text:
Why can a manifested creature be turned face up if it loses all it's abilities but a morphed card can't?
This question is dedicated to a better understanding of a card: Wildcall.  The Gather entry has the following ruling.

"Unlike a face-down creature that was cast using the morph ability, a manifested creature may still be turned face up after it loses its abilities if it's a creature card."

I would like to know its exact meaning, and possible use. Thank you!

I really do not appreciate the editing done,because I have deliberately written the question very long,adding other news,especially dedicated to the less experienced players,and less experienced than many smartSEusers,which concern an almost complete explanation of the reasons related to other ruling.Thanks to DenisS:but I would also like to restore the part he deleted,forgetting that the question is not written by him.I disapprove of duplication for the same reason.My question would want to shed light onWildcall,with explanations of2of his rulings:it is less generic than the linked question.

P.S. Thank you DenisS,but  what you call "huge chunk of pointless text" may not be at all for me,as I remain the author of this question. This question is intentionally designed for beginners, unexperienced players unlike you, and therefore makes perfect sense with long writing and with the parts you have deleted. Moreover,in that way it is not even a duplicate, because it contains other info.So, Before twisting it, please ask me for a confirmation.This is not what may be called properly a "democratic action",as SE loudly asks, it seems to me.
So please DenisS, check the code of conduct.

The fact is that those paragraphs about a different question and a different ruling are not relevant to the question being asked here. Irrelevant information like that does not benefit beginners or anyone else, and makes it harder to see what the main question is. If you want to ask about or provide information about how Manifest and ETB triggers interact, that belongs in a different question. I am removing that text again, please do not put it back.

It's not true at all what you say this time, Murgatroid. I thank you very much for the excellent answer you provided, but the information on the first part of the question is also useful for me, who is the author of the question. Indeed, I will say more: the first part that you deleted "IS" the question.

To prove it is my following step,present on the original question:"However,assuming that all the above is correct-if not,please tell me about any errors,in the same answer-this question is going,instead,to shed ... "-in which it is clarified that a novice(as there are many,and,given the constant changes in the rules,as I am too)can also be mistaken in understanding the first of the two rulings of which full explanation required.Your behavior is anti-democratic and unacceptable.I will report the question,and edit it again,because it is my request:not yours,Murgatroid,nor much less of DenisS.

If I offended you or made you upset by calling the removed text "junk" I apologize. However, you need to why I took the actions I took.  The two "questions" that you had were not related to each other to make them suitable to be in a single question.  If you had questions about ETB effects on face down cards and morph creatures losing their morph ability, you should have asked two seperate questions.  Just because both questions are about face down cards doesn't mean that they should be in the same question.  Putting two unreleated questions together makes the site harder to navigate.

Because of that, I decided to focus the question on the manifesting/morph ruling listed on the page for Wildcall. I did this for two reasons - you specifically mentioned at the end of your question that this was what you were asking about ("this question is going, instead, to shed light on another important ruling of this card.") , and you answer your own question about the ETB effects. I then closed the question because the Manifest/Humility and Morph/Humility interaction has already been answered on this site.

Feel free to report this question if you feel you were unfairly treated, but the fact of the matter is that your question in its original form was unacceptable. I edited it to make it conform to the rules of this site. If you want to ask a question about ETB effects on face-down creatures, put it in a different question (in fact, I strongly encourage it). Don't combine multiple questions into a single post. And definitiely don't get into edit wars, especially when a diamond mod is involved.

First of all: 1) What is a "diamond mod"?; secondly ,2) You all really like too much to infuriate me artificially, it must be fun for you. I must say that you know how to do it, congratulations!; 3) I would like to know why Murgatroid immediately answered my question, without editing it first in the way it did after DenisS: if it had really been so "unacceptable", Murgatroid would surely have edited; but he did not: on the contrary, he replied very well, and immediately.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Such an expression from Murgatroid  is "unacceptable": - "I am removing that text again, please do not put it back". But the question is written by me, how could you edit it twice, canceling what is a very important part for me? Also, why not edit it before answering, if it was really so wrong? I am very sorry that Murgatroid contradicts itself so blatantly ... it is a pity, because he is really very good in MTG, and he responds always very well, as he did also in this case, before the usual controversy towards me ...

Furthermore, there would be other things to say about the precise wording of the Gatherer Ruling that has been discussed in this question. Firstly, I criticize the wording "a face-down creature that was cast using the morph ability". It doesn't seem to me that a "face-down creature" could be "cast", since it's already in play; secondly , following the ruling as reported to the letter, a player should consider "to cast a creature" and "to unmorph a creature" as if they were both summoning operations, which do not seem to me the same thing, nor a similar thing.

Rule 702.36e describes how to turn a creature face up using a morph ability:

Any time you have priority, you may turn a face-down permanent you control with a morph ability face up. This is a special action; it doesn’t use the stack (see rule 116). To do this, show all players what the permanent’s morph cost would be if it were face up, pay that cost, then turn the permanent face up. (If the permanent wouldn’t have a morph cost if it were face up, it can’t be turned face up this way.) The morph effect on it ends, and it regains its normal characteristics. Any abilities relating to the permanent entering the battlefield don’t trigger when it’s turned face up and don’t have any effect, because the permanent has already entered the battlefield.

Rule 701.33b describes how to turn a manifested creature face up:

Any time you have priority, you may turn a manifested permanent you control face up. This is a special action that doesn’t use the stack (see rule 116.2b). To do this, show all players that the card representing that permanent is a creature card and what that card’s mana cost is, pay that cost, then turn the permanent face up. The effect defining its characteristics while it was face down ends, and it regains its normal characteristics. (If the card representing that permanent isn’t a creature card or it doesn’t have a mana cost, it can’t be turned face up this way.)

As you can see in the highlighted sections, a creature with Morph still needs to have the Morph ability to be turned face up that way, but the Manifest rules don't check whether the creature has any abilities. So, if the creature loses its abilities, it can't be turned face up using the Morph ability, but it can be turned face up using the Manifest effect. This is the difference that ruling is pointing to.
The reason for this difference is that Morph is an ability that the card has, and Manifest is something that is done to the card. So, turning a Morph creature face up uses the ability, but turning a Manifested creature face up uses an effect that was previously applied to the creature.
Face down Morph creatures are affected this way by effects that remove abilities because those effects are continuous effects, and if you turn a face down creature face up it is still the same permanent. As a result, a creature affected by an effect that removes abilities wouldn't have the Morph ability if it were turned face up, so it can't be turned face up using the Morph rule.

Very interesting indeed. And, in my opinion, very important,too. This is because a phrase that is often said, but which in this case is not very useful, is the fact that a card turned face down (but which has the morph ability when facing up) actually HAS at least one ability. Instead, it is said too often that a morphed card is completely out of abilities (like a 2/2 vanilla), and this is not entirely true. Now everything is much clearer.

A face down permanent does not have any abilities on its own. The rule I quoted is very particular about checking what "permanent’s morph cost would be if it were face up".

Ok,but I have some thing to say about it. If what Murgatroid says is true - and  surely it  is - it remains to be understood how a creature turned face down can lose its morph ability, which concerns the turned down  face of that card (the card itself), and not its morphed version (a 2/2 vanilla). If an effect hit the 2/2 vanilla , removing all its abilities, would it also be able to remove the morph ability?In other words,would it also be able to remove the ability present on the side of the card that is not currently visible? As far as I know, it seems to me a NOT practicable operation ...

Or in any case, it does not seem to me a viable operation, unless it is admitted that the 2/2 vanilla  actually has the morph ability, or at least that there is "some kind of  connection" between the 2/2 vanilla  and the morph ability present on the other side of the card ...

I have added a paragraph to try to explain why it works that way.

Very well. Now it is clear how that "some kind of connection" I mentioned in the previous comment - between the vanilla 2/2 and the morph ability that is on the other side of the card - works. In practice,1) "first" you turn the card to the opposite side, showing that it has morph ability; 2) and "then" you pay the morph cost. But, due to an eventual continuous effect, between the two steps just mentioned the creature loses all abilities, and therefore it is not possible to pay any morph costs anymore,because the creature has just lose morph. This seems to me a solution,thank you Murgatroid!


text:
Who is the controller of an Aura with Enchant land placed on an opponent's land?
Say I enchant an opponent's land with Psychic Venom. Who controls the Psychic Venom, me or my opponent? This is important to know in case I want to sacrifice it to Forbidden Ritual, for example.

Responding to your comment here, because it is about the question. Closing your question is not a punishment, and it does not imply that you should have already known that the other question existed. It is how we consolidate questions that are essentially the same. Different examples do not make questions different. If you believe that your question is asking for different information than the other one, please explain what that difference is.

Regarding my edits, I tried to keep the essence of the question the same, and make sure that it asks for the same information it originally did. If I missed the mark with that, you can make your own edits or even revert my edit, or explain your specific objections to the change I made. The answer was posted and edited into its current form before I made my edit, so my edit did not influence it at all.

We would also like to point out that this question can be a duplicate of another should be considered a punishment ...! What kind of thinking... Remember Murgatroid, I am also and only a "new contributor", I have been writing on this site for less than a month. So please Murgatroid, read the Code of Conduct more accurately...

You came to this site looking for an answer to your question. Closing as a duplicate is our way of showing both you and future visitors where that answer can already be found. If it's not really a duplicate, it's important that you explain what specifically is different, both so that we understand why it should be reopened and so that we know what information is missing in the other answers that should be included in the answers here.

