text:
Why do effects that exile a card from the graveyard use the characteristics the card had in the graveyard?
Dread Defiler has the ability

{3}{C}, Exile a creature card from your graveyard: Target opponent loses life equal to the exiled card's power.

with the ruling

Use the card’s power as it last existed in your graveyard to determine how much life is lost.

The cards Varolz, the Scar-Striped and Soul Separator also exile cards from the graveyard and check their characteristics, and they have similar rulings indicating that they check the characteristics the card had in the graveyard, not in exile.
These rulings surprise me. I would expect them to check the characteristics of the card as it currently exists in exile, based on the highlighted section of rule 608.2g:

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. See rule 112.7a. If an ability states that an object does something, it’s the object as it exists—or as it most recently existed—that does it, not the ability.

Deicide, for example, works the way I would expect. It has the text

Exile target enchantment. If the exiled card is a God card, search its controller's graveyard, hand, and library for any number of cards with the same name as that card and exile them, then that player shuffles his or her library.

but its corresponding ruling is different:

Deicide looks at the card in exile, not the permanent that was exiled, to determine if it is a God. For each of the Gods in the Theros block, it won’t matter what your devotion to its color(s) was. The card is a God card when not on the battlefield.

So, why do cards like Dread Defiler, Soul Separator, and Varolz look at the characteristics the cards had in the graveyard, not the characteristics they have in exile?

Note that the actual wording of Scavenge is different than what you quoted: “Scavenge [cost]” means “[Cost], Exile this card from your graveyard: Put a number of +1/+1 counters equal to the power of the card you exiled on target creature. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.”

Thank you for that correction. I didn't realize when I wrote the question that the specific wording of the ability would be important. I've changed it to refer to the actual definition of the ability instead of the reminder text.

I'm not saying it is. After all, Soul Separator is equivalent yet uses the wording from the Scavenge's reminder text.

humph! Just saw the ruling on Cragganwick Cremator. You should include that in your question. Deleted my answer. There appears to be some unwritten rules as to which object should be checked. What's special about CC? Is it because the card is randomly chosen? Or is because it started in a hidden zone?

Or maybe Soul Separator is buggy? Is there another example like Soul Separator?

There's Death's Caress and Marionette Master, making Cragganwick Cremator the odd one out.

The rulings I pointed out seem to be consistent specifically for cards that are moved from the graveyard to exile. See Dread Defiler and Morbid Bloom. Similarly, effects that move cards from the battlefield to the graveyard tend to check the characteristics as they were on the battlefield. But effects that move cards from the graveyard to the battlefield also tend to look at the characteristics as they are on the battlefield after the move. And effects that move cards from the battlefield to exile tend to look at them as they exist in exile.

Deicide vs Dread Defiler... wtf? I think you should reask the question more focused on this example (or similar)

Yeah, I'm going to try to edit to add those while still asking the same basic question

Sure, but it might be clearer to focus on a clear contradiction. Then you can ask about the difference between the two. Generic mentions of 400.7 then make no sense since it should either apply to both or neither.

I've edited the question to focus on the difference between Deicide and Dread Defiler, while still addressing Soul Separator and Varolz

I wish I could find another card that exiles from the battlefield and checks characteristics of the "exiled card", but Deicide is the only one I can find.

hum.... Does it matter if the reference to the exiled card is in the same sentence or not? Deicide: Two sentences -> Exile. Corpse Lunge: Two sentence (with a paragraph break in between) -> Exile. Spark of Creativity: Two sentences -> Exile. Morbid Bloom: One sentence -> Zone of origin.  (This doesn't address mentions in the cost.)

Maybe not. Death's Caress: Two sentences -> Zone of origin.  (Doesn't use "exiled card", though)

A defining factor for this in my opinion would be if there are ways of altering the power and/ or toughness of a card in the graveyard... but you would expect the scavenge ability to quote the same thing as dread defiler as it interacts with the power of a card... I think thats what defines Dread Defiler from Deicide the fact that deicide does not interact with power and only enchantments. it also may be possible with responses to change the target of deicide to another "Enchantment" that isn't already a God changing how the card would resolve?

@ThunderToes, Re "I think thats what defines Dread Defiler from Deicide the fact that deicide does not interact with power and only enchantments", Not only does that not mesh with the other examples, there's nothing clsoe to a basis for that in the rules, which simply treat both power and type as characteristics.

@ThunderToes, By the way, some cards automatically stop being Gods when they enter the battlefield, and become Gods when they leave the battlefield. See Athreos, God of Passage. (When it's not a creature, it also not a God as that's a creature subtype.) This means the ruling on Diecide is important in regular scenarios.

@ikegami But cant they be changed during the resolution of the spells to counter certain aspects of it? the rulings seem to just be showing where the characteristics are checked so that they can properly resolve. perhaps casting Deicide on Atheros then in response the devotion drops and atheros is no longer a creature that would change the outcome? is it possible to change the power of a creature in the graveyard? I'm not aware of anything that can do this...

