text:
Clarification of Pillbug movement rule in Hive
The fourth exception on Page 3 of the rulebook for the pillbug states:

The Pillbug may not move a piece through a too-narrow gap of stacked pieces (violating the Freedom to Move Rule).

What exactly would be considered a too-narrow gap of stacked pieces?
Our guess was a situation, where the bug to be moved is between two stacks of pieces (two Beetles on top of the hive, both also adjacent to the pillbug). But I don't see how this would violate the Freedom to Move rule.
Another option (ignoring the word stacked): If the bug to be moved would not be able to move by itself (e.g. surrounded by 5 pieces), the pillbug can not move that piece, either.
The English explanation sounds kind of different to the German rule (translated by me):

The Pillbug may not move a piece, if this movement would also move other pieces or if the piece is surrounded.

So, the Pillbug is not able to 'rescue' a surrounded piece? Also, can the Pillbug move a piece into a location (e.g. enclosed space) the piece would not be able to move into?

The piece that is moved by the Pillbug's special ability travels on top of the hive in the same way that a Beetle would. If there are Beetles at that level, you will have to move around them as you would during normal movement at ground level.
To illustrate this, I'll use the picture from the rules that you quoted:

In this example the Ant can be moved by the Pillbug ability. Now imagine two beetles (B) present on top of the white Bee and white Spider:

This would make the gap between those two stacks too small for the ant to pass through, thus violating the freedom of movement restriction.

Cheers! The idea that the piece would travel on top of the hive, onto the Pillbug, somehow escaped me

The gap between the two stacks is too small for the ant to pass through, thus violating the freedom of movement restriction.

This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review

I believe this does answer the question.

It answers the question because it is the exact same answer that freekvd already gave, just with barely any explanation, except a copy of the last sentence that freekvd wrote


text:
Fallout Board Game: How to resolve card 16
Card 16, "All Aboard", has a condition "Place the third shield on the map".
This is the condition to complete this quest, so how can I as a player complete this condition? What third shield? Place it how? Place it where on the map?

This card is the prime example of one of the biggest stumbling blocks in this game IMO: cards usually don't spell out exactly how certain things are done. Don't get me wrong, I like the game quite a bit. However it takes a lot of getting used to since as far as I can tell there are many similar scenarios which are incredibly vague and not directly written in the rulebook, but they largely resolve in similar manners (i.e. the encounter decks).

I'm just guessing as I haven't played the game or read the rules.
It appears as though in order to place the shield you need to contact the Institute locations at that icon I can't quite make out.
Edit: Did some research, this link appears to say you should have added an additional institute location to the map in the previous quest?  https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1893927/quest-states-simply-place-icon-map

With this quest out, there should be at least 2 shield tokens. You also added 17 to it's deck, which gives you a way to get the third one out.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Which player(s) does Ragavan's ability target if the creature damages the opponent team?
Ragavan, Nimble Pilferer says:

Whenever Ragavan, Nimble Pilferer deals combat damage to a player, create a Treasure token and exile the top card of that player's library. Until end of turn, you may cast that card.

If I were to attack with Ragavan in a two-headed giant game, I would have to declare who I am attacking. But since it's the life total of the team that decreases, I guess one could argue that both players have been dealt damage. So can I choose the player targeted by the triggered ability, or does it trigger once for each head?
Thanks

Ragavan's ability does not use the word "target", so it doesn't actually target any player.
But I think what you meant to ask is whose library you get to exile a card from. When Ragavan (is unblocked and) deals damage, he deals it to one player: the player who he was attacking. This is locked in when you declare Ragavan as an attacker.

810.9. Damage, loss of life, and gaining life happen to each player individually. The result is applied to the team’s shared life total.

The effect of the damage is that the team's shared life total decreases, but that doesn't mean the damage was dealt to the team, or to both players. The damage was still dealt to only the player who was attacked.

120.3. Damage may have one or more of the following results, depending on whether the recipient of the damage is a player or permanent, the characteristics of the damage’s source, and the characteristics of the damage’s recipient (if it’s a permanent).
120.3a Damage dealt to a player by a source without infect causes that player to lose that much life.
[...]

In a two-player game, technically something similar happens: an unblocked attacking creature deals damage to a player, and the effect of that damage is that the player's life total decreases. (With some exceptions as listed in the rest of rule 120.3, e.g. if the creature has infect, the effect of the damage is that the player gets that many poison counters instead of their life total decreasing.) You just don't typically think about the difference between the damage and the effect of the damage.

Ok, I get it. Ragavan's dealing damage to the defending player, it doesn't matter whose life total change.
So am I correct to assume that Ragavan's ability would strill trigger if the defending player controlled a Platinum Emperion or anything that would keep the life total from changing without preventing damage?

@Trajan Exactly. As the second Gatherer ruling below the card says: "Abilities that trigger whenever damage is dealt to you will still trigger because that damage is still dealt, even though your life total doesn’t change as a result."

The relevant rule is 810.9:

810.9. Damage, loss of life, and gaining life happen to each player individually. The result is applied to the team’s shared life total.

So your guess "one could argue that both players have been dealt damage" is not correct; you're only dealing combat damage to one of the players, and it's only that player whose top library card you may exile.

If, as the rule says, "Damage [...] happen to each player individually", it doesn't say that only one player is dealt damage. They both individually have been dealt damage.

@Trajan, I'm pretty sure the combat rules say that unblocked attacking creatures only deal damage to the player attacked.

@Trajan incorrect, both players (shared) life total has changed, but only one of them has been dealt the damage that caused the loss of life. Damage causes loss of life, but the terms are not interchangeable in Magic.

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


text:
Does a non-creature card entering the battlefield as a creature trigger ETB abilities for creatures?
I have Lethal Vapors and Starfield of Nyx on the battlefield, along with three other enchantments, so that Starfield's static ability is on.
When I cast another enchantment spell, it is a creature when it enters the battlefield. Does this creature trigger Vapors' triggered ability or not?
Would the answer be the same if there weren't any Vapors on the battlefield, and then I cast Lethal Vapors? Would its ability trigger for its own ETB?

Yes, enchantments enter as creatures with Starfield of Nyx active, triggering Lethal Vapors, and Lethal Vapors would die to its own trigger.
When Starfield of Nyx's second ability is active, enchantments enter the battlefield as if they were also creatures due to Starfield, because they are creatures, and thus trigger all applicable abilities that care about creatures entering the battlefield.
Since Lethal Vapors applies to all creatures, it also applies to itself, so it would trigger its own ability when it enters the battlefield. This also occurs if Lethal Vapors happens to be the enchantment that activates Starfield of Nyx, i.e. the fifth one you control. If it wouldn't apply to itself, it would have to say "another creature" instead of "a creature".

603.6b Continuous effects that modify characteristics of a permanent do so the moment the permanent is on the battlefield (and not before then). The permanent is never on the battlefield with its unmodified characteristics. Continuous effects don’t apply before the permanent is on the battlefield, however (see rule 603.6d).

Example: If an effect reads “All lands are creatures” and a land card is played, the effect makes the land card into a creature the moment it enters the battlefield, so it would trigger abilities that trigger when a creature enters the battlefield. Conversely, if an effect reads “All creatures lose all abilities” and a creature card with an enters-the-battlefield triggered ability enters the battlefield, that effect will cause it to lose its abilities the moment it enters the battlefield, so the enters-the-battlefield ability won’t trigger.

I'm guessing this would also be the case if all the enchantment came back from the graveyard, like with Replenish. Lethal Vapors would "see" every enchantment including itself returning to the battlefield.

Correct, if multiple permanents enter/leave the battlefield at the same time, they all see each other entering/leaving, and Lethal Vapors would trigger for each one.

The answer to the question in the title is "no"; if something is on the battlefield, and becomes a creature, that does not triggers ETB. However, answer to the question in the body is "yes"; Starfield of Nyx makes all enchantments be creatures, they don't become creatures.

I see your point, the term "becoming" is improper to describe the situation I meant.


text:
How to track score in Constellations
In the Constellations game the rules say that there are 44 point tokens for tracking scores, but they are hidden from players until the end of the game. What does it mean "hidden"? Should there be one person counting and not giving out the current score, or each player should keep tokens in secret, or they just belong to each player and there is no indication of who is leading.

I'm looking at the rulebook right now, and here's the text for the point tokens on page 4 (emphasis mine):

44 Point Tokens
Points are tracked using Star Tokens, which remain hidden from other players until the game is over. Tokens come in 1, 5, 10, 25, and 50 point designations

Based on this, the conclusion I draw is that each player's individual score is technically hidden information - that is, each player knows their score but not any other player's score. The point tokens should be used to track scores on a per-player basis, but players are not required to reveal their collected Point Tokens to other players until the end of the game. In practice, this basically means making a stack of point tokens with 1s on top and 25s and 50s on bottom
It's worth noting that in this setup, because the events that give points is public knowledge, it is possible for a player to keep track of another player's point total.

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


text:
Why did Wizards of the Coast change the minimum deck size for Constructed from 40 to 60 cards?
In the beginning, Magic: the Gathering decks had to have at least 40 cards. Later, the developers changed the deckbuilding rules in two ways:

The minimum deck size went from 40 cards to 60 cards in Constructed.
You could only have up to 4 copies of each card in your deck that wasn't a basic land.