No, this time I agree with the duplicate - I asked this question without knowing there was a similar question, already asked. But I disagree with the other question duplication...the one concerning Singing Bell Strike

Yes, the aura remains under your control even if it enchants an opponents land and you can sacrifice it to forbidden ritual.
from the comprehensive rules:

303.4e An Aura’s controller is separate from the enchanted object’s controller or the enchanted player; the two need not be the same. If an Aura enchants an object, changing control of the object doesn’t change control of the Aura, and vice versa. Only the Aura’s controller can activate its abilities. However, if the Aura grants an ability to the enchanted object (with “gains” or “has”), the enchanted object’s controller is the only one who can activate that ability.

In general, if you cast the spell and the spell creates a permanent (as with enchantments, creatures, artifacts and so on) the permanent will be under your control unless the card says something different.

I'm confused by this part: "...if the opponent sacrifices the land that Psychic Venom is attached to...Psychic Vemon will be destroyed..."  I don't see anything in the card text that would destroy it.  If you are talking about it going to the graveyard since the land is gone (which is not technically destroying it), then even that is not true.  Auras' attachment is checked as a State-Based Action, and those don't happen until Forbidden Ritual has finished resolving.  It would not be good to leave it there without sacrificing it after that since otherwise it will go to the graveyard, though.

huh, i suppose you are right. i will remove that passage

I really disegree the duplication.How do I know that this question had already been asked?Although,in my opinion in an absolutely different form, a very different example.In this case,Forbidden Ritual is well explained,and its application to a similar case to that of the question "Who controls negative enchantments?,too". More than this, Nom4d3  has misunderstood because Murgatroid editing was excessive ...please Murgatroid,next time do not change it too much:I understand that I write too long questions,but this way other users who want to answer can understand the question without any doubt.

Ok, Murgatroid, it is correct - I missed the exact moment of Nomad edited answer sending, and your question editing too, because I wasn't online that moment. If they're in time-inverted, and if it is going this way only, then you're right.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is the difference between countering spells and exiling spells?
If a given spell, or a given effect, is able to exile other spells - not simply countering them - is it able to exile even uncounterable spells?
It is useful to give a couple of examples.
If the opponent is summoning Pearl Lake Ancient, but  I cast  Mindbreak Trap ,which is able to exile any spell, in response to the summoning, will Leviathan go into exile?
Or - (second example) - if the opponent cast Overmaster, and after his resolution cast a Fireball - which should be uncounterable at this point - but I cast the Trap (the same one, as above) in response, will the Fireball go into exile?

Although I think the answer is yes, I still wanted to ask players more experienced than me if this is the outcome.
After having adequately distinguished between split-second spells and uncounterable spells (see questions about split second spells), it is good now - in my opinion - to adequately distinguish between two different actions:

1)"to exile a spell"; and
2)"to counter a spell",
and have a written and confirmed track of the outcomes, quickly available online by anyone.
I really thank you!

If you want to know the purpose of this, there is an existing template for a spell that only exiles if it counters (see Dissipate for an example).  It is a conscious choice when they release a counter that just exiles.  The reason for this is that it is unbalanced to create cards without any weakness.  There needs to be a way to counter uncounterable spells, remove indestructible objects, target hexproof objects, and so on or these cards could become unreasonably oppressive.  The goal is to make cards that are challenging to beat without being unbeatable.

First of all, let me excuse me Caleb,because in the other  question I have - for some strange reason! - exchanged your name with that of Gendolkari...!I had just read his comment,and I was sure it was the one there,while it was yours. Anyway,it is true. It is ok put spells that are able to remove uncounterable spells. my purpose here is to create a sort of "quick-recovering archive" so that even beginners can catch this difference. Some of them, casting Emrakul, could in fact shout:-"Hey, what are you doing?You cannot do this, he cannot be countered!".Now,I got some evidence it is possible.

is it able to exile even uncounterable spells?

Yes.
When a rule, spell or ability refers to a keyword action (a verb with a rule definition), it strictly refers to that action.
Pearl Lake Ancient can't be countered (a keyword action), but it can be exiled.

Difference between countering spells and exiling spells

To counter a spell, move it to its owner's graveyard.
"Exile" isn't a keyword action. It's simply short for "move to the exile zone".[1]
In both cases, the spell will never get a chance to resolve since it will never be the topmost item on the stack after all players have passed in succession.

"Move" also isn't a keyword action. That's why many different verbs are used for the action. The verbs include: "move", "put", "place", "return", "exile" and "die".

Keyword Actions

701.1. Most actions described in a card’s rules text use the standard English definitions of the verbs within, but some specialized verbs are used whose meanings may not be clear. These “keywords” are game terms; sometimes reminder text summarizes their meanings.
701.5. Counter
701.5a To counter a spell or ability means to cancel it, removing it from the stack. It doesn’t resolve and none of its effects occur. A countered spell is put into its owner’s graveyard.
608.1. Each time all players pass in succession, the spell or ability on top of the stack resolves. (See rule 609, “Effects.”)

Great answer... lots of details.

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


text:
Can you 'tap an untapped artifact you control' if it doesn't have a tap ability of its own?
The text of Zahid, Djinn of the Lamp states that it is possible to cast it by paying an alternative cost {3}{U}, plus tapping an artifact.
However, it is necessary to specify that the artifact in question must allow its specific "to tap", otherwise the operation cannot be performed.
However, all of this at least in my opinion, which could certainly not coincide with what we all call "the truth", about this particular situation.
For example, you can cast Zahid by tapping Tormod’s Crypt, or Fountain of Youth, because these cards can be tapped to perform their specific activated abilities.
However, in my opinion it is not possible to cast Zahid by tapping, for example, Ivory Tower, or Black Vise, since these cards are always active and have no tap symbol on their text.
As a limit situation, it would be possible to cast Zahid also by tapping Howling Mine, as the latter card text clearly specifies that this card can be tapped, even if there is no "tap" symbol on the card.
Is this correct?

I have a suggestion for the future: the next time you start a bounty on a question, wait as long as possible before rewarding it. The bounty puts the question in the featured questions list, making it more visible to other users. This can amplify the reward you want to give by prompting other users to vote on the answer (and on the question).

The problem is that,given how things went with the bounty last time,I was afraid that you would misunderstand my intent again,deleting everything as you usually have shown to do.Your authoritarianism does not bear much fruit in bona fide users.This time I wanted to show that my initiative was precise,and intended to reward an excellent response received from an excellent SE user only,which was the same intent as my first bounty setting; with the difference that this time I knew better all the bounty options.

So, I didn't wait a minute longer than the expected 24 hours ...My bounty does not intend to have any other effect beyond that obtained. It is not a selfish one.I don't doubt that there could be many, of falsely altruistic bounties ...

If you would just take some time to understand why that one bounty was inappropriate and why I had to remove it, maybe you would see that I wouldn't have any problem with a bounty like this one. Also, leaving the bounty open is not selfish; it amplifies the reward you are giving to the answer. In any case, I was just trying to make you aware of some information you may not have known, you can do what you want with that information.

I rewarded this answer because it is wide-ranging.It was also possible to obtain it because the question is written in a broad way,and allows for more far-reaching explanations.For this reason,I discussed animatedly in other posts,and I tried to makeSEmore "open" to the possibility of asking and answering questions containing more inputs.But the "plaster" structure (the one according to which one and only one question must be asked perPost,with a well-specified title that contains the question) which is strongly preferred bySE,prevents what I have just said.It is a pity that must be this way.

An artifact is either tapped or untapped. An untapped artifact is a resource that can be used, as long as you have a card that says it can use it.
An artifact with an activated ability that uses the tap symbol can use its own "untapped-ness". A card that says "tap an untapped artifact you control" can use the "untapped-ness" of any artifact you control, and the abilities on the artifact doesn't affect this in any way (unless you come across one that says it cannot be tapped).
Each tapping of an artifact can only be used to pay for the cost of one spell or ability. So you can't tap Tormod's Crypt for Zahid, and then sacrifice it for its own ability. You will have to wait to sacrifice it until it's untapped again so that you can tap it for its own ability. If you have abilities that trigger on an artifact being tapped, then nothing stops multiples of those from triggering, though.
As for artifact creatures (or any other creature for that matter) with summoning sickness (specifically, one that hasn't been under your control since the beginning of your most recent upkeep), this only stops the creature from doing two things: attacking, and using abilities with the tap symbol as a cost. It does not stop it from being tapped in any other way.

However, there is something I have to tell you.  Arthur's explanation is excellent, but I really can't believe that an artifact creature - that is still suffering from summoning sickness -  could be tapped in this way: today there is even an explanation on almost every creature card, which always warns of the fact that the creature cannot attack, nor be tapped for any reason, during the turn in which it is summoned ... And this should also include cases like Zahid's.

@Massiliano As I have tried to tell you: Summoning sickness stops two things, and two things only: Attacking, and activating abilities that use the tap symbol (or the untap symbol) as a cost. It just so happens that these are the two most common ways to tap creatures, so it's easy to believe that summoning sick creatures can't tap at all. This is, however, false. Nothing stops a summoning sick creature from becoming tapped.

Okay, I'm pretty sure it's how you say it, Arthur. I only say this: I wonder how we can understand this from the regulation. The designers of the Zahid card should have been more precise, in my opinion, and explained to everyone that the operation of tapping an artifact creature can be performed without problems ... even with newly summoned creatures!

@Massimiliano They are clear, in the actual rulebook. Here they define exactly what summoning sickness does (and by omission what it doesn't) hinder: "302.6. A creature’s activated ability with the tap symbol or the untap symbol in its activation cost can’t
be activated unless the creature has been under its controller’s control continuously since their most
recent turn began. A creature can’t attack unless it has been under its controller’s control
continuously since their most recent turn began. This rule is informally called the “summoning
sickness” rule."

