text:
Suggestions about certain ambiguous card text (Abzan Battle Priest)
Abzan Battle Priest text says: "Every creature you control with  a +1/+1 counter on it  gets lifelink". It is expressively written as "a" +1/+1 counter.
As some other white creature with Outcast ability (and some other cards too) Priest grants some special ability to creatures with +1+1 counters on it. But I think the text should be edited: In my opinion, it may be read as the creature has to have only ONE counter on it, while it could actually have more than one.
I believe a phrasing like this one: "...with at least one counter +1/+1 on it..." should be better.
This is true also with reference to the many other cards that present this same ambiguity: that is, they report the word "a" instead of "at least" on the text.
 What do you think about it?

If a friend asked you whether you had a dollar they could borrow, but you had three dollars on you, would it ever occur to you to answer "no, I don't"? It wouldn't to me. (Well, maybe to be playfully spiteful, or if I didn't want to lend it to him, but that's a different issue.)

@Arthur While we might phrase a question like that colloquially, what it actually means is "Do you have one dollar bill I can borrow?", which is explicitly using a unit of count. I tried to explain why that's a relevant semantic difference in MtG in my answer.

@Arthur On the other hand, if someone told you that December had 30 days, you would point out that they are mistaken.

@GendoIkari Which is why I didn't post just that one statement as an answer. It's not a perfect parallel. That being said, I would probably be that someone who claims that there are 30 days in December, only to become pedantic and defensive (all in good spirits, of course) the moment someone tried to correct me. I am very fun at parties.

This type of wording is pervasive in MTG. A green creature could also be white. A green creature could also be an artifact. A creature with a +1/+1 counter could also have a +0/+1 counter. A creature with a +1/+1 counter could also have another +1/+1 counter. Elaborating in the fashion you suggest would require changing over 50% of the cards, making the text longer and therefore smaller and harder to read. The change you suggest would be highly detrimental to game play.

Well, Ok Ikegami, but I only suggest to add two words on this card:"at" - "least"....Am I asking too much??? From what you say, it seems WOTC should print on double shaped cards. Anyway,it is only a matter of discussion...

(If you don't tag a person and it's not in reply to their question or answer, they don't get notified.) It sometimes takes more than just "at least". (e.g. "a green creature" becomes "a permanent that is at least green and at least a creature").

Or are you saying you would only modify some so-called ambiguities and not others? I don't see the value of that, and it's potentially detrimental. (One my think "well, they used 'at least' there, but they said it had to be green over here...) Or maybe not. At best, it's pointless, and it makes the text needlessly longer if only by a little.

Re "Anyway,it is only a matter of discussion...", Which is why it's off topic.

The phrasing is technically correct, but can be hard to understand when isolated.
As already stated by Hackworth's answer, much like a computer program, the ability is asking "Is there a +1/+1 counter on the card?", which is true whenever there is at least one +1/+1 counter on it.
I have to agree with the ambiguity of it at least in part, though. There are other cards that aren't ambiguous:

Some cards, such as Haazda Marshal (as well as all cards with the Battalion ability word), use the phrasing "Whenever Haazda Marshal and at least two other creatures attack, [...]"
Some cards, such as Biovisionary, use the phrasing "[...] if you control four or more creatures named Biovisionary, [...]"

The difference that's used for the decision appears to be whether an ability is asking for an entity's existance, or for a count. The same argument used to defend the actual phrasing on Abzan Battle Priest can be made for the phrase "Every creature you control with one +1/+1 counter on it [...]", but I believe no such card exists in MtG because those phrasings will either be utilizing "exactly", or "one or more".
In other words, using a instead of one is a relevant semantic difference here. This difference is clear from all cards using more specific phrasings, but is assumed to be understood without giving explicit hints for cards such as the one in the question, making it harder to understand without access or knowledge of the other cards.

The wording is correct. If the ability meant to say 'exactly one +1/+1 counter', it would say so.
I agree that the word "a" can be ambiguous. After all, there are two instances of it on Abzan Battle Priest alone. "Put a +1/+1 counter on this creature." means exactly one counter, while "Each creature you control with a +1/+1 counter on it has lifelink." means one or more.
However, the difference is that the former is about adding a counter, which would be nonsensical if you could choose one or more (i.e. arbitrary many), while if the latter meant to say "exactly one", it would say so explicitely: "exactly X"

All I want to say with this is that, since the ability is a good one, it could be seen as it could work only if there is only one counter on creatures, in order to get lifelink. In that case, the controller should be advised not to put more counters on the creature. But all your answers - and gatherer rulings too - just make the whole situation clear. The discussion could be ended up here - AT LEAST, by my opinion...Now, do I have "A" opinion"...or more than one?? And what about yourself?

@ManoFromBerlin Life link is not a "good" ability. A 1/1 or 2/2 with life link isn't going to do much vs a 3/3. It's a "win more" effect and relatively low power. See the utility difference between Healing Salve and Giant Growth.

Okay, what you say is true. But I'm referring to the fact that Abzan Battle Priest is able to assign lifelink to ALL your creatures that have AT LEAST a + 1 / + 1 counter on them. THIS seems good to me; not just lifelink ability, which is actually a questionable ability in itself, and I agree with this finding,just like you Nelson.

@ManoFromBerlin Since this card itself doesn't give the +1/+1 counters, next time pay attention to how many creates you have that actually HAS said counter. You'll realize it is much rarer than you though, and the life link doesn't keep it alive.


text:
Is a card with devoid colorless on the stack?
A card with devoid is colorless. But is it still colorless when it's a spell? I mean: when is it in the stack, that is, when it is not yet a permanent, and when it has not yet been resolved?
As an example, I can take a card called Unnatural Aggression (mana cost 2G,so that at first glance it may seem that the spell is green). Is it possible to choose as one of this spell's targets a creature that has "protection from colored spells" among its abilities?

702.113a Devoid is a characteristic-defining ability. “Devoid” means “This object is colorless.” This ability functions everywhere, even outside the game. See rule 604.3.

'Everywhere' includes the stack, so a creature with protection from green can still be targeted by Unnatural Aggression.

Hi Glorfinder, and thanks. I started a "bounty" in order to get you a well-deserved prize from me for the many good answers received from you. But, still knowing too little about the options, I failed to adequately communicate my intention, and Murgatroid did not find my proposal interesting, canceling the "bounty". I hope to be able to repeat the operation better, maybe another time, and for better questions.

No problem, and remember you need the reputation more than I do :)

I do not care much about reputation...

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
MTG - Priority and timing between instants and instants -
Well, returning back to the creature 2/3 just summoned, what happens if I have priority and cast an instant that gives +1/+1 to that creature, and then, giving priority to the opponent, he/she casts Lightning Bolt in order to kill the creature counting on that it resolves before my instant (giving +1/+1 to the 2/3 creature)?
In other words, here's the order of the spells:

Summoning of a 2/3 creature
Priority is mine, and I cast an instant (giving +1/+1 to the 2/3 creature just summoned)
I give priority to my opponent, and he casts a lightning bolt with the 2/3 creature as a target.

What happens? Does the Lightning Bolt kill the creature, or not? The stack is now:

Lightning Bolt on the top
My +1/+1 instant on the bottom

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

It will kill the creature. After the Lightning Bolt resolves, state based actions will be checked:

704.1. State-based actions are game actions that happen automatically whenever certain conditions (listed below) are met. State-based actions don’t use the stack.
704.3. Whenever a player would get priority (see rule 117, “Timing and Priority”), the game checks for any of the listed conditions for state-based actions, then performs all applicable state-based actions simultaneously as a single event.

One of those checks will destroy the 2/3 creature:

704.5g If a creature has toughness greater than 0, and the total damage marked on it is greater than or equal to its toughness, that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed. Regeneration can replace this event.

This happens before the +1/+1 instant can come to the rescue.

Returning back about the timing between enchantments and instants, I have to tell you why I asked a so apparently simple question. My understanding about this kind of situations changed when I saw a just summoned Ajani Vengeant survive to a lightning bolt, cast in response of the first one. Isn't weird - I thought - that a planswalker ability (that is the same as a sorcery, isn't it?) resolves before an instant? Later, I understood that the planswalker survive because the added loyalty counter is considered as a payment(it is not an effect). Is it correct? i think it is, but it is weird too...

Yes, that's correct, and I agree it feels a little weird.

@Massimiliano It seems strange until you consider the abilities that take away counters, and the amount of counter shenanigans that can happen if the counter removal was an effect and not a cost. And then how convoluted the rules would be if adding counters and removing counters were different. Also, if it is Ajani you were really wondering about, then I really think that that's what you ought to have asked about.

First of all,let me thank you Arthur,'cause you have been so fast in resolving my first - and fake - simple question.Yes,it was Ajani that just let me wonder how weird this game is,sometimes.But I anyway proceed to question you,in order to read your comments&reactions about this...one step at a time.Don't you think that this game could bring people to bad discussions when resolving situations like the one concerning the first loyalty ability of Ajani?There could be discussions in EVERY MTG GAME  you play,since you couldn't know what happens in advance.Just answer to this, but tell the truth...

Most planeswalkers have some ability that increases their loyalty counters. The adding or removing of Loyalty counters is done as a cost, and costs cannot be responded to. It may seem a bit 'strange', having a 'cost' that is beneficial. However, it is completely unambiguous in the rules how this works. If your opponent's Ajani resolved, they now have priority. (The active player always has priority first when an effect resolves.) They can choose to use Ajani's +1. As a cost, Ajani gains a Loyalty counter. It puts the ability on the stack. You can now respond to this ability.