I totally understand the decision to limit you to 4 copies of any one card; this needs no explanation. However, why did they change the minimum deck size? I can find conflicted references to when it happened, but I have yet to find why it happened. So: why did it happen? What motivated Wizards of the Coast to make the change?
I'm aware there's multiple possible gameplay or sales reasons or benefits. What I am most interested in is the serious reasons that actually motivated the change, and the serious reasons why this minimum remains the case to this day and has not yet been increased or decreased in over 20 years.
Good answers to this question will demonstrate that Wizards of the Coast was and is motivated by the issues that answer describes. This is to ensure this question can have an actual demonstrably objectively correct answer, and avoid it becoming and endless list of possible reasons and impacts. A good answer must clear this bar before it also engages in speculation, and should delineate what is speculation and what is certain.

As I recall, both deck size restriction and 4-of restriction were pretty much arbitrary choices, and they worked out so haven't been changed. I don't have a reference for that, though, so this is a comment and not an answer.

I found another dead end. It lists basically every major rules change since Alpha, and is geared towards returning players. I can't believe that this change wouldn't be listed.

An interesting observation: many other card games that have been released since preserve the 1:15 ratio of number of cards to deck size.  Netrunner has a 3 copy limit and a (typical) deck minimum of 45.  Arkham Horror has a 2 copy limit and a deck size of 30.  While it is entirely conceivable that other games just copied Magic's ratio, this could also be the result of extensive playtesting.  1:15, depending on how many cards you draw, strikes a good balance between interesting (you get different cards each game) and reliable (you get the cards your deck needs to work).

Mark Rosewater wrote a very interesting article a while back called, "20 things that were going to kill Magic the Gathering."
This is the first thing that was going to kill magic at the time.  Here's all he states in that article, but it's the best I can find to answer your question:

R&D realized that the rules were a problem, so they introduced two
  changes. First, the minimum for Constructed decks was changed from
  forty to sixty. It remained at forty for Limited formats. Second,
  every card but basic lands was limited to no more than four copies.
  Four was chosen because it allowed some consistency for deck building
  but wasn't too much to ensure that the card would always be drawn
  every game.

The second item that was going to kill magic, was the addition of the banned/restricted list.  The first line of that discussion reads:

The four-of card limits and the increase in deck size helped, but it
  didn't stop the degeneracy...

So, it's pretty clear, that 60 was introduced to limit the "degeneracy" of decks.  If you've ever tried to take your favorite 60 card deck, and squeeze it down to 40 cards, you realize that it's significantly faster at 40 than at 60.

It seems to me that if you were limited to 3 copies of a card (that isn't a basic land) in a deck, but the minimum deck size was 45, the degeneracy would be similar, since the probability of any individual card would be the same?

@HaoYe interesting point.  I hadn't thought of the "magic numberness" of 4 before.  If you make it 4 and 60, it means Wizards sells more cards.  Perhaps that's why 4 was chosen over 3?  Also, the consistency of 3/45 will be higher than 4/60.  If you want to force more luck into the game, you'll move to 4/60 over 3/45.  Certainly restricted cards are much more significant in a 45 card maindeck than a 60 card maindeck.

@HaoYe There's more to it than just a card occupying 1/15 possible spots in your deck.  For example, every game you start with a 7 card hand.  Lets assume you don't draw a given card you have the max number of in your deck.  In a 60 card deck you are left with 4/53 ~= 7.547% chance of drawing the card.  In a 45 card deck you get 3/38 ~= 7.895% chance.  Not a huge difference, but it is there.  Having a smaller deck also changes the power of certain cards.  Draw spells and cantrips become even more powerful.  Drawing 2 out of 53 is not the same as drawing 2 out of 38.


text:
Does Redshirts Deluxe fix the stalemate issues of the original game?
It took two hours to end the game originally, and by that point everyone was just glad to have finished. Does Redshirts Deluxe, the new version of Redshirts, fix any of the stalemate issues experienced in the base game or is it still stuck in an endless loop of attempting to end the game?  Is the new expansion worth getting to make the base game playable?

Michael Campbell raised a good question in his "answer": What was causing your stalemates? If you described that, then the community may have an easier time determining whether your specific case was addressed by the expansion.

The new version clarified a lot of the rules, and fixed a lot of problems with the game including removing "play anytime" from cards.
If you were unable to end the game because people were playing too many cards out of turn, then the removal of the "play anytime" rule from all the cards should reduce this type of stalemate. It is still possible to play cards in response to a mission attempt, but the sequence is more clearly defined, as is when cards can be played.
The new version of the rules can be found here:
http://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/84529/redshirts-deluxe-edition-rules

This answer demonstrates neither an understanding of what was causing the stalemates nor an understanding of how the deluxe edition addressed those issues.

@Rainbolt the question demonstrates no explanation of what was causing stalemates for the OP, so how is anyone short of a mind reader supposed to answer those details?

Pretty much. Can't be more specific unless the question is more specific.

@atk If Michael needed more information to answer the question, he should have requested that in the comments and either downvoted or voted to close the question as unclear. It looks like someone else has done that, and I will follow suit.

The stalemate was caused in a six player game, by out of turn card play mechanic (causing mission success) and by continuously giving crew members back and forth around the table.  The one play we had lasted 2 hours before everyone rage quit.


text:
Island Sanctuary and additional card draws
Let's say I have Island Sanctuary in play and someone casts Braingeyser on me, forcing me to draw X cards.
Island Sanctuary's Oracle text says "If you would draw a card during your draw step, instead you may skip that draw". Since Braingeyser's card draws would presumably be outside of the draw step Island Sanctuary's ability would presumably not kick in. BUT... the Oracle rulings kinda contradicts this understanding, saying "If you get multiple draws or you use a spell or ability during the draw step to draw extra cards, you can have the replacement effect apply to any one or all of those". Like the implication of that is that it can be applied to additional card draws.
So how would Island Sanctuary work with a card like Braingeyser?

Your initial understanding is correct; the Gatherer ruling is dealing with the case where you get multiple draws during your draw step, for example if you cast Brainstorm during your draw step.


text:
How did sorcery counter spells work?
How exactly were the rules contrived as to make False Summoning actually able both be a sorcery spell and a counterspell?
Has there been any official discussion as to how this came to be or how it worked, I know it happened years ago but I'm a little curious as to how this happened.

There's two parts to this.

False Summoning is actually an Instant.
False Summoning was introduced in a Portal set. Portal sets didn't have Instants.

Gatherer actually has the wrong card image for the Masters Edition print; they just re-used the image from the Portal Second Age print. Scryfall has the correct image in which the card is an Instant.
But, back to how this happened to begin with: back in 1997 thru 1999, Wizards released three Portal sets (Portal in 1997, Portal Second Age in 1998, and Portal Three Kingdoms in 1999). These products targeted new players as a teaching aid to introduce them to the game. In an effort to simplify the game, it did things like:

use sword/shield icons for power and toughness
rename blockers to interceptors (only in Portal '97)
never call a card an Instant
and more!

A great example of all three of these particular differences at once is the card Defiant Stand. You'll notice it's an Instant in the Oracle text on Gatherer.
That third one is the operative factor here. If a card needed instant timing, then in Portal it was instead printed with “Sorcery” on the type line, and it was printed with a specific instruction as to when you could/must play the card, and that meant you could cast it at that time (and only at that time). Hence we also get Sorcery counterspells that say you can cast them in response to someone else casting a spell. Make no mistake: this wouldn't work at all in regular Magic rules (you still don't have permission to cast a sorcery at those times) but Portal was operating on simplified rules.
Now, teaching the player the game this way has some major problems. In particular, it's teaching the player poorly about how Sorceries work. Wizards of the Coast eventually decided this was the wrong approach too, and the Portal sets are no more. When Starter 1999 was released, instants were correctly labelled as such.

It's weird to say the image is actually incorrect... it's an image from a particular set; one in which the printed wording does not match the oracle wording. The image is a correct image of what the card looked like.

@GendoIkari If you visit the Masters Edition IV printing entry for False Summoning on Gatherer you see they instead uploaded the exact same image as in the Portal printing. The Masters Edition card doesn't look like that and never did; it looks like the one that's on Scryfall. That's why I'm saying it's an incorrect image.

@doppelgreener Ah I see; I didn't read carefully enough to see that you were saying that the Masters Edition picture was the incorrect one. Thought you just meant that it was incorrect as in not the oracle wording.

@GendoIkari That makes sense. That prompted me to do a re-word though for the better.

Another minor note; you say that Warrior's Stand is an example of all three listed differences; but it actually refers to "declare blockers"; and does not use "interceptors".

@GendoIkari You're right! Thanks, I'll check my options.

Soo, did Portal Sorceries work like Instants then (and not like Sorceries at all)? And if so, I wonder why they called them Sorceries instead of, well, anything else...

Portal sorceries worked like regular MtG sorceries except when the card had other instructions on it. These exceptions were relatively rare - mostly just a couple of combat tricks and counterspells.

Based on the differences between Defiant Stand and Warrior's Stand; does this mean that they replaced "interceptor" with "blocker" between Portal and Portal Three Kingdoms?

@GendoIkari Oh you're right, it looks like they dropped that change after Portal '97.

Its Oracle text shows that it's an instant, even though it was printed as a sorcery. Portal sets simply didn't have any instants (they were deemed too complicated for beginning players) and (if I recall correctly) no activated abilities, so there is no concept of a stack.
In my opinion, 'Play False Summoning only in response to another player playing a creature' is very much in the same spirit as 'Goblin Raider can't block'. The rules say 'All creatures can block', and 'Sorceries can only be played if it's your turn and the stack is empty'; both cards just state an exception to the general rules.

I see a significant different between a card saying something that the rules normally say you can do, and a card saying you can do something the rules say you can't do.

@Acccumulation I'm not sure what you mean. Card text often allows you to do things that the rules say you can't do. 101.1 addresses this situation.

