text:
If a creature planeswalker is dealt damage by a creature with infect, what happens?
If a planeswalker than has been turned into a creature (not a planeswalker that turns itself into a creature with "prevent all damage" like Gideon) takes Infect damage, what happens?
I know that Infect damage is applied as -1/-1 counters, and I know that the planeswalker will have both damaged marked on it, as well as have it's loyalty reduced, but what I'm unsure of is if the -1/-1 counters further reduce the loyalty or if they only impact the power / toughness.
As a follow-on, do the -1/-1 counters stay on the planeswalker when it is no longer a creature? And if so, could this be used to prevent a Gideon from using it's "become a creature" ability (or at least kill it if it does)?

Loyalty counters are different and separate from the -1/-1 counters produced by infect. -1/-1 counters affect power and toughness only. If an infected Planeswalker reverts to a non-creature, the -1/-1 counters will have no effect. They will remain until otherwise removed, or until the permanent changes zones.
Non-creature Planeswalker vs Infect Damage

Lose loyalty equal to the infect damage per rule 119.3c.
Do not gain infect counters. Rule 119.3d only applies to creatures.

Creature Planeswalker vs Infect Damage

Lose loyalty equal to the infect damage per rule 119.3c.
Gain -1/-1 counters equal to the infect damage per rule 119.3d.

Example
Gideon, Champion of Justice has five loyalty counters and five -1/-1 counters. If he resolves his zero ability to become a creature, Gideon will die the next time state-based actions are checked.
Planeswalkers are not subject to the same state-based action where a player with ten poison counters automatically loses the game. Planeswalkers cannot gain poison counters.

How would a Planeswalker even lose a game? I don't see this worth you mention.

@ikegami Good catch. I further qualified the statement with an "in my opinion" clause, so that you now lose the ability to argue with it.

I really thing the last line could just be deleted. The planeswalker doesn't have 'infect' counters: he has -1/-1 counters that were dealt to a creature. shrug

@corsika Corrected "infect counter" to "poison counter". Thanks for the suggestion.

I would just delete the last paragraph outright, honestly - it IMHO just heightens the confusion by even being mentioned.

@StevenStadnicki I am well aware that some believe the last paragraph is extraneous. I do not see the correlation between "extraneous" and "confusing". Please clarify how the last paragraph is confusing after my most recent edit.

John, the reason everyone finds the last paragraph so confusing is that you're implicitly responding to the idea that a planeswalker with 10 counters of some type would die, analogous to a player with 10 poison counters losing. But no one ever said that, and most of us wouldn't have thought of it if you hadn't said anything. Planeswalkers don't follow the same rules as players. So we have to read your "clarification" and infer what you're trying to clarify.

If you really want to say it, it might be better written as "But they're just -1/-1 counters, not poison counters - only players get poison counters. They can only kill Gideon by reducing his toughness to zero." But again, you're kind of confusing the issue by making the reader think "wait, why would he have gotten poison counters? Is there something here that would try to put poison counters on him?"

@Jefromi Infect produces three types of damage depending on what it hits. Players gain poison counters. Planeswalkers lose loyalty counters. Creatures gain -1/-1 counters. I felt that my answer would be incomplete without mentioning all three. I am open to comments regarding the correctness of the statement, but I cannot respect useless comments. Ikegami's opinion was welcomed and respected. Corsika had something useful to add. Further repeats were simply redundant.

@John Exactly - we're talking about creatures and planeswalkers here, not players, so we're only talking about two of those things. Your most recent revision is certainly the least confusing, to the point of not being that much of an issue. I was only trying to explain the confusion that several of us were obviously seeing here; if you're just going to dismiss my comments as useless or repetitive, I won't bother trying to help more.

I think the last paragraph is helpful. I'm not much of a rules lawyer, and planeswalkers are like players in a way (they can be attacked as players, and isn't the player supposed to be a planeswalker?) so I was wondering whether they would also get poison counters.

@RemcoGerlich So, I understand where you're coming from, but it's really just a flavor thing. The best way to clarify this for yourself is not by learning details like "planeswalkers can't get poison counters", it's just learning that planeswalkers aren't players. They're totally distinct in the rules. If something says "player" it means player, and if it says "planeswalker" it means planeswalker. (Door to Nothingness is not Dreadbore.) Yes, they can be attacked, and you can redirect damage from their controller to them, but those are exceptions, not the rule.

John, what would you think about something like this for your last paragraph: "While infect damage is dealt to players in the form of poison counters, Planeswalkers are not players, so they cannot gain poison counters. The damage can only kill Gideon by reducing his loyalty to zero, or Gideon-turned-creature by reducing his toughness to zero." It still clarifies that planeswalkers don't get poison counters, but without making it seem like it's a special case difference between players and planeswalkers, or needing to discuss the SBA directly.

If it's both a creature and a planeswalker, it would gain -1/-1 counters and lose loyalty counters.

119.3c Damage dealt to a planeswalker causes that many loyalty counters to be removed from that planeswalker.
119.3d Damage dealt to a creature by a source with wither and/or infect causes that many -1/-1 counters to be put on that creature.

The removal of loyalty counters is not conditional.

As a follow-on, do the -1/-1 counters stay on the planeswalker when it is no longer a creature?

Yes. Counters will cease to exist if the object changes zone[CR 121.2]. Otherwise, they stay until something explicitly removes them.

And if so, could this be used to prevent a Gideon from using it's "become a creature" ability (or at least kill it if it does)?

Yes. If he had -1/-1 counters equaling his toughness, he'd die virtually immediately after transforming into a creature.
Note that Gideon, Champion of Justice's indestructibility would not help, since the State-Based action in question kills rather than destroys[CR 704.5f].
Note that Gideon Jura's ability to prevent damage prevents the gain of -1/-1 counters from infect damage. You'd have to turn him into a creature another way or give him the -1/-1 counters some other way.

whoa, why the downvote?

Ah, the reader was probably thinking of one Gideon and I was looking at the other. Fixed.

In the case of Gideon Jura, if he is turned into a creature  not by his ability (see linked question in OP), does he still prevent the damage?

@cdeszaq, No. GJ has an activated ability that, in part, creates a continuous effect that "prevents all damage that would be dealt to him this turn". If you don't activate the ability, you don't gain its effect. He would need the static ability "Prevent all damage that would be dealt to GJ as long as he is a creature." (Btw, you can activate GJ's ability even if he's already a creature.)

-1/-1 counters reduce power/toughness (or remove +1/+1 counters if there are any present). They do not affect loyalty counters.
Generally, any kind of counter can exist on any kind of permanent (or even a spell, such as with Lightning Storm). -1/-1 counters on a planeswalker simply don't do anything under normal circumstances -- that is, until the planeswalker becomes a creature.

While the planeswalker is a creature, it will have 3 relevant characteristics: power, toughness, and loyalty. When that creature planeswalker takes infect damage, it will lose that many loyalty counters and it will gain that many -1/-1 counters. The -1/-1 counters only affect power and toughness.
In general, permanents do not lose any counters when they change type. This does mean that if a planeswalker becomes a creature, and it has enough -1/-1 counters that its toughness is 0, it will die.


text:
How does regeneration work in Magic the Gathering?
How does regeneration work?
I know that if my creature is destroyed then I can spend X mana then tap my creature and move it out of combat. Is it attackable in any way after that? With spells or instants?
If someone for example casts Shock on my Manor Skeleton, can I say in response “Ok, I will spend 2 mana to regenerate it”? Or does Shock immediately resolve to destroy the creature (assuming it has no regeneration shield on it)?

After reading your edit, I think this article on Priority and the Stack may be helpful for you. After the Shock is played you have priority to respond.

@AdamArold, Your link is down.

@Pacerier AdamArold isn't the one who provided the link, and if you notice a broken link, it's way more helpful to everyone if you just take a couple seconds to figure out how to fix it: http://www.mtgsalvation.com/articles/15678-priority-and-the-stack

A creature is destroyed when a resolved spell or effect says so (destruction by effect), or when the total damage it received this turn from anywhere is equal to or greater than its current toughness (destruction by game rules).
At any time you can regenerate a creature with an appropriate spell or effect. The only condition is that the regeneration has to happen before the destruction effect. You can regenerate a creature as often as you like, anytime. For each time you regenerate it, the creature gets a "regeneration shield" that lasts until the turn ends or until it is used up by a destruction effect, whatever happens first. If a destruction event would happen and the creature has a "regeneration shield" active, the following things happen:

One of those shields is removed
All damage received by the creature this turn is removed
If a destruction effect caused the event to trigger, it resolves but has no effect
The creature gets tapped (Note that this is an effect of regeneration. The creature does not have to be untapped to regenerate it)
The creature gets removed from combat, if it was regenerated during combat

Note that certain spells or effects state something like "Destroy target creature. It can't be regenerated.". In that case, you can still respond with a regeneration shield, but the regeneration effect is ignored and the creature still gets destroyed.

Is it attackable in any way after that? With spells or instants?

"Attack" has a defined meaning in M:TG: You attack with creatures only, during a combat phase. The only valid targets for an attack are opposing players and Planeswalkers.
The correct term to use for spells and effects is "target", if it is a targeted spell or effect.
And yes, regeneration provides no further protection from multiple damage sources or spells/effects. You can, as stated above, provide multiple regeneration shields, so as long as you can pay the costs, you can regenerate as often as you want.

