text:
Do all multiplayer board games necessarily contain a kingmaking component?
It's well known that in a 2 player, zero-sum game, a mistake by an opponent can only help you. It's also well known that this is not necessarily true in a 3 player game, even a zero-sum one: a mistake by an opponent can also hurt you, helping only the other player.
Are there any 3 player games where this property holds regardless?
I'm thinking there might not be.

Firstly, if interaction doesn't exist, then trivially there is no kingmaking. However, such a game barely counts as a multiplayer game: it's multiplayer solitaire.
(And even then, multiplayer solitaire isn't immune to kingmaking! Say that you took your last round and scored 60 points, and opponent scored 50 points. The other opponent can either take a safe line that scores 55, or a risky line that scores 65 10% of the time and 45 90% of the time.)
Secondly if interaction does exist, and affects all opponents equally at all times, it's not very interesting. I'm not aware of any game where this property holds.
And then, if interaction exists that affects opponents unequally, you get kingmaking, although the severity of course depends on the game.

That said, I am not certain this argument is airtight.
Some counter-mechanisms:

Interaction which affects opponents equally, but not at all times, perhaps with unilateral mechanisms. Example: Alice buys a punishable asset. Bob and Carol have the punishing cards, and use them to score Alice -2, Bob +1, Carol +1. This looks like two players working together to gang up on the third, but if either Bob or Carol can unilaterally force the punish in this case, then Alice cannot credibly accuse either one of kingmaking.
Challenge mechanisms: Alice and Bob are in a tight battle for first. Carol is clearly getting third. Carol makes a move, which Alice believes unfairly affects them. Alice challenges Carol, claiming Carol is getting 3rd no matter what. Carol has a choice:

Concede the challenge, in which case Carol is eliminated and the kingmaking problem is averted.
Fight the challenge, in which case Alice and Carol play a subgame to determine if the claim is correct. The penalty to the loser of the subgame is severe (worth more than 1 loss, so to speak) to encourage Carol to concede valid challenges and deter Alice from making invalid challenges.

I can imagine these mechanisms might be able to create a game where you are never punished for another player's mistakes.
So which is true?

In any multiplayer (3+p), zero-sum game, with interaction (with effect dependent on the board state) necessarily comes with some degree of kingmaking, in the sense that you may be worse off due to an opponent's mistake.
Using mechanisms (such as the challenge mechanism above), games exist where the entire cost of any mistake can be shifted to the person responsible for it.

EDIT: I don't believe the answers so far have answered the question as is.  I'm asking about 3-player games where a "mistake" (defined as a move that lowers the EV of the player making it) can also "kingmake against" someone (defined as a mistake that also lowers the EV of someone not making that move.) Equivalently, I'm asking regarding zero-sum 3-player games, where the amount of EV players can guarantee for themselves sum to zero.
Under this definition, if the final score of the game were (1, 0, -1) based on final ranking alone, and someone were trying to move up the rankings, it would not count as a "mistake", and therefore not a "kingmaker move".

Is it kingmaking if the interaction is random? Imagine a hypothetical game where a player can take an action "you and a randomly selected opponent both lose the game".

I would say that it's not considered kingmaking if all opponents aren't worse off, EV-wise by taking the action. For example, it's the last round of the game, Alice is about to get first, Bob is about to get last, and then some joker takes your hypothetical action. I would say that Alice got kingmade against and Bob did not get kingmade against, and therefore kingmaking has occurred. I would say that regardless of who the randomly selected opponent actually was.

As another example of "random kingmaking", imagine the following scenario in a hypothetical poker variant. Alice has a set of Aces, and checks the flop. Then, all hole cards are turned face up. Bob has a flush draw and checks. Carol with 72o shoves, denying Bob's equity, Alice calls, Bob folds. I'd say that Bob was kingmade against. As the cards lie, the turn completes the flush, but the S/P ratio is good enough for Alice to call Bob's shove, and the river competes the boat. In this case, Carol's shove saved Bob money, but I would still say Bob was kingmade against.

There's a lot of current games that fight kingmaking by obscuring who is actually winning, which seems outside of your scope entirely.

@PhilipKendall "you and a randomly selected opponent both lose the game" - in my mind this is certainly kingmaking. You acted to help a player win. This is kingmaking. The fact that you did not know in advance who you are making the king IMO does not matter, you were sure you were making someone the king.

Somewhat relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UraJElx1ebg

It should be noted, just because you are looking for something doesn't mean it actually exists and if all the answers are saying one thing it is likely the truth.

One of the things I disliked about Coloretto is that it so often felt like I would be in a kingmaker situation on the last move of the game.

Your title question is "Do all multiplayer board games necessarily contain a kingmaking component?" while the body of your question asks "Are there any 3 player games where this property holds regardless?" where "this property" presumably refers to "a mistake by an opponent can only help you."
So, first of all, I think that these are rather different questions. To me, "kingmaking" means that one player has no realistic chance of winning the game, and their actions are decided based on personal feelings as to who should win, rather than in-game incentives. That's different from simply engaging in non-optimal play.
A further issue is just what a "mistake" is. I suppose one could say that there is some Nash equilibrium, and this is "correct" play, but it's not feasible for a supercomputer, let alone a human, to calculate the Nash equilibrium of even a moderately complicated game. And if it were, then games would be rather pointless, since everyone would just mechanically engage in "optimal" play each turn, and there would be no real judgment calls.
Playing according to the Nash equilibrium requires not only that you can calculate what it is, but you have to be confident that it's so obvious that everyone else will also play according to it (and you have to be confident that everyone else is confident that you know it, and confident that everyone else is confident that you are confident that they know it, etc.)
Part of the strategy of multi-player games is trying to guess what the other players will consider "optimal" strategy. Alice may feel that it's unfair that Carol is giving the win to Bob, but apparently Bob is better at guessing what Carol will do than Alice, so Bob is in that sense "better" at playing the game.
As for the question of whether there's any way to have this property that opponents' "mistakes" (however that's defined) will always help you, it is theoretically possible, but very limiting.
For the issue of avoiding king-making, there are a few strategies. One is to have the results of the game be more finely grained that "winning" and "losing". For instance, in a cash game of poker, players don't just "win" or "lose", they win or lose different amounts of money. So a player still has the incentive of losing as little money as possible. Another strategy is making it so that good play doesn't assure victory. Poker is again an example; the probability of winning a knock-out round of poker is roughly proportional to the size of your chip stack, so even someone way behind isn't completely out of it. A third strategy is to keep victory points secret, so even if someone has no chance of winning, they don't know that.
There is another issue that is similar to king-making, but not quite the same, and that is collusion. Collusion is when two or more players work together to increase their chances at the expense of the others. This is more of an ethics issue than a game design one, although different game designs can make collusion easier and/or more tempting. King-making because one of the players is your partner is bad sportsmanship, but doing it because you think one of the players played a better game is not.

A kingmaker situation (a situation where you can't win, but can decide who can) is distinct from a kingmaker move (one that causes a player other than yourself to win). These do not always occur together. Example, Alice, Bob, and Carol are playing a Eurogame, and the game is close. Bob plays "You lose 30 VPs. An opponent of your choices loses 20 VPs." This is a kingmaker move, but there is no kingmaker situation before (since the game is even) or after (since the king is already made) the move. Also, this is an counterexample to your claim that you need to know the NE to determine a mistake.

@HanGuo That is how games work, that is not a kingmaker move. Those cards would not be in the game in the first place if they are not intended to be played like that.

@HanGuo That type of action is not inherently a kingmaker.  It depends on how the player uses it, and when.  Also, that example does not represent a zero-sum game, as there is no player(s) gaining a sum of 50 points.

Before I give the answer I will start with a frame challenge, just because a player feels that they are getting ganged up on and kingmaking is happening that isn't always the case. Players are free to make moves that might not be the best choice but they feel could prevent them from coming in last and/or help them move up the rankings that hurt and help others.
Yes, any multiplayer game will contain elements that allow for kingmaking in
them by the very nature of interaction between players. Lets take a look at your examples as to how they can still be used.
Random mechanics: A player chooses to not use something that will randomly punish other players if they feel it would impact the person they are trying to help win more then others. This is the same if it will impact all players equally.
Challenge mechanics: How do you tell the difference between being a kingmaker and trying to take down 2nd place so you can move from 3rd place to 2nd place?
As long as players are interacting and able to make choices they will be able to pick some to help and others to hurt.

Most multiplayer games contain tiny kingmaking component that isn't a problem in most plays.

In most board games that people play for fun the issue of kingmaking do not rise. Indeed, someone could make a mistake that benefit another player, but if all players play in good sportsmanship then its a non-issue.
If you are looking for some mathematical theorem, then... I have no idea.
Some games have big kingmaking component, mostly in multiplayers wars, to name a few: Risk, Diplomacy and A Game of Thrones.

**
There is inherently potential for kingmaking, but it can be mitigated and doesn't have to be utilized. The mechanism you described is unlikely to exist in a game as stated.
**

So which is true?
1.) In any multiplayer (3+p), zero-sum game, with interaction (with effect dependent on the board state) necessarily comes with some degree of kingmaking, in the sense that you may be worse off due to an opponent's mistake.
2.) Using mechanisms (such as the challenge mechanism above), games exist where the entire cost of any mistake can be shifted to the person responsible for it.

