text:
How do I manage double-faced cards in Innistrad (MTG) tournament play?
I read about the new mechanic in Innistrad, the upcoming MTG edition, called double-faced cards. These cards have two faces, and no standard Magic back. They have actual creatures on both sides. In the linked article they describe two options for handling those cards:

To put a double-faced card into your deck, you have two options: You
  can put your entire deck in opaque card sleeves, as many players
  already do, or you can use the checklist card provided in many
  Innistrad packs. If you're using checklist cards to represent any of
  the double-faced cards in your deck, you must use checklist cards to
  represent all of them.

I am not happy with either of these options. As a card collector I want my cards nice and clean and I will definitely not remove them from their sleeve during actual play, which is required for the first option. Those cards would take damage really fast. So this option does not work for me.
The alternative is using those checklist cards, but as far as I understand it, this requires me to keep the real cards on a separate pile. Every time I play a checklist card, I will search this pile and put the right card into play. Shouldn't be a problem if you are playing for fun at home or with people who know your deck well. But in a tournament situation, this will leak important information to my opponent. How many double-faced cards am I playing? How many of those are left? It is also very likely that my oppponent my get a glimpse at some of them while I search for a card in the pile, because double-faced cards are hard to hide.
I am considering additional cards to act as decoys. Lets say I only have 4 checklist cards in my deck but I bring 20 different double-faced cards for the exchange-pile. Would this be allowed in a tournament? Or are there better ways to handle that?

Level III judge Riki Hayashi responds via Twitter: "Short answer would be 'don't do that.' For more info, wait for the Innistrad FAQ." (https://twitter.com/#!/Riskypedia) Once the FAQ is complete, I'll put the information as an answer.

I don't really think this question can be answered fairly and accurately until the Innistrad FAQ is released, or until WotC further clarify the changes to the Tournament Rules regarding double-faced cards otherwise.

@Jadasc, good call asking an actual senior judge.  Interesting to see that even they regard it as a potential problem and have no simple answer.  This new mechanic is really putting the cat among the pigeons!

In draft it's considered common courtesy to move any double-sided cards forward in the pack so they're not visible while being passed around. Also, as long as your first pick ins't a double sider then you can jsut stick it under some other cards.

Yes, there's been a lot of anger about double-faced cards online.  Obviously they're going to "kind of, sort of" work, but only in a really clunky and annoying way.  No one want to have to be constantly subjecting their cards to wear and tear by sleeving and resleeving them - and players with bad memories are going to keep forgetting what's written on the second face too!
To answer your question, I cannot imagine there could be any possible objection to you keeping the number and nature of your DFCs secret.  I personally would probably want to invest in a deck box and keep the double-faced cards in there with your trades or casual decks.  Having any sort of visible "exchange-pile" (beyond your 15-card sideboard) when you sit down gives your opponent too much information: really, you don't want him knowing if you're playing double-faced cards at all, until you play one.
And if you think playing in Constructed tournaments is going to be annoying, just wait until you consider the implications for Draft.  Curse you, Wizards!  You've gone too far this time! :D

I read about these cards and could only thing, "What are they smoking down there in Magic R&D these days?"

@JSB = yeah, I think they are suffering under the weight of feeling they have to make every new set a massive "event" so that sales don't flag... and that usually means a new gimmick to go with it.  Having said that, Richard Garfield, the original creator of the game was on this design team, so if anyone has the right to boldly push the boundaries of the game where they've never gone before, it's him!

I refuse to make any judgements until I play with them. :)

@adam, I don't want to sound too down on them, from what I've seen I think they're superb cards and dripping with flavour; they wouldn't have worked half as well as flip cards.  On the other hand I don't think anyone can deny that there will be some amount of irritation at having to wrestle them in and out of sleeves, or play with those ugly checklist cards... with luck it won't be too horrible.

Fortunately, I mostly play online these days, where the problem of how to handle these cards will be moot :).

@thesunneversets: I don't think they would have ever made it out of development or playtesting if they delivered a horribly play experience. In fact, MaRo insists the experience is great. Although, of course, I'd be lying if I said R&D has never made mistakes before...

From personal experience, it's relatively painless.  While it does mean you can see when somebody grabs something when drafting, in play the whole "go grab the double-sided version of this placeholder" isn't too bad.

@Ian - I haven't played with them yet, but I've been reading articles about them from pro drafters; the main thing that struck me was that, to them, double-facedness has actually proven to be an advantage, as it makes signalling easier!

I am considering additional cards to act as decoys. Lets say I only have 4 checklist cards in my deck but I bring 20 different double-faced cards for the exchange-pile. Would this be allowed in a tournament? Or are there better ways to handle that?

I'm pretty sure you can bring as many token cards or those other promotional generic ad cards as you like. Rather than bring extra double-faced cards, I would just put a bunch of token cards on top of your pile of double-faced cards. Perhaps you'll have to show the cards to a judge before play, but I can't see how there would be a problem with that.

I saw a good approach for this that I adopted early on. Sure I'm late to the party, but we have to deal with these cards for another year anyway, and if the Golgari have anything to say about it, we'll be using a lot of stuff from the Innistrad block.
The biggest issue with double faced cards is clearly protecting your investment by limiting resleeving. To get around this, I put mine in the 100-for-a-dollar clear plastic sleeves with no backing on them. My checklist card goes in my deck like a normal card (with a typical color-backed sleeve) while my clear plastic sleeve comes with my with my tokens. The tokens are also sleeved with the cheap sleeves, because they are just as useful upside down (for random things that you simply need) as they are token side up. This gives them a clever disguise, and hey if something catastrophic happened (some idiot spills a pop on the table) my both my tokens and cards I actually care about (looking at you, Bloodline Keeper) are protected.
Is it perfect? No, but it satisifies my worries: opponent can't see inside my deck until it hits him, protect my cards, make it easy to work with.

The approach that I'm going to use initially is to protect the cards in sleeves, to set them in a side pile and to use the checklists in the deck.
Rather than mark my checklists, I'm going to put small stickers on the plastic slip (yes 2 covers for the cards).
For disguising my quantity of double faced cards, I am going to pad my pile with unmarked checklists.
It's probably not a perfect solution, but should avoid any issues of being accused of improperly substituting cards into the game.

Will it be sufficiently unambiguous which double-faced-card is represented by your checklist card, if you haven't physically marked it?  (I'm visualising from your answer something stuck to the sleeve rather than the card, which might be too easy to manipulate for dishonest purposes?)

Remember, I'm talking about an inner and outer sleeve.  The sticker is on the inner one.  In order to manipulate this, you'd have to move the sticker or swap the inner sleeve.  These inner sleeves just barely fit the cards, so sliding shouldn't be an issue, alternately you can write on the sticker exactly which double sided is being represented.

My motivation on not marking the checklist is twofold... Firstly I don't have to amass a ridiculous amount of checklists to cover my double sided cards, I could just use multiple inner sleeves in case I somehow had more doubled cards than checklists (unlikely) but also as an ex-card dealer, checklists collect an odd value attachment simply because so many people mark them up.

For casual play it sounds like an ideal solution, for tournaments I'm a bit worried a judge might take a dim view unless it was (a) absolutely unambiguous which card on the checklist was checked and (b) absolutely impossible to move the sticker to represent a new card, by any amount of sleight of hand.  Don't get me wrong, I think it's a good idea, I just feel like it might not get DCI-approved.  Welcome to the murky world of double-faced cards in tournament situations :-/

Yes, it's going to be half a nightmare but hopefully the weaknesses become apparent quickly and we get some DCI approved guidance.

lol.well..what you could do is buy double cards for cards in deck and sheath the cards one on each side...keep the flip side in a different sheathed pile..it would work well..but ummm....that could get expensive...seems best bet though..probably what i will do.

I've seen that suggestion before and in practical terms it's not a bad one, but... how reluctant am I to give Wizards twice as much money as they're already gouging me for?  If I play a tournament deck with 4 double-faced mythic rares it would cost me the GNP of a small African country to get 8 copies! ;)

EDIT: SEE COMMENTS! This is a BAD idea - the double-sleeved cards are identifiable!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
On the specific topic of wear-and-tear to the cards, I double sleeve all my double-faced cards, even though I don't double sleeve the rest of the deck.
Doesn't help with the other issues, but at least means I'm not constanly touching and nicking the edges.

I don't think this is good advice. The thickness of double sleeved cards and the way the sleeve can move around the card is noticeably different, and having both in your deck would count as having marked cards in a tournament. I just tested this by shuffling together single- and double-sleeved cards in identical outer sleeves with similar wear patterns, and I was able to distinguish between them looking only at the back with almost 90% accuracy.

Jeez! you can? wow you guys must spend a lot of time looking at cards :)
Fair enough.

What I meant is that I could distinguish them by touch, without looking at anything but the back.

... I'm not sure if that's more-, or less-impressive =:0

Re delete votes. I'd probably say it's worth NOT deleting this, so that others who have my idea have the flaw pointed out.

Per the FAQ: "Answers that are wrong or that dispense poor advice should be downvoted, not deleted."

this is the best solution actually, just double sleeve all your cards, get the transparent clear for the first sleeve and use whatever opaque/colored/design sleeve you want for the second one, then you just take it out and flip it but you are always touching the first inner sleeve, idk why ppl would downvote this instead of figuring out to double sleeve everything in the deck, this is relevant now since ixalan has flip cards coming


text:
When my creature enters the battlefield as a copy of another creature, will its "enters the battlefield" abilities trigger?
The card Phyrexian Metamorph says:

You may have Phyrexian Metamorph enter the battlefield as a copy of any artifact or creature on the battlefield, except it's an artifact in addition to its other types.

Other cards like Clone and Spark Double have similar abilities.
If I understand the rules text correctly, abilities of copied creatures that will trigger when the creature enters the battle field will trigger for the copy as well. In my current case the target is a Geist Honored Monk, which has:

When Geist-Honored Monk enters the battlefield, put two 1/1 white Spirit creature tokens with flying onto the battlefield.

