text:
MTG Deadlock Trap
It is my turn and I have Bristling Hydra on the battlefield and Blossoming Defense in my hand. During the Beginning of Combat
my opponent uses Deadlock Trap's ability on my Bristling Hydra.
Can I then play Blossoming Defense or activate the Hydra's ability to fizzle the Deadlock Trap? And does it matter which I use, or would either one work?

What makes you think this might not happen? Are you wondering about what happens when the target of an ability is illegal, or what order do things resolve on the stack, or something different entirely?

Also the last chance your opponent has to tap your hydra to prevent it from attacking is during the Beginning of Combat step, once it has been declared as an attacker the Trap will not do anything to the Hydra.

As an addenda......could I bypass the blossoming defense and just activate the Bristling Hydra's ability to make the Deadlock fizzle?

If you are wondering about that it should get added to the question.

Thanks Diego.  I guess the real question may be:  my opponent activates the Deadlock trap's ability, can I then activate the Hydra's ability to fizzle the Trap.  I am thinking I can.

I made some edits to the question, if it doesn't align with the question you meant to ask feel free to roll the edit back

Yes, this works like you expect it to. You can activate the hydra's ability, or cast the Blossoming Defense in response to the Trap's ability, it doesn't matter which one you use since they both grant hexproof.
When a spell or ability attempts to resolve one of the things it does is make sure it still has legal targets. In this case your Hydra would have hexproof which makes it an illegal target for your opponents spells. Since the ability no longer has any legal targets it will be countered and not have any effect.

608.2b If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. [...] The spell or ability is countered if all its targets, for every instance of the word “target,” are now illegal. If the spell or ability is not countered, it will resolve normally. [...]


text:
Hexproof and reflector mage
My Longtusk Cub is on the battlefield.
On my opponent's turn he brings in Reflector Mage, targeting my cub to return my cub to my hand.
I respond with Blossoming Defense to make my cub hexproof.
Does my cub remain on the battlefield or back in my hand?
Second question
It is my opponent's turn.
My Bristling Hydra is on the battlefield.
I spend energy to make the hydra hexproof and +1/+1.
My opponent casts reflector mage, targeting the hydra.
Does the hydra remain on the board?
I would say cub stays and hydra goes to hand.
Thanks for your help.

I think we already covered the interactions here in the deadlock trap question. If there's some reason you're not sure what goes on here, can you elaborate on what about the situation strikes you as different?

@doppelgreener The second question I don't think it is a duplicate, but it could use some clarifications like was the Mage given flash somehow, or did the Hydra's ability resolve.

Does my cub remain on the battlefield or back in my hand?

It remains on the battlefield. Reflector Mage's ability does target ("When Reflector Mage enters the battlefield, return target creature an opponent controls to its owner's hand.[...]"), and Hexproof makes that an invalid target:

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

The Reflector Mage, and its triggered ability, are both controlled by your opponent, so the target is illegal. Since the ability has all illegal targets, it is countered upon resolution, and none of its effects happen.

My Bristling Hydra is on the battlefield. I spend energy to make the hydra hexproof and +1/+1. My opponent casts Reflector Mage, targeting the hydra.

This cannot happen as described. If you have activated, and resolved, the hydra's ability, it cannot be chosen as a target for Reflector Mage's ability.
That being said, if Reflector Mage is entering the battlefield in response to your hydra's activated ability (perhaps your opponent cast Collected Company in response, and found a Reflector Mage), then yes, it can be chosen as a target. Unless you choose to respond to the targeting by activating the ability a second time, then the hydra will return to your hand.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
If a "Protection from" effect negates damage, is it still considered "damage dealt"?
If I have a Justice ("Whenever a red creature or spell deals damage, Justice deals that much damage to that creature's or spell's controller.") and a Thermal Glider (which has "protection from red") in play, and my opponent attacks with some red creature (say, a Goblin Chariot; 2/2).
I can choose to block with my Thermal Glider, and its protection from red will prevent the damage and it will survive the encounter.
But will Justice's ability trigger? Did the red creature "deal damage" even though all the damage was reduced to zero?

No, damage which is prevented is not dealt at all.

615.1a Effects that use the word “prevent” are prevention effects. Prevention effects use “prevent” to indicate what damage will not be dealt.
615.6. If damage that would be dealt is prevented, it never happens. [...]

No damage is dealt if it all gets prevented, so anything that triggers on damage being dealt will not occur.

119.8. If a source would deal 0 damage, it does not deal damage at all. That means abilities that trigger on damage being dealt won’t trigger. It also means that replacement effects that would increase the damage dealt by that source, or would have that source deal that damage to a different object or player, have no event to replace, so they have no effect.

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


text:
Are tokens permanents?
I need help to settle a disagreement. During a recent Commander game, my opponent played a Devastation Tide, Return all nonland permanents to their owners' hands. He had 4 tokens out, and claims this did not apply to the tokens. His logic was that tokens would not return to his hand since they never were actually cast, so they should remain.
I disagree for 2 reasons, first I play Duels as well and the table version, and that game counts tokens as permanents. Second, from my understanding, with a few minor exceptions, a nonland permanent would be ANYTHING except an instant, sorcery, artifacts, equipment, etc. that is not 'permanently' on the battlefield.
In the above scenario, the tokens should have been eliminated, I believe. Is this correct?

Artifacts and equipment are also permanents

Just show him Brooding Saurian. If tokens weren't permanents, other cards wouldn't have to specify nontoken permanents.

Re "a nonland permanent would be ANYTHING except an instant, sorcery, artifacts, equipment, etc. that is not 'permanently' on the battlefield.", Not quite. Just like creature cards and tokens, artifacts cards and token (incl Equipment cards and tokens) are also permaments when they are on the battelfield.

Rule 110 is very clear,

Some effects put tokens onto the battlefield. A token is a marker used to represent any permanent that isn’t represented by a card.
...
e. A token is subject to anything that affects permanents in general or that affects the token’s card type or subtype.
...
f. A token that’s phased out, or that’s in a zone other than the battlefield, ceases to exist. This is a state-based action.

Rule 705.4d also clarifies,

If a token is phased out, or is in a zone other than the battlefield, it ceases to exist.

Therefore,

Tokens are permanents.

Tokens, being permanents, are affected by Devastation Tide.

Each token leaves the battlefield.

State-based actions are checked and each token ceases to exist.

Whatever the case, your opponent's reasoning was false from the beginning.

You are correct.  According to the comprehensive rules (emphasis mine):

110.1. A permanent is a card or token on the battlefield. A permanent remains on the battlefield indefinitely. A card or token becomes a permanent as it enters the battlefield and it stops being a permanent as it’s moved to another zone by an effect or rule

and

110.5. Some effects put tokens onto the battlefield. A token is a marker used to represent any permanent that isn’t represented by a card.

So tokens on the battlefield are permanents, and if they are not lands Devastation Tide will return them to their owner's hand (and since they're tokens, they will immediately cease to exist after leaving the battlefield).

Tokens are permanents. The definition from the comprehensive rules:

110.1. A permanent is a card or token on the battlefield. [...]
110.5e A token is subject to anything that affects permanents in general or that affects the token’s card type or subtype. [...]

So... yup, nothing to do with whether they were cast, and Devastation Tide definitely bounces tokens. If anything, it's more powerful against tokens, since upon being returned to their owners' hands, they cease to exist:

110.5f A token that’s phased out, or that’s in a zone other than the battlefield, ceases to exist. This is a state-based action; see rule 704. (Note that if a token changes zones, applicable triggered abilities will trigger before the token ceases to exist.)


text:
Is the CMC of a creature that is enchanted the cost of the enchantment and the creature combined?
Just started playing MTG and I have a Filigree Familiar of 3 cost enchanted with Marked by Honor with a cost of 4. Does the CMC of the Filigree Familiar equal 3 or the combined cost of 7? My opponent is using the card Fragmentize to destroy the Filigree Familiar, but we aren't sure what the CMC is equal to.

The CMC of Filigree Familiar is always 3. The only time the CMC of a card changes is if it has {X} in its mana cost and it is on the stack (in which case it is the chosen value for X, other wise X counts as 0).

202.3. The converted mana cost of an object is a number equal to the total amount of mana in its mana cost, regardless of color.

The CMC of a 'card' also changes if the card starts representing a different object, as with meld (202.3c.)

Recommend expanding this answer to explain that the creature and enchant are distinct entities on the battlefield, to fully correct the misunderstanding demonstrated in the question.


text:
Response to Selvala, Heart of the Wilds triggered ability
Can you increase the power of a creature that entered the battlefield in response to the triggered ability of Selvala, Heart of the Wilds in order to draw the card? For example, suppose you have out Selvala and a 4/4, and you summon another 4/4 and cast Giant Growth in response to the trigger. Would that work and let you actually draw a card?

Yes, you can change the creature's size in response to the ability in order to draw a card.
Rule 603.4 says

A triggered ability may read “When/Whenever/At [trigger event], if [condition], [effect].” When the trigger event occurs, the ability checks whether the stated condition is true. The ability triggers only if it is; otherwise it does nothing. If the ability triggers, it checks the stated condition again as it resolves. If the condition isn’t true at that time, the ability is removed from the stack and does nothing. Note that this mirrors the check for legal targets. This rule is referred to as the “intervening ‘if’ clause” rule. (The word “if” has only its normal English meaning anywhere else in the text of a card; this rule only applies to an “if” that immediately follows a trigger condition.)

