text:
Does Minas Tirith work with Doors of Durin?
Minas Tirith lets you draw a card (as an activated ability, NOT a trigger) if you attacked with two or more creatures this turn:

1White, Tap: Draw a card. Activate only if you attacked with two or
more creatures this turn.

Doors of Durin can put a creature into play attacking.
If Doors of Durin adds a second attacker, will that count for Minas Tirith, or does "attacked with" count only declared attackers?
To the close voters: This is about a player, not a creature or its triggers.

@PhilipKendall No. I'm just referring to that part because it's ambiguous whether Minas counts attack on declaration or later.

Which bit of the Kaalia ruling in the accepted answer to that question isn't clear? "Any abilities that trigger [...] when a creature attacks won’t trigger for that card."

Minas Tirith does not trigger when a creature attacks. Have you read the card?

While this question is similar to the proposed duplicate, the difference between "whenever X attacks" and "if you attacked with X" is enough to justify keeping this question open.

No. According to the Comprehensive Rules:

508.6 A player is “attacking [a player]” if the first player controls a creature that is attacking the second player. A player has “attacked
[a player]” if the first player declared one or more creatures as
attackers attacking the second player.

So two creatures would be attacking for example a player (instead of a Planeswalker or Battle), but you only would have attacked with one creature.
A separate question about triggers is also explained here:

508.4 If a creature is put onto the battlefield attacking, its controller chooses which defending player or which planeswalker a
defending player controls it’s attacking as it enters the battlefield
(unless the effect that put it onto the battlefield specifies what
it’s attacking). Similarly, if an effect states that a creature is
attacking, its controller chooses which defending player or which
planeswalker a defending player controls it’s attacking it becomes
attacking (unless the effect has already specified). Such creatures
are “attacking” but, for the purposes of trigger events and effects,
they never “attacked.”

So "Whenever CARDNAME attacks" triggers don't, "CARDNAME attacked" doesn't, and the full rule is: "you attacked with this instance of CARDNAME".

The issue is that declaring attackers and number of creatures attacking can be different numbers.  Anything that puts a creature into play attacking already doesn't count the creature at being declared an attacker

Rule 508.4 is the more relevant one here, as it directly addresses the question

@KMR Abilities cause effects, but the ability of Minas Tirith is about the player, not the creature.

Likewise O-Kagachi, Vengeful Kami would not exile if you attacked its controller last turn without declaring it.

@CeesTimmerman you just need to read the last part Such creatures are “attacking” but, for the purposes of trigger events and effects, they never “attacked.”, otherwise you can also just look at the first ruling on Windbrisk Heights

@CeesTimmerman afaik, there is no way to attack a player without declaring. All “put onto battlefield attacking” trigger on attacks

@KMR Again, that's about creatures, and the Windbrisk Heights ruling is about a player declaring attacks to have "attacked".

@MatthewJensen Creatures entering attacking don't trigger attack effects. and choosing attack targets does not declare.

@CeesTimmerman I know. I mean there is no way to have an attacking creature without having declared some creature as an attacker. I was thinking there is no way to have a creature attacking O-Kagachi's controller without it triggering, but then I realised you can attack an opponent to have a creature enter attacking a different opponent.

@CeesTimmerman Again, 508.4 is more relevant than 508.6, 508.6 is about one player attacking another, Minas Tirith will still activate if you attack a battle or planeswalker.
Both Windbrisk Heights and Minas Tirith have the same templated condition "if you attacked with {x} or more creatures this turn"

@KMR Noted, and that's completely different from "Whenever {x} attacks". Neither 508.4 or 508.6 are even mentioned in the answers to the question about attack triggers.

Minas Tirith will not count creatures put onto the battlefield by Doors of Durin.
Clearing up the Activation instructions on Minas Tirith may help here,

Activate only if you attacked with two or more creatures this turn

is divided like this:

Activate only if [player] [attacked with {x} creatures this turn]

The "attacked with {x} or more creatures" condition on Minas Tirith will only count creatures that have been declared as part of the Declare Attackers Step.
This is directly clarified by a ruling on Windbrisk Heights that reads

At the time the ability resolves, you'll get to play the card if you declared three different creatures as attackers at any point in the turn. A creature declared as an attacker in two different attack phases counts only once. A creature that entered the battlefield attacking (such as a token created by Militia's Pride) doesn't count because you never attacked with it.

Which references the last part of rule 508.4 in the Comprehensive Rules

508.4. If a creature is put onto the battlefield attacking, its controller chooses which defending player, planeswalker a defending player controls, or battle a defending player protects it’s attacking as it enters the battlefield (unless the effect that put it onto the battlefield specifies what it’s attacking). Similarly, if an effect states that a creature is attacking, its controller chooses which defending player, planeswalker a defending player controls, or battle a defending player protects it’s attacking (unless the effect has already specified). Such creatures are “attacking” but, for the purposes of trigger events and effects, they never “attacked.”

Combined together; you (the active player) have only "attacked with {x} or more creatures" if you have declared {x} or more different creatures as attackers as part of the Declare Attackers Step.

Assuming we are correct about the part of my answer that explains that's about its controller, not itself.

ahh, you need to take the whole "something" to work out when a controller has done that "something", on Minas Tirith the "something" is not just "attacked"

Two creatures must have attacked, which means per 508.6 that the player declared them attackers. I could take control of creatures who attacked this turn but it's about me having declared them.

It's about the player (you) taking an action (attacking with two or more creatures this turn), 508.6 is not sufficient here, as you can still activate the ability after attacking a Planeswalker or Battle.
508.6 covers rules text on cards like Curse of Verbosity


text:
Sacrificing Spine of Ish Sah?
Spine of Ish Sah's rulings appear to say it can't be sacrificed:

Spine of Ish Sah’s last ability doesn’t allow you to sacrifice it. You
  must find another way to get Spine of Ish Sah into the graveyard.

Does that mean it can't be sacrificed to Breya, Etherium Shaper or
Emrakul, the Aeons Torn?

No, "Its last ability doesn’t allow you to sacrifice it" ≠ "Abilities aren't allowed to sacrifice it". "Its last ability doesn’t allow you to sacrifice it" ≠ "Its last ability prevents it from being sacrificed".

@ikegami So it does allow me to sacrifice it, obviously with another ability. "Prevents" isn't a standard phrase to stop sacrifice, see Sigarda, Host of Herons.

No, that's not how that ruling is supposed to be read. Though I admit they worded it poorly.
The card can be sacrificed like any other, what the ruling means is you cannot sacrifice because of the second ability, just because you want it back in hand, but you can sacrifice it to anything that would allow you to sacrifice an artefact. Doing so will cause the second ability to trigger.
The second ability doesn't allow you to sacrifice it, it doesn't give you a way to do that by itself, but it doesn't prevent you from sacrificing it either.

IIRC, the context of that ruling is "a lot of people misplayed it during test"

"you cannot sacrifice it to trigger the second ability" - But you can sacrifice it, which will trigger the second ability. That ruling is more confusing than the redundant text on 4th ed. Spirit Link.

@CeesTimmerman more the second ability does not give you a way to sacrifice it, but if you do sacrifice it it will trigger the second ability.

@Andrew That's perfectly obvious to me. If it did it'd say something like "Sacrifice Spine of Ish Sah: Do something."

@CeesTimmerman The problem is, like AlexP said, people were using that ability that way in early play and testing, that's what caused this ruling.

You CAN sacrifice it to trigger the second ability.

@CeesTimmerman Sacrificing it will cause the second ability to trigger, correct. You cannot however sacrifice it simply because you want to trigger the second ability, you need an outlet. I remember scars block, I remember people expecting such an expensive card with a simple effect to be repeatable that easy and players were destroying it that way, just because they wanted to sacrifice it.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can all players change roles with "New Assigment"?
In Pandemic On The Brink, the wording for the "New Assignment" special event card says:

Any player (including the current player) may discard their current Role card and select a new one from the unused ones in the box.

Our reading of this card is that all players may chose to change their role cards when this card is played. Is this correct?

Only one player can change their role. The game's designer Tom Lehmann answered this in a thread on BGG:

Matt's and my intent is that any one player may change their role.

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


text:
Where did the "can't build next to the robber" house rule come from?
Several people I've met play Settlers of Catan with the house rule "you may not build anything that isn't a knight next to the robber". As far as I can see, it's not in the rule book.
To clarify: this means that you can't place a road, settlement or city next to the robber. When we play, city improvements and the merchant are unaffected. On the rare occasion we combine with seafarers, we say the robber prevents land building, and the pirate prevents ship building/movement.
I actually prefer this variant, but this question isn't about that. My question is:
Where did this rule come from? Was it in an earlier version of the rules, or was it used for some tournaments? I've met a number of unrelated players (in Australia/Germany) who have heard of this rule, so I wondered if it came from somewhere other than word of mouth.
I'll also accept "this isn't in any of the published rule books and isn't used for tournaments" if that is the case (I only have the latest rule book to hand, so I can't check).

I've not played this variant, but it sounds similar to the pirate ship rule from seafarers of catan (can't build/move shipping routes next to the pirates).

@tttppp, but aren't ships more like roads than settlements? It would seem weird to apply this building rule to the robber to prevent building settlements as well as roads. I wonder what the OP meant by anything? (city walls? a city (from a settlement), city improvements in the development flip books (if the only city a player owns is adjacent to a robber), merchant cone (is this "building")...