This talks about the two actions - attacking, and using activated abilities only - as above. But is really hard to think that it is possible sidestep summoning sickness in order to summon Zahid. Every player, expecially beginners, may claim to you:-"Hey! it is not possible to tap a just summoned creature!"...and it is hard to explain him that it is not the truth...

@Massimiliano True, it is more difficult to convince someone that something is allowed when that is because it's not specifically adressed, rather than explicitly allowed. However, that's the way it is.

Now, thanks to your answers, I have a special proof that things are going as described. That's the motive why I'm asking easy things,sometimes...easy, but not for everyone.

@ManoFromBerlin "there is even an explanation on almost every creature card, which always warns of the fact that the creature cannot attack, nor be tapped for any reason" I cannot think of any creature card that has such a warning. Can you give an example?

Accumulation is right,today it is not so.Cards are silent about SS.But Instruction booklets give unclear instructions.Saying that the cards"always warns of the fact that the creature cannot attack,nor be tapped for any reason[when affected bySS]",I was referring to the wordings that cards reported in the past;or,in an" indirect "way,to cards that allowed to circumventSS(Instill Energy,Touch of Vitae),or others that explain the Haste ability stating what it can do compared to other cards (e.g.Volcanic Dragon,which reports in brackets the fact that it can both attack and tap on the turn itETB)

@ManoFromBerlin If you look at the Volcanic Dragon, and the reminder text on Haste, you will see the specific use of the tap symbol. Yes, using the tap symbol means tapping the creature, but tapping a creature does not mean using the tap symbol. This is similar to how destroying a creature means putting it into your graveyard from the battlefield, but putting it into your graveyard from the battlefield doesn't mean it was destroyed (0 toughness or sacrificing doesn't destroy a creature, even though it dies). MtG is often very particular on the exact words and symbols used.

@ManoFromBerlin This is more from people misunderstanding summoning sickness than it is anything else - summoning sickness does not prevent tapping - it just prevents attacking and using abilities that have tap or untap as a cost on the creature - many people assume this means creatures can't tap on their first turn, but this is not the case.This is from an oversimplification of summoning sickness not the actual rule.

In any case,with all this discussion here I just wanted to show that,even if the rules are literally clear,it is very easy to be wrong.As I already  wrote in a comment in this post,it is easy to meet a beginner who could stop you from doing such an action,bringing numerous evidences that make him feel confident to say the right thing,when he contrasts an attempt to tap a creature just summoned by the oppo.For this reasonSEperforms an excellent function in showing the right interpretation of the rule,and still acting as a quick-recovering way of explaining how things goes in such a situation

It doesn't matter for Zahid whether the artifact has a tap ability or not, only that it's currently untapped. You're allowed to tap any artifact for it. Any permanent can become tapped, given the right combination of other cards, even enchantments (You're right that you normally cannot just tap a Howling Mine because you want to.)

110.5. A permanent’s status is its physical state. There are four status categories, each of which has two possible values: tapped/untapped, flipped/unflipped, face up/face down, and phased in/phased out. Each permanent always has one of these values for each of these categories.

It's also worth mentioning that if you tap Fountain of Youth to pay the alternate cost for Zahid, you do not gain one life from Fountain of Youth's ability. These are two separate abilities that both happen to have a cost of tapping Fountain of Youth. Just like you can't use a dollar to pay for two different things, you can't tap Fountain once and expect to receive both effects. Artifacts with Tap abilities give you something to 'spend' their tap on, but you may have other effects you want to 'spend' that tap on, like Zahid.

Also note that Zahid can tap artifact creatures with summoning sickness.

WhileAeterfox's comment seems completely obvious to me,it is not so forGlorfinder's answer andArthur's comment.These leaves me amazed.The fact of being able to tap creatures with Summ.Sickness I find it unfair,but the fact that you can tap(eg)BlackVise is this,too.What happens if,regardless of Zahid,in normal game you tapBlackVise?Is his triggered ability suspended,in the sense that,if it is tapped duringOpponent'sUpkeep,it does not deal any damage?Or,you can tap it,but its effect still remains active?If so, it doesn't seem right to me:tapping something for Zahid,must mean suffering some loss.

In any case, I await other answers, because I still cannot believe that things go the way they have been described here. It is not possible to make use of the artifacts in this way, apart from the fact that it would mean that Zahid is really very strong ....

@Massimiliano The cards just mean literally what they say. If  Zahid worked the way you were thinking, it would have to be worded “tap an untapped artifact that has an ability with tap in the cost”, instead of “tap an untapped artifact”. It says you can tap an untapped artifact you control, so it means any untapped artifact you control.

@Massimiliano The best answer to 'it can't work that way, that must be too strong' is, play by the rules and play a few games with the card. Is a good tempo creature, but far from overpowered. And yes, you can get 'two for one' with it: reducing it's cost by tapping an artifact that doesn't 'care' about being tapped, such as ivory tower, or even one that benefits from being tapped. That is the beginning of a deck with good synergy.

Where did I say:- "it can't work that way, that must be too strong" ?? I always knew very well that Zahid is far from owerpowered. But, based on my insufficient and previous knowledge, now I find it a much better card than I thought.I know that everything here is taken for granted by experts, but it does not concerns me,since I'm far from being one of them.


text:
Where does a card that is recast with Rebound end up after resolution?
The "Rebound" ability found on some cards has this reminder text:

If you cast this spell from your hand, exile it as it resolves. At the beginning of your next upkeep, you may cast this card from Exile without paying its mana cost.

This means that, if I cast, for example, Blessed Reincarnation, and I decide to use his Rebound ability, the card will be replayed from exile.
The question is then the following: from the text of the cards, with regard to the Rebound ability, it is not clear whether, once the card is used for the second time - thanks to the rebound ability - the card in question ends up in the graveyard, or returns to Exile, this time definitively.
So for example, once Blessed Reincarnation's Rebound ability is used, -
1) this card will go into permanent exile; or,
2) this card will go to its owner's graveyard.

Note that the first gatherer comment on the card you linked also answers your question.

It's true,I hadn't noticed it.ButErik refers to theGatherer's"first ruling",which is the last one below.However,it says:"If you cast a card from exile this way,it will go to its owner's graveyard when it resolves,fails to resolve,or is countered.It won't go back to exile".Since it is the last line,and also does not include the word"Rebound"-in fact it only says:"if you cast a card from exile this way",without specifying that"this way" is preciselyRebound,and it might not have been like this-I hadn't understood it in its precise sense,that is,it refers toRebound.I preferred to ask you directly.

The card will go to the graveyard if you cast it from exile with Rebound.
When a spell represented by a card has finished resolving, then by default the card goes to its owner's graveyard.

608.2k As the final part of an instant or sorcery spell’s resolution, the spell is put into its owner’s graveyard. As the final part of an ability’s resolution, the ability is removed from the stack and ceases to exist.

Since Rebound only applies to a spell when you cast it from your hand, it does not apply when you cast it from exile, so it doesn't get exiled as it resolves. Since no other effect takes place, it goes to the graveyard as normal.


text:
Can you change your mind after discarding during Monolith Arena?
In Monolith Arena, the rules state:

after the tiles have been drawn, the player must DISCARD ONE OF THE
THREE TILES into the discard pile.

This is during the player upkeep step, so the sequence of events:

Draw three tiles
Discard one tile
Consider the remaining tiles and potentially play them

Is it against the rules to retract the discarded tile or change your mind, directly after discarding it, without input from the other player(s)? Asking for a friend.

I don't know this game at all but will answer this in a broader etiquette sense.
In games people make mistakes or they start taking a move and realise that they want to do something different.  When I play games with people the rule is people can take back things provided it has no effect on anything else or a random event hasn't happened.
So if a player (in any game) is asked to discard a card and then decides they should have discarded another this is fine.  No other player has taken a turn and the only person is disadvantage is the player who exposed a card.
If a player decides to take an action such drawing a card or rolling a dice then this couldn't be taken back after.
When playing games it's about trying to have fun and being reasonable.  Telling a player they can't undo something that has no effect on anything else would be unreasonable.

Note that some games have explicit rules about such things.  E.g. Chess's Touch-move rule - Wikipedia

I'm aware of that chess rule.   Put me off the game for many years with memories of being shouted at by other players as a child I have to move that when I've not moved a piece it makes no difference!  I'm not sure what that rule in chess achieves to make a game more friendly or fun tbh.

My guess about the reason for this rule is that in chess, one could potentially detect the opponent's reaction to the move. Without it, the game of perfect-knowledge logic could degenerate into a game of poker. (But with a child, or even an adult, unless the person does start abusing it, I wouldn't invoke the rule.)

https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/16814/what-is-the-idea-behind-the-touch-move-rule. attempts to answer the question.

Yes, it is against the rules. The rules (as you quote) do not permit drawing a tile directly after discarding it.
Rather than "is it against the rules?" (a question you seem to already know the answer to), you're asking if it is socially acceptable to break the rules in that fashion. i.e., "are take-backs allowed".
The answer to that is either opinion-based or is (equivalently) "it's up to your group". Even some online implementations of "serious" games like chess allow take-backs (or rather, allow you to request permission from your opponent to do a take-back), even though obviously take-backs are not permitted in chess.


text:
Can an instant spell deal damage to a creature after responding with hexproof?
For instance I want to cast Shock on Barkhide Troll during my main phase. Then my opponent can respond to it with Troll activated ability.
If I understand it correctly - he had to use Troll's Active Ability before my instant had targeted the creature. So it means my instant should deal the damage.
It is like when you want to use an ability which says "your creature can't be blocked until the end of the turn" and if you use such an instant after an opponent blocked your creature - an instant won't work because you had to use it when you assigned attackers

Also note that hexproof only stops targeted spells, not stuff that deals damage without targeting, e.g. anything that "deals damage to each creature"

No, the Shock will not deal damage if the target gains hexproof in response.
The reason is that target validity is checked both while you are casting the spell and as the spell starts to resolve. If the target becomes invalid, say by gaining hexproof, before the spell resolves, the spell will not do anything to that target, and if all of the targets are invalid, the spell will not do anything at all.

ok, makes sense. but it does not work in the same way with attacking and blocking. does it?