@ThunderToes RE: cards whose P/T can be altered in the graveyard -> see Skullbriar, the Walking Grave?  I swear that card was designed just to screw with the rules.  I wonder if that is the caveat that ruling is accounting for.

Searching for that card is made infinitely harder because the gatherer site is down... again and yeah if cards like this exist then I would presume the ruling are like this for that reason maybe.

@ThunderToes I just googled "Skullbriar gatherer rulings" and found another site that had them copied.  Don't know how up to date that was, but it gives a pretty good idea anyway of how that card screws things up.

The ruling on Deicide seems to be bugged. The card itself also has inconsistent wording, look at Scour which does almost the same thing as Deicide, and has better wording.

@Hackworth, There's no ruling on Scour. Do you use the name of the object on the field or the name of the object in exile? Note that Scour doesn't say "the exiled card"

Coming to this question now, not having seen the progression you guys have gone through to get here, it isn't really clear what is being asked. It might be worth it to edit it down a bit to try to clarify things, or scrap it and start over again.

I tried to edit to clarify a little, but the question in the title is still what I'm asking.

I feel similar to @Malco, though I'm interpreting the question as "why don't all cards that move cards between zones look at the last-known information". I'm seeing a pattern, and I'll give it a shot even though I doubt that none of you saw it.

There is a flaw in the basic premise of the question that these are conflicting rulings on comparable cards.
Deicide has an effect that moves an object to another zone and then further examines that card.  This is what 'the expected zone' clause in 608.g covers.  There is consistency in the rulings when an effect moves a card between public zones and then checks types using the present tense, it looks in the new zone.  (See Defy Death). As opposed to an effect that moves a card between public zones and checks its type in the past tense (lots, Death's Caress). It seems that does not have particularly clear basis in comp rules without rulings clarifying the intended interpretation.
Dread Defiler has an effect that looks for characteristics of an object.  Paying the cost for the ability that generated the effect moved that object, but the effect did not move the object.
So the two rulings are not in conflict.
Soul Separator is not doing a conditional check, so, assuming the ruling on it is correctly worded, that seems to be our plausible explanation.  If it said "if that card is Power 5 or greater" we'd be in a pickle for which zone to check in I think...
I agree it is entirely possible for a rational person to have come to different conclusions from reading the comp rules and cards in isolation.  Sometimes a card like Deicide with odd nonstandard templating just needs the guy who wrote it to explain what they intended.  (The use of 'God card' rather than simply 'God' combined with two public zones makes it close to unique.  Almost everything that checks the type/subtype of a "card" rather than a game object and involves a zone change also involves a hidden zone)

Soul Separator has an effect that moves the card then looks at it in the old zone. That's why I referenced that ruling here.

I would say the wording in that soul separator ruling is probably off based on the other evidence

Actually starting to think more the real answer is that the ruling on Deicide is worded poorly and it looks at the card because it says God card not just God, not really related to what zone it's in per se.

So you're saying the rulings for Soul Separator, Death's Caress and Marionette Master are all wrong?

For deaths caress to be comparable to deicide it would say "if that card is a human card".  That's very different from "if that create is/was human" (apparently, according to the ruling on deicide!)

That's my point. Why is the ruling the those three different than Deicide and your explanation? They all have effects that move from the graveyard to exile, but they look in at LKI in the graveyard instead of in exile like your explanation say they should.

Neither deaths caress nor marionette master interact with the exile zone?

All the of the effects we're talking move to a public zone (the graveyard or exile), so according to your explanation, they should use the info about the object in the zone to which it was moved. Do you now think there's a difference between exile and the graveyard? (You need to use @ikegami if you want me to get notified!)

@ikegami What about the ruling on Defy Death then?  I don't even know anymore :( (effect moves card between public zones then checks new object in new zone to evaluate subsequent if?)

Perhaps we've simply missed attributing meaning to the tense, "is a God" vs "was a Human"?  That seems to work out to consistent with the intents expressed in the rulings, if difficult to reconcile with comp rules language.

Normally, effects that involve cards changing zones will look at the characteristics of the object in the zone the object came from, also known as its last-known information.

608.2g 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. See rule 112.7a. If an ability states that an object does something, it’s the object as it exists—or as it most recently existed—that does it, not the ability.

Looking at cards like Dread Defiler, they refer to "the exiled card" - but that doesn't mean "the card as it exists in exile right now", it's simply a language construct similar to "that card" to provide context for the ability, referring back to what you did initially: "Exile a creature card from your graveyard". That card has changed zones, which is why last-known information is used.
This also explains why Marionette Master, Soul Seperator, and Varolz, the Scar-Striped (or the keyword-ability Scavenge) work the way they do.
This rule feels quite natural for cards that transition from the battlefield to another place. For example, if you control a creature with P/T 3/3, put a +1/+1 counter on it, and then Fling it at your opponent, you expect to deal 4 damage, not 3).