Perhaps part of the confusion is how you are using established game theory terms, and substituting your own definitions for them.  To clarify, in a zero-sum game, one player's gain is equivalent to the associated loss of all opponents.  Kingmaking is where a player who is unable to win has the capacity to determine which player among others will win, and they intentionally make decisions which favor a specific player.  You are defining kingmaking as an action which lowers the scores of the action taker and an opponent.
You want to know if there can be a game where it is impossible for someone to lower their score and the score of an opponent.  Well, the simple answer is to not allow players to take actions which lower their own score.  If the game does not have a method for the active player to lower their score, then according to your definitions of mistake and kingmaking, they cannot make a "mistake" to "kingmake" a player.
Let's consider the case where the actie player makes a decision which does not change their own score.  This is now outside your definition of "mistake", so I don't know if you will be interested.  Since this is a zero-sum game, some player(s) will lose points while the other player(s) gain points.  This is inherently open to kingmaking if players have perfect information.  It does not guarantee that kingmaking will happen, but it does allow for players to do so if they chose.  However, this can be mitigated with mechanisms such as:

Hidden information regarding player points.
Addition of a non-scoring resource and a high cost for performing this type of action (skip a turn, pay $500, opponent who lost points gains some benefit).
Adding an element of randomness (random or target opponent gains or loses points).
Ability of players to counter undesirable actions to prevent being attacked.

Hopefully this satisfies your first question.  Zero-sum games with interaction will have inherent potential for kingmaking, but the introduction of mechanisms and rules can mitigate/prevent kingmaking.  Also, picking your playgroup can prevent kingmaking.
As for your second question, there are games where players can challenge an action and the loser of the challenge will be penalized.  This is common in word games, and is typically a challenge about the accepted spelling or existence of a word.  The loser of the challenge (be it the active player or the challenger) will normally lose points equivalent to the value they would have gained for the word.  However, I have not heard of a mechanism such as the one you have described, nor do I believe it would be a good design choice:

Alice and Bob are in a tight battle for first. Carol is clearly getting third. Carol makes a move, which Alice believes unfairly affects them. Alice challenges Carol, claiming Carol is getting 3rd no matter what. Carol has a choice:

This design allows players to contest actions that they don't like on the grounds that they would be negatively affected by them.  Playing a subgame would not determine whether or not the action was made with the intent of kingmaking, and does not resolve the issue.  Depending on the likelihood of Alice to win over Carol, or the difference between suffering Carol's action or the subgame penalty, Alice may start contesting every action that Carol takes, regardless of Bob's standing.


text:
Why does Spy Kit + Eradicate work?
To set the stage:
I play Spy Kit and equip it to my opponent's creature, for example with Magnetic Theft. I then play Eradicate.
Judge rulings generally seem to agree that this does, in fact, remove from the game all non-legendary creature cards from my opponent's library, hand and graveyard, but why?
Eradicate's text states "Remove target non-black creature from the game. Search its controller's graveyard, hand, and library for all cards with the same name as that creature and remove them from the game. [...]". To me, this would mean that by the time the "For all cards with the same name" effect should resolve, the creature with Spy Kit equipped already is removed from the game, and thus can't be still equipped, and does not still have all non-legendary creature names.
What am I missing?

Related: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/61015/can-lost-isle-callings-activated-ability-be-copied-effectively

This works because the game uses the creature's "last known information" to determine what the creature's name is:

608.2h If an effect requires information from the game (such as the number of creatures on the battlefield), the answer is determined only once, when the effect is applied. If the effect requires information from a specific object, including the source of the ability itself, the effect uses the current information of that object if it’s in the public zone it was expected to be in; if it’s no longer in that zone, or if the effect has moved it from a public zone to a hidden zone, the effect uses the object’s last known information.

So the Eradicate requires the information about the creature's name, and that creature is no longer in the public zone that it was expected to be in (the battlefield).

Is my understanding correct that if Eradicate's text would read "remove [...], Then search [...]", it wouldn't work the same, as the "then" keyword would sort of start a new effect?

@Themoonisacheese I can't find a good answer to that. This question/answer says it's irrelevant how many separate effects a spell has. I can't find anything that clarifies whether Eradicate has 1, 2, 3, or 4 effects (by the rules definition of "effect", it kind of seems like each of the 4 separate things that happen could be each separate effects. If it is all 1 effect, I think I should have bolded the fist sentence, not the last.

I think if it's all 1 effect, then the first sentence makes it work ("the answer is determined only once, when the effect is applied"). If it's separate effects, then 400.7 makes it work (the object that's in exile is not the same object that was on the battlefield. And none of the exceptions actually would allow a second effect to find the card in exile that was moved by the first effect. One exception says "other parts of that effect can find the object", so that exception would require it to be all 1 effect.

So I believe the resulting behavior is the same either way, so adding "then" wouldn't change anything. But the actual reason that it works may be slightly different if the current wording is considered a single effect.

Very informative, thank you!

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can I choose 0 targets for Terror of the Peaks?
My Terror of the Peaks triggers when my creatures entered the battlefield. My opponent responds to the trigger with Teferi's Protection and phases out along with his board. Can I submit 0 targets or, must I choose one of own creatures/myself?

If they cast Teferi's Protection in response to the triggered ability, then you have already chosen the target of that ability. Teferi's Protection can make the chosen target invalid, and the result is that the ability deals no damage.
However, if they instead cast Teferi's Protection in response to the creature spell, then Terror of the Peaks' ability will not trigger until after they have phased their permanents out and gained protection from everything. In that case, by the time you choose targets for the triggered ability, the only valid targets are you and your permanents, and you must choose one of them.

Is it somehow obvious that "Your life can not change" means you can't be targeted by damage effects as opposed to meaning, any damage you are dealt is nullified? Ahh it's the protection from everything that means they can't be targeted huh?

Yes, "protection from [something]" means "prevent all damage that would be dealt by [something], and can't be equipped, enchanted, fortified, blocked, or targeted by [something]" I specifically mentioned protection and phasing because those are the two parts of Teferi's Protection that affect what legal targets are available.

Murgatroid99 has nicely explained how protection works, but let's dig further into why Terror of the Peaks must target one of your own creatures (or yourself), and how the wording differs from other similar effects (I'll emphasize the key parts):

Whenever another creature enters the battlefield under your control, Terror of the Peaks deals damage equal to that creature's power to any target.

When this effect triggers, you must choose a valid target and you must deal the damage; nothing in there that makes the effect optional.
Some cards make an effect optional by including the word "may". See Cosi's Ravager, for example:

Landfall - Whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control, you may have Cosi's Ravager deal 1 damage to target player.

If your opponent can't be targeted (due to Teferi's Protection or a similar effect), then while you still have to select a valid target (yourself in a 2-player game), the "may" means that you don't have to actually deal the 1 damage to yourself.
Some other cards have similar effects but specify that the target must be a creature controlled by an opponent, like Banisher Priest:

When Banisher Priest enters the battlefield, exile target creature an opponent controls until Banisher Priest leaves the battlefield.

So if your opponent doesn't have any creatures, or if they all have protection, you don't have to exile your own creature (in fact, you can't exile your own creature, even if you wanted to), since its not a valid target.
Compare this again to Flametongue Kavu:

When Flametongue Kavu enters the battlefield, it deals 4 damage to target creature.

Do not play this card when your opponent has no creatures, because you will still have to choose a valid target (one of your own creatures), or even itself if it's the only target. The good news is that killing your own Kavu with its own ETB is a great way to learn this lesson :).
Finally, some cards use the phrase "up to one" to indicate you can choose zero targets or one target for its effect. For example, Brightmare:

When Brightmare enters the battlefield, tap up to one target creature. You gain life equal to that creature's power.

If your opponent controls no creatures, you don't have to target your own (although you can, if you'd like to gain the life).

I suppose a final case of a similar effect is Bogardan Hellkite, which should be safe to play even when your opponent has no creatures and can't be targeted; if you choose "any number" of targets, then you can choose zero targets.

@MishaLavrov: I don't think that's the case for Bogardan Hellkite - "any number" usually includes 0 in MtG, but you also have to declare how you're dividing 5 damage among the targets as you put the ability on the stack, and you have to choose targets in a way that lets you divide 5 damage among them.

Bogardan Hellkite is a tricky one; I asked the mtg rules chat and they said yes, you can choose zero targets. Compare to the ruling on Stumpsquall Hydra, which says "you can still distribute the counters among any number of commanders, including none of them."

"When this effect triggers, you must choose a valid target and you must deal the damage" This is slightly misleading. Damage is dealt when the triggers resolves, not when the effect triggers.

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


text:
Does Edgar Markov's Eminence ability trigger with Maskwood Nexus?
I was playing with an Edgar Markov deck and a question came up: would using Maskwood Nexus' tap ability:

3, {T}: Create a 2/2 blue Shapeshifter creature token with changeling (It is every creature type)

trigger Edgar's Eminence ability:

Whenever you cast another Vampire spell, if Edgar Markov is in the command zone or on the battlefield, create a 1/1 black Vampire creature token.

No, because you have not cast a spell. Activating an ability to create a token is a different game action.

If it said "Whenever a Vampire enters the battlefield", however, then it would trigger.

True. But it doesn't - if nothing else because doing so would create an infinite loop as each token triggers another one.

To be super clear, "casting a spell" means playing a spell card from your hand by paying its mana cost.

@JamesFaix that is one, but not the only, way to cast a spell - e.g. casting your commander from the command zone is still casting a spell, even though the card does not start in your hand. Many other ways exists as well (flashback, etc).

@JamesFaix Nope, ‘casting a spell’ means doing something that the rules define as casting a spell (that is seriously the only sane way to describe it). Mostly covered by rule 601, but also by a huge number of other rules (off the top of my head, 702.34, 702.62, 702.81, 702.86, 702.88, and 903.8, but I’m sure there are others), as well as some cards that just let you cast things from other places under special circumstances (for example, Panglacial Wurm, or the various cards with Hideaway).