If I copy this creature with Phyrexian Metamorph, do I get the tokens as well?

You certainly do.  Per the Gatherer rulings:

Any enters-the-battlefield abilities of the copied permanent will
  trigger when Phyrexian Metamorph enters the battlefield. Any "as
  [this] enters the battlefield" or "[this] enters the battlefield with"
  abilities of the chosen permanent will also work.

The section in the Comp rules seems pretty clear on this, as well:

706.5. 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.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Does Rayami, First of the Fallen exile itself?
If Rayami, First of the Fallen dies does its ability exile itself?
Relevant card text:

If a nontoken creature would die, exile that card with a blood counter on it instead.

Yes.
The first paragraph creates a replacement effect. A replacement effect changes what happens as it happens, rather than reacting to it like a triggered ability does.
When Rayami, First of the Fallen would die (would be moved to the graveyard from the battlefield), it must necessarily be on the battlefield. As such, it is subject to its own ability.
Put differently, a game of Magic is a sequence of discrete states. This means that a creature that dies is on the battlefield one instant, and in the graveyard (or exile) the next. It's never in between. That means that Rayami must be on the battlefield when you decide to where to move it (because it couldn't possibly be in the graveyard or exile already).

Of course, if Rayami is your Commander, you don't have to exile it; you could choose to move it to the Command Zone instead. In that situation, you'd have two replacement effects vying to change Rayami's destination, so you get to apply the effects in the order of your choice (though the order doesn't matter here).

Yes, Rayami, First of the Fallen will be exiled if it dies on the battlefield.
The first set of rules text on Rayami is a Replacement Effect. As per Rule 614 'Such effects watch for a particular event that would happen and completely or partially replace that event with a different event. They act like “shields” around whatever they’re affecting.'
This means the Replacement effects alter any events before they happen, so in this case before Raymani dies it's death is replaced with exile.
If you're playing with Rayami as your commander rule 903.9 means you still have the opportunity to send Rayami to the command zone.

614.1 Some continuous effects are replacement effects. Like prevention effects (see rule 615), replacement effects apply continuously as events happen—they aren’t locked in ahead of time. Such effects watch for a particular event that would happen and completely or partially replace that event with a different event. They act like “shields” around whatever they’re affecting.
903.9 If a commander would be exiled from anywhere or put into its owner’s hand, graveyard, or library from anywhere, its owner may put it into the command zone instead. This replacement effect may apply more than once to the same event. This is an exception to rule 614.5.

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


text:
Can I use sleeve protectors for Dominion cards and still fit them back into the box?
I am considering getting card protectors for my dominion game. Do the cards still fit back into their slots in the box?
The ones I was thinking about were the ones advertised in the box with dominion from Mayday Games.

I use the Mayday games sleeves for all my Dominion cards.
The sets of 10 Kingdom cards will still fit in their slots in the box just fine.  More numerous cards (like the Treasure and VPs) either will not fit at all, or will have to be jammed in pretty tightly.
Personally, I put Dominion, Intrigue, Seaside and Alchemy into two "long boxes" that you see used for CCGs, with little labeled tabs I printed from BGG separating them.  This takes up a lot less room than the 3 large boxes and half-size Alchemy box, and makes the game portable.
Prosperity is still in its original box since I'm out of space in my long boxes.  I keep all the Kingdom cards in their original slot, but keep Colony and Platinum in some of the larger unused slots rather than the ones labeled for them, because I don't like the tight fit.

Do you use the size 59 MM X 92 MM?

Just to offer another point of view, I also use the Mayday sleeves for my Dominion cards.  I have no problem fitting the cards in the original box in the correct slots, except for Coppers.  My solution was to just not sleeve all the Coppers, since I have yet to play a game where I came anywhere close to using all of them.

I honestly couldn't remember which Base cards didn't fit, thanks!  Yeah, Colony and Platinum do fit (barely) in their slots in Prosperity, but with so many other open slots I just don't bother.

Certain cards can help run down the Copper supply.  Off the top of my head: Gardens, Thief, Montebank, and Counting House.

Also, Ambassador can potentially drain the copper supply.

Or Goons with some other +Buy cards

When I sleeved some of the cards from Dominion: Dark Ages with premium Mayday sleeves, they wouldn't fit back in the box. The card slots aren't even close to being wide enough because the card sleeves make the cards a little taller. I found that strange, because I had no problem with Dominion, the Dominion base card set, or Dominion: Seaside.
To fix this issue I ordered an Organizer for Dominion made by
ElephantCraftsShop. It claims to hold at least 1500 sleeved cards, comes with special inserts for tokens, and fits into any full-sized dominion box. I'll let you know how that works when it comes in the mail.
Here's a link to what it looks like. https://www.etsy.com/listing/469564688/organizer-for-dominion-board-game?ref=hp_rv
...
After receiving this in the mail, assembling it, and filling it with cards from Dominion, Dominion Update Pack, Dominion: Seaside, and Dominion: Dark Ages, I realized I still had a major project in front of me. Yes, It can hold about 1,500 sleeved cards, but I found that I couldn't easily get them out when they're packed that tightly. So I removed my Coppers, Silvers, and Golds, and put them in the yellow base cards box. Then I had to make my own card dividers for the rest. I spent hours cutting out tabbed dividers from poster-board and sticking labels on them. It was a huge project. It's pretty awesome now that it's done, but this product is not a complete solution as of itself.

I also used the Mayday sleeves. I've conslidated Dominion and Intrigue into one box by removing the inserts, and putting each type of card into a snak-sized ziplock. I might be able to get one more box integrated in.... but will be tight.
I was unable to get all of it in the tray, however, due to the coppers and curses no longer fitting their slots. Which is why I went to baggies.

I use the premium Mayday sleeves as well and own both Dominion (1st edition) and Dominion Update Pack.
I sleeved them all except the blank cards and randomizing cards with premium Mayday sleeves. I moved all money to a separate place — I use the yellow base cards box to hold Copper, Silver, and Gold in the three compartments. All other cards fit comfortably into the original box.

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

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/


text:
How can I keep track of my sideboarded cards in a physical Magic deck?
In Magic, if you swap in cards from your sideboard during a match, you need to reset to your original deck for the beginning of the next match. I find I have trouble remembering what I sideboarded and reseting it correctly, especially in limited, where I've just built the deck and don't know my decklist by heart.
Are there common strategies to keep track of which cards you've sideboarded and to make it easy to reset?

What do you mean by paper Magic? Also, at least where I've played, the sideboard rules for limited are different: your decklist doesn't have to be constant, and you can modify it from your sideboard at any time.

Are you not allowed to just write it down or something?

@murgatroid99 As opposed to MTGO (where you don't have to remember).

@murgatroid99 Ah, it sounds like at regular REL, you're allowed to start each match with a different decklist. I assumed you weren't supposed to because MTGO doesn't let you do that. http://blogs.magicjudges.org/rulestips/2013/01/what-continuous-construction-means-for-limited-tournaments/

@GendoIkari You're allowed to write it down, but I'm wondering if there's a better trick that I'm not aware of. That might be the best answer.

Write down your sideboard in a list and keep that with your deck. You might want to keep note of it on something durable in your deck box, for instance.
When you want to reset your deck and sideboard to their default:

Take a look at your currently sideboarded cards, and the sideboard list you wrote. Set aside the ones that belong in your default sideboard - put these together.
Find the remainders in your deck, and put those together with the cards you set aside in step 1, until you have your entire sideboard set aside in a pile.
Everything remaining that is not in that pile must necessarily be a part of your deck, so shuffle it back in.

You'll now have your default sideboard and, by exclusion, your default deck.

Sounds trickier for limited than for constructed, but doable. Thanks!

@Peeja, Unless the limited event requires decklists, you do not have to restore your deck to its original configuration between matches. If the event does require decklists, you've already got a list.

A nice way of doing this is to buy 2 packs of "limited" sleeves and use those for your drafts. Put a mark on half of the front of the sleeves (maybe just the letters sb or a symbol. Make sure you put the mark on the front of your sleeve so you cannot see the card is marked) and no mark on the other half of the cards. When you are building your deck after drafting, put your main deck into the unmarked sleeves and the rest of your cards into the marked ones. Now when it comes to de-sideboarding, you can easily look through your deck and pick out the sideboard cards with a quick glance. This does have the drawback of showing your opponent which cards you brought in from your sideboard and which were main deck, but it saves a lot of time and effort de-sideboarding.

I strongly recommend against marking your sleeves, even the front of them. Most likely it won't cause any problems, but there is a chance that problems will happen. F.E.: Mark on front of inside double-sleeve rubs off inside. Mark is transferred to non-SB card later. (And this is an example that merely causes confusion, not gets you DQ'd. If such a transfer happened outside the sleeves, you might be considered to have a marked deck.)


text:
Can I make a card that places a +1/+1 counter on an enchantment that isn't a creature?
Say I want to create a card that places +1/+1 counters on non-creatures:
Egzampla 1R
Creatures - Human Wizard
1/1
When Egzampla enters the battlefield, place +1/+1 counter on target enchantment.

Is such an effect legal (so to speak), and is it considered good or bad practice from design standpoint?

@doppelgreener: I've clarified a bit. I wanted 0/-1 initially, but decided to go for +1/+1 counters, since they are already present in game. I did forgot to edit.

In terms of design, you want it to be relevant. One way is for the ability to turn enchantments into creatures (like Awaken from BFZ). Another way would be for cards, or the enchantments themselves, to care about the counters on them, or to turn into creatures.

@Samthere Unless your intent is a card along the lines of Unhinged and Unglued and just want something random for the lols.