@edem Regarding your edit: Both Shock and the regeneration ability, as all spells and effects, use the stack. Therefore a Shock never resolves immediately, and you can always respond to it, unless (as always) another effect or ability prevents you from doing so. For example, as long as a spell with the Split Second ability is on the stack, nobody can put other spells/effects on the stack.

@Hackworth, So "regeneration" is a misnomer and should have been called "double life".

When do triggered abilities that say "when this creature regenerates" occur? Do they occur when a shield is used up or when a shield is created?

There are many descriptions of what happens. An example would be helpful.

Responding to your edit:

What I really wanted to know is that if someone uses for example Shock
  on my creature can I say at that moment "Ok, I will spend 2 mana and
  regenerate my creature" or when that Shock is played it is resolved
  immediately any my creature is destroyed (assuming that it has 1
  toughness and no regeneration shield on it)

How the rules of Magic work is as follows:
Your opponent pays 1 red mana and casts Shock.  Shock is now placed "on the stack".  Assuming that neither you nor your opponent want to play any spells or abilities in response, Shock "resolves", your creature takes 2 damage, and, assuming its toughness is 2 or less, goes to the graveyard.
However, you do want to do something, which is regenerate your creature!  With Shock on the stack, you say "in response, I regenerate" and pay your mana. This puts the ability on the stack, on top of Shock. Now, assuming neither you nor your opponent want to play any more spells or abilities, the objects on the stack start to resolve from top to bottom (LIFO), thus the ability resolves first and a regeneration shield is created.  Now Shock is at the top of the stack; assuming neither you nor your opponent want to play any more spells or abilities, it resolves, and your creature is dealt 2 damage, though this time it survives thanks to the replacement effect provided by its regeneration shield.
Here's an interesting case for you: your opponent casts Shock on your creature.  In response, you tap two lands, and use your creature's regeneration ability.  In response to this, your opponent taps for another red mana and casts another Shock from his hand!  You may at this point be out of mana and unable to respond by using the regeneration ability again.  In this case your creature is toast, despite trying to regenerate, as the second Shock will resolve before anything else...
Hope this helps you visualise how the stack works - it's quite hard until you suddenly "get it", and then it's pretty easy, I promise you!

Thanks for the clear explanation. By the way can a regenerate effect be countered by - for example - a blue player who has a lot of counters? And if he counters it can I cast regenerate again for 2 additional mana?

@edem - Regeneration isn't a spell, so it can't be countered by most blue counters (which say "counter target spell").  It can be countered by a spell which says "counter target activated ability", e.g. a Stifle.  And yes, if some counters your regeneration ability with Stifle there is nothing to stop you regenerating again, either in response to the Stifle or after it has resolved.

It is a creature ability I think. Thanks anyway. :)

@edem It's still an activated ability, if it has a cost preceding a colon on the card.  The other type of ability is a triggered ability ("When [x], [do y]").  An activated ability can appear on any type of permanent, including creatures.

Oh yes, and there are static abilities, which are basically the ones that are "always on".  But all abilities fall into one of those three categories, including all creature abilities :)

@AdamArold, There are spells that do regeneration too: https://www.google.com/search?q=regenerate+target+creature&tbm=isch . Those can be countered.

@thesunneversets, So for the scenario you've outlined, is the Regeneration's target located in the graveyard or is the target considered undefined?

@Pacerier Regenerate is only useful for creatures on the battlefield. There is (almost) always time between someone announcing a spell or ability that could kill your creature and the creature dying. In face to face play that isn't always apparent because the rules specifically allow shortcuts that both players agree.

What I really wanted to know is that if someone uses for example Shock on my creature can I say at that moment "Ok, I will spend 2 mana and regenerate my creature"

Short answer: Yes.
Longer answer: I linked this nice article as a comment to your question that has a very thorough discussion, with examples, of how the Stack and Priority works in MtG. I thought I'd give the summary here. Note in this synopsis I will ignore any rules, cards or keywords that may modify these rules. (ie. Split Second, Flash)

When a player plays a spell or ability, that player keeps priority. The Spell/Ability is on the stack but doesn't resolve yet (ie. Shock).
When a player with priority passes priority with a Spell/Ability on the stack, the next player may play an Instant or activate an ability (ie. regenerate).  If they do, it goes on the top of the stack but doesn't resolve yet.
The Spell/Ability on top of the stack resolves when both (or all, in multiplayer games) players pass priority in a row.
When a spell resolves, the active player (the player whose turn it is), gets priority. If there are still spells or abilities on the stack, go to step 2.

And just to be crystal clear, once the Regeneration Shield resolves (replaces a destruction effect) that card can still be targeted again. If your opponent has another Shock and has mana, he can cast the spell on your creature. Of course, if you still have the mana, you can regenerate it again…

Another useful visualisation exercise could be a creature with "U: This cannot be the target of spells or abilities till end of turn".  If you successfully resolved this in response to a Shock, the Shock would "fizzle" (be countered by game rules).  But someone could still cast a Shock in response to this ability being played, and potentially kill the creature before the ability resolved...

@thesunneversets, What if the rules collide with each other? E.g. you play "This cannot be the target of spells or abilities till end of turn", in response to that, he plays "This can always be the target of spells or abilities till end of turn". Then who wins?

@ghoppe, So does the regeneration shield only works once? E.g. you tap a creature giving it regeneration. When that resolves, I play shock. Shock resolves, then I play another shock yet again. What happens?

@thesunneversets, What if the rules collide with each other? E.g. 1) you play "This cannot be the target of spells or abilities till end of turn", in response to that, he plays "This can always be the target of spells or abilities till end of turn". Then who wins? Or 2) I stack shock, you stack regenerate, i stack wrath of god which says "creatures cannot be regenerated", then you stack "all creatures can be regenerated". Who wins?

@Pacerier Regeneration is a replacement effect that means: the next time this permanent would be destroyed this turn, it isn't. Instead tap it, remove all damage from it, and remove it from combat. Therefore, it can only replace one instance of being destroyed. If you play a second shock, I must have some way to regenerate it again or it is destroyed.

@Pacerier Comprehensive Rule 101.2: When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can’t happen, the “can’t” effect takes precedence. Remember, the stack is resolved in last-in first-resolves order.

The way regeneration works is that, when a creature is regenerated, it receives protection from the next effect that would put it into the graveyard equivalent to the "destroy" action. So, if your creature would receive lethal damage or be targeted by a Doom Blade or something, you can activate regeneration, and when the effect occurs, the destruction part of the effect is ignored, and instead the creature is tapped, if it wasn't already. (So a creature with lethal damage has the damage removed, but the creature remains in play.) The regeneration "shield" only protects against the first such effect; if your creature has two toughness and there are two Lightning Bolts on the stack targeting it, you'll need to activate its regeneration ability twice to keep it from dying. Regeneration also doesn't protect against effects that exile the creature, sacrifice effects, or effects that specify that the creature is destroyed and cannot be regenerated.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Does Ashiok, Nightmare Muse's ult allow affected adventure cards to be cast as adventures?
This is a spoiler for Ashiok, Nightmare Muse, a planeswalker in the upcoming expansion. Their ult reads:

You may cast up to three face-up cards your opponents own from exile without paying their mana costs.

Certainly, this applies to adventure cards the opponent has exiled by playing them as adventures.
The question is, may the controller of Ashiok cast those adventure cards as adventures, or does the restriction to the non-adventure part from exile apply to all players?
The rules on adventure cards say:

715.3d Instead of putting a spell that was cast as an Adventure into its owner’s graveyard as it resolves, its controller exiles it. For as long as that card remains exiled, that player may cast it. It can’t be cast as an Adventure this way, although other effects that allow a player to cast it may allow a player to cast it as an Adventure.

The first half of the third sentence says

It can’t be cast as an Adventure this way

Does "this way" refer to "anyone casting it from exile", or does it refer to "that player [the player who put it into exile by casting as adventure] casting it from exile"? I am not sure because the second half of the sentence says

other effects that allow a player to cast it may allow a player to cast it as an Adventure.

which refers to "a player" rather than "that player".
So does that "other effect" specifically have to allow casting the card as an adventure, i.e. Ashiok would only allow the non-adventure part to be cast?

That ability on Ashiok allows you to cast the Adventure part of the card from exile.
When a card that is cast as an Adventure resolves and is exiled, it creates a continuous effect that allows you to cast the creature part, and only the creature part, from exile. This is what it means when it says that "it can't be cast as an Adventure this way".
Ashiok ability creates a separate effect that allows you to cast that same card. That effect has no restrictions on what types of spells it can cast, so it can cast either the Adventure part or the creature part of that card from exile.

Are you sure about that? This is a cost-replacement effect, so wouldn't it disallow you from paying the alternate Adventure cost?

Would this mean you could cast the same adventure card three times in a turn (ie cast Stomp)? It looks like Ashiok's ability doesn't care when the card was exiled, and your opponent's still own the adventure cards.

@nick012000 Casting an Adventure spell is not an alternate cost, it is an alternate way of casting a card, like casting one side of a split card vs the other, or casting a card with Morph face down.

