text:
I Don't Understand Scab-Clan Charger's Ability
I have Scab-Clan Charger and I don't understand the following:

Discard Scab-Clan Charger: Target attacking creature gets +2/+4 until
  end of turn

Alright, so the discard makes sense.  What is "Target attacking creature"?

So I take it you bought some Return to Ravnica packs to start playing with your 12-year-old. Glad you decided to give it a shot.

And a intro pack for Gatecrash.  That way we could play 4 different colors.  I was looking for some M13 but they didn't have any.

This probably has the simple answer of "any creature that is attacking can be a target attacking creature as long as it is targetable," but I'll expand on that below.
In the Magic Comprehensive Rules, Rule 508 explains attacking creatures. It's pretty long, so rather than posting all of 508, here is the relevant part.

508.1. First, the active player declares attackers. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack. To
  declare attackers, the active player follows the steps below, in order. If at any point during the
  declaration of attackers, the active player is unable to comply with any of the steps listed below, the
  declaration is illegal; the game returns to the moment before the declaration (see rule 717,
  “Handling Illegal Actions”).
508.1a The active player chooses which creatures that he or she controls, if any, will attack. The
  chosen creatures must be untapped, and each one must either have haste or have been controlled
  by the active player continuously since the turn began.

After checking for restrictions and requirements that may prevent creatures from attacking, the rule continues:

508.1j Each chosen creature still controlled by the active player becomes an attacking creature. It
  remains an attacking creature until it’s removed from combat or the combat phase ends,
  whichever comes first. See rule 506.4.

So creatures become attacking creatures when the steps in 508 have been completed. More often than not, there won't be requirements or restrictions that limit your ability to attack, except for summoning sickness.
When the card refers to "target attacking creature," it is referring to a creature that is an attacking creature that can be targeted. This ability can be used for one target creature. Rule 601 lays this out (I've emphasized the important parts):

601.2c The player announces his or her choice of an appropriate player, object, or zone for each
  target the spell requires. A spell may require some targets only if an alternative or additional
  cost (such as a buyback or kicker cost), or a particular mode, was chosen for it; otherwise, the
  spell is cast as though it did not require those targets. If the spell has a variable number of
  targets, the player announces how many targets he or she will choose before he or she
  announces those targets. The same target can’t be chosen multiple times for any one instance of
  the word “target” on the spell. However, if the spell uses the word “target” in multiple places,
  the same object, player, or zone can be chosen once for each instance of the word “target” (as
  long as it fits the targeting criteria). If any effects say that an object or player must be chosen as
  a target, the player chooses targets so that he or she obeys the maximum possible number of
  such effects without violating any rules or effects that say that an object or player can’t be
  chosen as a target. The chosen players, objects, and/or zones each become a target of that spell.
  (Any abilities that trigger when those players, objects, and/or zones become the target of a spell
  trigger at this point; they’ll wait to be put on the stack until the spell has finished being cast.)
  Example: If a spell says “Tap two target creatures,” then the same creature can’t be
  chosen twice; the spell requires two different legal targets. A spell that says “Destroy
  target artifact and target land,” however, can target the same artifact land twice
  because it uses the word “target” in multiple places.

So the simply version of all this is that "target attacking creature" is a creature that has become an attacking creature and can be the target of a spell or ability.

Thanks Matt.  Very helpful.  I changed my accepted answer to this because it was more comprehensive.  No offense intended  to ikegami.

It does this because it's intended to be a Gruul card. It's a creature that you can use like a giant growth, but only when attacking - Gruul isn't much for pumping its defenders. (Technically, you could use it to pump your opponents' attacking creatures too, if you were so inclined...)

One thing to note is that Bloodrush isn't a spell. It's a targeted ability that can only be used from your hand. That means Counterspell and Mana Leak won't stop it but a card like Stifle will.

An attacking creature is one that was declared as an attacker earlier in the current combat phase, or a creature placed "on the battlefield attacking" in the current combat phase (e.g. Geist of Saint Traft's angel).
Say you attack with a 3/3 and it's blocked by a 4/4. You could discard a Scab-Clan Charger from your hand to make your 3/3 a 5/7 until the end of the turn. It would survive, and the 4/4 would die (instead of the other way around).

Ok, that's what I thought.  I just wanted to make sure. The language was just a little odd to me.  "Target an attacking creature to gain +2/+4 until end of turn" would have made more sense.

@Gregg, No, that never actually gives it +2/+4, and it uses "target" as a verb which it's not in Magic.

@Gregg If you're confused about terminology, refer to the glossary at the end of the comprehensive rules. Just don't get overwhelmed and lost reading the comprehensive rules. ;)

I consider your statement and my statement to be the same.  I get it regardless, so thanks.  I understand you're making a distinction between the target and the player.

ghoppe - I've looked at those rules.  Just haven't read them. :)

"Select an apple to give to the orphan" doesn't instruct you to give the apple to the orphan. It instructs you to select something. You could follow up with "then throw it away". Your wording never actually gives +2/+4 to anything. It just instructs you to target something, which isn't an action in MTG.

Well crap - guess I didn't need to put up the long winded answer.

@Gregg Over the years, Wizards has developed a very consistant glossary and template for its instructions on cards, in order to reduce confusion in interpretation of what these cards do. "Target" is always a preselected object, never an instruction.

@ghoppe "But how does the Spuzzem decide??" ;)

@AlexP Hurray for oracle text! It no longer has to! ;)


text:
Does non-combat damage affect Commander damage?
Do the effects of a Commander that deal (non-combat) damage, such as Obzedat, Ghost Council, count towards Commander damage?
I have not been able to find whether or not it has to be, specifically, combat damage, or simply damage dealt by the Commander.

Per the official rules on mtgcommander.net,

If a player has been dealt 21 points of combat damage by a particular Commander during the game, that player loses a game.

"Combat damage" refers only to damage dealt in combat as a result of attacking and blocking; direct-damage abilities don't count. Note also that Obzedat, Ghost Council's triggered ability doesn't deal damage: it simply causes your opponent to lose life.

From the Comprehensive Rules

104.3j In a Commander game, a player that's been dealt 21 or more combat damage by the same Commander over the course of the game loses the game. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704. Also see rule 903.14)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
If a permanent turns into a(nother) creature, has it entered the battlefield?
I was playing a game last night with a guy who was playing a new Simic Gatecrash deck, and he claimed that if he made a land into a creature, it counted as entering the battlefield, thus triggering evolve (or other "enters the battlefield" abilities).
I thought this was incorrect, being that the creature didn't actually enter the battlefield, it was just created.
Which of us was right?

"Enters the battlefield" means moving from a zone besides the battlefield into the battlefield. As you say, it didn't actually enter the battlefield - it didn't change zones, it just changed from one thing to another within a zone. So no, it doesn't trigger evolve.
As for citations, well, there's a ruling explicitly for this land-becoming creature case on many of the lands that can become creatures (e.g. Celestial Colonnade):

When a land becomes a creature, that doesn't count as having a creature enter the battlefield. The permanent was already on the battlefield; it only changed its types. Abilities that trigger whenever a creature enters the battlefield won't trigger.

I don't think the comp rules really say this explicitly; they say the battlefield is a zone, and "entering" a zone clearly means coming from outside the zone into the zone. For example, there's stuff like this:

110.1. A permanent is a card or token on the battlefield. A permanent remains on the battlefield indefinitely. A card or token becomes a permanent as it enters the battlefield and it stops being a permanent as it's moved to another zone by an effect or rule.
603.6a Enters-the-battlefield abilities trigger when a permanent enters the battlefield. ...

Nothing explicit, but consistently "entering" a zone is used to mean changing zones into that zone.

Thanks so much! I have been wondering about this.. It ended up being solved by a fancy Shock, so no one had to worry about it in the end, but I thought it was worth asking about. Thanks though!

When you animate a land (or more likely in this case, an artifact), you are merely changing its characteristics. Tower Defense also changes an object's characteristics, yet you would never say that causes the affected object to enter the battlefield. That's because changing an object's characteristics does not cause the object to enter the battlefield.
To be considered to enter the battlefield, the object must do exactly that, enter the battlefield from another zone. Standard English definition applies. If the object was already on the battlefield, how can it possibly be entering it?

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


text:
Sleeving the dollar cards in Ca$h 'n Guns where the exact sleeve size doesn't exist
I've recently received Ca$h 'n Guns (2nd edition) for my birthday, and I'm sleeving all the cards. The problem is that the "dollars" card have a very weird size (60x120 mm, or 2.36x4.72 in) and I can't find sleeves of the right size. I want to cover them, since those are the most used cards of the game.
The closest I've found (and the recommended one by most sites) are the Tarot size (70x120 mm, 2.76x4.72 in), which are 1 cm bigger on one dimension, or a smaller one (61x112 mm, 2.40x4.41 in).
What would you do? Use the bigger size sleeves or do some complicated stuff like having a smaller sleeve on one side of the card and another on the other side, with an overlapping section?

Honestly, I would just buy a second copy of the game. You're talking about a potential cost of $15-20 (for double sleeves) to protect the components that are handled the least (besides the diamond, of course). Furthermore, damaged cards would have almost no impact on the game, unless you're playing with card counters... but then just shoot the card counter!

Why would you say those are the least used cards? I have yet to play a game (I have received it just a few days ago), so my judgment is mostly based on reading the rules, but I think that, after the Bang/Click cards, the rewards one are quite used. You think I'm making a big deal out of nothing?

The cards are certainly essential - they just aren't handled that much. Each card is shuffled at the beginning, dealt out and chosen during one round, and kept in a player's "stash" until the end of the game.