Exceptions to the above are only made for special cases. Effects look at the characteristics of the card in the zone it has been moved to if...
The card changing zones comes from a hidden zone
As stated in 608.2g, (emphasis mine):

[...] the effect uses the current information of that object if it’s in the public zone [...]

It makes perfect sense not to look at the card before anyone could see it. This is the reason why Cragganwick Cremator works the way it does.
The effect explicitly cares about the card that was moved between zones, instead of the object it used to be in the zone it used to be in
If an effect is phrased to specifically care about a card, such as Deicide does, you're really just looking at the card instead of the object it used to be (similar to how copy effects work). Last-known information is decidedly ignored because the card's creature types at the time don't even matter - what matters is the physical card, and whether that card has certain characteristics.
For comparison, similar effects usually refer to the permanent as it was, which for Deicide would be "If that enchantment was a God" (analog to Dismantle or Filigree Fracture, for example), indicating that last-known information is used as per the default. Deicide, however, creates a new context, with one of the different outcomes being that you only look at the card as it is in exile.
I can only take guesses on why Deicide was templated the way it works, but it seems to be by design within the scope of the Theros block, in order to be able to get the most out of the card, regardless of your opponent's devotion.
Unlike the game mechanic that sometimes turns the Theros gods into creatures, while otherwise they just provide extra effects, they are always "there" flavor-wise, using their abilities, and only decide to engage into battle when the devotion towards them reaches a certain level. It that regard, it makes sense that the act of ridding yourself of a God (which is what's depicted on Deicide) doesn't only work on a creature, but also on the enchantment that might eventually turn into one - flavor-wise, there's no difference.

You're going to need to expand a little on your quotation of rule 608.2g. I quoted the same rule in my question to explain why I would expect those three cards to work differently than the rulings say they do. And I don't really understand the distinction you're making with the wording of Deicide, when Dread Defiler's wording is almost exactly the same.

Deicide has an EFFECT that moves a card and then looks at it in the new zone, within the effect.  Dread Defiler has a COST that moves the card and then an EFFECT that uses LKI.  I agree that funky "expected zone" wording in 608.g is kinda odd to wrap your head around in the context of how LKI works, but we all know and agree how the author intended Fling to work and if you read 608.g in that way ("expected zone" being interpreted as the place paying the cost put it) it breaks fling.

@murgatroid99 I'm quoting that rule because it provides the default: everything looks at last-known information, and that rule contains the exceptions I elaborated on either literally or by abstraction. Dread Defiler's wording appears to be almost the same, but it says "card" because you can't choose a "creature" in the graveyard, only a "creature card" - Deicide, however, mentions "card" in an entirely new context, meaning that from that point, what matters is the card, not the permanent. It might as well say "a random card from your Sideboard", as the object it used to be is irrelevant.

I quoted the rule in my answer to say that the default is looking at the current information, not the last known information. You simply quoted it again and stated the opposite, without any further elaboration on why it implies that.

@murgatroid99: Ah, now I understand... but I believe you read it wrong. We're exclusively talking about cards changing zones here, the way I see it, and the rule states "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". Cards like Dread Defiler refer to "the exiled card", but that doesn't mean "the card as it is in exile right now", it's simply a language construct similar to "that card". It has changed zones, which is why last-known information is used. I shall add this to my answer.

Re "If an effect is phrased to specifically care about a card, such as Deicide does", Deicide cares about type and name just like Dread Defiler cares about Power. I don't see how caring about one characteristic is "caring about the card" and caring about a different one isn't.

@ikegami: The difference is not in power over type, but about the wording of the effect. Deicide is unique (I believe) in that it doesn't say "If that enchantment was a God" (analog to Dismantle or Filigree Fracture, for example), but specifically refers to the card that used to represent that permanent, again specifically working around the rules for last-known information.

These abilities refer to characteristics of the card that was exiled, meaning those of the card in the graveyard. Scavenge even specifically says "the card that was exiled". The card in the graveyard ceased to exist when it was exiled.[CR 400.7] Since information is requested from an object that no longer exists, Last Known Information (LKI) is used.[CR 608.2g]
It would be different if it said "the exiled card's power". Then, it would look for the the stats of the object that was created in exile. It can find this new object if necessary.[CR 400.7h]
You're getting hung up on "the public zone it was expected to be in", thinking it means exile when it means the graveyard. That's the only zone the object could possibly be in because objects don't actually move from one zone to another. To move an object is to cause one to cease to exist in one zone, and to create a new one in a different zone.