First of all, thank you Arthur once again. Anyway,my FIRST (not this one, but the linked one) question wasn't completely fake, and useless.Now,it is a fast-recovering rule,useful in resolving similar situation, for example when forgetting the rules, playing again after many years. Secondly, it shows the list of many actions performed automatically - I forgot some of them - especially SBA's. Third...well, I've got another question...why do you edit the answer? The first one you give shows a list of 9 sub-rules, while the definitive one shows only six.Answer when it is possible,if you want to.

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


text:
Priority and timing between enchantments and instants
If I have priority and cast an Unholy Strength on a just summoned 2/3 creature, then, passing priority, my opponent casts a Lightning Bolt on that creature, does my creature survive? The first spell that resolves is obviously the bolt, that deals 3 point of damage to the creature; but immediately after, will the
Unholy Strength resolve (giving +2/+1), allowing the creature to survive?

In other words, we have a stack with lightning bolt on top of it, and then an enchant creature (f.e. unholy strenght). What happens? Do the damage send the creature to the graveyard, or unholy strenght has the time to resolve and save the creature?

I really disagree with the sign - "this question already has an answer here" - because beginners may find the two interactions quite different.Here we have  a stack with lightning bolt (instant) on top of it, and then an unholy strenght (enchant creature); in the linked question there are two instants, instead.

Who knows how the stack really works?Beginners still don't know very well if a certain type of spell goes on the stack or not,and therefore they need to know if there are differences in interaction between enchantments/instants/abilities,with other instants.To show the validity of the question I may talk about the case of a creature unmorphing itself:in this case,since it is a special action, the unmorphing WILL NOT GO on the stack.Therefore, interaction with it would be different (since opponent cannnot respond to it).Only experienced players,like Ikegami&Murgatroid,know how the stack works.

It's not "immediately after" at all. Between the bolt resolving and the strength resolving, the game goes through a whole bunch of steps that are usually glossed over in casual play.

State-based actions are checked and then performed. This includes, but is not limited to, destroying creatures with lethal damage dealt to them, and causing players with 0 or less life to lose.
Repeat 1 until nothing new happens.
Abilities that triggered during the resolution of the bolt (e.g. "Whenever this creature is dealt damage") and during steps 1 and 2 are put on the stack.
Repeat 2 and 3 until nothing new happens
Players gain priority and may play instants and spells with flash.
If no player played anything, now the Unholy Strength resolves, sees that it has no valid target, and is removed from the stack to your graveyard with no effect.

Point of order: #4 is actually first, and #3 repeats the SBA check as well.  704.3

In other words, SBAs go first, then those repeat until nothing happens, then triggered abilities go on the stack, then you go back to the beginning of this sequence if anything happened in any of those steps.

@JonTheMoon You're right. I'll fix.

It's still a little off. step 4 should effectively by "Repeat steps 1-3 until nothing new happens", and then you don't need steps 5-7.

@murgatroid99 You're right. I thought the game kept putting triggered abilities on the stack until no new ones triggered, but it seems like there is just one wave of putting triggered abilities on the stack before going back to SBA (besides, are there any abilities that would trigger from putting triggered abilities on the stack?) That does simplify the list.

This scryfall search lists several cards with abilities that trigger from targets being chosen, which can happen while putting triggered abilities on the stack.

@murgatroid99 Becoming targets. Yes, of course. I should've thought about that. I mentioned the Betrayers Glasskites in a comment here just the other day.

Ok, it is correct. With "immediately after" I mean only on the stack. But it is important to precise it properly, as Arthur does.


text:
Does trample ability have any effect during a fight between two creatures out of combat?
Does trample ability have any effect during a fight between two creatures out of combat?
I'll explain better.
When any card or effect allows two creatures to fight each other - for example, when a Territorial Allosaurus is summoned by paying its kicker cost -  it is good to clarify how the various creatures' abilities still have an effect.
The question is this:
-"Does trample ability have any effect during or after a fight between two creatures out of combat?".
I give an example.
If two creatures are invited to fight each other, let's say a War Mammoth and a Scryb Sprites, after the fight ended normally with the Mammoth's victory, the fact that there are two points left that the Mammoth could deal with the trample ability, does it have any relevance in a case like this?
That is,following the same example: does the Mammoth's controller have the chance of dealing them to the opponent?

Wait, are you really stating, that first strike is taken into account when two creatures fight? Have you even read up on the ruling on fight?!

Oh! Really? This puzzles me ... I was absolutely sure that the first strike ability applied to the fight ...! So I' m going to correct the question right now, at least on this point. Thank you,Erik.

But now - afer the editing - the two linked questions don't seem similar to me anymore. Here we talk about trample ability: so I invite Hackworth to reread this question, and to see if it is still a duplicate, in his opinion. Otherwise, I ask the question again.

Yes, it is true, now I have read the answer, and ... yes, they are the same! My question is covered in the answer to that question .... thanks Erik and Hackworth. And sorry!

Thank you @Erik. It is also true, however, that my question is  different from the linked one. If the answer to that question is also capable of solving my question, how can I know in advance? It is already a lot if I see similar questions already asked in SE, but how can I check all the answers immediately,too?

@ManoFromBerlin You could always try the search function. If you just type "fight trample" into the search bar, the question would have appeared as the 2nd result. If you get too many non-Magic-related results, you can narrow the search to questions with a certain tag, like so: "[magic-the-gathering] fight trample".

Yes Hackworth, it's true. But it is also true that the answer to my question is in an answer to a question different from mine; moreover it is literally in one line of that answer. Now that you've done the search it's all easier. However, if in addition to looking through the questions already asked, I have to take time to read all the answers that "may" have put to my question, I can also take a lifetime of time if I'm not lucky!

I first ask the question, and at most receive a duplication from experts like you. It's not always possible what you ask me to do. But, anyway I thank you for this: after all, you didn't realize it right away,too: you had answered my question, and very well! Then, you noticed the duplication, and you edited everything. See you next time!


text:
What happens to other land types (e.g. Legendary/Artifact) when some effects change the basic land types?
Taking up a topic already addressed, for example, with the question:
What happens when two global enchantments affect the same type of permanent (e.g.lands),
with this question I would like to add a little and simple clarification to this kind of situations.
If a Legendary Land - such as Hammerheim -  or an Artifact Land - as  Vault of Whispers - is enchanted by cards like Evil Presence or Phantasmal Terrain, it becomes a basic land.
But what happens to its other types?
In other words the land, now transformed by one of the two enchant land above, as well as being now a basic land:

still maintains his original other type, that is, it is still legendary or still an artifact (as in the second example); or
no longer maintains any other types, but it is only a non-basic land.

The question has been edited,by myself,replacing the word "subtype" - which is wrong,compared to the terms used by the rules of the game - with the word "type",which is correct,especially in reference to what I meant to ask.The correction is due to Glorfinder's answer,which I thank.Before asking this question I was sure that "land types" were swamps, mountains,etc.,while I was also sure that "land subtypes" were the specific additions to the term "land" that can be found on the cards,before the term "land",that is,legendary, artifact, or any specific word indicating that the land is not basic.

I was wrong...obviously ,as usual!Land subtypes are swamps, islands, plains, and so on,while Legendary is a supertype.However,Artifact is a type,ok:but this is true talking about a normal artifact.Referring to a "subtype" when I spoke of artifact land,I did it in reference to the fact that the land in question is,in the first place, a land; secondly, it is also an artifact,and then I thought I could call it "subtype",although the latter is a term that means something else in the game.So, I think that,in the case of "artifact lands", it is not fair to call "type" the reference to the "artifact"

It might be a bit confusing, but 'legendary' and 'artifact' are not land subtypes, like Swamp and Mountain are. 'Legendary' is a supertype, and 'artifact' is a type.

305.7. If an effect sets a land’s subtype to one or more of the basic land types, the land no longer has its old land type.

Evil Presence and Phantasmal Terrain do not remove 'legendary' and 'artifact', they influence the subtype. Hammerheim and Vault of Whispers don't have a subtype, but they will lose their abilities:

The enchanted land loses its existing land types and any abilities printed on it. It now has the land type Swamp and has the ability “Tap: Add Black.” Evil Presence doesn’t change the enchanted land’s name or whether it’s legendary, basic, or snow.

(from the rulings below Evil Presence)
So a Hammerheim enchanted with an Evil Presence will still be legendary but only able to tap for black mana; a Vault of Whispers enchanted with Phantasmal Terrain set to 'Mountain' will still be an artifact land but only be able to tap for red mana.

Okay, it's true: the "subtype" for the rules of the game is not exactly what I meant when I asked this question, and I edited it right now. I just meant that, in addition to being lands, the two indicated cards have also other "words" after the "first type" (which in my opinion can be defined as "sub-words"... but precisely "in my opinion" only...) which specify the features. That is, in addition to being lands, one is also legendary, and one is also an artifact. Thanks for the clarification provided. –

The Gatherer Link for Spreading Seas says

Spreading Seas {1}{U}
Enchantment — Aura
Enchant land
When Spreading Seas enters the battlefield, draw a card.
Enchanted land is an Island.

A ruling also adds:

The enchanted land loses its existing
  land types and any abilities printed on it. It now has the land type
  Island and has the ability to tap to add {U} to its controller’s mana
  pool. Spreading Seas doesn’t change the enchanted land’s name or
  whether it’s legendary, basic, or snow.