Ok, I'm wrapping my head on nothing :D Thanks for the advice, @TheChaz2.0 !

Putting the comments in an answer so we can "close" the case.

Honestly, I would just buy a second copy of the game. You're talking about a potential cost of $15-20 (for double sleeves) to protect the components that are handled the least (besides the diamond, of course). Furthermore, damaged cards would have almost no impact on the game, unless you're playing with card counters... but then just shoot the card counter!
The cards are certainly essential - they just aren't handled that much. Each card is shuffled at the beginning, dealt out and chosen during one round, and kept in a player's "stash" until the end of the game.


text:
Can an indestructible creature die by a combination of damage and -X/-X effects?
Say I have a 5/5 indestructible creature. An opponent plays a 3 damage spell on this creature. After that spell resolves, the opponent then plays a spell which gives the creature -2/-2 until end of turn. Does the creature die?

Say I have a 5/5 indestructible creature. An opponent plays a 3 damage spell on this creature. After that spell resolves,

It becomes a 5/5 with 3 damage marked on it.
Perhaps you've played DotP where this is shown as 5/2 on the screen, but that's misleading because damage does not reduce toughness. (Damage from a source with Wither or Infect can grant -1/-1 counters which in turn reduce toughness, but that doesn't appear to be what you're asking about.)

the opponent then plays a spell which gives the creature -2/-2 until end of turn.

So it becomes a 3/3 with 3 damage marked on it.

Does the creature die?

No. It has positive toughness, and lethal damage does not destroy indestructible creatures.

702.12b A permanent with indestructible can’t be destroyed. Such permanents aren’t destroyed by lethal damage, and they ignore the state-based action that checks for lethal damage (see rule 704.5g).

No, he would be a 3/3 marked with 3 damage. This 3 damage would be 'lethal', but since he is indestructible, he is immune to such deaths.

702.12b A permanent with indestructible can’t be destroyed. Such permanents aren’t destroyed by lethal damage, and they ignore the state-based action that checks for lethal damage (see rule 704.5g).

Taking the bouncing ball here, does the indestructible ability makes a creature immune to "remove permanent" spell?

@LittleViking26 No. Indestructible simply means that destroy effects and lethal damage do not work. forced sacrifice, toughness=0 state check, exile effect, ect... still work.

We like to avoid plain links on StackExchange sites; it's often more useful to readers if they can get the full answer just by reading what's here. You might consider editing in the actual rule that's included in that wiki page (700.4).


text:
How does Magic handle “Type – Subtype” lines that don’t fit on the card when translated?
This question links to a Russian version of Peel from Reality which has “Мгновенное заклинание” as its type line—literally, “Instant spell” rather than just “Instant” (I assume there is some Russian grammatical reason why just “Мгновенное” would be unacceptable).
“Мгновенное заклинание” takes up far more horizontal space than “Instant,” which got me thinking—what does Wizards do when the translation of a type line takes up more room than the available space? I know some Magic cards have substantially longer English type lines than “Instant,” and several fill up very-nearly the entire available space (e.g. Theros’s “Legendary Enchantment Creature — God,” though I see the Russian version of that is “Легендарные Чары Существо — Бог” and fits in the available space—though it’s getting even closer to the limit there).
So, does Wizards of the Coast limit type lines based on translations? Or do they accept that some translations aren’t going to fit—and if so, what do they do then? Clearly, “Мгновенное заклинание” suggests that they haven’t found as-short-or-shorter translations for everything, so this is a possible concern (not that I expect them to print a “Tribal Instant — Arcane” or anything like it any time soon, which seems like the only way “Мгновенное заклинание” itself could run into trouble). Do we have any examples where it was a real concern?

I recall Maro noting that the original Theros God's weapons weren't "Legendary Artifact Enchantment - Equipment" for non-english type line length reasons

@Caleth I remember reading about those too, but I didn’t remember that the issue was specifically non-English. My recollection was that it was a problem in English, too, but I may have just forgotten the non-English part. If you can find that post and confirm the non-English aspect, that might well be a good answer to this question.

Generally—they just make the font size in the type line really tiny.
Some good examples are the Titans from Theros Beyond Death, which are Legendary Creature — Elder Giant. I've included other Giants in that search result so you can see that they just shrank down the font size a lot on Kroxa and Uro. They did the same for Thryx, the blue legendary card in those results, who is an Elemental Giant.
Here's three white cards in Russian side by side so you can see how much the font size might vary:

(Also the vertical alignment varies too apparently, probably for lack of attention/care rather than for any good reason. Oof.)
That's not limited to Russian, either. Here's some German cards undergoing the same treatment, where the middle one doesn't need any font size adjustment:

That search is an excellent example, really stark in the case of Kroxa and Uro.

A time-tested solution :) in the early Magic sets, some of the normal English cards already had tiny font to accommodate for the wall of text that was required.

See Oubliette: https://scryfall.com/card/arn/31/oubliette

Adding onto the previous two answers, scaled down fonts are not exclusive to non-English card prints.
As a specific example, the card Sen Triplets is a "Legendary Artifact Creature - Human Wizard".  The text line is scaled down in order to fit in the text box.  I've added another card from the same set as a comparison.

Sen Triplets is probably the easiest one to see.  AFAIK it's the only card in the game with the "Legendary" supertype, two types, and two sub-types.  However, there are undoubtedly other cases where the text has been scaled down.

(EDIT: Shortly before the release of Modern Horizons 2 on June 18th, 2021, a large number of cards were retroactively updated to include the subtype "Phyrexian".  One of these cards includes Brudiclad, Telchor Engineer, who now has the type line of "Legendary Artifact Creature — Phyrexian Artificer".  This type line is somewhat longer than the type line on Sen Triplets.  However, the updated type line has yet to be printed on any cardboard copies of Brudiclad.  If we see a new print run of Brudiclad, I will update this answer accordingly.)

To further illustrate the point, here is the type line for Sen Triplets and Sharuum the Hegemon, a creature that came out in the same block and is also a "Legendary Artifact Creature", but has the much shorter sub-type Sphinx and not "Human Wizard".

It seems to be very common with permanents that have the "Legendary X Y" template while also having a sub-type.  The 5 color cycle of "Legendary Enchantment Artifact" from the original Theros don't seem to have scaled down text because of their lack of sub-type, but "Legendary Artifact Creature" and "Legendary Enchantment Creature" seem to be full of them.
List of Legendary Enchantment Creatures - The Demigod Cycle from Theros Beyond Death in particular seem to have noticeably scaled down type lines, although not as noticeable as Sen Triplets.
List of Legendary Artifact Creatures - Sen Triplets can be found here, and is the only entry in either list with two printed subtypes (see earlier note on Brudiclad).  However, all of these cards seem to have type lines that have been somewhat scaled down.

It's probably a safe bet that, if the type line stretches all the way across the card to the set symbol, it's probably been scaled down a bit.

WotC aren’t above truncating words to make translations fit. The Throne of Eldraine instant-speed Adventures are spelled “Мгновенное — Приключение” in Russian (which still requires a smaller font). This is actually acceptable grammar, as substantivized adjectives are common in Russian, as opposed to word-for-word translations like “Enchantment Creature — Human Cleric” → “Чары Существо — Человек Священник” which are extremely clumsy because Russian just doesn’t work that way (noun sequences such as “noun sequence” aren’t a thing in Russian).

A translation of that last, “extremely clumsy” phrase would help those of us with no Russian get the point. +1 anyway though, since the core of the answer is still strong.

Magic has absolutely run into this issue before, Russian is probably the most common language for it, but English is not immune - I have never seen it in Chinese, Japanese or Korean, due to the way much fewer, but more different characters are in those languages to represent the same ideas.
When this happens the system does a few things to make the text fit, the solution Magic has always used is to change the font size and reduce kerning - making the characters smaller and closer together so they fit.
Most often this is a problem on creatures, as spells rarely have many types, but it has happened with spells, such as Nameless Inversion, as a Tribal Instant - Shapeshifter. In Russian that spell's type is Племенное Мгновенное заклинание — Имитатор too large for the text box so the font size is slightly smaller.
This doesn't only happen on the type either - there are many examples of cards where they have needed to shrink the contents of the text box, even without flavor or reminder text, though these are fewer and farther between then they were in the early days of magic. One of the worst examples of this is Dance of the Dead.

They scale down the font
see Russian Reaper King for Example
However, if you look toward unsets, you can find cards with multi-line namebox or other modification

Hm, neither of those latter links includes an actual image for me, they just show the Magic card back instead. Maybe a region thing? (Amusingly, the Gatherer website itself seems to do some text scaling on the card title—“Nos études de marché révèlent que les joueurs aiment les noms de carte vraiment très longs alors on a fait en sorte d'obtenir l'élémental avec le nom de carte le plus long possible” it at an unreadably-tiny font size in that last link.)

(Of course, both of those cases were intentional jokes and have the same modifications in English, so they probably don’t really answer this question.)

The elemental clearly is a joke but I think that the Infernal spawn of infernal spawn of evil might be a legit experimentation.

Infernal spawn or infernal spawn was from Unhinged, a silver-border set where almost every single card got its own custom frame treatment tailored exactly to the joke on the card. Current silver-border cards don't do that. It might have been an experimentat, but it's not an internationalisation thing.

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


text:
What does, "It can't be regenerated" mean?
I destroyed my opponent's permanent with Putrefy, an Instant that reads:

Destroy target artifact or creature.  It can't be regenerated.