The "if" condition in Selvala's ability appears at the end of the ability, so it is not an "intervening 'if' clause". This means that the creature's power is only checked when the ability resolves.
This is confirmed by a ruling about Selvala in the Conspiracy: Take the Crown release notes:

The new creature's power is compared to the power of each other creature on the battlefield as the first ability resolves. If another creature has the same or higher power than the new creature's power, no one may draw a card.

If there was any doubt Tabak has confirmed this in a very similar question asked by a user with a similar name to this questions OP.

Wow, are there a lot of cards with this "When/Whenever/At {trigger event}, {effect} if {condition}" phrasing? I know it works within the rules but it's pretty awkward to depend that specifically on the wording...

This magiccards.info search finds cards like that. There are a lot of false positives (particularly, conditions that are dependent on the outcome of the trigger effect), but the first page of results gives us Abzan Beastmaster and Advice from the Fae, which follow that pattern.

Thank you for the answer, now I can build the deck I had in mind.

Unfortunately no. The trigger checks as it activates, so the giant growth would turn it into a 7/7, but it would not enter as a 7/7. If you had something such as Zameck Guildmage and used it's ability to make the creature enter with a +1/+1 counter, then your 4/4 would enter as a 5/5 and Selvala's trigger would let you draw.

Unfortunately, this is incorrect. As my answer shows, the ability does not actually have an intervening "if" clause, so the creature's power is only checked when the ability resolves.


text:
Merchants and Marauders NPC Combat Decisions
I played my first game last night with my son and we had a blast even though we really didn't have a good understanding of the rules until we were almost finished.  I'm really looking forward to our next game.
In this game there are non-player captains (NPCs) that may engage in combat with player-controlled ships.  Combat decisions for the NPC are decided by the player(s) not engaged in that combat as described in the following rule.

NPCs in combat are controlled by another player with an interest in
  doing his or her best to secure victory. If there are any issues over
  who gets to control an NPC, then the player to the left of the player
  fighting the NPC controls it.

In the first sentence, does secure victory refer to winning the game, sinking the player ship at all costs, fleeing a losing battle, or other?
For example, suppose player A is controlling an NPC in a battle vs. player B.  Player A might want to avoid sinking player B because player A wants to attack player B on their next turn to gain a glory (victory) point.  This seems like a gamey tactic that goes against the spirit of the rules.  What do you think?

This is quite a controversial question that has already been extensively discussed on BGG [1][2]. The general consensus is that you should play the NPC as if you were the NPC captain and it was your own ship, even to the detrimental of your own captain. Examples:

The NPC neither plays no politics nor it has any knowledge of the scoring board. You should try to sink it even if that means letting another player win.
Boarding "should" only occur when the NPC is "sure" that they can win. Otherwise, if you just roll for boarding without good chances, just to let the human player inflict damage or escape, then you are not trying "hard enough" to win.
Remember that the official rules state that an NPC can only try to flee if either their cannons or their crew are less than the respective stat of the human player. Therefore, it's perfectly fine to try to flee at that point, albeit should the NPC be on the verge of sinking the human player, then such a decision may be controversial.

Controlling the NPC is, overall, a delicate situation. In a single phrase, it can be summarized as do your best to sink/board the enemy ship, even if it means going against your own captain (you were planning to attack that player) or letting a third player win.

I read that as "to secure victory [for the NPC]", as opposed to some gamey out-of-character motivation such as you imagined for Player A.


text:
If there are two or more abilities that go off on the upkeep, can a creature's activated ability go off preventing the second?
I have Sheoldred, Whispering One and the Eldrazi Monument in play. At the beginning of my upkeep, I sacrifice a creature to pay the upkeep for the Monument. My plan was to bring it back out using Sheoldred's ability, but my opponent has a Scavenging Ooze. He taps one green and exiles the sacrificed creature when it hits the graveyard. Is he able to exile my creature after the sacrifice but before the Sheoldred ability activates?

If you sacrifice a creature to Eldrazi Monument's ability, you can't bring that creature back with Sheoldred during the same upkeep. But if you could, then your opponent would be able to stop you using Scavenging Ooze.
As your upkeep step starts, the first thing you do is put all abilities that trigger at the beginning of your upkeep on the stack. You can choose what order they are put on the stack, so you can have Eldrazi Monument's ability resolve before Sheoldred's ability. However, you also have to choose the target for Sheoldred's ability when it is put on the stack, so Sheoldred can only return a creature that was already in the graveyard before you sacrifice a creature to Eldrazi Monument.
It would work differently with a slightly different ability. Consider this ability:

At the beginning of your upkeep, return target a creature card from your graveyard to the battlefield.

In this case, the ability does not have a target, so you do not choose which creature to return until the ability resolves. Then the situation plays out like this:

You put the alternate Sheoldred ability and the Eldrazi Monument ability on the stack.
The Eldrazi Monument ability resolves, and you sacrifice a creature.
At this point, both you and your opponent have another chance to respond before the alternate Sheoldred ability resolves. Your opponent activates the Scavenging Ooze's ability targeting the creature you sacrificed.
The Scavenging Ooze's ability resolves, and the creature is exiled.
The alternate Sheoldred ability resolves, and you can return a creature from your graveyard to the battlefield. You can't return the creature you sacrificed, because it has been exiled, but you can choose a different creature, if there is one available.

There were no other creatures in the graveyard. He had exiled them already.

It doesn't matter if your opponent has a Scavenging Ooze, you are not able to return the creature sacrificed to the Monument with Sheoldred on the same turn it was sacrificed.
This is because at the beginning of your upkeep everything that triggers goes on the stack at the same time. For the Monument this doesn't matter since you choose which creature to sacrifice when the ability resolves. For Sheoldred however since it has the word 'target' in the ability you have to choose a legal target when the ability is put onto the stack.
If we were to assume that Sheoldred's ability said 'return a creature card' rather than 'return target creature card' you still could not return the card because your opponent can activate abilities before her trigger would resolve, but after the Monument's would.
In order for any spell or ability to resolve each player must pass priority without doing anything, and if there are multiple spells or abilities on the stack priority must be passed by all players in between each spell/ability. There is no way to just 'resolve the stack' without all players getting to do things. In Magic priority is basically the system that allows players to do things, when you have priority you can cast a spell or activate an ability (and a few other things). Since your opponent gains priority in between the Monument's triggered ability and Sheoldred's triggered ability they have the opportunity to activate their Ooze's ability and remove the creature card from the graveyard before it could be returned.

There are 2 things going on here: 1) Your initial scenario doesn't work. 2) Your opponent would get to exile the creature after the sacrifice.
When Eldrazi Monument and Sheoldred both trigger, both abilities have to go on the stack. That means that there has to be a target in the graveyard for Sheoldred.  So, a creature sacrificed to Monument won't be there to be targeted.
As for Scavenging Ooze, yes, the opponent can exile it in between triggers resolving.  Triggers are just abilities on the stack.  Players get priority before and after each ability resolves. Since they could activate Ooze, with their priority it could activate it.  This is particularly relevant with cards like Emrakul, the Aeons Torn since it is in the graveyard while the shuffle trigger is on the stack.


text:
Magic the Gathering: Chaining Instants during combat phase
Say it's the start other player's combat phase, and I have Aethersquall Ancient out on the field, whose 2nd ability's cost is to spend 8 energy to bounce all other creatures besides it off the board. I have 5 energy. Could I cast Harnessed Lightning, an instant that gives 3 energy, and not spend any on its effect and instead spend the new total of 8 energy on the Ancient's ability before the blocking step?

You can't activate Aethersquall's ability except when you can cast a sorcery; on your own main phase if the stack is empty.

Is there a particular reason to cast Harnessed Lightning in the declare attackers step rather than main phase 1? You can cast it then, do zero damage and have 8 energy and a clear stack in your main phase to do a mass bouncing.

No, you Can't.
Aethersqual Ancient's second ability has a limiting condition, specifically:

Activate this ability only any time you can cast a sorcery.

To the best of my recollection, there is not a card in magic the gathering that will allow you to activate the ability. Refer to Vedalken Orrery on oracle for clarification, explaining why it doesn't work.

This applies only to casting spells. It does not, for example, change when you may activate abilities that can only be activated “any time you could cast a sorcery”.

Editorial: This is one of the occasions where the plain text on the card isn't sufficient. There are several cards that let you play a sorcery as though it had flash, yet it takes going to their oracle pages to find the above. Intuitively, if there is an effect that allows me to play a sorcery as if it had flash, and this ability is limited to only being activated if I can play a sorcery, than I should be able to activate the ability.
You can cast Harnessed Lightning, and choose not to use any Energy, adding to your energy pool for eight total. However, when you go to activate the ability during the end of the Declare Attacakers step of your opponents turn, you will be trying to take an illegal action. Your opponent should stop you from doing so.

Ah yeah, I forgot about that

Being able to cast a sorcery during your opponents turn won't allow you activate the ability. That phrase means 'during your main phase while the stack is empty'

@diego You're correct; I loosely recalled that cards exist that allow you to cast cards as if they have flash. Just dived Oracle to flesh out the caveat.