There are 3 components to the type line: the supertype, the type, and the subtype.
The short answer is that the supertype (Legendary, Basic or not, or Snow) or type (artifact, enchantment, etc) rarely change. A card like Spreading Seas overwrites all subtypes and replaces them with 'Island', but it leaves supertypes and types alone. Spreading Seas doesn't eliminate supertypes like Legendary or types like artifact, or add any like Basic.
Spreading Seas makes a land an Island but it doesn't make it a basic land. Dark Depths enchanted by Spreading Seas is a Legendary Snow Island, but not a basic Island.
However, lands made into basic land types lose abilities. Blood Moon doesn't remove the artifact type from Darksteel Citadel (although it does lose Indestructible). So in the Dark Depths example, it will tap for U but not have any of the text about ice counters anymore. Any counters on the card remain, but they are nonfunctional as long as it is an Island.


text:
Casting instants between first strike/normal strike combat phases
Let's say I have a 1/1 with first strike that's attacking and blocked by a vanilla 4/4.
It deals first strike damage, but that's not enough to kill the defending creature. Right now, the attacking creature will have to take damage from the blocking creature.
Before the attacking creature takes that damage, can I “finish off” the blocking creature by casting Lightning Bolt and avoid it taking damage?
I am unsure whether,and when,a player gains priority during that step.
What, in my opinion, distinguishes this question from the others with which it can be associated, is the exact moment in which the players have the priority to cast spells again, which I believe should be placed exactly between the conclusion of the "first strike damage assignment phase" - in which first strike creatures assign their damage - and  the "ordinary combat phase" - in which other creatures without first strike assign their damage.
It should be specified when players gain priority and it is possible to cast spells able to damage creatures during combat, and if it is possible to do so; and, above all, if these damages due to spells are assigned without the possibility,for creatures without first strike, to respond to them.
I don't think these are trivial things ...

I urge anyone interested in making this great site more democratic, reading this question carefully, and comparing it to the one it was associated with - and that was considered a duplicate of it. And, after finding that these are two absolutely different questions, if they deem it appropriate, I invite those who have the right to vote for its reopening. Thank you

Having shown exactly what my complaints are, I would now like to know from you,who close this question, which is the point of the linked question that exactly matches mine. If you do not find it, or it is not there, then it would be appropriate for you to vote for the reopening of my application. At the very least,it would be important for you, to recover credibility and consistency.

The only thing these two questions have in common,  is the fact that the creatures we are talking about have the "first strike" ability. But I guess that's not enough ...Or, anyway, that's my opinion. Probably, it is true that there may be some other questions similar to mine on the net. But the fact is that, if there is already a question equal to mine, well this question is not the one you refer to in the duplication box.

Yes, that's a thing you can do.
It works out like this:

The first strike combat damage step begins:

All creatures with first strike or double strike assign combat damage. Your 1/1 deals its damage to the 4/4, which now has 1 damage marked on it.
All players get priority.
You cast a spell—Lightning Bolt—and deal 3 damage to the 4/4. It now has 4 damage marked on it and dies.
All players (including you) choose to do nothing else, passing priority to let the next step begin.

The regular combat damage step begins:

All creatures still present now deal damage, except your 1/1 because it already dealt its first strike damage. The 4/4 is no longer around, so it won't do anything.

Your 1/1 survives this combat.
Naturally we'd normally see this scenario if you can't deal a whole 4 damage with any one spell or creature, but you can combine these damage sources to get the job done. However, you're also definitely not limited to eliminating the creature via damage in the middle of combat: if you have a spell like Murder or Final Reward you can also remove the creature that way after first strike combat damage and have the same outcome. You may choose to do things that way if your 1/1 has Lifelink, to gain some life before eliminating the enemy creature.

Too bad that the comments have been deleted. They were useful, not only for me, but for various other users. But the main thing is that the excellent answer remains!
Here it was well understood that one of the key points of the question is in knowing if, and when, players can regain priority to cast other spells - all during the fight itself: neither before nor after, but during the course of the fight itself.

@ManoFromBerlin I flagged them for removal. Comments have a specific purpose described here — they're temporary post-it notes used for requesting clarification or suggesting improvement. They are not for discussiony commentary for example, e.g. for the comments that were about the question getting closed the place for that is on [meta]. I appreciate you like my answer, but please stick to using comments within their guidelines; I would prefer not to keep getting pings for this answer unless I need to do something.


text:
What happens when two global enchantments affect the same type of permanent (e.g.lands)
At some point in the game, a player puts Blanket of Night on the battlefield.
Then,some turns later,another player puts Blood Moon into play.
If a non-basic land capable of producing mana comes into play, will it be able to produce either red mana or black mana, or just red mana?
And what if the opposite happens?
In other words, if Blood Moon and then Blanket of Night come into play, what types of mana will be able to produce a non-basic land instead?

Non-basic lands will be only mountains. Basic lands are their original type and also swamps.
Lands are basic if and only if they have the "Basic" type. All other lands are non-basic. Therefore, Blanket of Night does not turn lands into non-basic lands, because it only adds the "swamp" subtype and the "T: Add B" mana ability to lands.

205.4c Any land with the supertype “basic” is a basic land. Any land that doesn’t have this supertype is a nonbasic land, even if it has a basic land type.

If a land was basic before, it still is - for example a Forest with types "Basic Land - Forest" is now a "Basic Land - Forest Swamp", with the ability to produce 1 green or 1 black mana.
If a land was a non-basic land, it still is. Blanket again adds the swamp type. For example Gemstone Mine will be a "Land - Swamp", and it will gain the "T: Add B" ability in addition to its printed abilities.
Blood Moon then replaces all of that land's types with "Mountain" and all its abilities with "T: Add R", including the swamp gained by Blanket, so the resulting lands will have the types "Land - Mountain" and the only ability "T: Add R".
Note that for non-basic lands, the order in which you play the Blanket and Blood Moon matters, because of the layer system.

Interaction of Continuous Effects

613.1d Layer 4: Type-changing effects are applied. These include effects that change an object’s card type, subtype, and/or supertype.
613.2. Within layers 1–6, apply effects from characteristic-defining abilities first (see rule 604.3), then all other effects in timestamp order (see rule 613.6).

Timestamp order is, generally, the order in which an object or effect entered the game.
If you cast the enchantments in the order you described, Blanket first then Blood Moon, the result will be as described above.
In the reverse order, Blood Moon first turns all non-basic lands into non-basic mountains, then Blanket adds the swamp type and ability to those lands. These lands will then have the types "Land - Mountain Swamp" with respective mana abilities instead of just "Land - Mountain".

Doesn't rule 613.7 come into play here since I believe (based on your analysis) that  Blanket's effect would be considered dependent on Blood Moon's?  If that's true, Blood Moon's would always apply first, regardless of timestamp.

My understanding of dependencies is that they don't exist here at all.  Neither ability can change the "text or existence" of the other, and neither can alter what they apply to (Lands and Nonbasic lands...neither effect grants or removes the Land type or the Basic Supertype from any permanents).  Now if we change Blanket to Urborg then we have a dependency on our hands because Blood Moon changes the existence of Urborg's ability.  Likewise, adding Life and Limb would change what the abilities apply to.  But even with a land that doesn't produce mana, I don't see a dependency here.

@murgatroid99 how would the presence of a non mana-producing land change anything about the situation? Neither card cares about whether lands produce mana or not.

I think @murgatroid99 mistakenly read the printed text rather than the Oracle text of Blanket of Night

Well, It is this way, Blanket of Night has a Oracle-changed card text. How it is so really different with the Oracle text.  It must be so also because the Oracle  text of Blood moon speaks only of "mountains", and no longer modifies the non-basic lands in "basic mountains",as it did in the original Dark draft (1995...). Who knows, maybe it was better with the original texts of the cards, I mean not Oracle-modified...anyway, the layer's explanation is very good.

Why do you rate this question so low? Don't you see how many discussions about clarifications,about "dependency", and about the Oracle modifications of the cards' text? You just like "plain questions" ... stuff easy to untangle really ... ok, soon you'll be satisfied ...!

@ikegami That's exactly what happened. Checking the Oracle text properly this time, I also do not see a dependency.

There! Even Murgatroid can make mistakes, sometimes ...!

I did the opposite and missed the original text.  I agree the original text definitely could cause weird dependency stuff.

Still I do not understand why, if we do like Gendolkari claims - " Now if we change Blanket to Urborg then we have a dependency on our hands because Blood Moon changes the existence of Urborg's ability. Likewise, adding Life and Limb would change what the abilities apply to". - Why in this situation there is a "Dependency"?? If necessary, let me know this, and I will propose an exact question on this point.

Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth has the same Oracle text as Blanket of Night, but it is a land.  When Blood Moon changes a land to a Mountain, it also loses all other abilities.  As such, Urborg having or not having its ability is dependent on whether Blood Moon has removed it.  So Blood Moon always "wins" and removes the ability from Urborg before it can make any lands into Swamps.  Life and Limb will turn Saprolings into nonbasic Forests, so the ability changes what Blood Moon and Blanket of Night apply to (the Saprolings).  So Life and Limb always has to apply first.

Oh, I really thank you Caleb. Now I understand. The thing gets me in trouble was that Gendolkari talks about "Urborg" only...when He refers to Urborg,Tomb of Yawgmoth land instead! Yes, it is a land, so Blood Moons wins forever, 'cause his effect affects lands. but....in a case like this last, it is a plain situation....why call it as a "dependency" case? I never did it. probably going on with the game without knowing what dependency situations are.

Hey, you are mentioning GendoIkari, but I was the one who just mentioned Urborg.  I think I was trying to keep my post under the comment character limit and knew most players would assume which Urborg I was talking about (but not new players, so it was unclear).  Dependencies are extremely rare.  Mostly things just apply by layer (613.1) and timestamp (613.6).  Usually people just remember the common dependency situations for their format rather than figure them out in game (like common interactions with Blood Moon if you play Modern).