There is nothing in the rules that disallows counters from being on particular permanents. This means that +1/+1 or -1/-1 counters (or as in your title, 0/-1 counters) can be on artifacts, lands, planeswalkers or enchantments. Additionally, there is no rule that stops those counters from being placed, although the number of scenarios where that will happen are pretty few and far between.
Example of a non-creature permanent with a +1/+1 counter on it: I crew my Heart of Kiran, then cast Oath of Ajani, putting a +1/+1 counter on each of my creatures. At the end of the turn, Heart of Kiran will no longer be a creature, but it will still have a +1/+1 counter on it. The introduction of vehicles to the game makes this a fairly common occurrence now, but even before it would happen often with lands, artifacts, or enchantments that had a way to become a creature temporarily.
Example of a spell that puts +1/+1 counters on a non-creature permanent: Earthen Arms. The obvious intention is that you either put the counters on a creature, or cast the spell with awaken and get the extra counters on the land you "wake up". There is nothing stopping you from using this spell to slap +1/+1 counters on a non-awoken land, or enchantment, or planeswalker, or anything else however.
Example of a non-creature that has a +1/+1 counter on it, and isn't meant to become a creature by itself: Llanowar Reborn gets a +1/+1 counter as it enters the battlefield, but isn't a creature, and doesn't have an ability on it that allows it to become a creature.
Note that the same thing works in reverse: counters that normally belong to some other permanent, or permanent type, can end up on a creature that doesn't "know" how to use them, given the right circumstances.
Example of counter weirdness, a non-planeswalker permanent with a loyalty counter on it: I activate Gideon, Ally of Zendikar's +1 loyalty ability, turning him into a creature until end of turn. I then activate Experiment Kraj's ability targeting Gideon to put a +1/+1 counter on him, giving Kraj all of his activated abilities. I can now activate Gideon's +1 loyalty ability on Experiment Kraj to give it a loyalty counter (and turn it into a 5/5 human soldier ally creature with indestructible, and prevent all damage that would be dealt to it this turn). When Gideon stops being a creature, Kraj will no longer have his loyalty abilities, but will still have the loyalty counter, with no real way to use it (at least, until it somehow gains loyalty abilities again).
ADDENDUM: Good or bad practice? As you can see, there are a few official cards that can put counters on non-creatures, and that have no intention of turning those non-creatures into creatures.
However, doing ANYTHING on a card without a reason is usually poor design by default, so I can't tell you whether or not your card is poor design without knowing the context. In a vacuum I can say that I think it's awful design, because it is a line of text that does nothing (if you wanted it to only be able to put counters on Enchantment Creatures, you would just have it say "target Enchantment Creature" after all). If it existed in a set where enchantments were prone to becoming creatures, it makes a little more sense, but I would still feel iffy about that as a design paradigm overall; there's a term, "parasitic mechanic", which refers to mechanics that only work within a single set. Placing counters on enchantment permanents is a VERY parasitic mechanic so you'd need a very good justification to convince me that it's good design.
That said, quality of design is at least a little bit subjective, so there's no true yes-or-no answer to whether or not it's a good or bad idea.

Awaken, from Battle for Zendikar, puts counters on lands before they are a creature, but then immediately turns them into a creature, so I'm not sure if that counts.

@monoRed Earthen Arms's first ruling also states outright that any permanent can have a +1/+1 counter on it (it just doesn't do much when that permanent isn't a creature).

@diego When Gideon (or some other planeswalker) becomes a creature again, Kraj will be able to use the loyalty counters it gained, but in my example I was saying Gideon stopped being a creature, so Kraj didn't have any loyalty abilities anymore.

Oh that's a new part of the question. It's subjective but I'll throw in a sentence or two.

Eh, I think there are enough cases where Enchantments become Creatures to avoid calling it a “VERY parasitic mechanic.” Parasitic mechanics is a good thing to bring up here as it is a risk, but in a set that’s doing this a lot, I feel like it can work and still have relevance in other sets (Theros, for example, has a fair few cards that could benefit from it)

If you want an example of when this wouldn't be a bad mechanic I would look at Theros, between the gods and creatures with bestow there were several enchantments that could later become creatures

For "counter weirdness", you may use Fate transfer with any planeswalker that turns into a creature.

@monoRed +1 for actually finding a card which targets a permanent instead of just a creature. (besides the awaken ability)

If you'll look at the current implementation of Awaken keyword, it first places counters on target land and only then makes it into a creature. So I'd say it's perfectly okay.

From a theoretical standpoint, yes it is. Nothing in the rules disallow it.
Thing is, most cards and abilities that put or change +x/+x counters, usually target creatures, so you can't really target an enchantment due to the card only targeting creatures.
The land, Llanowar Reborn enters the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter on it for example, despite not being a creature.
It should be noted, when a non-creature permanent has a +1/+1 counter (like Llanowar Reborn), it does not have power nor toughness. It cannot attack nor block.

From the Comprehensive Rules (Aether Revolt (January 20, 2017))

121.1. A counter is a marker placed on an object or player that modifies its characteristics and/or interacts with a rule, ability, or effect. Counters are not objects and have no characteristics. Notably, a counter is not a token, and a token is not a counter. Counters with the same name or description are interchangeable.
121.1a A +X/+Y counter on a creature or on a creature card in a zone other than the battlefield, where X and Y are numbers, adds X to that object’s power and Y to that object’s toughness. Similarly, -X/-Y counters subtract from power and toughness. See rule 613.3.

So Looking at these rules +X/+Y counters only have effect on creatures. There are enchantments and lands which enter the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter but it will do nothing for the enchantment or the land (like Afiya Grove). The counters are mostly moved to creatures when a certain trigger goes off.

Those rules you have quoted do not say that +X/+Y counters are only placed on creatures, as you assert they do. What they do describe is a specific effect those counters have when they are on creatures. I suggest you revise your last paragraph.

@doppelgreener you're right, changed it


text:
How does Swindler interact with Spoils (or other cards not in supply)?
The Swindler card says:

Each other player trashes top card of his deck and gains a card with the same cost that you choose.

We've encountered a situation when Swindler stumbled upon Spoils card, which is not in the supply, and hence does not have a cost defined. What is to be done then? The owner of the Swindler would of course be happy to give Ruins to the affected player instead, but I am not quite sure what the right way to resolve this is.

If he would happily give a ruins, he should be much more happy to give a curse. Note that curse is available every game, even if there is no curse-giver available.

Note that the Swindler is a "curse-giver"...

The cost of Spoils is 0. When you 'gain(s)' a card, unless it specifically names a card not in the supply, you can only choose for cards from the supply.
Copper, Curse, and Ruins (when playing with them) are in the supply and cost 0. Making all valid choices for cards that can be gained when Swindler trashes Spoils.
http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Cost

Every card in Dominion has a cost indicated in its lower left corner.
A few costs are listed with asterisks: 0* is used on
  several cards that can be gained from outside the Supply; the asterisk
  serves to remind players that they cannot actually be bought for
  0


text:
Can poison counters be removed?
Is there some way to remove or counteract poison counters? Specifically, once you've already accumulated them, not when you are dealt them.
For example, say I already have 9 poison counters. Is there some way to reduce this number?

Just noticed no one mentioned Solemnity. It won't remove counters but i think it helps

Counters can be removed.
However, I believe there is only one card that currently removes poison counters, and that is Leeches

Target player loses all poison counters.  Leeches deals 1 damage to that player for each poison counter removed in this way.

Leeches was in the Homelands set.

+! - Leeches used to be a junk rare, and now with Mirrodin Beseiged et al, it's hovering around $4 for Legacy

I've seen comments that suggest that this is intentional, that they didn't/don't want poison to become like life, just another counter that can be moved up or down by all sorts of things.

Another way to reduce the number of poison counters that you have is through an effect that restarts the game, like Karn Liberated's third ability. Doing so resets your number of poison counters to zero, as per the New Phyrexia FAQ.

Check out this column, by Magic head honcho Mark Rosewater: Something Wicked This Way Comes.
It explains some of the thinking behind "modern" poison, most relevantly why you'll have trouble finding any other card that can reduce your poison total apart from Leeches.  Here's a taste:

My hatred of Leeches did one important thing. It cemented in me the
  importance of poison not just being another life total. (This theme
  will become very important in Scars of Mirrodin's design.) As such,
  you will not see any card in the entire Scars of Mirrodin block that
  removes poison. It cannot be done. There are answers. There are ways
  to deal with poison but healing yourself of it is not one of them. If
  you want to remove poison counters you will only have one way—Leeches.

This answer is an attempt to create a canonical list:

Leeches (Mark Rosewater intended this to be the only way to get rid of poison counters, but it no longer is)

Karn Liberated (his -14 ability removes all poison counters, among other things)

Suncleanser + a way to control their turn (such as Mindslaver) + a way for you to have your opponent control Suncleanser's ability (such as Bazaar Trader + Coffin Queen + Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth).  An example of this combo is: put Suncleaner in your graveyard, take over their turn with Mindslaver, use Bazaar Trader to give them control of Coffin Queen, and then have them use Coffin Queen and mana from Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth to reanimate Suncleanser, chosing you to lose all your counters (which you can do because you control their turn).

Price of Betrayal + a way to control their turn (such as Mindslaver) + a way to get them to cast it (such as Hive Mind)

Honorable mentions:

Any of the cards that say "You can't lose" can allow to be alive (at least temporarily) with 10 or more poison counters.
Cards like Melira, Sylvok Outcast and Solemnity can prevent you from getting more poison counters
Cards like Melira, the Living Cure and Vorinclex, Monstrous Raider can reduce the number of poison counters you get.

I think if it's a canonical list, it should just say "Suncleanser + Mindslaver + a way to have your opponent control Suncleaner's ability". The 5-card combo you list is only one of many variations on how to do it. Using Strionic Resonator instead of Coffin Queen and Urborg would be interesting.

@GendoIkari I'm trying to figure out how to make Strionic Resonator to work (I'd love a combo with fewer than 5 cards, but I can't make it work short of donating Debtors Knell).  The resonator only copies the ability for it's controller, so, even if you donate the resonator, wouldn't they need to already control Suncleanser's ability to make it work?