No, this is specific to spells and abilities with targets.

No, the shock he used there will not deal damage to the troll.
As murgatroid99 said, spells check if their targets are valid both when they are cast and when they resolve. Responding to your cast with hexproof puts his hexproof on top of your shock, so that resolves first, gives the troll hexproof, and makes it an illegal target when Shock tries to resolve.
You could do the same thing - you can respond to him activating the hexproof by removing the counter with a second shock spell - that way your shock will be on the stack above his hexproof, this second shock would resolve before the troll actually gets hexproof and do the 2 damage needed to kill the 2/2 creature. The hexproof ability and your first shock spell will be removed from the stack doing nothing, as the object hexproof is tied to or the target in the case of shock no longer exists as a permanent, and is no longer legal.
The blocking/unblockable example doesn't really apply, since combat rules and targeting rules are very different in magic.

what you said is insane.
I don't get it... If I use Shock he responds with hexproof and I use Shock again - it won't work because Troll gets hexproof until the end of the turn. Correct me, please. I don't understand why my second shock goes EARLIER than his hexproof

@VadzimNemchenko When the opponent plays hexproof it does not go into effect immediately.  It still needs to resolve.  The stack works in a last-in-first-out method (except for special situations).  When you play shock it goes on the stack, then the opponent activates barkhide ability, it goes on the stack, then you play another shock, it goes on the stack.  No one responds.  Shock #2 resolves dealing two damage killing Barkhide.  Barkhide ability fizzles as it's not there.  Shock #1 fizzles because it's target is gone.

@VadzimNemchenko Think of the stack as saying you intend to try to do something - with shock you intend to try and do 2 damage to the target, with the troll ability you intend to try and give hexproof. So when shock is cast you intend to try to do 2 damage, he intends to give hexproof so you can't do that, but since you have another shock and the mana to pay for it you can say you intend to do 2 damage before that hexproof is given. Until you both decide to do nothing else before the most recent action, nothing actually happens.


text:
Can I use Moonlace to allow a Lightning Bolt to target a creature with protection from red?
The action of casting a spell is only apparently simple.  There are many steps, and it is for this reason that I propose this question.
Taking into account rule 601.2a only (without taking into account the several successive steps, by now, and in particular without referring to the choice of targets which is however essential), which reads

To propose the casting of a spell, a player first moves that card (or that copy of a card) from where it is to the stack. It becomes the topmost object on the stack. It has all the characteristics of the card (or the copy of a card) associated with it, and that player becomes its controller. The spell remains on the stack until it’s countered, it resolves, or an effect moves it elsewhere.

and using at the same time the blue rare card Moonlace, I wondered if it was possible, by keeping priority, to use the latter card to make another spell colorless before making my choice of its possible targets.
For example, if I have a Lightning Bolt and I want to cast it on a creature with protection from red – e.g. Repentant Blacksmith – may I use Moonlace to make the Bolt colorless, thus allowing to legally target the Repentant Blacksmith – or, possibly, other cards that have the ability "protection from colored spells", too?
The question is set in an open way, because at the moment I don't know if the action described is or is not possible, based on my current knowledge of the rules. In other words, thinking about the question by myself, I don't think it is possible to cast the Lightning Bolt first and then the Moonlace, since for a correct casting of the Lightning Bolt I think it is included the choice of the target, which cannot be legal since the creature is protected from red. On the other hand, casting Moonlace first is all the same wrong, because the spell that should target doesn't exist yet, and therefore this action would be illegal too, for the same reason. That's the reason why I said to refer to rule 601.2a only.
The key to the question then is simply: is there someone knowing  any “sleight of hand” to grant devoid ability on Lightning Bolt, before his target is chosen - via Moonlace, or via any other ways, otherwise? And, if that kind of sleight does exist, what spell should I cast first? It is possible to cast two spells simultaneously?

I realize you're asking about a particular interaction, but you can get the desired effect using [mtg:Mind Bend] on the Blacksmith.

Ok John, it's a good interaction that you propose, but I would have preferred something that could give devoid to a particular magic. I am really asking too much:I hoped my Moonlace method would work,but it doesn't. With Mind Bend you change only the color from which a given creature is protected. Instead I was looking for a little something that, in doing so, could have hit creatures with "protection from colored spells", that is ... Emrakul, for example!

you can get your desired impact, if instead you used a non-targeting spell such as Chain Reaction.

Obviously...too bad it is ...a sorcery...!! But no problem: I could create good fast decks against oddities like Emrakul, the Aeons Torn...

Murgatroid, i'm really sorry you had to edit the question, cancelling the last part of rule 601.2 as i write it: "The fact that it is legal to cast the proposed magic is not checked at this time” - but there are some online sources that also include that part in the rule's text, and so I thought of linking to it to try to make possible the combination of the two spells I intended to propose - failing - with this question. If your sources do not report the text this way, then I trust you.

... although I disagree with the way in which Murgatroid has edited the title of the question: so it appears too specific, not general. How come Murgatroid? At the beginning,you commented my questions like this way: - @ Massimiliano before you ask more questions on this topic I suggest reading boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/12652/…That may help you understand this topic more generally. - ,advising me not to ask too many "similar" questions.Why now you always try to turn my generic questions into unique questions, thus increasing the average number of similar questions?Think about it...

In any case, the reason why I wanted to ask this question precisely lies  in that part of the rule that some sources report in the way I transcribed, that is, with the part where it adds the line  "The fact that it is legal to cast the proposed magic is not checked at this time. It would be useful to understand why someone added this down-rule to the main rule, or why that source adds it, or whether there are other interpretations for that particular line of the rule. Thank you for the time and patience.

Moonlace only works on Lightning Bolt when it's a spell, i.e. an object on the stack. To get it there, you have to cast it, which includes specifying a legal target. As you indicated, Repentant Blacksmith isn't one.
What would work is casting the Lightning Bolt on another target (e.g. your opponent), Moonlacing it so it becomes colorless, and then change the target with another card, e.g. Misdirection.

Wow, too bad the links to the card - misdirection, this time - almost never work! Anyway, this is what I call "sleight of hand", although it is quite hard to accomplish,since you need two specific cards in hand, plus of course lightning!
It is really a pity that there is no way to cast Moonlace BEFORE the choice of legal targets...anyway, that's a great answer.

@Massimiliano, 601.2a doesn't describe casting a spell. 601.2 does. 601.2a is just one step of many. These steps include 601.2c, choosing of (legal) targets.

@Massimiliano That card link works fine for me. However, the link is not actually to the card but to a gatherer search for the card, which redirects to the card page since there is only one search result. This is important because if your Gatherer settings specify a default language other than English, the search will fail. Unfortunately, this is the way that all [mtg:...] links are created on this site, which may be why you are having trouble with all of them.

FYI, here's a better link, I think.  https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=438455

Thanks RBarryYoung, but my problem is not so much in finding cards online. I just wanted to point out that the excellent links of Glorfinder unfortunately lead only to the page of Gatherer, but without showing the card in question.

@Massimiliano yes, and this link should fix that. I intended for it to be added to the answer.

Really good. Now it is complete.

@Massimiliano you might want to open a [meta] question about why the links don't work for you (and what could be done about that). They do work for 99% of the users and they're easier to type than direct links.

Oh, I'm sorry, but since the links do not work for me, I'm assuring if this problem could occur to others users too.

I really hoped that by following Rule 601.2a in the point where it says "The fact that is legal to cast the proposed magic is not checked at this time" was enough to cast a spell without choosing legal targets yet. But rules do not allow players to do this.

It's not your fault, Glorfinder, if the card links don't work - at least for me. But in my opinion it was important to say it ... what could I know if the other users don't see the problem?

@Glorfindel the link didn’t work right for me when I posted my comments earlier.  I didn’t realize that this was a site function, and just thought that you had a bad link imbedded.  The link is working fine for me now, so maybe it was a SE site maintenance issue or something.

No, that won't work. While you are in the process of casting a spell, you can't even begin casting another spell, let alone have that second spell resolve before you finish casting the first. If Lighning Bolt would have an illegal target from the start, it's not going to be on the stack to be modified by Moonlace.
As you already noted, the rules of casting a spell are quite extensive, and in most cases, the steps can be walked over because they are intuitive. However, in your scenario, we have to dig down a bit.
It's important to note here that casting a spell is a process. You follow the steps in the exact order described. There is no rule that would allow you to interrupt this process with any other action, in particular you can't begin casting a second spell while you are playing the first.

601.2a To propose the casting of a spell, a player first moves that card (or that copy of a card) from where it is to the stack. It becomes the topmost object on the stack. It has all the characteristics of the card (or the copy of a card) associated with it, and that player becomes its controller. The spell remains on the stack until it’s countered, it resolves, or an effect moves it elsewhere.

We can continue to targeting:

601.2c The player announces their choice of an appropriate object or player for each target the spell requires.  [..]

The process of casting Lightning Bolt stops here, because a creature with protection from red is not an "appropriate" target for a red Lightning Bolt. The game returns to the point just before you proposed casting LB: You have priority, and the Bolt is in your hand rather than on the stack:

601.2e The game checks to see if the proposed spell can legally be cast. If the proposed spell is illegal, the game returns to the moment before the casting of that spell was proposed

If Lightning Bolt was legally cast, you would gain priority afterwards and thus the right to cast another spell if you wish, such as Moonlace. Of course, if Lightning Bolt would have been legally cast from the start, you wouldn't need Moonlace to make it legal.