@Malco Ashiok's ability allows you to cast spells during the resolution of the ability. Once you choose to cast a card that way, you put it on the stack, and then it's not in exile anymore. By the time the spell resolves, Ashiok's ability has long since resolved, so nothing lets you cast spells like that from exile.

Ahh my bad, I missed that the ability doesn't have the "until end of turn." text à la Chandra, Fire Artisan and the other red "cas/play from exile" cards they have been doing lately.

Those red cards are usually doing some variation of "impulse draw", where you exile cards from the library, and then have the turn to play them, like drawing into a temporary hand. Ashiok is taking cards that have been exiled by other effects, probably on other turns, and now allowing you to cast them.

When a card says "you may do X", and then says "if you do X this way", that means "if you use 'you may do X' to do X". In a related question, someone asked about Bolas's Citadel and Experimental Frenzy. Both allow you to cast the top card of your library, but Bolas's Citadel has you pay life rather than mana:

You may play the top card of your library. If you cast a spell this way, pay life equal to its converted mana cost rather than pay its mana cost.

If you have both cards out, you can choose which one you use to allow you to cast the top card of your library. Bolas's Citadel's "If you cast a spell this way, pay life equal to its converted mana cost rather than pay its mana cost" means that if Bolas's Citadel's ability is the ability you choose to allow you to cast the spell, you pay life. If you choose to have  Experimental Frenzy's ability be what allows you to cast it, then you pay mana.
With your question, if you use an Adventure card's own "For as long as that card remains exiled, that player may cast it." ability to cast it, then it can't be cast as an adventure.

So does that "other effect" specifically have to allow casting the card as an adventure

Ashiok allows you to cast the card. Normally, when you cast an Adventure card you choose whether to cast it as an Adventure or Creature. There is nothing in the wording of Ashiok's ability that changes that. So if it is Ashiok that you are relying on to cast the card, you can cast it as an Adventure.
If you were somehow in a situation where you could use Ashiok's ability or the Adventure card's own ability to cast it (which normally wouldn't arise, since Ashiok says "opponent", but most things in MtG have some exception), then whether you could cast it as an Adventure would depend on which you chose to use.

It's impossible to have both permissions usable at the same time because Ashiok's ability only allows you to cast spells during the resolution of the ability, and you can't normally cast spells for any other reason during that time.

@murgatroid99 not impossible - Adventures are castable by the controller of the adventure spell, while Ashiok cares about the owner of the exiled spells.

That's not what I was talking about. The Adventure effect allows you to cast the spell when you would normally be able to do so, i.e. when you have priority and (in general) when the stack is empty. Ashiok's ability allows you to cast the spell during the resolution of the ability, at which time you don't have priority. So, those are mutually exclusive.

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


text:
What happens with Jared and a dying monarch?
Assume I'm the active player and I've cast Jared Carthalion, True Heir (alternate link before CMR releases) this turn. Part of his ETB trigger is "You can't become the monarch this turn."
I swing at the monarch. Obviously I can't become the monarch, so the damage trigger resolves without changing the monarch. But if I kill that player, the following rule applies.

718.4. If the monarch leaves the game, the active player becomes the monarch at the same time as that player leaves the game. If the active player is leaving the game or if there is no active player, the next player in turn order becomes the monarch.

I'm the active player, so the rule tries to make me monarch but can't. Is there now no monarch in the game?
Even if there were a ruling or a rules change that made the next eligible player the monarch (I haven't seen any indication of this though), the situation would happen if everyone had their own Jared enter this turn before the monarch died.
So, is this one strange case where there stops being a monarch in the game?

I think there was a similar discussion to this on Limited Resources this week (Episode 570) and I think the answer was that 1) temporarily nobody is the monarch and 2) the next person to do combat damage becomes the monarch. I'd have to listen to LR again though to check.

@PhilipKendall Point 2 would make no sense - you become monarch if your creature deals combat damage to the current monarch - if there is no current monarch, nobody can become monarch that way.

@Hackworth I was surprised by that as well. It is what was said, but it was wrong; the correction in that tweet just pushes it back to this question again.

We probably have to wait until the Rulings under the card in Gatherer, but this seems to be a case where one of Magic's Golden Rules applies:

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

The game doesn't require that some player is the monarch (it even begins that way) so for the moment there will be no monarch.

I'm always a bit giddy when I see 101.2 used when it actually applies. :) It's so often misused.

In that situation, no player would be the monarch.
The game already allows for situations where there is no monarch:

718.1. The monarch is a designation a player can have. There is no monarch in a game until an effect instructs a player to become the monarch.

Rule 718.4 does not list "being able to become monarch" as a requirement for choosing the next monarch - the only requirement is that the player is active and not leaving the game, or that the player is the next player in turn order. The rule does not say to repeat this check until a monarch has been found.

718.4. If the monarch leaves the game, the active player becomes the monarch at the same time as that player leaves the game. If the active player is leaving the game or if there is no active player, the next player in turn order becomes the monarch.

So if the game stops having a monarch because they left the game for any reason, and the designated successor can't become monarch due to Jared's ability, the game simply stops having a monarch until an effect instructs a player to become the monarch as per 718.1.

I don't think the question is alleging it's weird that there's no monarch, but that it's weird that there will stop being a Monarch—which is extremely rare to see!

I mean, define "weird". Jared's design lends itself to exactly that situation. It's not even an interaction between Jared and another specific card, it's just what Jared does on its own.

Weird as a brand new unusual interaction that occurs with only one card (or in some extremely specific edge cases). We're used to games that have a monarch continuing to have one.

Fair enough. I haven't heard of monarch until today, so there was no particular weirdness about Jared.


text:
Ferries and Tunnels in Ticket to Ride Expansions
My wife and I play a lot of Ticket to Ride: Nordic Countries but recently we discovered we'd been playing Ferries incorrectly.  Oops!
A ferry is depicted on the board as, e.g., 4 red spaces and 2 more red spaces with locomotive motifs.  We'd been playing under the assumption that, to claim this route, you needed to play exactly 4 red cards and 2 locomotives.  It seems, though, that there are several fine points to the rules that we hadn't noticed.
(a) You can always use any 3 cards in place of a locomotive.
(b) You can always play an extra locomotive in place of a coloured card.
So, for instance, you could buy the abovementioned red route with 3 red cards and 3 locomotives, 1 red card and 5 locomotives, or even 6 locomotives.  You could also buy it with 4 red cards and 6 blue cards.
Our big question arising from these revelations: do these rules stack? That is to say, can I buy this route with 3 red cards and 9 yellow cards?  Eighteen assorted cards none of which are locomotives and reds?
Tunnels I think - I hope - we've gotten pretty much correct.  You state you're trying to build a tunnel of, for example, 3 green cards.  You flip over a green card, a red card, and a locomotive from the deck.  We've assumed that you can now build your tunnel by adding two cards in any combination of green or locomotive to the initial three greens (i.e., you don't have to match the quality of the cards you flipped, just the quantity).
However, our confusion over ferries possibly creates a new question.  If I had only 4 green cards (and no locos) in my hand... can I pay one extra green and three cards of any colour, in place of a locomotive to build my tunnel?  I'm inclined to think not, but I just don't know for sure any more!

The original version has neither of these complications. I think Europe does though.

@CrazyJugglerDrummer - Europe has locomotives, ferries and tunnels on top of the USA rules.  Nordic Countries though has completely new, more complicated rules on top of the Europe rules.  It would be a mistake to think, just because you know one set of Ticket to Ride rules, you know them all.  They are, quite deceptively given that they're all called "Ticket to Ride", slightly different games inside every box...

No,
These rules do not stack.

You can only in 3 cards to fill the designated locomotive spots.
You can use locomotives to fill in the colored spots.

You cannot use the first to get a locomotive and then trade that in for the colored card.
This question was asked of designer Alan Moon, on BGG and his response was as I have given here.

Looks good - I do think it's telling that, after getting an official ruling from the game designer himself, mutterings of debate still continue in the thread!  I think it's fairly clear that Nordic Countries is not the clearest set of rules ever devised :D

@the - agreed, I'm a bit dissapointed that the ruling I cited was from March '08 and I was unable to find an updated rule set or an authoritative FAQ.  I did see some rumors that the expansion may be reprinted.  One can hope that the rules will get a bit upgraded then!

So I think Pat has provided an authoritative answer (which I will no doubt end up accepting), but let me see if I can phrase the (clarified) rules succintly:

If a route is marked with one or more locomotive symbols (i.e. it is a Ferry) then:

Each space marked with a locomotive symbol can be paid for with a locomotive or any THREE other cards (regardless of the colour of the space).
Each space not marked with a locomotive symbol can be paid for with a locomotive or a card of the colour of the route (if a grey route, then the colour chosen to pay for the route).

If a route is marked as a tunnel then:

Each space can be paid for with a locomotive or a card of the colour of the route.

If a route is not marked as a tunnel then:

Each space can be paid for ONLY with a card of the appropriate colour.

In the unique case of the grey Murmansk-Lieksa route:

Each space can be paid for with a card of the colour chosen to pay for the route, or any FOUR other cards.

If anyone has all that clear in their head by the time they sit down to play their first game, they have better powers of rulebook comprehension than I do, that's all I can say!