There are even 'expert level' Magic cards which do this, e.g. Teferi, Time Raveler's +1 ability.


text:
Do you pay one or two mana to bounce a transformed Delver of Secrets with Repeal?
Do you pay one or two mana to bounce a transformed Delver of Secrets with Repeal? In total I mean, does x have to be equal to 1 or 0?

Two mana; for the converted mana cost (CMC) of a transformed card, you have to look at the untransformed side:

711.4b While a double-faced permanent’s back face is up, it has only the characteristics of its back face. However, its converted mana cost is calculated using the mana cost of its front face. If a permanent is copying the back face of a double-faced card (even if the card representing that copy is itself a double-faced card), the converted mana cost of that permanent is 0.

Since Delver of Secrets' converted mana cost is 1, X = 1 and you'll have to pay 2 mana to Repeal it.
Insectile Aberration's side doesn't show a mana cost, and while for some cards that means they have converted mana cost 0, not so for double-faced cards

202.3a The converted mana cost of an object with no mana cost is 0, unless that object is the back face of a double-faced permanent or is a melded permanent.

It used to be different; before Shadows of Innistrad, this exception didn't exist and Insectile Aberration had a CMC of 0. See this link mentioned by @J.Sallé in the comments.

Please note that 'flipped' is another (but similar) mechanic where a card is rotated 180 degrees but its front face stays up, e.g. Akki Lavarunner. The same idea applies there too, though (see rule 709.1c).

I think it's worth noting that the ruling regarding this interaction was changed back in 2016 with the release of Shadows over Innistrad. Prior to that, a transformed DFC's CMC used to be 0.

I learned about this from hearing that Isolate can be used on Adanto (flipped side of Legion's Landing).  Feels intuitively bizarre to hit a land, and for me a point in favor of the old way.


text:
What does Divine Intervention do when it resolves in a multiplayer game?
What happens in a mulitplayer game when the last counter from Divine Intervention is removed and the ability ends the game in a draw? Does it resolve as normal the only real difference being a 4-way tie instead of a 2-way tie? What exactly happens?

The rulings below the game clarify how the card works in multiplayer games:

In a multiplayer game played with the limited range of influence option, Divine Intervention won’t necessarily end the entire game when its third ability resolves. All players within range of Divine Intervention will leave the game. They’ll neither win nor lose; as far as they’re concerned, the result of the game is a draw. All other players will continue playing.

So it depends on the range of influence (rule 801 in the Comprehensive Rules) and the specific variant's rules for draws; in a Free for All (806), the entire game is drawn; in Emperor (809) too (your team's Emperor is always in your range of influence). In Grand Melee (807) it's only a draw for a few players.


text:
Does having protection from Grapeshot work against the storm copies?
Do storm copies have the same name as the original card? If you name Grapeshot with Runed Halo, do you have protection from the copies as well?
I remember back in the day you could not have protection from faerie rogue tokens because they where not cards and was wondering if it is the same with storm copies.

Yes, they have the same name, so you have protection from them.

702.39a Storm is a triggered ability that functions on the stack. “Storm” means “When you cast this spell, copy it for each other spell that was cast before it this turn. If the spell has any targets, you may choose new targets for any of the copies.”
706.1. Some objects become or turn another object into a “copy” of a spell, permanent, or card.
706.2. When copying an object, the copy acquires the copiable values of the original object’s characteristics and, for an object on the stack, choices made when casting or activating it (mode, targets, the value of X, whether it was kicked, how it will affect multiple targets, and so on). The “copiable values” are the values derived from the text printed on the object (that text being name, mana cost, color indicator, card type, subtype, supertype, rules text, power, toughness, and/or loyalty), as modified by other copy effects, by its face-down status, and by “as . . . enters the battlefield” and “as . . . is turned face up” abilities that set power and toughness (and may also set additional characteristics). Other effects (including type-changing and text-changing effects), status, and counters are not copied.

(emphasis mine)
IIRC the Faerie Rogue example you mention didn't work because there is no card named "Faerie Rogue" so it's not a legal choice for Runed Halo's "choose a card name".

Re: Your last paragraph. From Runed Halo's Gatherer page: "You must choose the name of a card, not the name of a token. For example, you can’t choose “Saproling” or “Marit Lage.” However, if a token happens to have the same name as a card (such as “Shapeshifter” or “Spark Elemental”), you can choose it."

This is also backed by "201.3. If an effect instructs a player to choose a card name, the player must choose the name of a card
that is legal in the format of the game the player is playing. (See rule 100.6.) A player may not
choose the name of a token unless it’s also the name of a card." (emphasis mine).


text:
What happens when Gideon, The Oathsworn mutates?
Gideon, The Oathsworn has an ability that transforms it into a non-human creature. If we should mutate on Gideon while he is alive what would happen? Let's say we mutate the card with Boneyard Lurker.

The Mutate ability always triggers. The permanent's characteristics during your turn and after the end of it depend on which card is on top. During your turn, it's always a 5/5 white Soldier, and also a planeswalker if Gideon is on top. At end of turn, if Gideon is on top, it stops being a creature and remains a planeswalker, otherwise it becomes a 4/4 Lurker. In subsequent turns, you may active the permanent's loyalty abilities even if the Lurker is on top.
Mutate causes the two objects to merge:

724.1. One keyword causes an object to merge with a permanent. See rule 702.140, “Mutate.”

When you merge, you have to decide whether the merging spell goes on top or on the bottom of the permanent:

724.2. To merge an object with a permanent, place that object on top of or under that permanent. That permanent becomes a merged permanent represented by the card or copy that represented that object in addition to any other components that were representing it.

The characteristics of that object are defined by the top object, except for its abilities which are added together.

702.140e A mutated permanent has all abilities of each card and token that represents it. Its other characteristics are derived from the topmost card or token.

724.2a A merged permanent has only the characteristics of its topmost component, unless otherwise specified by the effect that caused them to merge. This is a copiable effect whose timestamp is the time the objects merged. (See rule 613.2.)

The layer system determines an object's characteristics. A merge is a copiable effect so it takes place in layer 1:

613.1a Layer 1: Rules and effects that modify copiable values are applied.

Gideon's +2 creates an effect that takes place in layers 4, 5, and 7, so it overwrites the merge effect:

613.1d Layer 4: Type-changing effects are applied. These include effects that change an object’s card type, subtype, and/or supertype.
613.1e Layer 5: Color-changing effects are applied.

613.1g Layer 7: Power- and/or toughness-changing effects are applied.

If Gideon is on top, it's a Planeswalker named Gideon, the Oathsworn. However, its +2 effect is still active, so it's also a white 5/5 Soldier creature. At end of turn, the effect ends and it's only a planeswalker, except it still has the Lurker's abilities.
If the Lurker is on top, the permanent has all the characteristics of a Lurker. However, the Gideon's ability is still active and overwrites all applicable characteristics, so it's a white 5/5 Soldier creature named Boneyard Lurker. At end of turn, the effect ends and it becomes a Boneyard Lurker as printed except it still has Gideon's loyalty abilities and retains the loyalty counters.
Notably, in future turns you can activate Gideon's loyalty abilities even if the Lurker is on top, because loyalty abilities work on all permanents, not just on planeswalkers:

606.3. A player may activate a loyalty ability of a permanent they control any time they have priority and the stack is empty during a main phase of their turn, but only if no player has previously activated a loyalty ability of that permanent that turn.

If the creature that mutated onto Gideon is on top, do you still sacrifice it if it runs out of Loyalty counters? Does it lose Loyalty counters when damaged?

No, only planeswalkers die when they have no loyalty counters on them, and if the creature is on top, it's not a planeswalker any more.


text:
What happens if a manifested instant gets blinked?
My Doom Blade is a creature because of Ethereal Ambush. If it gets Turn to Mist what happens?

It will lose its face-downness when it gets exiled:

400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. This rule has the following exceptions.

so it's an instant again. That means it will stay exiled:

400.4a If an instant or sorcery card would enter the battlefield, it remains in its previous zone.

304.4. Instants can’t enter the battlefield. If an instant would enter the battlefield, it remains in its previous zone instead.


text:
Is there a way to tap Brokers Hideout for mana?
If I have a Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth in play can I tap a Brokers Hideout for one black mana before it gets sacrificed?

If your aim is just what is in the title of the question, there are many ways to do it, including good old Blood Moon.

Brokers Hideout is a triggered ability that goes on the stack. All players can react on that, and Brokers Hideout is a land on the battlefield at that moment, so with Urborg in play you can certainly get another mana out of it.


text:
If a creature has both hexproof and shroud, is it functionally the same as just having Shroud?
If a creature has both hexproof and shroud, is it functionally the same as just having Shroud? What happens when a creature has both shroud and hexproof?

Having Shroud and Hexproof is currently the equivalent of having just shroud.
This is because Shroud is a more restrictive form of Hexproof:

702.11a Hexproof is a static ability.
702.11b “Hexproof” on a permanent means “This permanent can’t be the target of spells or abilities your opponents control.”

702.18a Shroud is a static ability. “Shroud” means “This permanent or player can’t be the target of spells or abilities.”

"Spells and abilities your opponents control" (the restriction of Hexproof) are also "spells and abilities" (the restriction of Shroud).  Thus, there are only two cases to consider:

A spell or ability controlled by your opponent: blocked by both shroud and hexproof.

A spell or ability controlled by a player that is not your opponent (such as yourself or your teammate): blocked by shroud.