Ok Hackworth. I know your answer is correct. I found some online sources that add this text to the last part of rule 601.2a: "The fact that it is legal to cast the proposed magic is not checked at this time” - so I thought it would mean it is possible to cast something even if his target was illegal  - at the very beginning of the casting of a spell, only.  Later on, Moonlace would be able to grant devoid to the spell, and making the target legal at the same time. Too bad the whole thing i s uncorrect...!

It's possible you just misunderstood what that source said. At the very first step, in 601.2a, it really is not checked whether the spell is legal. But like I wrote, in the following steps there are checks. If any of those fail, the spell was illegal.

@ManoFromBerlin it doesn't check until 601.2e if a spell is legal to cast, that's correct - but the two things to understand about that are A)this process from the players' perspective appears to happen all at once and B) 601.2e undoes the whole process if it finds it was illegal. 601.2i is where you get the chance to cast new spells, after the illegal target would have been caught and reversed.


text:
Are there any cards capable of modifying the mana symbols?
Are there any cards - old ones, or newest ones - capable of modifying the mana symbols?
For example Shivan Dragon has the ability "{R}: Shivan Dragon gets +1/+0 until end of turn". Can this ability be transformed, for example, into "{W}: Shivan Dragon gets +1/+0 until end of turn"?
It should be noted that, obviously, I am not referring to either "Sleight of Mind" card - which can only modify the text of a card containing a color, but not mana symbols - nor to "Magical Hack" card - which is able to modify the basic land types, but not mana symbols.
Crimson Hellkite has an ability that uses the phrase "red mana". In a case like this, would Sleight of Mind be enough to change the type of mana required in the Helkite's activated ability?

Re "Are there any cards capable of modifying the mana symbols?", The answer to this is yes. Copy effects such as Clone's can change the mana cost, effectively replacing the mana symbols with different ones. But that's not really what you're asking about.

I disagree with your view, Ikegami. I think I explained myself enough. I'm not talking about mana cost, but rather more situations in which there is a certain mana symbol on the text of a given card,just like on activated abilities. Just as the two blue cards mentioned in the body of the question are able to modify colors, or basic land types, I was looking - if it exists - for a card that is capable of even modifying mana symbols. if it doesn't exist ... well, too bad, I'll make it a reason!

You didn't read what I said, did you? Reread the last sentence. My comment was specifically not addressed to you.

"Re "Are there any cards capable of modifying the mana symbols?", The answer to this is yes. Copy effects such as Clone's can change the mana cost, effectively replacing the mana symbols with different ones. But that's not really what you're asking about".Aren't you the one who wrote these things Ikegami? Well, if so, I'm sorry, but your comment is just below my question, so how can you say it's not addressed to me? but how much you enjoy yourself with your "shortcuts" ... and your artificial misunderstandings

This site is built on the premise that Q&A are to help future readers. How arrogant of you to think it's all about you. And then insist on it when told otherwise. Twice I've told you I wasn't answering your real question but the one in the title in the original comment, You know, because someone might actually be looking for the answer to that question. Please stop insulting me for trying to help others.

You cannot change the actual mana symbols; however there are cards that would allow you spend mana "as though" it were another color. Mycosynth Lattice is one example. Among other things, it has:

Players may spend mana as though it were mana of any color.

With this in play, you could spend any color of mana to activate Shivan Dragon's ability.
Celestial Dawn would allow you to spend white mana as though it were any color; Sunglasses of Urza allows you to spend white mana specifically as though it were red mana.
Sleight of Mind would allow you to change the text of Crimson Hellkite; it refers to "red mana"; so you can change that text to something like "white mana".
Note that in general; gaining access to other colors of mana is called "mana fixing". It can be in the form of lands or other objects that can add multiple colors of mana; or objects that allow you to spend one type of mana to get another type. You can read all about it here: https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Mana_fixing.

I just want to mention that the original printing of Celestial Dawn did what he was asking for (changed mana symbols).  It seems like they would never do that at this point since they have the "Spend...as though it were..." type of templates that don't get into text changing weirdness.

There's also another part of the question about whether Sleight of Mind can affect the mana required for Crimson Helkite's ability.

@murgatroid99 Before your edit; I misread it and thought he was asking about Shivan Dragon.

Gendolkari, it is true: I explained myself not enough, and you understood I' m talking about the Shivan Dragon in the last part of the question too. Murgatroid's edit works better than my original question

Please, it is important to note that - in my opinion - assuming that it is possible for the "Sleight of mind" card to profitably modify the text of Crimson Hellkite, the operation is really unfair, since it concerns precisely the mana and its symbol, and not the color itself. Card Authors had to do this because - in my opinion - since Hellkite has to tap himself to activate his ability, they could not simply write it like an "inflatable ability", i.e. this way - R: Hellkite deals 1 damage to a creature.

@Massimiliano It is likely true that this is a random side-effect of the way things had to be done, rather than an intended interaction. But I don't see how that makes it "unfair"; MTG contains huge amounts of interactions such as this one where things just happened to work out that way.

Well, it is true. Anyway, I'm waiting for other answers - if them will come - because it is a weird interaction, and I'd like to read what people think about this oddity...No doubt about what you say it's true, but you have to admit that this is really what generally cannot be performed with Sleight of mind: that is, changing the mana color.

Your answer is good, Gendolkari. But there is still some doubt: are you really sure, Gendolkari, that the operation indicated in your answer is correct? Some other players may find the operation completely wrong, or arbitrary. After all, it is one of those weird interactions, which will certainly happen often. This is why I am waiting a little longer, before accepting the good response received.

@Massimiliano Which interaction are you questioning; the Crimson Hellkite / Slight of Mind one? I don't see where there is room for doubt... the card says to replace all instances of one color word with a different color word; so you can replace the word "red" with the word "white".

But it is true, as I have already told you,Gendolkari, it is so. I'm just waiting if some other user wants to have his say, and maybe he thinks it differently than you... and me, since I agree with you.

However, what emerged here allows a player with "Sleight of Mind" card in his hands to actually change the color of the mana - and its symbol, to all intents and purposes - whenever a formula of the type "[any one color] mana" occurs in the texts of the cards. Such as, in addition to the Crimson Hellkite, also in the Mirrodin card "Consume Spirit", and some others. Good stuff.


text:
Does Lich's Mastery let me spend down to negative life with Bolas's Citadel?
Could I possibly use Lich's Mastery with Bolas's Citadel? Since I have the condition "you cannot lose the game", theoretically couldn't I go negative with my health by using BC to play cards from my library?

You cannot pay life that you don't have, even if you wouldn't lose the game. So, Lich's Mastery doesn't help you cast cards using Bolas's Citadel, and using them together is probably a bad idea because of the "Whenever you lose life..." trigger on Lich's Mastery.
The most important rule here is rule 119.4:

If a cost or effect allows a player to pay an amount of life greater than 0, the player may do so only if their life total is greater than or equal to the amount of the payment. If a player pays life, the payment is subtracted from their life total; in other words, the player loses that much life. (Players can always pay 0 life.)


text:
Does Karmic Justice Trigger if a Planeswalker dies from combat damage?
If a creature deals enough damage to my planeswalker and destroys it does Karmic Justice trigger if I have it on the field?

No, Combat damage is not "a spell or ability an opponent controls".
It's not a Spell:

112.1. A spell is a card on the stack. As the first step of being cast (see rule 601, “Casting Spells”), the card becomes a spell and is moved to the top of the stack from the zone it was in, which is usually its owner’s hand. (See rule 405, “Stack.”) A spell remains on the stack as a spell until it resolves (see rule 608, “Resolving Spells and Abilities”), is countered (see rule 701.5), or otherwise leaves the stack. For more information, see section 6, “Spells, Abilities, and Effects.”
112.1a A copy of a spell is also a spell, even if it has no card associated with it. See rule 706.10.
112.1b Some effects allow a player to cast a copy of a card; if the player does, that copy is a spell as well. See rule 706.12.

It's not an Ability:

113.3. There are four general categories of abilities:
113.3a Spell abilities are abilities that are followed as instructions while an instant or sorcery spell is resolving. Any text on an instant or sorcery spell is a spell ability unless it’s an activated ability, a triggered ability, or a static ability that fits the criteria described in rule 113.6.
113.3b Activated abilities have a cost and an effect. They are written as “[Cost]: [Effect.] [Activation instructions (if any).]” A player may activate such an ability whenever they have priority. Doing so puts it on the stack, where it remains until it’s countered, it resolves, or it otherwise leaves the stack. See rule 602, “Activating Activated Abilities.”
113.3c Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as “[Trigger condition], [effect],” and include (and usually begin with) the word “when,” “whenever,” or “at.” Whenever the trigger event occurs, the ability is put on the stack the next time a player would receive priority and stays there until it’s countered, it resolves, or it otherwise leaves the stack. See rule 603, “Handling Triggered Abilities.”
113.3d Static abilities are written as statements. They’re simply true. Static abilities create continuous effects which are active while the permanent with the ability is on the battlefield and has the ability, or while the object with the ability is in the appropriate zone. See rule 604, “Handling Static Abilities.”

No, if a planeswalker dies from damage, Karmic Justice's ability will not trigger.
Karmic Justice's Oracle text says this:

Whenever a spell or ability an opponent controls destroys a noncreature permanent you control, you may destroy target permanent that opponent controls.

If a planeswalker dies as a result of damage, it is not being destroyed by a spell or ability; it is dying as the result of a state-based action that checks whether it has 0 loyalty. So, the trigger condition does not apply.
In addition, if a creature is dealing combat damage that is also not a spell or ability, it is a turn-based action that is part of the combat phase.