Now I'm wondering why Blanket of Night has that errata... they normally do their best to avoid functional errata except when a rules change requires it... why remove "mana-producing" from Blanket of Night?


text:
Is it still possible to assign combat damage, and return the creature back to its owner's hand?
Since, in 2010, there have been changes in the rules, I would like to ask if what I'm reporting here – although fairly trivial – is still a possible action.
If, during a combat phase, Savannah Lions is blocked by Whirlwind Adept, and therefore the latter suffered lethal damage, is it still possible to take it back to the owner's hand - for example, with an Unsummon - but after it has still dealt its amount of damage to the other creature?
I ask this question because I know that the damage no longer goes on the stack, and the thing matters in lots of situations.
I must say that I have not understood well if this can concern even a seemingly simple case like this.
So I wonder if, since I intend to assign Whirlwind Adept damage to Lions, but save the blocking creature too, you can cast an instant as Unsummon to still deal damage to the other creature, and - immediately after this - take the creature back into your hand before the Status Based Actions kill it.

Obligatory first strike mention.

(see below...in what sense first strike is still an edge situation?)

Yes, this is exactly one of the tricks which is no longer possible after the Magic 2010 rules changes (scroll down to 5) Combat Damage No Longer Uses the Stack). It's even mentioned explicitly:

How can you Unsummon your creature and have it still deal damage?

This didn't really make sense from a flavor perspective, and therefore they've fixed it:

The Fix: As soon as damage is assigned in the combat damage step, it is dealt. There is no time to cast spells and activate abilities in between; the last time to do so prior to damage being dealt is during the declare blockers step.

So you either have to Unsummon your creature before damage is assigned (but then the other creature survives as well) or both of them will die.

Thanks Glorfindel. This is yet another proof of the main reason why I wrote so many seemingly trivial questions: I played magic many years ago, and today the game is very different. So, even in the "easy to solve" situations for you, I actually find myself in doubt...too bad today it is not possible to unsummon creatures after they  deal their damage!

There are still a few edge cases, such as First Strike.

In what sense first strike's combat situations could be different from what is described here? This means that creatures are still able to deal their first strike damage, and then disappear with,f.e., an Unsummon, or maybe Blink of an Eye? If there's no problem, please answer here, or I ask this with a formal question...

@Massimiliano Yes. When there's a First (or double) striker, there's two phases of the Combat damage step: First and Double strikers hit (allowing all generated triggers to resolve and things to die), then Normal and double strikers hit. This means you can have your first striker hit then bounce him before any surviving defenders who do not have FS/DS hit back. See here for a diagram

Really interesting. This means that, although damage does not goes on the stack, there are two separate combat phases. This allow you to cast spells in between the two separate phases,after the first-phase's damage assignment,and before the second-phase's damage is assigned. Really good answer from Veskah...

The diagram Veskah has send is really interesting. Unfortunately, however, it is not very clear from it that, when the damage was simultaneously assigned by the creatures in battle with each other, it is no longer possible to save them if they have suffered lethal damage:it must be done in advance. However, it clarifies the First Strike / Normal Strike dynamic very well, and the fact that it is possible to cast spells between these two distinct attack phases.


text:
Death Wind and Irradiate are able to send indestructible creatures to the Graveyard?
Cards like Death Wind or Irradiate are able to destroy a creature, also preventing any creature's regeneration ability.
But, obviously, both of them are not able to send to the graveyard a creature with indestructible, probably because their effect ends at the end of the turn, as indicated by the text of the two cards, too.
The situation is different when a creature with indestructible, for example Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre, has several -1/-1 counters, which in the end lead the creature in question to permanently have a value 0 for its toughness.
For example, when Ulamog has 10 or more -1/-1 counters on it, due to a card like Soul-Scar Mage, Ulamog will go to the graveyard.
This last strategy seems to be one of the rare solutions capable of killing a creature with indestructible.
Without prejudice to the obvious differences between the two types of cards that are capable of giving -X/-X to creatures, however, some analogies remain.
Assuming that the above is all correct - since it is likely that it may not be so at all - then the question is as follows:
What is the reason - strictly technical - that allows the -X/-X counters to send an indestructible creature to the graveyard, while a -X/-X effect that lasts until the end of turn is not able to do this?

Ok...I really didn't think that,to get rid of an indestructible creature,was enough a spell that is able to assign -X/-X until the end of the turn to it.I thought it would take X -0 / -1 counters to send it to the cemetery ... Obviously, in these conditions my question is wrong from the beginning, and there is nothing "strictly technical" to find for understand what was right from the start. But I leave my wrong questions anyway, I don't delete them or change their essential parts...as someone does everytime he has something to hide...

I was deceived by an internet page where it was said that one of the only ways to send an indestructible creature to the cemetery is to assign it many -0 / -1 counters, so as to permanently bring its constitution to 0, and not only until the end of turn.

Assuming that the above is all correct

Unfortunately, it's not. There are several ways for state-based actions to put a creature into its owner's graveyard; the ones relevant for this situation are:

704.5f If a creature has toughness 0 or less, it’s put into its owner’s graveyard. Regeneration can’t replace this event.
704.5g If a creature has toughness greater than 0, and the total damage marked on it is greater than or equal to its toughness, that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed. Regeneration can replace this event.

Indestructible only prevents the latter:

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

So Death Wind and Irradiate are able to kill indestructible creatures. They don't 'destroy' creatures like Terror does; that card doesn't work against indestructible creatures.
Another option to combat indestructible creatures is to exile them instead. White has some options for this like Swords to Plowshares and Path to Exile.

@Massimiliano Thank you. Finding duplicates can be hard, the automated system isn't always good at it. Most of the times, the search does a better job. Duplicates can be useful as signposts: https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/304192/295232 so don't worry about having asked one.

Anyway, it is still true that -1/-1 counters works well against indestructible creatures, just like Death Wind and Irradiate do. It must be true even more so.

@Massimiliano -1/-1 counters are just counters that give the creature -1/-1. That's the same kind of "gives the creature -1/-1" that Death Wind would do at X=1. There's nothing special about the counters here, it's just the effects of dropping a creature to 0 toughness.

No,in fact everything is now much clearer. I was deceived by an internet page where it was said that one of the only ways to send an indestructible creature to the cemetery is to assign it many -0 / -1 counters, so as to permanently bring its constitution to 0, and not only until the end of turn. Thanks to your answer, in fact, everything returns, and no "technical" explanation is needed to clarify this fact.Well,you can also make fun of me with the "stricktly technical" thing!This time it is right to do it;not as in the case of the unfair duplication concerning negative enchantments


text:
Can creatures with Defender be unmorphed while attacking?
I have a face down Monastery Flock card on the battlefield.

I begin my attack phase, and declare the face down Monastery Flock as an attacker.
The defending player blocks with  Llanowar Elves, then during the blocker declaration phase, the defender casts a Giant Growth on his elves.
I would like to know if, within this phase - and therefore before the assignment of combat damage - it is possible to activate the Flock's morph ability to prevent it from dying.
I asked this question because there is an apparent contradiction in the simple operation described here.
Since the face-up side has Defender, I'm afraid it cannot be declared as an attacker.  Or, however, if it is declared as an attacker when it is still face down, it may not be possible to unmorph it.
In game practice, it is never said that there is (or there isn't) some note that specifies whether a given action can or cannot be executable.
Therefore, I thought that in a case like this it was right to ask experienced players what the right interpretation is.
Is this an action that can be performed without problems, or is it still an illegal action?

Yes, you can morph anytime you could cast a spell or activate an ability. Once a creature has been declared as an attacker, it remains an attacker even if it gains defender afterwards.
You may morph whenever you could cast a spell or activate an ability:

702.36e Any time you have priority, you may turn a face-down permanent you control with a morph ability face up. This is a special action; it doesn’t use the stack (see rule 116). [..]

Whether or not a creature is a legal attacker is only checked once, not continuously, on the "declare attackers" step of the combat phase.

508.1c The active player checks each creature they control to see whether it’s affected by any restrictions (effects that say a creature can’t attack, or that it can’t attack unless some condition is met). If any restrictions are being disobeyed, the declaration of attackers is illegal.

Your 2/2 creature does not have defender, it can be an attacker.

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

The creature, whether it's the 2/2 or the 0/5 with defender, remains an attacker for the duration of the combat phase, because gaining defender does not remove it from combat.

However, there are a few things more that should be noted. In a situation like the one described, even if the Flock is now unmorphed, and therefore has the ability to fly, it has already been blocked by the Elves. At the same time, although it has now 0 value for his strenght,the Flock is still able to deal damage to the Elves - for example, thanks to an instant that can increase its strength value; but this instant must be obviously cast before the combat damage assignment.

... and of course, as mentioned in the previous comment, according to the current rules, which provide for combat damage to be calculated "out of the stack" ... what I barely digest, because I am a useless nostalgic of the very old rules ! But, what am I supposed to do with it? The rules are these, by now ...I'll have to make up for it ...

Comments on this site are for clarifications on the question or answer they are posted under, not for general discussion. That's what our chat is for.