In both of these cases, Hexproof only does things Shroud is already doing.  It is the equivalent of adding Fear ("can't be blocked except by black or artifact creatures") to Covert Operative ("can't be blocked").  Covert Operative already can't be blocked at baseline; adding additional reasons it can't be blocked does nothing extra.
The exception would be if an ability existed that interacted with Shroud (or permanents with Shroud) but not Hexproof (or permanents with Hexproof).  If Arcane Lighthouse only removed Shroud, there would be a difference.  To my knowledge, there are not currently any such abilities.  There currently exist abilities that interact with just Hexproof and not Shroud, such as Glaring Spotlight, but these don't matter for this discussion because Hexproof is the less restrictive of the two abilities.
While not strictly necessary to answer this question, one of the philosophically relevant core rules of Magic is that "can't" abilities take precedence:

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.

In this case, the effect directing something something to happen is the spell or ability that would have you chose targets, and the effect preventing it from happening is Shroud and/or Hexproof (rule 101.2 is necessary for Shroud and Hexproof to work as abilities without causing endless rules headache).  Given Shroud has a more general "can't" than Hexproof, Hexproof is essentially redundant.

702.11b “Hexproof” on a permanent means “This permanent can’t be the target of spells or abilities your opponents control.”

702.18a Shroud is a static ability. “Shroud” means “This permanent or player can’t be the target of spells or abilities.”

Normally, a creature can be the target of a spell or ability, and both place a restriction on it; Shroud's restriction is just more extensive than Hexproof's. So yes, the functionality is the same as just having Shroud. Nothing special happens when a creature has both. AFAIK there's no card which causes a creature to lose Shroud but not Hexproof (like Archetype of Endurance) so the Hexproof really hasn't any effect at all.

because a can't always wins?

More like subset/superset. Another example would be a creature with 'protection from white and green' which somehow gets 'protection from white' from another source.

There is one minor exception: a creature with shroud and hexproof gets +1/+1 from Akroma, Vision of Ixidor, while a creature with just shroud does not.

@ArcanistLupus That's mostly because shroud is a retired keyword, and thus wasn't listed on Akroma, the same with Fear, Banding, Flanking, Absorb, etc - it's not really an exception per se. The same would happen to a creature had both first strike and double strike (IE from Kwende) the first strike would be redundant bit it is still there for effects that care about it, and it would get +2/+2 from Akroma.


text:
What is the interaction between Muraganda Petroglyphs and Humility?
Are all my creatures 3/3 with both Humility and Muraganda Petroglyphs in play?

Yes, they are. The reason for this is the layer system described in rule 613. The relevant portions are:

613. Interaction of Continuous Effects
613.1. The values of an object’s characteristics are determined by starting with the actual object. For a card, that means the values of the characteristics printed on that card. For a token or a copy of a spell or card, that means the values of the characteristics defined by the effect that created it. Then all applicable continuous effects are applied in a series of layers in the following order:
613.1f Layer 6: Ability-adding effects, ability-removing effects, and effects that say an object can’t have an ability are applied.
613.1g Layer 7: Power- and/or toughness-changing effects are applied.
613.3. Within layer 7, apply effects in a series of sublayers in the order described below. Within each sublayer, apply effects in timestamp order. (See rule 613.6.) Note that dependency may alter the order in which effects are applied within a sublayer. (See rule 613.7.)
613.3a Layer 7a: Effects from characteristic-defining abilities that define power and/or toughness are applied. See rule 604.3.
613.3b Layer 7b: Effects that set power and/or toughness to a specific number or value are applied. Effects that refer to the base power and/or toughness of a creature apply in this layer.
613.3c Layer 7c: Effects that modify power and/or toughness (but don’t set power and/or toughness to a specific number or value) are applied.

Let's look at a Giant Spider you have on the battlefield.
In layer 6, Humility removes its Reach, which is important because it now qualifies for Muraganda Petroglyphs.
Layer 7a is the value printed on the card, in this case 2/4.
Then, layer 7b applies: Humility sets the power and toughness to 1/1.
Then, layer 7c applies: this is Muraganda Petroglyphs' bonus, setting power and toughness to 3/3.


text:
How does the following interaction with Swords to Plowshares and Death's Shadow work?
Death's Shadow is a 13/13 that gets -X/-X where X is your life total.
If one I control is exiled by Swords to Plowshares, then last known information is used to tell us how much life should be gained, but this happens before the life gain from the Swords, right?  I would not necessarily gain 13 life, but rather the current size of Death's Shadow?

Yes, this is exactly what happens, so barring any other side effects*, you'll always end up with 13 life.
*: e.g. a card which doubles any life gained, like Boon Reflection (thanks @MichaelSnook)

You hypothetical life gain doubling card actually exists: Boon Reflection

also killing one death shadow (with swords) will always kill all the deaths you control?

@NeilMeyer barring any other effects, yes


text:
Does Sultai Ascendancy interact with cards that care about surveil?
Does Sultai Ascendancy interact with cards that care about surveil? Like
Dimir Spybug for instance.

No, Sultai Ascendancy does not interact with cards that care about surveil. Surveil is a specific keyword ability defined in rule 701.41. Cards that trigger when you surveil only trigger if the instruction contains that keyword. The oracle text of Sultai Ascendancy describes an action that is the same as surveil, but it does not use the word "surveil".

Similarly, things that care about destruction (e.g. Karmic Justice) don't care about stuff that moves permanents from the battlefield to the graveyard by any means other than destruction (e.g. Sacrifice). Even if ability A is defined in terms of ability B, it doesn't make the two abilities equivalent.

It doesn't look like it does. Surveil is a keyword, and while it didn't exist when Sultai Ascendancy came out, it does not appear on the Oracle card text either. Sometimes, old cards do get updated when new keyword (compare for example the Oracle and the Printed text for the Alpha Edition Serra Angel), but it did not happen in this case. Therefore, Sultai Ascendancy's ability isn't keyworded Surveil and your Dimir Spybug won't profit.

The difference is cards only receive this type of errata for evergreen keywords: http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/180093974523/mark-why-hasnt-sultai-ascendancy-been-erratad


text:
How does Humility interact with graft creatures?

Would Humility actually make my Aquastrand Spider bigger (assuming the spider was already in play when the humility was cast)?
Would the same spider entering the battlefield after a humility has been cast be a 1/1 without any counters?
Would the spider die if the humility left the battlefield then?

Yes it would, because it would become a base 1/1 creature instead of a 0/0 and still have the 2 +1/+1 counters on it. It would then be a 3/3.
Yes, Humility removes the Graft ability that causes the spider to have counters as it enters. This prevents the ability from placing those counters on it as it enters the battlefield. It will enter as a base 1/1 spider mutant with no abilities and no counters.
Yes, if humility left the battlefield, the spider from question 2 would now be a 0/0 creature and die due to having 0 or less toughness. The spider from 1 would be back to being a 2/2 due to the counters.

May want to add the terms base power and toughness to point one to use more rulesy language.


text:
Does a face down creature get the bonus from Muraganda Petroglyphs?
Does a face down creature get the bonus from  Muraganda Petroglyphs?

Yes, they do get the bonus. See the first ruling below the card in Gatherer:

Muraganda Petroglyphs gives a bonus only to creatures that have no rules text at all. This includes true vanilla creatures (such as Grizzly Bears), face-down creatures, many tokens, and creatures that have lost their abilities (due to Ovinize, for example). Any ability of any kind, whether or not the ability functions in the on the battlefield zone, including things like “Cycling (2)” means the creature doesn’t get the bonus.

(emphasis mine)
For example, a morphed card:

702.36c To cast a card using its morph ability, turn it face down. It becomes a 2/2 face-down creature card with no text, no name, no subtypes, and no mana cost.

One could argue that the ability to turn the card face-up is an ability of the 2/2 face-down card, negating the Muraganda Petroglyphs condition, but it's not.

Just to clarify (and make certain myself): Mistform Ultimus and Lhurghoyf won't get the bonus, even though the flavor of their rules texts aren't typically "ability-like" at all, and read more like specifications of their more-complicated-than-standard creature type and power / toughness respectively.

what is weird if a face-down creature loses all abilities it cannot morph but it has no abilities, to begin with

The trick is that a creature can't just "lose abilities", but it can have a continuous effect that removes abilities. And that continuous effect would still apply and remove the Morph ability if the creature were to turn face up, and that's what prevents you from unmorphing it.


text:
How does mana adders plus mana doublers interact?
This question is related to How do multiple mana increasers stack?
If you have a Dictate of Karametra, a Zhur-Taa Ancient and a Nyxbloom Ancient, how much mana gets produced when you tap a Birds of Paradise?
Is it (1 * 3) + 1 + 1 = 5, or is it, (1 + 1 + 1) * 3 = 9?

This situation is covered in the last paragraph of Gendolkari's answer.

zhur-taa and dicatete of karametra only trigger when you tap a land for mana: tapping birds gets you 3 mana from nyxbloom ancient.


text:
Is there a consensus on if blocking king and pawns together so opponent cannot move in Tablut (Hnefatafl) is stalemate, or a win?
In Tafl games (I'm specifically playing Tablut if it makes a difference) Black wins if they capture the White king by surrounding it on all four sides.
Suppose the king and one or more adjacent pawns in a block are all completely surrounded and White has no other pawns so they cannot move.  Is there any consensus on whether this is stalemate (like in Chess if the player can't move), or, a win for Black?  Or is it just "house rules"?
Most of the rule sets I've found do not mention it explicitly.  So the implication is it's a stalemate,  but they aren't very official.
(This ruleset suggests you take away one pawn in a blocked group per turn, in my scenario it would amount to the same thing as an immediate win.)

This set of rules for Saami Tablut ("Historical Hnefatafl") includes an explicit handling of that case:

7b. If the attackers surround the king and ALL remaining defenders, then they
win, as they have prevented the king from escaping.