@Peter: Nordic Countries have completely different rules for locomotives than Ticket to Ride: Europe, which takes a bit of getting one's head around.  They can't be used as wild cards on "normal" routes, don't take your whole turn to pick up, and don't "sweep" the cards available when there are three of them.  When a tunnel is played using only locomotives, though, I believe it's only locomotives that you have to worry about pulling from the deck - in both Nordic Countries and Europe expansions! (But you then can only play locomotives in answer.)  Not 100% sure on that, would have to check.

The rules of Nordic Countries (found on Days of Wonders’ website) are a bit confusing and I admit having to read them more than once. However, I believe I have understood the edge cases and their implications for your question.
First off, to state the obvious, locomotives can only be played in ferry or tunnel routes or Murmansk–Lieksa (section Train Car Cards):

Locomotive cards can complement or replace the colored cards required to claim a Tunnel or Ferry route, but they can never be used to help claim a regular route.
(Note: Murmansk–Lieksa isn’t explicitly stated here but explained further down)

Section Claiming Routes contains:

The Murmansk-Lieksa route is an exception. On this route, a player can use any four cards (including locomotives) as a substitute for a card of any color.

This is the only mentioning of locomotives in the Claiming Routes section; the following sections are titled either Ferries or Tunnels and thus imply being relevant only to the specific type of route.
In Ferries it says:

Ferries are special routes linking two adjacent cities across a body of water. They are easily identified by the Locomotive icon(s) featured on at least one of the spaces making the route.
To claim a Ferry Route, a player must play a Locomotive card for each locomotive symbol on the route, and the usual set of cards of the proper color for the remaining spaces of that Ferry Route.
In addition:

A player can play additional Locomotive cards as a substitute for a color card
Any three cards can be used as a substitute for a Locomotive card

The rules do distinguish between the required locomotive cards and colour cards. As such, it seems obvious that only actual locomotive cards may be used as a substitute for colour cards and only the required locomotive cards can be replaced with a set of three. It is not immediately clear if you could use four locomotives and six colour cards to buy that six-train ferry route with two explicit locomotives added. What does seem clear is that you cannot substitute a card that should be red by three yellows. (The link in Pat’s answer does not clear up this confusion as far as I can tell.)
As I mentioned, this was exclusive to Ferries. In Tunnels it says:

When attempting to claim a Tunnel route, a player first lays down the number of cards required. Then the 3 top cards from the Train Car card draw pile are turned face-up. For each card revealed whose color matches the color used to claim the Tunnel (including locomotives), an additional card of the same color (or a locomotive) must be played
  to successfully claim the Tunnel. See Examples 1 and 2. If the player does not have enough additional Train Car cards of matching color (or does not wish to play them), he may take all his cards back into his hand, and his turn ends. The three Train Car cards revealed for the Tunnel are discarded.
Be aware that with regard to Tunnels:

Locomotives are multi-colored wild cards. As such, any Locomotive card revealed, forces the player to add a Train Car card (of matching color) or a Locomotive from your hand.
If a player exclusively plays Locomotive cards to claim a tunnel route, only additional Locomotive cards drawn from the deck will be considered a match. This means you will not have to worry about a colored card of the Tunnel's color triggering a match! If Locomotive cards appear in the 3 cards drawn for the Tunnel, triggering a match, it can only be fulfilled by playing additional Locomotive cards from your hand. See Example 3.

This section contains no mention of any possible way to substitute locomotives with any other set of cards as locomotives are never required in the first place. It does mention the possibility of colour cards being replaced by locomotive cards as both the corresponding colour and a locomotive trigger additional cost. It also mentions the all-locomotive tunnel in which case only locomotives count.
Thus, in a tunnel’s case a locomotive can substitute for a colour card if present but colour cards can never substitute a locomotive.

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

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/


text:
When did big creatures in Magic stopped having a mantainance cost?
In earlier Magic, big creatures always had a big mantainance cost (ex. Force of Nature, Yawgmoth Demon, Minion of Leshrac).
Some years ago, this ceased to be. When did that happen?
Also, was there some official statement about that (bonus if it's by Rosewater), or it "just happened"?
edit (I really thought this was crystal clear...): I didn't mean there aren't new creatures with upkeep, I meant there are some without it. Before that, AFAIK all of them had it.

Performing a gatherer search for all creatures with power >= 7 I discovered a great number of creatures that fit with your premise.  I also found a lot of counterexamples covering a wide time frame.  I've voted to close as not constructive since I think this is a perception, not an actual design decision and will probably devolve into a debate.

Big creatures didn't always have a maintenance cost... Off the top of my head in Alpha, Shivan Dragon, Mahamoti Djinn?  Depends what you mean by "big creature" I guess.  Maybe you could define that more precisely?

First you should define what a big creature is to you. Then you should present some rudimentary research and numbers to support your premise. Then and only then can you begin to ask what the reason is. Demonstrate that you have done some work where you can.

I'm astonished. I hardly can believe it. I'll rephrase the question.

Even after the edit, you are still just plain wrong. theunneversets game some good examples.

It isn't true that big creatures always had maintenance costs.
From the top of my head, Craw Wurm is a big creature from Alpha with no upkeep cost or even a real disadvantage (if you exclude the high casting cost).
In fact, looking at all the Alpha creatures with stats bigger that 3/3, only Demonic Hordes, Force of Nature and Lord of the Pit (three of them) have such maintenance costs!
This being said, it is true that big demons in magic are known to have certain characteristics: big black creatures with upkeep costs. In fact I think Mark Rosewater mentioned in an article that they acknowledge that fact when designing demons (I can't find the article, mostly because WotC is doing server maintenance right now. If you're interested I can google for it later and edit the answer).

I would say that your premise is flawed.  From the upcoming Dark Ascension set

This is a big creature with a big upkeep.

I didn't mean there aren't new creatures with upkeep, I meant there are some without it. Before that, AFAIK all of them had it.


text:
What does "menace" mean?
I've got a Weldfast Monitor, an Artifact Creature — Lizard. For one mana, it "gains menace".  What does "gains menace" mean?

Menace means "This creature can't be blocked except by two or more creatures."
This means when it comes to blocking, your opponent either assigns 2+ creatures to block it or none at all.
You'll see its reminder text on cards from other editions like Insolent Neonate, but it looks like none of the Menace cards in Kaladesh had reminder text for the ability. Menace became a keyword ability during the Origins set.


text:
What happens if you steal an Elixir of Immortality and then use it?
In an EDH (Commander) game recently, Alice used Thada Adel, Acquisitor to steal an artifact out of Bob's deck, the Elixir of Immortality, and cast it.
That artifact's ability says:

{2}, {T}: You gain 5 life. Shuffle Elixir of Immortality and your graveyard into your library.

When Alice uses that ability, what happens to the artifact? Does it go into Bob's graveyard or get shuffled into Alice's library? Does Alice still even shuffle her graveyard into her library and gain 5 life?

Those are Magic cards?  Wow, those have changed since I used to play back in the days of the Revised Edition.

Yeah, those are both cards that have come out in the last year or so. The design is really nice.

It goes into Bob's library (the owner of the card).
From the Comprehensive Rules:

400.3. If an object would go to any library, graveyard, or hand other than its owner’s, it goes to its
  owner’s corresponding zone.

There is also specific errata on the Elixir

Elixir of Immortality - {1}
  Artifact
  {2}, {T}: You gain 5 life. Shuffle Elixir of Immortality and your
  graveyard into their owner's library.
This new wording correctly instructs the player as to what to do in
  the case where the controller of the ability does not own Elixir of
  Immortality.
Please pass this information on to other interested parties who may
  not have received it.

You would still shuffle your own graveyard into your library as well as gain 5 life though, I imagine.

Note that the Oracle wording is always the current and correct wording of a card; don't necessarily trust what's printed on the card.


text:
Why do cards have different rarity levels in Magic: The Gathering?
I've been reflecting on this concept and trying to come up with a concise answer: Why do different levels of card rarity exist in MtG? In order for this concept of different numbers of different cards existing to be beneficial to MtG, it has to do one of a few things:

Make it easier to build decks.
Make the game more strategic.
Make the game more replayable.

Here's what I've come up with so far:

The first one is probably most relevant. If a Llanowar Elf was just as common as a Shpinx of Uthuun, and both were just as common as everything else, it wouldn't make any sense because the number of decks that need Llanowars and the amount of Llanowars in each deck that uses them is much greater.
To some degree, it makes the game more replayable, in that it takes longer to see all of the cards because some of them aren't as common, but I don't really consider this a good reason in itself.
Rares tend to be more powerful than other cards, and this seems to work exactly backwards from how it should. If tons of people want a Thrun, the last troll in their decks because it's really powerful, shouldn't it be common so the people with rares don't have an advantage over the people who don't? If you're going to make some cards weaker than others, why not make more of the good ones and not the bad ones? Making powerful cards more expensive does not improve the overall game.

Are these points somewhat valid? How does some cards being produced in smaller number make Magic a better game? How would the game change for the better or worse if all cards were equally rare?

NOTE: Saying that having certain cards be rarer than others makes the game better because of the 'ooooh shiny!' factor when you do get one does nothing to make deck building and playing the game more interesting or fun. I also know that it makes Wizards and card shops tons of money, but I do not want to focus on money in the creator's pockets being the reason for their existence. :D

Don't forget or underestimate the issue of profitability for the parent company.