Ok that's fair. I think my comment is a good first approximation for someone who is unsure of the difference between casting a spell vs a token entering the battlefield. A lot of the edge cases like flashback or madness also mention casting in their reminder text.

Rule 601 applies to every possible way of casting a spell. You could fully define "casting a spell" as "taking the actions described in rule 601". There are a variety of rules and abilities that grant specific permissions to cast spells, with the primary ones being the first rule in each subsection in the 300 section, and other uncommon permissions granted by the other cited rules.


text:
Can units retreat over the sea?
While playing Game of Thrones, the Lannisters attacked the Greyjoys at Riverrun.
The Greyjoys were defeated and attempted to retreat over Ironman's Bay via ship. Is this allowed, or must retreats be made over land?

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer.

A genuine question to the close voters: what is unclear about this question? I'm not a GoT expert, but this (once the objectionable formatting was cleaned up) looks to me at first glance to be a reasonable, well scoped quesion.

Yes, the official rules allow it:

A player is allowed to use ship transport to retreat his
units.


text:
Anowon, the Ruin Thief and Dauthi Voidwalker interaction
If I have Anowon, the Ruin Thief and Dauthi Voidwalker both on my battlefield and I deal combat damage to an opponent with a Rogue, Anowon will trigger and my opponent mills X cards. However, due to Dauthi Voidwalker, my opponent will put the cards into exile instead.
Do I draw a card if an opponent mills/exiles a creature card this way, due to the Anowon trigger?
Relevant text from cards:
Anowon:

Whenever one or more Rogues you control deal combat damage to a player, that player mills a card for each 1 damage dealt to them. If the player mills at least one creature card this way, you draw a card.

Dauthi:

If a card would be put into an opponent's graveyard from anywhere, instead exile it with a void counter on it.

Possibly relevant rule:

701.13c An effect that refers to a milled card can find that card in the zone it moved to from the library, as long as that zone is a public zone.

So I think that I will draw a card from Anowon. Is this correct?

You are correct, 701.13c makes this work.
While the rules unfortunately don’t seem to specifically define what “a milled card” actually is, 701.13c refers to milled cards as including cards that did not go to the graveyard, so the definition cannot be “a card that was moved from the top of the library to the graveyard per a mill effect”. It must mean effectively “a card that was moved from the top of a library as per a mill instruction”.
I found a similar question about 2 different cards hinging on the same interaction, with the same answer given: https://www.reddit.com/r/mtg/s/pGnFgvfwdY

We can compare it to other keywords that involve doing something, and what happens when that something is replaced with something else. For instance, "Sacrifice" means to move something into its owner's graveyard. If your opponent has a Leyline of the Void out, and you try to use [mtg: Angelic Renewal]'s ability to save another creature, does it work?


text:
Can you tap a card whenever you want?
If I have a colorless 1/1 untapped creature that has no abilities, can I just tap this card whenever I want? Or let's say I have a artifact/enchantment/planeswalker with no abilities. Can I just tap it?

If you have something to add to your question, just edit it into the actual question text. There is no reason to repeat information in a comment.

Are you looking for a quick off-the-cuff answer, or a deep rules-lawyering answer?

nope
2 relevant rules:

110.5c A permanent retains its status until a spell, ability, or turn-based action changes it, even if that status is not relevant to it.

and

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 retains its status until something changes it, and tappedness is part of that.
a sort-of meta-guessing "here's how I would design a game" answer, while we're at it: There's no way they would have printed Gilder Bairn or Immovable Rod without closing that loophole.

The entire idea of untapping as a cost (rather than an effect) is questionable if you could just tap a card whenever you want. There is a functional difference in that an effect goes on the stack and a cost doesn't, but it's still questionable.


text:
How does Lavinia, Azorius Renegade interact with K'rrik, Son of Yawgmoth?
So my question is how would Lavinia, Azorius Renegade interact with K'rrik, Son of Yawgmoth if someone used K'rrik's abilities to just pay the life to cast a spell instead of paying mana? e.g. casting Dauthi Voidwalker while Lavinia is out.

If only life was paid to cast a spell, Lavinia will counter it.
Magic is a literal game. What is written on the card is exactly what the card does. If you cast a spell whose mana cost contains only {B} using K'rrik's ability ("For each {B} in a cost, you may pay 2 life rather than pay that mana"), and choose to pay life rather than mana for every one of those {B} symbols, then you didn't spend any mana to cast it. That means Lavinia will trigger and counter the spell.
That said, K'rrik's ability applies to each {B} symbol individually. So in your example of casting Dauthi Voidwalker, if you have even one black mana to spare, you can pay {B} and 2 life and Lavinia won't notice.


text:
How does Repercussion interact with Solphim, Mayhem Dominus?
With Repercussion and Solphim, Mayhem Dominus, if I deal 3 damage to a creature with Lightning Bolt and Dominus doubles that, does it get doubled again when Repercussion deals 6 damage to the creature's controller?

Related - https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/37985/does-deflecting-palm-cause-furnace-of-rath-to-activate-twice same question different examples.

Correct, Repercussion would deal 12 damage to the creature's controller.
Solphim applies a replacement effect to noncombat damage. Replacement effects can apply only once to any given event, so Ligthning Bolt will deal 6 damage to the target creature, causing Repercussion to deal 6 to its controller.

614.5. A replacement effect doesn’t invoke itself repeatedly; it gets only one opportunity to affect an event or any modified events that may replace that event.

However, the damage from Repercussion is its own event which Solphim can replace again, for a total of 6 damage to the targeted creature from Lightning Bolt and 12 damage to the creature's controller from Repercussion.

This is correct but could be worded better. There are people who will stop reading after the first paragraph, figuring they have gotten their answer and the rest explains it and saying "causing Repercussion to deal 6 to its controller." could be misleading.

@Andrew I would suggest that's only a real problem for people who not only stop reading after the first paragraph, but also skip the first, bolded line. I'd wager to say those are very few people indeed.


text:
Can my creature spell be countered if I cast a split second spell after it?
Scenario:

I put 9 black mana into my mana pool
I cast Massacre Wurm
I cast Sudden Spoiling
I pass priority to my opponent

Sudden Spoiling has Split Second, which means that says players cannot cast spells or activate non-mana abilities while it is on the stack:

Split second (As long as this spell is on the stack, players can't cast spells or activate abilities that aren't mana abilities.)

After Sudden Spoiling resolves, will players be able to interact with Massacre Wurm on the stack?

Yes, the opponent can interact with the Massacre Wurm spell after Sudden Spoiling resolves.
There is a round of priority (when players have the opportunity to take actions) both each time a player casts a spell or activates an ability, and also each time a single spell or ability resolves. The Split Second ability only prevents players from casting spells and activating non-mana abilities while the spell is on the stack. Once Sudden Spoiling resolves, it is no longer on the stack, so players can once again do those things.

Side note - the opponent can interact with massacre wurm even while a split second spell is on the stack, provided they don't cast any spells or activate any abilities to do so.  I'm not entirely sure how to engineer that yet

Voidmage Apprentice can do it.

I know nothing of MTG, so forgive me if this is a silly question, but does the opponent theoretically have the ability to counter-spell Massacre Wurm before OP cast Sudden Spoiling? What if OP puts down both cards at the same time, can the opponent "interject" their counter-spell "before" the Sudden Spoiling?

No. After casting a spell, the same player gets priority again, so they have the first opportunity to cast another spell.

So, to my mind, this implies that the real strategy is to wait for Massacre Wurm to resolve, and then cast Sudden Spoiling, after your opponent has already decided not to counterspell the Wurm.

The whole question here was about whether you could stop the opponent from countering the Wurm.

If you can somehow cast Massacre Wurm at instant speed, then you can prevent countering by casting Sudden Spoiling first, then Massacre Wurm, but that's going to be quite a bit harder to setup.

You can't cast Massacre Wurm if Sudden Spoiling is on the stack.


text:
Does Crossway Troublemakers have to be on the battlefield during the beginning of combat to affect other vampires?
My commander is Strefan, Maurer Progenitor. If I use his ability to bring Crossway Troublemakers onto the battlefield, would any declared attacking vampires I control still get the keywords? Would Crossway Vampires get the keywords, even if I didn't declare them as attackers?

All attacking vampires, including Crossway Vampires, will get the keywords
Crossway Troublemakers has a static ability that applies at all times it is in play, but only to creatures that are, at that moment, attacking vampires you control.  Crossway Vampires is, from the moment it enters the battlefield in your scenario, "tapped and attacking", and therefore qualifies.
Now, if it was worded similar to Strefan's ability, as in:

Whenever a vampire you control attacks, it gains deathtouch and lifelink until end of turn

then it would not apply to either Strefan or Crossway Vampires this turn, as that is a triggered ability that triggers when attackers are declared, and Crossway Vampires was not on the battlefield during the declaration of attackers, and thus does not "see" the declaration in order to trigger.

No, Crossway Troublemakers don't need to be on the battlefield when attackers are declared for its ability to grant keywords to attacking vampires.
The ability on Crossway Troublemakers is a static effect that will affect all your attacking vampires as long as Crossway Troublemakers ins on the battlefield. If the Troublemakers are removed the attackers will lose deathtouch and lifelink.
If it had been a triggered ability that needed Troublemakers on the battlefield before declaring attackers it would have had to have been written as:

Whenever one or more vampire creatures you control attack, they gain deathtouch and lifelink until end of combat.

or

Whenever a vampire creature you control attacks, it gains deathtouch and lifelink until end of combat.