You're right; I missed that it can't copy opponent's triggered abilities.

Also, cards that say "You win" let you start another game where you don't have any poison counters.

And now, enter Suncleanser.
This will be released in M19. It is a Cleric for 1W that will remove all counters from target opponent. It can be found here, in the M19 gallery.
Now you can just get rid of all the poison counters. Just like that. For 1W. On an opponent.

It only works on opponents, so while it does technically fit as an answer, you can't use it to get rid of your own poison counters.

@GendoIkari Good point ! So, Mindslaver an opponent into casting it on you with their GBW poison deck ?

A wild Price of Betrayal appears! for B you can remove 5 counters from target artifact, creature, planeswalker or opponent so maybe another one to add to the mindslave setup.

Platinum Angel is a way to counteract losing the game because of 10 poison counters. Careful; some similar cards like Pact Weapon don't work.

Pact Weapon has no interaction with poison.

But it does prevent you from losing the game

It prevents you from losing the game for having 0 or less life. It doesn't stop you from losing the game from poison.


text:
Do creatures that enter the battlefield at the same time see each other enter?
Let's say I have Goldnight Commander on the board. He is a 2/2 that says:

Whenever another creature enters the battlefield under your control, creatures you control get +1/+1 until end of turn.

I play a Thatcher Revolt. It says:

Put three 1/1 red Human creature tokens with haste onto the battlefield. Sacrifice those tokens at the beginning of the next end step.

The sacrifice portion is not important to this question. What is important is how these two cards interact with each other.
Playing this card in my first main phase, assuming no counters or other shenanigans by my opponent, I will have my Commander and 3 tokens on the battlefield. What will happen in terms of the power/toughness of my tokens and Commander?
Option A
The tokens will be 1/1 each. They don't see each other come in at all. The Commander is 3/3, as one "enter the battlefield" trigger happens.
Option B
The tokens will be 1/1. They don't see each other come in at all, because they weren't on the battlefield to see any of the triggers. The Commander is 5/5, as he saw three "enter the battlefield" triggers occur.
Option C
The tokens will all be different, with one being 3/3 as he saw the other two come in, one being 2/2 as he saw only the last one come in, and 1/1 as the last one saw none come in.
Option D
The tokens will all be 4/4, as three creatures entered the battlefield this turn.
I am obviously hoping for this option. It may be supported by a ruling on Goldnight Commander that says, emphasis mine:

The creature that entered the battlefield will also get +1/+1 until end of turn if it's still on the battlefield when the ability resolves.

The key being the ability resolving. So my thought is thus:

Thatcher Revolt goes on the stack.
Thatcher Revolt resolves, and three separate "enter the battlefield" triggers go on the stack as the three humans enter the battlefield as 1/1.
The last (it is a stack) "etb" trigger resolves. This puts an ability from Goldnight Commander on the stack. This resolves and the humans are now all 2/2.
The next "etb" trigger resolves. This puts a new ability from Commander on the stack, and resolves with the humans being 3/3.
The first "etb" trigger finally resolves, puts a Command ability on the stack, which resolves putting the humans at their final state of 4/4.

Option E
The tokens will all be 2/2.

Thatcher Revolt goes on the stack.
Thatcher Revolt resolves, and one single "enter the battlefield" trigger goes on the stack.
The "etb" trigger resolves. This puts an ability from Goldnight Commander on the stack. This resolves and the humans are now all 2/2.

I would really like to have a complete understanding both of the result and how this result is calculated by the game engine.

Zags, are you suggesting that my 3 year old question is a duplicate of a question posted last week?

There are a bunch of questions that are all about the same thing. I'm trying to make a canonical question and answer for this group, as discussed here http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/291992/what-is-a-canonical-question-answer-and-what-is-their-purpose

I don't think this topic is a good candidate for a canonical question. So many times, you end up with questions that have very intricate interactions, which render a canonical answer pointless.

@Zags In hindsight, you were right, it turns out so many of the questions are basically the same. Yes there are some that are intricate... but I was wrong, and this totally needed to be done.

My attempt at a canonical question is still here, though currently closed as a duplicate of this one: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/q/24424/9999

This isn't really even a question about things entering at the same time seeing eachother, since none of them have abilities that need to see other creatures entering, they are all just triggering a creature that is already on the battlefield and does see them all enter.

@Andrew You only get so many characters in the title.

@corsiKa True, but the title asks a completely different question, since none of the creatures entering have triggers. The title would be asking about something like a kicked Rite of Replication on Reaper King (something I do in one of my EDH decks for 25 triggers). Where the entering creatures have when another creature enters triggers that need to 'see' the other creatures enter. Here goldnight is the only one that needs to see them.

@Andrew if you want to propose a new title, that feature is built into Stack Exchange for a reason.

Summary: Option D is spot on. All three of your 1/1 are now 4/4 until end of turn (and your Commander is 5/5 until end of turn).

The question has nothing to do with whether the tokens see each other enter the battlefield or not.* It's about how many creatures are on the battlefield when each of the triggered abilities resolve.
The game unrolls as follows, starting with Thatcher Revolt's resolution:

Thatcher Revolt places three creatures on the battlefield simultaneously. Goldnight Commander's ability triggers three times. [CR 603.2][CR 603.2c]
As a player is about to receive priority, you place Goldnight Commander's ability on the stack three times. [CR 603.3]
The third instance of Goldnight Commander's ability resolves: Creatures you control get +1/+1 until end of turn.
The second instance of Goldnight Commander's ability resolves: Creatures you control get +1/+1 until end of turn.
The first instance of Goldnight Commander's ability resolves: Creatures you control get +1/+1 until end of turn.

Three continuous effects were created by a triggered ability. They will only affect the creatures that existed when the abilities resolved [CR 611.2c], but all three of the 1/1s were on the battlefield when they resolved.
So all three of your 1/1 are now 4/4 until end of turn (and your Commander is 5/5 until end of turn).

* — To answer your title question, yes. If you had two creatures with a triggered ability such as "When another creature enters the battlefield, ...", they would see each other entering the battlefield. This is codified by CR 603.6d: "Normally, objects that exist immediately after an event are checked to see if the event matched any trigger conditions. [...]"
For example, if two Goldnight Commander entered the battlefield simultaneously, both of their abilities would trigger [CR 603.6d], and both would end up getting +2/+2 until end of turn.

On the matter of two Goldnight Commanders, casting a revolt, they'd both be 8/8, with 3 7/7 hastes on the board. I swing for 37. Wow.

The same is true for creatures which leave together, say if you block Kothophed, Soul Hoarder with a few flying/reach guys to kill him, he still sees them die and the controller of Kothophed draws cards

The answer to this situation is D, since it is a triggered ability.
More generally, when multiple permanents enter the battlefield simultaneously, abilities behave as follows:
Replacement effects (As [this permanent] enters the battlefield, You may have [this permanent] enter the battlefield as..., and [This permanent] enters the battlefield with) will look at the state of the battlefield before the group of permanents enters.
Triggered abilities (When [a permanent with certain characteristics] enters the battlefield) will trigger for all eligible permanents in the group entering the battlefield.  This is true even if the ability is on one of the permanents that is entering the battlefield.

Examples
If you use Scapeshift to find several copies of Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle, some mountains, and several copies of Vesuva, you will have a group of lands entering the battlefield simultaneously.  Vesuva's ability is a replacement effect, and so can only copy lands on the battlefield before the group of lands enters (so if you sacrificed all of your lands to Scapeshift, Vesuva would only be able to copy an opponent's land).  Meanwhile, Valakut has a triggered ability.  All of the Valakut abilities will trigger for all of the mountains entering the battlefield.  If the Valakuts happen to be mountains as well, such as due to Prismatic Omen, they will trigger their own and each others abilities.
If you use Living Death, any instances of Clone that come back to life will have no valid copy targets and Canker Abomination will be a 6/6, since both of these are replacement effects.  Meanwhile, Goldnight Commander has a triggered ability, and so will give all of your creatures +1/+1 until end of turn for each creature besides himself that entered the battlefield.

Rules Justification
The behavior of the triggered abilities comes from the following core rules:

603.6a Enters-the-battlefield abilities trigger when a permanent enters the battlefield. These are written, "When [this object] enters
  the battlefield, ..." or "Whenever a [type] enters the battlefield,
  ..." Each time an event puts one or more permanents onto the
  battlefield, all permanents on the battlefield (including the
  newcomers) are checked for any enters-the-battlefield triggers that
  match the event.
603.3b If multiple abilities have triggered since the last time a player received priority, each player, in APNAP order, puts triggered
  abilities he or she controls on the stack in any order he or she
  chooses. (See rule 101.4.) Then the game once again checks for and
  resolves state-based actions until none are performed, then abilities
  that triggered during this process go on the stack. This process
  repeats until no new state-based actions are performed and no
  abilities trigger. Then the appropriate player gets priority.

The behavior of the replacement effects comes from the following core rules:

608.2g If an effect requires information from the game (such as the number of creatures on the battlefield), the answer is determined only
  once, when the effect is applied
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.
614.12. Some replacement effects modify how a permanent enters the battlefield. (See rules 614.1c–d.) Such effects may come from the
  permanent itself if they affect only that permanent (as opposed to a
  general subset of permanents that includes it). They may also come
  from other sources. To determine which replacement effects apply and
  how they apply, check the characteristics of the permanent as it would
  exist on the battlefield, taking into account replacement effects that
  have already modified how it enters the battlefield (see rule 616.1),
  continuous effects generated by the resolution of spells or abilities
  that changed the permanent’s characteristics on the stack (see rule
  400.7a), and continuous effects from the permanent’s own static abilities, but ignoring continuous effects from any other source that
  would affect it.
614.12a If a replacement effect that modifies how a permanent enters the battlefield requires a choice, that choice is made before the
  permanent enters the battlefield.
614.4. Replacement effects must exist before the appropriate event occurs—they can’t “go back in time” and change something that’s
  already happened. Spells or abilities that generate these effects are
  often cast or activated in response to whatever would produce the
  event and thus resolve before that event would occur.
101.4. If multiple players would make choices and/or take actions at the same time, the active player (the player whose turn it is) makes
  any choices required, then the next player in turn order (usually the
  player seated to the active player’s left) makes any choices required,
  followed by the remaining nonactive players in turn order. Then the
  actions happen simultaneously. This rule is often referred to as the
  “Active Player, Nonactive Player (APNAP) order” rule.