400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. There are nine exceptions to this rule:
400.7h If an effect causes an object to move to a public zone, other parts of that effect can find that object. If the cost of a spell or ability causes an object to move to a public zone, that spell or ability’s effects can find that object.
608.2g 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. See rule 112.7a. If an ability states that an object does something, it’s the object as it exists—or as it most recently existed—that does it, not the ability.

Exceptions
Deicide is the only example that counters this explanation, so I can only surmise its unique wording ("is a God card", as opposed to "is a God") is meant to convey this difference.
Cragganwick Cremator uses the object in the new zone, but the object was moved from a hidden zone, so the natural thing is to use the public object.

Deicide explicitly refers to "the exiled card". I specifically mentioned that was a different case. Assessing the rest of the comment.

Cragganwick Cremator moves the card from the hand to the graveyard, and checks the characteristics in the graveyard (the zone that the card moved to). The point was to address the claim that "that card" specifically refers to the object in the zone that the card moved from.

Now that we've had time to analyse the exceptions, I've undeleted my original answer. Deicide is the only exception to it, so I can only surmise its unique wording ("is a God card", as opposed to "is a God") is meant to convey this difference.

@murgatroid99: As I mentioned in my answer, Cragganwick Cremator mentions "that card" for reasons that have to do with a) it being a card not on the battlefield, which are always referred to as "[...] card", and b) it being a card coming from a hidden zone, therefore 608.2g doesn't apply.


text:
How does Camouflage interact with "can't be blocked by more than one creature"?
Camouflage is a strange old card that changes how blocking works. The card text says

This turn, instead of declaring blockers, each defending player chooses any number of creatures he or she controls and divides them into a number of piles equal to the number of attacking creatures for whom that player is the defending player. Creatures he or she controls that can block additional creatures may likewise be put into additional piles. Assign each pile to a different one of those attacking creatures at random. Each creature in a pile that can block the creature that pile is assigned to does so.

Here's an example of the situation I'm wondering about:
My opponent attacks with two creatures, a Charging Rhino and a Boggart Brute. The former can't be blocked by more than one creature, and the latter can't be blocked by fewer than two creatures. After they declare attacks, they cast Camouflage.
Now, I want the possibility of blocking both creatures, so I put two creatures in one pile and one in another (for simplicity, assume all of the blocking creatures are 1/1 Soldier tokens).
Then, when the piles are assigned to attackers, I get unlucky, and the pile with one creature is assigned to block the Boggart Brute, and the pile with two creatures is assigned to block the Charging Rhino.
Now, clearly the single Soldier can't legally block the Boggart Brute alone. So my question is this: does the Charging Rhino end up blocked?
Basically, I think there are two possible interpretations for the bolded sentence that change how this situation plays out. I think it could either mean

For each attacking creauture, if some subset of the set of creatures that could each individually block that creature is a legal block, then they are assigned to block that creature.

or

For each attacking creature, if the entire set of creatures that could each individually block the assigned creature is a legal block, then they are assigned to block that creature.

Or it could even be something different from both of those that I haven't thought of.

Re "I think it could also make sense for the game to attempt to assign both as blockers, see that a restriction has failed, and decide that the block has failed overall.", There's no basis for this. There's no assignment, check and block. There's a single instruction to block, and a legal outcome can be achieved.

You can't leave the Charging Rhino unblocked because it's possible to block it, and you were instructed to block it.
Similarly, you can't block with both Soldiers since you are restricted from doing so[1].
That leaves only two possible legal outcomes:

Solder 1 blocks the Charging Rhino, and Soldier 2 doesn't.
Solder 2 blocks the Charging Rhino, and Soldier 1 doesn't.

Pick one.

In Magic, actions are instantaneous. They are never being performed. For example, a card is never moving, a creature is never tapping, etc[2]. The game instantly switches from one state to another. For example, when instructed to draw, the game instantly goes from a state where the card is on top of your library to a state where the card is in your hand. This is why triggered abilities look at the state of the game before or after they trigger; there is no state during the event that triggered the ability.
Yet, some actions can depend on the outcome of other actions taken simultaneously. This is technically impossible. In this situation, we naturally start imagining complex scenarios to explain what happens, but these have no basis in the rules. I've learned long ago to catch myself, and I now see that you have entered this trap.
The solution: You must simply find the legal state that is achieved from following the instructions. How the game managed to achieve that result is not important!

I find it reassuring that the above achieves the same outcome as if one were to follow the steps of Declare Blocks. But it doesn't resolve many other related problems, such as creatures that require paying costs to block. I would be tempted to interpret

Each creature in a pile that can block the creature that pile is assigned to does so.

as

Follow the instructions of the Declare Blocks Step, except

Each creature in a pile that can block the creature that pile is assigned to must do so,
Each creature in a pile can't block any creature other than the creature that pile is assigned to, and
Creatures not in a pile can't block.