The rule usually applies to roads, settlements or cities (anything land based except knights). We don't usually play with seafarers - but if we do, we play the robber stops land based building, and the pirate stops ship building/movement. City improvements are unaffected. The merchant cone next to the robber has never come up - though I don't believe it'd be considered building. Also, I think in most situations where you'd want to put the merchant on the same hex as the robber, you'd have some other hex of the same type you could place it (avoiding this situation).

I would guess it was Multiple Discovery. The rules have not changed significantly from 4th Edition from the original. The only noteworthy changes in 4th Edtion are that harbor placement is fixed, the Robber is allowed to move to the desert tile, and the merging of Trading/Building phases.
This Robber blocking building isn't listed as any official variant, or within any variant within the various rule books, or the big 15 Variant Book.

Hasn't cities and knights had card changes since the original? I wondered if this rule was in a variant rule section in the cities and knights of seafarers rulebook.

Are you sure that the rules haven't changed much from the original? The comments on this answer suggest that the trading rules used to be different (presumably pre 3rd ed).

I read through the Base Edition, Seafarers, Knights and Cities, Traders & Barbarians and didn't see any mention of these Variants. Neither was it mentioned in Klaus Teuber's 15 variant book. I did forget about the merging of the Trading/Building Phases, and have updated the answer accordingly.

In the seafarers expansion, you cannot move or build a ship to or from a hex containing the pirate. This could be where the house-rule applying to the robber too came from, by blocking land-based building rather than sea-based building.

This would be my guess as well.  The reason for this "added power" likely being that the robber blocks production and there's no production on water.  Since the pirate doesn't block production, a different ability is called for; hence the sea hex control.   Apparently there's no fishing on Catan.  Or there is, and it just doesn't produce much besides drunk fishermen.


text:
Dominion Nocturne: Why is Raider not better than Gold
The Raider from Dominion Nocturne (Plünderer in German) has a value of 6 (the same as the Gold card). It gives you +3 coins, and you may play as many as you have in your hand since it's a night card. It's essentially the same as Gold, except that the Raider also includes an attack against the other players.
This makes it significantly more valuable than Gold, yet it has the same price.
In my opinion, the +3 coins the Raider gives which are delayed until the next round does not diminish the Raider's usefulness.
Is Raider just a more powerful version of Gold that costs the same, or am I misunderstanding something about Raider’s strength?

This is not opinion based; there are multiple objective ways to analyze the strength and reasoning for costs of Dominion cards. I specifically suggested that this question be asked.

@GendoIkari I am not sure how we are supposed to get in the head of the developers and figure out why they priced a card like they did.

@JoeW aside from the fact that the creator of the game has talked at length about specifics of various strategy-related things and card design decisions; there are also general objective things that apply to Dominion as a whole which are relevant here. Perhaps the question wording could be improved; but he’s not asking what the designer was thinking. The question is whether or not Raider is strictly better than Gold.

@GendoIkari I would agree that whether or not the Raider or is better than Gold is a valid question but it still seems to be asking why the Raider and Gold have the same price. If the question was edited to no longer be asking about the card price and just card power I could see it being answered.

@JoeW I believe my edit keeps the spirit of what the OP wanted to ask while attempting to be more objective.

@GendoIkari Works for me.

There are 3 main factors at play which make it so that a Gold may the right choice over Raider sometimes.

Duration cards are inherently weaker than non-duration cards for 2 reasons:

First off, because you cannot play the same duration card every turn. If you have an engine that lets you draw through your deck most turns, which isn’t all that uncommon, then a single Gold will provide you with $3 to spend every turn. But a single Raider will not; you would need 2 Raiders in your deck to get the same $3 per turn.

The other reason is that Duration cards miss the shuffle more often, and thus get played fewer times on average throughout the game. If a card is in play when you shuffle your discard pile to make a new draw deck, then that card is said to “miss the shuffle”. This means that you don’t get to play that card this trip through the deck; you need to wait until you shuffle again. With treasure cards, it is very rare for them to miss the shuffle, because you don’t normally draw any cards while treasures are in play (of course there are many cards that can still cause this to happen). But with Duration cards, you will draw your next hand, as well as any cards you draw next turn, while the duration is in play. This makes it much more likely to miss the shuffle.

As mentioned in another answer, delaying the +$3 does hurt. Dominion has a snowball effect that makes it so that improving your deck early matters more than improving it later. You see this with trashing, where it is much better to trash bad cards early than it is to trash them later. If you play a Gold on turn 6, for example, then that means getting another Gold or a good $5 cost card into your deck on turn 6. Playing a Raider on turn 6 means getting that next good card into your deck on turn 7, which may or may not be one shuffle later, meaning 1 less time you play that good card throughout the game. Also, a Raider played on the final turn of the game gives you no money to spend at all, which means that even outside of missing the shuffle, the Raider is likely to help at least 1 fewer time than a Gold.

This one doesn’t impact things quite as much, but simply having the Treasure type has advantages over having the Night type in terms of various combos and interactions. Cards like Mint, Storyteller, Venture, and Ironmonger all combo with Gold while basically nothing combos with Night cards.

You can see other examples of Duration cards costing less due to the delay of their effects. Caravan is just like Laboratory except the +1 card is delayed. This difference is enough for it to cost $4 instead of $5. Similar with Caravan Guard vs Poacher, and Mastermind vs King's Court.
Finally, keep in mind that while Dominion does avoid ever having one card be strictly better than another card, it is true that some cards are generally stronger than others, and that’s part of the design. So it may in fact be that even despite all 3 points above, Raider is simply a better card than Gold most of the time.

The primary mitigating factor is that the +3 coin is delayed by a turn compare to Gold. This is obviously more important closer to the end of the game (cf. Tactician). Similarly, one could argue that Fishing Village is strictly better than Silver (but you'd have to ignore the delayed payout, and in FV's case, you also have to worry about having an action left to play it).

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


text:
Betrayal at the house on the hill movements/attacks
If a hero walks through a room that has a monster in it does the monster get to attack or is the only penalty the reduce speed?
It seems so unlikely that a hero would be able to get in and out of the room without being swung at.

Please separate the second question into its own question; there should only be one question per post unless they are closely related.

Monsters never automatically attack; they only attack based on the haunt-specific rules that traitor has. It’s possible for a specific haunt to have a rule such as what you are asking about, but it is a turn-based game; and normally characters only get to act on their own turn.
Since you brought up how it works thematically (it is a game based on theme after all), the -1 movement when you leave a room with a monster kind of explains it... think of it as moving extra slowly and spending time going the long way around the room in order to avoid the monster and sneak by it.

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


text:
Mtg creature spells, instants, priority?
A Friend and I were playing a game last night.
I tapped 4 mana, and I had 4 Creatures in my graveyard to help reduce Ghoultree's mana cost. So I summoned him, my friend then cast an instant that exiles creatures from my graveyard. Does Ghoultree then fizzle, because I now don’t have enough mana to cast it?
Or because he wasn’t countered he still enters battlefield because I am the active player and have priority?

Your Ghoultree will still resolve fine; your opponent can’t prevent it by exiling cards from your graveyard after you have cast Ghoultree.
The casting cost of a spell only matters when you are casting it. You declare your spell, put it on the stack, pay it’s costs; and only then does your opponent have a chance to respond.
Your opponent could have cast his instant earlier; before your main phase, but he would have had to know that you were planning to cast Ghoultree. There is no time between you declaring you are casting Ghoultree and you paying the cost where your opponent can act.

During your turn, if the stack is empty and you're not moving to another phase, then you and only you have priority. This means that you are the only person that can do anything. When you go to cast a spell, naming it, revealing it, and paying for it all happen (I forget the specific order, though).
Once all of that happens, you can either hold priority to do something else, or you can pass priority. Only then can someone respond to what you've done, but not to prevent you from doing it, except by countering it. Because of that, no one can ever remove your ability to cast a spell or activate an ability before you have a chance to do so when you can legally do so.
Edit: fixed some stuff; I wrote the original response on my phone, hence the errors.
Edit 2: if you want to move to your next phase, then there is a passing of priority before that happens; this is usually done by way of a shortcut, e.g. by saying, "Move to combat/second phase/end step," at which point your opponents can either do nothing or respond by doing something before moving to the proposed phase because they have been given priority.

I assume by "attack" you mean "stack"? This sentence is misleading, because either player could have priority while the stack is empty. The active player gets priority first in each phase, but that doesn't mean that you and only you have priority while the stack is empty.

I fixed it to what, I believe, is more correct: unless you're moving to another phase, if nothing is on the stack, there is not a scenario where anyone can have priority except you. Am I wrong? If not, can the -1 get removed?

I was not the downvoter. I don’t think “moving to another phase” is clear; moving to another phase is simply what happens after each player passes priority while the stack is empty. It is not a period of time; it is a single event. The game can be in a state where it is my main phase on my turn; the stack is empty; and my opponent has priority. This happens whenever the active player passes priority while the stack is empty. So it’s not true that it can only be the active player’s turn to act.

But how/why are you passing priority? You can just pass priority because you feel like it, it has to be...triggered, for lack of a better term, by something. Yes, passing to another phase is an event, not a period, but you can't move to another phase without passing priority, and that is the only time that priority can be passed while the stack is empty. In other words, you say, "Move to combat/second main/end step," and someone says, "In response..." That is the passing of priority which, again, needs a specific trigger to happen. When else is the active player able to pass priority?