Note:
This question is currently the canonical question for how to handle multiple permanents entering the battlefield simultaneously.  This answer is intentionally more general than the question is looking for, in order to address the numerous variations of this question.


text:
What happens to loyalty counters on a double faced Planeswalker?
When a double faced planeswalker, like Garruk Relentless transforms into Garruk, the Veil Cursed there is no new loyalty symbol at the bottom of the card.

Does his current loyalty carry over or is there some new mechanic to deal with DFC Planeswalkers?

This is covered by the Magic Comprehensive Rules:

121.1. A counter is a marker placed on an object or player that modifies its characteristics and/or
  interacts with a rule, ability, or effect.

711.7. When a double-faced permanent transforms, it doesn‘t become a new object. Any effects that
  applied to that permanent will continue to apply to it after it transforms.
Example: An effect gives Village Ironsmith (the front face of a double-faced card) +2/+2
  until end of turn and then Village Ironsmith transforms into Ironfang. Ironfang will continue
  to get +2/+2 until end of turn.

When Garruk Relentless transforms into Garruk, the Veil-Cursed, he remains the same object, so there's no reason to believe anything happens to his loyalty counters.
The official Innistrad FAQ mentions this as well:

Transforming a permanent doesn't affect any Auras or Equipment attached to that permanent. Similarly, any counters on the permanent will remain on that permanent after it transforms.

From the official Wizards site's article about Double-Faced Card Rules:

After a double-faced card transforms, it's still the same card, so any
  Auras, counters, or other effects stay right where they are (unless
  the double-faced card's characteristics have changed such that an Aura
  can no longer legally enchant it).

This obviously includes a planeswalker's loyalty counters.  I think it's helpful to imagine the "transform" action as being a literal transform - the face of the card almost magically instantaneously changes from one aspect to another.  If you think of it over-literally as "flipping the card over" then it's logical to imagine everything falling off!  But this isn't what happens.

According to DCI Level 2 Judge "Natedogg" the loyalty counters from the front face transfer to the back face.
Specifically

You don't add or remove loyalty counters from Garruk Relentless when  he transforms into Garruk, the Veil-Cursed. In most cases, he'll have  one or two loyalty counters on him.

Since it's a natural follow up question about the one ability per turn use of a planeswalker

You can't activate a loyalty ability of Garruk Relentless and later  that turn after he transforms activate a loyalty ability of Garruk, the  Veil-Cursed.

I had to hunt around to find a citation so I thought it'd be of interest to others.

it definitely is - it's implied by the lack of loyalty counter on the transformed version, but it's nice to see a ruling.


text:
Does a creature with Lifelink provide lifegain equal to its power, or the defender's toughness?
I have recently began playing a deck that has a number of creatures with lifelink in it.  I want to be certain I understand the mechanic and the following question occurred to me.
Which damage total do you use to determine the life gain from lifelink?  I had assumed that if  a 3/3 creature with lifelink was blocked by a 2/2 creature that the life gain total would be 2, the maximum that the blocker can absorb before dying.  This seems to be incorrect, as when I read the example attached to CR 119.4c

[...] attacks with a 3/3 creature with wither and lifelink. It’s blocked by a 2/2 creature, [...]. The damage event starts out as [3 damage is dealt to the 2/2 creature, 2 damage is dealt to the 3/3 creature]

Have I been short changing myself?

It's not really a question of which damage number is used to determine life gain, because there is only one damage number. As the answers explain, in your example, a 3/3 creature deals 3 damage, period. The toughness of the blocker, 2, is not an amount of damage.

Yes, you've been shortchanging yourself!

702.14b Damage dealt by a source with lifelink causes that source's controller, or its owner if it has no controller, to gain that much
life (in addition to any other results that damage causes).

A creature with 10 power blocked by a creature with 1 toughness deals 10 damage to that poor little blocker.  Creatures with 10 power are not known for their discretion or moderation; they don't deal 1 damage on the grounds that that will be enough to do the job.  No, they smash that blocker into smithereens and leave behind a smoking crater!
I think your confusion may arise from the old card Drain Life, whose text reads:

Drain Life deals X damage to target creature or player. You gain life
equal to the damage dealt, but not more life than the player's life
total before Drain Life dealt damage or the creature's toughness.

Drain Life is the exception though, not the rule; for lifelinkers the creature's toughness is irrelevant in determining how much life is gained.  (See also though Abattoir Ghoul, a recent card which offers a kind of new spin on the Drain Life idea.)

Note that the blocking creature need to be in combat for your creature to do damage (unless it has trample as well). Also note that if you have double strike and the first strike kills the other creature, it will not strike again.

In Drain Life's case, it's not even a question of hidden rules. It's a limitation that is actually part of the card's text.

Might also be worth mentioning that the rules for life link have changed a couple of times over the years, which might be another source of misunderstanding. (I would provide a source, but the coffee shop I'm in at the moment is blocking most of the internet...)

Yes, you have. When a creature with lifelink does damage, you gain life equal to that creature's power, since that is how much damage it deals (outside of a few corner cases).
In the case of a 3/3 lifelink creature being blocked by a 2/2 creature, the 3/3 creature still does 3 damage to the blocking creature, even though 2 damage would be sufficient to kill it. Therefore you gain 3 life.
(The cases where this does not happen include cases where damage is prevented, such as if your opponent plays Fog, or if the blocking creature has protection from your creature's color.)

I had assumed that if a 3/3 creature with lifelink was blocked by a 2/2 creature that the life gain total would be 2, the maximum that the blocker can absorb before dying.

This is somewhat incorrect. Creatures don't "absorb" damage. Strictly speaking, dealing damage and killing a creature are separate game events. Damage is marked on creatures, and every time state based actions are checked, the damage marked on every non-indestructible creature is compared to its toughness, and every time the former is greater than or equal to the latter, the creature in question dies. This is why, for instance, Sengir Vampire says "Whenever a creature dealt damage by Sengir Vampire this turn dies" rather  than "Whenever a creature is killed by Sengir Vampire". Sengir Vampire doesn't actually kill creatures: it deals damage to them, and then the damage kills them.
When a creature you control with lifelink deals damage, the sequence of events is: damage is dealt, then you gain life, then the damage dealt is compared to the toughness of the creature that was dealt damage. The toughness of the creature is irrelevant to life gain, and isn't checked until after the life gain. The life gain is the damage dealt. The other creature is indestructible? The life gain is still the damage dealt. The creature dealing damage has deathtouch? The life gain is the damage dealt.

"damage is dealt, then you gain life" This isn't actually correct; you gain life at the exact same time the damage is dealt.


text:
How do I beat U/R control with Affinity?
I play affinity and seriously struggle with control players and can't seem to find a way to win.
Blue Moon has become popular recently, and while Blood Moon does not cripple my deck the constant counters to anything I do just stagnate the game.
Kolaghan's Command kills 2 artifacts at once, normally a Mox Opal and creature.
My damage cards (Arcbound Ravager, Etched Champion, Cranial Plating) are countered with spells like Mana Leak.
My creatures are constantly hit with Lightning Bolt, and Jace, Telepath Unbound and Snapcaster Mage lets them replay them. My land are also destroyed this way if I try to use them as creatures.
What strategy's can be used against a deck that mainboards more removal than I have playable cards and after the first round can add in specific artifact hate ?

Decklist
2x master of etherium
3x signal pest
3x etched champion
4x arcbound ravager
4x ornithopter
4x memnite
4x vault skirge
4x galvanic blast
4x thoughtcast
4x mox opal
4x spring-leaf drum
4x cranial plating
4x darksteel citadel
4x inkmoth nexus
4x blinkmoth nexus
3x glimmervoid
1x island
Sideboard
4x spellskite
1x steel overseer
1x torpor orb
1x tormod's crypt
2x gitaxian probe
4x shrapnel blast
1x blood moon
1x glimmervoid

Electrolyze ("~ deals 2 damage divided as you choose among one or two target creatures and/or players. Draw a card.") can't kill a Mox Opal, fyi. So maybe in that particular context your opponent misplayed or cheated.

It destroys an artifact and deal 2 damage to creature, thought that was electrolyse but must be a diffent card.

You must be thinking of Kolaghan's Command, but that can't be run in U/R. Are you having trouble with Jund as well? They too run a lot of removal.

Skeith can you post a link to your decklist? Some of the things you're saying make it seem like you're running a very nonstandard Affinity list, and the feedback you'll get will be based on standard Affinity, so it may not be that useful to you.

The answer really is to go fast. I say this as a long time UR player in Modern. By go fast, I mean you want to pressure your opponent's life total and build big creatures.
It looks like you have Master of Etherium in the main. That's a great card for you because it can often push your creatures out of Pyroclasm or Anger of the Gods range. UR decks are typically Snap/Bolt decks. They rely heavily on damage based removal, so if you can bump your creatures out of that range (~ 3-4 toughness), you'll be doing the most good. Etched Champion has protection from just about any removal UR has, aside from countering it. If you can land an Etched Champion you are in very good position.
Holding double black up to re-equip Cranial Plating at instead speed may be difficult, but it's a great way to get around targeted removal during the combat phase. They shoot your equipped Vault Skirge? Re-equip it onto your Ornithopter.
If you want to play around counterspells, be aware of what the opponent has already played that game (and round) and take note of their open mana. They have one blue open and haven't played Spell Snare all game? Don't play your 2-drop. You can also try waiting to play multiple spells per turn. Counterspells will typically cost more mana to play than your creatures will, so even if a creature or two of yours gets countered save your best for last to get it on the board.
Lastly, most blue decks (and UR especially) tend to board out counterspells against fast decks like affinity. They often bring things in like Shatterstorm, so don't over-commit to the board. Be weary of sweepers as well.
You are always the beatdown in this matchup, UR doesn't have Splinter Twin anymore, so as long as you can keep dropping threats you will likely come out on top.

