep. It doesn’t explicitly say that you can ignore timing rules or cast the spell as though it had flash, but it’s implicit (because otherwise the card wouldn’t work at all).
On the other hand, Emry, Lurker of the Loch has a “you may cast” effect with reminder text stating that “Timing rules still apply.” Since this is reminder text and not rules text, that means the rules text on its own already implies that you can’t ignore timing rules.
Those two are clear-cut cases, but in general, how to determine whether a “you may cast” effect lets you ignore timing rules? It seems like punctual effects let you ignore timing rules, while ongoing effects (“You may cast (…) this turn”) don’t, but I couldn’t find a reference to that in the comprehensive rules.

While these effects look similar, there is a key difference between the two:
Descendants' Path instructs you to cast the card as part of the effect's resolution. This is the case exempted by 116.1 and therefore ignores the timing restrictions given by the game rules (see 116.1a) , but is still subject to timing restrictions imposed by game objects (e.g. an opponents Teferi, Time Raveler would prevent you from casting it)
Emry, Lurker of the Loch creates a continuous effect that gives you permission to cast the card upon resolutuion. You may do so until the effect  ends, but must follow the usual timing restrictions (116.1a).

116.1. Unless a spell or ability is instructing a player to take an action, which player can take actions at any given time is determined
by a system of priority. The player with priority may cast spells,
activate abilities, and take special actions.
116.1a A player may cast an instant spell any time he or she has priority. A player may cast a noninstant spell during his or her main
phase any time he or she has priority and the stack is empty.

If a spell or ability instructs you to cast another spell as part of its resolution, it will be on the stack while the other spell is being cast, however, it will have left the stack by the time that spell resolves. While technically a legal target, you will not be able to actually copy the original spell or ability.
If a spell or ability grants you permission to cast another spell, it will have left the stack by the time you recieve priority to cast that spell and will not be a legal target.

I'm not seeing what, exactly, is the minimum key difference between the wording. Is it the "Otherwise..." clause on Descendent's Path that makes it clear that it's part of the resolution? Is it the fact that Emry says "this turn"? Or that one's a spell and one's an ability? If both cards just ended with "you may cast that card", would they be any different, and would they be continuous or one-shots?

I explain that in my answer. The difference is "this turn".

@NuclearWang Exactly what murgatroid99 said. Continuous effects give you a duration such as "this turn" or "as long as it remains exiled".

If Emry said, "Until the end of your turn, you may play target artifact card from your graveyard as if it were in your hand." would that be any different?

@Mazura Timing wise? No. The "you may play" as opposed to "you may cast" would allow you to play artifact lands. And I can't think of an interaction where "as if it were in your hand" would matter.

TIL there's artifact lands... I'm just wondering why it's worded so clumsily. cast 'as if in your hand' could entirely replace the last three sentences (iirc, that's how they used to word stuff). Is it just reminding us of the rules, the semantic difference between can and may, or what?

What clumsy wording are you referring to? All of the cards referenced here look reasonably concise to me.

Re "creates a continuous effect that gives you permission to cast", Your wording means the opposite of what you mean. Priority gives permission to cast. Emry doesn't; it creates a continuous effect that modify which cards you can cast when you have permission to cast (i.e. when you have Priority)

@ikegami I'm not seeing how my wording is misleading, but I'll happily accept an edit with better wording.

In standard MTG jargon, we describe Priority as giving you permission to cast, so getting permission to cast means being instructed to cast if you so desire. Enry doesn't instruct you to cast, optionally or otherwise. Enry still need something else (i.e. Priority) to give you permission to cast. I provided an alternate wording in my earlier comment.

There are two main kinds of effects, one-shot effects and continuous effects. The phrase "you may cast" appears in both of those effects. If it is a one-shot effect, you cast the spell immediately, and standard type-based timing restrictions do not apply. If it's a continuous effect, those timing restrictions do apply.
The rule for determining what kind of effect a "you may cast" instruction is is actually pretty simple:

If the instruction is on a spell or in an activated or triggered ability, then it is a continuous effect if it has a duration ("this turn", "until end of turn", "as long as [that card] remains exiled", etc). Otherwise it is a one-shot effect.
Any other "you may cast" effect is a continuous effect.

The reason you can ignore standard timing restrictions only with the one-shot version of this effect is that they are not really timing restrictions, they are timing permissions. For example, rule 302.1 says

A player who has priority may cast a creature card from their hand during a main phase of their turn when the stack is empty. Casting a creature as a spell uses the stack. (See rule 601, “Casting Spells.”)