He returned it to the top of his library with Golgari Thug because it went to the graveyard (is it supposed to go to the graveyard?). Golgari Thug reads:

When Golgari Thug dies, put target creature card from your graveyard on top of your library.

So whats going on? I destroyed a card and I thought it cannot be regenerated.  When Putrefy says, "It can't be regenerated" is it actually a counter for a card that can be regenerated?  For example:  Opponent has Manor Skeleton that has: “{1}{B}: Regenerate Manor Skeleton”.  I target it with Putrefy. Is his Manor Skeleton's regenerate ability countered and does it go to the graveyard?
Does, "It can't be regenerated" mean "It can not be regenerated from the graveyard", or does it counter a regeneration ability?

Well, no. Regenerate has a very specific meaning. From the Comprehensive rules:

701.12a If the effect of a resolving spell or ability regenerates a permanent, it creates a replacement effect that protects the permanent the next time it would be destroyed this turn. In this case, “Regenerate [permanent]” means “The next time [permanent] would be destroyed this turn, instead remove all damage marked on it and tap it. If it’s an attacking or blocking creature, remove it from combat.”

So, what Golgari Thug did, was not regeneration. Instead, it put a creature from the graveyard on top of its owner's library. Regeneration would have stopped the creature from being destroyed and placed in the graveyard in the first place.
Putrefy specifically prevents creatures from being regenerated after being destroyed by its effect. This doesn't counter regeneration (at least not in the MtG sense of the word), but prevents regeneration from happening.

101.2. When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can't happen, the "can't" effect takes precedence.

If a creature gets its "regeneration shield" (i.e. regeneration is activated) let's say after the declare blockers step, and it then gets hit by a "cannot be regenerated" effect, does the regeneration still happen?

The order that the abilities resolve does not matter.

@corsiKa, "Can't be regenerated" doesn't actually stop the Regenerate action (contrary to what ire_and_curses said), it stops the shield from doing anything [CR 701.12c]. This differs from other "Can't be actioned" effects.

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


text:
Can Vesuva copy a land that comes the same time into play as itself?
When I tutor Vesuva and another land with my Primeval Titan, can I let Vesuva be a copy of that other land?

No. From the comprehensive rules:

614.12a If a replacement effect that modifies how a permanent enters the battlefield requires a choice, that choice is made before the permanent enters the battlefield.

Vesuva and the other land enter the battlefield at the same time. However the choice of which land to copy must be made before Vesuva enters the battlefield, which means the other land isn't on the battlefield yet either, so it can't be chosen.

Is this being changed with the Blood Moon / Shockland change coming up?

@xornob, The rule that's been changed doesn't apply here since nothing causes Vesuva to lose its ability. If something was (e.g. Blood Moon or Magus of the Moon), then Vesuva wouldn't be able to copy anything at all under the new rules.

Man, I want to make Magus of the Moon + Dark Depths deck :D


text:
How does Dreadhorde Arcanist interact with split cards?
If I have a Dreadhorde Arcanist with a +1/+1 counter and a Collision // Colossus in my graveyard, what can I do? Can I play one of the split cards, neither or both?
If I play Colossus on a Dreadhorde Arcanist and attack with it targeting Collision / Colossus, can I play both or only one of them?
If the case is that I can play only one, can I spend mana to play the second?

708.4. In every zone except the stack, the characteristics of a split card are those of its two halves combined. This is a change from previous rules.
708.4b The mana cost of a split card is the combined mana costs of its two halves. A split card’s colors and converted mana cost are determined from its combined mana cost.
Example: Assault/Battery’s mana cost is {3}{R}{G}. It’s a red and green card with a converted mana cost of 5. If you cast Assault, the resulting spell is a red spell with a converted mana cost of 1.

So Collision / Colossus has a converted mana cost of 4 and you won't be able to cast it in the first scenario when the Arcanist is a 2/4.

708.3. A player chooses which half of a split card they are casting before putting it onto the stack.

So in the second scenario, where the Arcanist is a 5/5, you can cast either Collision or Colossus, but not both.
There's no way to cast both halves, not by paying extra mana and not even when it's a Fuse split card, because that ability only works when the card is in your hand:

702.101. Fuse
702.101a Fuse is a static ability found on some split cards (see rule 708, “Split Cards”) that applies while the card with fuse is in a player’s hand. If a player casts a split card with fuse from their hand, the player may choose to cast both halves of that split card rather than choose one half. This choice is made before putting the split card with fuse onto the stack. The resulting spell is a fused split spell.


text:
Does Fires of Invention allow adventure instant and sorceries to be played for free?
How does the new Fires of Invention card from Eldraine work with adventure cards such as Beanstalk Giant? Does it allow the adventure to be played for free and if so does it count the converted casting cost of the creature card that's in hand or that of the adventure instant or sorcery?

You can cast the creature for free if you have at least as many lands as the creature's mana cost, and you can cast the adventure for free if you have at least as many lands as the adventure's mana cost.
From the updated comprehensive rules:

715.4. In every zone except the stack, and while on the stack not as an Adventure, an adventurer card has only its normal characteristics.

This means that if you choose to cast the creature, the CMC is just the creature's CMC.
Also,

715.3b While on the stack as an Adventure, the spell has only its alternative characteristics.

This means that if you choose to cast the Adventure, the CMC is just the Adventure's CMC.
From the Throne of Eldraine Release Notes:

When casting a spell as an Adventure, use the alternative characteristics and ignore all of the card's normal characteristics. The spell's color, mana cost, converted mana cost, and so on are determined by only those alternative characteristics. If the spell leaves the stack, it immediately resumes using its normal characteristics.

So while the creature Beanstalk Giant  is on the stack; its CMS is 7; which would require you to have 7 lands to cast it for free.
But while Fertile Footsteps is on the stack, it has a CMC of 3; requiring you to have 3 lands to cast it for free.
Notably, the card is moved to the stack before you ever check to see what the cost is.

601.2a To propose the casting of a spell, a player first moves that card (or that copy of a card) from where it is to the stack.

...

601.2b If the spell is modal, the player announces the mode choice (see rule 700.2). If the player wishes to splice any cards onto the spell (see rule 702.46), they reveal those cards in their hand. If the spell has alternative or additional costs that will be paid as it’s being cast such as buyback or kicker costs (see rules 118.8 and 118.9), the player announces their intentions to pay any or all of those costs (see rule 601.2f).

And for completeness sake; we know that Fires of Invention creates an alternative cost because:

118.9. Some spells have alternative costs. An alternative cost is a cost listed in a spell’s text, or applied to it from another effect, that its controller may pay rather than paying the spell’s mana cost. Alternative costs are usually phrased, “You may [action] rather than pay [this object’s] mana cost,” or “You may cast [this object] without paying its mana cost.” Note that some alternative costs are listed in keywords; see rule 702.


text:
How do I organise my cards in the Dominion big box insert?
I have a Dominion set that includes the base set plus Alchemy and Prosperity. The box contains a plastic insert with many slots of various sizes. I have stored the cards in alphabetical order mixing the three sets together, but this seems suboptimal. This probably has a really obvious answer, but is there a way to organize the cards so the plastic insert makes sense? Any recommendations?

It might help if you posted a picture of what this insert looks like; from your question, I don't see why alphabetical would be a problem. That's how I organize my cards.

I've now seen the package you're describing. It comes with two paper sheets that label the slots. The slots are size-specific (e.g., a larger slot for all the coppers)

There is a standard way to store those cards in the big box. Your big box should've come with a couple of large bookmark-shaped cards. One side has a bunch of card names upon decorative scrolls, like this:

photo from Board Game Barker
What you're supposed to do with this organiser card is to lay it down in the center of the box, between all the card slots. In the big box, that will look like this:

photo from the Board Game Geek page
If you put it down the right way, each card's name will sit directly beside a card slot. This organiser card will tell you which slot to put each card in. The thicker slots (e.g. the money slots) will have more corresponding spacing on the organiser card, so make sure those line up.
This organiser card also means I can check very easily where cards are: I can just look at the organiser, search for the name I'm after, and pull the cards out of the corresponding slot, which beats having to pull various piles out one by one trying to hunt for the right one. In the first photo, I can tell the Adventurer was put in that top left slot, the Bureaucrat beneath it, Cellar beneath that, etc.
The reverse side of the organiser card, with a bunch of blank scrolls, is for you to fill out if you ever come up with an alternative organisation scheme you'd like to use instead. (E.g. maybe you'd like to group all the attack cards together in the box, or something.)

The first thing I would do is leave out the Alchemy set. Beyond that I personally prefer alphabetical for the straightforward reason that it takes less time to dig out cards when you're setting up, and given that (after Possession) setup is the most annoying thing about playing Dominion this is pretty important.

I would assume that they would be alphabetical in each set, with the resource and victory cards obviously belonging in the biggest slots.


text:
What does "float mana" typically mean?
Normally, whenever I take an action that involves paying for an effect that is any more complicated than tapping lands, I declare that I'm floating mana. For instance:

When I tap Priest of Titania with 3 other elves on the battlefield (for a total mana cost of 4), than I will typically say "I float 4 mana" before I make any plays and use this mana.
Even if I'm using Llanowar Elves to pay for a 1-drop, I declare how I'm floating mana.

One time, I was accused of cheating because of this habit. I tapped my Llanowar Elves and said "I float 1 to play Quirion Ranger", and I was accused of cheating, because I "didn't have 1 floating after that play".
It would seem that the person I was playing against had taken "floating mana" to refer exclusively to mana that was left over after paying a mana cost.
Have I been doing it wrong all along? Has my talk about "floating mana" before I pay costs been a miscommunication all this time?