And it's even broader in this set of rules, which captures the king if he cannot move (even if the king's side has other pawns that can move):

The king himself is captured if he is surrounded with enemy pieces or restricted
squares in all four cardinal points, so that he
cannot move in any direction.

(emphasis added)
The case is also present in the rulesets for other variants presented on this page.
In this summary of the history of the game, under the section of "correcting the errors" of Murray's mis-translation of the rules, they say that Helfrid included this additional rule (that agrees with your link to the PDF by Zorya):

If a defending piece is beside the king and the king is trapped, the companion is taken rather than the king.

Thank you for answer with those links I couldn't get to.   The website I'm playing with friends on doesn't enforce that, but now we can honourably surrender the match in this scenario.  .. I think this is a game that deserves more attention.  Cheers.

I would think it is a win, as you have denied the king's goal of escaping.
Here is a nearly-primary source, which doesn't 100% explicitly say, but I think does cover it in rule 10: http://tafl.cyningstan.com/data-download/695/tablut-leaflet (which is split between pages 2 & 4).

Do you have a reference to the rules to prove this?

I didn't when I wrote it. As I said, I offered my logic based on the objectives. And, incidentally, I was correct. I was trying to be helpful, but true to traditional Stack Exchange hostility, I got downvoted for my efforts. Now I do see more gratuitous references references that might satisfy even such people, but I'm not feeling very much like elaborating them, for some reason.

Thanks. I agreed with the other answer which was very specific and answered my question, but I think the downvotes on you were a bit harsh and your answer also makes sense to me, so I upvoted here too.  Thank for you and @L. Scott Johnson for answering so promptly.

Thanks. I added a reference to another rule source, in the answer above, which is based on a primary source.


text:
Can you play a spell on your opponent's turn?
In Adventure Time's Card Wars game (the physical card game, not the computer game), can I play a 0 action spell on my opponent's turn?

No, this is explicitly forbidden in rules
According to section "Playing cards → Rainbow cards" of the rule book (page 5):

Creatures, Buildings, and Spells with an Action cost of 0 are always Rainbow cards. They may only be played during your own turn (even after spending your 2 Actions), but require no Landscape types to play.

Source

The rulebook seems to suggest that you can only play cards on your own turn, regardless of cost. This isn't explicitly laid out, though it can be inferred from the game giving you actions on your turn only. You could ask on the forums though, Cryptozoic employees answer questions there.


text:
Where can I find raw data for DCI sanctioned Constructed tournaments?
It is often easier to answer questions about Magic experimentally instead of mathematically. Anyone can see the final standing of a deck in a tournament and find out who piloted it. Here is an example. However, there is some data I cannot find:

Mulligans taken
Games played
Games on the play
Final life totals per game

Does this data exist for DCI sanctioned Constructed tournaments? If so, where can I find it?
MTGGoldfish has information, but they only appear to cover Limited formats. Here is their page covering Khans of Tarkir.

Unfortunately I don't think most of this data exists. For paper tournaments the only one of these stats that gets recorded is games played, and they might track all of these for MTGO I haven't been able to find a source that lists any of them.

@diego "This data does not exist." is a valid answer. "If it exists, I cannot find it." would be another valid answer.

I may get around to that later, when I have more time to look into data from MTGO. Right now I'm not sure enough to write an answer saying the data doesn't exist.

In terms of offline (non-MTGO) information, the only data point that is brought away from a tournament match is the match record - mulligans, die-roll winners, and life totals are not processed in any way.
There are not any resources online with general match records (i.e. how often matches end 2-0, etc.) that I am aware of. You can go into the archives of GPs and parse the information from the round results pages if you wanted to, but that's likely about it. I'm confident WotC has the capability to derive this type of information internally, but the data for more global audiences to derive it is not public. (nor would WotC likely make such data public)
The site you linked gets it's information by monitoring Magic Online and recording metadata based on games played there - there's definitely more data there, but you'd need to keep in mind that MTGO and paper Magic may have different results for different events, especially when you take into account the difference in draw procedures, and the occasional prevalence of decks in paper Magic which cannot be effectively piloted on MTGO. (or vice versa)

Why is WotC unlikely publicize the raw tournament data? How are the draw procedures for MTGO different from paper magic?

The later is simpler to answer - on MTGO, matches cannot end in a draw; one player's clock expires, and they lose the match. Intentional Draws also are not an option online.
The former is based on the nature of how WotC has worked with this data in the past. They have discouraged/prevented 3rd parties from working with tournament data directly in the past, and likely liability reasons preventing full tournament data accessibility. (imagine WotC getting in the middle of a custody case because tournament data indicated a kid as having played in certain events)

Ah, that explains a lot. By "draw procedures", I thought you meant drawing cards.


text:
Victory conditions with the "Limited Range of Influence" option
In a ten player Grand Melee, Anthony controls a Darksteel Reactor with 20 counters on it.
Anthony has satisfied the trigger condition for Darksteel Reactor. The trigger resolves, and he wins the game. However, with the limited range of influence option, only the person to Anthony's left and right will lose the game. There is now a void on Anthony's left and right, and his range of influence is not reevaluated until the beginning of his next turn. But Anthony never gets another turn because the Reactor will trigger again and again forever.
What happens to Anthony now? Can other turn markers bring opponents into Anthony's range of influence so that they will lose to him? In other words, can the void on his left and right ever be collapsed? If not, has he fallen victim to an infinite loop, forcing a draw by his own victory condition?

I don't know grand melee, but nowhere in that article it is mentioned that range of influence is only re-evaluated in between turns. Are you sure about that?

801.2c The particular players within each player's range of influence are determined as each turn begins.

@IvoBeckers See Diego's response to your comment. In Grand Melee, more than one player can take a turn at a time. This made me think that Anthony could be released from his loop when a player to his left receives a turn marker. Thus, the loop would not be infinite because it could be broken by other turn markers. But it's possible that the player to Anthony's left could never begin his turn because they must wait for Anthony to finish, and so eventually there would be a true infinite loop. I thought this was too speculative to put in the actual question, so I left it open ended.

I guess that casting a Time Stop won't help right? The ability would just trigger again in the clean-up step.

@IvoBeckers Anthony will never even make it to his Cleanup step. He cannot progress his turn at all. He must repeatedly trigger and resolve Darksteel Reactor.

I am pretty sure that casting Time Stop in response to the trigger would do that.

@IvoBeckers Yes, I suppose you are right. I should have read Time Stop more carefully (all three words of it).

@IvoBeckers Time Stop would remove the ability from the stack and send you to the Cleanup Step on that turn, but in the Cleanup Step the trigger would go off again and go back on the stack.

Would Time Stop ever resolve? Wouldn't the trigger just be placed on the stack on top of Time Stop repeatedly?

@Gendolkari 603.8. A state-triggered ability doesn't trigger again until the ability has resolved, has been countered, or has otherwise left the stack.

It appears the answer is, "any non-standard win condition shouldn't be the basis of a grand melee deck."  Too bad Dark Steel didn't say, "all opponents lose the game" because then the loop wouldn't occur...

@John With the limited range of influence option, "all opponents" means "all opponents within your range of influence". The loop would still occur, because Anthony's range of influence is never reevaluated.

@John At least you can still use things that make you win (or your opponents lose) just once. If you search for "you win the game" on gatherer you'll see that most of them make you win at the beginning of your upkeep.

@Jefromi It took me a while to find one that didn't, just so I could ask this question. And I really didn't want to use Cheese.

Anthony would force himself to draw that game.

801.16. If the game somehow enters a "loop" of mandatory actions, repeating a sequence of events with no way to stop, the game is a draw for each player who controls an object that's involved in that loop, as well as for each player within the range of influence of any of those players. They leave the game. All remaining players continue to play the game.

Grand Melee is set up so that no matter who the Active Player is any given player is inside only one AP's range of influence[807.4d]. This is so that you can't have weird things happen like being within the range of influence of 2 different players at 2 different parts of their turn, because Magic doesn't really support, for example, being in both an upkeep and combat step at the same time.
Since there is no way for Anthony to progress any farther in the current turn than the Cleanup Step, the current turn can't end for him. If somehow someones range of influence were allowed to move into him that would then mean he was currently part of 2 separate turns and that just doesn't make sense in Magic.

Just because it doesn't make sense to be a part of two separate turns doesn't mean Wizards handled it. The relevant rule is: 807.4d A player who receives a turn marker can’t begin his or her turn if any player in the three seats to his or her left has a turn marker. It is because of that rule that nobody can break Anthony's infinite loop.

@Rainbolt I probably should explicitly cite that rule, that is what makes sure any player is only in a single AP's range of influence.

Great. You already had my upvote and accepted answer because it made logical sense. Like you said, it couldn't work any other way without breaking the game.

It's a little unfortunate that the rules of Grand Melee have to be such that a card which literally says "you win the game" turns into "you cannot win the game".


text:
Which US states have the highest Magic: the Gathering participation?
How can I determine which US states have the highest Magic: the Gathering participation? To make the question less subjective, we'll define participation as any of the following:

Number of Friday Night Magic participants
Number of [some major series of tournaments] participants
Total amount of Magic: the Gathering product sales

Do any of the popular tournament organizers report on stuff like this? Does Wizards report on the amount of product sold per state, or the number of FNM participants per state? Is there a centralized place where I can find turnouts for Grand Prixs or Star City Open tournaments? Just to be clear, these are supplementary questions, and I am not expecting an answer to all of them.
I ask this question because last weekend was States. I think that the players in states with high participation are likely to play better decks than players from other states. This may be a poor way to gauge deck quality, but for a player who wants to be on the bleeding edge of meta (sometimes), I think it is at least better than using decklists from tournaments two weekends ago.
At least in Texas, the number of players allowed at States was capped. I'm not sure if the cap is the same in every state, or whether the cap simply depended on the venue that was available, or whether the cap was predetermined based on a history of participation in that state.
When I click on any of the States events on starcitygames.com, I can view the top eight decklists for that area. However, there is no indicator that I can find of the total number of players in that event. I also tried to Google average Grand Prix turnout by state, and could only find scattered articles about record turnouts in various locations across various years.