Also just a minor nitpick is that a Planeswalker isn't destroyed for 0 loyalty, but instead it is "put into its owner's graveyard" similar to a creature with zero or less toughness.  The rules for lethal damage and Deathtouch damage to a Creature explicitly mention that the creature is "destroyed", so those count.  But those are the only State-Based Actions that actually count as destroying anything.

I've edited to say it more correctly


text:
Does attacking Ochran Assassin ( with +1 counter) kill both Swiftblade Vindicator and Garrison Sergeant with double strike?
I saw a similar question regarding Ochran Assassin against first strike. Mine is similar, but the here it goes:
I have two creatures; Swiftblade Vindicator 1/1 with Double strike, and Garrison Sergeant with double strike since I control a Boros Gate.
The Ochran Assassin attacks me with a counter, so his total is 2/2. I am forced to block with both, but the attacking player chooses the order. First he hits my Swiftblade, and after my Garrison.
My question here is this: If Swiftblade Vindicator has double strike, he hits the Ochran in the first combat step. In the second they both hit eachother. This far I understand.
But at this point I thought that both die, and the Ochran can't hit the Garrison Sergeant. But my friend said that apparently he can still hit him with 0 hp, during the 2nd combat step, after having battled my Swiftblade Vindicator.
Is this correct, or should my Garrison Sergeant have survived this encounter, being 2nd in the order block order?

In this situation, the Assassin dies in the first strike combat damage step, before it has a chance to deal any damage. Your opponent chooses the order in which the Assassin deals combat damage to your creatures, but that doesn't affect when your creatures deal their combat damage.
Both of your creatures have double strike, so in the first combat damage step they deal a total of 4 damage to the Assassin and the Assassin dies.

If the Garrison Sergeant did not have double strike, this would play out differently. In the first combat damage step, the Vindicator would deal 1 damage to the Assassin. So the Assassin would have 1 damage marked on it so it would still be alive. Then in the second combat damage step, simultaneously, the Vindicator would deal 1 damage to the Assassin, the Sergeant would deal 3 damage to the Assassin, and the Assassin would deal 1 damage each to the Vindicator and the Sergeant. Then all 3 would have taken lethal damage, so they would all die.

I didn't know that both defending creatures could act during the first combat phase since both had double strike, I initially thought only one could act in first phase, the one first in defend order. This clears it up, thanks for helping me understand.


text:
If I counter a planeswalker what happens to them?
If I counter a planeswalkers activation, with say something like Sinister Sabotage or Unwind, does the planeswalker return to the players hand, or do they die?

Can you clarify what you mean by “planeswalker activation”? Normally I would expect that phrase to mean activating a planeswalker’s loyalty ability; but that wouldn’t make as much sense in the context of this question. Do you mean casting a planeswalker?

A planeswalker is a spell while it is on the stack. Any spell you counter will go to the graveyard unless the counterspell says otherwise, such as with Remand. Thus, a planeswalker will be put into the graveyard. Not sure if this is a question confused on whether planeswalkers are treated differently than other spells or not? If you had some other reasoning why you think a planeswalker might be treated differently than another spell, feel free to add it to your question! It may help newer players to understand it better in the future.

And although it goes to the graveyard, it doesn't "die". That term refers to creatures that go from the battlefield to a graveyard.

Planeswalkers can "die" (see rule 700.4), but only when moving from the battlefield.

My apologies, i didn't even realize he said "die" in the question


text:
How does Eye for an Eye work if my opponent casts a lethal Fireball on me
My opponent and myself are at 5 life points. He casts a Fireball of 5 targeting me and I respond with Eye for an Eye so we both take five points of damage. Does my Eye for an Eye resolve first, because it is on stack, thus killing him before the Fireball has a chance to kill me?
If so, does this also apply during the combat damage phase if one of his creatures attacks me thus killing him before his creature has a chance to kill me?

You will both lose, meaning the game will be a draw.
Your Eye for an Eye does resolve first, yes, but it doesn’t cause any damage when it resolves. All it does is set up a replacement effect that will happen the next time you would take damage this turn.
So Eye for an Eye resolves, and then Fireball resolves. When Fireball resolves, instead of just you taking 5 damage, you and your opponent both take 5 damage at the same time.
It would work the same if the damage were during combat. Your Eye for and Eye would resolve; setting up the replacement effect. Then when the creature would deal you damage, both you and your opponent take damage at the same time.

104.3b If a player’s life total is 0 or less, that player loses the game the next time a player would receive priority. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)

104.4a If all the players remaining in a game lose simultaneously, the game is a draw.

State-Based Actions

704.3. Whenever a player would get priority (see rule 117, “Timing and Priority”), the game checks for any of the listed conditions for state-based actions, then performs all applicable state-based actions simultaneously as a single event.

704.5a If a player has 0 or less life, that player loses the game.

Who has priority after fireball resolves?

@fectin No one in this case... normally, the active player always receives priority after a spell or ability resolves. But here, when the active player is about to priority, state-based actions cause the game to end before priority is given.

It seems like that would trigger and the active player would lose before the other player has a chance to lose. What causes the inactive player to lose?

The state-based action applies to all players who are at 0 or less health; not just the player that is about to receive priority. Note that 104.3b doesn't say "the next time that player would receive priority", but "the next a player would receive priority".

Oh, that makes perfect sense. Thanks!

I also edited to add the relevant rules from 704, which may be a bit clearer than 104.3b.

In a multiplayer game, this scenario might not end the game as long as at least one other player remains alive.

@fectin the next player in turn order who is still in the game, which is no-one in a two-player game


text:
Can someone explain to me the interaction with chains of mephistopheles and sylvan library
I totally get how Chains of Mephistopheles works with pretty much any card in any situation with any amount of chains in play except for the Sylvan Library interaction. I find it gets pretty complicated because of the fact that you can discard a card drawn with sylvan library which then would make it impossible for you to put back on top of the deck if you do decide not to pay 4 life.

I suspect this question:  https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/43618/how-does-underrealm-lich-interact-with-sylvan-library-during-your-draw-step?rq=1
will answer your question for you.  Also, COM is very complicated, this question helps with that:  https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/38686/how-does-chains-of-mephistopheles-work?rq=1

I don't think that first linked question fully covers this interaction.

@john it doesn't answer the question because underrealm lich replaces drawing with something else entirely, while the chains replacement still possibly includes a draw, so the interaction is far more complicated.

Worth noting that players usually keep the cards drawn this turn and the cards already in their hand separate until after Library has finished resolving for exactly this reason, to be able to prove which cards are required to be among the choices for Library, or if any need to be chosen at that point at all.

Here's what happens during the resolution of Sylvan Library's ability with Chains of Mephistopheles on the battlefield:

"you may draw two additional cards." If you choose not to draw the cards, the ability does nothing. If you do choose to draw, the cards are drawn sequentially, so this breaks down further:

You draw a card. This is modified by Chains, so instead you either discard a card and then draw a card, or you just mill a card.
You draw another card. This is again modified by Chains, so instead you either discard a card and then draw a card, or you just mill a card.

"choose two cards in your hand drawn this turn." In Magic, instructions do as much as possible, and no more. If you have fewer than two cards in your hand that you drew that turn, you can only choose the ones that are there. That can happen in this situation, depending whether you started with any cards in hand and on which cards you discarded.
"For each of those cards, pay 4 life or put the card on top of your library." This instruction only applies to the cards you chose in the previous step. If you could only choose zero or one cards, then you perform this process zero or one times.


text:
Does Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale go on stack?
I have Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale in play. My opponent has a Serendib Efreet and a Serra Angel in play. I cast Mana Short in his upkeep to tap all his lands and empty his manapool. He has no other mana sources.
Do his creatures die? And if so does his serendib still do 1 damage to him?

Your opponent will take 1 damage and all of his creatures will die

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

"At the beginning of your upkeep" is one of the signifiers of a triggered ability, so the Tabernacle does indeed grant an triggered ability to your opponent's creatures.  Here's what will happen in detail on your opponent's turn:

Your opponent untaps.  Nobody gets priority, nobody takes any actions.
Your opponent's upkeep begins.  Three triggered abilities trigger: Serendib Efreet's damage trigger, Serendib Efreet's tabernacle trigger, and Serra Angel's tabernacle trigger
Your opponent chooses in what order these three abilities are placed on the stack*.  This is more or less irrelevant.
Your opponent gets priority.  Since they don't plan on doing anything, they pass priority
You get priority, and cast Mana Short
You both pass priority, and Mana Short resolves. Your opponent loses all their mana.
The triggered abilities resolve.  Since your opponent has no mana, both creatures are destroyed.  Your opponent takes 1 damage.

The Tabernacle trigger cannot be paid for until the triggered ability resolves, so even though your opponent gets priority before Mana Short resolves, they can't use this priority to save their creatures (unless they have a spell in hand that would do so).  The Serendib Efreet trigger is independent of the creature once it's on the stack, so the destruction of the creature won't effect the damage being dealt.
*If you controlled some of the triggers there would be less flexibility as to the order, but the tabernacle triggers are controlled by your opponent because the tabernacle grants triggered abilities to creatures rather than having a triggered ability itself.


text:
Does a creature with dethrone trigger Kami of Celebration?
I couldn't find anything saying in which order these things happen. So, for example, say I'm attacking my opponent with the highest life total with a couple unmodified creatures while Marchesa, the Black Rose and Kami of Celebration are on the field. Marchesa makes all of these creatures modified, but does that happen in time for it to cause Kami to impulse draw?

Both of these triggers apply their check at the same time, when a creature attacks. So the counter from dethrone is not there yet for the Kami's ability to see it.

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

Note: The counter from dethrone can trigger abilities such as "Whenever a modified creature deals combat damage to a player ...". Currently only this creature has that ability.