The difference between to two doesn't matter most of the time, one is a single trigger and the other is a trigger per creature, mostly this only matters for how easy the trigger is to counter. Worded this way Troublemakers needs to be on the battlefield when attackers are declared, and only vampire creatures declared will gain the keywords (IE not put into the battlefield tapped and attacking by Strefan). The abilities granted this way would also have survived removing the Troublemakers.


text:
Can Turret Weapons be used to fire Overwatch if already engaged?
In Warhammer 40,000 9th Edition with the latest (2022) Astra Militarum codex, can a Turret Weapon be used to fire Overwatch if it is already engaged with an enemy unit?
Excerpt from the Overwatch rule:

A unit cannot fire Overwatch if there are any enemy units within Engagement Range of it.

Excerpt from the Turret Weapon rule:

If that model is within Engagement Range of any enemy units, it can still target and resolve attacks against enemy units that are not within Engagement Range of it with weapons with this ability.


text:
How does Yedora interact with face-down non-creature creatures?
Suppose that I have Yedora, Grave Gardener on board, as well as a face-down non-creature card which is, in its face-down state, some kind of creature (e.g. a manifest, morph, or mysterious creature).  That is, suppose that I have somehow managed to put a sorcery or land face-down as a creature (e.g. by manifesting dread).  When this non-creature creature dies, how does it interact with Yedora's ability?

Whenever another nontoken creature you control dies, you may return it to the battlefield face down under its owner’s control. It’s a Forest land.

Yedora's ability triggers and the card returns to the battlefield face down as a Forest land.
Yedora's ability only looks at what characteristics the card had on the battlefield when determining whether to trigger. The card was a creature permanent on the battlefield, so the ability triggers. This is mainly a consequence of rules 603.10 and 603.10a and rule 603.6c (with some clarification from rule 700.4):

603.10. Normally, objects that exist immediately after an event are checked to see if the event matched any trigger conditions, and continuous effects that exist at that time are used to determine what the trigger conditions are and what the objects involved in the event look like. However, some triggered abilities are exceptions to this rule; the game "looks back in time" to determine if those abilities trigger, using the existence of those abilities and the appearance of objects immediately prior to the event. The list of exceptions is as follows:

603.10a. Some zone-change triggers look back in time. These are leaves-the-battlefield abilities, abilities that trigger when a card leaves a graveyard, and abilities that trigger when an object that all players can see is put into a hand or library.

603.6c. Leaves-the-battlefield abilities trigger when a permanent moves from the battlefield to another zone, or when a phased-in permanent leaves the game because its owner leaves the game. These are written as, but aren't limited to, "When [this object] leaves the battlefield, . . ." or "Whenever [something] is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, . . . ." (See also rule 603.10.) An ability that attempts to do something to the card that left the battlefield checks for it only in the first zone that it went to. An ability that triggers when a card is put into a certain zone "from anywhere" is never treated as a leaves-the-battlefield ability, even if an object is put into that zone from the battlefield.
700.4. The term dies means "is put into a graveyard from the battlefield."


text:
Do on death triggers still function if they have been removed by an aura?
I have a Wurmcoil Engine. My opponent casts Reprobation on it, making it a 0/1 Coward without any abilities.
If the Wurmcoil Engine dies, do I get the tokens it would generate? The specific text on the card says “put into the graveyard from the battlefield” - so does it enter the graveyard as a Wurmcoil Engine or as a Coward due to the Reprobation?

Note that Wurmcoil Engine does not use the phrasing "put into the graveyard from the battlefield" any more; the Oracle text is "When Wurmcoil Engine dies" and the Oracle text is all that matters.

In this case, the different Oracle text doesn't make a difference in the outcome. The rules define "dies" to mean "is put into a graveyard from the battlefield" (700.4).


text:
Can two VP cards be played at once in Catan?
Weve just started playing this as a group and have a question on victory point cards.
One person was on 8 points but had two cards that state:

1 Victory Point.
Reveal this card on your turn if, with it, you reach the number of points required for victory

Can the two cards be played together? I feel "no" as going from 8 points to 9 points isn't victory, only from 9 points to 10 points.

In the Catan Rules on page 5 it says:

So following these rules, not only can you play multiple Victory Point Cards, you MUST play them together in order to achieve 10 victory points.
All other type of Development Cards you can only play once per turn.

You don't have to. It says "you may reveal", which leaves open the option of not using them for winning. The opposite would be really hard to monitor or enforce anyway.

@ilkkachu I meant that you can not play one in one turn and then the next turn the other one. If you play multiple VP cards you have to use them together.

yes, you don't play them one by one. But you also don't HAVE to play them the moment you will get 10 points. You can just choose not to play them (or just miscount, or forget or so).

uh in english "may only"  means that you cannot do it at any other point.

@paul23: The rules give an option to reveal them after another player victory. So, if you play them, you may only play them to win the game. And if you haven't played them when another player reaches 10 VP, you can still reveal them and have them counted.

VP cards are not "played" in the same sense as other development cards; you have those points the moment you buy the card. Note how the rules refer to revealing them to show that you have 10 points (not playing them to earn points). So not revealing the cards wouldn't change anything; you've already won once you have 10 points. You'd just be hiding the fact that you've won for no reason. See more details here.


text:
How does The Mimeoplasm and Reflections of Littjara interact
If I have The Mimeoplasm exile a horror for the copy ability and Reflections of Littjara has chosen horrors, do I get a copy of Mimeoplasm (choosing 2 new creatures), the copied creature (without the counters), or does it not trigger at all?
Also if I choose ooze for Reflections of Littjara then do I get a copy of Mimeoplasm?

Hi Businessgoose, you may want to take the [tour].

Since Reflections of Littjara has a cast trigger, it will look at the Ooze type on The Mimeoplasm for determining a copy.
If you had chosen Ooze, you will then have two instances of The Mimeoplasm on the stack, and as each resolves separately and enters the battlefield, you would then exile 2 creatures and do the copying and adding counters for each instance.

It might be worth pointing out that in the "ooze" case, as Mimeoplasm is legendary you have to choose one of the copies to stay on the battlefield as a state based action.

@John Since it enters as a copy of the exiled creatures, unless you pick the same legendary creature from graveyards, it won't matter.

grumble dang it.  So many layers of complexity.  Thanks.  Wonder why Mimeoplasm is legendary then?  Seems like the legendary aspect of it would never matter except for Commander....  Ah, he came out in a commander set.  All is explained...

@JonTheMon you would need multiple copies of the same legendary creature in graveyards, since the token copy of the spell would resolve first, exile the ones chosen by it, then the creature wouldn't be in grave to be chosen by the second spell (they aren't targets and aren't chosen on cast)

@Andrew Correct, i should have probably said "creatures", but in the context of commander you'd have to pick from multiple graveyards as well.

@John not just in a commander set, he came out as the commander of the Devour for Power commander preconstructed deck.

In "As The Mimeoplasm enters the battlefield", "The Mimeoplasm" refers to the permanent created by the spell. A spell is an object on the stack. If something "enters the battlefield", it's not on the stack, it's on the battlefield. So the permanent enters the battlefield as a Horror, but the spell was never a Horror.
If you had chosen "Ooze", then when you cast The Mimeoplasm, you would be casting a spell of the type Ooze, so you would get a copy of that spell.

Reflections of Littjara's ability is

Whenever you cast a spell of the chosen type, copy that spell.

Activating The Mimeoplasm's ability is not casting a spell, so nothing happens.

The Mimeoplasm's ability is not an activated ability, it is a replacement effect. And you don't address the last part of the question.

This is incorrect. First, the mimeoplasm has no activated abilities, second the ability it has is a replacement effect on ETB (614, 616.1c), which would be part of the spell resolving,. This question is about how that ETB replacement effect (which changes the creature's type) interacts with Reflections.


text:
Why do Aura-Creatures Immediately Die?
I found the below ruling for Encroaching Mycosynth:

Encroaching Mycosynth's ability causes Auras to become artifacts. This makes it more likely that another effect (such as that of March of the Machines) will make those artifact Auras into creatures. An Aura that's also a creature can't enchant anything. It's unattached the next time state-based actions are checked, and then immediately put into its owner's graveyard as a second state-based action

Why is it put into its owner's graveyard? If it were because it's a creature with zero toughness I would understand that, but March of the Machines would give it power/toughness equal to its Mana Value.

murgatroid99 has the proper rules citation, but from a philosophical perspective, "auras" are an enchantment subtype that, by their nature, must be attached to something (they pre-date equipment, which can happily exist whether attached or not). So if you wanted an aura enchantment to remain on the battlefield without being attached to anything, you'd have to figure out how to remove the aura subtype. I'm not aware of anything that could do that (without removing the enchantment type entirely).

FYI the Legends card "Takklemaggot" is the only card I could find that can make an aura become a non-aura enchantment (and it can only do it to itself), although the keyword "aura" did not exist at the time. This is one of those confusing early cards, but the oracle wording is at least slightly more understandable.

A bestowed aura will also work differently here. As soon as it becomes unattached, it stops being bestowed, which means that it stops being an aura.

This is a consequence of rules 704.5m and p:

704.5m If an Aura is attached to an illegal object or player, or is not attached to an object or player, that Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard.
704.5p If a battle or creature is attached to an object or player, it becomes unattached and remains on the battlefield. Similarly, if any nonbattle, noncreature permanent that’s neither an Aura, an Equipment, nor a Fortification is attached to an object or player, it becomes unattached and remains on the battlefield.