The reason I originally edited out the part about your opponent correcting you is that it's irrelevant (answers to rule-based questions don't generally require assumptions on what might happen if you don't follow them) and misleading (it suggests that it's okay to attempt to do so and have the opponent resolve the situation, or even that your opponent is responsible for paying attention more than you are). I'm not sure why you're insisting to include this in your answer, and I'm not going to propose another edit on top of the one I did before, but I wanted to note this much.

@TheThirdMan I persist because that is specifically the course of action the question is investigating. It wants to know if they can cast the instant, not use the energy, and activate the ability. The answer as constructed has parts: No you can't do that, There isn't a condition that will let you do that, and What would happen if you tried.

I'm saying that the What would happen if you tried part isn't in the question, nor is it required in any way to resolve the situation. If you know you're not allowed to activate the ability and you do it anyway, you're cheating. If you misplayed and the question were about how the situation would be resolved from here (which it isn't), you wouldn't be able to sufficiently answer that part without knowing what REL the questioner is talking about either and whether Judges are involved, and most of all, "your opponent should stop you from doing so" is incomplete at best, and wrong in some cases


text:
M:tG infinite loops: which actions are optional vs. mandatory? Is there inaction?
I'm confused about how to interpret the rules regarding infinity. In particular, the rules speak of mandatory actions, from which I infer that there are also non-mandatory actions. How do I tell which are which? Are there such things as non-actions? If so, how do I tell them apart from actions?
I would like to understand the terms, concepts and ways of applying the rules. For that purpose, here are some concrete scenarios:
Scenario 1: Each player controls Platinum Angel enchanted with a Pacifism and has the remaining 58 cards exiled (no hand, no library, nothing else in play or graveyard). My intuition suggests this is a draw.
I think the complete game state graph is a simple cycle whose length is the number turns per round (here equal to the number of players, two) times the number of times players pass priority in a do-nothing turn (the number of players times the number of steps in which players have priority, which is always the same).
Since no player can do anything other than pass priority, the way I can get to a draw by reading the rules is if this is a sequence of only mandatory actions.  An open question: is this an empty sequence of actions, meaning passing priority is a non-action, or is it a sequence of some positive number of mandatory actions, all of them being passing priority?
Scenario 2: Like scenario 1, but player 1 also has Mox Diamond in hand. Player 2 knows this, thanks to e.g. a Gitaxian Probe.
I think the state graph is two parallel cycles, with an edge from one to the other---but not in the other direction---whenever player 1 could cast Mox Diamond, which would go to his graveyard since he doesn't have a land to discard. The game is initially somewhere in that loop which can reach the other.
No state in the state graph is won or lost for either player, so I think the game should be a draw. The only way to get there, AFAICT, is if the current "loop" is one of only mandatory actions. But passing when you could play Mox Diamond could not be mandatory in the sense of you not being allowed to play Mox Diamond---could it?! But neither could playing Mox Diamond be mandatory, since you're allowed to not play the cards you have in hand. Hence I believe that passing priority is a non-action, and scenario 1 consists of an empty sequence of mandatory actions.
Scenario 3: Like scenario 1, but replace both copies of Pacifism with Cloak of Mists and give each player an Energy Field.
The same empty loop of mandatory actions from scenario 1 still exists. A player could also choose to attack (not mandatory). This would tap their Platinum Angel, but not change any life total, thanks to Energy Field.  The non-trivial part of the state space is the tapped/untapped state of each Platinum Angel, with a lot of passing of priority to flip back and forth between those four state( group)s.
Does rule 716.3 take effect here?

716.3. Sometimes a loop can be fragmented, meaning that each player involved in the loop performs an independent action that results in the same game state being reached multiple times. If that happens, the active player (or, if the active player is not involved in the loop, the first player in turn order who is involved) must then make a different game choice so the loop does not continue.
Example: In a two-player game, the active player controls a creature with the ability "{0}: [This creature] gains flying," the nonactive player controls a permanent with the ability "{0}: Target creature loses flying," and nothing in the game cares how many times an ability has been activated. Say the active player activates his creature's ability, it resolves, then the nonactive player activates her permanent's ability targeting that creature, and it resolves. This returns the game to a game state it was at before. The active player must make a different game choice (in other words, anything other than activating that creature's ability again). The creature doesn't have flying. Note that the nonactive player could have prevented the fragmented loop simply by not activating her permanent's ability, in which case the creature would have had flying. The nonactive player always has the final choice and is therefore able to determine whether the creature has flying.

If so, what are its implications? Here is one interpretation of the rule: if a player could make a choice that would bring the game into a state in which it has been before, that player may not make that choice. But since the state space is finite in this scenario, sooner or later there will be a game state in which a player is not allowed to do anything: they are neither allowed to pass priority, nor not pass priority, all (other?) actions having been forbidden by my interpretation of this rule. The game can not continue from such a state, but neither is the outcome well-defined.  Hence I think my interpretation is wrong. But I don't know how else to interpret it.
Does it only apply to loops that do not cross turn boundaries?  If so, how is this situation resolved?  Does the loop of mandatory actions rule apply, making the game a draw?
Does Energy Field matter? Does Cloak of Mists? There are ten combinations: three quantities of each permanent, 0 or 1 or 2, and in case of 1 and 1, whether they are controlled by the same player or not. (Maybe times two, depending on whose turn it is when we enter this scenario for the first time.)
Scenario 4: players control only Platinum Angel.  Both players have one million life.
Same questions as scenario 3. Is a player ever forced to block (and lose)?  Assume it is the untap step of player 1's turn and both angels are untapped.  Do the life totals matter? Does it change if they're 1? If they're -1? If one is positive and one negative?
Scenario 5: like scenario 4, but player 1 also controls a Swamp and has a Mox Diamond in hand, known via Gitaxian Probe.
Same questions as the previous scenario.
Scenario 6: like scenario 5, but player 1 has a Vendetta in hand instead of Mox Diamond.
Same questions as the previous scenario. In particular: is it a drawn game immediately, even though player 1 could force a win if play continued? That would seem bizarre.
Do the answers in scenario 5 and 6 depend on the card in hand being known?  If so, how?
Exactly at what scenario does it stop being a draw and become won for either player?
Scenario 7 ("Here be dragons"): both players have Worldgorger Dragon in their graveyard. Player 1 has an Animate Dead on the stack, targeting his own Worldgorger Dragon. All 117 other cards are exiled.
Whenever Animate Dead re-enters play, player 1 must choose a target for it. He will only have two valid targets ever. Is targeting his own dragon a mandatory action? Is targeting the other player's dragon a mandatory action? Are two mutually exclusive actions mandatory, and what does that mean? Is neither action mandatory, making the drawn-game-on-mandatory-loop rule not apply? If it is only the choosing of a target that is mandatory, but not a particular target, would the game also be drawn with a Birds of Paradise in some graveyard (since the loop of always choosing dragon still exists)?

120.4 A player who attempts to draw a card from a library with no cards in it loses the game the next time a player would receive priority.
this rule answers more than one of these scenarios.

actually i think it covers all of them

@thatdude1087 Platinum Angel makes it so you can't lose for any reason

@thatdude1087 why would it if the Platinum angel is in play?

As for non-mandatory action, casting a spell would be one of possible examples. You don't have to cast any spells.

@Jonas Kölker Basically, if there is a loop of actions, you can't be forced to brake it unless the nationality is in the objects involved in the loop. Related: Will infinite loops still force a draw if I have a way to end them?

It's not an answer to the question exactly, but I don't believe it is possible for Wizards to create rules about looping that handle all cases. MTG has been proven Turing Complete https://www.toothycat.net/~hologram/Turing/HowItWorks.html . So, it is not even possible in all cases to determine whether one is even in an infinite looping situation or not. And because of this, there will also always be provably looping situations that are not covered by whatever finite set of looping rules you choose. So, even if the rules can answer all of your scenarios, there are others which the rules do not.

@Shufflepants the tournament rules "cheat" this by making the judge the arbiter of loops, as we see in murgatroid99's answer. Halting problem is easy to solve when you have an Oracle :)

The loop rules in the Comprehensive Rules do not cover these situations. However, a recently added section of the Magic Tournament Rules does address the scenarios in this question. Of course, the Magic Tournament Rules are not binding on casual "kitchen table" games, but it is reasonable to interpret them as a statement on how the game is intended to be played.
Section 4.4 of the Magic Tournament Rules addresses loops, and contains the following relevant excerpts. Remember that the Magic Tournament Rules are written in plain English, and should not be treated as formal logic.