Saying "move to combat" is only proposing a shortcut. The actual steps that happen are that active player first passes priority, which gives other player priority. Then other player passes priority, which causes the game to move to the next phase. You don't jump straight from having priority to going to the next step. If you are playing without shortcuts at all, then at the start of your main phase, you would say "I am passing priority", after which your opponent would have priority.

In other words, passing priority as the active player is NOT declaring that you are moving to the next phase. It just so happens that it is a common shortcut to say that you want to move to the next phase.

Better way of clearing it up... you seem to think that if my opponent wants to play an instant in my main phase, then he waits until it is moving to the next phase and responds by playing his instant. This is not correct; rather first I get a chance to act in my main phase, then he gets a chance to act in my main phase. If both of us choose not to act, then the game moves to the next phase.

Yes, I'm making use of a shortcut, but the fact of the matter remains: you cannot pass priority willy-nilly. There is a passing of priority before moving to the next phase, whatever it is. Therefore: if it's your turn and the stack is empty, the only reason you would not have priority is if you had passed it, and the only time you CAN pass priority when the stack is empty is when you are about to move to the next phase. In this case, then yes, if the stack is empty, the opponent does have to wait until moving to the next phase to play their instant if they want to do so during that phase

Oops, apparently in the comment above I said, "You can just pass priority..." when I meant, "You can't just pass priority..." Hopefully that's as clear as mud now.

Yes I actually assumed that that part was a typo. I still think that it’s wrong to say “you can’t just pass priority”... any time you have priority, whether the stack is empty or not; you can pass priority. That’s one of the things you can do with priority. Yes, the game will move to the next phase if both players pass priority while the stack is empty, but you have the cause and effect reversed. The game moves to the next step because you pass priority; it’s not the game being about to move to the next step that allows you to pass priority.

“117.3d If a player has priority and chooses not to take any actions, that player passes. If any mana is in that player’s mana pool, they announce what mana is there. Then the next player in turn order receives priority.”

I still think that it's s distinction without a difference: while passing priority may be the trigger that sends you to your next turn, that's the point of what I'm getting at: if it's your turn and the stack is empty, you cannot pass priority unless you, by extension, are ready to move on to the next phase. Hence the statement: if it's your turn, and the stack is empty, nobody can take any action until you pass priority because you want to move to the next phase.


text:
Narset, Parter of Veils interaction with Matter Reshaper
If I have Narset, Parter of Veils on the battlefield and I block Matter Reshaper with Snapcaster Mage when it attacks, both creatures die. But does the opponent get to reveal a card and put it on the battlefield or their hand. I presume they can because the card text on Matter Reshaper says reveal a card not draw a card. Is this correct? Thanks in advance

Many instructions and abilities are defined in terms of others. For example, destroy and sacrifice are defined in terms of move, and draw is defined in terms of put. But that doesn't make them equivalent. Destroy, sacrifice and draw events only happen if those specific verbs are used.

You're correct.

Narset, Parter of Veils prevents opponents from drawing more than one card per turn. However, as you pointed out, Matter Reshaper doesn't draw you a card, but instead reveals the top card of your library and puts it either on the battlefield, or into your hand. Because of that, Narset won't interact at all with Matter Reshaper's trigger.
For reference, the CR 121, which is the ruling for card drawing, reads:

121.1. A player draws a card by putting the top card of their library into their hand. This is done as a turn-based action during each player’s draw step. It may also be done as part of a cost or effect of a spell or ability.

While the Glossary complements that rule, stating (emphasis mine):

Draw

To put the top card of a player’s library into their hand as a turn-based action or as the result of an effect that uses the word “draw.” See rule 121, “Drawing a Card.”

Since Matter Reshaper doesn't use the word "draw" at any point, by default, it doesn't allow you to draw a card.

Yeah, I almost find it odd how many cards even in Standard bypass Narset. I wonder if it was intentional


text:
Can I prevent my opponent from looking at cards with Vizier of the Menagerie while I'm Mindslaving them?
Vizier of the Menagerie says "You may look at the top card of your library," and Mindslaver says you "make all decisions for the player."
What I'm wondering is can the player who's being controlled see the top card of their library as their turn is taken for them? In other words, if I'm Mindslavering someone and I get to make all decisions for them, then I get to decide when they look at the top card of their library, so I can decide that they don't get to look at it.
I'm not sure about this, but based on all the Gatherer rules, I would say that the controlled player and the controlling player can both look at the card because the card becomes part of the "known information" to the player who controls the Vizier (so they can always know it) and since they always know it, the Mindslaver controller also knows it.

Yes, the Mindslaver's controller may prevent the controlled player from taking that specific action.

Mindslaver's rulings say:

You get to make every decision the other player would have made during that turn. You can’t make any illegal decisions or illegal choices — you can’t do anything that player couldn’t do. You can spend mana in the player’s mana pool only on that player’s spells and abilities. The mana in your mana pool can be spent only on your spells and abilities.

Since looking at the top card of your library is an action you may take while controlling Vizier of the Menagerie, the player controlling the turn may simply choose not to take this action.

I think you misread the question. It wasn't asking if the controlling player could look at the card... it was asking if the controlling player can prevent the controlled player from looking at the card.

@GendoIkari that's exactly what my answer says. The controlling player cannot prevent the controlled player from looking at the card because every action is still taken by the controlled player, although the controlling player is the one choosing which actions are those.

No, the question wasn't about the controller looking at the card without the controlled also seeing it. It was about if the controller can simply make the controlled choose to not do the "look at the top card" action; meaning neither player would see it.

This sounds likely correct to me, but I was hoping there was some comp rule that clarified that a "card you may look at" is not the same as a something that is known information to you.


text:
Food Truck Champion: Does the Owner card count to the 6 card hand limit?
Does the Owner card count to the 6 card hand limit in Food Truck Champion? Since I am not a mother tongue in English I don't quite understand the sentence in the rules: 'If the Owner card is in your hand, it counts towards your hand limit of 6 cards'.
Thank you for your answers in advance.

The  English meaning of the quoted text is that, yes, the Owner card counts as one of the six cards you are limited to when it is in your hand. (So you can only hold five other cards)


text:
In Gizmos, does blind picking from the energy dispenser count as a "Pick" action?
In the board game Gizmos, some cards have triggers that are activated when you pick a particular color. Do these triggers only get activated when the player picks from the Energy Row? Or are they triggered if the player picks blindly from the dispenser as well?

It does not count as a "pick". From the rulebook, page 3:

IMPORTANT: Some abilities may let you draw a random Energy ( ). This is
  not a Pick Action. In those cases, you don’t take from the Energy Row. Instead, you
  draw blindly from the top of the Dispenser

There are two ways to get energy marbles: pick, and draw. Pick is represented by a hand with two fingers making a pinching motion. Draw is represented by a horizontal bar with a question mark in a circle above it. To pick is to take a marble from the Energy Row. You get to take the color of your choice (among the ones available in the Energy Row). To draw is to take one from the hopper. You do not get to know what color you're getting until you draw.
A card will have a symbol that says what triggers it. If it's the hand symbol, it's triggered only by picking.


text:
MTG: march of Multitudes and Early Harvest
If cast March of the Multitudes and use most of my lands to pay the extra X amount can I cast Early Harvest to use the lands again?

I am assuming you are asking about using the lands again to increase the value of X in March of Multitudes; as opposed to just using the lands again for something else this turn?

Yes, if you do things in the right order. While you are casting a spell and paying the cost, you don’t have priority to do something like cast Early Harvest, so you cannot do this if you start to cast March of the Multitudes first. By the time you would be able to cast Early Harvest, March of the Multitudes would be finished being cast and couldn’t be changed afterwards.
However, you can tap all your lands first, producing some amount of mana; then cast Early Harvest; then tap all your lands again. This will let you use all of your lands twice to have double your normal amount of mana (minus the 3 you spent on Early Harvest). All of this mana will stay until the end of the current step; so you can use it to cast March of the Multitudes.

@TheBeholder If this answered your question please use the check mark to mark it as the correct answer, thanks!


text:
How does Emissary of Grudges work exactly?

I have Emissary of Grudges in my deck and I was wondering if I use it correctly. In exemple:
I play Emissary of Grudges and I secretly choose player 2.
Player 2's turn. He casts Clone and targets me with its ability:

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

First question: Can I use Emissary of Grudges's ability as an instant?
If so, can I "cancel" Clone's ability, and use it myself on anyone?
In example, could I choose to target Player 3? Or am I forced to use it on its owner?
Last question: if Emissary of Grudges leaves the battlefield, do I keep this ability? Or do I just throw out the chosen player's name?
Thank you!

The second question is a duplicate of https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/43995/which-spells-or-abilities-are-affected-by-things-that-care-about-targeting. Be careful to not use the word "target" unless the card itself does.

"Player 2's turn. He casts Clone and targets me with its ability:
You may have Clone enter the battlefield as a copy of any creature on the battlefield" You're a creature on the battlefield?

Can I use Emissary of Grudges's ability as an instant?

Yes, otherwise it wouldn't make sense. A spell or ability is something on the stack.

can I "cancel" Clone's ability, and use it myself on anyone?