"but I do not want to focus on money in the creator's pockets being the reason for their existence." — you may not want to focus on that being the reason for their existence, but that is the primary reason for their existence. Without rares, there would be no relatively valuable cards, no secondary market, no chasing the "good" rares and buying boxes of cards. Wizards is a business, not trying to create the purest, best game they can.

This answer to a question about a bad rare card has links to a couple articles dealing with the existence of bad rares, which manage to at least partially answer your question along the way.

The main reasons for rarity are:

To allow for complex cards without overwhelming new players. Rich interactions are part of what make Magic great, but the sheer volume of rules can be overwhelming. By limiting complex cards to uncommon, rare and mythic, it reduces the amount that new players need to worry about it.
To allow for interesting limited environments as well as powerful cards for constructed. By putting limited bombs at rare or even mythic rare, it reduces the effect they have on limited format games.
To sell cards.

I'd put #3 as #1, but the other two are also true.

I'd say #3 is mostly a consequence of a well designed game (and thus the other two are more important).

I'm surprised that so many people have rallied around to say "it's all about the money, deep down".  I don't think profitability is a key driver of there being different rarities at all.  I think it's just a side effect (though, for Wizards, a highly beneficial one).
If Richard Garfield had wanted all cards to have equal rarity, he certainly could have made the game that way.  Most games have only a single rarity, and most (good) games remain profitable.
Collectible card games are different to most games, naturally.  When you buy most games, you have a good idea of exactly what you're going to get inside the box.  When you rip open an MtG booster, you have no idea what you'll find inside.  And having no idea is a lot of the fun.
Let's imagine a world in which a 300-card Magic set had only a single rarity.  Players who liked the game would buy a box of boosters and be pretty much guaranteed to own at least one of every card.  This is good from the point of view of impoverished completists.  But is it really good for maintaining the excitement of the game?
Let's not forget that when Magic was being developed, Richard Garfield (rather naively perhaps) never imagined that people would feel obsessively driven to collect every card.  He anticipated coming across a new rare in another player's deck as a thrilling event.  Rarity was explicitly designed to create a more breathtaking gaming experience.  The game where you never know what you might be playing against when you sit down opposite a player from out-of-down.  Really, doesn't that sound like the best game in the universe?
Unfortunately, that aspect of Magic became a victim of the game's runaway success... though it certainly didn't hurt the game's profit margins, as insane collectors paid out thousands of dollars to "catch 'em all".  Even so, I don't think they kept rarity in the game just to rake in the cash.  Rarity has so many beneficial effects on the game to this day: it allows most of the cards in any given booster pack to be easy for a starting player to comprehend; it allows more interesting and controversial cards to be added to the mix because there won't be too many of them floating around the average play group; it allows for much more nuanced Sealed and Draft environments; and, at the end of the day, it just makes some cards feel intrinsically more cool and exciting than others, which might not be the case if you could easily have 20 of every card you wanted.
Rarity makes people want to pay big money for cards, because it's cool.  It isn't a trick to  "force" players to pay more money to play the game.  Players always have the option of not doing so, you know!  It's just that Magic is such a cool game that, for a lot of people, it's worth shelling out for.

Great point about Garfield's original motivation.

"Most games have only a single rarity" Disagree there. Most TCGs/CCGs have a rarity system. The 5 most Popular: magic it's noted by set symbol color, pokemon has symbols next to the collector number, yu-gi-oh is based on the foil processes used if any (though some cards exist in multiple rarities there), Netrunner is a LCG and thus rarity doesn't really apply, but the core sets had 1, 2 and 3 copies of certain cards, and WOW tcg is also set symbol color based.

Ben covered the general reasons pretty well:

Rarity drives sales.
Rarity defines the Limited format.
Simple commons are newbie-friendly.

I feel like there's a subtext to your post, though: the rarity model drives up the cost of participation in Magic as a hobby -- how can this actually be anything but detrimental to the game?
I think the answer is that, in addition to driving sales of booster packs and sustaining a secondary market for cards, the rarity model serves as a useful bit of social engineering that sustains interest in Magic and preserves some variety in the local play environment.
When Richard Garfield first designed the game, the assumption was that players would own a pretty small set of cards, and that rare cards would be... well, actually rare. Like only one of your friends would own a Shivan Dragon and it would be noteworthy that he did so. Dedicated players and collectors, however, quickly bought lots of packs in order to acquire the cards they wanted, including all the coolest rares.
The lasting effect of this is that it established Magic as not just a card game, but a standalone hobby of sorts. Players' financial investment in the game translates into emotional investment as well. By sweetening the chase for cards, rarity helps to maintain Magic as a big deal to its players rather than one game out of many.
Maybe that's all well and good but you treat Magic more as a strategy board game than a singular hobby, and so you don't see the point of mythic rare Thrun -- or, more specifically, $15 Thrun. Here's the point of $15 Thrun:

Newbie players aren't likely to see a lot of him. But many newbie players aren't likely to see a lot of anything that's not in a starter deck, so this really isn't that important.
Very dedicated competitive players -- the kind of folks who might actually travel to play at a Grand Prix, for instance -- are going to be willing to pay $15 for him, if he's any good (or $100, if he's as good as Tarmogoyf, Dark Confidant, or Force of Will). Rarity is kinda irrelevant for them, really, outside of Limited.
Hardcore casual and FNM-level competitive players buy a lot of cards, but they're still likely to feel a bit uneasy about spending $15 just to play Thrun. Quite a few players at this level are still likely to commit to Thrun, but it does involve a commitment on their part, such that they're not likely to just come in next week with an entirely new flavor-of-the-moment deck after putting so much effort into acquiring Thrun or Wurmcoil Engines or blingy Liliana. This is one of the factors that ensures, especially in the era of massive Internet-driven information cascades, that your local play environment isn't just a carbon copy of the "big leagues" (the other being personal taste). Thus, the cost of picking up tournament-staple cards gives your local game store or "kitchen table" a metagame that moves at a comfortable pace for its participants, rather than the comparatively frantic clip of high-end tournament environments.

One downside is that too high of a financial barrier will cause a local meta to stagnate as no one builds new decks. This is how you get local Legacy scenes where everyone has only one deck, for instance. What's worse, when players have "bought into" their respective decks for the season and then one comes to totally dominate an environment (e.g. Caw-Blade), the inability to easily pivot to playing that deck tends to discourage and frustrate FNM-level players.

Alex P, that's why cards get banned.

I know you said you don't want to focus on money in the creators' pockets, but the fact is, that is the reason. It's a simple consequence of the law of supply and demand: if you want to sell a lot of your product, you increase the demand and decrease the supply. For Magic cards, that means you make powerful cards (high demand) in limited numbers (low supply). All the changes to rarity levels over the years, including mythic rares, foil cards, and planeswalkers, are meant to either increase the power level or decrease the numbers of these rare cards. That in turn entices people to buy more booster packs in hopes of opening a powerful and exciting card.
The other reasons that Ben mentioned do also play a role in motivating the rarity distribution, but it's a minor one. In everything I've read from Wizards over the years, their primary motivation in designing the game as they do has always been to sell cards.

Expensive cards are often said to be mistakes, though. See  Skullclamp, Jace the Mind Sculptor, and all the banned/restricted/unreprinted (some even legally unreprintable) cards.

I wouldn't say "often." There are a few mistakes, but the majority of expensive cards are just normal cards that are in high demand.

In this article Mark Rosewater discusses how cards become rare (particularly focussing on "bad" rare cards).
Here are a couple of the reasons he specifies for why some cards become rare:

They’re too complex to be common or uncommon
They’re cool, unique creatures or spells that need to be rare to keep their specialness
They’re cards that prove disruptive to sealed or draft and are made rare to minimize their appearance in limited formats
We need to make the card rare to keep a balance of “good” cards throughout the three rarities

I hope you don't mind if I give you some constructive criticism on your answer: Very long, detailed answers don't (necessarily) suit this format, and certainly entire articles copied wholesale from elsewhere are unlikely to answer a specific question as it is posted here. I've submitted an edit for your answer that will instead highlight a few key points from the article you quoted, and provide a link to the complete article if people would like to read more detail on the topic. Please do continue to contribute to the site though!

I think @DavidZaslavsky and I are on the same page. What is Magic? It's not a board game, it's not just a card game, it's a collectible card game. And that's fine, it is what it is. If WotC printed cards on demand a charged $1 each, most of the "commons" wouldn't exist because there'd be no demand for them, so they'd probably never be created in the first place. And those commons do add to the game: they add lots of flavor in each block, and sometimes they're  better than R&D predicts. The meta-game, tournaments, etc., would be barely recognizable. I don't play Magic because of the costs--the last booster I bought was either Alliances or Mirage. If things were equally costed people like me would probably still play. But without the costs, there's no way WotC could justify all the R&D they do. The sheer number of cards is amazing, and it makes Magic what it is.
It does seem like the game would be healthier if any ridiculously expensive cards were either banned or re-printed until the supply was enough to keep the price reasonable. I can't think of any justification for "mythic rares" other than making buying packs more like buying lotto tickets.

Mythic rares are also mechanism for reducing the volume of sets "cashed in" from Magic Online. Without them there'd be a bit of a tendency for individual-card prices to drop after a while as enough virtual boosters were opened (such that a physical booster box would effectively have "negative EV").