A creature can't be attached to anything, so it falls off, and an aura dies if it is not attached to anything.


text:
Do I get to order the outcome of a voting card on the stack in the way I want?
If I play Cirdan the Shipwright its ETB triggers and everybody votes. If I receive no votes and have Consecrated Sphinx in hand, do I get to order the results of the vote in such a way, that I may put it into play first and get to draw a bunch of cards of it?

You can't order the actions required by Cirdan's ability, but you don't have to, the combo will work anyway. If you received no votes and put the Sphinx on the battlefield, it will trigger off any Cirdan card draws by your opponents.
The votes are taken in APNAP order, i.e. clockwise around the table starting with the active player. The resulting actions (drawing a card or putting a permanent on the battlefield in your case) then happen at the same time:

101.4. If multiple players would make choices and/or take actions at the same time, the active player (the player whose turn it is) makes any choices required, then the next player in turn order (usually the player seated to the active player’s left) makes any choices required, followed by the remaining nonactive players in turn order. Then the actions happen simultaneously. This rule is often referred to as the “Active Player, Nonactive Player (APNAP) order” rule.
Example: A card reads “Each player sacrifices a creature.” First, the active player chooses a creature they control. Then each of the nonactive players, in turn order, chooses a creature they control. Then all creatures chosen this way are sacrificed simultaneously.

So when your opponents draw their Cirdan card, the Sphinx is already on the battlefield. It will see each of those card draws and trigger for all of them.

The first ruling on Cirdan says that all the draws happen before anyone puts a permanent on the battlefield.

This is incorrect. Because they are separate sentences on Cirdan, all drawing all happens first and then a permanent is put into play by anyone who did not get a vote (and draw a card) Phillip's answer is correct, the combo does not work.

No, you cannot make this happen; this is due to the way the card is worded:

Whenever Círdan the Shipwright enters the battlefield or attacks, each player secretly votes for a player, then those votes are revealed.
Each player draws a card for each vote they received.
Each player who received no votes may put a permanent card from their hand onto the battlefield.

I've reformatted the text slightly to make it clear what happens:

Everybody votes (in APNAP order, not that it matters here as the votes are secret)
Draws happen for each player (in APNAP order)
Permanents go onto the battlefield (in APNAP order)

For what you want to happen, it would need to be worded something like "Each player draws a card for each vote received, or if they received no votes, may put a permanent card onto the battlefield from their hand".
Note this is covered in the first ruling on Gatherer:

After the votes are revealed, first the player whose turn it is draws a card for each vote they received, then each other player in turn order does so. Then, if the first player received no votes, they may put a permanent card from their hand onto the battlefield. Then each other player in turn order does the same.


text:
How do Queza, Augur of Agonies and Thought Reflection interact?
If I have Queza, Augur of Agonies and Thought Reflection on the battlefield, and draw a card would Queza's effect interrupt the second draw of Thought Reflection?
Does anything change if I also have Drogskol Reaver on the battlefield?

Card draws always happen one at a time:

121.2. Cards may only be drawn one at a time. If a player is instructed to draw multiple cards, that player performs that many individual card draws.

With Thought Reflection all "draw a card" instructions are effectively replaced with "Draw a card. Draw a card". After you draw your 2 cards, Queza, Augur of Agonies will have 2 triggers waiting to go on the stack. They will both go on the stack, and resolve 1 at a time. When the first one resolves, that will trigger Drogskol Reaver because you drew a card, so its trigger will go on the stack. This will continue indefinitely (until you either run out of cards to draw, or your opponent runs out of life, ending the game).
It works the same as if you didn't have Thought Reflection, except that there is an extra Queza trigger added to the stack each time, one which can never resolve due to the infinite loop always adding more triggers on top of it.

No, Queza's ability does not interrupt drawing two cards as instructed by Thought Reflection.
Thought Reflection's ability is a replacement effect. It modifies any instruction to draw a card with an instruction to draw two cards. Both card draws happen within the same spell, ability, or turn-based action as the original instruction to draw a card. Queza's ability is a triggered ability. It will only go on the stack after the original spell, ability, or turn-based action completes.
For a concrete example, consider resolving the spell Council's Deliberation, which instructs you to draw a card. The exact sequence of operations is as follows:

You start resolving Council's Deliberation. It instructs you to draw a card.
Thought Reflection replaces that with an instruction to draw two cards.
You draw the first card.
Queza's ability triggers.
You draw the second card.
Queza's ability triggers again.
You finish resolving Council's Deliberation.
You put both instances of Queza's ability on the stack, choosing the target opponent for each.
The first instance of Queza's ability resolves. The chosen target opponent for this instance loses 1 life and you gain 1 life.
The second instance of Queza's ability resolves. The chosen target opponent for this instance loses 1 life and you gain 1 life.

If you also control a Drogskol Reaver, its ability will trigger in step 9 when you gain 1 life. Its ability will go on the stack on top of the second instance of Queza's ability. When it resolves, it instructs you to draw a card, putting you in exactly the same situation as in step one of this sequence. This creates a loop where in every iteration, you draw two cards, you gain 1 life, and an opponent loses 1 life. This will continue until every opponent has 0 life and loses the game or you draw from an empty library and lose the game.

Because of Drogskol, the step 10 won't occur, right? After step 9, a new trigger will go on the stack before the second instance of Queza would resolve.

Drogskol Reaver is not relevant to the actual question "would Queza's effect interrupt the second draw of Thought reflection?"

"Thought Reflection replaces that with an instruction to draw two cards.
You draw the first card.
Queza's ability triggers." Technically, the triggers don't go onto the stack until the effect finishes resolving. In Dave Elden's terminology, the sequence is: you draw a card, the fairies write Queza's ability on the whiteboard, you draw the second card, the fairies write Queza's ability on the whiteboard, Council's Deliberation finishes resolving, the two Queza triggers go on the stack.

That's why I say that the ability triggers in steps 4 and 6, and that the triggers go on the stack in step 8.


text:
Can Black Lotus alone enable the Turn 1 Channel-Fireball combo?
Reading about the rulings for Gilded Lotus, I've discovered that "add three mana of any one color" means: add three mana of a single color, not three mana of possibly distinct colors.
Black Lotus' text reads exactly the same. This means the widely known one-turn win consisting of Fireball, Channel and Black Lotus could not possibly work, since Black Lotus alone could not provide {R}{G}{G}.
Is this actually correct? Did the rule over this change?

You are correct that the exact combo of a Black Lotus, Channel, and Fireball is not enough to win the game. However, all you need to add to make it work is a land that produces red mana, a Mox Ruby, or a second Black Lotus.
The original text of Black Lotus, in Alpha, was

Adds 3 mana of any single color of your choice to your mana pool, then is discarded. Tapping this artifact can be played as an interrupt.

There's no reasonable way to interpret that as allowing a player to produce both green mana for Channel and red mana for Fireball.
Note that you also need that land just to have enough mana period, ignoring colors. If you start the Channel + Fireball combo with only 3 mana, you have to pay 20 life to have enough mana to deal 20 damage.

IIRC, an ancient rule stated that you may lose the game only at the end of your turn if your life is zero or less. So killing your opponent first would still count as a win. I also Read Somewhere(tm) that, in ancient times, before card limits existed, there were 20-fireball+20-channel+20-lotus decks precisely because of that combo.

That's a good point, I'm not fully sure about the old rules about losing the game from life loss. With that old deck you're referring to, you just need two black lotuses to make the combo work.

I always heard the combo as black lotus/mox ruby/channel/fireball, but a mountain could stand in for the mox.

I don't think the pre-6th edition rule that checked your life total only at end of phases/turns would have given you a win in that scenario; if both players were at 0 or less life the game would still be a draw. The rule allowed you to temporarily go to 0 as long as you were back to 1 or more life before the end of phase (by popping a Mirror Universe, for example).

@alecov The old rule was players would lose at the end of the current phase, not the end of your own turn. So even if that did work without the color issue, the game would end in the draw as both players would be at 0 life at the end of the phase

@ruds, I think the "mox ruby rather than mountain" came from the "no land mulligan" rule (used in Shandalar, and IIRC common at some times).  With no lands in the deck, you got two shots at getting the turn 1.

@Andrew I wish I had saved my 4th-ed rule booklets to check that rule again. Time flies :/

@alecov even if it had worked the way you said it does, you'd be the one to lose. Since Fireball is a sorcery, it would be your turn where you channel it off, without an extra source of mana, you'd both be at 0 at the end of your turn, and if you lose when you end your own turn at 0, that would mean your opponent wins the game.

This means the widely known one-turn win consisting of Fireball, Channel and Black Lotus could not possibly work, since Black Lotus alone could not provide {R}{G}{G}.
Is this actually correct?

Yes, but you can add plenty mountains to the deck.
Play mountain.
Tap mountain, R
Play lotus cost 0, (R left)
Use lotus (select green, GGG R)
Cast channel for GG  (R G left)
Channel 19 life to mana (1R 19 G)
Profit! I mean fireball R(x) with R and 20 as x.

Having a mountain in play means you are using more than black lotus "alone" to enable the combo. This is the point of the question, that you need an additional. mana source.


text:
Does trample damage trigger the ingest ability?
I have an Eldrazi deck that has creatures with the ingest ability:

Whenever this creature deals combat damage to a player, that player exiles the top card of their library

Would trample damage activate this ability since the trample damage is done to the player?

Per the rules on Trample:

702.19a Trample is a static ability that modifies the rules for assigning an attacking creature’s combat damage.

As the wording says, trample lets you assign excess combat damage to the blocking player (or planeswalker or battle). As such, it is considered combat damage, and so it will trigger ingest.

Thank you very much. I thought this was correct but I am a new player so I wanted to make sure!

Yes, damage done to a player by a blocked trampling creature is still combat damage.