The card you're probably having problems with is Kolaghan's Command. But, that spell is 3 cmc, so the earliest they can do it is turn 3. If you're ramping up properly, by turn 3 you should be able to handle it.
Affinity is supposed to be fast, so if you don't have the possibility of turn 1: Land, mox opal, springleaf drum, 0-drop creature, Cranial Plating, you're probably too slow.
Barring that, fight fire with fire: run a couple Dispel or other counters. If you don't want to go that route, a card like Cavern of Souls can make some of your creatures uncounterable. Aether Vial can help you flash in creatures and dodge most counters

cavern of souls affects only 1 creture type chosen as played, no 2 creatures share a type in my deck. not very good

@Skeith That might not matter that much. Bloom Titan decks used to run Cavern of Souls and it only had one creature in the entire deck. If it's that important to your win strategy that a certain creature be in play, having one or two in the deck might not be a terrible idea. Having said that, I haven't played Modern since before Splinter Twin was banned, so the meta is probably very different.

a play set of caverns of souls is £100+, i know modern costs money but if im spending that kind of money i want better than "it might help".

Affinity decks seem not to run Cavern of Souls. But the reason is more that it can't cast Galvanic Blast or sideboard cards like Blood Moon (whereas Glimmervoid can), not so much a lack of creatures that share a type. @SocioMatt makes a great point that including Cavern to make one critical creature uncounterable, when counterspells are a major threat to the deck, is a totally valid strategy.

@Skeith You can always playtest with proxies before making the investement for tournament play. This is even encouraged by Wizards, believe it or not...


text:
If a blocking creature leaves the battlefield, is the attacker still blocked, or will it damage the opponent?
Suppose Player 1 has a Dragon on the table and Unsummon in hand, while Player 2 has two Spiders on the table.
Player 1 chooses to attack with the Dragon and Player 2 chooses to block with one of the Spiders.  Before combat damage is to be dealt, Player 1 uses Unsummon on the blocking Spider.
Does Player 2 take any life damage from the attacking Dragon?

No
The player takes no damage as the Dragon remains blocked. From the Comprehensive Rules for the Declare Blockers step:

509.1h An attacking creature with one or more creatures declared as blockers for it becomes a blocked creature; one with no creatures declared as blockers for it becomes an unblocked creature. This remains unchanged until the creature is removed from combat, an effect says that it becomes blocked or unblocked, or the combat phase ends, whichever comes first. A creature remains blocked even if all the creatures blocking it are removed from combat.

An Exception is, when the attacking creature has trample. See the Comprehensive Rules for Keyword Abilities:

702.19c If an attacking creature with trample is blocked, but there are no creatures blocking it when damage is assigned, all its damage
  is assigned to the player or planeswalker it's attacking.

Basically, your dragon is about to crush a spider when the spider vanishes, leaving the dragon to stare blankly at the space a spider used to occupy.

But if it's a Charging Badger, it's just like "good, vanished, Imma keep going". Because Badgers do not give a f-

The defender doesn't take damage unless the attacking creature has trample.  This is because the attacking creature is still "blocked" and so must assign its combat damage to its blockers, of which there are none.  The relevant rules are as follows:

509.1h An attacking creature with one or more creatures declared as blockers for it becomes a blocked creature; one with no creatures declared as blockers for it becomes an unblocked creature.  This remains unchanged until the creature is removed from combat, an effect says that it becomes blocked or unblocked, or the combat phase ends, whichever comes first. A creature remains blocked even if all the creatures blocking it are removed from combat.
510.1c A blocked creature assigns its combat damage to the creatures blocking it. If no creatures are currently blocking it (if, for example, they were destroyed or removed from combat), it assigns no combat damage.
702.19c If an attacking creature with trample is blocked, but there are no creatures blocking it when damage is assigned, all its damage is assigned to the player or planeswalker it's attacking.

In short. Whenever a creature is declared blocked (by declaring a blocking creature), damage will be done to the creature, and not to the player. If something happens (e.g. bounce, sacrifice), the damage is still directed to the creature (which is gone, therefore the damage goes nowhere (creature blocked)).
If the attacking creature has trample, it's a little different. Trample says that all damage more than toughness of the defending creature, continues to the player. Note that with trample, you have to do minimal lethal damage to blocking crature (more is allowed).

If the creature is gone, the damage is not directed at anything. If there is no blocking creature in play, the attacker remains blocked and does no damage.

@ColinD I think the idea here was to give the intuitive explanation, the attacking creature tries to deal damage to the blocking creature, but it's not there, so it doesn't do damage. I agree it wasn't precisely stated, though.

@Jefromi: The problem is that this explanation can easily lead you astray with lifelink and other abilities that care about damage—which are quite common.

@TikhonJelvis Not if you think of it the right way: it wants to deal damage to that creature, it's not there, it doesn't deal any damage, so no lifelink.

You wouldn't do damage to the player unless the creature has trample. Abilities like lifelink and double strike still apply. Lifelink requires damage to be done. Doublestrike mearly doubles the damage done. If no damage occurs, neither ability activates. However, if the blocking creature is removed after the damage phase, damage is still done to the blocking creature, although this will remove the damage done and the creature can survive lethal damage. If it's removed before damage can take place, due to a fast effect or instant, no damage is done to the blocker and the attacker is still blocked.

Most of this answer is entirely incorrect. Double Strike does not just double damage, it causes damage to be dealt twice, in two different combat damage steps. And if a creature takes lethal damage in the combat damage step, it absolutely cannot be saved. Lethal damage is checked whenever any player gains priority, before anyone would even have a chance to cast a spell to save a creature.

admittedly this was a poorly worded answer and my understanding of double strike wasn't up to par at the time. However, I always believed damage could be avoided with spells and abilities that remove creatures from battle or the battlefield even after combat damage is dealt. But after a quick review of the rules, this is not allowed.


text:
Where can I find the story of Magic the Gathering?
I have been playing MTG for a few months now and was told that there is a story behind each set of cards.  I have several small bits of the story that came with the decks, but I would like to read the full story and see if I can construct my themed decks to match how they would be in the story. Where can I learn more about the back-story to these cards?

you can also get an insight into each set's setting by the flavor text of the cards

Wizards has short storyline summaries shown here:
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/TCG/Article.aspx?x=magic/products/storylinesummaries
Unfortunately, this is an old page and hasn't been updated since Mirrodin.
Wikipedia has a fairly comprehensive outline of Magic: The Gathering storylines that are helpful in getting a handle on the general theme of each set.
However, if you want to get a handle on affiliations of specific characters and creatures within their settings, I highly recommend starting at the MTG Salvation wiki Category:Storylines.

I don't read them myself, but every year Wizards of the Coast releases novels which are a companion to the latest Magic sets/block.  If you want the complete "story behind the game", this is probably the best path to go down.
Here's a useful link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Magic:_The_Gathering_novels
The Magic Daily site also has quite a fun column called "Savor the Flavor" which contains essays on the latest sets from a storytelling and flavour perspective - you can't get a full picture of what's going on from reading it, I don't think, but it may appeal to someone who is interested in the ongoing story aspect of Magic, not just the mechanics of the game:
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Archive.aspx?tag=SavortheFlavor&description=Taste%20the%20Magic

The Wizards of the Coast website has a page within it that contains the full story, minus the novels. Heres the link.

The provided link currently 404s.


text:
How do people decide a Magic deck is "done" and playworthy once they have a general starting point?
In most games, such as chess, Monopoly, or Puerto Rico, I buy a game set with a specified board configuration, and specific cards and pieces in specific quantities (e.g.28 title deeds, 32 houses and 12 hotels in Monopoly) for a specified price. (And if I lose something, I can create a facsimile of it to represent the original).
In certain games, such as Magic, the Gathering, on the other hand, the number and type of cards are variable. It is seems like if you have ten different players, you might have ten different sets of cards. So a game enthusiast might buy a lot of card sets.
Once someone has a general idea what kind of deck they want to build, how do they decide when a collection is "playworthy" enough to stop buying more cards? Assume that they have enough money to "buy what they want," but not to "throw away."

You have a title/body question mismatch. Your question is primarily opinion based (how long does it take to get to know a deck, how much of an advatage is that over a good/poor deck) or way too broad. It confuses TCG/CCG and possibly LCG with deck building game. What sort of answer are you expecting?

@user1873:Fair enough. I have done my best to improve the title-content "match."

You still have 3 Questions. 1) How would I know whether I have the right cards? (Opinion based, depends upon your objective. Let's assume winning, then if your deck wins more than it is supposed to on average.) 2) whether I have spent enough money on them? (Is your objective to spend more money? I have some land in Antarctica you might be interested in.) 3) would it be an advantage to play with your cards, rather than your opponents (Opinion Based) some incapable of playing some decks properly no matter how much better constructed they are than another deck (Blue Permission).

The title still asks about your deck while the question seems to be asking about an entire collection of cards (you almost certainly don't just buy enough cards to make one single deck). It seems like this is just a vague, general "how does a deck-building/trading card game work?" question.

I can't read your mind, unfortunately, but focus on asking what you want to know about how the game actually works. The questions you've asked seem to make some dubious assumptions about how it works. Perhaps read this answer to understand the variety of formats, then narrow this down to either competitive or casual play, and keep in mind that even within a format, there's room for different styles of play. That might give you a better starting place for your question.

More specifically: "reasonably complete set of cards" is a pretty crazy notion, even in formats restricted to more recent cards, given how many cards have been printed and how rare/expensive some of the important ones are. Unless you have a ton of money to spend, you won't have all the cards, so a "playworthy" set is a set of cards that lets you build the deck(s) you want and play in the style you like within the format/restrictions you want to play in. I'm not sure you're asking what you think you are - your real question might be more like "how do people decide what kind of deck to build?"