I'm asking this now because I recently came across this passage whilst reading the comp rules:

106.4a If a player passes priority (see rule 116) while there is mana in his or her mana pool, that player announces what mana is there. If
any mana remains in a player’s mana pool after he or she spends mana
to pay a cost, that player announces what mana is still there.

Does that mean that talking about my "floating mana" communicates that I'm passing priority?

Worth pointing out also I think that the DCI definition of 'cheating' requires intent.  Doing something incorrect without knowing can be a penalty, but is not 'cheating.'

Why do you activate the abilities in advance instead of part of the process of casting a spell or activating an ability?

@ikegami Because When I play decks like legacy elves, I will often use the same mana source to play many spells, or I'll use different types of sources to cast the same spell.  I supposed that producing the mana separately from casting the spells helped me keep track of it

mana floating is a slang mtg term and refers to unused mana in your pool.

Refers to mana added to a player's mana pool and not used immediately.
For example, a player might tap all of his or her lands for mana, then
play Armageddon (destroying all land in play), then use the excess
"floating" mana to play some other card.

http://mtg.wikia.com/wiki/Slang#Float
Talking about floating mana does not imply that you are about to pass priority. This is because you can play multiple spells before you pass priority and you would potentially have mana left in your pool between such plays. After casting each spell you need to make it clear how much and what type of mana you still have in your pool, so talking about how much and of what types of mana are still floating seems appropriate.
In a tournament, as long as your usage is clear and consistent there should be no problems.

To clarify, the OP's usage of 'floating' is indeed incorrect, as floating mana refers to mana that is left over. If you make 1 mana then spend it on a 1 mana spell, you don't float anything. If you make 3 mana then spend 2 of it on a spell, you are then left floating 1 mana.

@Cronax and this answer are both incorrect. You don't need to have cast a spell to 'float' mana, that is just the most common reason to float mana, either you are producing more than you need or like the Armageddon example it won't be possible to make the mana after.

As others have said, "float" generally means "produce mana I'm not using right now", for example if you're tapping something that produces four mana and only using two of it on the current spell. So interpreting your statements very literally, you were effectively claiming to have produced more mana than you actually did, which would be cheating. But of course it was entirely obvious what you actually meant, so it seems more likely your opponent was just annoyed at you for using "float" wrong and decided to call you out on it by saying you were cheating.
That said, this is generally a non-issue, since you can just tap permanents and cast spells. You don't necessarily have to announce every mana you produce. If you're just tapping things that produce one mana each it doesn't need much explanation. I don't think anyone would bat an eye if you just tapped your Elves and said "I'll cast Quirion Ranger".
For bigger things, it can certainly be helpful to count up as you go, but it's not required and needn't be anything fancy; you can just tap some things, count "1, 2, 3, 4, 5" if you so desire, and then play your Thragtusk. Similarly, noting how much mana your Priest of Titania produces is probably a polite, helpful thing (for both you and your opponent), but you can just say something like "tap this for four", and possibly count up your elves in the process if you think it's not immediately obvious.

Whoops, commented on original ? by accident.  "Cheating" as defined by DCI requires intent to gain an advantage and knowledge that what you were doing is incorrect.

@Affe Yeah, what I'm suggesting is that the opponent decided, okay, this is annoying, I'm going to assume he means it exactly how everyone else would and is just flat-out asserting he has more mana than he really does, which would be cheating. It's obviously not actually cheating though.

I don't know how a judge would rule in this case (typically judges only care about things that are confusing, and any opponent paying attention would know what you meant), but yes, you are technically using the terminology wrong.
Floating mana is mana that is in your mana pool as you pass priority. It doesn't empty until you end the step or phase. Your opponent has the right to know whether it's conceivable that you could respond to their actions with an instant, and so must be able to reasonably work out how much mana you have available at any given time. For mana put into your pool that you are using immediately it's uncommon to announce verbally.

Most of these answers are close, but a little off, I think most of the answerers have a similar misunderstanding of what it means to float mana. You don't need to cast a spell to have mana floating, it's not just mana that is left over after casting a spell, it is any many that you put into/have in your mana pool outside of the process of paying for a spell/ability/effect.
The reason this misunderstanding is so common is most people tap their mana at the last minute when rule 601.2g gives them a window to do so, right before they are required to pay the cost.

601.2g If the total cost includes a mana payment, the player then has a chance to activate mana abilities (see rule 605, “Mana Abilities”). Mana abilities must be activated before costs are paid.

The issue with the understanding in all these other answers is everyone will still agree a player is floating mana if they tap for mana in response to someone else's spell. For example, you can float mana in response to a player casting Jokulhaups, or while a Blood Moon is on the stack before your lands become mountains.
Technically any time mana is put into your mana pool it is floating until it spent, just in most cases it's spent during 601.2h right after it was created, with no windows for any player to take any other actions, so people don't usually think of it as floating until after the spell is cast. The confusion here is you are tapping and floating mana before announcing your spell, which is unusual but not at all illegal and not at all incorrect.

Agree with this definition. More concisely, I would define "floating mana" as: A player floats mana if that player has mana in their mana pool while a player has priority.


text:
How do I interrupt a loop after multiple iterations?
This is a question regarding infinite loops and shortcuts at Competitive REL.

Here is a potential scenario.

Both my opponent and myself are at 20 life each.

I have no creatures on the battlefield.

My opponent has a Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker and a Warstorm Surge on the battlefield.

I have a Rakdos Charm in hand.

My opponent plays Deceiver Exarch and begins a loop where he uses Kiki-Jiki to copy the Exarch, and uses each new Exarch to untap Kiki-Jiki, dealing me 1 damage every time he does it.

If I cast Rakdos Charm when the 18th Exarch token's trigger is on the stack, I win.

If I cast it at any other time, I lose.

If my opponent knows that I'm going to cast it than he won't make the 18th token, and he'll simply attack and kill me.

Now, the question is:
If my opponent proposes a shortcut, saying

"I'll make 500 tokens and kill you."

Can I accept the first 18 iterations of that shortcut and react by saying

"After the 18th token enters the battlefield and its ETB trigger goes onto the stack, I cast Rakdos Charm."

, or do I have to propose a new shortcut for the 18 iterations, potentially giving my opponent information?

Frankly I don't see how you can ever win this scenario. Even if you cast your Charm after the 18th iteration, your opponent could just put another 20 damage on the stack in response.

not true hackworth, the copy enters the battlefield, puts surge trigger and untap trigger on the stack, in response rakdos charm, he cant make any more tokens until the untap resolves

Yes, you can accept only the first 18 iterations. After he proposes the number of iterations for the loop (500 here), you can choose a lower number of iterations, and both players have to abide to those iterations.
The rules for this are described in 719. Taking Shortcuts. A few quotes from that section:

719.2a At any point in the game, the player with priority may suggest a shortcut by describing a sequence of game choices, for all players,
  that may be legally taken based on the current game state and the
  predictable results of the sequence of choices. This sequence may be a
  non-repetitive series of choices, a loop that repeats a specified
  number of times, multiple loops, or nested loops, and may even cross
  multiple turns. It can’t include conditional actions, where the
  outcome of a game event determines the next action a player takes. The
  ending point of this sequence must be a place where a player has
  priority, though it need not be the player proposing the shortcut.
719.2b Each other player, in turn order starting after the player who suggested the shortcut, may either accept the proposed sequence, or
  shorten it by naming a place where he or she will make a game choice
  that’s different than what’s been proposed. (The player doesn’t need
  to specify at this time what the new choice will be.) This place
  becomes the new ending point of the proposed sequence.
719.2c Once the last player has either accepted or shortened the shortcut proposal, the shortcut is taken. The game advances to the
  last proposed ending point, with all game choices contained in the
  shortcut proposal having been taken. If the shortcut was shortened
  from the original proposal, the player who now has priority must make
  a different game choice than what was originally proposed for that
  player.

so if the opponent proposes the 500 iteration shortcut, and I shorten hit to 18 iterations, than am I correct in the assumption that at that point, he can't decide to do less?

@SamIam That seems clear from the statement right at the start of 716.2b: 'Each other player'.

@SamIam: Correct. The shortcut your opponent proposed is that he perform only the actions required for his loop and you do nothing. You shortening the shortcut is basically going along for the first 18 iterations, then introducing a new variable. By that time, it's too late for your opponent to change what he did earlier.


text:
Are you required to call a judge if you're not involved in the game?
If you're a spectator to a game at either competitive or professional REL and you see a gamestate error occur, should you call a judge?
What happens if you don't call a judge?
Is it different if you see blatant cheating or bribery instead of a gamestate error?

Covered by the Tournament Rules:

Any person physically present at a tournament and not in any other category above is a spectator. Spectators are responsible for remaining silent and passive during matches and other official tournament sections in which players are also required to be silent. If spectators believe they have observed a rules or policy violation, they are encouraged to alert a judge as soon as possible. At Regular or Competitive REL, spectators are permitted to ask the players to pause the match while they alert a judge. At Professional REL, spectators must not interfere with the match directly.

(Emphasis mine)

So they're encouraged to, but not required to?

Yep - probably to dodge the question of "how do you punish a spectator?"

Yes, that's what it says. But that shouldn't be a surprise; the same goes at any other kind of event, and even in society in general. Requiring spectators (or bystanders) to report errors (or crimes) creates a slew of problems. It's best to let moral and societal pressures encourage it.