A loop is a form of tournament shortcut that involves detailing a sequence of actions to be repeated and then performing a number of iterations of that sequence. The loop actions must be identical in each iteration and cannot include conditional actions ("If this, then that".)
If no players are involved in maintaining the loop, each player in turn order chooses a number of iterations to perform before they will take an action to break the loop or that they wish to take no action. If all players choose
  to take no action, the game is a draw. Otherwise, the game advances through the lowest number of iterations chosen and the player who chose that number takes an action to break the loop.
If one player is involved in maintaining the loop, they choose a number of iterations. The other players, in turn order, agree to that number or announce a lower number after which they intend to intervene. The game advances through the lowest number of iterations chosen and the player who chose that number receives priority.
If two or more players are involved in maintaining a loop within a turn, each player in turn order chooses a number of iterations to perform. The game advances through the lowest number of iterations chosen and the player who chose that number receives priority.
Loops may span multiple turns if a game state is not meaningfully changing. Note that drawing cards other than the ones being used to sustain the loop is a meaningful change. If two or more players are involved in maintaining a loop across turns, each player chooses a number of iterations to perform, or announces their intent to continue indefinitely. If all players choose to continue indefinitely, the game is a draw. Otherwise, the game advances through the lowest number of iterations chosen and the player who chose that number receives priority at the point they stop taking an action to sustain the loop.
The judge is the final arbiter of what constitutes a loop. A player may not 'opt-out' of shortcutting a loop, nor may they make irrelevant changes between iterations in an attempt to make it appear as though there is no loop. Once a
  loop has been shortcut, it may not be restarted until the game has changed in a relevant way. Proposing loops as an effort to use up time on the clock is Stalling.

Based on these rules, we would treat the scenarios in question as follows:

This is a loop that spans multiple turns, in which neither player is involved in maintaining the loop. Both players can only choose to take no action, so the game is a draw.
This is the same as the first scenario, except that player 1 may choose to take an action. If player 1 chooses to take the only available action of playing Mox Diamond, the loop resumes but neither player has any more meaningful actions to take. Either way, the result is the same: eventually both players choose to take no action, so the game is a draw.
In this scenario, both players can choose to attack or not, but neither Platinum Angel can die. A reasonable judge would rule that changes to life total are not meaningful changes to game state if neither player can possibly lose the game. Since neither player can take an action that meaningfully affects the game state, they can only choose to take no action, and the game is a draw.
This scenario is a multi-turn loop that both players are involved in maintaining. A single loop iteration here is any number of turn cycles with a fixed choice of whether each player attacks in their respective turns (I exclude blocks because a block would necessarily break such a loop). Each player in turn order chooses how many iterations to play out, or to play out indefinitely. If they choose to break the loop, they must take a different action. This may create a different multi-turn loop with similar parameters.
A reasonable judge here would rule that decreasing a player's life total below 0 in this scenario does not constitute a meaningful change to the game state because it does not affect whether that player would lose if they stopped controlling a Platinum Angel. Therefore, we would eventually reach a state in which either both players choose to continue indefinitely, or neither player can take an action that meaningfully affects the game state (because both life totals are at 0 or less), or the loop is broken (because the Platinum Angels are dead and at least one player has a life total of 0 or less).
While it is in principle possible for a player to create a long sequence of slightly varying loops in this scenario, the last quoted paragraph indicates that doing so violates other tournament rules.
The Mox Diamond is irrelevant, so this scenario plays out exactly like scenario 4.
This scenario plays out like scenario 4, except that player 1 has an additional action that they can choose to take. They are not required to take that action, but if they do they can easily win. If they don't, then it plays out exactly the same as in scenario 4.
With just the Worldgorger Dragons, we have a sequence of unconditional triggers that cannot be broken or changed except in inconsequential details (which Dragon is reanimated). So this is an actual mandatory loop and the game is a tie. If there is also a Birds of Paradise in one graveyard, the player with the triggers can make a different choice and break the loop, so the loop is fragmented and the player must eventually break the loop.

A previous version pointed out the following problems with trying to use the Comprehensive Rules to address the scenarios in question, and described some guidelines that can be inferred from the rules.
Rule 716.3 says

Sometimes a loop can be fragmented, meaning that each player involved in the loop performs an independent action that results in the same game state being reached multiple times. If that happens, the active player (or, if the active player is not involved in the loop, the first player in turn order who is involved) must then make a different game choice so the loop does not continue.

But the rules do not rigorously or exhaustively define "action" or "choice". They do not even specify what counts as the "same" game state.
Rule 716.4 says

If a loop contains only mandatory actions, the game is a draw. (See rules 104.4b and 104.4f.)

But the rules do not define "mandatory".
Rule 716.5 says

No player can be forced to perform an action that would end a loop other than actions called for by objects involved in the loop..

One point of particular note here is that these rules explicitly mention objects involved in the loops and actions called for by those objects. They make absolutely no mention of actions or choices called for by turn-based actions, which implies that these rules are not intended to cover loops that cross phase boundaries. But we can distill a couple of guidelines from the intentions of those rules:

Based on 716.4, we can say that if no player can ever do anything to end the game, then they should agree to a draw.
Based on 716.5, we can say that no player is required to cast spells or activate abilities to change the outcome of the game, even if that outcome is a draw based on the previous guideline.

Inaction
I am going to define inaction as not choosing when a choice is presented to you. This is not the same as choosing to do nothing when an ability gives you that option (e.g. you may draw a card).
You could, in theory, choose to be inactive forever in a casual game of Magic. The comprehensive rules allow for this (but your friends might not). However, in the context of the rules for infinite loops, it doesn't make sense to consider "inaction" an option. If "inaction" were an option, then no action in the game could possibly be mandatory. The rest of my answer assumes that inaction is not an action.
You are never obligated to cast spells or activate abilities, even if you could interrupt a loop by doing so. This does not fit my definition of inaction.

716.5. No player can be forced to perform an action that would end a loop other than actions called for by objects involved in the loop.

Mandatory
An action is mandatory if it is your only option.

Target player discards a card.

You only have one option: discard a card. This action is mandatory.
There is a special class of actions that aren't technically mandatory, but can be treated as such. You are never obligated to choose the "unless" option, even if you could interrupt a loop by doing so.

716.6. If a loop contains an effect that says “[A] unless [B],” where [A] and [B] are each actions, no player can be forced to perform [B] to break the loop. If no player chooses to perform [B], the loop will continue as though [A] were mandatory.

Optional
An action is optional if you have more than one option. For example, let's assume that there are two artifacts on the field, and you cast Naturalize.

Destroy target artifact.

You have two choices. Therefore, the action of choosing the either artifact is optional.
Loops
If a loop is comprised entirely of mandatory actions, then 716.4 applies, and the game is a draw.

716.4. If a loop contains only mandatory actions, the game is a draw.

If a loop contains at least one optional action, then the loop is fragmented, and rule 716.3 applies.

716.3. Sometimes a loop can be fragmented, meaning that each player involved in the loop performs an independent action that results in the same game state being reached multiple times. If that happens, the active player (or, if the active player is not involved in the loop, the first player in turn order who is involved) must then make a different game choice so the loop does not continue.

Scenario 1
Contains only mandatory actions (passing priority), and is covered by 716.4.
Scenario 2
Contains only mandatory actions. You are not obligated to cast Mox Opal per 716.5, but you could if you wanted to. 716.4 applies if you don't cast Mox Opal, and it will still apply if you do.
Scenario 3
Contains nested loops. The inner loop is fragmented because you can choose to attack or not attack with Platinum Angel. 716.3 applies to the inner loop, and so the active player must make a different choice. This process repeats, forming an outer loop. Neither player can make a game choice that breaks the outer loop. Therefore, 716.4 applies, and the game is a draw.
Scenario 4
Contains a nested loop. The inner loop is fragmented, but this time the outer loop is also fragmented, because either player could make a game choice that ends the outer loop. Therefore, 716.3 applies and the active player must break the outer loop by choosing that option. The rules don't specify which player is active in a loop that spans multiple turns, so your question is unanswerable via comprehensive rules. In my opinion, the active player is whatever player was active when the loop started.
Scenario 5
Exactly the same as scenario 4.
Scenario 6
Similar to scenario 4, except that if you choose to cast Vendetta, you win. If you don't, the game ends in a draw.
Scenario 7
Same as scenario 3. The inner loop is fragmented, because you can choose which dragon to target. This process repeats, forming an outer loop. Neither player can make a game choice that breaks the outer loop. Therefore, 716.4 applies, and the game is a draw.

Wouldn't scenarios 5 and 6 work the same as scenario 4, since that's the one they're modifications of?

@murgatroid99 Yes. I got my scenarios mixed up. Does that look better?

What difference does it make to target one dragon or other? Its text refers to the permanents of its controller, not owner. Whether the animated dragon I control belongs to you or to me doesn't impact what it does. Or am I missing something? Why does targeting one over the other break a loop? Isn't that just a different loop? Or a loop containing choices?

@JonasKölker Whoops, I think that was a misread on my part (and you even spotted the exact word that I misread). On my second reading it looks similar to scenario 3. I revised the answer. Hopefully I am not missing something that I had in my head earlier.

A mandatory loop is one that is caused by some triggered actions that trigger other actions that trigger other...
One such example is having 3 Oblivion Rings (and only 3 Oblivion Rings) in play/exile.

The first O-ring targets nothing.
The second targets the first, exiling it.
The third comes into play, and since it must exile something, it exiles the second O-ring.
The first O-ring comes back, and since it must exile something, it exiles the third O-ring.
The second O-ring comes back, and since it must exile something, it exiles the first O-ring.
The third comes back, and since it must exile something, it exiles the second O-ring.
Goto step 4

In the Platinum Angel scenario, since the only action (mandatory or otherwise) is passing priority, and if it were to continuously happen nothing would change, the game would end in a draw.
Even if a player had a chance of getting rid of their opponent's angel (or their own), they are not required to play. If neither player is willing to do anything to change the game state, and there is nothing that will cause a win/loss (decking normally), then the game ends in a draw.
In the Worldgorger Dragon scenario, since the choice has options, at some point you'll have to end the loop and choose your opponent's Dragon. (By 104.4b)

Can you explain your answer for the Platinum Angel scenario? Why is nothing mandatory in that case?