Does a booster box actually have positive EV? If I buy one, open, and sell the cards do I have a decent chance of turning a profit? I  can see how mythics could help that, but I'm still surprised.

For someone who bought the booster box at the wholesale price, yes. That's what makes the various MTG singles dealers profitable. At retail price, I don't think so, other than the occasional bubble (e.g. chase cards on release day). Then again, consider the average singles value of cracking a Ravnica-block box today.

If all cards were equally priced, the tournament metagame wouldn't actually change: the tournament constructed metagame is already all about choosing the best cards for the job, even if that means paying $100 for a couple of cards.

I agree with most of previous comments, but I'd like to add another aspect of the issue. There is an aspect of this game that was inherent in the beginning and now it's quite overlooked: the ANTE.
If you play with ante, then you may risk losing a rare, while your opponent may risk just a common card... and this can add interest and different approaches to a game (and to deck building!). Nowadays playing with ante is very uncommon...

Even in 1995 i never saw people playing for ante, and even the one 2001 Invitational where ante cards were allowed, it didn't actually change card ownership.

I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned the story aspect yet. Common soldiers and bears are actually common, and mighty wizards are rare, planeswalkers even more so (mythic rare):

One in a million sentient beings are born with “the spark,” the
ineffable essence that makes an individual capable of becoming a
Planeswalker. Of those born with “the spark,” even fewer “ignite”
their spark, enabling them to realize their potential and travel the
planes. Most Planeswalkers have their spark ignited as the result of a
great crisis or trauma, but every awakening is different. A near-death
experience might ignite a Planeswalker’s spark, but so could a sudden,
life-changing epiphany or a meditative trance that enables the mage’s
grasp of some transcendent truth. There are as many such stories as
there are Planeswalkers.

Take the horde of Drudge Skeletons in the background of this common 1993 Alpha card's art, for instance, seen up to 1999's Classic Sixth Edition:

Those skeletons are certainly more common than Urza's glasses (uncommon), which are more common than Urza's sunglasses (rare):

Thrun, the Last Troll (mythic rare) has many stories on his very hide, as written in the official set preview:

Most believe the trolls have gone extinct. As long as I live, they're
wrong.
—Inscribed in the skin of Thrun, the Last Troll

As Magic's creator Richard Garfield explains in The Making Of Arabian Nights:

I read several translations, jotting down all the major characters, creatures, items, and places I ran across. [...] I distributed these names into the common and uncommon slots (there
were no Arabian Nights rares). I did this roughly by putting the
things that were part of the Arabian Nights atmosphere--often
background elements but seldom main players--into the common pile. For
example, asps, tortoises, and nomads appear in a lot of stories but
aren't the subjects of the stories. The things that were major parts
of stories, or associated with just a single story, went into the
uncommon pile. For example, Drop of Honey and Repentant Blacksmith
were both particular stories, and Sindbad was a major player in many
stories.
There were certainly cards that didn't fit into this scheme, but that
procedure was the rule of thumb. The most notable exceptions were the
djinni and the efreet, which were fairly common major players in the
Arabian Nights, generally without specific names but with specific
personalities. It seemed that these powerful, important players should
not be common--or of one color--and so I put one of each in every
color but white, where they did not seem to belong.

Flavor was so important that 1994's Legends expansion focused on characters, and added the Legend Rule to make them unique:

Planeswalker and legendary permanent cards represent unique things in
the multiverse. There's only one Koth of the Hammer, and there's only
one Umezawa's Jitte. It would be fourth-wall-breaking to allow both
players to control their own copy of either at the same time.

Only since 2014 the Legend Rule allows multiple copies to exist on the battlefield at the same time.

That's because story most probably was not part of the design from the beginning. The game had lore from the start, but there were no named characters as cards until Legends, the seventh overall set.

The Legends expansion is from June, 1994, and even in folklore there are more soldiers than kings. More importantly, the Alpha rulebook contains a fantasy tale called "Worzel's Story" by Richard Garfield, which features half a dozen Scryb Sprites on page 4.

This great thread summarizes the whole plot of Magic: The Gathering.

It's a nice idea, but let's not forget that Alpha contained a rare called Elvish Archers - mighty 2/1 First Strikers for 1G.  It seems clear to me that the rarity level in this case was indicating "an unusual break from the mechanics of the color pie" rather than an exotic and wonderful being.

See the story FAQ: "Another fairly obvious factor is that gameplay has to come first. If a story point makes a legend too powerful to be an accurate card, the card's abilities have to be toned down, even if the character it represents is godlike."

Also, given the sheer number of elves, archers may indeed be uncommon among them. (Thick foliage etc.)

@CeesTimmerman "Elves... are nearly always depicted as excellent archers."

@shujaa: Nearly always. A horde of first striking elves would kick my planeswalker ass even harder than they already do.

Especially as they prefer to back each other up with arrows from above, see the common Timberwatch Elf.

MtG has many different kinds of elf.

In this piece, Richard Garfield explains how he created Arabian Nights (the first expansion).

We're talking about how it affects the game not how it affects the company's money (profit/loss). Furthermore we're talking about how it affects gameplay not how it affects excitement of opening booster packs etc/snob appeal.
firstly let's define the attributes of common cards vs mythic cards (and all in between on that scale). common cards are simply less powerfull cards than the rares. common cards aren't less complex than mythic cards. that's just untrue. case example is the 8 mana rare/mythic rare big monster that just has high power and 2/3 abilities and nothing more. common cards tend to be just purely less effective versions of the rare. eg they worse mana cost to p/t ratios, higher mana cost for their abilities or take off less damage etc. basically putting 'power' on a number scale common cards are X powerfull, uncommon X+1, rare X+2 etc or something roughly like that. the only difference in how the good the cards are. sometimes, rarely, in a deck even a common card will be a good card in your deck - but generally most of your cards won't be commmon/uncommon. most good decks are over 100£. and so on top of tournament prices, if you change your deck twice in a year that's like buying ps3 each year.
so now that we know the rarity of cards is simply an indicator of the worth of the card in actual gameplay (ie how powerfull it is). and we know that price is proportional to the power of cards. then all that means is they're creating a meta game where the more wealth you have in real life the more power during gameplay. so if you work out and become good with computers and earn a lot of money you're now better off when building a deck in magic and thus during gameplay so basically being good at computers (or any other thing people pay you a lot of money for) = being good at magic. that's just so wrong...
if all cards were the same price however then it wouldn't work as a business etc. common cards wouldn't be bought and seeing as they cost the same to print manufacture etc it would be pure loss so that means common cards would go out and this would be bad for the game as it would mean there are less cards for peopl to tinker their decks with/general come across ideas and having many formats is fun anyway ie pure commons etc. so then they'd have to stop making as many cards per year as theirs always going to a be a scale of good cards to bad cards simply because if a card is better than another in that set then no matter how 'good' the card is it's now fundamentally as it's worse than another. this means they'd up the price of all cards. persides it's so set up anyway the mtg is with colour categories and then themes each year etc - they know what cards are good and what's filler. whereas in yugioh there's just cards that will always be around, that are great in most decks like MST, monster reborn etc. any

Hey Max, welcome to B&CG.  I've trimmed your answer as it kinda transitioned from being an answer to the question posed to more of a rant.  There was also a fair amount of profanity there, which is not allowed on this site.  Please take a moment and peruse our [faq] when you get a chance.  Thanks!

@PatLudwig needs more trimming ;)

"so now that we know the rarity of cards is simply an indicator of the worth of the card in actual gameplay" I completely disagree with that statement.  I'll give you a deck of handpicked (weak) rares and play a deck of handpicked (strong) commons and I guarantee that the commons will win.

Gray Merchant of Asphodel and Bearer of the Heavens say hi


text:
Can I place a second water token on a canteen to use its action again in the same season?
The rules state:

Once a Canteen is filled, the [water token] remains on it until the end of
the Season and cannot be used any other way.

I believe this means the water token cannot be used any other way, not the canteen cannot be used in any other way. Partly because grammatically "cannot be used any other way" should refer to the water token, but mainly because canteens can't be used in another way and water tokens can.
I didn't see anything in the rules that would specifically prohibit placing multiple water tokens on a canteen.
The End of a Season rules do say "Empty all [canteens] by returning their [water token] to the supply". This could imply the canteens need to be emptied to be used again, otherwise why empty the canteens? However, emptying the canteens does return the water tokens to the supply, which is limited, so that could be the reason.
My gut feeling is the intent was to only be able to use a canteen once per season, but I don't think this is clear.

This image shows the water token being placed on the empty space on the card. If that space if filled it would mean another token couldn’t be placed there. The end of season rules refer to that ‘empty’ icon having water returned to the supply.
The use of the word ‘filled’ implies its once per season. If something is filled you can't keep adding more to it as there is not the space.


text:
Do water tokens on canteens count against a player's 12 token limit?
The rules state:

Players can carry up to 12 tokens with them. If you have more than 12
at the end of your turn, you must discard down to 12.

Tokens on canteens are not part of a player's supply:

To fill a Canteen, place a [water token] gained that turn onto the
Canteen instead of into your supply and perform the Canteen's action.

But the token limit rule does not use the word "supply", it just says "carry". Are water tokens on a canteen considered to be "carried", and thus subject to the limit?