Thanks! That clears things up.

Dethrone is a triggered ability, and when the condition for a triggered ability is met, that doesn't cause the effect of the ability, it just causes the ability to go on the stack. It's only when that ability resolves that the effect is applied. You can choose in what order your triggered abilities are checked, but all of the trigger abilities are checked before any of them resolve. Once all of them are checked and the ones whose conditions were met are put on the stack, then the normal steps of the stack are applied (players get priority, if all pass the topmost effect resolves, etc.). Whether the creature is modified is checked at the time it's declared as an attacker, so by the time the Dethrone ability resolves, it's no longer being declared as an attacker.
However, the whole point of Marchesa is that if you attack with a creature, it either dies (and then it comes back at the end of the turn), or it survives, and then next turn it does have the +1/+1 counter before it's declared as an attacker, and it will trigger Kami. You can combine this with other "when attacks" triggers and/or ETB triggers. If the creature dies, then its ETB triggers at the end of the turn, and if it doesn't die, then next turn you get the Kami trigger. With the right creatures (such as Aether Channeler), you can be guaranteed card advantage either way. With something like Archon of Cruelty, you're actually better off with it dying.


text:
Multiple fight triggers on one creature
So with Tolsimir, Friend to Wolves forcing entering wolves to fight, if I make 4 2/2 wolf tokens and send all at an 8/8 I know they won't all fight it at once. But would the 8/8 still die? Was wanting to use him as my commander but I might have to switch for the other version for my token tribal.

Yes, if 4 2/2 creatures fight a single 8/8 creature, they will all die.
The "fight" keyword is defined in rule 701.12a:

A spell or ability may instruct a creature to fight another creature or it may instruct two creatures to fight each other. Each of those creatures deals damage equal to its power to the other creature.

So, in this situation, here's what happens:

4 2/2 wolf creature tokens are created. Tolsimir's ability triggers 4 times.
The first triggered ability resolves, and one wolf fights the 8/8. The wolf deals 2 damage to the 8/8 and the 8/8 deals 8 damage to the wolf. The 8/8 now has 2 damage marked on it, and the wolf dies.
The second triggered ability resolves, and there is another fight. The 8/8 now has 4 damage marked on it, and another wolf dies.
The third triggered ability resolves, and there is another fight. The 8/8 now has 6 damage marked on it, and another wolf dies.
The fourth triggered ability resolves, and there is another fight. The 8/8 now has 8 damage marked on it, so it dies, and the last wolf also dies.

Note that the 8/8 is doing the full 8 damage each time - if it had lifelink they would gain 32 life.  You say this, but I wanted to repeat it

@ArcanistLupus "In response to your fourth fight trigger being put onto the stack I cast Blessed Defiance. Thanks for the 40 life and the 1/1 spirit token."

@nick012000 Mortal's Ardor might be better, only gain 36 life, but 8/8 survives.

Damage stays on a creature; you don't need to deal damage all at once for a creature to die. That probably is the main question you're asking, so the answer to your question is "yes, the 8/8 dies", with the rest of my answer just being details/special cases.
Each time one of the 2/2 fights the 8/8, the 2/2 has 2 damage to apply. So unless the damage is prevented, that's 8 damage, and unless the 8/8 has Indestructible, having damage equal or greater than its toughness would cause it to die. AFAIK, the only way to remove damage is the cleanup step at the end of turn, Regeneration, and a permanent leaving the battlefield. Also, while you can't mark damage on a non-creature permanent[1], if you deal damage to a permanent while it's a creature, and it later turns into a non-creature, the damage will remain marked, and if it turns back into a creature with damage greater than or equal to its toughness, it dies.
There is the further complication that players gain priority between the resolution of each trigger, so if the controller of the 8/8 has some way of removing damage, countering abilities, and/or increasing its toughness at instant speed, they can keep it from dying. Also, if they flicker the creature, then when it enters the battlefield, it will do so as a new object, so all the remaining triggers will fizzle.
For the most part, any response your opponent can do between the triggers they could also do before any of them resolve (for instance, if you were targeting a creature with a toughness of only 2, they could put four regeneration shields on it before any of the triggers resolve, and the creature would survive), but there are edge cases, such as things triggering off of creature deaths, where it matters. For instance, if your opponent has Inheritance, then when the first token dies, they can pay 3 and draw a card, and then they can cast that card before the second fight trigger resolves (assuming the card is an instant, has flash, etc.).
[1]You can deal damage to a planeswalker, but unless that planeswalker is also a creature, this will cause the planeswalker to lose loyalty counters, but won't cause damage to be marked on it.

While it's true that damage marked on a creature remains if it stops being a creature, the damage on a noncreature permanent will still be removed at cleanup.


text:
If my opponent sacrifices a creature in response to me attempting to attach an aura to it, does the aura fizzle, or can I choose a new target?
The specific board state I have is as follows: I am attempting to attach a Lignify to my opponents Conspicuous Snoop, and in response, with Skirk Prospector on top of his library, he sacrifices Conspicuous Snoop through Skirk Prospector, through Conspicuous Snoop. What happens to my Lignify now? I chose Conspicuous Snoop as the target of the aura, but now the target is gone. Does the Lignify fizzle and go to the grave? Or can I choose a different creature to target with it? And if it does fizzle, has it still been cast, so that my Sythis, Harvest's Hand still activates?

The aura fails to resolve, and goes to your graveyard.
An aura is a spell with a target, and like any spell with the target, if its target is no longer valid as it starts to resolve, it fails to resolve and goes to the graveyard (commonly referred to as "fizzling"). You cannot change its target unless a card specifically allows you to.
Sythis does see you casting the spell. Casting a spell is the process of declaring that you are casting it, choosing targets and other things, and paying its costs. Sythis's ability triggers as soon as you do that, before anyone even gets a chance to respond by doing something like sacrificing the target.


text:
Does a land with Landfall trigger itself?
If I already have Ashaya, Soul of the Wild in play, and I play a creature that has a landfall ability, such as Lotus Cobra, does the creature "see" itself and trigger its own landfall ability, similar to cards that say "When [Cardname] or another creature enters the battlefield..." o?

Yes, a creature will trigger its own landfall when it enters as a land.
In your scenario, your creatures are also lands. Ashaya's ability is a static ability, which is always true. There is no delay, and your creatures enter the battlefield as lands.

604.1. Static abilities do something all the time rather than being activated or triggered. They are written as statements, and they’re simply true.

Permanents see themselves entering the battlefield and will trigger all applicable abilities when they do.

603.6a Enters-the-battlefield abilities trigger when a permanent enters the battlefield. These are written, “When [this object] enters the battlefield, . . . “ or “Whenever a [type] enters the battlefield, . . .” Each time an event puts one or more permanents onto the battlefield, all permanents on the battlefield (including the newcomers) are checked for any enters-the-battlefield triggers that match the event.

Permanents see themselves entering the battlefield and trigger all applicable abilities, so creatures entering as lands will trigger their own Landfall ability.

Yes, a permanent will trigger its own landfall ability if it enters the battlefield as a land.
Landfall is an ability word that on permanents indicates that a triggered ability has the condition

Whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control...

If the permanent is a land as it enters the battlefield, it meets the conditions for the ability, so the ability will trigger.


text:
Primaris Eliminator, Hyperfrag Round - What happens to new creatures?
If Player A plays Primaris Eliminator in their first main phase, and chooses Hyperfrag Round as the mode, targeting Player B, what happens if Player B creates new creatures later within Player A's turn?
A simply example of this happening would be with Flash, but in this case it was with Waste Not, and the question arose regarding whether the created 2/2s would die instantly because of Hyperfrag Round, or if they survived and were unaffected because they came in later.
I feel confident the answer is that they survive, but I'm open to being surprised. Could someone explain what happens and why?

Creatures that entered after Hyperfrag Round resolves will not be affected by it.
Hyperfrag Round is a continuous effect. It was created by an ability and affects creatures' characteristics, their power and toughness. That means the set of affected creatures is determined only once and does not change later.

611.2c If a continuous effect generated by the resolution of a spell or ability modifies the characteristics or changes the controller of any objects, the set of objects it affects is determined when that continuous effect begins. After that point, the set won’t change. (Note that this works differently than a continuous effect from a static ability.) [..]

Awesome, this is super useful. Thank you!


text:
Does Mizzix/Reiterate/Electrodominance infinite loop work?
In theory, you use the experience counters on Mizzix of the Izmagnus to pay for the Buyback cost of Reiterate to remove it from the graveyard, allowing you to recast Electrodominance.
But, all that does is put Reinterate in your hand.  It doesn’t cover the cost of the 2Red for the spell, right?  Or am I missing something?

There is a loop here, but not the one you describe. Buyback does not "remove [the card] from the graveyard", it is an additional cost you pay while casting a spell, to make it go back into your hand after it resolves. The other key here is that Electrodominance allows you to cast a spell for free, and that spell can be Reiterate. That's what pays for Reiterate's cost.
Here's how the loop works:

You start with Mizzix, at least 3 experience counters, and at least RRRR in mana.
You cast Electrodominance for X=3, paying RR.
If you have 4 or fewer experience counters, Mizzix's ability triggers, giving you another one
In response to Electrodominance, you cast Reiterate with buyback targeting Electrodominance, paying RR.
Reiterate resolves, and makes a copy of Electrodominance, and goes back into your hand because of buyback.
The copy of Electrodominance resolves, dealing 3 damage to its target, and you can cast a spell with mana value 3 or less without paying its mana cost. You choose to cast Reiterate, and you choose to pay for buyback. Buyback increases the cost by 3, and Mizzix reduces the cost by at least 3, so you don't have to pay any mana.
Reiterate resolves, and makes a copy of Electrodominance, and goes back into your hand because of buyback.