Does region size really correlate with deck strength? Netdecking should pretty much eliminate any information gradient in constructed competitive play, be it regional or global.

Do you mean per capita? Just by number of players etc as you've said, I imagine the answer is pretty much just going to be state population.

@Jefromi If someone can support the claim that MTG participation is directly proportional to state population, then I will accept a per capita answer.

The way I was thinking about going about this was to determine the number of DCI members per state, but this information wasn't readily available. Hypothetically, you could go through and figure out the number of DCI sanctioned shops in each state (available at the DCI website, although terrible to query), which is probably related to demand for participation. That gets to be very back-of-the-napkin type math, so I'm not sure it would fit the scope of your question.

@SocioMatt Do you have a link to the place that lists DCI sanctioned shops by state? My town of 100,000 people has four shops (soon to be five), and although three of them hardly ever make for FNM, I still think it's a decent indicator.

@Rainbolt A full list, no. But if you had some spare time on your hands and a list of zip codes that were all 25 miles or so apart (creating a grid of the US), you could use the search tool to find the number of shops that run a sanctioned event. You'd have to run a separate search for each zip code and then remove duplicates afterward (or write a script to do the searches). That's why I said it was terrible to query, especially since it only shows you a maximum of 30 stores at a time.

@SocioMatt Ah, okay. That does sound painful. According to zipboundary.com, "There are approximately 43,000 ZIP Codes in the United States."

Instead of # of stores per state, would you consider # of judges per state to be an indicator of the number of players in that state? Since that information is much easier to get.

@diego I think that would be a reasonable indicator. I guess there could be some states that have a higher density of judges to players, but I find that unlikely.

As one might guess it seems the states with the largest number of Magic players are also the ones with the largest populations.
I am assuming that the number of players in a state is directly correlated with the number of judges in that state. To get the number of judges in each state I used the WotC Judge Center tools to find all of the Level 1+ judges in the US that had a state listed (37 out of 3067 judges in the US didn't have a state listed).
The top 5 states by number of judges are (in order): California, Texas, Florida, New York and Illinois. These also happen to be the top 5 states by population (in the same order). Once you get past the top 5 only Colorado has the same exact ranking for both (#22), but most of the others are fairly close between the lists. You can find the data I used in this Google Sheets document.

So they're in roughly the same order... how about ratios, like judges per capita? Curious if that's at all close to constant.

@Jefromi I have those numbers on the spreadsheet, the range from about .3 to 2.5 judges per 100,000 people in the state. But I couldn't really find a correlation with the other data so I didn't mention it in my answer.


text:
What maneuvers can every ship do in X-Wing (first edition)?
In X-wing first edition, the rules for a stressed ship revealing a red maneuver was revised to the following:

If a stressed ship reveals a red maneuver, the ship executes a white 2 forward instead.

I assume that every ship can execute a 2 forward maneuver at baseline, or else this rule would be ripe for abuse.  This got me wondering what other maneuvers are present on every ship's maneuver dials.
What maneuvers are available to all ships?  Are there any maneuvers that are green for all ships?
(This is just about small and large ships.  Huge ships are sufficiently different, including not being affected by stress, that they are out of scope for this question.)

Every ship in X-Wing has a maneuver template that is strictly better than the following:

That is to say every ship can do all of those maneuvers and more, and every ship has those maneuvers at the listed colors or better (green > white > red).
To call out a couple highlights, every ship has the following:

A green 2 forward maneuver (this is the only maneuver that is green for all ships)
The ability to do all 5 standard 2-speed maneuvers (forward, bank, and turn)
The ability to do a 3 forward and both 3 banks

In this light, the revised rule for executing a red maneuver while stressed is quite reasonable, as not only can every ship do the 2 forward, but a white 2 forward maneuver is strictly worse than the green 2 forward maneuver available to every ship.
Source: https://xwing-miniatures.fandom.com/wiki/Compare_Ship_Maneuvers
The minimum maneuver template can be found in the overlap of just two ships: the A-wing, and the Lambda Shuttle (which makes sense, as these are at the two extremes in terms of ship speed).  After this, you can verify for yourself that every other ship has these maneuvers at the listed color or better.
A-Wing:

Lambda Shuttle:


text:
How do Solemnity and Delaying Shield interact?
Delaying Shield turns damage into counters.  Solemnity prevents it from gaining counters.  What happens when you take damage?

You don't take damage.  Counters would be added to Delaying Shield, but are not because of Solemnity.
You take damage as normal.  Delaying Shield's inability to gain counters prevents its ability from working.

It's 1.; you don't take damage and this is a nice combo. The Gatherer rulings under Solemnity say:

If a replacement effect allows a player to modify or replace an event by putting counters on an artifact, creature, enchantment, or land, that player may apply that replacement effect. Counters won’t be put on the object, but if the original event is entirely replaced (such as by applying Soul-Scar Mage’s replacement effect), the original event won’t happen.

Delaying Shield's effect is a replacement effect, see the Gatherer ruling below it:

Note that the damage is replaced and is not “prevented”. This means it can replace damage that “can’t be prevented”.

so it's covered by this Solemnity rule.


text:
What does MLD stand for?
I've seen some references to the term "MLD" but have failed to find a definition in any list of MTG terminology or slang.  What does this mean?

In general when asking questions like this it can help to share the context where you saw the term, in case other people can figure it out from context.

All of the top hits on Google refer to MLD as "mass land destruction", i.e. cards like Armageddon.
Or, to quote one of the moderators on MTGSalvation:

MLD is mass land destruction, so generally speaking, any card that destroys multiple lands at once. This is usually indiscriminate, so Ruination is considered MLD while Sylvan Primordial is not. Back to Basics, and things that prevent you from using lands are not MLD, simply resource denial. At least, that's my take. I don't think the term has made its way into Webster's yet.

So you're right, it's not an official Magic: The Gathering term.

I followed the top five links from that very google search and not one of them defined the acronym.  I knew it had something to do with land destruction but the actual acronym wasn't becoming apparent.  Thanks for the answer.

Hmm ... Google will serve different search results to different users, but I didn't expect so much difference.

Hmm okay, actually the first one does use the term "mass land destruction" right at the beginning but they didn't capitalize it or put the acronym near it so I must have missed it while scanning.  The other four don't use it at all.


text:
Can a card effect make a creature block one that it otherwise could not?
Nature Shields Its Own is an Archenemy scheme that creates a blocking creature (green plant) any time the Archenemy is attacked and the attack is not blocked. We ran into a few issues last night playing this scheme in a game. The Archenemy was attacked by a flying creature as well as one with protection from Green. Neither was blocked, and a plant was created blocking each. The part we did not understand was whether the plant tokens could actually block the attackers.
Do abilities that say "Create creature X blocking attacking creature Y." allow X to block Y even if normally X could not be declared as a blocker?

Yes, the creatures will still be blocked by tokens. See the ruling on Nature Shields its Own:

The Plant token blocks the attacking creature even if the block couldn't legally be declared (for example, if the attacking creature has flying).

This is because things like flying and protection only affect the declare blockers step. The prevent a creature from being declared as a blocker. But Nature Shields its Own kicks in at the end of the declare blockers step; it is not affected by evasion abilities.

It might help to make a clearer distinction between "block" and "blocking". The plant token cannot legally block the flyer, but it can be put into play blocking because the card says so.

Declaring a creature as a blocker is different from an attacker being blocked. Declaring a blocker requires meeting requirements and restrictions for blocking (such as only blocking flying creatures with a flying or reach creature). Being blocked means that you deal damage to the blocking creature(s) instead of the defending player (or with trample, deal damage to the blockers first). While the former is the normal means of achieving the latter, it is not the only means of doing so.
It is even possible to have an attacker become blocked without any blocking creature in existence. See for example: Curtain of Light, Dazzling Beauty, and Fog Patch. These cards cause a creature to become blocked, but there is no creature card or creature token actually doing the blocking. (This is functionally similar to being blocked by a 0/0 creature. The attacker isn't going to take any combat damage, and an attacker with trample will still be able to send all of its damage through.)

Fog Patch will even cause Progenitus to be blocked.

@HaoYe, Thanks, I knew there was a green card with a similar effect, but I had trouble finding it.


text:
Can you cast a creature with Bestow while you control a Steel Golem?
You control a Steel Golem, which says "you can't cast creature spells". Can you pay the Bestow cost on, say, a Hopeful Eidolon, and cast it as an aura enchanting the Steel Golem?
My reading of the rules is that you can't: Paying the bestow cost doesn't make the card into a (non-creature) Aura until after it's on the stack, and Steel Golem's restriction doesn't let you put a creature spell on the stack.
In general the ordering of steps in casting a spell is:

Choose a spell to play and place it on the stack.
Choose modes and targets.
Choose which costs to pay and pay them.

When applied to a Bestow spell, these become:

Place the bestow creature on the stack.
(No modes or targets to choose yet, since it's a creature spell).
Choose to pay the bestow cost.
The spell stops being a creature and becomes an Aura (702.102a).
The spell's controller chooses a target (702.102b).