The Defender ability is described as "702.3b A creature with defender can’t attack." but it might be better to describe it as "A creature with defender can't be declared as an attacker". Its Defender status is checked only when attackers are declared. As long as it doesn't have Defender when it's declared as an attacker, or it isn't declared as an attacker (for instance, if a card says to put a creature on the battlefield attacking), its later status as an attacker isn't affected by the Defender ability.


text:
Q:Who is to activate Singing Bell Strike's ability? Who controls this Aura?
Singing Bell Strike is, in my opinion, a really peculiar Aura, from the point of view of ruling's exceptions.
While the controller of the Aura remains the one who cast it, it is also true that the ability granted to the enchanted creature can be activated by the creature's controller only.
What happens, then, if after casting Singing Bell on an opponent's creature, I cast River's Rebuke, choosing the opponent controlling a creature enchanted by Singing Bell

Singing Bell Strike returns to its owner's hand
Singing Bell Strike goes to the graveyard

Although i think the correct answer is 2,I question it just the same because it is not easy to entangle like others. This question is different from others, in the way that a beginner may do not understand that paying the activation cost of an Aura placed on an opponent's creature does not mean that the Aura's controller is the opponent itself.
 There is a point in the rule 303.4e :
-"Only the Aura’s controller can activate its abilities" -
that can be read in ways that lead to bad interpretations of this situation, and this in my opinion should be clarified.

well, you can see here, very clearly, that rule 303.4e is not perfecly followed...

303.4e means that abilities on the enchantment can only be activated by the controller (e.g. Bound by Moonsilver).  Singing Bell Strike gives the ability to the creature itself. And only the creature's controller can activate it.

Re "it is also true that the ability granted to the enchanted creature can be activated by the creature's controller only.", Indeed. Only a permanent's controller can activate its abilities (unless the ability says otherwise). [CR 602.2]

In what way is this question not addressed by https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/45857/who-controls-negative-enchantments?

In the way that a beginner may do not understand that paying the activation cost of an Aura placed on an opponent's creature does not mean that the Aura's controller is the opponent itself.

Nobody has suggested that a beginner should always be able to recognize that another question in fact addresses their situation (especially with different card names), but in this case the addition of the activation cost is not relevant for why the aura goes to the graveyard. If this question is marked as a duplicate, don't take it as a personal affront; this question will still be here, pointing to the other. Also, don't use comments to talk about meta-issues; use the chat room or the meta board.

I did not know other ways to talk about this meta-issues, at least until now. Secondly, those other ways are not ever available.

Although it's unclear from the title, this question is definitely not a duplicate of the question about who controls the enchantment. This question is about the interaction of what happens when the permanent that an aura is enchanting leaves the battlefield.

That part is addressed by this question: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/22479/what-happens-to-enchantments-that-are-attached-to-creatures-when-the-creatures-a

@murgatroid99 Agreed; I feel like this question could be marked as a duplicate of that one actually. Although really the issue is that the title and the body of the question are asking 2 completely different questions.

The fact is that the two options presented correspond to "the opponent controls the aura" and "I control the aura". So the question is essentially about the controller.

Re "Only the Aura’s controller can activate its abilities", The Aura has no activated abilities.

@murgatroid99 Based on the OP's comments on another answer, I actually think the question they were trying to ask could be about why the controller of the enchanted creature, rather than the controller of Singing Bell Strike, is the one who can activate the activated ability.

We should keep in mind that there is a language barrier here; while the OP's English is far better than my any-language-but-English; they are not quite fully fluent.

I've edited my answer to more fully address the "abilities granted by the aura" portion of the question.

I think if the body of the question were edited to more closely match the subject; this would not be a duplicate of either of the linked questions. I'm not sure what River's Rebuke actually has to do with the question here. If the question is about why the Aura's controller does not activate the activated ability mentioned on the aura, then that is a separate and good question. It seems to be what the subject asks; but not the body.

@GendoIkari I think the unasked question is, "does my enchantment come back to my hand", based on confusion about the "enchanted creature has" activated abilities. To which the answer is, "no"

Gendolkari, when you're saying :-"If the question is about why the Aura's controller does not activate the activated ability mentioned on the aura, then that is a separate and good question. It seems to be what the subject asks"...than YES. This IS precisely what I mean...But it's true, I should have specified this more clearly, although I believe that after editing the question, it should be more clear.

Your opponent controls their creature, you control your Aura. If you cast River's Rebuke, their creature will leave the play field, and your Aura will go to the graveyard as a state-based effect:

704.5m If an Aura is attached to an illegal object or player, or is not attached to an object or player, that Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard.

In most respects, Singing Bell Strike isn't that much different than, say, Pacifism. If you played the Aura, you control it, no matter who controls the enchanted creature:

303.4e An Aura’s controller is separate from the enchanted object’s controller or the enchanted player; the two need not be the same. If an Aura enchants an object, changing control of the object doesn’t change control of the Aura, and vice versa.

The rule then goes on to distinguish between two types of abilities:

Only the Aura’s controller can activate its abilities. However, if the Aura grants an ability to the enchanted object (with “gains” or “has”), the enchanted object’s controller is the only one who can activate that ability.

So activated abilities on the Aura itself (like the activated abilities on Keldon Mantle) can only be activated by the Aura's controller.
Other Auras, however, give an activated ability to the enchanted creature. If you want, think of this as adding text to the rules box of the creature:

Singing Bell Strike gives 6: Untap this creature to the enchanted creature
Burning Anger gives [T] This creature deals damage equal to its power to any target. to the enchanted creature

Check out the difference in wording between Dragon Breath vs Dragon Mantle:

If you play either on your own creature, then their "pump" +1/+0 abilities work (pretty much) the same. But if you play them on your opponent's creature (or, more likely, if you play it on your own creature, then your opponent gains control of your creature with the enchantment already attached), they work differently. For Dragon Breath, only the controller of the Aura can pay to pump up the creature. For Dragon Mantle, only the controller of the creature can pay to pump it up.
I even found a single card with an example of each. Check out Ocular Halo:

If your Ocular Halo ends up on your opponent's creature, then only they can tap the creature to draw a card, and only you can give it vigilance.
To emphasize something I alluded to above: it's unlikely you would want to play some of these Auras on your opponent's creatures (because you don't want to help them), this situation can also arise when you've already enchanted your own creature, and your opponent takes control of the creature (with Control Magic or something similar). Even though they've taken control of the creature, they have not taken control of the Aura attached to it, so this distinction is important.
So per your original question, this ability discussion doesn't change the controller of the Aura or the creature, so if all your opponent's permanents leave play, your aura will be left enchanting nothing, and will go to the graveyard.

"However, if the Aura grants an ability to the enchanted object (with “gains” or “has”), the enchanted object’s controller is the only one who can activate that ability."  Is this supposed to be part of the rules quote?

@Taemyr Yes, that's part of the rules, the following sentence about 6: Untap this creature is my comment. If the creature is controlled by Bob, and Sally plays the Aura, the aura gives the creature (and therefore Bob) an activated ability to untap. I've edited to clarify.

River's Rebuke on your opponent does not return your Singing Bell Strike to anyone's hand. It will go to your graveyard as a state-based action.
State-based actions are checks that the game performs automatically whenever a player would gain priority. One of those checks is whether an aura is attached to a legal target. If it isn't, it goes to its owner's graveyard.

704.5m If an Aura is attached to an illegal object or player, or is not attached to an object or player, that Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard.

You would still control the aura, even though it was cast on the opponent's creature and confers an ability to that creature.  Therefore, when River's Rebuke is cast, targeting your opponent, Singing Bell Strike will no longer have a valid target and will therefore go to your graveyard.  (303.4c)
Your stated rule, 303.4e, seems consistent with this.

Although Aura spells are targeted when cast; it doesn't "have a target" once it is on the battlefield; not being attached is what causes it to go to the graveyard.

I'm only saying that a line of 303.4e - " Only the Aura’s controller can activate its abilities" - in this situation does not apply. I don't think it's any small stuff, especially for beginners.

@Massimiliano Is your real question here about how Keldon Mantle is different from Singing Bell Strike? As in why the controller of the aura can activate the activated abilities on Keldon Mantle, but not the activated ability mentioned on Singing Bell Strike?

Well, yes Gendolkari, yours could be an example. this question is not equal to others which it has been associated with. As an evidence,everyone can see the lots of comments and answers coming before the closing. I really disagree the duplication, and the closing of this question.

This question wants to be an exemplification of the line of rule 303.4e,in which it states:-"However, if the Aura grants an ability to the enchanted object (with “gains” or “has”), the enchanted object’s controller is the only one who can activate that ability". Well, here is a situation in which it is possible to find "has" in the card text. I think it was important to make at least one example of this kind of situations and cards, without incurring in a duplication of question ... it is slightly different, but I admit that the difference from the question to which we refer is really little.