The rule permits you to cast creature spells at specific times, but it does not prohibit you from casting the spells at other times. A one-shot "you may cast" effect instructs you to cast the spell at another specific time: while that effect is resolving. A continuous "you may cast" effect, on the other hand, allows you to cast a spell within its duration, but it's not giving you any new permission to cast it at a specific time so you can still only cast it when you would normally be able to cast that kind of spell.
For contrast, you do still have to obey actual timing restrictions. Curtain of Light has the text

Cast this spell only during combat after blockers are declared.

If a one-shot effect instructs you to cast Curtain of Light outside of combat, you cannot do so, because Curtain of Light's ability explicitly restricts when you can cast it.


text:
Using Supernatural Stamina on a Zombie Creature with Diregraf Colossus on the board
So let's say for instance I am attacking with a Festering Mummy and it's blocked so I use Supernatural Stamina on it because I know it will be destroyed. If I have Diregraf Colossus in play does the Zombie Card returned act as a spell cast? I was looking at rulings on Supernatural Stamina here

Supernatural Stamina adds a Triggered Ability to the (in this case) mummy that has an Effect of returning the mummy to the battlefield when it dies. This is not the same as casting a spell so it does not Trigger the Ability of the Diregraf Colossus.

601.2. To cast a spell is to take it from where it is (usually the hand), put it on the stack, and pay its costs, so that it will
  eventually resolve and have its effect. ...


text:
"Beginning of end step" question
Situation: I have a Crested Sunmare and a Soul Warden on the battlefield,

I play Lone Rider and gain 1 life through Soul Warden.
I play another creature and gain another 1 life through Soul Warden.
Now the end step occurs. Because I gained life, I get a 5/5 token through "Crested Sunmare".
That token allows me to get another 1 life through Sould Warden.

Does that mean that I now gained three life and can transform "Lone Rider", or did the 1 last required life come "too late" for Lone Rider to transform since we are already in the end step?
OR can I choose which ability is checked first, Sunmare's or the Rider's?

Lone Rider will not transform this turn.
If several abilities go on the stack at the same time (such as at the beginning of end step), their respective controlling players, in turn order, decide the order in which they resolve.
However, this does not matter for your actual question, because the beginning of end step happens only once each turn. All applicable abilities check whether their conditions are fulfilled at that time, and if they aren't, they won't trigger this turn. At the beginning of the end step, you did not gain the necessary 3 life for Lone Rider to transform, so it won't happen, even if you gain life during the end step because of Soul Warden triggering off the Crested Sunmare horse token.

I think it's worth mentioning that this is the case because Lone Rider's ability has an "intervening if" clause. If it were instead worded "At the beginning of your end step, transform Lone Rider if you gained 3 or more life this turn", you would be able to transform it if you stack the abilities in the right order.


text:
Block creature then remove from game
Simple question, yet unclear to me:
Someone attacks with a spirit creature, let's say a 2/2. I block with lets say two creatures, each 1/1.
Then the attacker plays Essence Flux, removed his attacker from the game to return it as a 2/2 mi a +1/+1 counter on it.

Will the attacking spirit survive because of the +1/+1 counter?
Will it still kill the two blockers?
What if it wasn't a spirit and is removed and returns - will it die because of the damage from the blockers?

When the creature returns to the battlefield it has no memory of anything that happened earlier in the game. This means that it is no longer attacking, and thus is no longer being blocked by the defending player's creatures. This also means that it will neither deal nor receive combat damage, so neither it nor the defender's creatures will die.

400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. There are nine exceptions to this rule: [none of the exceptions apply to this case]

@Jacobel If your question is answered, click on the check mark next to the answer you think is best. You can always change your mind later if someone writes an even better answer.

When the creature returns to the battlefield, it's a brand new creature unrelated to the one that used to be on the battlefield.

400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. There are nine exceptions to this rule: [None of the exceptions apply]

This new creature isn't attacking and isn't being blocked because it never attacked. It's not in combat at all. As such, no creatures deals any combat damage.

(This is realy just a massive wording fix of diego's answer)


text:
Can I use Helm of the Hosts to copy artifacts enchanted by Ensoul Artifact?
If I used Ensoul Artifact to enchant an Artifact, forcing it to also be creature, can I use Helm of the Host to have multiples of that artifact?

Yes, you can copy the animated artifact, but it will not necessarily be a creature token. It will be a token copy of the original artifact. The effect of Ensoul Artifact will not be copied.
For example, if the artifact with Ensoul Artifact on it was Damping Sphere, then the copy you create will simply be the original, non-creature version of Damping Sphere. If the original was a Guardians of Koilos, the copy will be a 4/4 as the original, not 5/5.

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.

Yes, the enchanted artifact will be an artifact creature, and can be equipped with equipment. If it later becomes a non-creature (e.g. Ensoul Artifact enchantment is removed), previously created tokens remain, but Helm of the Host will no longer be legally equipped, so further token cannot be created.