Nope. Clone's ability doesn't target; the word 'target' has a very specific meaning in Magic and is almost always printed on the card, in the rules text or the reminder text. A similar card which does target is Rite of Replication, which does not target you but it might target a permanent you control. If it does, you can choose another target for that spell, but it must be a creature (for example, a Grizzly Bears; it doesn't matter who owns it) and the controller of the spell doesn't change. The cloned Bears will still be controlled by player 2.

if Emissary of Grudges leaves the battlefield, do I keep this ability? Or do I just throw out the chosen player's name?

You don't need to reveal it, you can just throw the paper you wrote it on away. If it enters the battlefield again, you can choose a new player.

But the card says "Target you or a permanent you control" .. ?

Yup, that means if Player 2 casts a Lightning Bolt on you, you can redirect it to him or a creature he controls.

Clone doesn't target, it's a choose.


text:
How does Circu, Dimir Lobotomist interact with defeated players in a Free for All?
Could an opponent cast a card with the same name as a card exiled by Circu, Dimir Lobotomist after you defeat the owner of the card in a Free for All?

@Glorfindel I think your edit changed the direction of the question. My reading of the original wording was that they were asking about Circu's controller losing the game.

That's a possibility but I cannot imagine that situation would lead to confusion.

Hmm, either it could easily be either... while searching for an answer to my related question; I found a few people on other forums asking if you can cast cards after Circu goes away.

Nit: You say "under the effect", but the exiled cards are not subject to any effect. You meant "exiled by".

Nit: Exiled cards have no controller. You meant "owner".

@ChrisSheib since it's not 100% clear what situation you were referring to, I've answered both of them; please indicate if the current version of the question is what you meant to ask.

Since there is some confusion about the original wording of the question, let's first assume you control Circu, Dimir Lobotomist, used it to exile a couple of spells from an opponent's library and that opponent is now defeated.

800.4a When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule 109) owned by that player leave the game ...

The exiled cards owned by the defeated player leave the game, and don't count for Circu's ability anymore:

607.2a If an object has an activated or triggered ability printed on it that instructs a player to exile one or more cards and an ability printed on it that refers either to "the exiled cards" or to cards "exiled with [this object]," these abilities are linked. The second ability refers only to cards in the exile zone that were put there as a result of an instruction to exile them in the first ability.

Your other opponents can cast those spells again (unless you've also exiled said card from a library of an opponent who is still in the game).

If you meant to ask what happens when an opponent controlling Circu, Dimir Lobotomist is defeated; the exiled cards stay exiled, but Circu's static ability stops functioning: it's no longer on the battlefield, and you (and other opponents) can cast spells with the same name as the exiled cards once again.

It's not clear to me from the wording on Circu that it would not apply to cards that had been exiled but no longer exist. The same question could be asked about a card that was un-exiled (Runic Repetition, Eldrazi Processors, etc). If a card is moved from exile, does it no longer count as "a card exiled with Circu"?

It would probably be worth quoting rule 607.2a to address that. The part relevant to GendoIkari's question says "The second ability refers only to cards in the exile zone that were put there as a result of an instruction to exile them in the first ability."

@murgatroid99, thanks! I really couldn't figure out which way that one would go; in plain English either interpretation would be valid.

If the person controlling circu is defeated all card that were under it's effect can be played


text:
Can you target a creature with my creatures enter the battlefield ability if they both enter the battlefield at the same time?
I have a single copy of Meteor Golem in my sideboard to go against Show and Tell decks, but I am wondering if my opponent show and tells their Emrakul, the Aeons Torn, can I show my Meteor Golem, target it and destroy their Emrakul?

Possible duplicate of show and tell, gilded drake and primeval titan

I don't see this as a duplicate; that other question is about who is the controller of an ability; not what creatures are valid targets for an ability.

It's closer to this question; but I still don't think it's a duplicate.

Yes, you can do this.
All creatures will enter the battlefield at the same time; but even if they didn't that wouldn't matter here. Meteor Golem's triggered ability is only put on the stack after the Show and Tell is finished fully resolving.

603.3. Once an ability has triggered, its controller puts it on the stack as an object that’s not a card the next time a player would receive priority.

and

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

So you do not need to choose targets for Meteor Golem's ability until Show and Tell is done resolving; and all chosen permanents are on the battlefield.
However, as pointed out by @John in a comment; all choices will be revealed simultaneously, so you cannot "respond" to your opponent's choice of Emrakul by choosing Meteor Golem. You would have already had to make your choice before you know your opponent's choice.
From the Gatherer rulings on Show and Tell:

The current player chooses first, then each other player chooses in turn order. A player does not have to reveal the chosen card, so long as it is clear which card was chosen. After all choices are made, the cards are put onto the battlefield simultaneously.

Yes, creatures that enter the battlefield at the same time "see each other" for the purposes of "enters the battlefield" triggered abilities like the one on Meteor Golem.
However, it is important to note that not all abilities that say "enters the battlefield" are triggered abilities like this one. If an ability says "When [something] enters the battlefield...", like on Meteor Golem, it is a triggered ability. But if it just says "[Something] enters the battlefield..." or "As [something] enters the battlefield...", like on Clone or Canker Abomination, it is a replacement effect and does not interact with permanents that enter the battlefield at the same time.

Is it worth pointing out that in show and tell, you don't know your opponent chose Emrakul, you just know they chose a card?  i.e. choices are revealed simultaneously.

Seeing each other enter the battlefield isn't actually relevant here; that generally pertains to situations such as 2 Soul's Attendants entering at the same time. In this case, Meteor Golem just triggers like normal; what is relevant is that by the time the trigger is put on the stack (and targets are chosen); all Show and Tell creatures are on the battlefield.

I agree with Gendolkari. Even if these two creatures didn't see each other enter, the result would be the same. Consider a card that reads, "You put a creature card from your hand onto the battlefield. Target opponent puts a creature card from his or her hand onto the battlefield." In that case the opponent's creature would not see your creature enter, but would still be able to target it with any triggered abilities.


text:
Can player meeples enter the exact same grid space?
In Tokyo Metro, the player meeples each occupy a single grid space on the map. We had owever I can't find anywhere in the rules claiming that meeples can't enter the same location.
After some discussion at our table, we couldn't come up with a strong argument why we should assume they couldn't when it's unstated. The design of meeples nearly the same size as grid spaces could be meaningful, but it also fits with the general minimalism of the game. Blocking could be a strategic element, but it's not necessarily hugely relevant when station builds are much more about turn order and liquidity.
Effectively there are actually 3 separate movement questions here, sorted roughly from weakest to strongest restriction:

Can meeples end their movement in an occupied space?
Can meeples pass through an occupied space?
Can meeples ride trains that already have a player passenger?

If someone could make the Tokyo Metro tag, I'd greatly appreciate it!

This has been clarified by the designer Jordan Draper on the BGG forum

players and trains can occupy the same space.

I think the old adage of rules applies.  IF it was a rule that only one piece was allowed per space then the rules should say that.  If that wasn't explicitly stated I would assume that to be the case.

I do generally agree with the basic rule adage, though it seemed that a lot of work had been put into minimizing the components and text, so it felt slightly more likely to have been excluded accidentally. Thanks for the find! My search skills must've been weaker than usual. ;)

Oh and the "reasoning" from the designer was quite funny: "In Tokyo, everyone and everything occupies the same space, anyone who has been there will testify to this"


text:
How do you eradicate a disease?
What are ways you can have a disease eradicated?
Is it if you get rid of all the cubes or do you have to find a cure first?

You must first discover the cure before you can eradicate a disease. Otherwise, some diseases could begin the game eradicated. From the rulebook, page 4:

Treat Disease

If the last cube of a cured disease is removed from the board, this disease is eradicated. Flip its cure marker from its “vial” side to its “0” side.

Discover a Cure

[...]If no cubes of this color are on the board, this disease is now eradicated. Flip its cure marker from its “vial” side to its “0” side.

And:

Removing the last cube of a disease that is not cured has no effect.

However, if a disease that has no cube on the board becomes cured, it immediately becomes eradicated. The order in which things are done is not important.

I believe the rules quote under Discover a Cure makes that clear.


text:
Who decides which of the "or" effects is applied?
When playing a spell card such as Searing Spear. Where the card deals 3 damage to target creature "or" Player.
Who decides what the "or" effects?  The player casting the card or the opponent receiving the effect of the card?

Read it as "target (creature or player)"

When a card says "target [something] or [something else]", the "or" is part of the target description. While you are casting the spell, you choose the target, and the chosen target can be either one of those things. In the case of that specific wording, that means that you can choose either a creature or a player as the spell's target.
Note: The specific card you referenced, Searing Spear, has had errata as of the release of the set Dominaria. It now says

Searing Spear deals 3 damage to any target.

And "any target" just means "target creature or player or planeswalker". Many other cards had similar changes.


text:
Bonded Horncrest and Prey Upon interaction
If Prey Upon is used on Bonded Horncrest, will it be able to "attack alone" ?
Is this the same for Bonded Horncrest being the target of Savage Stomp and the Cherished Hatchling's ability?
p.s. If Prey Upon is used on Snapping Sailback, will it get a +1/+1 counter? and I assume the +1/+1 counter enters after the fight/dmg has been dealt, right?

If Prey Upon is used on Bonded Horncrest, will it be able to "attack alone"?