But if "you can't cast creature spells", then you can't complete step 1, since your Hopeful Eidolon is still a creature. And (per 601.2) "If, at any point during the casting of a spell, a player is unable to comply with any of the steps listed below, the casting of the spell is illegal".
(The converse situation seems to arise with Aurelia's Fury, where a Bestow card is playable because it's not a non-creature card until after the Bestow cost is payed.)
Does this sound correct or am I missing something?

Under the current rules, you can bestow despite "you can't cast creature spells."
The rules changed in the Magic Origins rules update to tweak the spell casting procedure and also to address the bestow interaction explicitly.
Matt Tabak (then the rules manager) writes:

I made some tweaks to the procedure of casting a spell or activating an ability. It basically boils down to the proposal of the spell, including making all necessary choices such as modes and targets. Then the game checks to see if what you've proposed is legal. Finally, assuming the spell is legal, you calculate and pay costs. In practice, not much is changing. Bestow gets a little easier to figure out. For example, if an effect stops you from casting creature spells, you can still cast one as an Aura. There are some strange cases with things like split cards or flash that become a bit clearer as well.

(emphasis mine) and

We've deleted [rule 601.5] that says you can't begin to cast a spell that's prohibited from being cast. The legality check now happens at one defined point, according to the changes to rule 601.2. [...]

The updated rules now include 702.102c which explicitly addresses this interaction:

702.102c. The check for whether a spell can legally be cast happens after its controller has chosen whether to pay its bestow cost; see rule 601.2e.
Example: Aether Storm is an enchantment with the ability "Creature spells can’t be cast." This effect doesn't stop a creature card with bestow from being cast for its bestow cost because the spell is an Aura enchantment spell, not an enchantment creature spell, when the game checks whether the spell is illegal.

601.5. A player can’t begin to cast a spell that’s prohibited from being cast.

So you are exactly right
EDIT: not correct anymore

Important missing bit: "You don’t choose whether the spell is going to be an Aura spell or not until the spell is already on the stack. [...]" (from the rulings)

This rule no longer exists.

@doppelgreener ok. what do you propose I do? delete my answer?

I think the options come down to requesting moderator attention to have the answer removed, or updating this answer to beat the other one describing the current changes. It's a tough spot to be put in.

Or actually also leave the answer be and let it get outvoted is another. I mainly left the comment I did as a signpost to future viewers, because I saw the answer get an upvote (but I don't think that would be correct, given the answer isn't factually correct anymore, though through no fault of yours).


text:
Are there cards which work differently on Ink-Treader Nephilim depending on who controls it?
Are there any cards I could play on Ink-Treader Nephilim that would act differently based on who had control of the creature, for that matter, are there any cards in the game that do this at all?

Just... differently at all? There are tons of cards that have additional effects for the target's controller.

As in "If I target something I control it gets buffed, if I target an opponent's creature it gets nerfed."  I've seen some enchantments that do this from Commander, but I'm wondering if there are any instants/sorceries too.

Some cards target a creature and affect that creature's controller, so it some sense they behave differently depending on who controls the target creature. Here is a magiccards.info query for such cards. Of course, since Ink-Treader Nephilim makes those spells target every creature anyway, it doesn't really matter who controls it.
Since Ink-Treader Nephilim's controller controls the spell copies, cards that depend on your board state will have different behavior depending on who controls the Nephilim. For example, if you cast Aspect of Hydra targeting your own Nephilim, every creature will get +X/+X, where X is your devotion to green. If you cast it targeting your opponent's Nephilim, then the Nephilim will get +X/+X where X is your devotion to green and every other creature will get +X/+X where X is your opponent's devotion to green.
Similarly, for any spell that affects "you" as part of the spell, the original will affect the player who cast it and each copy will affect the player that controls Ink-Treader Nephilim. Awe Strike is an example of such a card: whoever controls the copies gains the life.
In addition, since Ink-Treader Nephilim's ability puts all of the spell copies on the stack at once, its controller chooses the order in which they go on the stack. If a spell hurts the creature's controller for example (e.g. Chandra's Outrage), then the Nephilim's controller can put the copies targeting their opponents' creatures on top of the stack and possibly kill their opponents before the copies targeting their own creatures resolve.
Similarly, if the spell's effect can depend on the number of copies that have already resolved, the Nephilim's controller can arrange them on the stack to maximize their own benefit. For example, Flesh Allergy says

Destroy target creature. Its controller loses life equal to the number of creatures that died this turn.

This means that the creature's controller loses an additional life for each copy that already resolved. The Nephilim's controller can manipulate the order of the copies to change both how much life each player loses and in what order. In the best case, they can make their opponent lose the game before all of the copies resolve.

Exactly what I was looking for, Thanks!  Awe Strike combo sounds fun!  EDIT: I would upvote, but I don't have the rep on this particular site yet.


text:
Building Limit in Lords of Waterdeep
Why is there a limit to how many buildings can built by each player? I was the builder lady lord, using the Undermountain Expansion, and would have been about to build 12+ buildings, but game rules limit each player to 9. What is the reason for this limit?

Though this is speculation; it's quite possible that you just provided the exact reason... if you could build 12+ buildings; it would be way too good for the builder.

@GendoIkari I was wondering that too but didn't like that answer because I ended up losing the game. :)

Also, with only 8 rounds per game; how are you building that many? Normally only 1 building can be built per round; though there are certain ways to be allowed to choose a spot that someone else chose; or other ways to build a building without taking the building spot... but it seems unlikely that you'd be able to get so many.

I'm also very surprised that a builder with 9 buildings wouldn't win the game... in my experience, most people get either 16 or 20 bonus points from their role; you're talking about 36 points there, plus the benefit of owning so many buildings.

@GendoIkari with the Undermountain Expansion there's multiple quests that allow you to build buildings as the reward.

Ah ok... I've played Skullport but not Undermountain yet. I suppose that makes sense.

One other thought that doesn't serve as a real answer... since the base game had fewer ways to build more buildings; it was extremely unlikely that any 1 player could ever get more than 9 buildings anyway; so they only included 9 ownership markers. And this simply carried over into an actual rule that you can only have 9.

It's actually 6 VP per building, which with 9 buildings gives a whopping 54 points.

@bret 54 is pretty significant.  For most of the other lords you'd have to get 14 quests of your type to surpass that.

Yeah, perhaps Undermountain raises scores in general for all players, I don't know... but I'm used to people getting only 16 or 20 bonus points at the end; 54 is a lot. And I would think that bonus points from having buildings would be "worth more" than the other bonus points, because having that many buildings has other advantages.

There are no building limits in Lords of Waterdeep as defined in the Appendix 3: Clarifications section in the rulebook of Scoundrels of Skullport:

Number of Buildings in Play: You are not limited to the ten empty
  spaces on the game board for Building tiles when putting Buildings into
  play. Simply place any additional Buildings in a convenient place on or
  near the board.

Also on the official FAQ for Lords of Waterdeep:
Can more than 10 Buildings be in play?

Yes. The number of empty Building spaces on the board is no limit to
  the number of Buildings that can be in play during the game.

EDIT:
As for personal building limits, you are in fact limited to the number of building tokens you have, as defined in the official FAQ:
Can you control more Buildings than you have control markers?

No. The number of control markers you have is the maximum number of
  Buildings you can have in a single game.

This limit is also enforced on the iOS game.

The question was about how many buildings a single player can build. This does not answer it.

@Bret, the question is about why there's a building limit. An answer of "there's actually no limit" is correctly challenging the frame of the question.

Paul, the answerer is correct in that there is no overall building limit specified by the rules, but the question is about a per-player limit, which is specified by the rules to be 9; thus, this answer does not address the question.

The original question isn't worded perfectly which is why there is some confusion. My answer has been edited and now provides the answers to both questions (as it's still not 100% clear to me what the asker wants - was he limited to 9 because there's only 10 spaces and someone built a building already? Or is he limited to 9 because that's how many tokens he has).

I updated the question to add clarification. Either way though, the question was clearly "why", and this doesn't address "why" at all.

Same reason why the game only comes with X adventurers, or X gold tokens. The manufacturers pick arbitrary numbers that they think would feasibly be the maximum amount accumulated in any given game. Beyond developmental reasons, there is no real reason - and if boardgames.stackexchange is anything like the arqade, questions about development have no place. Therefore I assumed the asker intended on asking about the rules rather than a question about development.

@Othya I'm not completely sure about the rules given in meta here, but questions about game design are pretty common. Your comment here gives a possible reason (which I mentioned in my comment on the OP), but many games also say in the rules that components are not intended to be limiting, and they could have said you are allowed to build more than the 9 tokens the game comes with.

@GendoIkari your edit is correct and clarified what I was asking.


text:
Blue Decoy shot by both Agent and Assassin
I'm a Blue Decoy. At the end of the round, two guns are pointing at me - I get shot by an Agent first, then by an Assassin. Do I win? Does it count that an Assassin shot at me, even though I was already dead due to Agent shooting me first?

I don't own this game or have the rulebook in front of me but does being shot happen sequentially or is it supposed to be simultaneously in this game? That seems to be a major crux of the matter

First, all agents shoot simultaneously. Then all assassins do the same. Coming from that perspective we assumed that the answer to my question above is - no, I don't win. However, the exact wording of the rules might be relevant - the rules don't say "you win as Blue Decoy if killed by Assassin", but "you win as Blue Decoy if you get shot by Assassin". Strategically, it also makes sense that you should win - you performed your role's duty and pulled one Assassin's gun away from the VIP and onto yourself.

Seems to me that the latter is the answer because you were shot at by an assassin and there's no fail-criteria for being shot by an agent.


text:
Do Increasing Vengence and Swerve form an infinite combo?
Okay, so say you play an instant or sorcery spell and then play Increasing Vengeance targeting it could you then play Swerve changing the target of Increasing Vengeance from the random instant or sorcery to itself?