120.2a Damage may be dealt as a result of combat. Each attacking and blocking creature deals combat damage equal to its power during the combat damage step.

Both the defending player and the creature(s) blocking the trampling creature receive combat damage, no matter how it's distributed due to Trample. All that matters for Ingest is that the defending player receives at least 1 damage from combat.

Thank you very much. I thought this was correct but I am a new player so I wanted to make sure!


text:
Can a train station and depot be built in the same city?
I’m playing Ticket to Ride: Europe with the 1912 expansion. Can a train station and a depot be placed in the same city?

No, a depot can't be in same city as a station.  This is in the rules here

There can never be more than 1 Depot in any city. Once placed on the
board, a Depot can never be moved nor removed (nor co-exist with a
Station in Ticket to Ride Europe).


text:
Does Lavinia, Azorius Renegade work against Kinnan, Bonder Prodigy?
Do either of Lavinia, Azorius Renegade's abilities:

Each opponent can’t cast noncreature spells with mana value greater than the number of lands that player controls.
Whenever an opponent casts a spell, if no mana was spent to cast it, counter that spell.

work against Kinnan, Bonder Prodigy's second ability:

{5}{G}{U}: Look at the top five cards of your library. You may put a non-Human creature card from among them onto the battlefield. Put the rest on the bottom of your library in a random order.

Basically, does Kinnan's ability count as "casting"? Would Lavinia counter that spell - or not because it's not being cast?

No, casting a spell is a specific action, defined by Comprehensive Rule 601.2:

601.2 To cast a spell is to take it from where it is (usually the hand), put it on the stack, and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect.

Kinnan's ability simply puts a creature onto the battlefield; it is not casting a spell, therefore neither of Lavinia's abilities apply. Abilities which mean you cast the spell make this clear, for example Aetherworks Marvel:

{T}, Pay six {E}: Look at the top six cards of your library. You may cast a spell from among them without paying its mana cost. Put the rest on the bottom of your library in a random order.

which would cause the spell to be countered by Lavinia's second ability as you are paying no mana for it.

Aetherworks Marvel is a good example of a similar card that does cast the card you get

No. A creature card is a creature when on the battlefield, a spell when on the stack, and just a card everywhere else. Kinnan moves the card directly from your deck onto the battlefield, without going onto the stack in between, so it's never a spell, let alone a spell that was cast. Also, you can counter something only while it's on the stack. Since the card is never on the stack, Lavini's second ability can't counter it. If you have something like Stifle, you can counter Kinnan's ability, but once the ability starts to resolve, no one gets priority until the card is already on the battlefield.


text:
How can my blue and black deck return enchantments from the graveyard?
I’ve created a blue and black deck, the concept is to create damage with enchantments, like Dark Tutelage or Stab Wound and to neutralize creatures or spells with essence scatter and other neutralize cards. My problem is I haven’t found a way to get the instants and enchantments back in my hand from the graveyard and I’ve tried to research and only found white cards that could do that. If anyone has a great idea, to get the spells back.

Welcome to the Color Pie, some things are deliberately not possible in some colours. At the very least, please specify which format you are playing - you've tagged this both mtg-arena and mtg-multiplayer which at least at the moment are inconsistent as there is no multiplayer on Arena.

I play normal cards, so I would say multiplayer?

What is “dark tulag”? That seems to be a typo, there's no card by that name.

"Multiplayer" in an MTG context means more than 2 players, almost exclusively Commander. Sounds like you're playing "kitchen table magic" (not a pejorative term) meaning "no special rules"?

@doppelgreener I'm going to guess wildly at Dark Tutelage but that doesn't do what the poster wants unless they somehow donate it to their opponent.

Wait, yes I mean dark tutelage. But how is it donating or did I miss understand the card

In the vast majority of circumstances, Dark Tutelage applies to you only ("at the beginning of your upkeep") and causes damage to you only. Donate is MtG slang for something that causes an opponent to gain control of one of your permanents.

There is no such format as "multiplayer", and "normal" doesn't identify a subset of cards in any meaningful way. Presumably, you play casually, "at the kitchen table" in the vernacular, and not in a sanctioned format (competitive or otherwise). That's fine; a large majority of MTG players do exactly that. But rules discussion tends to revolve around competitive play, where it matters more. (and Commander, which is typically casual but is full of people who like to flex their rules knowledge.)

Anyway, the bigger question is why you are particularly concerned with getting enchantments back from the graveyard. Is it because you are playing "self-mill" effects that put cards directly into the graveyard? Is it because you play enchantments that can be sacrificed for a benefit? If not - if you're just worried about getting them back after you "lost" them - then you are probably doing the strategy wrong. There are plenty more enchantments in your deck anyway, and effects that can destroy enchantments on the battlefield are relatively rare. Counterspells? You play blue, play some yourself.

Also, to support your deck you might want to consider cards that duplicate enchantments (like "Estrid's Invocation" and "mirror made") as well as cards that return themselves (Screams from Within)

What format are you playing, because it will definitely matter. If it's not commander you may have some options like Lurrus of the Dream-Den (if it's one of the few formats she's not banned in) where the hybrid mana symbols let you bypass the color pie issues others have mentioned.
Kaervek, the Punisher Is a new card from Outlaws of Thunder Junction that will in some ways do what you were wanting, because he lets you cast a copy of black cards in the graveyard, you would get a token copy, but this is a one time deal, like flashback the actual card gets exiled, so you can't use it again. Reenact the Crime works in much the same way, letting you play a copy of card the turn it went to graveyard, and could be used to catch enchantments as they are removed once.
For legendary enchantments or sagas, you could make some use of Rona, Disciple of Gix as a one off, since she would exile a historic card from your graveyard and then let you cast that card from exile.
Xiahou Dun, the One-Eyed can return any black card from your graveyard to your hand but you need to sacrifice him to do it, which would be another one shot option.
Forbidden Crypt is a possible option, but is dangerous to play too early, since it returns cards from your grave as a replacement for drawing, with the same empty loss condition.
The other, and mostly better, options have been covered by other answers - there is no good way to do this with black and blue, because that's just not what black and blue do.

Unfortunately for you, this is just not something blue and black really do. You haven't specified what format you're playing, but it's true for almost all formats.
From the color pie 2021 article, we can see the different ways returning things is divided among the colors. Most notably if you expand the “M–R” section and find “Return target creature from graveyard to hand”, we see a breakdown of the different types that can be returned and which colors do them.

Black returns creatures.
Blue returns instants and sorceries
The color that returns enchantments is white.

Additionally, green can often return cards of any type (e.g. Eternal Witness).
Blue and black are the strongest colors at card draw, so in those colors your resources are better spent focusing on drawing new enchantments rather than trying to get old ones back. Alternately, you should add white to the deck and use white's enchantment synergies: white-blue-black decks do quite well in most environments.

Okey, than I’m going to research a bit more.

While enchantment return is definitely outside of the color pie for black and blue, there are a small number of options - including some colorless ones. However, breaking the color pie usually comes at a cost of efficiency.
Here are some ones I could find:

Crystal Chimes
Gerrard's Hourglass Pendant
Saprazzan Bailif
Skull of Orm

For instants, blue has a lot of tools that will either return them to your hand, or your library, or just let you cast them from the graveyard. Scryfall has about 85 such cards that might be worth a look.

Thank you. That is perfect!

Just to add a bit of information, there are also some cards that can return any type of card, but they're not really efficient. Some examples include Codex Shredder and Conqueror's Galleon.

Thanks for noting that. You can dig through Scryfall with searches like o-tag:regrowth or o-tag:recursion to find some of the more generic ones for sure.

Instants are pretty easy, there are a bunch of blue cards that do that (here’s a simple Scryfall search listing all of the cards in blue and black that return instants to your hand). Said // Done would probably be my first pick for this, there’s not much that’s less expensive to cast, and it gives you a useful tool to stall creature-focused decks with if you need it.
Enchantments are much harder, as enchantment reanimation/retrieval effects are pretty much exclusively white. The only real options that do that specifically in blue/black are Crystal Chimes, Odunos River Trawler, and Gerrard’s Hourglass Pendant. None of them is a great option, the chimes are slow or expensive, the trawler only gives you about 2/3 of it’s value unless you add some way to generate a bit of white mana (but if you’re going to do that, why not enough to just splash proper white cards for this?), and the pendant is only really good for one or two items despite it’s cost. Aside from those, your best options are probably Yawgmoth's Will (if it’s legal in the format you’re playing), and Magus of the Will, both of which let yo cast things directly from your graveyard.
Alternatively, if you have lots of card draw (and you should in a serious blue/black deck), cards that put things back into your library (sometimes called ‘restock’ effects), like Memory’s Journey, Devious Cover-Up or Oracle of Tragedy, may be acceptable without needing to diversify colors (blue has a lot of these), but most are pretty restrictive in what you can put back or where exactly it goes.

As an aside, if you just have a specific aversion to adding white,  adding some green instead also gives you Season of Renewal, and you could consider Muldrotha, the Gravetide, Gaea’s Will, and possibly Revival Experiment, Squirming Emergence, and Kagha, Shadow Archdruid.


text:
Mtg: attacking effect, but the creature dies
Neck Breaker (the transformed side of Breakneck Rider) gives attacking creatures +1/+0. If I attack and then a spell kills the Neck Breaker after I declared my attackers, does the effect remain on the other attacking creatures?

The effect ends.
This ability is a static ability (another example would be Warded Battlements), which means that the ability is only "active" as long as the permanent is on the battlefield. Comprehensive rules entry (emphasis mine):

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.
604.2. Static abilities create continuous effects, some of which are prevention effects or replacement effects. These effects are active as long as the permanent with the ability remains on the battlefield and has the ability, or as long as the object with the ability remains in the appropriate zone, as described in rule 113.6.