No, it won't. Prey Upon is a spell that makes creatures fight each other. Fight is a keyword:

701.12. Fight

701.12a A spell or ability may instruct a creature to fight another creature or it may instruct two creatures to fight each other. Each of those creatures deals damage equal to its power to the other creature.

I assume you got confused by the wording on the cards, but fighting has absolutely nothing to do with the combat phase. If a creature (such as Bonded Horncrest) cannot attack alone, it means that it cannot be the only creature declared as an attacker in the "declare attackers" step of the combat phase.

p.s. If Prey Upon is used on Snapping Sailback, will it get a +1/+1 counter?

Assuming Snapping Sailback survives the damage it was dealt, then yes, it gets a +1/+1 counter.

and I assume the +1/+1 counter enters after the fight/dmg has been dealt, right?

That's correct.

So will Bonded Horncrest be able to fight when Prey Upon (or Cherised Hatchling ability) is used on it? Even though it's the only creature (of your own *edit) to fight in that moment. Since it's "fighting" and not "attacking or blocking".

Yes. As I said, fighting and attacking are two different mechanics. A creature that cannot attack for any reason (maybe it has Defender or it has been enchanted by Faith's Fetters) can still fight other creatures.

No problem at all, friend. Glad I could help. I suggest you take some time to read through the Comprehensive Rules if you're a new player. You don't need to read all of it, but the "General" rule of each rule section will give you a good grasp of what that section is about, and it'll surely improve your general understanding of the game's mechanics.

I respectfully disagree with @J.Salle, if you are a new player, you should read the Basic Rules:  http://media.wizards.com/2014/docs/EN_M15_QckStrtBklt_LR_Crop.pdf  The comprehensive rules are for later....

Yes, there's also the Basic Rules! They're indeed a better resource for a newer player to read. Thanks John!


text:
Can you use an ability as you put the card on the stack?
If I play Elixir Of Immortality for example, or any card with an ability, when it goes on the stack, can I activate its abilities before my opponent can respond?
And if so, if he counters the card after I use its ability, does the ability trigger?

No, you can’t (normally).
By default, activated abilities on cards can only be activated while the card is on the battlefield. The exceptions are abilities that either specify that they work from another zone, or abilities that don’t make any sense unless activated from another zone, such as abilities that return cards from the graveyard, or have you discard or reveal a card from your hand.

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

The exceptions allow things such as Reassembling Skeleton to work.
Also, be careful not to say “does the ability trigger”, because Elixir of Immortality does not have a triggered ability; it has an activated ability. It will never “trigger”.

I have concerns that the question is poorly worded due to possible other misunderstandings of the rules.  But I'm confident that I've worded this answer to clear up those other misunderstandings at the same time that I answer the question.

Most cards with activated abilities can only be activated when they're on the battlefield, with some exceptions (Elixir is not one of these exceptions).
While Elixir of Immortality is on the stack, the opponent can counter it.  If they do counter it, then you don't have any window to activate Elixir.
Once Elixir resolves, it is now to late to use counterspells against it.  After the stack clears, the active player (you, the player whose turn it is) regains priority, and can activate Elixir before any other player has a chance to act.
If Elixir's activated ability has been played, the ability can be countered by the few cards that are able to counter activated abilities, such as Stifle, but at this point it can't be countered by cards that counter only spells.  You can't counter permanents that are on the battlefield, only things that are on the stack.
Once an activated ability has been placed on the stack, destroying the source of the ability will not counter the ability.
Elixir of Immortality's ability in particular refers back to the original card and moves it between zones.  In this case, if Elixir of Immortality leaves the battlefield before the ability resolves, then the "shuffle Elixir of Immortality" part of the ability does not work.
(Vaguely related extra info) If a spell or ability has any targets, and all of its targets are made illegal, then the spell or ability fizzles (counters itself).  So if an artifact targeted by Smash became an illegal target, then Smash would fizzle, and you would not get the "Draw a card" effect of Smash.  However, Elixir of Immortality is not an example of this.  If Elixir of Immortality leaves the battlefield before its ability resolves, it does not fizzle (because it never had targets), and although you don't get to reshuffle it, you do still gain 5 life.

As of the recent Dominaria rules update, your last point is actually incorrect; spells with no valid targets are no longer automatically countered; they simply leave the stack.

@Gendolkari Multani's Presence was too powerful for NWO MtG, obviously. Thank you, based Wizards, for saving us from ourselves.


text:
Can you do a field of ruin and kefnet the mindfull combo
Can I use a land with a sacrifice ability, like Field of Ruin, where you have to sacrifice the card for the ability to activate, then whilst the ability is on the stack, use Kefnet the Mindful's ability which returns a land I control to my hand? Since abilities will trigger even if their permanents are removed from the battlefield, would it still activate the ability because I remember reading a rule that said that a card's ability or function will activate as most as possible (if that makes sense).

No, you can't do this.
The reason is that sacrificing Field of Ruin is part of the cost of its ability; not part of the effect. The cost is paid when you activate the ability, as part of the process of activating the ability. So by the time you can respond to the ability while it is on the stack, Field of Ruin is already in the graveyard; no longer on the battlefield, which means that you no longer control it.
From the comprehensive rules:

602.1a The activation cost is everything before the colon (:). An ability’s activation cost must be paid by the player who is activating it.
602.2. To activate an ability is to put it onto the stack and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect.

The rule that you are thinking of is that an ability can still resolve even if the source of the ability has left the battlefield. So if someone destroys Kefnet in response to you activating his activated ability; it won't stop you from drawing a card and being allowed to return a land you control to your hand. Be careful not to casually use the phrase "abilities will trigger", because a triggered ability is a specific type of ability; activated abilities never "trigger".


text:
What happens if a double-faced card that is copying a different double-faced card transforms?
We are getting Metamorphic Alteration in M19. What if I enchant my Delver of Secrets, copying my opponents Nicol Bolas, the Ravager. Then I pay the cost on my Bolas (previously a Delver) to activate his transform ability.
What will happen? I can think of 3 possibilities:

My Delver is exiled and the aura goes to the graveyard.
My Delver is transformed, aura goes to the graveyard, but the Delver transforms into Insectile Aberration
My Delver is transformed, aura goes to the graveyard, and the Delver transforms into Nicol Bolas, the Arisen

It is #2, you will end up with an Insectile Abberation.
A few different rules at play here. First off, your Delver of Secrets is only copying The Ravenger side of Nicol Bolas, it doesn't have any relationship to The Arisen:

706.8. When copying a double-faced permanent, a face-up meld card, or a melded permanent, only the copiable values of the face that’s currently up are copied.

When you exile your creature, the aura will not go with it, simply because the aura is a separate permanent. It will sit on the battlefield for a moment, but go straight to the graveyard next time state-based actions are checked:

303.4c If an Aura is enchanting an illegal object or player as defined by its enchant ability and other applicable effects, the object it was attached to no longer exists, or the player it was attached to has left the game, the Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)

And we know the object no longer exists because:

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

(None of the exceptions apply).
So what you have is an instruction to return your card to the battlefield, transformed. You can do this:

701.27a To transform a permanent, turn it over so that its other face is up. Only permanents represented by double-faced cards can transform.

So you turn the object formerly known as Nicol Bolas, The Ravenger, over so that its other face is up, and return it to the battlefield.

Makes me wonder if doing this in reverse could be a shortcut to transform the expensive Nicol Bolas.

@Brilliand I think maybe? cast Ravager.  Metamorphic alter it to easy-to-transform.  Transform card; card is flipped as the card has another side (other side is not copied).  Metamorphic kicks in; creature is still target.  Dispell Metamorphic; flipped over, copied card no longer a copy?

@Yakk Sounds right to me.

And then Bolas dies because he had no loyalty counters. That's the reason the flip walkers exile and flip in the first place.

What if a single sided card had been enchanted to be a copy of Nicol Bolas?

@Acccumulation That is discussed in this other question.

@ArcanistLupus you'd need to use one of the walkers that are easier to exile-transform, like say Liliana, Heretical Healer or Jace, Vryn's Prodigy.


text:
Can I play an instant mid attack/block
I attacked with 4/4 creature with first strike and life link.
My hubby blocked with his only card, a 2/2 with “when this creature is dealt damage, it deals 5 damage to target creature an opponent controls”. He chose to deal that damage to my attacking creature.
Can I then play an instant to give my creature +2/+2, so his damage does not kill my creature? (My attacking creature is 4/4).

Read up on how the stack works in the linked question. Th combat phase is not relevant to your question; you are basically asking if you are allowed to respond to a triggered ability with an instant, and the answer is yes.

Also, the damage still kills your creature, since there is also the combatdamage to be considered. 2 + 5 = 7 > 6 = 4 + 2

@ErikLohmann No, because the 4/4 has first strike, the 2/2 will never deal combat damage.

Yeah, skipped that part, sorry.


text:
Does token creation count as successfully casting a summon spell?
My opponent wants to spam/create 500 goblin tokens while Soul Barrier is in play, does he take 1000 damage from Soul Barrier or do tokens when created not count as a creature summoning when generated.

How exactly is your opponent creating the goblin tokens?

Rolling back the edit; because it seems that at least part of the asker's question stems from the fact that they are going based off of the old/printed wording. Changing it to use the oracle wording changes the meaning of the question itself and makes half of the answer not make sense.

No, creating a token is not the same thing as casting a spell.
First, be sure to always go off of the Oracle wording, which for older cards will often be different than what is printed on the card. Soul Barrier actually says:

Whenever an opponent casts a creature spell, Soul Barrier deals 2 damage to that player unless they pay {2}.