text:
"Guilty!" is the name of this game I'm looking for?
I wanted to know if any kind of SE user is able to identify a certain board game, and to indicate if it exists, at least in its Anglo-Saxon version.
It is an investigation board game, which according to the literal English translation of the title should be called -
"Guilty!" -
since I have been told that there is a German version of this game titled: „Schuldig!“.
Obviously, it is not necessary that the exact title is this, and therefore it is good to give other indications to be able to identify this game, which has existed at least since the 1990s.
(however, for clarity, from now on if I have to call this game again during the question, I will call it as said, that is: "Guilty!", exclamation mark included)
In this 4-7 player game, very different from the famous (?) Cluedo or Orient Express -
which they have in common with "Guilty!" just having to deal with an investigation into a crime to be solved -
it is about taking part in a private investigation, but with some peculiarities.
A crime was committed, apparently without explanation. This crime is announced with a specific title, and with specific characters that are part of the story to be released.
But here's the first important difference from the other 2 games above:
- investigators have known since the beginning of the game the identity of the guilty of the crime!
In other words, simulating the typical acumen of a Poirot, rather than  Miss Marple, or Sherlock Holmes, anyway you like, each of the players already knows from the beginning which of the characters in the story killed the unfortunate victim.
The investigations in this game focus then not so much on the classic "whodunnit?", but rather on the mechanics of the crime - or the way in which a character was killed - and above all on motive - the reasons why a character made himself guilty of the crime in question.
To play this game you need a "Master": in other words, one of the players personifies the guilty party. He opens the sealed card of one of the cases to be solved, which contains the plot of the case and all the indications for its resolution, including all the testimonies of the other important characters for the story to be solved: they are friends, family, or simple acquaintances who know something important about the crime.
The player who decides to impersonate the guilty must therefore carefully read the plot of the crime, manage all the cards containing the clues necessary to solve the investigation, and provide all the answers that the characters will have to give to the investigators when they are interrogated.
The answers of the various witnesses are provided ... but based on precise criteria. There are often reasons that prevent witnesses from always answering investigators' questions truthfully, and the case provides various "verbs" - before each testimony, such as "Declare that ...", "Know that ...", or "Admits that ..." - and with which to manage the various testimonies, based on the difficulty with which they can be revealed.
At the end of the game, when most of the clues were discovered, one of the investigators may believe that he has discovered the answers to the two basic questions:
1) what reasons led the guilty to kill, or what is the motive for the crime;
2) how the guilty materially managed to commit the crime, or his mechanics.
Then, the investigator begins to tell how things went, according to him.
For example, he may say that the guilty acted in revenge against someone, and used a knife to commit the crime.
If the solution is conceptually correct, the investigator who discovered the exact development of the events wins, and in that case the plot is read to legitimize his victory.
If the solution is conceptually wrong, however, the investigator is eliminated from the game.
If only one investigator remains in play besides the Guilty, the latter is the winner of the game.
Is there anyone who knows this game and knows how to name it in English?
Thanks for your attention

What is the language of the version you're familiar with, and what is it called in that language?

You start by stating that you want us "to identify a certain board game" but, I see no reference in your description to an actual board. Is this not rather a game with clue cards and no board?

@RobertMiller If I'm reading it correctly, it sounds similar to Clue except with a set of pre-defined scenarios instead of a procedurally generated one (and probably different discover mechanics). Even if there is no "board" it's still on-topic and probably sold next to other board games and tabletop games.

@ryanyuyu : My point was that it simplifies the search if you can eliminate games that have boards...

No, no, there is a "board" in his game, and it shows a hypothetical city, with Police, Rover, Airport, Downtown, Park, various other Districts, Beach, Slums, Legal Doctor, and other places where every investigator can go and make various actions.

If I understand you correctly, you are only interested in finding an English-language version of the game. Finding a French, Italian, or Spanish version of the game would not interest you?

Yes, I would know something about an english version of this game,if it exists...

"Guilty!" it can be played thanks to the sealed and pre-conceived cases, which are inserted in the original package in number of 24 units. Each one  has a title, such as the following: "The Queen of Diamonds"; "Noblesse Oblige"; "Condominium", and various others ... it is also possible to create personalized detective cases, thanks to some deliberately left blank cards that are present in the game package

I believe this game has been translated into various languages: German, French, Italian, and is therefore entitled from time to time with the literal translation of the english word "Guilty!". Then is, e.g.: "Coupable!" in France; "Colpevole!" in Italy; "Schuldig!" in Deutschland ... and so on ..

@ManoFromBerlin : How very generous of you! Danke sehr aufmerksam...

I know very well that the new tag would be used very little;this  because the game is old (90's), and his existance is ascertained in Italian only; therefore, it is assumed that any new tag will be usable by Italian users only, or a few others who know this game - just like Robert, me, and the others in this post. But, since it is a board game, I would like to know if the operation is feasible, in order to find a way to possibly solve various problems related to this fascinating game. Thanks for your patience and devotion.

@ManoFromBerlin : I just added the tag «colpevole» for you, All that was required was the existence of a question (you supplied one) and editing of the question to type in the new tag. Voilà!

Ah! You did it before me! In any case, you did well ... you did a great deal of research. Thanks again for the time you spent on this answer.

Colpevole! ( meaning Guilty! ) is an Italian-language boardgame, published in 1992. It is easy to find numerous copies of it for sale on eBay.it.
eBay Italy results for Colpevole!
The game's publisher was Editrice Giochi, literally Games Publisher. They published Parker Brothers games such as Monopoli, Cluedo, and Risiko!, a variant of Risk.
In 2016, Editrice Giochi was bought out by Spin Master Corp., «... a leading children's entertainment company.»
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/spin-master-expands-games-portfolio-with-editrice-giochi-purchase-566692661.html
I contacted SpinMaster Corp. by email and by phone, and spoke to a customer agent. This agent did some research and found that the game Colpevole! has not been translated to English.
So, the only alternative that I can see for you is to translate the game elements into English yourself.
Here are some screenshots of the games elements. Many more can be found of eBay-Italy.

Video of gameplay (in Italian)

Has this game been released in German? You noted it was released in English, but the question was about a game that has been released in German. If this game was only printed in Italian, it can't be the game OP was asking about.

No, Andrew did not understand correctly. In my question it is written that I am looking for an English version of this game: it may not even be there at all. I didn't note it was released in English. Instead... IT IS the game I'm asking for!!!

As for Robert Miller ... Congratulations !!! You discovered the ... Guilty! It is obviously ... ME! In fact, I've only been told that there is a German version of this game, but it may not even exist at all. For now,  its existence in Italian only has been ascertained, but it is already very much. So,I really  thank you. The question, however, concerns the possible presence of this game in an English version, which by now does not seem to exist, apparently ...On the contrary: it has been ascertained that the game in an English version does not exist!

@Andrew : I repeat myself : «... customer agent. This agent did some research and found that the game Colpevole! has not been translated to English.»

@RobertMiller No where did you mention that the game exists in any language except Italian - which doesn't really address OP's comment "in a German edition, the game is titled: „Schuldig!“"
It is what they were looking for, but I'd say you have to cover that the version they were talking about, a german one, exists to show that this is that game.

Not, I explained in the comment above that the alleged German version - "Schuldig!" - in reality it does not exist. Miller understood this too, it is useless to continue

I translated the presentation of the game into English, as it is on the game box on the front. This is what you can read (in Italian) from the photos of the game that Andrew Miller has provided.
I also included it as a game guidance in the "colpevole" ' s tag explanation.

Here it is:-"A crime has been committed, apparently without explanation; but investigators know the identity of the Guilty. Although his alibi may appear iron, investigations focus on him to find out how and why he came to make his gesture. The analysis of the coroner, the testimony of friends, relatives or simple acquaintances, and the finding of some clues, apparently insignificant, will nail him to his responsibilities. But watch out for time, because every minute that passes brings the guilty closer to victory".

@ManoFromBerlin : A small correction : My name is RobertMiller, not «Andrew Miller»...

Oh, please excuse me, you're right,Robert Miller... in these days I easily get confused. Since [@Andrew participated in this post too, I must have confused your names for a moment. I'm sorry. I tried to assign you the 100 rep points for the bounty, as expected; but someone here in SE  disabled my account, and the operation was not successful. Currently, I am unaware of any reasons that led to such an extreme negative decision against me ... soon I will try at least to know what the reasons are for such a decision. See you soon.

Can anyone explain why I was disabled? What "crime" did I commit this time? I'm the "Colpevole!", ok, but what's the crime? I would have done well to assign the bounty to Robert Miller straight away, as I thought. But "someone" wanted to give misleading information, as usual ... please, could someone here in SE explain me the reasons for this negative decision? Where's the problem with assigning a bounty? Is this the reason?

Ah ok ... the bounty has been correctly assigned to Robert. But it still remains to explain the wording "user was removed" that appears in the list of my operations ... what does it mean? Please someone make me understand.Thank you.

@ManoFromBerlin: I had the same message and 10 reputation points were removed from my account. (I did however receive your gift of 100 points - Danke nochmal). Here is the explanation : https://stackoverflow.com/help/user-was-removed


text:
Pentad Prism interacting with Power Sink
I'm playing with a five-color deck, and I cast a Pentad Prism  using Green and Red mana.
Opponent responds with Power Sink and, having noticed that I only have four untapped lands available, puts X equal to 5.
He doesn't know that I have in my hand Dark Ritual, which I immediately cast in response, using mana from an untapped Swamp.
However, I don't use all three black mana to cast the Prism (just two of them), but I use the other three untapped lands that I have instead, giving two White and one Blue mana.
Since I have used all five mana colors to cast the Prism, at this point, thanks to that card's sunburst ability, I should have 5 counters on it, one for each color. Is this correct?

The question can even be reformulated ... thinking about the possibility of casting a Power sink (or Syncopate,too) on your own spell during the cast of a Pentad Prism... to make it even stronger! I wonder if it will work.

Even if what you suggest would work, I can only read "even stronger" as "more than five counters", which won't work because there are only five colors in the game. Also, if you have additional aspects of your question you'd like to have addressed, (amongst other uses for it) please take advantage of the edit function.

The casting of PP is already competed before PS is cast, and thus before PS is resolved. PS can't change what already happened!

I had no doubts that you would have canceled my idea of a new tag ...

You haven't paid any more than the original GR to cast Pentad Prism, all mana you spent afterwards was on the ability of Power Sink. While you may think of the two as related because one targets the other and affects whether it ends up on the battlefield, they are two separate entities on the stack, and the game doesn't allow for creative interpretation of such connections in any way.
A ruling on Power Sink clarifies this:

10/4/2004 Does not increase the mana cost of the spell. It just requires a separate expenditure in order for it to succeed.