You can keep doing this as long as you want, dealing as much damage as you want to any number of targets.

You actually only need RRRR since Electrodominance with X=3 will give you another experience counter.

I've updated the answer to cover that

You could also mention that the worse-case scenario (0 XP counters) leads to only needing 7 mana more (3 electro, 3 first reiterate, 1 second reiterate), but that's kinda outside the question.

My goal here was to explain the basic case to illustrate how the combo works in general, rather than to explore every variation of the combo. The confusion in the question was not about the specific numbers needed to reach an infinite, but rather about the basic functionality of the buyback ability.

Reiterate going back to the hand is a deliberate part of the combo. That's what allows you to cast it using the effect of Electrodominance.

Definitely, the worst-case scenario is just reiterating (see what I did there) the basic answer, so not including it is fine.


text:
Can I use the Graft ability even if the creature giving the counter only has one?
So say I have Simic Initiate under my control and I cast Cytoplast Manipulator. The former’s Graft ability triggers and I choose to move its only counter onto the entering creature. Is that how that works? I’ve always thought that Simic Initiate would just die from it but my friend told me that, as it leaves the battlefield before the ability resolves, its no longer a legal graft.

Simic Initiate leaves the battlefield because it no longer has the counter, so it can't also be the case that it leaves the battlefield while it still has the counter.

Simic Initiate's ability would be rather close to useless if that were the rule. The counter moves as the ability resolves, not after.
We do have  704.122.5. which says

If an effect says to “move” a counter, it means to remove that counter from the object it's currently on and put it onto a second object.

This could be interpreted as saying that there's a moment in which the counters have been removed from Simic Initiate, but haven't been added to Cytoplast Manipulator yet. However, we have

608.2f Some spells and abilities include actions taken on multiple players and/or objects. In most cases, each such action is processed simultaneously.

So while 704.122.5.says that moving counters consists of two different actions. 608.2f says those actions are taken simultaneously.
We also have the question of why Simic Initiate would die. We have that one state based action is:

704.5f If a creature has toughness 0 or less, it’s put into its owner’s graveyard. Regeneration can’t replace this event.

And when are state based actions checked?

704.3. Whenever a player would get priority (see rule 117, “Timing and Priority”), the game checks for any of the listed conditions for state-based actions, then performs all applicable state-based actions simultaneously as a single event.

And when do players receive priority?

117.3b The active player receives priority after a spell or ability (other than a mana ability) resolves.

There's nothing that gives anyone priority while an effect is resolving, only after it resolves. Between the Simic Initiate losing its counter and Cytoplast Manipulator receiving it, no one receives priority, and no state based actions are checked.
On top of this, we have

112.7a Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. Destruction or removal of the source after that time wont affect the ability.

So even if Simic Initiate were to die from its counter being removed, the effect of giving a counter to Cytoplast Manipulator would still take place.

While I agree this is correct, it would be a stronger answer with rules references; at the moment, this is just "Bytogram's friend says X, Acccumulation says Y".

Your friend is incorrect. Dying to having 0 toughness is a state based action, and state based actions are checked when a player would receive priority before they do. This means that the graft ability would fully resolve before the initiate would die (this is true of all creatures dying to damage or 0 toughness, unlike dying to spells that specifically say destroy, the creature is still there until after the spell or ability fully resolves)
The relevant rules on state based actions for this are:

704.3 Whenever a player would get priority (see rule 117, “Timing and Priority”), the game checks for any of the listed conditions for state-based actions, then performs all applicable state-based actions simultaneously as a single event. If any state-based actions are performed as a result of a check, the check is repeated; otherwise all triggered abilities that are waiting to be put on the stack are put on the stack, then the check is repeated. Once no more state-based actions have been performed as the result of a check and no triggered abilities are waiting to be put on the stack, the appropriate player gets priority. This process also occurs during the cleanup step (see rule 514), except that if no state-based actions are performed as the result of the step’s first check and no triggered abilities are waiting to be put on the stack, then no player gets priority and the step ends.
704.5 The state-based actions are as follows:

704.5f If a creature has toughness 0 or less, it’s put into its owner’s graveyard. Regeneration can’t replace this event.


text:
In MTG, what does it mean for a card to be “transformed”?
I have this card I recently got called Aclazotz, Deepest Betrayal. I understand it for the most part, except for the last line:

When Aclazotz dies, return it to the battlefield tapped and transformed under its owner’s control.

My question is: what does it mean for Aclazotz to be “transformed”? I’m not sure what this means.
For context I have not played for a while, but got this card in a booster pack that I got for Christmas.

Transform is an action related to double-sided cards. In the case of Aclazotz, if you turn the card over you should see that instead of the usual Magic card back (complete with "Deckmaster" branding) there is a second card named "Temple of the Dead".
When Aclazotz dies, you flip the card over and place Temple of the Dead onto the battlefield, tapped. Temple also has an ability that lets you transform it back into Aclazotz, although not every transformable card does this.
Some notes regarding transforming cards:

You cannot directly cast or play the back side.

If you do not have card sleeves with opaque backs, then you may want to use a proxy for Aclazotz when it is in your deck and hand (since otherwise it will be somewhat obvious).

Except for when it is on the battlefield as Temple of the Dead, for most purposes the card is Aclazotz (e.g. when considering card type, mana value, etc).

In tournament settings read "may want" as "are required"

To transform a permanent, you flip it on its other side. It will continue the game as that other permanent.
Aclazotz, Deepest Betrayal and all other transforming cards are double-faced, which means they have another card face on their back rather than the traditional card back of most cards. In your case, the back side is called "Temple of the Dead".

701.28a To transform a permanent, turn it over so that its other face is up. Only transforming tokens and permanents represented by transforming double-faced cards can transform.

All transforming cards have a way of transforming, and some of them can transform back again.
For gameplay purposes, the current back side of a transforming permanent is non-existant. Only the currently visible side matters. In any other zone but the battlefield, the card has the characteristics of its front face, marked by the up-facing arrow in the top left of the card.


text:
Change from target all to target one
Can you change the target of a spell that would normally target all creatures to instead target one.
Eg; say my opponents have been mean and found some way to get an obnoxious amount of obnoxiously powered creatures- something like twenty-five (twenty/twenties). Would I be able to cast Burn Down the House, then something like redirect to change the target of all to my Mirrorwing Dragon - who's ability would then trigger and copy that spell (burn down the house) and cast each copy targeting each of my three other creatures in a 1:1 ratio- to do five damage four times to all creatures.
I know it's lengthy and a bit roundabout but thank you.

I don't see this as a duplicate; the question is "something like redirect", not asking about Redirect per se.

Hmm, the linked question, even before the update making it deal with Burn Down the House specifically, pretty clearly answers any question that can be answered by "no, because that doesn't target". But granted, the second reason this doesn't work, which is specific to Mirrorwing Dragon, is unrelated .

No, that does not work the way you want it to, for a few reasons.
First, "target" is a word with specific meaning in Magic, and in particular, Mirrorwing Dragon is referring to cards that actually say the word "target" in their text. Burn Down the House affects all creatures, but it does not "target all creatures", because it does not use the word "target" in the text of that effect.
Second, Mirrorwing Dragon triggers when a player casts a spell. If you initially cast a spell that does not only target Mirrorwing Dragon, and then change its target to Mirrorwing Dragon, that will not trigger Mirrorwing Dragon's ability anyway.
Third, there are actually existing mass damage spells that target a single creature, such as Chandra's Ignition, but this will actually create a different problem. If you cast Chandra's Ignition targeting Mirrorwing Dragon, it will create another copy of the spell targeting each other creature you control. Those copies and the original will resolve one at a time, and with all the damage being dealt, creatures can die before the copy targeting them resolves. If that happens, the spell will have no legal targets, and it will fail to resolve, and not deal any damage. It would be difficult to deal enough damage this way to kill your opponent's creatures without already having large creatures of your own.


text:
Can a creature with hexproof be targeted in a graveyard?
I am constructing a commander deck with Meren of Clan Nel Toth.   Can it target creature in graveyard that has hexproof or shroud to return to hand/battlefield? The specific card in my hand is one I want to put in from pure nostalgia from back when I played more frequently..  (Blastoderm)

When you have a question about a keyword ability, start by reading what the keyword ability does.

Hexproof and Shroud cause no problems for targeting creature cards in graveyards.
Hexproof and Shroud only have an effect on permanents on the battlefield. In other zones they do nothing. This is specified in these rules for Hexproof and Shroud:

702.11b “Hexproof” on a permanent means “This permanent can’t be the target of spells or abilities your opponents control.”
702.18a Shroud is a static ability. “Shroud” means “This permanent or player can’t be the target of spells or abilities.”

In addition, Hexproof wouldn't be a problem anyway because Meren only targets cards in your own graveyard, and Hexproof doesn't stop you from targeting things you control.

'Hexproof and Shroud only have an effect on permanents on the battlefield'

The important distinction being "permanent card" vs "permanent". Creatures and other permanents only exist on the battlefield. If any card text mentions "target creature" or "target permanent", you know with certainty they are talking about the battlefield, not any other zone.

Note that there are cards that give the equivalent shroud to cards in graveyards, such as Ground Seal or Silent Gravestone

I wouldn't say that those give an equivalent to shroud to cards in graveyards because they don't give abilities to cards in graveyards at all. They instead create a rule-modifying effect that changes targeting legality related to cards in graveyards.

As a general rule of thumb, a card text that makes sense while the card is on the battlefield, and doesn't explicitly mention working in any other zone, only works on the battlefield. Of course, when if in doubt, one should check. And when working with a keyword without reminder text, this rule of thumb is of less help.