In contrast, the Laws of Duplicate {Tournament] Bridge specifically forbid kibitzers from any interaction with the players at all during the play of a round, unless at the behest of a Tournament Director (Law 76 B, page 93): http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/Laws-of-Duplicate-Bridge.pdf


text:
What happens when you flicker a double-faced card?
If I were to cast Restoration Angel targeting Ravager of the Fells, What side would Ravager of the Fells be on when he came back into the battlefield?

you mean cards with 'transform' right? and not the flip cards from the kamikawa block? do both questions have the same answer?

Double-faced cards don't have sides, they have faces.

@Colin D, Double-faced cards are the ones that transform, yes. Yes, it's the "same answer" for flip cards.

Its front face (the one with the sun symbol in the top-left corner), so Huntmaster of the Fells.
It's a brand new object put onto the 'field, as if you had just resolved it after casting it. It has summoning sickness; it's untapped; it doesn't have any counters, enchantments or equipment; and it's front face is up.

711.5. A double-faced card enters the battlefield with its front face up unless a spell or ability puts it onto the battlefield “transformed,” in which case it enters the battlefield with its back face up.


text:
At regular REL can players rewind the game state?
Suppose that at a regular REL (Rules Enforcement Level) event, you have an experienced player, and an inexperienced player, and the in-experienced player has a gideon's lawkeeper on the battlefield.
The experienced player declares the beginning of the combat phase, and the game then proceeds to the Declare Attackers step.  The in-experienced player tries to tap down an experienced player's creature during the Declare Attackers step.
The experienced player explains to the inexperienced player that in order for the tapping to stop the attack, he has to do it during the Beginning of Combat step.
Are the players authorized to agree to rewind the game back to the Beginning of Combat step so that the in-experienced player can do his action correctly, or would the players have to ask a Judge's permission?

What does REL stand for?

@wesdfgfgd Rules Enforcement Level

@wesdfgfgd, Rules Enforcement Level. Regular REL is the REL used at pre-release events, Friday Night Magic (FNM) and similar.

Deserves an upvote never knew this.

Your link to Gideon's Lawkeeper doesn't work.

@MattBrennan fixed

There is nothing in the CompRules about taking back legal actions, so when in doubt, ask the judge, unless you both want to risk a sanction in the worst case. He may nor may not allow it, and he may or may not require to be asked in the first place. In the end, a judge can give whatever ruling he wants, and the opposite of it on the next case. So there is no general answer.
That being said, in high REL, where a lot is on the line in the tournament, you probably won't see many of the situations as described by you, either because there are no inexperienced players, or nobody would agree to have a mistake taken back to get any advantage possible. In lower REL, like pre-Release or somesuch, if I were a judge I would definitely allow it to commend the sportsmanship and teaching effort of the more experienced player.

Also consider that a player on the other side of the table making those kinds of mistakes is probably going to lose anyway, so you have considerably less risk letting it rewind in the more casual environments. At an REL I wouldn't expect someone to let it be taken back. "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen" type thing.

Where can I find a list of the different RELs and the differences between them?

Start here, and click on "Magic Tournament Rules". The "Infraction Procedure Guide" lists the offences and how they are handled at Comp and Pro REL. "Judging at Regular REL" describes how the offences are handled at Reg REL.

The infractions are the same for all REL. The difference lies in the penalties and remedies.
Assuming it's clear the Declare Attackers step was step was entered (e.g. AP: "Declare Attackers?" NAP: "ok"), nothing in the rules allow the game to return to the Beginning of Combat step, so we're talking about Unsporting Conduct — Cheating (intentional breaking of the rules for gain) or Game Play Error — Game Rule Violation (unintentional breaking of the rules). That's not really something you want to mess with. Just ask a judge.
Of course, there's a good chance Declare Attackers wasn't actually entered, but a shortcut was merely proposed by the AP by the action of declaring his attackers. If so, the NAP could still completely legitimately use his ability in the Beginning of Combat step.


text:
How many is "A bunch"?
If someone has assembled the Deceiver Exarch/Splinter Twin combo, and they say "make a bunch of dudes and kill you", without telling me the number, what happens?
The problem with asking him is that this is a situation where the player is committing a minor rules violation — he's not proposing a proper shortcut — and he gets rewarded for doing that by getting free information: he knows that I'm interested in the number of Deceiver Exarchs that he's making
Is there a way to handle this situation without rewarding my opponent with free information?

Just out of curiosity, why are you really interested in the number? Surely no one is going to say, okay, I'll make exactly enough to take you down to zero, and you don't have a way to kill 500 tokens that won't kill all of them, do you?

@Jefromi, I can imagine that cards like Batwing Brume care

@Jefromi and rakdos charm too.  The big problem is that most exarch-twin players will start playing around rakdos charm if I ask them how many tokens that they're making

Oh okay, right. Maybe you can figure out how to ask them so casually that they'll say "a million" and hand it to you!

"and kill you" is not an accepted shortcut. Force your opponent to go through the motions every time, regardless as to whether or not you can do anything.

I would simply say "I do not concede, please play it out."  The scenario, despite opponent's sloppy communication, isn't ultimately that functionally different from simply playing splinter twin then asking if you concede without doing the combo at all, which is perfectly allowed, and is just as likely or not to telegraph that you believe you are holding an out.

@Affe have you ever actually tried that?  In my experience it's rare that simply not conceding will get them to tell you a number.

There's not a lot you can do to screw over a player for being vague. Because the rules-provided answer is basically "Force them to be less vague."
Really what players are doing when they say they make "a bunch" of tokens is telling their opponent "Look, I have my combo. Gonna scoop now?" If you do anything other than scoop, of course they're gonna play more tightly — since now they're actually playing it out.
Get in the habit of always asking for clarification. Then you're not giving away any information about your own plan.
About the most "underhanded" things you can legitimately do are:

Ask really casually and hope they say something a little more definite.

"So, that's what, a million damage heading my way?"
"Yup."
"After blockers, I'll Rakdos Charm."

I think most competitive players would call a judge on you and you'd end up in an annoying argument about who exactly said what when. You might also develop a reputation for pettiness of poor sportsmanship.

Ask someone to slow it down and show you the combo steps. As they do so, they'll probably announce a specific number as part of a shortcut. (This works better with Rakdos Charm than Batwing Brume, because you can do it while they execute the combo instead of having to wait for them to declare attackers.) This is a trick that may actually get you some wins against the more complex combo decks, when they just straight-up botch their combo.

"Underhanded" sounds like it's bad and something I should avoid based on that first example. Could you give a couple of examples of good conduct for this scenario?

@JonathanHobbs I did: "Get in the habit of always asking for clarification. Then you're not giving away any information."

@AlexP That only works if you can force everyone else to always ask for clarification too.

It's "underhanded" because you're trying for a "gotcha" moment. I don't think it's Bad per se, since you're simply using the same trick they're using. But making them walk through the motions every time is the smarter play, since it can force them to play around cards you don't have (not to mention just proper play).

@SamIam Not necessarily - if you always ask for clarification, then the opponent doesn't gain information on whether the answer matters particularly in this instance. (Maybe you have the Charm this time, maybe you don't. If you ask both times, they don't know if this is the one they should worry about).

@AllenGould That only works if you can force everyone else to always ask for clarification too.

Ideally, What I hope to be able to do is to call a judge, and get the opposing player some sort warning for a communication error for not proposing his shortcut properly.

@SamIam I don't see why - the goal here is to avoid giving away information. Specifically, that asking for the specific number gives away that you have an answer in hand (and that you haven't been asking when you don't have an answer). Asking for the details everytime (whether you care about the answer or not) means that they don't get additional information, beyond that you're a stickler for the rules.

@AllenGould when you ask, you tell your opponent that you are a person who might care about the number.  Most people will just assume that it doesn't matter, and scoop, but you're special, You care about the number.  You might be running rakdos charm in your deck.  Until you can stop getting other people to tell your opponent that they don't run rakdos charm, there is no way for you to avoid telegraphing to your opponent that you do.

@SamIam "Other Magic players are lazy, but I can't punish them for being lazy because when I tell them to stop being lazy they actually make correct plays." "Okay, about all you can do is to fish for the information while still encouraging their general lazy attitude, so they don't notice quite as often." "That won't work because other OTHER Magic players are so lazy that they never do that, so they'll know something is amiss!"

According to the Comprehensive Rules on shortcuts:

716.2a At any point in the game, the player with priority may suggest a shortcut by describing a sequence of game choices, for all players, that may be legally taken based on the current game state and the predictable results of the sequence of choices. This sequence may be a non-repetitive series of choices, a loop that repeats a specified number of times, multiple loops, or nested loops, and may even cross multiple turns.

(Emphasis mine)
This rule is never contradicted in the Tournament Rules and should thus hold true to any play environment.
This rule states that a shortcut loop requires that the number of iterations of the loop be specified.  Therefore, an arbitrary number of loop iterations (such as "a bunch") is never a legal shortcut.  You should get in the habit of always specifying an exact number of loop iterations when declaring shortcuts such as this, and ask that your opponents do the same.  No information about any player's plans is given away if the rule is applied consistently.
In your situation, I would simply say,
"You have to specify how many a bunch is."
This language ("you have to") shows that you're just requesting the shortcut rules be followed properly, not that you're necessarily interested in the exact number, or have a number in mind that would please you.

Really, there's no reason not to say a defined but absurdly large number, like "one billion."  You're not going to need more than a billion damage.

@Southpaw See the answer above.  In some cases, doing more than you need can end up killing you instead, so you might not always want to go with one billion...