Also, for the Worldgorger case, you can't actually say "I target my dragon infinite times". You have to eventually make a choice that leads to the loop ending.

Good catch on the Worldgorger.

I think you misunderstood my question about Platinum Angel. Why don't the turn-based actions and priority passing that comprise the turn count as mandatory actions?

I'm not quite sure how to explain it, especially since mandatory action is not defined. Passing priority and going through phases are actions taken by players that they have control over. You are only ever required to pass priority/go through phases because of slow play rules. If the same actions would be taken by both players and they agree, they can shortcut it.

If you argue that passing priority is not mandatory, then the Oblivion Ring example is also not an example of a loop of mandatory actions because you could just hold priority while one of the triggered abilities is on the stack. And other turn-based actions are in fact mandatory: you have to draw a card each draw step.

@murgatroid99 I would argue that the passing of priority doesn't count as an "action". It seems more like the result of choosing not to act or having no actions to take. But like Jon said, it doesn't seem to be defined anywhere. Regardless, if it does count as an action and is considered mandatory (because not doing so would be stalling the game) then the result is the same.

If "mandatory" isn't defined, and there is no other justification for this interpretation, then there's no reason to say that this answer is correct, as opposed to a different one. And if the combination of mandatory turn-based actions and priority passing is in fact a mandatory loop, then the Platinum Angel case is defined as a draw, so the result would not be the same.

I meant the same as my interpretation, sorry I wasn't clear. Fair though. In any case I think this is evidence for my argument: "116.3d If a player has priority and chooses not to take any actions, that player passes." But the next line seems like it might be evidence against it: "116.4. If all players pass in succession (that is, if all players pass without taking any actions in between passing), the spell or ability on top of the stack resolves or, if the stack is empty, the phase or step ends." Saying "between passing" seems to suggest it counts passing as an action. Still unclear.

The reason I specifically mentioned "the combination of mandatory turn-based actions and priority passing" is because we have 3 cases: if priority passing is mandatory, then the whole thing is a mandatory loop. If priority passing is not mandatory, then that contradicts the "mandatory loop" rule. And if passing priority is not an action at all, then we have a loop consisting only of mandatory turn-based actions.

Right, I lost track of that somewhere in the middle of making my first comment. I understand the dispute now.

I'm not so sure about the opening sentence of your answer. A mandatory loop does not necessarily involve triggered actions.

What difference does it make to target one dragon or other? Its text refers to the permanents of its controller, not owner. Whether the animated dragon I control belongs to you or to me doesn't impact what it does. Or am I missing something? Why does targeting one over the other break a loop? Isn't that just a different loop? Or a loop containing choices?

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


text:
Information about "Make Twenty One, no more, no less" wooden Tabletop Game
We have searched and searched and cannot find any information about this game. It is wooden, has a slot for pennies that fall around pins with the points listed where the pennies fall.  We can't find a company name. Specifically we would love to know when it was made and who it was made by. A little history.
I am not sure if this group can help or could lead me to who can. Thanks so much!

If this is a game you own, including a picture of it would help.

Sounds to me like Plinko. I know it from the Price is Right, but commercial versions are likely out there.


text:
Deathtouch/Monstrosity Interaction
Alice has a Wildfire Cerberus and a Bow of Nylea, and Bob has a tapped 3/3 Beast token.
Alice attacks with the Cerberus, and activates its Monstrosity. In response, Bob targets the Cerberus with Vanish into Memory.
When everything resolves, will Bob still have his Beast token?

It depends on if Vanish into Memory is cast before or after the Monstrous ability resolves.
If Vanish into Memory is cast in response to the Monstrosity ability then the Beast will survive because when the ability resolves the Cerberus is no longer on the battlefield to trigger, and thus doesn't deal damage.
Gatherer Ruling:

An ability that triggers when a creature becomes monstrous won’t trigger if that creature isn’t on the battlefield when its monstrosity ability resolves.

If Vanish into Memory is cast in response to the triggered ability the the Beast will die because the ability uses Last Known Information to determine if the Cerberus had deathtouch. Basically the game looks back in time to how the Cerberus last existed on the battlefield to determine effects of the damage like deathtouch.

112.7a Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. Destruction or removal of the source after that time won’t affect the ability. Note that some abilities cause a source to do something (for example, “Prodigal Pyromancer deals 1 damage to target creature or player”) rather than the ability doing anything directly. In these cases, any activated or triggered ability that references information about the source because the effect needs to be divided checks that information when the ability is put onto the stack. Otherwise, it will check that information when it resolves. In both instances, if the source is no longer in the zone it’s expected to be in at that time, its last known information is used. The source can still perform the action even though it no longer exists.
702.2e If an object changes zones before an effect causes it to deal damage, its last known information is used to determine whether it had deathtouch.

Interestingly, in the comp rules "702.2b Any nonzero amount of combat damage assigned to a creature by a source with deathtouch is considered to be lethal damage, regardless of that creature’s toughness. See rules 510.1c–d." I always thought that deathtouch applied to all types of damage, but this seems to indicate it only applies to combat damage.

@SocioMatt That rule is there so that when assigning combat damage you only need to assign 1 per blocker, and not equal to their toughness. 702.2c is the one for actually killing things:
702.2c A creature with toughness greater than 0 that’s been dealt damage by a source with deathtouch since the last time state-based actions were checked is destroyed as a state-based action. See rule 704.

This rule seems poorly organized syntactically. All of the other keyword rules are written (1) It's called this, (2) It does this, (3) Other important information and clarification. Deathtouch seems to read (1) (3) (2) (3). Any idea why they felt the need to clarify the combat rules before explaining that deathtouch is applied by any damage dealt by that creature?

@SocioMatt Yes, because it impacts damage assignment in combat, and thus needs to be located there too.

It's also a fairly recent change in the grand scheme of things.  (M12 maybe?)  It used to be trampling death toucher would have to assign damage fully equal to toughness before trampling over, even though it had death touch.  So there may have been some rationale for adding it as its own specific additional rules item at the time.

@SocioMatt You should be happy, they just changed the order of those two rules.


text:
Can you sacrifice Implement of Ferocity in response to a revolt trigger?
Can you sacrifice Implement of Ferocity in response to a revolt trigger?
So for example can I play a Greenwheel Liberator and then in response sacrifice the implement to give the liberator +1/+1 and then have the liberator get its own pair of counters for a total of +3/+3.
I think the answer is yes, but wondered whether there might be some rule saying the trigger doesn't happen at all if the condition isn't met or some other tricky timing issue.

This cannot work because the Implement of Ferocity can only be activated anytime you could cast a sorcery. This means it must be your main phase and the stack must be empty.
Assuming that you could activate the ability at any time it would depend on exactly how the ability is worded, in most cases you need to sacrifice the Implement before the Revolt ability would happen.
For you example of a Greenwheel Liberator entering the battlefield, you would have to sacrifice the Implement before the Liberator enters the battlefield in order to get the Revolt effect. Also note that the Liberator doesn't have a triggered ability it has a replacement effect that modifies how it enters the battlefield.
For triggered abilities like Airdrop Aeronauts or Call for Unity you also need to sacrifice the Implement before the trigger condition would occur. This is because they have what is called an 'intervening if clause'and if the 'if' clause isn't true nothing happens.

603.4. A triggered ability may read “When/Whenever/At [trigger event], if [condition], [effect].” When the trigger event occurs, the ability checks whether the stated condition is true. The ability triggers only if it is; otherwise it does nothing.

For instants and sorceries with Revolt, like Fatal Push you can sacrifice them after they have been put on the stack and still get the Revolt effect. This is because the Revolt condition isn't checked until the spell goes to resolve, unlike the other types of Revolt abilities.

So for example can I play a Greenwheel Liberator and then in response sacrifice the implement to give the liberator +1/+1 [...]

Greenwheel Liberator doesn't have a trigger. Its Revolt effect is actually a replacement effect that changes how it enters the battlefield - so your last chance to turn on Revolt is before Greenwheel Liberator enters the battlefield at all. Therefore, no, this does not work as described.
Also, this doesn't work well for other Revolt effects, as they are usually worded as "When ~ enters the battlefield, if a permanent you controlled left the battlefield this turn, [do something]." Those effects are triggers, but because of the way they're worded, they won't trigger unless a permanent has already left the battlefield. So, for example, this wouldn't work with Airdrop Aeronauts either, as you'd need to have sacrificed Implement of Ferocity before the Aeronauts enters the battlefield in order to get the trigger.

Those revolt effects have what is known as an intervening 'if' clause. The rules for those are found in rule 603.4, within the triggered ability section, and the wording formula is:  “When/Whenever/At [trigger event], if [condition], [effect].” (Notably, "when [trigger], [effect] if [condition]" is not an intervening "if".)

No, you cannot do that.
The first and most simple reason is that you cannot sacrifice Implements while the stack is not empty, because you can only sacrifice them any time you could play a sorcery.
It would also not work if you could sacrifice the implement at any time, because revolt is not a triggered ability that can be responded to at all:

603.6d Some permanents have text that reads “[This permanent] enters the battlefield with . . . ,” “As [this permanent] enters the battlefield . . . ,” “[This permanent] enters the battlefield as . . . ,” or “[This permanent] enters the battlefield tapped.” Such text is a static ability—not a triggered ability—whose effect occurs as part of the event that puts the permanent onto the battlefield.