Additionally, here's the relevant excerpt of the casting rules that illustrate how paying costs works:

601. Casting Spells
601.2f The player determines the total cost of the spell. Usually this is just the mana cost. Some spells have additional or alternative costs. Some effects may increase or reduce the cost to pay, or may provide other alternative costs. Costs may include paying mana, tapping permanents, sacrificing permanents, discarding cards, and so on. [...]
601.2g If the total cost includes a mana payment, the player then has a chance to activate mana abilities (see rule 605, “Mana Abilities”). Mana abilities must be activated before costs are paid.
601.2h The player pays the total cost in any order. [...]

This all happens before you put the respective spell on the stack, and therefore before your opponent may attempt to counter it, and the mana paid for these actions is what the game considers mana paid casting a spell.
Additional and alternative costs would have to be included in the card's text (or another permanent's text), so in order to ever spend more than two mana on Pentad Prism, you have to resort to cost increases, as found on cards like Sphere of Resistance.

Unfortunately not - Power Sink does not make the Pentad Prism more mana, it counters the spell unless you pay X. In the scenario above, you pay {r}{g} for the prism and {w}{u}{u}{b}{b} for the sink - so the prism enters with 2 counters.

as a side note, if there are effects that actually make the prism cost more, such as Sphere of Resistance or Thalia, Guardian of Thraben, you can up the sunburst; while cost reduction makes the prism less powerful

Relevant quote from the Gatherer page of Power Sink: "Does not increase the mana cost of the spell. It just requires a separate expenditure in order for it to succeed."


text:
Is it today possible to cast spells targeting other spells placed at the bottom of the stack?
Taking up a theme I introduced "in the past" - as you can read from the question posted here: Was it possible to target spells placed at the bottom of a just-cast fast effects chain?
with this question I'm asking you instead if today the mechanism of casting magic and counter-magic can predict a game situation of the type that will be described shortly.
If two players cast a series of instants -
for example, the first of them could be the usual Lightning Bolt -
and cast many of them, by passing the priority and do not solving the stack, according to the current rules it is possible to counter something placed at the bottom of the stack, for example by casting a Counterspell targeting the first Lightning Bolt, just the one at the bottom of the stack?
Obviously, I mean if it is possible to cast this Counterspell when there are for example also other counter-magic, which intend to counteract other spells already present in the stack -
and even other fast effects,doing other things, such as a Purelace interacting with other spells,and so on... -
but with the only difference that the Counterspell I talk about in the question is just the last magic of a long series (e.g. of 10 ...or even more), and that intends to target the first magic placed in that stack, instead.
In other words: is it today possible to cast spells supposed to target other spells placed at the bottom of the stack?
(and I mean:regardless of what happens to other magic placed in the same stack)
I ask this easy question to bring out all the difference -
if there were any -
between the current regulation, and the first Magic regulation in particular (A & B series ...), too.
I really thank you for your time and patience.

This isn't a rules reference, but I can confirm that MTG Arena and MTG Online (both  created by Wizards of the Coast) allow you to target any spell on the stack with a Counterspell or Divide by Zero.

Yes. Counterspell simply says

Counter target spell

and 'spell' is defined in the glossary of the comprehensive rules as:

A card on the stack. Also a copy (of either a card or another spell) on the stack. See rule 112, “Spells.”

It does not matter where it is on the stack.

I want to emphasize that not only is this possible, but it is an important part of the game, especially in older formats. If you could target only the top of the stack, there would be no way to counter all copies of a storm spell (like [mtg:Tendrils of Agony]) with [mtg: Flusterstorm], because then all copies of Flusterstorm would have to target the same copy of the spell.

@F.U.A.S. It would be worse than that, wouldn't it? Each copy of Flusterstorm would have to copy the previous copy of Flusterstorm.

@amalloy indeed! Flusterstorm would turn into a worse force spike, only able to target an instant or a sorcery as well as requiring you to pay 1 extra, if the number of spells cast before it is odd.

Thank you so much Glorfinder! So why not prove once again your Schelerian vision of life - that is, the fact that it is composed of ideal parts and real parts - and also answer the question attached to this, and which concerns an example of a game situation at the time of the A&B series? Today's game is changed in this aspect (and then it is an ideal factor), or has it remained almost identical since then (and then it would be a material factor)??

If you don't answer, I think I already know why, and I thank you just the same. It's not your field of... um, "answers to be provided in a standardized way by SE"...I preciseòy mean that:-  "each of you could answer, but in fact it is delegated to a specific field of questions to be answered.  Rebel against this authoritarian method, which does not allow a fluid resolution of all questions!! (the failure to answer to the joint question is proof of this...)

@ManoFromBerlin I started playing around Mercadian Masques - I simply don't have the experience necessary to answer that.

ok @Glorfinder, however, I wonder ... but you, don't you have a "gold badge" achieved, for Magic? Also, from a question about Howling Mine A&B's card I asked a few years ago, I know very well that you also know the Alpha & Beta cards very well ... But that's okay, Glor. Why not try to answer the same. even with a guess, sometime? Nothing happens, they don't take off your gold badge, if you get the answer wrong once! Thanks anyway. Maybe...I'll start a new bounty, when I could.


text:
If a Planeswalker transforms into a creature during the main phase, but it is suddenly killed, is it still able to attack?
A player summons Sarkhan, the Dragonspeaker. After entering the battlefield, keeping priority, the player activates the first loyalty ability, to immediately transform Sarkhan into a creature.
At this point the priority passes to the opponent, who responds to Sarkhan's activated ability by casting a Lightning Bolt on the Planeswalker, and then, keeping priority, he also cast a Clockspinning choosing one of Sarkhan's loyalty counters as his target , and announcing he wants to remove one of them, since Sarkhan is not yet a creature and therefore can lose its loyalty counters.
The priority is still to the opponent, who, having noticed how the number of Sarkhan's loyalty counters has,in the meantime,increased by one unit (since his controller paid the cost of his loyalty ability, or +1), he realizes that Sarkhan should still survive by still having (in theory):
 4 + 1 - 3 - 1 = 1 loyalty counter still on it.
So, keeping priority, the opponent pays 3 colorless mana to use the Clockspinning's buyback ability, and taking it back in his hand.
(However, as I was pointed out by expert players - see comments below the question, for more details -  the just defined passage is not entirely correct: unlike as just explained, it is necessary to pay the Clockspinning mana cost and its buyback cost at the same time, so that it is possible to take this card back into your hand immediately after its resolution. In any case, as regards the explanation of the situation from which the question asked emerges, nothing changes.)
Then, keeping priority, he cast Clockspinning again, targeting Sarkhan's loyalty counter once again.
At this point,the question starts -

the two players say they don't want to cast more spells, and the stack resolves: 2 clockspinnings, lightning bolt, Sarkahn's first loyalty ability, thus bringing the number of Sarkhan's loyalty counters to 0.
In the end, of course, Sarkhan's ability must also be resolved, which therefore still allows them to transform into a creature, which can also attack immediately, because he has Haste among his abilities.
At this point, since Sarkhan is now a creature, the active player goes to the attack phase and says he wants to attack with the just obtained legendary 4/4 red Dragon with haste.

Since the number of Sarkhan's loyalty counters is now 0, and since the active player has just completed the main phase (there is a phase shift in between main and combat phases), I'd like to know if Sarkhan:
1) has still time to join to the attack phase, because the transformation has resolved; or,
2) ends up in his owner's graveyard before the attack begins,because Sarkhan's loyalty counters are equal to 0,and therefore the Dragon simply does not exist anymore,and unable to participate to the combat phase.

In the spirit of your question, Sarkhan the Masterless leads to some more interesting situations along what you are asking.  A few Standards back the opponent was at 11 life and had a Cavalier of Thorns.   I had a Chandra, Fire Artisan with 7 loyalty and a Sarkhan.  So used Sarkhan's plus ability to make them dragons, then I used Chandra's -7, dealing the opponent seven damage.  Chandra did not die due to zero loyalty since she was now a creature, so I was able to get through for lethal.  If the game had gone on, she would have died as a state-based action during the cleanup step.

The line of play you described doesn't exactly work that way. Buyback is a cost you can pay while casting a spell; the opponent can't choose to pay it later when they have priority after casting Clockspinning. Also, Buyback returns the spell to hand after it resolves. It won't allow the opponent to have two copies on the stack at once. They would need to let it resolve, then cast it again. The opponent also does not benefit at all from holding priority here. They can just cast a spell, let it resolve, and cast another, with the loyalty ability on the stack.

Yes, it is true,I express it badly. I talk about it in a comment below, after Andrew's good answer. – In any case, as Andrew also admits in his reply, "These [details] don't change what happens in the end in this case". The heart of my question is not changed by the bad wording of that passage; although it is true that, as Andrew continues, "there are cases where it will matter".

"he also cast a Clockspinning choosing one of Sarkhan's loyalty counters as his target " AFAIK, there isn't anything in Magic that "targets" counters. Clockspinning says "choose" a counter, it doesn't say "target".

There's a few small issues here:

Buyback needs to be used while the spell is cast - it's an additional cost so the opponent will pay  for the first casting of clockspinning all at once, not  to cast and then decide to pay  for buyback.
Buyback happens when the spell resolves - the card does not immediately return to hand, but goes to hand instead of grave when it resolves. This means Clockspinning will need to resolve before the opponent can re-cast it. At no point will both copies of clockspinning be on the stack together.