I take "that can block" to mean "that isn't tapped and that isn't subject to a restrictions preventing it". In other words, restrictions are still in effect even though they are normally checked during the declaration of blockers which was replaced.
Attacking and defending don't refer to actions being performed, but to a rule-defined state of the object.

I clarified that section of the question. That part of the question was just supposed to be an explanation of why I was unsure of the answer, and I was easily able to change it to make it a single instruction in both cases without changing the meaning I was trying to convey (I think).

I don't think you read my interpretations completely. They both address the possibility that some creatures can't block at all with the clause "set of creatures that could each individually block that creature". Your answer seems to imply that blockers are assigned sequentially. If so, how does it address menace? Two creatures each can block a creature with menace only because the other one is blocking it too.

Cleaned up the answer. It's very straightforward now.

"some actions can depend on the outcome of other actions taken simultaneously" Do you have an example of this other than the situation in question? That definitely doesn't apply to normal declaration of blocks, which defines a clear sequential procedure, with explicit instructions to start over if one check fails.

I do not recall them. I wasn't kidding when I said "long ago". /// Actually, even normal declaring blockers happens instantaneously despite the decision process being defined in steps. But it is defined in a way that the discussed problem can't occur then.

I've added to my answer.

I like the interpretation of Camouflage as using restrictions and requirements, because it achieves what seems to be the intention of the card in a relatively simple way that works with the blocking rules. I'm just not totally convinced that it is the correct interpretation. And I think your middle section is mostly misleading and partly incorrect. I'm pretty sure that there are no situations in Magic with depedencies between simultaneous choices/options, and with the interpretation you present, such a thing isn't even necessary.

Re "I'm pretty sure that there are no situations in Magic with depedencies between simultaneous choices/options", There's one in your question. Soldier 1 blocks if Soldier 2 didn't, and Soldier 2 blocks if Soldier 1 didn't. /// Re "I think your middle section is mostly misleading and partly incorrect.", You know how many questions I've seen and answered here, and that's a small fraction of them. It's never been incorrect, and it has explained rulings on more than one occasion. If you start wondering about the state of things at various times during an action, something's wrong.

Your justification for your interpretation of the situation is "some actions can depend on the outcome of other actions taken simultaneously", and your only example of such a situation is the situation in question, according to your interpretation. Can't you see the circular logic there?

You are mistaken. That's a description of the situation, not a justification of it. Describing a situation is not circular logic. (I basically said "What you have there is a Scenario X. You can solve a Scernario X by doing ...") I didn't provide any justification. I was teaching what I learned from experience. The first section of the answer is the application of that knowledge/solution.

The whole reason I wanted an example of a situation with dependencies between simultaneous choices/options/actions is because I don't believe that that is an accurate description of the situation in question. If your only example of such a situation is the thing that you are asserting in your answer is an example, then I remain unconvinced that the statement is true at all, in the context of Magic.

Re "I don't believe that that is an accurate description of the situation in question", Really? You previously commented that you agreed that blocking restriction do apply, and they say only one of the two can block. If you disagree with that, then I can't help you since my entire answer is premised on that.

Re "I remain unconvinced that the statement is true at all", Feel free to disbelieve me. I was just trying to give you a tool to help you get out of the mental jam you found yourself in. If you don't want to use the tool, that's perfectly fine; it doesn't affect the answer in the least.

Neither creature is blocked.
I asked this question to the (Unofficial) Ask a Magic Judge tumblr blog worded like this:

Say Anthony attacks with a Charging Rhino and Boggart Brute, then casts Camouflage. Then, while declaring blocks, Nathan puts 2 vanilla creatures in one pile and 1 in the other. Unfortunately, he gets unlucky, and the pile with 2 creatures is assigned to block Charging Rhino and the pile with 1 creature is assigned to block Boggart Brute. Which creatures end up blocked, and why does it work that way?

and this is the response

Neither creature is blocked because neither set of blockers is legal.

I really wish they would have elaborated. The card clearly says that only those the can block do so, so how can you get in to a situation where the set of blockers is illegal? [Sorry for the deleted comments; I had a hard time coming up with the words to express this.]

I think the card's wording is up for interpretation. You can see that this answer matches the second possible interpretation in the question, so it's something I was considering from the beginning. I also wish it was further elaborated, but I think the card is kind of ambiguous, so a ruling from a judge is probably the best we can hope for.

In my understanding you assign every pile as described and then handle the last sentence:

Each creature in a pile that can block the creature that pile is assigned to does so.

This is the same scenario as with a Lure on that Charging Rhino. As worked out on Reddit:

In case of the rhino the defender choses one, if the pile is > 1.
In case of the brute if pile is <= 1, brute is not blocked.

Edit: To clarify a bit more, Camouflage states

Cast Camouflage only during your declare attackers step. This turn,
  instead of declaring blockers[...]