@bwarner Well yeah, I get that - in some cases you'd either want a big number or a small number - however, if you're going to big a big number, I don't see a reason not to just pick one.  Either say a reasonable number like "20," or a big one like "a billion."


text:
Can I use Extort in a deck that isn't both white & black?
One of the creatures I have is color black and has the skill Extort which could be paid in white or black mana. Can I use this card in a commander deck with a mono black commander?

Yes, because extort is merely a keyword. The color symbol {hybrid white/black} is not part of the card, but only exists in reminder text, which is not officially part of the card.
Here's the official ruling on the matter:

EXTORT
With the release of Gatecrash, we'd like to clarify our stance on extort by confirming that, as always, reminder text has no effect on color identity. Extort adds no colored mana symbols to a card outside of its reminder text, and therefore is legal for play in Commander decks of any color or colors (as long as the card it appears on is otherwise legal, of course). There will be no updates to the rules in the foreseeable future that affect how extort works in Commander.


text:
Is there a term for: "Doesn't untap during next untap step"?
There are a lot of cards that have the effect

Target permanent does not untap during next untap step

For example:Kashi-Tribe Elite and Vorinclex, Voice of Hunger.
Is there a term for this? Because it's kind of a mouthful to say "that permanent is not allowed to untap during the next untap step."

The simple answer is no. I'm just not sure if there is really more to add to that. Except maybe a reason from WotC if someone can find it.

Maybe there is an unofficial term like Trollshroud was used before WotC named it hexproof. Or maybe is the SE mtg community big enough to coin the the term!

If we're going to coin terms, I'm voting for "Exhausted." That creature is exhausted; it doesn't untap because it can't do anything. Alternatives if "Exhausted" is actually under copyright because of Vs.: depleted, crippled, or enervated.

You are no allowed to untap that because its Exhausted. Sound good! Although "my mountain is Exhausted sound" a bit odd...  Maybe there will be some good input later today, else I'm gonna answer my own question with that.

I actually wouldn't mind exhausted for lands or other permanents. One of the common uses is "exhausted resources," which is what every card in MtG represents. They are resources that are meant to help you cast spells and defeat your opponents.

To throw another (potential) term into the mix (and since I know of at least 1 other game that uses Exhausted): Stuck. Also: Delayed.

If you don't think mountains get exhausted, try being a mountain for a day!! Sure they only move a micrometer a day, but for a mountain, it's a lot of work!

I always prefered "double tapped"...

No, there is no official term for it.
If you want a term to use casually, then I suggest Paralyzed (a la Paralyzing Grasp or Paralyze).
I also like the suggested term exhausted (Exhaustion), tangled (Tangle) or sleeping (Sleep).

The term "exhaustion" seems to be favored as answer as well in the comment section. no sure if i can tag anything as answer since there is no correct answer...

@SirDuckduck The 'correct' answer is no. You should accept whatever answer contains that and you find most helpful.

The first three are good, because they can be used both as an action and a state, e.g. "I paralyze your creature" "nooooo it's paralyzed". ("Tangle" isn't quite as nice as the other two, but still works.) But sleep is awkward - "I put your creature to sleep"? "I sleep your creature"? In any case, +1, coining names based on existing cards is definitely the de facto convention.

Another idea appropriated from card effect that I've heard used is "frozen" or "iced" (think Wall of Frost, Frost Titan, Crippling Chill).

Short answer, "no".
Long answer, "noooooooooo".
However, in casual games I [personally] tend to use the term "locked" or "locked down" if something doesn't untap during untap phases at all.
As SocioMatt suggested in the comments, "exhausted" would be a good turn for a single-hit of this on creatures. For permanents in general, you could say "delayed" - or for flavour representing disruption of a player's magical link to their permanent, something along the lines of "obscured" or "tangled".

we use locked down in our circle as well.

We use "Sleeping" because Sleep is the card with that effect that we use the most.

I'm not sue of its legality in tournaments, but in casual play, my area usually calls this "Super-tapped" and often turn the card upside down to represent it being essentially "tapped twice". (assuming tapped is turning the card 90 degrees. Super-tapped would mean turning it 180 degrees.)
However I cant think of an official name for this. Also as you can see there are plenty of informal names for this action.

I personally turn them 135 degrees to differentiate between flip cards, as well as making it more easy to see at a glance and not to forget about anything while untapping.

@TheThirdMan that is a very valid point however, there are a select few people i play from time to time who forget to untap creatures and artifacts regardless of situation... XD

As of Amonkhet, there is now a mechanic that causes an attacking creature to not untap during its controller's next untap step. It is called exert (http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/amonkhet-mechanics-2017-04-03).
However, I usually refered to it as sleeping, freezing or being frozen as those are the flavor effects of the blue cards that inflict this condition in recent sets.

Exert doesn't seem relevant, as I'm unlikely refer to these effects as having "exerted" a card -- it doesn't seem intuitive and it confuses with an entirely separate mechanic.

I'm positive that "exert" will be the exact keyword the OP is looking for. For me "Exert target permanent" is bot intuitive and natural. Limiting the "exert " keyword only to creatures or only to attackers would be just that - limiting with no upsides. If we can regenerate any permanent and not just creatures, than we should be able to exert any permanent and not just creatures.

@tsuma534 and PetrHudeček: The problem is that exerting is an action, while a permanent not untapping is a "status" of the permanent. Furthermore, exerting refers to specifically choosing not to have the permanent untap while declaring it as an attacker. Using exerting as a synonym for a creature not untapping could lead to false assumptions in both directions.

I agree that this doesn't make sense. Exert has more to it, in flavour and mechanics. Exert is a choice to make when attacking, and the use of "exert" as a word is there to convey the creature pushing itself to get a bit more. The word has to do with putting in effort, and exhaustion is a consequence. If you're gonna start "exerting" my creatures, I'm gonna ask what I get from it.

@TheThirdMan
"exerting refers to specifically choosing not to have the permanent untap while declaring it as an attacker" - where do you got this information from?

@Samthere and Thirdman it's possible that you're right. But in the version you're proposing exert is very limited. in the version I hope for, exert works identically for the previewed cards as in your version BUT it can also be used in any situation where a permanent doesn't untap during it's controller's next untap step. The exert mechanics you're proposing have no upsides over the exert mechanics I hope for. I don't see why Wizards would limit themselves when they can introduce a new evergreen keyword for a status that's around for years. Time will tell who guessed right.

@tsuma534: The Amonkhet Mechanics post states that "You make the decision whether to exert a creature as you declare it as an attacker. If you choose to have it exert, an ability will trigger and grant you some bonus. As a trade-off, the creature won't untap during your next turn." From the phrasing alone, you can tell that the creature not untapping is more of a side-effect or cost than the core element of the mechanic.

@TheThirdMan That's only an explanation how exert works in this particular set. It's not a rules text.

@tsuma534: Then I guess it's my time now to ask you where you get that information from; after all, there is no official rules text from (and this is a new keyword that's introduced), and while it's not impossible that the keyword could be used otherwise, the section I quoted certainly doesn't seem to be an example, but a generalized statement. Could it be you're confusing "mechanics in Amonkhet" with "the way mechanics are used in Amonkhet"?

@TheThirdMan Which information? That it's not a rules text? Well, it's not. Magic Comprehensive Rules is the place to look for the rules text and it doesn't say anything about "exert" yet. And the article haven't quoted the exact mechanics it just explained them in layman terms. I fully understand your interpretation ant it may be correct. But mine can also be correct. When Magic Comprehensive Rules will update I will return here and update my vote or the answer. I just hope that if the update somehow proves that I was right, that others will be kind enough to retract their downvotes.

The new comp rules definition is "701.37a To exert a permanent, you choose to have it not untap during your next untap step." As others have suggested, that "choose" seems pretty important. If someone else locks down your creature, you didn't choose.

I've thought about this again and I think the way they've set it up could make sense. There's a ruling on all AKH exert cards saying that "all AKH exerts are on-attack", which means they may start using exert in general. However, because there are on-exert triggers, I don't expect them to change this to a keyword or change any old cards that do the same thing. It's feasible that you could exert target creature, but my guess is that they're going to keep it as an ability used to get an extra benefit. The mechanism of getting that benefit might be different in HoD.

@TheThirdMan And there it is. Kefnet's Monument has "Whenever you cast a creature spell, target creature an opponent controls doesn't untap during its controller's next untap step." when it could have simple "Whenever you cast a creature spell, exert target creature an opponent controls." With the introduction of "died" and "create" keywords I was under impression that Wizards became fond of new evergreen keywords for old effects. And "doesn't untap during its controller's next untap step" has been around for a long time. The keyword for this is long overdue. "Exert" was perfect candidate.

@tsuma: Again, it never was from the start. Even if you take into account that in the future, permanents might be exerted at other times than when they're attacking, it's still an action. The rule reads "701.37a To exert a permanent, you choose to have it not untap during your next untap step.", indicating that it will only ever be used as a choice, and for your own permanents. The closest you could've gotten with the Monument would be "Whenever you cast a creature spell, the controller of target creature an opponent controls may exert it.", which obviously doesn't do anything great for you.

@TheThirdMan I well understand the rule, that's where my sorrow comes from. It's an action only because Wizards made it so. It wasn't the only way to implement it. It could be a status just like tapped, flipped, transformed, etc. As a status it could be ruled like "An exerted permanent doesn't untap during it's controller's untap step. Instead it stops being exerted at that time." Done. And than we could have "Tap and exert target permanent".
In my opinion it's a lost opportunity.


text:
Varolz, the Scar-Striped rulings with double-faced/flip cards
Varolz, the Scar-Striped says

Each creature card in you graveyard has scavenge. Their scavenge cost is equal to its mana cost.