The idea of "summoning" a creature has no rules meaning in MTG; the only question is if he cast a creature spell or not.

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

A creature spell is simply a spell with the creature type.
So if you cast Siege-Gang Commander, then you have cast a creature spell, and the triggered ability of Soul Barrier will trigger.
When Siege-Gang Commander enters the battlefield, and its triggered ability creates 3 Goblin tokens, that has nothing to do with casting a spell. That is a triggered ability that creates tokens when it resolves; it will not trigger Soul Barrier's ability again.


text:
Affecting win percentages in turn based games
In an interview, Ben Brode (former Hearthstone game director) revealed that Hearthstone has very close to 50% win rate for both sides due to the coin and the extra card given to the person going second.
What techniques employed in other turn based games to try and even the probability of winning for the players?

The question solicits an open-ended list of answers, and is thus not a good fit for this site.

@ikegami I feel that this question is in line with several other questions we have dealing with game design, such as this one

@GendoIkari So that leaves me the option of editing your question with one you missed (and I do have one in mind), or post a copy of yours with my addition. This is why recommendations and other open-ended lists are not allowed.

@ikegami I agree that it can be difficult to decide those sort of things. This question seems to have done well with 1 reason per answer, with the "best" reason being accepted. While my first-linked question did well with having multiple items in 1 answer.

@ikegami I definitely think you might be right... but if you are, can you explain a difference between this question and those other 2? Or should those other 2 be closed as well?

Perhaps the question can be re-worded to be more about game design, from the perspective of "what can I do in my game to eliminate or reduce first player advantage?"

There are many different options:

Hex uses the "swap rule", which states that after the start player makes his first move, the other player can decide to switch colors and play as if he were the start player and had made that move. This means that the start player must choose a move that's not obviously great (like going directly in the center).
Magic the Gathering has the player who takes the first turn skip his initial draw, so he starts with one less card. Certain types of decks prefer to still take the first turn, while others prefer to draw the extra card. Similarly, Innovation has the first player only take a half-turn on the first turn. Or the first 2 players in a 4 player game.
Dominion has the loser of a game go first in the next game. This only works when playing multiple games in a row with the same people; but it's designed to be played that way. Dominion also has the second player win tie games if the first player got an extra turn (if he was also the player who ended the game).
Many games give extra starting resources to players in later turn orders. Temporum, Castles of Burgundy, Agricola, and many others do this. Sometimes it is as simple as the start player receiving fewer than the rest, other times it is each player getting 1 more of something than the previous player. (So players will get 2, 3, 4, and 5 workers respectively in Castles of Burgundy).

Some games give later players a victory point bonus.  Go and Castles of Mad King Ludwig do this.  This can also overlap with the starting resources handicap in games where resources are directly converted to victory points at game end.

Many games only end when all players have had the same number of turns. Whether due to having a specific number of rounds, or having the game continue until the last player has a turn after the game-end has been triggered. Even in games like this, there may be a first player advantage, though there can also be a last-player advantages instead.
Catan evens out the setup by reversing the placement order in the second round of setup. In theory, this gives the initial player a great location and a poor location, while the last player gets two average locations. In this arrangement,
the second last player might be in the worse position, because the last player has the advantage of placing twice in a row.

Some games don't try and balance first player advantage at all and instead rely on player politics to do so.  These tend to be high luck games such as Munchkin or Fluxx.

There are also games where you do turns simultaneously. And in some games second player gets advantage in case of a tie or just straight up points bonus, like in Go.
Oh, and there is Five Tribes and the like, where players bid for turn order.

Dungeon Twister sets limit on number of actions first player can do on first turn. It's not the same as having shortened turn, because in DT a player have a set of action cards he/she cycles through, so eventually both players get equal number of actions, first player just has to start with smallest one.

Also, there are asymmetrical games like Netrunner or Stronghold. In those balancing first turn becomes just a part of balancing sides in general.

Magic the Gathering is a poor example for this question, because the player who goes first still has a significant advantage over players who go second, to the point that it is correct in almost all scenarios to go first, aside from a handful of niche decks in older formats.


text:
Does protection from a specific color help against an ability that cost a different color to activate?
Player A has a Zacama, Primal Calamity, and player B has a creature with protection from green, such as Vodalian Zombie.
Player A uses Zacama's red ability deal 3 to that creature, is he able to do that? Its a red ability, but Zacama has green in it?.

Player A cannot target the creature with Zacama's ability.
It doesn't matter what the ability costs; abilities themselves do not have colors.
What matters for protection is what the source of the ability is, and the source of the ability here is Zacama, Primal Calamity. Because Zacama, Primal Calamity costs Red, Green, and White to cast, it is a Red creature, a Green creature, and a White creature. So Player B's creature has protection from Zacama, which includes all of Zacama's abilities.

First, protection from green means that that permanent can't be targeted, enchanted, dealt damage by (it is prevented) or blocked by anything that is green (see rule 702.16).  Specifically with regard to targeting:

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

So what defines a source?  Glad you asked.

112.7. The source of an ability is the object that generated it. The source of an activated ability on the stack is the object whose
  ability was activated. The source of a triggered ability (other than a
  delayed triggered ability) on the stack, or one that has triggered and
  is waiting to be put on the stack, is the object whose ability
  triggered. To determine the source of a delayed triggered ability, see
  rules 603.7d–f.

Since Zacama, Primal Calamity's is green (and red and white), anything with protection from green (or red or white) can't be targeted by Zacama's ability or dealt damage by Zacama.  So you could never even target the creature.  And even if there was some way to pull that off (there isn't by the way), it wouldn't take any damage anyway.

"protection from green means that that permanent can't be [...] dealt damage by [...] anything that is green" Be careful here. A Hurricane still deals damage to a Coast Watcher if Flaring Pain has been played this turn. Protection prevents damage, and prevention can be circumvented.

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

This means that, even though the ability is cast using a different colour (abilities don't have colours anyway), the source of this ability contains a quality that is protected against. The card is incapable of targeting it in anyway, at all.


text:
Is Haphazard Bombardment legal with fewer than 4 nonenchantment permanents under my opponent's control?
Haphazard Bombardment is worded slightly, so I assume intentionally, different from cards I can find that seem similar. Particularly in that it doesn't target the chosen cards.
Granted this is unusual, but suppose my opponent on the draw missed 3 land drops and has only 3 land on the battlefield on my turn 6. Can I cast Haphazard Bombardment given there are only 3 things (specifically not targets) I can possibly choose? Or does it count as part of the cost that 4 nonenchantment permanents be chosen? My understanding is, if it said "choose 4 target nonenchantment permanents" and there were only 3 options, it would be uncastable. Is the same true without the "target"?
If there are 4 or more options, I'm fairly confident I can't choose fewer but I'm unclear if I can get away with it when there aren't enough choices.

Yes, you can cast Haphazard Bombardment even if there are fewer than 4 valid choices for its ability, and you put aim counters on permanents even if there are fewer than 4.
Haphazard Bombardment's first ability is an "enters the battlefield" triggered ability. If you cast Haphazard Bombardment, the ability triggers after the spell resolves and becomes a permanent. Even if it did require you to choose targets, it would have no effect on whether you could cast the spell.
The ability itself has no conditions that might prevent it from triggering or resolving. So it will trigger and resolve no matter what the board state is. Then when it resolves you choose the permanents to put counters on. Rule 609.3 says

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

So if it is impossible to choose 4 permanents you don't control, you choose as many permanents as possible and put counters on them.

Thank you, this makes it now seem obvious and I'm now confused as to what I thought the issue would be. I feel like there are cards that have effects sort of like this that can be illegal to cast in some situations. But I can't quite put my finger on the scenario I'm thinking of.  Maybe if this card said "Choose 4 target permanents and put aim counters on them." (not an ETB effect) then one of the 4 was removed before the spell resolves, would it fizzle?  This may not be something I should try to resolve in comments...

Permanents in general don't have targets for this very reason.

Ah yes, that's probably where my brain is getting stuck. I think I'm picturing this as an instant/sorcery instead of an enchantment. Thanks again.

Not strictly true - Auras target when cast and will indeed fizzle if their target is invalid upon resolution as you expect! More interestingly, Auras that are "put into play" (such as by Zur the Enchanter) do not target and can enchant permanents that they could not target if cast (such as with "Shroud" or "Protection from Enchantments".. though in the latter case they would be removed when priority passes).

I realize "up to 4" would change the card as in making it legal to choose only 3 when there are four possible  targets, but wouldn't that have made the  wording clearer while keeping the effect practically the same?

@JollyJoker I agree it'd be clearer but I think this wording was very much intentional for both flavor and function and that would be a pretty significant change. Chances are there are 1 or 2 permanents (some big beastie or powerful artifact) you'd really like to hit and 2 or 3 that are less impactful (a low power creature or a land they've already got plenty of). If you could opt to put out just two counters, your odds of hitting what you really want are vastly better, even though you're taking out fewer things. And flavor-wise, it's not much of a "bombardment" if you're only firing once.

Your chances to hit something specific are worse if you choose fewer targets. If you choose normally, it'll boil down to this situation anyway, if you haven't hit it already. Choosing less tagets might pay out in that that you might hit it earlier.