So "Declare Blockers Step" is replaced. Therefor multiple steps are resolved as statet in 608.2c
Since there is no later text that acutually modifies earlier text, all instructions are followed [..]in the order written[..].

First the defender's creatures are put into piles.
The piles are randomly assigned.
And last go through each pile and creature relation. For every single creature an its corresponding pile Camouflage states that each creature that can block the creature (=attacker) do so. Since nothing else is stated the defender(!) assigns blockers following rules 509, esp 509.1c. The defender has to follow the maximum number of requirements without disobeying any restrictions.

 So it is analogue to the Lure-Rhino situation. Only one creature is allowed to block the Rhino and the defender choses which one it is (out of the assigned pile of course).
Regarding murgatroid99's comment: Camouflage does not exclude the process of blocker declaration, it modifies it. It inserts the step of creating the piles and adds the requirement that all creatures of a pile block the correspondig creature. Blocking itself must follow 509 rules. Camouflage does not state anything like ignore other requirements, the original card even comes with the example of flying creatures cannot be block by non-flying. (which seems to be ikegami's interpretation as well)

Can you give more detail? Why does the defender get to choose one creature to block if 2 are assigned to block the Rhino?

As Lure applies to declaring blockers, a turn-based action which is replaced by Camouflage's effect, the scenario in that thread is not analogous.

I think it is the same. You assign your piles at random and now handle the last step: "each creature [in that pile] that can block the creature [..] does so".  If only one can do this because rhino excludes more blockers, only one creature blocks. And this is analogue to the lure.

Your edit is kind of confusing. You say that the Declare Blockers Step is replaced, and then go on to say that the defending player should follow the procedure in the Declare Blockers step. Also, if Camouflage creates blocking requirements, as you seem to be claiming, it would create some weird interactions. For example, if an attacking creature also had Lure, the defending player would have the choice to reassign any number of blocking creatures from their pile to the creature with Lure, exchanging one requirement for another.

What I mean is that declare blockers is replaced by a group ( means creature <-> pile) of blocker declarations, one for each attacking creature. In each of these groups 509 is applied (separately) - and within such a group you can fully resolve a lure since Camouflage just splits the "normal" phase into > 1 parallel

Camouflage replaces the declaration of blockers. This does not remove the Declare Blockers step, but it does remove the ordinary process of declaring blockers, which in the CR is referred to stepwise by rules 509.1a through 509.1i. None of these rules apply.
Instead, the defender does as camouflage says, and ends up with piles of creatures sitting in front of each attacker. Then then each creature that "can block the creature that pile is assigned to does so".
The most important thing to know is that restrictions and requirements on blocking ONLY apply during declaration of blockers, which is why you can block a flier with your own flier and it stays blocked even if your own one loses flying. However, because Camouflage says each creature that "can block", blocking restrictions apply, but requirements do not!
What this means is, you look at restrictions only when seeing what the piled-up creatures block. Lure effects will do nothing. Flying, Menace and "can't be blocked by more than one creature" will apply, however.
My answer kind of falls apart at this point and I would love someone else to point out something in the CR I missed, because I'm not sure how to resolve the Charging Rhino case. The problem is that because we're ignoring rules 509.1a-i, we're also ignoring the way the game normally resolves contradictory requirements, which would be fulfilling as many as possible. The text for Camouflage does nothing to address that the creatures in a pile could interfere with the other creatures in their pile, so even if you take "does so" as a 'requirement' (which I do) it's not officially resolved in the same way.
I'm almost certain a Judge would tell you to pick a single creature from the pile to block with (then ask why you're playing Camouflage in an eternal format). As for justifying that decision within the CR, I'm sorry but I'm stumped.
TL;DR, You must follow blocking restrictions as normal, while blocking with as many creatures from the pile as possible. In your case, this means you must choose one creature to block the Rhino, and it is up to the defending player to choose. I am unable to quote the CR to directly back up this statement, but seeing as Camouflage's ability is close to a normal declaration of blockers, the rules were almost certainly intended to handle it this way.

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

Camouflage replaces the declaration of blockers, so none of the rules that usually apply to declaring blockers are used here.
The key sentence is "Each creature in a pile that can block the creature that pile is assigned to does so." So, for each creature, we check individually if that creature can block the creature that it is assigned to.
That means that Charging Rhino can be blocked by any number of creatures using Camouflage, because each creature individually can block it. Also, Boggart Brute can not be blocked by any creature, even if there are several creatures in the pile assigned to it.
There is not especific rule that I can quote to show that each creature is checked individually, but the first ruling on Retether in a somewhat similar situation says to check each card individually.