My question is simple: do I get to choose which side I can scavenge?

The answer is simple: No. You must choose the card's front face (the face which has the sun symbol in the top-left corner.) In the case of flip cards, you must choose the card's normal characteristics.
Rule reference:

711.2a In every zone other than the battlefield, and also on the battlefield with its front face up, a double-faced card has only the characteristics of the front face.
709.2. In every zone other than the battlefield, and also on the battlefield before the permanent flips, a flip card has only the normal characteristics of the card. Once a permanent is flipped, its normal name, text box, type line, power, and toughness don't apply and the alternative versions of those characteristics apply instead.

on the plus side, you can scavenge death's shadow and phyrexian dreadnaught to get 13 or 12 respective +1/+1 counters for only 1 mana!


text:
Does Epic Experiment let me pull creatures out of the graveyard that were exiled during its casting?
My brother showed me Epic Experiment today.
Now he says you can use it to put creatures in the graveyard and then fish them out with the free spells you get, because the free spells get put on the stack before the original card resolves, whereas I think that the spells will go on the stack at the same time as the creatures go into the graveyard when Epic Experiment resolves.

I think it's instructive to go through both of your reasonings, since you're both partially right in a way but came to the wrong conclusion.

the free spells get put on the stack before the original card resolves

Your friend is actually right here. BUT — don't forget the rules of casting spells. In order to put a spell on the stack (even if free) he must first choose any modes, targets, or additional optional costs for the spell. (See section 601 of the comprehensive rules.) Like he said, Epic Experiment hasn't resolved until after his spells are put on the stack, so it hasn't put the cards that haven't been cast in the graveyard yet and they can't be targeted.
Even the amazing Pull from Eternity can't help him — yes, a creature in exile can be targeted and the spell put on the stack, but Epic Experiment has to finish resolving. When Pull from Eternity resolves, it will no longer find the creature card in the Exile zone and will fizzle.

I think that the spells will go on the stack at the same time as the creatures go into the graveyard when Epic Experiment resolves.

The spells actually go on the stack as the Epic Experiment is resolving, but the creatures and spells not spells go in the graveyard after the cast spells are put on the stack. Epic Experiment has three linked abilities:

(a) Exile some cards
(b) Cast some of (a)
(c) Then put rest of (a) in graveyard

So the trick is to use spells with graveyard shenanigans that don't target and do their magic when they resolve, or use cards like Gravecrawler or cards with Graveyard keywords like Flashback or the new Scavenge. Remember, the “may cast” means you could choose not to cast Unburial Rights as part of the resolution of Epic Experiment, and cast it for the Flashback cost after.

It depends on what spell you are trying to use to get things out of the graveyard.  You follow the instructions on Epic Experiment in order, so if you reveal a spell like Unburial Rites that targets a creature card in the graveyard, you won't be able to use it on a card revealed by the experiment.  That creature is still in exile!
However if you use a card like Exhume or Necromancy that don't require the creature to be in the GY until the time they resolve, then those exiled cards will be happily there and ready to reanimate.


text:
Are expansion sets in magic designed for use with specific deck archetypes?
I'm new to Magic so apologies in advance if this is an obvious question: Are expansion sets designed to accommodate any/all deck archetypes?
For example, my current play style gravitates towards red aggro and I'd like to continue building decks that align with that strategy.  I'm wondering if the latest set, Journey Into Nyx, is slanted towards other play styles. How can I tell?

Journey hardly changed the current meta-game at all (although Mana Confluence did allow people to squash cards that were already good in their respective decks into one deck). We still have two more sets to go before we see a fresh meta. Will Red Aggro still be viable at that point? The answer is purely speculation. MTG Salvation welcomes speculation, and I'm sure you would have a more enjoyable back and forth in that setting. I also recommend TappedOut for getting feedback on a particular deck.

Pointing you to all of these other places is my way of helping you before I vote to close your question as Primarily opinion-based.

@Rusher It sounds like you may be misreading his question a bit. He's not asking "will my red aggro deck still be competitive when the next set is released?" He's asking if different MTG sets tend to be designed to favor some deck types over others; which is a question that can be objectively answered.

@GendoIkari Well, I disagree. I believe he was asking if certain sets favor specific archetypes so that he could use that information to determine how viable his Red Aggro deck will be in the future. I also disagree that the question as you read it is objectively answerable. Mark Rosewater may tell you that Theros was designed to push a Two-Color Midrange archetype, but you might argue that it favored Red Deck Wins, and I may argue that it really strengthened Control.

@Gendolkari That said, if someone finds a credible article with convincing statistics that says that the first expansion of every block has favored a specific archetype X% of the time, then I concede my point.

@Rusher If you haven't already, I would encourage you to read Good Subjective, Bad Subjective. Beyond that, the OP definitely asked a question with both a general form and a specific example form, and is probably in the best position to clarify his intent, rather than letting us second-guess.

@Jefromi The Board and Card Game community is plagued by users who have sorely misinterpreted the contents of that article and now apply it in such a way that nearly any question can be salvaged. This question simply begs for confirmation bias. Answers will be looking to confirm the patterns that they think they see. I don't think that the question adds value to the site because it almost certainly will not be useful in making predictions or even determining where the Journey into Nyx meta-game will be two weeks from now.

@Rusher I am not trying to make a definitive statement about this question. I am trying to (1) stop people from saying that questions are off-topic purely because they're subjective (the community here is plagued by people who do that), and (2) stop people from putting words in the OP's mouth.

@Jefromi I didn't vote to close the question because it was off-topic. I voted to close because the question it is primarily opinion-based. There is already one answer claiming that Red Deck Wins is nearly always "efficient". I might disagree. Red aggro decks are notoriously cheap to build and carry the illusion of being easy to pilot, and so they sneak into competitive play whether they are viable or not. The point is that I might disagree with the diagnosis of that answer and could provide my own dissenting answer, but it's all just noise.

@Rusher I don't know what you're trying to convince me of, again, I'm not trying to say that much about this specific question. Re-read my last comment, and find me in chat or on meta if you want to discuss something.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Hi all.  I'm really sorry if my prior question was confusing.  It was indeed asking "if different MTG sets tend to be designed to favor some deck types over others".  The question is answered below so I'll mark it as answered.

Most sets of Magic feature a certain kind of game mechanics, and favor some archetypes more than other.
For instance the previous set (Return to Ravnica, Gatecrash, Maze I don't remember) favored multicolored decks, even 3 colored ones, featured lots of multicolored creatures, whereas the beginning of the current set (Theros, Born of the gods) favored mono colored decks. Some capacity are absent from different sets, and some sets really favor some kind of build (eg Theros set gave the opportunity to create really powerful blue aggro, Innistrad set allowed very efficient graveyard oriented decks...).
Nevertheless, some archetypes are always valids, and even if some blocks don't favor them, you will still find useful cards and maybe the next set will favor it again. Some archetypes are also more common and nearly always efficient, "red deck wins", a mono red archetype is among them.
If you don't care about having a deck in the current set, you shouldn't mind about this, if you seek competitive T2 game (last two blocks), you will change deck every block to have the more favored (and fun) archetype. An easy way to see toward what a set is slanted is to have a look at the top 10 tournament decks, you can also guess that by yourself after gaining some more experience by just looking at the cards featured.
To finish, if you play drafts (which I advise you, it's really funny), the favored archetypes will be different from built decks.


text:
Looking for rules to a card game called "Wild Cards"
This game is played with several tables of four in which winning partners in one round move to new table.  Wild cards/rules change with each round.  It's great for getting to know people.
I lost my set of rules

Not a card game, but Bunco looks like it has a similar mechanic: http://boardgames.lovetoknow.com/Bunco_Game_Rules

I found references to two games called Wild Cards, neither of which seem to match your description. There is [a 2005 game] for 2-6 players and a 2013 game that are just cards with rules for games on them. I cannot find a reference to a more recent game.

I'm voting to close this as unclear. This sounds like it's just describing a rotating play format - like speed dating, but with cards and no dating. (And if that's all there is to it, I'm not sure what the missing rules would be.) There's no actual board or card game being asked about here as far as I can tell, and if there is, I can't tell what it is in order to try to identify it or what its rules would be (it's just "rules change each round", which could have been an initiative of organisers of the meet-up event).

Is this game played with regular (French) playing cards?

Actually, after commenting above, I discovered that you can play Bunco using cards instead of dice.  Check out some of the card-based variants on this page - maybe one of them will be close enough (at least in spirit) to the game that you remember.
http://www.ehow.com/info_12101194_bunco-card-games.html


text:
What would happen if I used regeneration on a creature that was the target of Annihilating Fire?
For example, what would happen if a freshly cast Lotleth Troll were to be regenerated in response to Annihilating Fire?
My hypothesis is that it depends on whose turn it is. The regeneration being essentially a replacement effect, when two replacement effects were to be applied simultaneously, they are to be chosen in APNAP order. Is this correct?
I haven't thought this through to the end, though, so I'm not sure what would happen in the end.

Summary: Annihilating Fire replaces the effect of destruction, but regeneration replaces the destruction itself. Annihilating Fire would not exile.

Replacement effects are not applied in APNAP order; they are applied in the order the affected object's controller or the affected player decides [CR 616.1]. But that doesn't matter here.
The effect of the state-based action being replaced is as follows [CR 704.5g]:

that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed.

which is to say [CR 701.6a]

that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed [move it from the battlefield to its owner’s graveyard].

Say Annihilating Fire replacement effect is applied first:

that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed [exile it from the battlefield].