The condition for revolt is checked as soon as the Liberator enters the battlefield. Since it is a static ability, it is always true. If the condition for the ability is true, i.e. if a permanent has left the battlefield this turn before the Liberator entered, it will already have the +1/+1 counter on it; otherwise, it will not get it later on. By the time you could choose the Liberator as the target for Implement and pay the sacrifice cost, it is already too late for revolt to put the counter on the Liberator.

"The condition for revolt is checked as soon as the Liberator enters the battlefield." Isn't it checked just before it enters the battlefield? Saying it is checked as soon as it enters the battlefield seems to imply that there's a point in time that it exists on the battlefield without the counters, but if it qualifies for revolt, then it will never exist without the counters.

A static ability, unless otherwise stated, only functions while the permanent it's on is on the battlefield. Since revolt creates a replacement effect, the liberator is never without a +1/+1 counter if the condition is met

I guess what I mean is that you don't put the Liberator on the battlefield, and then check to see if you should add a counter, right? Rather you need to know if the counter comes with it as it's entering the battlefield.


text:
Will transforming Thing in the Ice with a token-summoning spell bounce my tokens?
Thing in the Ice:

Thing in the Ice enters the battlefield with four ice counters on it.

Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery spell, remove an ice counter from Thing in the Ice. Then if it has no ice counters on it, transform it.

Flips into Awoken Horror:

When this creature transforms into Awoken Horror, return all non-Horror creatures to their owners' hands.

Gisa's Bidding says:

Put two 2/2 black Zombie creature tokens onto the battlefield.

If Thing in the Ice has 1 counter on it and I cast Gisa's Bidding then does the Thing transform before or after the Zombies are summoned?
In other words:

Cast Spell
Trigger Awoken Horror
Horror Transforms
Spell resolves.

Result: 2 zombies and Awoken Horror on the board
or

Cast Spell
Spell resolves.
Trigger Awoken Horror
Horror Transforms

Result: The transformation bounces the zombies and being tokens they disappear.
Which of these is correct and why?

You'll wind up with your Awoken Horror plus two zombies. Awoken Horror will not bounce your zombies, because the whole transformation/bouncing process will happen while Gisa's Bidding is still on the stack.
Here's the process, assuming players do nothing but keep passing priority after you cast Gisa's Bidding:

You cast Gisa's Bidding. It goes on the stack.
You have cast a sorcery spell. Thing in the Ice's triggered ability goes on top of the stack. (In case it's unclear, "when you cast" triggers happen right after you've cast the spell, before it resolves.)
Thing in the Ice's ability resolves: you remove an ice counter from it, and since it has none left, you transform it as instructed and turn it over to its back face.
Awoken Horror has transformed, and its triggered ability goes on top of the stack.
Awoken Horror's ability resolves, and bounces all non-Horrors.
Finally, Gisa's Bidding resolves and gives you two 2/2 zombies.


text:
Can I counter a creature with Shroud?
I was playing with a counter deck, and my opponent played Algae Gharial, which has shroud. Could I counter it?

You can't counter a creature at all. I presume you are asking if one can counter a creature spell with Shroud?

Yes, Shroud on a card only works if the card is on the battlefield. In order to not be able to counter it the spell would have to have "~ cannot be countered [by spells or abilities]".

702.18a Shroud is a static ability. “Shroud” means “This permanent or player can’t be the target of spells or abilities.”
110.1. A permanent is a card or token on the battlefield. A permanent remains on the battlefield indefinitely. A card or token becomes a permanent as it enters the battlefield and it stops being a permanent as it’s moved to another zone by an effect or rule.

@user16086 If this answered your question, then you can accept it by clicking on the green check mark next to the answer.


text:
Magic the Gathering Protection question
If I were to cast Hymn to Tourach a black card that makes the opponent discard 2 cards at random, and the only 2 cards my opponent has in his hand have protection from black would they be protected? Would it fall under Targeting since it doesn't actively target the creatures with white, it should go off?

Protection only functions on the battlefield; most rules text only functions on the battlefield. The exceptions are characteristic defining text, i.e. 'this card is black' and text which references another zone, i.e. '{2}, discard 2 cards: return CARDNAME to battlefield from the graveyard.'
In your example your opponent would discard both of their cards, despite their having protection from black, as protection only applies to permanents on the battlefield.

"Protection only functions on the battlefield" is not entirely true. Players also can have protection and a player is not on the battlefield. For example, Runed halo

@IvoBeckers sure the player isn't on the battlefield; in your example, however, Runed halo is on the battlefield, and its (protection) text only functions while the enchantment is on the battlefield. I just realized that It is possible that an emblem could give protection to something, and emblems live in the command zone not the battlefield, but AFAIK no emblems do this ATM.

Hymn targets the player not the cards, so they are discarded.
(It's also worth noting that protection never does anything while a card is in your hand - see esoterik's answer for details.)


text:
How to store and organize cards for Magic the Gathering?
I know there exist people who collect more than play, but I want to know how people organize cards who frequently build new decks and therefore want to be able to find cards quickly.
After a few months of playing my family is already spending a considerable amount of timing organizing cards so we can quickly find cards.
In our specific case: We store cards (not in our 12-13 decks) in a shoe box, sorted into about 25 sections: Red creatures, Red Sorceries, Red Instants, Red Enchantment Creatures, and so on, with a few extra sections for creature collections like slivers, beasts, or minotaurs. Sections are divided by color-labeled index cards cut to poke up a bit. Within larger sections we sort by mana cost with identical cards clustered.
While this is working for our 2000-3000 card collection, I'm not sure it will scale.
What solutions have evolved to meet the needs of magic players at various numbers of cards? A good answer will divide into sections of < 1000 cards, 1000-5000 cards, 5000-10000 cards, etc. or whatever numbers are appropriate for common card storage techniques.

This question is primarily opinion based. You might store your cards in a cardboard castle. I might store my cards in a wooden tower that I built and painted myself, because cardboard is tacky. My friend just throws them into large plastic bins because that's what works for him. We can't possibly know what will work best for you.

@Rainbolt While there are certainly multiple possibilities, I don't think the OP is asking what the outside of the box should look like, and I don't think cards jumbled in a bin are a method of organization allowing quickly searching for cards as the OP requested. Perhaps it is still too much of a poll, but it's not nearly as bad as you make it out to be.

@Rainbolt Yes it does have some component of opinion, but if you look at the storage tag there are around dozen other questions that all ask pretty much the same thing but for other games, do you think they should all be closed as opinion based as well, and if not why not?

@diego I vote on questions, not on tags. I do not intend to retroactively close vote dozens of old questions.

@Rainbolt Ok, fair enough. I have already conceded that this is a subjective question, but is there any part that doesn't qualify it as good subjective based on the criteria here http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask ? Since to me it seems to meet everyone of them.

@diego I am familiar with the Don't Ask page as well as the article on Good Subjective. The criteria contained within are not hard rules. They are guidelines, and mostly subjective. I have yet to sway a single person who threw either of those articles at me. Like the article says, I know a bad subjective question when I see one. You should vote how you see it and avoid sparking discussion in the comments by continuing to ask me subjective questions.

@Rainbolt I'm aware they aren't hard rules, but why exactly do you think it is a bad subjective question? There are clear guidelines from the question as to what will be an acceptable answer, yes there is some leeway within those guides for opinion, but your suggestion of 'throw them all in a container' obviously wouldn't fit what is being asked.

For more than 10k cards, a Card Catalog:

You can find them on CraigsList, eBay, antique stores ($$$) and occasional garage sales.
In my catalog I have one drawer per block. Separated in the drawer by set. In each set they are sorted with Rares & mythics in the front, as I have a lot less of those. I buy sets of commons & uncommons for each set from eBay, so those follow the rares, sorted by color then alpha, which ends up being in collector number order. Some more valuable/more frequently used cards get their own drawer.
For 2k-10k cards I'd stick with 1600, 4000 or 5000 count boxes, depending on which you can comfortably lift & fit on your shelves. You should label the boxes with sticky notes, not by writing on the boxes, as your collection will grow. Initially you should find a divider to use in each row that will hold up the cards, like this. Better dividers exist that clamp on to the cardboard, but I cannot find a link to them right now (they may be discontinued).
 At this size I would sort by set first, since some of your cards will probably have rotated out of standard.
For less than 2k cards I would use binders & deckboxes. There are some fancy ones that have 4 cards to a row instead of the traditional 3 here. They are not cheap, but the reviews are decent. Otherwise I would buy a few Magic Card Binders and Ultra-Pro pages. (buy them a box at a time to save $).
I would probably sort them by color then card type, as you are likely to want to look them up that way (unless you build your decks in a computer, see below).
Buy these supplies at your Local Game Store if you can!
For any size collection, if you think it's eventually going to grow large,
track it in software!
Currently I use MTG Studio ($20), which is a very full-featured windows desktop application. Upsides: it's very easy to do a bulk-add of cards, like 4x of a set, it's very fast to search for cads (just start typing the name). Downsides: doesn't get updates for new sets very quickly and uses non-standard set names, lacking most foreign cards. I am thinking of switching to Deckbox.org- Downsides: no easy way to add 4x of a given sets commons/uncommons in one action, requires internet access. Upsides: online access, facilitate very easy online trading, if that interests you.
There is an open source tool that I am considering moving to, Magic Assistant, which gets its updates straight from gatherer.
The goal is for it to be easy for you to find cards in the future, and to file new ones. If either are difficult then you need to change something. You may need to change your approach over time- I moved mine from alpha by block to alpha by set when I computerized my tracking.
I have an inbox that all cards go into before they get filed. They sit there until I put them in the computer system. Then they go to a 'to be filed' drawer. Once that drawer reaches a critical mass, I sort it by block & set, then put away each set.