I have to disagree. Each creature that can block does so, as only one creature can block, one creature is chosen to block, making the assignment of the rest as blockers illegal.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is "summoning sickness" and how does it affect my creatures?
Note: this is intended to be a canonical question about summoning sickness.
"Summoning sickness", broadly, is the rule that stops you from attacking or paying {T} costs with a creature that you just played. But how exactly does it work? How does it interact with other rules and effects?
For example, if I'm trying to figure out how a creature is affected:

Does the status matter (tapped/untapped, face down/face up, etc.)?
What if it came into play, but I didn't cast it?
What if it's a token?
What if it was on the battlefield when my turn started, but it wasn't a creature?
What if it stops being a creature?
What if it's a creature and also another card type?
What if it's a double-faced card that just transformed?
What if it changes control?
What if it's a copy of another creature?
Which of the creature's activated abilities can I use?
Are any of its other abilities affected?
Can I tap the creature to pay a cost that is not a {T} cost?

(These examples are primarily taken from questions about summoning sickness that have already been asked on the site)

Let me just comment very quickly on this section. "Can I tap the creature to pay a cost that is not a {T} cost?" Yes. For example Azami, a wizard,, has an ability, "Tap any untapped wizard you control: Draw a card." So, despite Azami or other wizards having summoning sickness, they can be tapped as soon as played, and Azami can tap itself, since it's not a {T}.

Thanks for that info. Do you think there's anything there that the answer does not adequately explain?

The answer is pretty complete rules-wise. I just wanted to give a quick practical example that sometimes confuse people, that only the tap symbol is affected by summoning sickness in an abilities cost, the word tap is not.

Summoning Sickness
"Summoning Sickness" is simply the name for rule 302.6:

A creature's activated ability with the tap symbol [{T}] or the untap symbol [{Q}] in its activation cost can't be activated unless the creature has been under its controller's control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. A creature can't attack unless it has been under its controller's control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. This rule is informally called the "summoning sickness" rule.

It is not a status or effect on a creature. It is simply a rule that restricts how you can use a creature that just entered play.
In other words
Which creatures are affected?
Rule 302.6 only checks for two things:

The permanent is a creature
It doesn't matter how the creature entered the battlefield or whether it's represented by a card or a token. It also doesn't matter when it became a creature; it's still the same permanent when it changes types.

It was not under your control continuously since the beginning of your most recent turn.
This just means that if, at any time since the beginning of your most recent turn, you did not control the creature, then it has summoning sickness. If it is currently your turn, the current turn is your most recent turn.

Example: During your turn, you cast a Grizzly Bears. Once it is on the battlefield, it is affected by summoning sickness until the beginning of your next turn
Example: You control a Quicksilver Amulet, an artifact with the ability "{4}, {T}: You may put a creature card from your hand onto the battlefield." You activate it and put a Grizzly Bears onto the battlefield. That Grizzly Bears is affected by summoning sickness until the beginning of your next turn
Example: You cast Krenko's Command, which has the text "Create two 1/1 red Goblin creature tokens." Those goblin tokens are affected by summoning sickness until the beginning of your next turn
Example: You cast Entrancing Melody targeting an opponent's Grizzly Bears. After Entrancing Melody resolves and you control the Grizzly Bears, it is affected by summoning sickness until the beginning of your next turn
Example: You cast Sky Skiff, and later in the same turn, you activate its Crew ability. After the Crew ability resolves, the Sky Skiff is affected by summoning sickness
Example: You control a Sky Skiff at the beginning of your turn. During that turn you activate its Crew ability. After the crew ability resolves, the Sky Skiff is not affected by summoning sickness
How are those creatures affected?
Rule 302.6 only prevents the creatures it affects from doing 3 things:

Attacking
Specifically, the creature cannot be declared as an attacker during your combat phase. It can still block, fight, or be put onto the battlefield attacking.

Activating their own abilities with the tap symbol {T} in the cost

Activating their own abilities with the untap symbol {Q} in the cost

Summoning sickness does not prevent you from paying other costs, even if they involve tapping the creature. It also does not prevent you from activating abilities without {T} or {Q} in the cost. And it has no effect on other kinds of abilities, like static or triggered abilities.
Example: You control Loam Dryad, a creature with the ability "{T}, Tap an untapped creature you control: Add one mana of any color." You can only activate this ability if Loam Dryad is unaffected by summoning sickness, but you can tap any other creature you control to pay for the ability, even if the other creature is affected by summoning sickness
Example: You control Heritage Druid, an elf creature with the ability "Tap three untapped Elves you control: Add {G}{G}{G}". You can tap any three elves you control, including Heritage Druid itself, to activate the ability, whether or not any of them are affected by summoning sickness
Haste
There is a single exception to this rule: Haste. The rules for Haste say the following:

702.10a Haste is a static ability.
702.10b If a creature has haste, it can attack even if it hasn’t been controlled by its controller continuously since his or her most recent turn began. (See rule 302.6.)
702.10c If a creature has haste, its controller can activate its activated abilities whose cost includes the tap symbol or the untap symbol even if that creature hasn’t been controlled by that player continuously since his or her most recent turn began. (See rule 302.6.)
702.10d Multiple instances of haste on the same creature are redundant.