Answer done.
However, I want to touch on a similar scenario taking into account triggered abilities (instead of static abilities):
If the ability was a triggered ability (e.g. from Bolt Hound), then the effect would stay.
Triggered abilities are separate from the game objects that created them. In this instance, if the creature is removed when the trigger already went to the stack, it will still resolve normally. The only way to prevent this would be to remove the creature before the trigger condition happens.
As an example, if the condition is "At the beginning of combat on your turn", then the creature would need to be removed in the main phase before combat so the ability never triggers.
The related part of the Comprehensive Rules is (emphasis mine)

113.7a Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. Destruction or removal of the source after that time won’t affect the ability. Note that some abilities cause a source to do something (for example, “Prodigal Pyromancer deals 1 damage to any target”) rather than the ability doing anything directly. In these cases, any activated or triggered ability that references information about the source for use while announcing an activated ability or putting a triggered ability on the stack checks that information when the ability is put onto the stack. Otherwise, it will check that information when it resolves. In both instances, if the source is no longer in the zone it’s expected to be in at that time, its last known information is used. The source can still perform the action even though it no longer exists.

I'm glad. :) If that worked for you, you can mark the question as "solved" by accepting the answer by clicking the check mark on the left of the answer with the voting buttons.

Agreed with @PhilipKendall the effect looks like it comes from a static ability that would disappear with the creature it's on.

agree as well and I have updated the answer. For now I will leave the answer covering both scenarios (static and triggered abilities), but will change if the question is clarified.

If anyone has a better part from the CR to show this aspect of static abilities, I'll gladly include that.

@fxm the rule you want for static abilities is 604.2, the one with the words "[...]These effects are active as long as the permanent with the ability remains on the battlefield and has the ability, or as long as the object with the ability remains in the appropriate zone[...]"

overlooked that, thanks!

@PhilipKendall I think this search is more comprehensive and gives me 9 static, 10 triggered abilities that give +1/+0 to attacking creatures.

@PhilipKendall Oh yes true, forgot about that. Taking that into account it leaves me with 7 hits, 3 static 4 triggered, so same ratio basically.

@Hackworth there are only 2 triggers in that result, Honored Crop-Captain and Targ Nar. The rest, on the permanents at least, are static or activated abilities, though the activated abilities, like the triggers, will still work if the creature is removed.

Too clarify, because I’m new in mtg. I played the Werwolf version from the card [[breakneck rider]], so the [[neck breaker]] and if I understood it right, the effect is gone because it ain’t a triggered effect, it’s a static effect? I hope I understood everything correct.

@Steve For Neck Breaker the effect ends, that's a static effect, not a triggered (or activated) ability

The answer should be updated to reflect the clarified question. "It depends" is no longer a valid answer to the question as written now.

In general, a question is not supposed to be edited in a way that invalidates existing answers, and if it does happen, the poster of an answer has no obligation to edit their answer to accommodate the change in the question. The usual way of handling this is to revert the change to the question. (But I suppose if fxm would like to edit their answer, there's no reason they couldn't.)

I really appreciate the answers, they really helped me understand my deck more. Thank you too all people discussing about the question.


text:
Do end of turn effects trigger if the creature dies before the end of turn?
If my opponent cast a board wipe and I flicker my Yorion, Sky Nomad to exile my board except itself. Do still get my creatures back at the end of the turn even though Yorion is dead?

As is common with M:tG questions, the post describes a more specific situation than the title, and the title can't really be answered generally. It depends on what "the creature" is, and what it says, and how it's therefore related to whichever "end of turn effect".

The permanents exiled by Yorion will return even if Yorion is no longer on the battlefield.
Yorion's ability exiles the permanents, and then creates a delayed triggered ability that returns those permanents to the battlefield. Once this delayed triggered ability is created, it exists independent of Yorion, so it will trigger and resolve even if Yorion is no longer around.


text:
How do Cultivator Colossus and bounce lands interact?
When I play a Cultivator Colossus and play a Selesnya Sanctuary through its effect. Do I continue Cultivator Colossus' effect, or do I need to bounce a land first from Selesnya Sanctuary? Also, if I do bounce another bounce land, can I loop both bounce lands?

You do not bounce any lands until after cultivator colossus's ability has fully finished resolving, after all of the repetitions of drawing and playing lands.
The colossus has an enters the battlefield effect that will trigger once, and part of that ability will repeat. New triggers don't go on the stack until a player would receive priority, but no player receives priority during the resolution of an ability. The rules that cover this are 603.1 to 603.3 and 603.12:

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).]”

603.1a A triggered ability may include instructions after its effects that limit what the ability may target or state that it can’t be countered. This text is not part of the ability’s effect. It functions while the ability is on the stack.

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.
603.3 Once an ability has triggered, its controller puts it on the stack as an object that’s not a card the next time a player would receive priority. See rule 117, “Timing and Priority.” The ability becomes the topmost object on the stack. It has the text of the ability that created it, and no other characteristics. It remains on the stack until it’s countered, it resolves, a rule causes it to be removed from the stack, or an effect moves it elsewhere.
603.12 A resolving spell or ability may allow or instruct a player to take an action and create a triggered ability that triggers “when [a player] [does or doesn’t]” take that action or “when [something happens] this way.” These reflexive triggered abilities follow the rules for delayed triggered abilities (see rule 603.7), except that they’re checked immediately after being created and trigger based on whether the trigger event or events occurred earlier during the resolution of the spell or ability that created them.

The repeating is not part of the trigger condition, so it's not a separate trigger, and the ability says "if you do" not "when you do" so it isn't a reflexive trigger under rule 603.12, which is the way they could create a repeating effect like this as a separate trigger.

I think you should also quote rules showing that abilities that repeat are all part of a single resolution step (rather than being another ability on the stack or something).

@KRyan There isn't a specific rules reference that says instructions to repeat a process on a spell or ability are still part of that spell or ability and not a separate object on the stack. It's written as part of the effect, not as part of the trigger condition.

OK; I’m just surprised, since the Comprehensive Rules are so, well, comprehensive. I would have assumed from the wording that “this process” includes the entire ability, including the triggering and placing the ability on the stack to resolve.

Rule 603.1 says that triggered abilities are worded as "[When/Whenever/At] [trigger condition or event], [effect]. [Instructions (if any).]" The "[effect]" is the only part of that where the "repeat this process" fits, so it must be part of the effect. In addition, MTG has never had an effect or rule that instructs you to put a triggered ability on the stack other than by triggering normally, so that just isn't a thing that could be happening here.

@KRyan they are, but they tell you what is, not what isn't and are meant to cover the general situations. Like Murgatroud said there are rules that cover what does go on the stack.  There's no rules that say this doesn't happen that way, because there would need to be a rule that said it does happen and there isnt.


text:
We ran out of draw cards
We were 5 players, we followed the rules, we have 4 exploding kittens and 1 "defuse" card each. Whenever 1 explodes without a defuse card available we put everything back to the discard pile. If there is defuse then we discard the defuse and put back the exploding kitten. We followed the rules but somehow we ran out of draw file. My dad somehow got 3 diffuse cards before we ran out. How do we play it when we ran out? How many exploding kitten and defuse cards should we put back in since there is only two players left?

You didn't follow the rules. If you had, then 4 players would have drawn exploding kittens and the 5th player would have won.

The only time it's possible for the draw pile to be empty is when the very last card was the last exploding kitten, which would be the end of the game. Otherwise mistakes were being made with putting defused kittens into discard or someone was cheating.

If you follow the rules, then when there are two players left there will be exactly 1 exploding kitten card left in the draw pile. Keep playing until one player draws the exploding kitten. That player loses the game
From the rules:

Insert enough Exploding Kittens back into the deck so that there is 1
fewer than the number of people playing.

and

Eventually, every player will explode except for one, who wins the
game! You won’t ever run out of cards in the Draw Pile because you
inserted enough Exploding Kittens to kill all but 1 player.

If you're still having trouble, keep this in mind:

When you die, put the kitten that killed you face up in front of you
so that everyone can see that you’re dead, and put the rest of your
cards face down in front of you.

The three players that are out will each have a face up exploding kitten in front of them. Since you started with four exploding kittens, you know that there is still exactly 1 in the draw pile. Remember that any time an exploding kitten is drawn, either a player "dies" or that kitten is put back in to the deck.


text:
How much damage does the player take if I have two attackers but one dies in combat?
If I attack with a Leaf-Crowned Visionary and a Llanowar Elves, and my opponent blocks my Visionary with a 4/4 token without any abilities, how much damage does my opponent take?


text:
How do Driftgloom Coyote and Sugar Coat interact?
In MTG, I played a Driftgloom Coyote and exiled a nontoken creature (Lilysplash Mentor) that my opponent controlled. Next turn, my opponent plays Sugar Coat on the coyote, turning it into a food:

Enchant creature or Food
Enchanted permanent is a colorless Food artifact with "2, Tap, Sacrifice this artifact: You gain 3 life" and loses all other card types and abilities.

What happens if I sacrifice the food for 3 life? Does the Lilysplash Mentor return to the battlefield or not?

Yes, the creature you exiled (Lilysplash Mentor) returns to the battlefield. Driftgloom Coyote's ability is a continuous effect that lasts only while it's on the battlefield (emphasis mine)

When Driftgloom Coyote enters, exile target creature an opponent controls until Driftgloom Coyote leaves the battlefield.