If Magic Assistant ever becomes popular, they will probably get a Cease and Desist order from Wizards for breaking their Terms of Service, which explicitly prohibits using automated means to scrape data from the Gatherer. But until that time, have at it!

think you mean magiccards.info

Good catch, yes, I meant "I hope they move to magiccards.info.". I've deleted the erroneous comment.

Took me nearly 3 months to accept this answer as it took me that long to realize how good it is. TRACK IT IN SOFTWARE should be in boldface. I have my 4000 card collection in deckbox.org and can now very easily see subsets of my collection based on type, subtype, color, etc. using deckbox.org.

There are several different ways to organize a collection of Magic cards. Some of them have some advantages over others, but ultimately the one you should pick is the one that makes the most sense to you and is easiest for you to work with.

Sorting by set. This is personally how I organize my cards. I have each set separated and ordered by collectors number, which means they end up in Colorless-White-Blue-Black-Red-Green-Multicolor-Artifact-Land order, and then alphabetically within each category. I then have dividers between each set, and in the boxes the set are in chronological order.
Sorting by color. This is the other main way I see people sort their cards. With this each color has its own section. Within each color you then need some way to organize the cards, the primary ways I've seen to do that are alphabetical order or card type > converted mana cost > alphabetical order.

I'm sure there are other ways of organizing cards since there are many different attributes you can choose to sort based on, but the previous two are the only ones I commonly see and they have the advantage of keeping cards you might want to use together close to each other. Both of the ways I've listed scale well from small collections up to very large ones (I currently have well over 10k cards and when I actually get them organized finding cards is easy)
As for how to store your cards you can find boxes like these that come in sizes from 100 cards up to 5k cards. Another option would be Wizard's Holiday Gift Box these boxes hold around 2k cards and have a few other goodies in them as well, though if you can find either Theros or return to Ravnica versions I would recommend those since the Khans boxes aren't very good quality. Also if you decide you don't want to use index cards as dividers you can but plastic dividers like these but I have used index cards in the past and the are perfectly fine.

I'd recommend to not sort by edition. It will drive you mad. I put all of my rares and mythics in binders. The commons and uncommons are separated and are then sorted by color then by creatures or spells. I can quickly find what I want with this system. I would occasionally cull through the cards and see which ones haven't been played for awhile or if they have printed a better version and move those to my trade binder. This is probably the most effective and sane system I've come up with and I've been at this for almost 20 years.

I have a lot of cards (10k+ I'd bet) and I keep it simple.  I keep the rares and mythic rares sorted by colors in a binder (Red, Green, White, Blue, Black, Colorless, Lands, Multicolored - I try to keep the multicolored ones of the same colors together too, like all the RB ones together, etc.) I keep all the rest (commons, uncommons) in boxes divided by color, similar to the binder.  I will make exceptions and pull commonly used cards into the binder that would normally go in a box (like Skullclamp for example).
When I build decks, I usually figure out a theme or mechanic I want to play around and then choose colors that are going to support that.  Recently I've been working on a Golgari themed commander deck.  So I know I need to just worry about cards that are black, green, black and green or colorless.  Therefore I only need to look at those parts of my collection.  Since I can never remember all the cards from all the sets, I will pull those cards out and just look and see what might be viable before I make my final selections.  Keeping the rares separate helps speed this up because they are typically powerful cards that I will want to use in a deck.
Ultimately my storage strategy is what makes deck building the easiest for me, since that is what I do most with my collection.  If you trade more and want to be able to find specific cards quickly, my strategy would be horrible.  Best thing I can recommend is to look at what you do with your cards the most and decide how to organize them to make that activity as painless as possible.

We use the 'monster storage boxes' that hold 5000+ cards, and store them in IKEA Expedit shelving units (now called Kallax units). Our collection is 70,000+ cards at the moment, and we have multiple monster boxes for each color, sorted alphabetically. We originally had cards sorted alphabetically within sets, but that became too tedious so we took the set sort out. The most important tool for a collection this large is an inventory, we use deckbox.org and have been very pleased with the system and its recent improvements and updates. Plus, it's free and online, therefore is accessible from our phones or iPads anywhere. Others can view our collection and propose trades, as well.


text:
Issues with Infinite Mana Loop and Grindclock/ Clock of Omens Combo
I have an idea for an Instant mil combo involving the below cards:

Grindclock
Clock of Omens
Palladium Myr x2
Myr Galvanizer x2
Darksteel Forge (just so they cant be destroyed, always helpful)

I'm wondering how I would have to order my tapping to allow me to build up 60+ counters on Grindclock, to then mil for 60+ cards.
I know I'd need to tap Palladium Myr and Grindclock first, but then it gets slightly difficult. Can anyone provide me with the Order in which I would have to tap these permanents to create the infinite mil and manna Loop in kind?

@diego How do I Hyperlink the card names quickly because I heard theres a simpler way than using the hyperlink option?

If you do [mtg:Card Name] it will automatically link to the Gatherer page for that card (there are some edge cases it doesn't work and you will have to manually link cards, but it works most of the time)

You probably wouldn't want to get up to 60 counters. You could just get up to 8 counters and mill 8 times. I know you're going for the infinite, but the non-infinite cases, keep it in mind.

@jonthemon yeah I guess it's six and two threes to be honest

Tap Grindclock
Tap both Palladium to float 4x colorless
Spend colorless to activate Galvanizer and untap Palladiums
Tap both Palladium to untap Grindclock (clock of omens)
Tap Grindclock
Spend colorless to activate Galvanizer and untap Palladiums and Galvanizer
Tap both Palladium to float 4x colorless
Spend colorless to activate Galvanizer and untap Palladiums and Galvanizer
Goto step 4.


text:
Milling cards with discard an draw abilities
I have a Blue Black Mill deck with Sphinx's Tutelage and Day's Undoing (Whispering Madness works in the same way). If I had all four Tutelages on the field, and cast Days Undoing / Whispering Madness, how would the card draws work afterwards?
I am under the impression that either way this would give me the game, but would the opponent draw first, then me so that I could start milling them or do I draw first, start milling them, then they draw seven?

For Day's Undoing they will not mill any cards, they will only draw 7. From the Magic Origins Update Bulletin:

713.1
This new rule explains a bit more about Day's Undoing and ending the turn. Day's Undoing is the first card that has additional effects before it ends the turn. If any abilities trigger while players are shuffling or drawing cards, before the "end the turn" procedure starts, those abilities won't be put onto the stack. The "end the turn" procedure will essentially eat them. Of course, abilities that trigger during the "end the turn" procedure will go on the stack during that turn's cleanup step. (These abilities are pretty rare though.)

For Whispering Madness you would both draw the appropriate number of cards, then for each card you drew you would have 4 Tutelage triggers go on the stack. They would draw before milling because triggered abilities wait to be put on the stack until a player would receive priority which doesn't happen until after the spell is done resolving.

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

Here is what happens when the active player casts Day's Undoing:

The active player shuffles his or her hand and graveyard into his or her library and then draws seven cards.
Sphinx's Tutelage triggers seven times, but those triggers do not go on the stack just yet.
The nonactive player shuffles his or her library hand and graveyard into his or her library and then draws seven cards.
The turn ends.

"The turn ends" means something special in Magic. Specifically, rule 713.1a says that any triggered abilities that are waiting to be put on the stack cease to exist.

713.1. Three cards (Time Stop, Sundial of the Infinite, and Day’s Undoing) end the turn. When an effect ends the turn, follow these steps in order, as they differ from the normal process for resolving spells and abilities (see rule 608, “Resolving Spells and Abilities”).
713.1a If there are any triggered abilities that triggered before this process began but haven’t been put onto the stack yet, those abilities cease to exist. They won’t be put onto the stack. This rule does not apply to abilities that trigger during this process (see rule 713.2).

And here is the rule that says explains why the active player draws first.

120.2a If an effect instructs more than one player to draw cards, the active player performs all of his or her draws first, then each other player in turn order does the same.

Ah... that's my decks win mechanic shot to pieces... I was under the impression that four Tutelages and Days undoing would Mill them for 56 cards minimum... I guess I miss understood the End turn bit. My thought was that you drew cards before you end the turn?

@NathanTaylor You do draw the cards. I'll expand the answer a bit.

I just read the article... guess im just disappointed I couldn't use that as a nifty win mechanic. Cheers guys!!

You both draw 7 at the same time. At that point, the triggers from Sphinx's Tutelage are pending going on the stack. Then the turn ends. At that point, those pending triggers are removed from the stack and the turn ends.
So, you have 7 cards, no graveyard, and your opponent has 7 cards, no graveyard. (You still have your Tutelages, so good luck!)