@Deo Getting rid of something immediately is often important. I guess T.Bullet is right about function having to match flavor. I was thinking more along the lines of mana denial but I have no idea if the environment would support that.

Also, in the flavor vein, hexproof and shroud does prevent things from being aimed specifically in your direction, but if they just fire randomly (some would say haphazardly) you're no more protected than anyone else.


text:
Question about the MTG stack
So recently in a four way battle a weird situation came up that I would like clarification on. This was casual as it gets so I'm not concerned about the outcome; I just want to learn from the situation to play my deck better.
Anyways here's the setup: It is currently my turn, and I plan on playing three spells this turn: starting with Insult, then Lightning Strike, and then another Lightning Strike. During this I am also dealing damage to the remaining two players due to Electrostatic field, which brings one opponent down to 6 life.
In the midst of all this, specifically between my first and second Lightning Strike, that player taps Tree of Redemption, a monster that switches his life total with it's toughness (13). So that stack would be Insult, LS, Monster tap, LS (I'm assuming). Due to the double damage on Insult for the turn would the first resolved LS deal 6 damage, effectively killing that player? Would this also mean his tap to switch his monsters toughness with his life works because it's still on the stack? Thanks for any help hopefully this makes sense.

Welcome to B&CG!  There is a lot of unnecessary information in this question, such as player two (who isn't actually involved) and player four (who is already out).  Please consider [edit]ing your question to include only the players and cards that are relevant; it would also be helpful to use some paragraphs for readability.

Welcome! I have edited some to help with readability; adding links to relevant cards and removing some information that did not seem to be relevant to the question. Feel free to edit further or replace my edit with your own if you feel I've missed something important.

@BJ Myers thanks for the comment there was actually continued play past this point. Which is why I included player 2 so that if I was right (definitely wasn't) something else happened after this encounter that I wanted to clarify but no need!

@Gendolkari Thanks for the edits! I didn't know I could link stuff that's good to know.

You wouldn't want the stack to look like that, if it did your Insult would resolve last, and all the damage your spells would have done would not be doubled. You need to let insult resolve then start a new stack with the lightning strikes OR cast the lightning strikes first and end with Insult, so it resolves first.

I'm assuming here that the player you've named Tree began this exchange with 9 life and Dino began with 18.  That means the sequence will most likely go something like this:

You cast Insult
Electrostatic Field triggers.  It's triggered ability is placed on the stack above Insult, so the stack is currently:

Electrostatic Field trigger
Insult

Each player passes priority.  Electrostatic Field's ability resolves and does one damage to each of your opponents.  This reduces Tree to 8 life and Dino to 17.  Insult is now the only thing on the stack.
Each player once again passes priority.  Insult resolves creating a continuous effect that doubles damage for the rest of the turn.
You cast Lightning Strike targeting Tree.
Electrostatic Field triggers again.  No one has a chance to act between you casting Lightning strike and Field's ability being put on the stack.  The stack is now:

Electrostatic Field trigger
Lightning Strike

From here, there are a couple ways things could play out depending on when Tree acts.  I'll go over the most likely scenario:

Each player passes priority.  Field's trigger resolves dealing 2 damage to each opponent due to Insult's continuous effect.  This reduces Tree to 6 life and Dino to 15 life.  Lightning Strike is now the only thing on the stack.
Tree activates Tree of Redemption, placing it's activated ability on the stack.  The stack now looks like this:

Tree of Redemption's ability
Lightning Strike

You cast another Lightning Strike targeting Tree.
Electrostatic Field Triggers again.  The stack is now:

Electrostatic Field trigger
Lightning Strike
Tree of Redemption's ability
Lightning Strike

Each player passes priority.  Electrostatic Field's ability resolves, dealing 2 damage to each opponent.  This reduces Tree to 4 life and Dino to 13 life.  The stack is now:

Lightning Strike
Tree of Redemption's ability
Lightning Strike

Each player passes priority again.  Lightning Strike resolves, dealing 6 damage to Tree due to Insult's continuous effect.  Tree is reduced to -2 life and loses the game.  All objects owned by them immediately disappear from the game.  This includes all of their permanents on the battlefield as well as the Tree of Redemption ability they own on the stack.  That leaves only your other Lightning Strike on the stack.
Each remaining player passes priority.  Lightning Strike tries to resolve, but it no longer has a target.  Since it has no target it is moved to your graveyard without resolving (often referred to as "Fizzling").

In step 7, I believe you have the most likely scenario backwards. Tree would have no reason to activate Tree of Redemption before Electrostatic Field deals a damage. He knows he'd be better off taking that 2 damage from Field, then setting his health to 13, before taking more from Lightning Strike.

For step 13, as of a recent rules update, the spell will not be "countered" by the game rules, it will simply not resolve. Still a good answer though.

Huh, guess I missed that update.  I agree 7 is probably in the wrong place.  I'll update.

Fixed.  The rules change @GendoIkari mentioned doesn't actually change the outcome.  It really just makes the wording on cards like Abrupt Decay cleaner.

@Miles Budnek Thanks for the comment and helping me understand, I appreciate the time you spent laying this out!

What happens depends completely on the specific order things were cast in. As you describe it, it sounds like you responded to Insult with Lightning Strike. If so, then Lightning Strike would resolve first, only dealing 3 damage, because Insult has not resolved yet.
Insult must resolve before it does anything to help you. So what you want/need to do is cast Insult, then let it resolve. THEN cast Lighting Strike, dealing 6 damage.
While Lightning Strike is on the stack, your opponent can respond by tapping Tree of Redemption. This would make the stack look like:

Tree of Redemption's ability
Lightning Strike

Tree of Redemption would resolve first (Because it is the top of the stack), which would set your opponent's life to 13. After that, Lightning Strike would resolve, dealing him 6 damage, which would reduce his life to 7.
If you still have another Lightning Strike in hand, and enough mana, then you can respond to this by casting it. Then the stack would look like this:

Lightning Strike (b)
Tree of Redemption's ability
Lightning Strike (a)

Lighting Strike (b) would resolve first, dealing 6 damage to your opponent, which would kill him if he is at 6 health. Tree of Redemption's ability would not be able to save him, as he would die before it has a chance to resolve (which would make the ability go away).
So it sounds like you are close to having things correct when you say

So that stack would be insult, LS, Monster tap, LS

Except that if Insult really is on the bottom of the stack, then your Lightning Strikes would only deal 3 damage, not 6. Don't cast Lightning Strike until after Insult has already resolved and would no longer be on the stack.

@Gendolkari always fun realizing you been playing a card wrong! Atleast now I understand so thanks for the comment and clarification.


text:
Karlov attacking together with a lifelink creature
If I attack with Karlov of the Ghost Council and another creature with lifelink, is Karlov getting 2 counters before he deals his damage this turn? Or are both damages dealt at the same time?

All damage is dealt at the same time, so Karlov of the Ghost Council will only get the +1/+1 counters after it has dealt damage.*

Combat Damage Step

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

*Unless the Lifelink creature also has First Strike or Double Strike

...and life gained from lifelink is gained as part of dealing damage ...and Karlov's ability is a triggered ability, which won't be put on the stack, much less resolve, before damage is dealt (i.e. before life is gained).


text:
Enrage and damage calculation mid phase
I attack with Bellowing Aegisaur and other creatures and they choose to block all of my creatures.
Would I, as the attacker, get to assign combat damage, and can choose Bellowing Aegisaur's attack to be first making its Enrage go into effect placing +1/+1 counters on my other creatures before their damage is calculated?
Conversely, if I block with it can I ask them to assign damage in order and if they choose Bellowing Aegisaur before some of my other blockers would they receive their counters before their damage calculation?

No, all damage is dealt simultaneously.

Combat Damage Step

510.1. First, the active player announces how each attacking creature assigns its combat damage, then the defending player announces how each blocking creature assigns its combat damage.
510.2. Second, all combat damage that's been assigned is dealt simultaneously. This turn-based action doesn't use the stack. No player has the chance to cast spells or activate abilities between the time combat damage is assigned and the time it's dealt.

This would only work if the creature blocking Bellowing Aegisaur had first strike or double strike.

You need for Aegisaur's blocker to have first strike, not the dino itself.


text:
Instant and sorcery lifelink multiplied by targets or just casting?
If I give an instant or sorcery lifelink, like in the case of Firesong and Sunspeaker, and it hits multiple creatures, in the instance of Fiery Cannonade, would that be a lifelink value of 2, or 2 times however many creatures are effected?

You gain life equal to the total damage you dealt; which in this case would be 2 for each non-Pirate creature.

702.15. Lifelink

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

If Fiery Cannonade dealt 4 different creatures 2 damage each; then Fiery Cannonade dealt 8 damage. All that matters is how much total damage was dealt.

Firesong and Sunspeaker says:

Red instant and sorcery spells you control have lifelink.

Lifelink says

119.3f Damage dealt by a source with lifelink causes that source’s controller to gain that much life, in addition to the damage’s other results.

From this it is clear that the total amount of damage dealt is how much life you gain.


text:
Mimeoplasm on Enemy Commanders in Grave
If I were to use The Mimeoplasm to exile an enemy's commander that's in their graveyard (let's say The Scarab God), and the Scarab God's owner chooses to return it to the Command Zone instead of letting it be exiled, does The Mimeoplasm still enter as a copy of The Scarab God? While the Mimeoplasm's ability to exile The Scarab God was activated, does The Scarab God not actually being exiled negate that ability?