These don't change what happens in the end in this case, but there are cases where it will matter, for instance you don't get the chance to decide to buy back or not after you see if the opponent is countering.
For your actual question, Sarkhan's ability will resolve, but it will do nothing. The order of events and the actions of the Active Player (player) and Non-active Player (opponent) are this:

Active Player casts Sarkhan, both players pass priority, he resolves and his +1 is activated, putting it on the stack and leaving Sarkhan with 5 loyalty.
Active Player passes priority, Non-Active Player casts lightning bolt, targeting Sarkhan.
Non-Active Player keeps priority, Non-Active Player casts clockspinning with buyback, targeting Sarkhan.
Both players pass priority, Clockspinning resolves and removes a counter then returns to Non-Active Player's hand due to the buyback replacement effect.
Active Player passes priority, Non-Active Player casts clockspinning without buyback, targeting Sarkhan.
Both players pass priority, Clockspinning resolves and removes a counter then is put into Non-Active Player's graveyard.
Both players pass priority, Lightning bolt resolves, doing 3 damage to Sarkhan, removing the last 3 loyalty counters.
Sarkhan is put into the graveyard under rule 704.5i for having no loyalty counters. This is a state based action and cannot be interrupted.
Both players pass priority, Sarkhan's ability resolves and tries to turn the planeswalker into a creature, however the object that used the ability no longer exists (the card is not in the same zone) so it fails to do anything.

Note how both players pass priority every time something resolves - the whole stack doesn't resolve when both players choose not to use their priority to cast a spell or activate an ability, only the top of the stack resolves and after that each player gets priority again.

As an interesting aside - Sarkhan is unusual among planeswalkers that animate in that he becomes only a creature, not a creature in addition to being a planeswalker. This means he cannot lose loyalty from damage as a creature, however clockspinning can still remove loyalty counters from him. If the last counter was removed from Sarkhan by clockspinning when he was already a creature, he would be able to attack and still on the field until the end of the turn, where he stops being a creature, becomes a planeswalker again and 704.5i puts him into the graveyard. Most of the planeswalkers that turn into creatures (mostly every copy of Gideon) stay planeswalkers while they are creatures, so removing counters from them with clockspinning after animation would still apply 704.5i would kill those immediately.

Really great answer from you @Andrew. Yes, your clarifications are all important, although I knew all of them. But they are really important,because I forgot to mention at it when saying :-"So, keeping priority, the opponent pays 3 colorless mana to use the Clockspinning's buyback ability, and taking it back in his hand". However, I have a little thing to say. When you say:-"5:Active player passes priority...", since the last spell casted  is now  an opponent's one, shouldn't the priority be to the player who cast Clockspinning with buyback(that is, the opponent himself)?Please answer to this.

@ManoFromBerlin - no, when something on the stack resolves after everyone passes priority, priority goes back to the active player every time, it doesn't matter who's spell was last on the stack, but who's turn it is who gets priority first.

"He doesn't lose loyalty while he's not a planeswalker." is in italics and in parantheses, making it reminder text.  So Sarkhan doesn't say he doesn't lose loyalty. The only basis for him not losing loyalty is the rules saying he doesn't lose loyalty, and it might be clearer to say "He doesn't lose loyalty from taking damage".He is still free to lose loyalty counters from any effect that applies directly to counters.

Sarkhan dies as a result of state based actions and never becomes a creature.

704.5i If a planeswalker has loyalty 0, it’s put into its owner’s graveyard.

The loyalty ability resolves, but your planeswalker has already left the battlefield so it does nothing.


text:
What happens when Illusory Gains is detached during combat?
Player 1 has Arcades Sabboth onto the battlefield.
Player 2 has Garna,The Bloodflame onto the battlefield.
In Player 2's main phase, he cast Illusory Gains on Arcades Sabboth, to gain control of the Elder Dragon; and, in the subsequent combat phase, declares Arcades Sabboth as an attacker, tapping him.
In the declaring blockers sub-phase, the defending player (player 1) summons Plaxmanta - spending green mana - thanks to his Flash Ability.
Consequently, this question arises, which I am now going to explain in detail.
Since Illusory Gains' triggered ability is now on the stack, and the creature to which Illusory Gains is to be assigned is the just summoned Plaxmanta, I was wondering which of the two is the right one:
1) Arcades Sabboth continues to be tapped and attacking, as declared by player 2 during the sub-phase, and therefore remains on his side, until the end of the combat phase; or,
2) Arcades Sabboth, since Illusory Gains has been "detached", is no longer under the control of player 2, and returns under the control of player 1, but tapped and removed from the fight.
In all this situation, Plaxmanta is in any case now enchanted by Illusory Gains, and therefore it is under the control of player 2.
But it is good to clarify whether the combat phase has significantly changed since his entering onto the battlefield, in a case like the one described.    And for this purpose my question is addressed.
The particular dynamics of Illusory Gains, namely the fact that this card can "detach" from one creature to enchant another in various situations, makes this question a little different from various others, in my opinion.
  Also the fact that Illusory Gains can be attached to creatures that have hexproof or shroud makes this card - and the situations related to it - really particular, and therefore it may need more explanations and clarifications from expert players.

Although not the focus of the question, it's worth mentioning that Arcades Sabboth can't attack the turn that it was enchanted by Illusory Gains without some source of haste. Summoning Sickness applies to creatures that changed controllers, so even though Arcades Sabboth has been on the field for several turns, it hasn't been under the opponent's control during their upkeep. Since the specific creature being stolen doesn't matter for your question, I suggest changing Arcades Sabboth to a creature with haste to avoid this issue.

The fact that the creature is Arcades Sabboth does nothing at all to this question - there's no reason for the massive image of that creature in here. If there was going to be an image of a card it should have been Illusory Gains.

@Aetherfox and most likely (though not impossible) the owner of Illusory Gains won't be playing Bant and would have had to sacrifice it before it was able to attack.

You're right Andrew...but, ehm...I was sure that someone would have pointed out to me about this ... but...that I have to do it if ... er, Arcades Sabboth is ... you see ... he is a BEAST !!! I wanted it to be clear. But  I awaited your warning too. Then I would have deleted it by myself!

No....I only read this now ... I can't believe it: are creatures that change controllers affected by summoning sickness also when they are not just summoned creatures??? But this is a big nonsense, it can't be true! And if so, since when did they change this rule ?? Please Aetherfox, or anyone else, answer here my small but fundamental sub-question! Thank you.

@ManoFromBerlin: Yes, changing control of creatures 'reactivates' summoning sickness. Note that summoning sickness checks if the creature has been under their current controller's continuous control since their controller's last upkeep. This question (example 4) addresses it: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/25234/what-is-summoning-sickness-and-how-does-it-affect-my-creatures
I have no idea when/if the rule changed, but it's why you see a lot of temporary steal cards, like Traitorous Instinct, give haste for the turn as well.

Well, as usual, in some way, yes,the questions are very similar. But:1) the question of summoning sickness has now also emerged, applicable also to stolen creatures,makes me think that this question could be useful just the same (even if, obviously, especially for me!).2)Furthermore, the dynamics of Illusory Gains could be different from that shown in the linked question, since the mechanism of "detach" sometimes works in a particular way. For example, Illusory Gains can be assigned to a creature with hexproof or shroud , and it is also for this "pitfall" that I asked the question .

So overall, I would say that albeit with many similarities, the two questions are still a little different,as I expressed in the request box that was sent to me.

Does the post about summoning sickness that Aetherfox linked address your question about summoning sickness?

@ManoFromBerlin what we call summoning sickness is in the rules "A creature’s activated ability with the tap symbol or the untap symbol in its activation cost can’t be activated unless the creature has been under its controller’s control continuously since their most recent turn began. A creature can’t attack unless it has been under its controller’s control continuously since their most recent turn began."

Ok ... it's unbelievable, but it's true; if the rule prescribes what Andrew wrote in the comment, then it is so. I remember that in the past the rule was different. Now, the whole thing is actually governed by rule 302.6, which says exactly what Andrew indicated. Thank you for the clarifications ... as you can see, even if this question could be considered a duplicate of a question already present in SE, it is still a question that has been useful: for me, and also for other users. Ok...now, I'm going to edit my question, giving Arcades Sabboth a way to grant haste...

However, as far as the removal of the massive image of Arcades Sabboth is concerned ... anyone can notice that it was a whole other thing before:much, much better. But ... be afraid! Arcades Sabboth will punish you for what you have done !! Don't even imagine what awaits you for having removed its huge image !!!

However,the rule of summoning sickness that must also be applied to stolen creatures is a contradiction in terms ... why must stolen creatures have a  weakness from evocation,if they were summoned 100 years ago?Jet Lag for what?For a plane taken 10 years ago?Ok,as usual, it is the actual "rule"...but I think it is unsense...Another one of these new honeyed in syrup rules.However this is my opinion, even it does not matter to anyone, obviously...But please, think about it... Probably,I do too much of that "Poetry Magic" of mine.But it is also unreceivable, looking at all these bad changements.

Number 2 is correct (Arcades is no longer attacking and returns to player 2).

506.4. A permanent is removed from combat if it leaves the battlefield, if its controller changes, if it phases out, if an effect
  specifically removes it from combat, if it’s a planeswalker that’s
  being attacked and stops being a planeswalker, or if it’s an attacking
  or blocking creature that regenerates (see rule 701.14) or stops being
  a creature. A creature that’s removed from combat stops being an
attacking, blocking, blocked, and/or unblocked creature. A
  planeswalker that’s removed from combat stops being attacked.

(emphasis mine)