If by "itself" you mean having Increasing Vengeance target itself, then no, you can't do that because rule 114.4 says

A spell or ability on the stack is an illegal target for itself.

Even if you could do that, it wouldn't do much because no matter how many times an Increasing Vengeance were to resolve copying itself, you would still end up with a single Increasing Vengeance.
If, on the other hand, you mean having Increasing Vengeance target Swerve, then you can do that but it wouldn't do much because once Increasing Vengeance starts to resolve Swerve would no longer be on the stack so the Increasing Vengeance would be countered for having no legal target.

murgatroid's answer is correct that you can't have Increasing Vengeance target itself. But even if you had two copies of Increasing Vengeance that could target one another, you still wouldn't have an infinite combo. Infinite loops can only consist of mandatory actions - unless someone does something different, the loop will repeat by itself over and over without anyone having to make any decision other than passing priority. That is not the case here, because each copy of Increasing Vengeance requires a selection for the target. You can shortcut the loop as many times as you like, but you can't say that you'll repeat an optional loop indefinitely - you pick how many times you want to do it, and then you are required to take a different action. You cannot force a draw by entering a loop that has optional actions which are required to keep it going.

Colloquially, an "infinite loop" or "infinite combo" in Magic refers to any sequence of actions that can be repeated in a loop an unbounded number of times, not just mandatory loops. Your objection here is unfounded.

In addition, it is in fact possible to construct a mandatory loop as you describe. If the original spell is countered in response to the second Increasing Vengeance, the Increasing Vengeance copy has no legal target other than the first Increasing Vengeance.

@murgatroid99 Fair enough, but in the absence of anything else pertinent in the question, seemingly the only useful thing this loop could accomplish is forcing a draw, which it would not under most circumstances. Agree I'm kind of splitting hairs with the "infinite loop" terminology, but I think it's worth pointing out the difference between "infinite" loops that must be terminated after a finite number of cycles, and truly infinite loops that do not terminate and result in a draw.

But the distinction you're making doesn't match how that term is actually used.

And there are cards like Ral, storm conduit which gain a benefit from this type of loop.

@Eggi Right, I never said the loop could never have any benefit, just that it's utterly pointless without any other cards to take advantage of it. If it was a mandatory loop, the loop itself would have strategic value as a way to force a draw. But in the absence of other cards, it's a loop that repeats an arbitrarily large number of times and accomplishes absolutely nothing.


text:
MTG - Unsettled Mariner: When is the targeting checked?
Unsettled Mariner counters spells and abilities targeting you or permanents you control unless the controller pays an additional 1 mana.
When is that targeting checked? As in if my opponent casts a spell and declares my creature as a target and I use something like Aether Vial to put an Unsettled Mariner into play at instant speed before the opponents spell resolves do they need to pay the additional cost? Are the casting costs checked again on spell resolution?

First of all, a little terminology: the casting cost is determined when casting a spell:

601.2. To cast a spell is to take it from where it is (usually the hand), put it on the stack, and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect. Casting a spell includes proposal of the spell (rules 601.2a–d) and determination and payment of costs (rules 601.2f–h). To cast a spell, a player follows the steps listed below, in order. A player must be legally allowed to cast the spell to begin this process (see rule 601.3). If a player is unable to comply with the requirements of a step listed below while performing that step, the casting of the spell is illegal ; the game returns to the moment before the casting of that spell was proposed (see rule 721, “Handling Illegal Actions”).

So under no circumstances will Unsettled Mariner increase the casting cost of a spell.
Now, when does a permanent/player 'become a target'? This happens while casting a spell:

601.2c The player announces their choice of an appropriate object or player for each target the spell requires.
...
The chosen objects and/or players each become a target of that spell.

Only after the player is finished casting the spell, you get priority and will be able to vial in the Unsettled Mariner. That's too late to trigger the Mariner's ability; it simply doesn't 'see' the targeting.
To elaborate on what @Becuzz is mentioning, if the Mariner is already in play and your opponent targets it with Combust, the Mariner's ability will trigger, and give your opponent the option to pay {1}. If they don't, the Mariner's ability will attempt to counter Combust, but fail to do so, because Combust can't be countered.

While I think the overall outcome is correct here, Unsettled Mariner's ability is a triggered ability, not a static ability that would increase the cost of the spell.  Someone could cast a spell successfully and put it on the stack and then choose not to pay the additional one mana to prevent the counter-ing.  (If you had a spell that said it couldn't be countered, why would you pay the extra mana?)

Eh ... you're right. I didn't look at the Mariner's ability, I just assumed it increased the casting cost because the OP mentioned it. I'll rewrite the answer.

Re "This happens while casting a spell", ...or when activating an activated ability, or when adding a triggered ability to the stack.

The wording also suggests that if a spell is cast not originally targeting you, but the target is later changed to you (for instance, with a Redirect), then Unsettled Mariner's ability will trigger.


text:
Are there any turn 1 win decks?
So the question is in the title:
Is there any deck that can (in the very best case) win in turn 1?
It should not be tournament legal, it should not be legacy legal, but it should follow the basic deckbuilding rules:

Constructed decks must contain a minimum of sixty cards. There is no maximum deck size; however, you must be able to shuffle your deck with no assistance. If a player wishes to use a sideboard, it must have fifteen or less cards.
With the exception of basic land cards, a player’s combined deck and sideboard may not contain more than four of any individual card, counted by its English card title equivalent. All cards named Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, and Forest are basic.

Without the second limitation a deck of 15x Black Lotus and 45x Ancestral Recall would possibly be a turn 1 win deck:

15x Lotuses would give you 45 blue mana to cast 45 Ancestral Recalls
45 Ancestral Recalls can force you or your opponent to draw up to 135 cards
if you start with 6 cards(after mulligan), you have 54 left in the library, so you would want to use 18 Ancestral Recalls on yourself to get all you library in your hand
Then you can just mill your opponent to death

But, unfortunately, this deck is just not legal. Nowhere.
Without the first limitation the following deck would potentially be a turn 1 win deck:

2x Laboratory Maniac
4x Black Lotus
2x Ancestral Recall

So here's how it would work:

You will certainly have 1x Maniac, 3x Lotus and 1x Recall in your hand when you start.
Play 2x Lotus, Maniac and Recall on yourself which will result to forcing yourself to draw cards while you can't. This would make you lose the game, but Laboratory Maniac's ability would trigger and you would win the game instead.

But again, this deck is not legal either.
The only deck that I can think of that's capable of turn 1 win with these conditions is:

3x Black Lotus
4x Ancestral Recall
4x Fluctuator (for higher chance of getting it earlier)
1x Laboratory Maniac
48x cards with Cycling

In best case you would get Fluctuator, 3x Black Lotus and 3x Ancestral Recall as your starting hand. Then you could:

Play 3x Black Lotus for 9 blue mana (9 {U} in mana pool)
Play 3x Ancestral Recall targeting yourself (6 {U})
Play Fluctuator (4 {U})
Play last Ancestral Recall (3 {U})
Cycle like crazy(since you have Fluctuator all your cycles are free)
After drawing the last card cast Laboratory Maniac (0 mana left)
Cycle again
Win

Is there any other deck that could possibly win in turn 1?

One of the classic ones is Black Lotus, Channel, Fireball.

Same vein, Raging Goblin+Hatred.  Use extra manna as you see fit

Going by your last example I'm guessing you don't need to always go off turn 1, just have the possibility of going off turn 1, in which case find pretty much any 2 or 3 card combo and add Lotuses to pay for everything.

Vintage and Legacy are full of decks capable of winning on T1 (although T2-4 is more common for an early-game win, since T1 generally requires a perfect opening hand and your opponent not responding). There's a reason why Force of Will and Daze are such popular cards. VTC as too broad.

There is always Protein Hulk which is able to win before the first main phase, so the turn 0 win.

Yes, there are all sorts of decks that can win on turn 1, including ones that are tournament legal.  Trying to list them all would not be a good use of the site.  This question has an example of a turn 1 win by milling your opponent.


text:
Source for Dragonology rules?
Recently acquired a copy of Dragonology via an Estate Sale, and there were no rules.  Based on the article at board game geek, it looks like we have everything we need, except the rules.
I followed several links in internet searches, but they seemed to lead to phishing sites.  I couldn't find any legitimate (or non-evil) looking download for the rules.
Board Game Geek doesn't have an "official" website either for the game, nor could I find one.

We just got the game a few weeks ago as well. I found the rules here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6u03sg6m6dvtesn/rules.pdf?dl=1


text:
At what point does a land become controlled?
Shrine of the Forsaken Gods has the ability:

{T}: Add {C}{C}. Spend this mana only to cast colorless spells.
  Activate this ability only if you control seven or more lands.

Golgari Rot Farm has the text:

When Golgari Rot Farm enters the battlefield, return a land you control to its owner's hand.

I have 6 lands on the board including Shrine of the Forsaken Gods.  If I play a Golgari Rot Farm, can I tap Shrine of the Forsaken Gods for {C}{C} before bouncing the land from Golgari Rot Farm?  Do I control seven lands at that point?

Yes, you can.
Golgari Rot Farm's ability goes on the stack as soon as it enters the battlefield, and while it is there, all players get priority to do something before it resolves and you need to bounce a land. At that moment, you control seven lands and can tap Shrine of the Forsaken Gods for two colorless mana. This will work even though you might want to use it to cast a creature (which you can't if the stack isn't empty); you can 'float' the mana, because you will lose it only at the end of the current step or phase.