While there's no official answer on an FAQ or the Rulebook, I'd say they're not counted.
The reasons are essentially what you already listed. The rules explicitly say they're not part of your supply, as well as that you can't use those tokens for anything else.

[...] To fill a Canteen, place a gained that turn onto the Canteen instead of into your supply and perform the Canteen’s action. You can have any number of Canteens, and any number of your Canteens can be filled on a turn if you gain multiple. Once a Canteen is filled, the remains on it until the end of the Season and cannot be used any other way.

If the canteen water was subject to the 12 limit, saying "Any number of your canteens can be filled" would not be true; the limit would be up to 12. This is a stretch, but I feel like this rule would've been worded differently if it was subject to the limit, something like "and any number of your canteens can be filled on a turn, up to the maximum carrying limit, if you gain multiple."


text:
Which has to be declared first: Marklights or Jink?
Situation: A squad of (jet)bikes has several Markerlights on them. The tau player is about to shoot at them with some Plasma or other weapon w/ low enough AP to punch their armor.
Does the Tau player have to declare Markerlight usage before Bike player Jinks? Or do the Bikes have to declare Jink before finding out whether the Tau player is going to use the Markerlights to ignore cover?
I am ONLY concerned with 7th Edition rules. 6th Edition was clear cut as Jink was automatic.
ETA:
Jink (7th Edition):

When a unit with any models with the jink special rule is selected as
  a target for a shooting attack, you may declare that it will jink. the
  decision must be made before any of the to hit rolls have been made.
  If the unit jinks all models in the unit with this special rule gain a
  4+ cover save until the start of their next movement phase, but they
  can only fire snap shots until the end of their next turn.

After 6 months is there still no clear answer to this question?

Nope. And GW has even updated the Tau FAQ in the meantime, toclarify a Markerlight question that no one is really asking.

@Red_Shadow While there are numerous viable answers to the proposed question, it appears this post will go stale from in-fighting, as it appears those involved get serially downvoted...and without constructive criticism.

Well, he put his own answer up, I assume that's the answer he feels is correct. Can he not accept it if it's below 0? (I don't know who did the downvoting, it wasn't me).

@MichaelCampbell If he feels his answer is correct, he can indeed accept it as an answer. Or... he can just log on to downvote me.

The rules aren't written well; so people easily interpret them the way that makes sense to them. I haven't accepted my own answer because I'm just as likely to be biased as the next person. Honestly, I'd prefer something official form GW. In the meantime I'm not going to accept any answer that's at negative score.

The reason its important is not for the jinking itself, because you don't "roll" jinking, you are simply given a 4+ cover, which doesn't even come into play until you take potential damage. The defending player can't avoid it, Scour doesn't remove jinking or strip cover saves directly, it simply gives all weapons shooting the "Ignores Cover" rule. It doesn't matter if the jinking player declares it before or after, he ain't getting his cover save.
This is why you can't get Cover Saves from Markerlights because they don't inflict wounds and you only get cover saves from inflicted wounds/pen or glancing hits.
But its still important because Jink makes you fire Snap Shots. So if the defending player knows he's not getting Cover Saves anyway, he can wait for you to use the Scour ability -2 counters and then let you waste it by not Jinking at all. That way, if the unit survives, it isn't on Snap Shots.
I agree that the word MAY for Jink specifies that anytime within the Select Target steps does the player determine Jinking in effect so long as it is done before rolls are made, even waiting until after the first weapon is selected.
Markerlights are more restrictive, and specify "immediately" before a unit shoots their use must be declared, but how they are expended is declared before the shooting attack, which I agree is before the first weapon is selected (which is part of the shooting attack).
So before you state the weapon you are using, those counters must be used. Markerlight declaration is very clearly before that and the defending player can choose anytime before To Hit rolls.
Tau are my primary army so I'm hurting myself by honorably letting my opponents know before I nominate anything to shoot.

In the interest of forging the narrative and through a step-by-step playthrough of the shooting phase, I believe it is unambiguous that Jink must be declared before Markerlights.

Tau player enters the shooting phase.

Tau elects a unit to attack with the Markerlight, a ranged weapon with the special rule "Target Acquired".  This attack may not be saved against (p.68).
Tau player might say, as an example, "this unit is attacking your jetbikes with my markerlights"

Tau player rolls and completes the attack(s) applying markerlight tokens to the jetbike unit.

Tau player declares a new shooting attack against the markerlit unit.
Tau player might say, "this unit is attacking your jetbikes with these plasma weapons."

Tau player asks if the defending player has any response

Tau player, having given the defending player a chance to declare jink, can then declare usage of markerlights and how they are spent specifically.

Tau player may then make to-hit rolls and resolve the attack.

Some may point out that per the jink special rule, targeting occurs then opting for jink, then declaration of weapons. In my experience, games never break up attacks into individual steps, asking for acknowledgement after each step; it is more natural (and time-saving...and fun) to make more complete declarations--always giving no less than the amount of information required at that point in time.
To put in a more concrete example, the Tau player does not say "this unit is attacking your jetbikes with these plasma weapons and I'm expending 2 markerlights for Scour (ignores cover)".  The Tau player simply makes his intent clear while giving an opportunity for the defender to make his tactical response.
Nor does the Tau player say "this unit is attacking your jetbikes, do you jink?"  The Tau player consolidates the first 3 steps of Nominate, Target Unit, Select Weapon.
The fact that declaring the plasma weapons (step 3 of the Shooting Sequence, BRB) occurred at the same time as step 1 and 2 may be technically "out of order", but the attacking player doing so does not put the defending player at a disadvantage by doing so. On the contrary, the defending player now has more information on which he can decide whether or not he wishes to jink, while still retaining the option to jink or not, because Jink simply must just occur before To-Hit rolls.
Forging the Narrative

A unit of jetbikes has been markerlit.  Then, the markerlit squad
recognizes plasma weapons from a distance unit re-orienting and
pointing right at them.
In response to the incipient barrage of
plasma, the Jetbikes make a split decision to Jink or not to Jink.
Seeing that they jinked (or didn't jink), the plasma
cannons--exploiting this new advantage--Pinpoints, Scours, and/or
Seeks and completes their attack.

Does the attacking squad with plasma weapons call out "Hey, we're ignoring your cover!"?  No, it doesn't seem likely that they literally could know; thus, they must make their decision which happens before shots are fired.
Since 40k emphasizes Forging the Narrative so much, it seems apparent that from FTN standpoint, Jinking must occur before Markerlights.
Rule-as-Written
Even if one were to laboriously go through each step of the rules with each player having their turn, in turn, Jink optioning occurs before markerlight expending.

Tau enters the shooting phase
Tau elects a unit to make attack with, waits for acknowlegment
Tau elects a unit to attack, waits for acknowlegment
Defender decides whether to jink
Tau selects a weapon, waits for acknowlegment
Tau expends markerlights
Tau makes to-hit rolls.

Going through the shooting sequence one at a time still ends up with the same result: markerlights can be spent knowing whether the defender jinked or not.
Rule as written, it almost would be more clear had the rulebook left out one sentence, as it adds very little to the clarity of the intended rule.

When a unit with any models with the jink special rule is selected as
a target for a shooting attack, you may declare that it will jink. the
decision must be made before any of the to hit rolls have been made.
If the unit jinks all models in the unit with this special rule gain a
4+ cover save until the start of their next movement phase, but they
can only fire snap shots until the end of their next turn.

The crossed-out line is redundant (as "selected as a target" is always before to-hit rolls), but adds the ambiguity (to some) that Jinking can happen any moment up until the dice hit the table. This does not seem to be the case: the timing is exact, after the target has been selected and before the Tau has even selected a weapon. And if defenders choose to Jink before the weapon has been selected, then certainly markerlights come after Jink, which happens immediately before firing.
Or put another way:

Action must happen at step 2. (target)
Action must happen before step 4. (rolling dice)

They are not contradictory, but the latter is unnecessary.
Sequencing, BRB
If any of this is not convincing enough, the BRB states:

While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or
more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the
start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the
wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the
player whose turn it is chooses the order.

In this case the dispute is about "immediately before shooting" and "before to-hit rolls are made."  In the event the players agree that both should be resolved at the same time, but it is uncertain which would then be resolved first, the Tau player may choose the order.  To his best advantage, "before to-hit rolls are made" can be chosen to resolve first, then "immediately before shooting"--once again allowing the expending of Markerlights to occur after Jink optioning.
If the players do not agree they should be resolved simultaneously (and be subject to the acting player's whim), the players involved should roll-off to settle rule-disputes.

-1 because ignoring part of the rules (or calling them redundant)  doesn't actually help answer a question.

And the rest of the answer contributes nothing to answer the question?  Note, I didn't ignore the rule, I marked it out to signify that the rule is very unambiguous without that line. And if the rule added a third line "the decision must be made before the game is over"--wouldn't change the fact that it was explicitly meant to happen upon targeting.   Your personal bias against me hurts the community.

There's nothing personal about it. You mention Forging the Narrative which isn't actually a rule, it's great for resolving situations between you and a friend, but I'm looking for an actual rules answer. Additionally, your explanation is kind of all over the place and you ignore some of the rules to arrive at your conclusion. By your second numbered list, if you DON'T ignore a whole sentence of the rules, Jinking happens at step 6.5.