The Mimeoplasm does enter as a copy of the chosen card even if it doesn't actually end up in exile.
This is the full text of The Mimeoplasm's ability:

As The Mimeoplasm enters the battlefield, you may exile two creature cards from graveyards. If you do, it enters the battlefield as a copy of one of those cards with a number of additional +1/+1 counters on it equal to the power of the other card.

The first thing to note is the "If you do" clause in the second sentence. This means that "you may exile two creature cards from graveyards" is actually a cost, as specified in rule 117.12:

Some spells, activated abilities, and triggered abilities read, “[Do something]. If [a player] [does, doesn’t, or can’t], [effect].” or “[A player] may [do something]. If [that player] [does, doesn’t, or can’t], [effect].” The action [do something] is a cost, paid when the spell or ability resolves. The “If [a player] [does, doesn’t, or can’t]” clause checks whether the player chose to pay an optional cost or started to pay a mandatory cost, regardless of what events actually occurred.

The other important bit here is the last sentence. As long as you choose to pay the cost of exiling the cards, the action is performed even if the cards don't actually end up in exile.
In addition, The Mimeoplasm's ability refers to "those cards" instead of "the exiled cards" or otherwise explicitly looking at the exile zone. This means that the cards don't need to be in exile for The Mimeoplasm to become a copy of one or get the counters.

Basically, the replacement effect that keeps the commander out of exile does not counter the ability.


text:
Etali and returning casted cards questions
With our EDH group we can't completely figure out what happens in the following cases:
After attacking with Etali, Primal Storm and casting some of the exiled cards, some of them for example creatures, are now on the board for player John. John is the one playing Etali.
Let's say one of the creatures was originally in Ben's deck. That creature gets killed. Does this creature go back to Ben's graveyard? Or does the card go back to exile?

#2 is; and should just be edited out of the question. #1 is a good non-duplicate.

The answer to Q1 is: The creature goes to it's owner's (in your case, Ben's) graveyard.
This is supported by CR701.7a:

701.7. Destroy

701.7a To destroy a permanent, move it from the battlefield to its owner’s graveyard.

Q2 already has an answer here.

When a creature dies, it goes into the owner's graveyard.

701.7a To destroy a permanent, move it from the battlefield to its owner’s graveyard.
704.5h If a creature has toughness greater than 0, and it’s been dealt damage by a source with deathtouch since the last time state-based actions were checked, that creature is destroyed. Regeneration can replace this event.

There are certain effects that could override this default, such as Rest in Peace. But Etali, Primal Storm doesn't have any ability that changes what happens when a creature dies, so it will go into Ben's graveyard like normal.


text:
How does deathtouch work?
What if you have a creature 1/5 and it attacks a 2/2 death creature does the 1/5 die or is deathtouch activated upon death

I edited the subject of that other question because "deathtouch mechanics", in addition to not being a question in itself, did not correctly describe the question.

First off, a creature cannot attack another creature. You can only attack players or planeswalkers, at which point your opponent can choose which creatures to block with. For the purpose of answering the question about deathtouch; I will assume that we are talking about a 1/5 attacking creature being blocked by a 2/2 creature with deathtouch.
From the MTG Quick Start Guide:

deathtouch—A creature dealt damage by a
  creature with deathtouch is destroyed

The 1/5 will die because it was dealt damage by a creature with deathtouch. The 2/2 deathtouch creature will have 1 damage, and will not die unless it is dealt another damage by something else before the end of the turn.
Note that this works whether it is combat damage from attacking/blocking, or other damage such as cards with the Fight keyword or cards that have an ability that deals damage.
This death occurs almost immediately, at the same time death due to a creature taking more damage than it has toughness would occur. This is a state-based action, which happens automatically each time a player would receive priority. From the comprehensive rules:

702.2b A creature with toughness greater than 0 that’s been dealt damage by a source with deathtouch since the last time state-based actions were checked is destroyed as a state-based action.

"Any nonzero amount of combat damage assigned to a creature by a source with deathtouch is considered to be lethal damage", from the comp rules. I think that explains it better. No triggered ability, no fancy effects happening. Just "A single point of damage is considered enough to kill". Also, as a sde note, that means that a creature with both deathtouch and trample only needs to assign one damage to each blocking creature, regardless of their toughness, and the rest will go through to the player.

@Arthur "Considered to be lethal damage" is dealing with how much you have to assign before you can move on to assigning damage to the next creature in line (or player, if it also has trample). "Considered to be lethal damage" doesn't tell you that the creature will be destroyed. 702.2b, the state-based action dealing with deathtouch, is what actually destroys the creature.

And I thought that a quick guide reference sounded more relevant than a comp rules reference, because if the basic/beginner nature of the question.

Oh, you're right. I thought "lethal damage" appeared explicitly in the state-based actions. My bad, then.

I did update the answer to include the state-based action, because I realized that the quick guide didn't deal with when the creature would die, only that it would.


text:
What does "until end of turn" mean?
Sure Strike has the text

Target creature gets +3/+0 and gains first strike until end of turn.

I don't understand what "first strike until end of turn" means.  Does this mean the creature gets first strike until my opponent starts his turn, and then the "first strike" effect is canceled forever?  Or does the creature get first strike every time I start my turn?

I don't think it's a duplicate of that question. Certainly when the turn ends is relevant, but there's a lot going on in this question that isn't simply covered by that one, which a good answer would explain. Duplicates are for when questions are fundamentally the same and have fundamentally the same answers -- neither test passes here for this question & that potential duplicate. Alternately, they're for when this question is a subset of another question and is obviously answered by that other question -- also not the case here.

@BiteRook Welcome to Board Games Stack Exchange. Check out our [tour] to see how we work here. I've removed the bit about "as long as it's attacking" since that text doesn't appear on this card at all. If you mean to ask about what that text means on another card, like one of these I'm guessing, please ask that as a separate question.

I think the questions are the same. The specific mechanic (first strike or +1/+1) has no bearing on what "until end of turn" means. Aside from that, the only other content in this question that is unique are guesses about what the answer might be.

I think that the "Or does the creature get first strike every time I start my turn?" makes it a distinct question. This user does not seem to be wondering when the "end of the turn" is, but rather what the rules implications of something only lasting until the end of turn are.

Or put another way, the other question is a somewhat advanced one about the specific order that things happen in during the cleanup step. This one is a question for beginners, explaining what it means that something only works until the end of the turn.

Yes, the "first strike" ability will be canceled "forever". The creature which had the ability "until end of turn" will lose this ability exactly at the end the current turn, and not at the beginning of the next turn.
To answer your question more clearly, a few things must be laid out first as a basic understanding of the game's structure:
A turn is composed of several phases (and their respective steps). The step that is relevant to your question is quoted here. All quoted text is taken from the Comprehensive Rules of Magic: the Gathering.
I strongly suggest your do your own reading about phases and steps, as it will greatly improve your understanding of the game.
Here, we'll be looking at the ruling on effects that happen "until end of turn". That's CR514, which deals with the last step of a turn, the Cleanup Step:

Cleanup Step

[...]
    514.2. Second, the following actions happen simultaneously: all damage marked on permanents (including phased-out permanents) is removed and all “until end of turn” and “this turn” effects end. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack.

As you can see, nothing about this rule states that these kinds of effects ever come back into action. This means that, once your turn reaches the cleanup step, all effects that happen "until end of turn" cease to happen.
Note that at the beginning of this answer, I quoted the word "forever". I did that because, naturally, if at any other point in the game you once again give your creature any ability "until end of turn", it will once again have that ability until the next cleanup step is reached.

This could do with also up-front answering the querent's questions straightforwardly. Currently it's just saying "here's a bunch of relevant rules to read", and that's all well and good... but should come as part of also providing a straightforward answer. Boil it down for them: what do those rules mean for their situation? What should their key take-aways be?

You're completely right. I left the answer as-is until a consensus had been reached as to whether or not this was a duplicate, though, since what I've put in the answer so far is relevant to only part of the question.

If it does get closed as a duplicate I'll be voting to reopen. There's a lot going on in this question that isn't covered by "when's the end of turn", like, the player thinks the spell repeats for example.

I'll be updating the answer to fit it to the question in a few, then. Thanks for the heads-up.

@doppelgreener FWIW I don't think it is a dupe either so I would throw in a re-open vote as well.

Your second sentence is misleading, since the creature will lose the ability at the end of the current turn, not specifically the end of your turn.

@Will M. To be fair, that answer was written before the editing of the original question, which asked specifically about the OP's turn. I'll edit it to conform with the actual question. Thanks for the heads up.

It will permanently lose the power boost and the First Strike ability at the end of the current player's turn.

There are two kinds of effects in Magic: One-shot effects, and continuous effects. An effect that deals damage is a one-shot effect, but an effect that modifies a card or its controller is a continuous effect. Continuous effect perform temporary changes that end when the continuous effect ends.
Sure Strike creates a continuous effect that grants modifies the target creature in two ways:

The creature gains three power.
The creature gains the First Strike ability.

The creature only gains these benefits as long as the continuous effect only lasts, and this particular continuous effect only lasts until the end of the current player's turn. When the turn ends, the effect will end, and it will stop granting the benefits to the creature.

The creature's power will be reduced by three.
The creature will lose the First Strike ability (unless some other source provides it).