@Jefromi: I think that's the question "How do people decide what kind of deck to build?"

Well, edit and ask that (or post a new one) then. If you want to keep something more similar to what you initially asked, I think it's along the lines of "do people ever have Magic collections they regard as 'complete' or do they just keep buying cards?", which the existing answers all address in a way.

The new question ("How do people decide...") looks to be seeking opinions and not answers based on facts

@TomAu Honestly, I think the information you are seeking is intrinsically opinion based and thus is more appropriate for chat or a forum. I personally do not think this question is salvageable for this site.

@bengoesboom It's an answerable question. The actual decision is of course subjective, but it's completely possible to describe various ways people pick types of decks to play.

@TomAu I'm honestly not sure you even need to leave in the "stop buying cards" part - most people are limited by the amount of money they want to spend anyway, and even if they have infinite money, they stop buying cards when they have the ones they want. The nontrivial thing is how they decide what they want.

@Jefromi I've removed that part myself for reasons I've left in the edit summary. It isn't relevant to the idea of determining whether you have a good deck.

@Tom Then why did you change the title back to "playable set of magic cards"? They're called decks, and using another term makes it sound like you're asking something else. And are you trying to ask about figuring out what sort of deck to build, or the process once you have a direction to go in? It kind of sounds now like you're trying to focus on deciding if a deck is a good choice for competitive play?

@Jefromi: "The process of building, once you have a direction to go in." I presume that's more objective.

It's okay to ask subjective questions - just be clear what you're asking. You could certainly post another question about picking types of decks to play. If you restrict it to competitive play, it's not even necessarily that subjective; while people come to a lot of different conclusions, they're generally thinking about the same kinds of things (metagame).

It's a combination of spending a thousand dollars or more per year acquiring magic cards and spending 10 hours or more per day thinking about the game

@Cascabel: I have edited the question along the lines that you suggested (I believe) and wonder if it can be reopened in its current form.

@TomAu Maybe? There's still kind of a fundamental misunderstanding here. Yes, people do have collections, but in general, people's starting point it's building decks, not collections. If they want to build a specific deck, or a deck for a specific purpose, and don't have the relevant cards, they'll get them, and possibly sell/trade other cards if money is a concern. So if that's what you want people to explain, I guess we could reopen it, but I think you might be better off asking a question actually directed at that general understanding, rather than one starting from a false premise.

(Also, there are existing answers here, so more broadly, you might want to workshop your question elsewhere then post as a new one without the baggage.)

@Cascabel: It's been several years and several iterations, and I'd rather not make a new start.And I feel the "other way," that is, I want to preserve the existing answers instead of starting over with a new question.  My preference is for you to reopen the question, with any changes that you might feel are necessary.

I don't feel comfortable unilaterally reopening it in its current form. I do not know whether you want to know "how do people tune decks" or "how do people update decks over time in eternal formats" or "how do people brew and test new deck ideas (and when do they make purchases in that process)?", and every one of those is a substantial question in its own right. Feel free to ask on meta if you think others might support it. Please also keep in mind that sometimes it does take work to ask a question in a good form, and the fact that this question has sat around a long time doesn't change that.

It might also help if you talked some of this out in [chat], or just read up a bit on magic elsewhere, since having a bit more context on how people play the game in general would help you formulate questions.

Deck construction and tuning is a big part of the fun (and the skill) in Magic. Becoming an expert deckbuilder can be a multiyear learning, not something that can be given in a StackExchange answer. But as someone who did spend those years (lots of "limited" competition and a decent amount of "constructed" format competition) I'll offer some principles to get you started:
A deck is a subset of the available cards that you choose to play, not the collection itself. You choose which cards to include in a deck in order to
a) meet whatever rules apply to your format (e.g. a 40 or 60 card minimum; rules on how many copies of a particular card can be included; what sets are eligible, etc.). These can be formal tournament rules or just whatever you and your circle of players think will be fun.
b) WIN! :)
Winning implies you have a strategy to actually win, e.g. "I will deal very fast damage to kill my opponent before they can even get set up" or "I will hit my opponent with creatures they cannot block" or "I will play a defensive battle and win with a late, game-breaking play." Obviously not all strategies are created equal, and the real fun is in the interactions between strategies. For example, a deck that concentrates on dealing damage with early fast creatures can be very effective against a deck that is slow to get defenses up, but tends to struggle against a medium-speed deck full of larger creatures. This implies that there is no one winning strategy, and that even selecting what strategy may depend in part on what you expect to face. OK, that's how you plan to win.
c) You also want to not lose. Yes, this is different from the strategy to win.
Not losing (more than necessary) means two things, both more tactical. First, you want the deck to be efficient and repeatable in its execution of the strategy. That means things like ensuring you generally have the mana to play your spells, but not more mana than you need (dead cards in your hand). There are general guidelines for these things (e.g. search up "mana curve"), and you will also develop a feel, but don't hesitate to just play out a bunch of hands solo and see how it's working.
The second element of not losing is potentially including cards that don't directly feed the primary strategy, but make the deck more resilient to opposing strategies. For example, if you are playing small weenie creatures maybe you need to add just 1-2 evasion creatures to give you a chance once the opponent gets good blockers in place. Or if you are playing a combo deck, maybe you need some defense to give yourself time to draw the combo. In general, I find it best to build the pure strategy deck first, and only swap in a few tactical cards like this if you absolutely need them. The difference in effectiveness between a pure full-on assault and a "90% assault, 10% what if" can be huge.
This is just a few thoughts to get you started. Pick how you want to win, do sample draws/plays to balance mechanical aspects, and then ultimately judge the deck by how it performs in real matches. And have fun!

Welcome to the site. An upvote for a good answer.

If you have ten players, you'll almost certainly have ten different decks, unless some of you are working off of published decklists. As new sets are released, the "meta" of tournament play changes, making different combinations and overall strategies more or less effective, but the meta tends to coalesce fairly quickly on a small number of competitive deck-types.
If you're playing serious Magic, it will be important to work toward one of these competitive variants. However, if you're just playing with friends, the meta of your playgroup may be quite different. You'll want to build decks that are effective in your group's meta: for example, if your group is creature-heavy, you'll need more answers for creatures than you might in a playgroup that tends to play with control decks.
It is certainly necessary to understand your deck in order to play it effectively, but that doesn't mean you're better off with your deck than your opponents'; they may have built much better decks than yours!
As to knowing when you're done: in some sense, you'll never be done. You'll discover new techniques, get interesting new cards, etc, and change your deck(s). But you'll want to aim toward a point where you and your friends are playing each other closely -- if your friends are always beating you badly, you'll need to change things up. On the other hand, if you're always beating your friends, maybe stop spending quite so much to keep it fun for everyone.

FYI: the question has been edited to focus more on deck construction, so you might want to revise your answer.


text:
How can I store all of the cards for my MtG Cube?
I've created my first cube during the last week. It's been fun and I'm eager to try it out. There's just one thing... How do I store it? The goal size is about 540 cards without basic lands. I guess I need about 200 basics too. For now I'll keep all cards except the basics in sleeves permanently but I might sleeve up the lands too.
Have you found any better boxes than those that comes with booster packs or shoe boxes (too big)? Do you keep all basic lands sleeved?

The cardboard boxes that come with "fat packs" are sturdy, reasonably portable, and visually appealing. I don't think one can hold 750 sleeved cards, but two should be sufficient. Third-party online shops often resell just the boxes individually for a few dollars.
Players are going to need to sleeve up their basic lands anyway, so I see no reason not to put sleeves on them ahead of time.
If you're a perfectionist looking to make your Cube contain absolutely everything needed for play, your box could also include:

Appropriate tokens for the cards in your cube (unsleeved or using different-color sleeves, to avoid confusion).
A few extra sleeves to replace any that get damaged in play (not the biggest deal because you can always just steal sleeves from a few basic lands, but still handy).
Life dice and counters (to save space and weight, small d6s are probably better than colored beads).

You actually probably want to have a full pack or two of matching sleeves with the cube at any given time. With my buddy's cube, we wind up replacing anywhere from 5 to 20 sleeves a night when we sit down to cube with 6 to 8 people.

@WLPhoenix That kinda sounds like a case of bad sleeves.

I've been using these boxes for a while now and I'm quite pleased. Our 540 cube with lands (all sleeved) fits well in 3 of these boxes. I've been using a 4th box for different kind of tokens, dices and extra sleeves.

My fat packs can hold 360 sleeved cards. Are you using penny sleeves?

This isn't really an answer, but above and beyond sleeving I'll actually suggest double-sleeves - perfect fits on the cards directly, then slotted into e.g. KMC's super mat/hyper mat series or the equivalent.

Probably, the best way to store a cube is in a properly sized corrugated trading card box. These boxes are fairly cheap, and with your local friendly game store's 100% markup, they shouldn't run you more than a couple dollars.