Regeneration doesn't replace death, it replaces destruction [CR 614.8], so we get:

that creature has been dealt lethal damage, has all damage marked on it removed, and is tapped. If it’s an attacking or blocking creature, remove it from combat.

We get the same result by applying the effects in the opposite order.

Spot on. Death (which would be more accurately named if it were renamed to burial) occurs after desctruction, which itself is a result of lethal damage. So lethal damage causes destruction which causes death. Only in Magic!!

@corsiKa, Nit: s/after destruction/as part of destruction/

@Kensai, If this answers your question, please check the mark next to it. If not, tell us how it can be improved. Welcome to boardgames@stackexchange!

@ikegami I didn't mark it as correct because I didn't feel qualified to determine if it is so. But I will anyway, out of confidence.

@Kensai, you could always double check by re-asking here (except someone asked an extremely similar question right after you asked here).


text:
What's the number of cards per rarity in a regular set of MTG?
I am trying to do a calculation for modern masters that is coming out next year and to complete it I need to know, How many commons, uncommons, rares and mythics are in a regular set of mtg(Scars of mirrodin for example)?

The size of regular sets can vary drastically. You can get the numbers for each set here.

Modern Masters contains 229 cards (101 commons, 60 uncommons, 53 rares, and 15 mythic rares).
The Scars of Mirrodin set contains 249 cards (101 common, 60 uncommon, 53 rare, 15 mythic rare, and 20 basic land).
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/218

Sets have varied in size. From Antiquities being only 100 cards to 5th edition at 449 cards. There really is no standard. There are however some things generally true about set size. The first set in a block is larger than the other two, meant to set the card base for the others to add to. Core sets are usually on par with or larger then the first set in a block.
For general information -

The average size of a core set is: 311 cards
The average size of the first set of a block is: 303 cards
The average size of the second or third set in a block is : 170 cards

As pointed out by Malco, this is changing with the release of Dominaria in April. WotC is doing away with blocks as a set structure. This will mean sets will likely all be something a little smaller than the 300 cards of a core or first set, but that's just my speculation based on the info MaRo has put out so far. Dominara will be 269 cards (+PW deck exclusives) which does fit that theory, but one set isn't proof.

ONe thing to note is that the way sets are laid out this has semi-recently changed. Check out MaRo's article (about half way down) for how things will work in the future.


text:
Is "The Aristocrats" the first WBR deck to top 8 a Pro Tour?
Tom Martell won Pro Tour Gatecrash with "The Aristocrats", a white-black-red deck that plays Cartel Aristocrat, Falkenrath Aristocrat, and Blasphemous Act.
This is a historically poor color combination. Is this the first time a deck using precisely those colors has top 8ed a Pro Tour? If not, what is the most recent other example? I've looked back through 2010 without finding any.
(Note: TCGPlayer's deck search claims that Ken Yukohiro's deck from PT Avacyn Restored is of this color combination, but it includes Forests and Borderland Rangers, so I'd say it shouldn't count...)

There are at least several decks that almost qualify:

Nearly-pure WBR in a heavily-multicolor format: Takayuki Koike got to the top 8 at a 2007 Extended Pro Tour in Valencia with a Domain Zoo deck where Tarmogoyf was the only green card.

A true WBR deck in a team format: Tomoharu Saito played a WBR deck as part of the winning team at a 2006 Pro Tour in Charleston. It featured the red-green hybrid card Giant Solifuge but no green sources.

So, why is WBR rare?
Playing WBR means forgoing green and blue. What are you (typically) giving up when you do that? Mana ramp and color-fixing (G), countermagic (U), card filtering (U), card draw (both), and usually the biggest mid-sized creatures in the format (G) — basically a lot of the tools that help you cast big things faster or dig in for the long game. This implies that most WBR tournament decks will be on the aggressive side.
Top-tier aggro decks are all about consistency. Mono-red is the most enduring aggro archetype not because red somehow has all of the best and fastest aggro cards, but because this is a deck that just wants to curve out super-consistently in every game. When your whole strategy is to prey on decks that make themselves too slow or greedy or fragile in pursuit of raw power, you can't afford to slip on mana yourself. So multicolor aggro decks mainly appear when a format supports very consistent multicolor mana bases, above and beyond the level that enable successful multicolor control and combo decks, or in aggro-heavy environments where you're looking for some kind of special advantage in the mirror.
In some environments, such multicolor aggro decks are viable. However, WBR is a "wedge" color combo. Most seasons of Standard, Extended, and Block Constructed featured better support for "shards" (allied-color groupings, like WUB). Why play WBR when you can play Jund (black, green, red — black and green together give you removal as flexible as white's) with better mana?
In environments with even better mana, decks are more likely to just end up in all colors. Look at Koike's Zoo list above, or Jakub Slemr's five-color black weenie list from the 1997 World Championship. When it's so easy to splash for a powerful card like Tarmogoyf or Man-o'-War (1997 was a very different time), why not?
Martell's PT-Gatecrash list or Saito's 2006 list benefit greatly from mana bases that support all color combinations equally (since both Ravnica shocklands and the Innisrad/M13 "buddy land" megacycle equally cover ally and enemy color pairings). But they could just as easily have been very consistent two-color decks. After all, all three colors generally have a lot of overlap when it comes to aggro cards (cheap aggressive beaters and efficient removal of various kinds). So, why build three colors, especially WBR? I believe powerful multicolor cards like the eponymous Aristocrats or Lightning Helix and Hit are the main reason these decks ended up as three-color WBR. (How good is Hit? Apparently good enough to justify losing 8 life to a Dark Confidant flip when your deck can't even cast Run!)

To make looking at them easier, here's Koike's decklist. Saito's is harder to locate, but can be seen here as the one example given for him.

@Circeus Thanks! I went back and added decklists from WotC's "sample hand generator" (they have mouseovers for the cards).


text:
Does Doubling Season affect planeswalkers?
According to 306.5b,

A planeswalker is treated as if its text box included, "This permanent enters the battlefield with a number of loyalty counters on it equal to its printed loyalty number." This ability creates a replacement effect.

A ruling on Doubling Season states,

Doubling Season affects cards that "enter the battlefield with" a certain number of counters. Triskelion, for example, would enter the battlefield with six +1/+1 counters on it rather than three.

If you control Doubling Season, do planeswalkers come into play with twice as many loyalty counters as mentioned on the card?
Does using one of their 'Put X loyalty counters on this permanent: ...' abilities put twice that many loyalty counters on the planeswalker instead?

A planeswalker enters the battlefield with double the normal counters, but the counters gained or lost from activating one of its abilities are unchanged.
Doubling Season doubles the loyalty counters placed on a planeswalker entering the battlefield.
You've correctly identified the relevant rules.
From the comp rules:

306.5b A planeswalker is treated as if its text box included, "This permanent
enters the battlefield with a number of loyalty counters on it equal
to its printed loyalty number." This ability creates a replacement
effect.

And Doubling Season's Oracle rulings:

10/1/2005: Doubling Season affects cards that "enter the battlefield with" a
certain number of counters. Triskelion, for example, would enter the
battlefield with six +1/+1 counters on it rather than three.

Doubling Season does not affect loyalty gain and loss from paying the costs for planeswalker abilities.
The loyalty spent or gained to activate a loyalty ability is a cost:

606.4. The cost to activate a loyalty ability of a permanent is to put on or remove from that permanent a certain number of loyalty counters,
as shown by the loyalty symbol in the ability's cost.

The game rules distinguish between costs and effects. A cost is a payment you make to perform an action:

117.1. A cost is an action or payment necessary to take another action or to stop another action from taking place. To pay a cost, a player
carries out the instructions specified by the spell, ability, or
effect that contains that cost.

An effect is the result of that action:

609.1. An effect is something that happens in the game as a result of a spell or ability. When a spell, activated ability, or triggered
ability resolves, it may create one or more one-shot or continuous
effects. Static abilities may create one or more continuous effects.
Text itself is never an effect.

Taken together, these two rules mean that paying a cost is not an effect. While cards can change costs, Doubling Season's card text specifies "effects," so loyalty abilities are not impacted.
Here's confirmation from a level 2 judge.
Doubling Season does double the loyalty counters place on a planeswalker by an effect.
Just for completeness' sake: effects, however, are effects.
For example, Gideon, Champion of Justice has an ability that reads:

+1: Put a loyalty counter on Gideon, Champion of Justice for each creature target opponent controls.

This has two parts:

The "+1" is a cost and is unaffected by Doubling Season (see above).

The "Put a loyalty counter..." part is an effect and is modified by Doubling Season.

So if your opponent had three creatures and you activate Bad Gideon's +1 ability with a Doubling Season in play, Gideon would gain seven counters: +1 when activating the ability, +6 (+3 doubled) when it resolves.
Likewise, if a card like Clockspinning or Inexorable Tide puts loyalty counters on a planeswalker, that effect will be doubled.

Yes, No. Doubling Season does what its errata says. If a Planeswalker would enter the battlefield with X counters, Doubling Season causes it to enter with 2x the number of counters. Loyalty abilities add counters, but these are a cost, not an effect, so Doubling Season does not affect that.

Doubling Season affects cards that "enter the battlefield with" a certain number of counters. Triskelion, for example, would enter the battlefield with six +1/+1 counters on it rather than three.

The tokens and counters that Doubling Season creates are exact copies of the kind of tokens and counters that were being created in the first place.

Activating an ability that has a cost of add counters will not add double counters.  Paying a cost is not an 'effect.'

So, double counters on entering the battlefield, but not for the abilities.