I welcome you mentioning what rules I "ignore."  I already told you that I didn't "ignore" a rule to make my point--but instead I marked it out so that people can see the clarity of wording without that line.  Then, upon adding it in--(do you need me to do so visually?)--you can see how adding additional rules that do not say anything more specific than what has already been said does not make it suddenly "whenever you feel like jinking"--it is upon targeting.

In addition, you seem to look at a specific part you don't like and then dismiss the WHOLE thing.  "Forge the narrative isn't a rule" therefore the other 70% of the post which is rules-based and rules-cited is invalid?  Again, you provide little to advance the conversation.

The "crossed out line" is not redundant. It mentions a specific timing. To claim it IS redundant is the same as claiming it's not there.

I should have just -1ed your poor answer and left it at that rather then getting dragged into an extended conversation that isn't really the intended purpose of comments.

The specific timing you refer to is absolutely vague.  "Before the shooting"--as you put it--is "before anything that is part of shooting" (see your own answer).  The actual shooting cannot possibly be the whole process of shooting, so you logically cannot arrive where you did.  If the specifics said "must happen before step 4"--that isn't precise, and it is exactly what is given to us.  "before to hit rolls" definitely happens before "Immediately before shooting"--and I'm the only person who identifies that a roll-off is a valid rules-based answer to that, too.

It's okay if you want to -1 my post--that is your prerogative.  But in response to why people will see that this question goes unanswered, it is your hubris.

"The decision must be made before any of the to hit rolls have been made." isn't vague at all.

"When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order." -- how is this not an appropriate response to that argument, then?

According to RAW the decision is to be made before ANY to hit rolls are made. So the decision is to be made before the first (any) to hit rolls are made, so the decision were made when markers were fired

The shooting sequence:

Nominate Unit to shoot
Choose a target
Select a weapon
Roll to hit
Roll to wound
Allocate wounds and remove casualties
Select another weapon

If you read the full text of Jink it says that the target MAY Jink before Markerlight usage is declared, but they don't have to declare until right before dice are rolled. This suggests that Jink must be declared after step 2 (can't Jink before you are targeted) but before step 4.
Shooting at a target involves cycling through steps 3-7 until all weapons have been fired. That is to say, if you have 2 weapons, once you have fired one, you are already shooting at the target. Markerlights happen immediately before you shoot; so once you have fired one weapon, it is too late to use Markerlights in that shooting attack. Therefore Markerlights must be used before step 3.

I dont think you count as having fired once you pick a gun. I feel you have not "shot" until you have rolled to hit. Yes steps 3-7 get repeated, and they should not be allowed to fire half their guns before choosing to use markerlights, but choosing a gun isn't firing a gun.

I'd say that choosing a gun is definitely part of shooting at a target. You can't shoot at something without picking which gun you are going to shoot (when you have multiple options) therefore picking is part of shooting. So you must spend markerlights before you pick (since you have to spend them before you shoot).

I'd say that choosing a target is definitely part of shooting at a target.  You can't shoot at something without picking a target you are going to shoot (when you have multiple options) therefore picking a target is part of shooting.  So you must spend markerlights before you pick a target (since you have to spend them before you shoot).

Well, first off, lets establish the sequence of shooting in 7th edition.
According to the rulebook the Shooting Sequence is:

Nominate Unit to shoot
Choose a target
Select a weapon
Roll to hit
Roll to wound
Allocate wounds and remove casualties
select another weapon

As you say, Jink states that it is used "when a unit with any models with the Jink special rule is selected as a target for a shooting attack".
Markerlights state that "Immediately before a unit from Codex: Tau Empire shoots at a target that has one or more markerlight counters, it can declare it is using one or more of the markerlight abilities listed below." (Codex Tau 6th Ed, pg 68)
To me, this suggests that the Markerlight abilities are declared between section 3 and 4, after the target and weapon are selected, but just prior to rolling to hit.
As such, the unit of jetbikes must choose whether they will Jink when they are selected as a Target in section 2 of the Shooting Sequence, and the Tau player does not need to declare what (if any) Markerlight abilities they are using until just prior to section 4 of the Shooting Sequence.
Yes, the Eldar player should declare the Jink when they are targetted, which is before the Tau must declare whether they will use their Markerlight counters or not.

As @aslum states in his answer This suggests that Jink must be declared after step 2 but before step 4. (which I agree with), what precludes the possibility of declaring jink "before any of the to hit rolls have been made" but after the Tau declares markerlight abilities?  Both would occur before step 4.

For example, imagine the scenario where the Tau player is able to summarize his intention of 1-3 all in one fell swoop (as is common in normal gameplay): "This unit is attacking this unit with their Plasma weaps...using these awesome markerlights!"
While the rules are unambiguous that they resolve in a specific order, what matters most is that the instruction can be PARSED in the specific order without having to be split up into 3 separate tasks. Therefore, such an instruction can be given and the target can still reply 'I'm jinking' without any breach of protocol or tactical dis/advantage.

Put another way, you're putting the target unit at a disadvantage that they may not jink unless it occurs before the markerlight declaration, which pretty much means playing at the table must progress like this (even if not verbatim), in order to be fair: "I'm nominating this unit " "I'm shooting this unit " "I'm using this weapon "  This is patently ridiculous.  So long as the attacking unit gives sufficient time for his opponent to reply before rolling, jink may be called any time before 4 occurs, but after 2 (which could be 1-3 together)

I don't think it's near that bad. Tau player says "This unit will shoot at that unit using X markerlights to Y."  If cover is being ignored Jink is irrelevant. If it's not then the defender's last chance to Jink is after the first weapon to fire is chosen but before the to hit roll dice are rolled.

I feel like your comment is in agreement with my position then; it's not that bad, but that's only because the natural reaction to a commonplace declaration (like yours) is not to require what @Michael puts in bold: "the Eldar player must declare the Jink before the Tau declare whether they will use their Markerlight counters"

The players do not need to act out the steps one at a time every time. They do not need to break everything down, they simply need to play to the situation. In this situation, the Tau knows the Eldar player could Jink (or should), so when targetting the Jetbikes he just has to say, "I am targetting the Jetbikes, do you jink?"(step 2), after being answered he may then delcare whether he will use his markerlights and choose his first weapon (step 3) and firing (step 4).

I felt that the additional information of "the decision must be made before any rolls to hit at made" was to drive home the changes from 6th edition (specifically Flyers, where you choose whether to Evade and gain Jink after rolls to hit were made), not to change the meaning of the previous sentence saying to choose when targetted.

The point I'm trying to make is that the attacking player should never need to prompt what the response will be. "I am targetting Jetbikes, do you jink?" is telling them options they may not even be considering! The appropriate way to naturally address it is that you simply don't roll without their affirmation they have no further actions. So "this unit will shoot at that unit using X markerlights to Y.  Do you have any response?" is a way to compress steps 1-3 together simultaneously while giving complete and valid opportunity for the target to consider his options and declare jink.


text:
Has the significance of the term 'cast' changed?
Spellshock currently has the following wording in the Gatherer:

Whenever a player casts a spell, Spellshock deals 2 damage to that player.

However, the original wording shown in the card image is this:

Whenever any player successfully casts a spell, Spellshock deals 2 damage to him or her.

To me, the word "successfully" implies casting a spell which is not countered, though I'm not aware that the word "successfully" is ever defined in the rules. Otherwise, the word "successfully" means nothing at all, since it's pretty hard to fail at casting (as opposed to resolving) a spell. In more modern parlance, we might phrase the original ability this way:

Whenever a spell resolves and is not countered, Spellshock deals 2 damage to that spell's controller.

Is this the original intent of the card? If so, when and why was the wording changed?

TL;DR Yes, cards with "successfully cast" have undergone a functional rule change.
The change you're talking about is actually a fairly old rules change - the removal of the phrase (and function) "successfully cast" was with the Sixth Edition rules changes. Previous to the Classic rules (the Sixth Edition rules changes), the Interrupt spell type still existed, and counterspells were of that type. You'd use an Interrupt to counter a spell, and it would fail being "successfully cast." See the Sixth Edition rules change letter for some specifics:

Classic rules do away with interrupts. All interrupts are now instants, which means you can counter a spell any time before it resolves. (Abilities that trigger on a spell being "successfully cast" now trigger on a spell being "played.")

As a result, all previous triggers based on spells being successfully cast now trigger on spells being "played," which was changed to "cast" during the M12 rules changes. This has caused a functional rules change - a spell which is cast and countered will still trigger an ability on these older "successfully cast" cards.
The choice was either describing these triggers as "when a spell is cast and resolves" (which is a bit complex), or widening the trigger window for these cards. Your phrasing of the original intent is close, but not quite right. For the original trigger to happen, the spell would have had to be cast and resolve. With your phrasing, copies of a spell (created with Fork, Isochron Scepter, etc.) resolve and may not be countered, but are never cast.

This is a more general answer, covering all the cards that changed their wording in time: the WotC modified plenty of cards, in order to make them clearer, or more playable, or to adapt to changing rules. The "real" and "currently working" wording / interpretation is the one that is stated in "The Oracle", that is the final authority in these matters, and is then stored in the WotC website (the Gatherer section).
See Magic: The Gathering Rules