I wouldn't use booster pack boxes or shoe boxes. Booster boxes are too flimsy, because the are designed for display purposes. You might spill your cards everywhere. Shoeboxes do not have trading card dimensions (Each MtG card is approximately 63 x 88 mm in size), so it will be more difficult to keep the cards in order as you will have several stacks.
I would sleeve all your cards, including the basic lands. You will eventually need to play with the basic lands after the cube draft, so you will save everyone some time by having all the basic lands sleeved identically to the cube draft cards. As far as sizing your corrugated trading card box, that just comes down to some simple math:
(Note: I am using 288 microns for MtG card thickness, from mtgsalvation thread. The Wikipedia page says 305 microns, but the information isn't cited either. The difference is only 0.5" for 740 cards)
|                |Thickness|      | Total | Total  | Total  |
|Card/Sleeve Type|(microns)|#Cards| (cm)  | (inch) |Sleeved |
+----------------+---------+------+-------+--------+--------+
|Magic Card      |     288 |  740 | 21.29 |  8.384 |  8.38" |
|Unnamed (thick) |     110 |  740 |  8.14 |  3.205 | 14.8"  |
|Unnamed (thick) |     110 |  540 |  5.94 |  2.339 |        |
|Dragon Shield   |     100 |  740 |  7.4  |  2.913 | 14.2"  |
|Dragon Shield   |     100 |  540 |  5.4  |  2.126 |        |
|Mayday Premium  |      90 |  740 |  6.66 |  2.622 | 13.6"  |
|Mayday Premium  |      90 |  540 |  4.86 |  1.913 |        |
|"Penny" (thin)  |      40 |  740 |  2.96 |  1.165 | 10.7"  |
|"Penny" (thin)  |      40 |  540 |  2.16 |  0.850 |        |
+----------------+---------+------+-------+--------+--------+

If you don't sleeve the cards at all, you will need a corrugated box with 8.38 inches interior space. Depending upon what thickness sleeves you are using, your cube will fit somewhere between 11"-15" (sleeve thickness doubled, since there are 2 sides). You can get a box that fits your cube snugly, or a slightly longer box so it is easier to remove cards. You can always use deckboxes to pad the extra space, or split the cube from the basic lands.
I did some testing with some penny sleeves I had, to verify some of the above numbers. 100 penny sleeves were about 1/2", so sleeving 740 should be about 3.75", which is quite a bit higher than the 2.33" estimate (after doubling thickness). The largest corrugated boxes sold have just over a 14" interior length, so you might have to store your basic lands in a different box than your cube.

FWIW, I presume that when OP mentions 'shoe boxes' they mean the two-row card boxes of comparable dimensions; this is how I've always heard the phrase used.

Ultra-Pro has released a product for cube storage:

The MOX CUB3™, designed for Cubing, features a unique 2-level storage
  design. Holds 900 standard double-sleeved gaming cards in Ultra•PRO
  PRO-Fit & Deck Protector sleeves. Compartment for dice, stones and
  other accessories. Secure magnetic closure. 8½” x 8½” x 8½” (215.9mm x
  215.9mm x 215.9mm).

I'm curious if JWilson would like to endorse or modify the recent edit? In particular, adding a negative review of the originally posted solution does not feel like honoring the author's intent; this may have been more appropriate as a comment or a piece of a new answer.

I don't actually have any experience with the product I originally posted, it was just a recent product release at the time.

Though I do agree that changing my answer to something completely different is uncalled for.

I highly suggest a cardboard box. I got a 1600 size box for about $10.
On the topic of lands and tokens, I keep 60 of each basic land (so 300 in total) with the cube at all times sleeved. my cube is from Khans/fate/dragons so tokens aren't really an issue, however I keep 10 of each token sleeved in a different color.
I don't recommend using the cub3 from ultra pro. Even though it can handily hold every card and land in my cube, I find it too large to travel with.
Hope this helps.
JLD

Also to differentiate, land types from each other I suggest using the dividers from the gift boxes, or from the more recent prerelease packs.

Tolarian Community College did a fantastic review of MTG Cube Deck Boxes:

Ultra Pro CUB3: 900 cards in 80 USD cardboard. Home use only. F
Grimoire: 75 USD plastic. Home use only. C-
Ultimate Guard Stack'n'Safe: 2x480 cards in 2x12.50 USD plastic. May need an elastic band.
Aaron Cain: 125 USD* (prices vary) custom wood. A+

You might want to add a little more context? Specifically, enough for a reader to have some kind of idea what they should learn, even if the page at the other end of the link goes dead.

There are two good options...
One is the cardboard card boxes mentioned by others.
The other is a two part plastic case; 500 cards is the largest I've seen; 300 card size is commonly available. Three boxes should do.
For comparison, the "300 card box" I've got has space for 10 decks of playing cards... in their boxes...
If you're going to sleeve, the cardboard boxes are the only "single box" solution; the acrylic card cases are going to need 2-4, but will hold sleeved cards just fine.


text:
Do Regenerate and/or Totem Armor counteract the Legend rule?
Can a regeneration shield or a totem armor aura protect a Legendary creature from getting killed by a clone of itself?

Nope. Regeneration and Totem Armor replace the "destroy" action, and the Legend Rule does not destroy.

704.5k If two or more legendary permanents with the same name are on the battlefield, all are put into their owners’ graveyards. This is called the “legend rule.” If only one of those permanents is legendary, this rule doesn’t apply.
701.12a If the effect of a resolving spell or ability regenerates a permanent, it creates a replacement effect that protects the permanent the next time it would be destroyed this turn. In this case, “Regenerate [permanent]” means “The next time [permanent] would be destroyed this turn, instead remove all damage marked on it and tap it. If it’s an attacking or blocking creature, remove it from combat.”
702.87a Totem armor is a static ability that appears on some Auras. “Totem armor” means “If enchanted permanent would be destroyed, instead remove all damage marked on it and destroy this Aura.”
701.6b The only ways a permanent can be destroyed are as a result of an effect that uses the word “destroy” or as a result of the state-based actions that check for lethal damage (see rule 704.5g) or damage from a source with deathtouch (see rule 704.5h). If a permanent is put into its owner’s graveyard for any other reason, it hasn’t been “destroyed.”


text:
Is there ANY way to activate a planeswalker ability at instant speed?
With the vast richness of magic rules on all the cards and the comp rules, is there any way at all to activate a planeswalker ability at instant speed?
Typically, per the rules, you can only activate them once per turn as a sorcery, but are there any ways around this? Since the "golden rule" of magic is that when a card and the comp rules conflict, the card text wind, I figured there might, possibly, be a way around the restriction.
Relevant rule we are trying to dodge:

606.3. A player may activate a loyalty ability of a permanent he or she controls any time he or she has priority and the stack is empty during a main phase of his or her turn, but only if no player has previously activated a loyalty ability of that permanent that turn.

There used to be a long shot that could make this happen:

You start by playing the Mycosynth Lattice which turns all your permanents into artifacts, including planeswalkers.

Then you play March Of the Machines, turning your planeswalker into an artifact creature with power and toughness equal to its casting cost.

Then you use the ability of an Experiment Kraj to put a +1/+1 counter on the planeswalker artifact creature.

Now since the planeswalker artifact creature has a +1/+1 counter on it, the Experiment Kraj can use all of the activated abilities of the planeswalker without any of the restrictions of a planeswalker.

Sadly since the time of that post they have extensively written into the rules that there is no way to use a loyalty ability of a permanent in any way other than a sorcery and it can only be used once per turn.

209.2. An activated ability with a loyalty symbol in its cost is a loyalty ability. Loyalty abilities follow special rules: A player may activate a loyalty ability of a permanent he or she controls any time he or she has priority and the stack is empty during a main phase of his or her turn, but only if none of that permanent's loyalty abilities have been activated that turn. See rule 606, "Loyalty Abilities."
606.3. A player may activate a loyalty ability of a permanent he or she controls any time he or she has priority and the stack is empty during a main phase of his or her turn, but only if no player has previously activated a loyalty ability of that permanent that turn.

To date with the exception of copying an activated ability, there is no way to use a loyalty ability more than once and you can never use them at a time other than when you could cast a sorcery, because they have restricted the use of the loyalty ability itself, not just the way a planeswalker specifically uses them.

Since the other answers have been written, a card has been released that explicitly allows activating loyalty abilities any time you could play an instant: Teferi, Temporal Archmage from Commander 2014.
He's a planeswalker with a relevant ultimate:

−10: You get an emblem with "You may activate loyalty abilities of planeswalkers you control on any player's turn any time you could cast an instant."

So if you manage to get him to 10 loyalty and activate this ability, you will be able to play loyalty abilities of planeswalkers at instant speed. It's not an exciting combo or abuse of the rules, but it can still be a lot of fun in a slow multiplayer game—exactly what the whole Commander 2014 set is all about!
As for activating loyalty abilities multiple times in a turn, that is possible with The Chain Veil.  A card first printed in 2015, long after the question was originally asked.

Note: This would only get around the sorcery-esque clause, doesn't stop the once per turn clause.

To do it more than once per turn you could flicker the planeswalker between activations. By exileing and re-entering the battlefield it will count as a new object, and you get the loyalty counters reset which will be useful for negative loyalty abilities.


text:
Can you Clone a creature with protection or shroud?
So, Clone doesn't say the word "target" anywhere in its text:

You may have Clone enter the battlefield as a copy of any creature on the battlefield.

Does this mean that it isn't targeting the creature it's cloning, and could therefore be used to copy a creature with shroud (or hexproof) or a creature with protection (like Emrakul, the Aeons Torn)?

A spell or ability that targets must use the word "target" in the rules text, or the rules of the Keyword ability on a card. Everything you need to know is covered under rule 114, where 114.1a-e covers targeted spells and abilities and when those targets must be selected. Most spells and abilities that target will say "target" directly on the card, unless their Keyword ability rules covers this already (i.e. Auras, Equipment, Haunt, etc.).
Reminder text, which shows up in many base sets or on cards with new Keyword abilities, might appear on a card in italics with the word "target" to inform you an ability is targeted.

114.9a Just because an object or player is being affected by a spell or ability doesn’t make that object or player a target of that spell or ability. Unless that object or player is identified by the word “target” in the text of that spell or ability, or the rule for that keyword ability, it’s not a target.

Yes, that's correct.
A play I'm seeing a lot in the Standard Magic videos I'm watching is to cast a Phantasmal Image as a copy of a Geist of Saint Traft or Thrun, the Last Troll - an easy way of destroying a problematic Hexproof creature via the legend rule!

This no longer works. The Legend rule was changed in Magic 2014 to apply the Legend rule locally exclusively to each player's battlefield -- the new rule only checks to see if the one player controls multiple legendary creatures with the same name. You could therefore only remove legendary creatures you already control this way. There's a longer discussion on the change here.