@Rainbolt Doesn't 713.2 mean that the triggers go on the stack since during the course of the card resolving the triggers are, well, triggered?  Or is it the fact that the end the turn is a different sentence make a difference?

No, Tutelage's trigger wait to go on stack when Day’s Undoing resolves, but as per rule 713.1a they don't. If something would trigger during turn end process (not before it), e.g. due to moving to cleanup step, rule 713.2 would apply.

Also, the active player draws the cards first, then other players in turn order.


text:
What happens with two Sword of the Meek?
What happens when two Sword of the Meek are in the graveyard while a 1/1 creature enters play? Do they both get attached to the creature?

The answer would be different if the ability had been phrased "Whenever a creature enters the battlefield under your control, if it's a 1/1, you may ...". This ability has what is called an "intervening 'if' clause". While the trigger condition is only checked to determine if the ability triggers or not, this clause is rechecked as the ability would resolve (just like targets)[CR 603.4]. In that scenario, the second Sword's ability would fizzle because the creature would be 2/3 as the second Sword's ability would resolve.

Yes, you get to attach both Swords of the Meek.
When the state of the game changes (in this case, because a 1/1 comes enters the battlefield), all objects check if their triggers are 'tripped'. In this case, both the Swords notice the 1/1 entering play, and both will give you the choice to attach them.
The rules for this are in section 603. Handling Triggered Abilities. Specifically:

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

You control 2 sources that have this.

603.2. Whenever a game event or game state matches a triggered ability’s trigger event, that ability automatically triggers. The ability doesn’t do anything at this point.

The 1/1 satisfies both the Sword's trigger condition.
There are no limitations on how many triggers a state-change can activate.

Both will come back and be attached to the 1/1.
When the 1/1 comes into play, you get one triggered ability for each Sword of the Meek.  Then both of those abilities get put on the stack and resolve one at a time.  The first one resolves, returning the first Sword of the Meek to play and attaching it to the creature.  Then the second resolves, returning the second sword and attaching it as well.


text:
Kemet: Controlling another Player's pyramid and Victory point
It is clear that when you capture another player's pyramid you gain the ability to use that pyramid and also the temporary victory point.
If you willfully abandon the pyramid by moving the occupying troop, does the player who's city the pyramid resides in automatically gain control of the pyramid.  Do they automatically get the temporary victory point back?
A more summary question might be:  Does a player who has a pyramid with no units on it in his home city automatically control the pyramid?

Yes, a player who has a pyramid with no units on it in his home city automatically controls the pyramid.
Here's some supporting threads from BGG.  Look at the second (italicized) line.
From BGG "Kemet Supplementary Rules"
(emphasis mine)

Pyramids: A zero level pyramid means no pyramid is present. You control any pyramid in your city that is unoccupied. You control any
  pyramid in an enemy city where you are in sole occupation, and may
  upgrade it (getting its temporary VP) and/or use it to buy tiles of
  that color and teleport from it.

This is also backed up by the "City Control Question" thread.


text:
Is Mjolnir an Action Die?
Here is the card text for Mjolnir "Thor's Hammer":

Deal 4 damage to all characters other than Thor (yours and your opponent's). * Deal 5 damage instead.

If so, Storm "Weather Witch" would also be immune to Mjolnir's damage, which is a useful player advantage.

Yes, Mjolnir is an Action Die.
There are only two types of dice in Marvel Dice Masters - character dice and action dice.

Actions ... have no numbers around the die's custom symbol.

Mjolnir has no numbers around the hammer icon, thus it is an action die.
Source: rules.


text:
How do costs to attack work?
Despite having what I feel is a fairly solid understanding of most rules and timings, I can't figure out Archangel of Tithes, and I'm clashing with intent and wording.
Archangel of Tithes says "As long as Archangel of Tithes is untapped, creatures can't attack you or a planeswalker you control unless their controller pays {1} for each of those creatures." Some of this confusion affects other cards, like Oppressive Rays.
Which of the following is correct?
1: You have to pay every time you attack (as long as AoT is untapped), no matter what's happened previously. Because of AoT's wording, it doesn't mention that it has to happen each attack, nor does it put a duration on how long paying allows you to attack or block. However, is there a part of the rules I've missed that explains this? Can I pay the cost at any time, or does something in the rules make it trigger on each attack?
2: You only have to pay once. This is a static effect that prevents a creature from attacking unless its owner has, at some point, paid, because there's no duration on the "unless".
3: You have to pay at least once, but not any more until AoT becomes tapped and then untapped. Because "as long as it's untapped" puts a duration on the freedom-from-not-attacking.
4: I have AoT completely misunderstood and you have to pay totally. Strictly by the wording, I could interpret AoT as meaning that I have to pay for all of my creatures. It says (creatures can't attack) unless (controller pays for each), so even if I want to attack with 1 of my 5 creatures I still pay 5. The alternate wording would be (each creature can't attack unless its controller pays 1).
I feel like 1 is the intent, but I can't totally justify it based on its wording with my current rules knowledge.

Would recommend changing the title of the question, because as the title is worded, it is an opinion based question, despite the rest of the question making it clear that it is not opinion based.

Your interpretation #1 is correct.
Whenever a combat phase starts, you name all the creatures that you want to attack with (or have to). Then if the player (or controller of the planeswalker) you attack has an untapped AoT, you determine the total mana costs (1 per creature that is about to attack), then you choose whether or not to pay the mana costs. If you don't, none of the creatures can attack. If you do, they can. This process repeats in every combat phase, regardless of what you have done or not done in previous combat phases.

508.1d The active player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether it’s affected by any requirements (effects that say a creature must attack, or that it must attack if some condition is met). If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximum possible number of requirements that could be obeyed without disobeying any restrictions, the declaration of attackers is illegal. If a creature can’t attack unless a player pays a cost, that player is not required to pay that cost, even if attacking with that creature would increase the number of requirements being obeyed.
508.1g If any of the chosen creatures require paying costs to attack, the active player determines the total cost to attack. Costs may include paying mana, tapping permanents, sacrificing permanents, discarding cards, and so on. Once the total cost is determined, it becomes “locked in.” If effects would change the total cost after this time, ignore this change.
508.1h If any of the costs require mana, the active player then has a chance to activate mana abilities (see rule 605, “Mana Abilities”).
508.1i Once the player has enough mana in his or her mana pool, he or she pays all costs in any order. Partial payments are not allowed.

The equivalent thing happens when you declare blockers while an enemy AoT is attacking.

509.1c The defending player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether it’s affected by any requirements (effects that say a creature must block, or that it must block if some condition is met). If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximum possible number of requirements that could be obeyed without disobeying any restrictions, the declaration of blockers is illegal. If a creature can’t block unless a player pays a cost, that player is not required to pay that cost, even if blocking with that creature would increase the number of requirements being obeyed.
509.1d If any of the chosen creatures require paying costs to block, the defending player determines the total cost to block. Costs may include paying mana, tapping permanents, sacrificing permanents, discarding cards, and so on. Once the total cost is determined, it becomes “locked in.” If effects would change the total cost after this time, ignore this change.
509.1e If any of the costs require mana, the defending player then has a chance to activate mana abilities (see rule 605, “Mana Abilities”).
509.1f Once the player has enough mana in his or her mana pool, he or she pays all costs in any order. Partial payments are not allowed.

Thanks for that! The rules you quoted were exactly what I was hoping to find with this question and the whole thing works a lot better within that structure, making it so the cards don't have to spell out the sequencing.

So by 508.1d, if you had 2 creatures, one that must always attack, you could attack with just the other creature, since you have to pay mana costs?

@JonTheMon That wouldn't work. You first have to declare all attackers at once (which has to include the creature that has to attack), then determine the additional costs of attacking, then choose to pay those costs or not.

So, even with additional mana costs, a creature that must attack must always be part of any attacking group? Or is this situation different than the oppressive rays situation, since you're paying as a group here?  Also, Gatherer says of Archangel:  If you control an untapped Archangel of Tithes, your opponents can choose to not attack with a creature that must attack if able. The same is true with respect to an attacking Archangel of Tithes and a creature that must block if able.

@JonTheMon Yes, you are right. 508.1d, as I quoted and bolded myself, states that that a mandatory attacker/blocker does not have to be declared if you don't want to pay the costs. 508.1 does state that the steps have to performed in order, and declaring attacker/blockers does come first, but if I come across a mandatory attacker/blocker for which I don't want to pay the costs, I don't have to declare that creature.

Does declaring attackers include tapping the creature? Or is that done after determining who will actually attack? Basically, if I have a creature that must attack every turn, do I tap it to attack and then refuse to pay the extra cost, meaning it's tapped but not attacking? Or do I declare attackers, choose who to pay for, and then tap only those creatures that are actually attacking?

@Matt I think that should be a new question rather than a comment

The current version of the answer suggests that you have to pay the total amount at once and not the individual amount per creature, one at a time. If that is correct, it might be prudent to emphasize that fact, since it allows for (admittedly niche) counterplay: you have Archangel, opponent attacks with 5 creatures having 5 mana untapped, you use an instant that destroys one or more of those 5 mana sources, the attack doesn't go through since the opponent can no longer play. Unless you can always activate the source in response to the instant I guess...