Regardless of how it leaves the battlefield (including being turned into a food and being sacrificed), it will return the card it exiled as soon as it leaves play (without using the stack).

610.3. Some one-shot effects cause an object to change zones “until” a specified event occurs. A second one-shot effect is created immediately after the specified event. This second one-shot effect returns the object to its previous zone.

Because the Driftgloom Coyote's effect has already happened, removing its abilities doesn't change the condition for the one-shot effect's "until" clause, which is only based on that permanent leaving the battlefield (by any means).

Agree with this answer, but I think it's probably worth making explicit that "loses all other card types and abilities" does not mean that any continuous effects created by the Coyote end, which I think is what could be causing the OP's uncertainty.


text:
Jhoira, Ageless Innovator and Prototype Artifacts
So I read about her and I read about prototype artifacts and new rulings about them. Yet not sure if this will work
You have Jhoira, Ageless Innovator on the battlefield, say with 4 counters on her. You tap to make her have 6.
Card in hand are Skitterbeam Battalion and Hulking Metamorph.
Can you cast either one of these cards for free with Jhoira?
The reason I ask is that the Prototype value of both the cards are less then or equal to 6, and they are artifacts...
This is what I got from wizards

10/14/2022    - Regardless of how it was cast, a prototype card always has the same name, abilities, types, and so on. Only the mana cost, mana value, color, power, and toughness change depending on whether the card was cast as a prototyped spell.

10/14/2022    - The prototype ability functions in any zone that the spell could be cast from. For example, if an effect allows you to cast artifact spells from your graveyard, you could cast a prototyped from your graveyard.

10/14/2022    - Casting a prototyped spell isn’t the same as casting it for an alternative cost, and an alternative cost may be applied to a spell cast this way. For example, if an effect allows you to cast an artifact card without paying its mana cost, you could either cast the spell normally, or as a prototyped spell.

10/14/2022    - When casting a prototyped spell, use only its prototype characteristics to determine whether it’s legal to cast it.

With that said — MTGA - WON'T allow you to cast either cards in hand with Jhoira… and I believe you should be able to...

Jhoira's ability refers to the mana value of cards, whereas Prototype - while allowing to cast the card for a different amount of mana - does not in any way interact with the mana value of the card until it is cast:

702.160a (...) A player who casts a spell with prototype can choose to cast that card "protoyped." If they do, the alternative set of its power, toughness, and mana cost characteristics are used. (...)

719.4. In every zone except the stack or the battlefield, and while on the stack or the battlefield when not cast as a prototyped spell, a prototype card has only its normal characteristics.

The mana value of each of the creatures you mentioned is greater than 6, so not being able to put them onto the battlefield with Jhoira's ability is a correct implementation of the rules.

In case that the confusion stems from what exactly "casting" means - casting a spell is putting it from your hand onto the stack, which allows you to - among other things - choose to cast a creature as a Prototype if it has that characteristic.
Jhoira however puts an artifact on the battlefield as part of her activated ability. This means that the creature is never being cast (it's not even on the stack at any point - only Jhoira's ability is). Instead, when Jhoira's ability resolves, you choose a creature that fits the requirements from among the cards in your hands, and put it on the battlefield directly. Since the creature isn't being cast, you cannot choose to have it enter as a Prototype, nor do the Prototype costs ever apply to the process, as explained above.

Prototype does change the mana value of the card after it's cast (unlike most alternate cost mechanics), so your first paragraph is slightly incorrect, not that it changes the outcome.

That's because Prototype isn't an alternate cost mechanic, it's an alternate set of characteristics, like adventure spells and the back faces of MDFCs. In all of those cases, while the card is in the relevant zones it has all of the alternate characteristics, including the alternate mana cost.

May help if you look at this ruling on Blitz Automaton:

A prototype card is a colorless card in every zone except the stack or
the battlefield, as well as while on the stack or the battlefield if
not cast as a prototyped spell. Ignore its alternative characteristics
in those cases. For example, while it’s in your graveyard, Blitz
Automaton is a colorless creature card with mana value 7. It can’t be
the target of Recommission, a spell that targets an artifact or
creature card with mana value 3 or less in your graveyard.

As long as either Skitterbeam Battalion or Hulking Metamorph are in your hand, they are colorless cards with mana value 9.

As a general rule (and I haven't seen many if any exceptions as of yet), rulings can be found on all cards with a certain criteria, not just a select few. Both creatures mentioned in the original question feature the same ruling; it might avoid confusion to specifically refer to one or both of those creatures instead.

Yea, the weird thing is that the rulings on both of those cards refers to Blitz Automaton.


text:
Can Riveteers Overlook go in a red and black Commander deck?
Can I include Riveteers Overlook (or other similar cards) in a Commander deck with a red and black Commander? I know the rules regarding color identity, but Riveteers Overlook specifically names Mountain, Swamp, and Forest land types:

When Riveteers Overlook enters the battlefield, sacrifice it. When you do, search your library for a basic Swamp, Mountain, or Forest card, then put it onto the battlefield tapped, then shuffle and you gain 1 life.

Does this include the associated colors in the card's color identity, or can I use this to fetch a Swamp or Mountain and ignore the Forest keyword?
I know that this rule exists:

903.5d A card with a basic land type may be included in a Commander deck only if each color of mana it could produce is included in the commander’s color identity.

But as the card does not have the basic land type I did not know if this rule affected it.

You can play Riveteers Overlook in any commander deck.
When rule 903.5d says "A card with a basic land type", it is referring to a card with a basic land type in its type line. This includes the standard basic lands, plus some non-basic lands such as Blood Crypt. Riveteers Overlook does not have any basic land types in its type line; it just mentions them in its text box, so it is not affected by that rule and it can be played in a commander deck with a commander of any color identity.


text:
Can I fail Raihan's search even if I have cards in my deck?
Raihan. If  no cards in my deck can I play a raihan. I still attach the energy from the discard pile but I don’t want to grab a card from the deck is this allowed. Can I fail grabbing a card from the deck if there are cards there and just attach the energy?

Raihan card text:

You can play this card only if any of your Pokemon were Knocked Out during your opponent's last turn.
Attach a basic Energy from your discard pile to 1 of your Pokemon. If you do, search your deck for a card and put it into your hand. Then, shuffle your deck.

You may play Raihan with no cards in deck, because the energy attach is the primary action. You may not play Raihan with no basic energy in discard.
However, you may not fail Raihan’s card search if you do have any cards in deck. The game doesn’t know what is in the deck, but it does know if you have any cards in it.
See for example the ruling on Computer Search, which has a similar unlimited search:

Can you use Computer Search and fail to find a card in your deck?

No, you cannot. When searching for a Pokemon, Trainer, or other particular type of card you can voluntarily fail the search because the contents of the deck are unknown; but when searching for "a card" of any kind the game can tell whether there are cards in the deck and you must take one if instructed to do so. Although the contents of the deck are unknown, the quantity of cards in the deck is known.


text:
How do Elesh Norn, Mother of Machines and Spark Double interact?
When Spark Double enters the battlefield and wants to copy a planeswalker, but the trigger triggers an additional time (e.g. because of Elesh Norn, Mother of Machines), does the first copy of a planeswalker leave loyalty counters for the second copy trigger of a planeswalker. Does it add up, the loyalty counters, in case of double trigger?

Isn't Spark Double's ability a replacement effect, rather than a triggered ability?

The link to the new Elesh Norn is broken at the moment since it's not in Gatherer yet. This is expected to be fixed shortly after the official release of its set. Meanwhile, enjoy this link

Spark Double's ability is not a triggered ability and so does not profit from Elesh Norn, Mother of Machines' ability.
Spark Double's copying ability is not a triggered ability:

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).]”

It is a static ability with a replacement effect:

614.1c Effects that read “[This permanent] enters the battlefield with . . . ,” “As [this permanent] enters the battlefield . . . ,” or “[This permanent] enters the battlefield as . . . “ are replacement effects.

As such, it does not benefit from "triggers another time" abilities.
Also, if several Spark Doubles copy the same planeswalker, even if they enter the battlefield at the same time, each copy will get the full amount of loyalty counters.


text:
Can Word of Command be used to cast a sorcery at instant speed?
In a Commander game I cast my commander Chainer, Dementia Master. With Chainer on the stack, my opponent responds by casting Word of Command.
In my hand they see Toxic Deluge and target that card wanting to cast it using all my life in the casting to kill me before Chainer resolves. Can they have me cast Toxic Deluge, which is a sorcery, at instant speed?

Hi Carlos. It seems you have some followup questions about this issue but you've been struggling a bit with how and where to ask them, so I just want to let you know where you can do that: below each answer is a little “add comment” button. You can leave a comment on an answer to request clarification or request additional detail there, within the original scope of the question.

Yes, you can play any type of card using Word of Command.
The text of Word of Command starts with

Look at target opponent's hand and choose a card from it. You control that player until Word of Command finishes resolving. The player plays that card if able.

This is an instruction to play the card immediately, during the resolution of Word of Command. Timing restrictions about when you would normally be allowed to play this card do not apply, so it doesn't matter what type the chosen card is: it could be a sorcery like Toxic Deluge, an instant, a creature, etc. Word of Command even has a ruling on its Gatherer page that specifies it could be a land:

You may Command your opponent to play a land (if they have not already done so this turn).

relevant is rule 117.1 - "Unless a spell or ability is instructing a player to take an action, which player can take actions at any given time is determined by a system of priority" - so when there's cards that say "until end of turn, you may cast...", you can't escape the restrictions of sorcery speed. But if they don't specify a time (as in Word of Command), that means immediately.

Related: When an effect says “you may cast” something, how can I tell when timing rules apply?