In short, if a creature has haste, it can ignore rule 302.6.
Note that Suspend, Unearth, Dash, Awaken, and Riot can grant Haste. At the time of this writing, no other keyword abilities do. In particular, Flash does not grant Haste.

Specific Cases
Does status matter?
For reference, the rule describing status is rule 110.6:

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.

A creature's status is independent of summoning sickness. In other words, if a creature enters the battlefield tapped or face down, it is still affected by summoning sickness like normal. And if the status changes, it's still the same creature, so you still just have to check whether you controlled the creature since your turn started to determine whether it's affected.
Conversely, summoning sickness does not affect a creature's status. Being summoning sick does not change whether a creature is tapped vs. untapped or face up vs. face down.
What if it's a creature with another card type?
Then it is affected by summoning sickness, just like any other creature. The summoning sickness rule only checks whether the permanent is a creature. It doesn't check that it is not any other type.
A special mention should be made for Dryad Arbor. Because it is a Forest, it has an intrinsic ability (see rule 305.6) that says

"{T}: Add {G} to your mana pool"

Since that ability has {T} in the cost, you cannot activate it as long as Dryad Arbor is affected by summoning sickness.
What if it's a double-faced card that just transformed?
Rule 711 describes how double-faced cards work, and 711.7 says

When a double-faced permanent transforms, it doesn't become a new object. Any effects that applied to that permanent will continue to apply to it after it transforms.

For the purposes of this question, that means that when a creature transforms, it is only affected by summoning sickness if it was affected before it transformed.
What if it's a copy of another creature?
If creature A enters the battlefield as a copy of creature B, then creature A is affected by summoning sickness, like any other creature that just entered the battlefield. (This is true even if it's a token.)
If creature A becomes a copy of creature B, then it is only affected by summoning sickness if it would have been affected before it became a copy. It doesn't matter whether creature B was affected by summoning sickness. This is analogous to the "transform" case: the creature's characteristics change, but it's still the same object that it was before it changed.
Rule 706.2 says, in part

The "copiable values" are the values derived from the text printed on the object (that text being name, mana cost, color indicator, card type, subtype, supertype, rules text, power, toughness, and/or loyalty), as modified by other copy effects, by its face-down status, and by “as . . . enters the battlefield” and "as . . . is turned face up" abilities that set power and toughness (and may also set additional characteristics). Other effects (including type-changing and text-changing effects), status, and counters are not copied.

Importantly, summoning sickness is not mentioned here, and neither is anything that rule 302.6 checks for except type. If the copy isn't a creature, it is not affected by summoning sickness.

The Judge's Corner (on YouTube) has a video on Summoning Sickness that explains the ins and outs of summoning sickness in greater detail. I'll just leave that as a comment, because I think the answer is already too long.

Suggestion: it might be worth adding "informal" to the first sentence to emphasize that summoning sickness is not really an official rules term. But maybe that's just me. A good - long, but generally good - answer (and question) nevertheless.

@Lohoris If you're talking about the one under the "What if it's a creature with another card type?" It looks right to me. What problem do you see?

@DavidZ The thing is that it kind of is an official rules term. It is in the rules quotation, after all, though that does also call it "informal". So it could really go either way.

@murgatroid99 it brings me to Shanodin Dryads O_o Gatherer is just plain horrible, couldn't we use magiccards.info, instead? It's orders of magnitude better…

@Lohoris This site has built in support for Gatherer autocard links, and standard operating procedure is to use that to link to cards. But I replaced the autocard link with a direct link, so it should work now.

@Lohoris The Dryad Arbor link worked just fine for me. If you really think magiccards.info is better, you could post on meta about it and get a chance to explain why, but as murgatroid said, we already have a pretty good setup for using Gatherer.

@Rainbolt - I concur. I think the two essential elements are "has the object been under its controller's control since the beginning of the turn" and "is the object a creature". Breaking the issue up into cases makes it more difficult to remember the rule and apply it generally.

One way to improve this might be to focus on the two essential elements that Hao Ye mentioned in the first section, and use them to answer several specific cases all at once. Something very roughly along these lines: "All that matters is whether that object has been under your control since the beginning of the turn, and is currently a creature. So it doesn't matter if it's transformed, tapped/untapped, or changed types; it doesn't matter whether it was a creature card you cast, a token, a copy. Just look at that specific object and see if was under your control at the beginning of the turn."

OK, I tried to mostly do that, but I still left a few cases that I think need their own sections.

I thought I'd check this out cus I didn't want another duplicate to annoy people. if a Creature is PUT on the battlefield as opposed to being cast, say by Doubling Chant, will they still get summoning sickness I cant find specifics to creatures that are "put" onto the battlesfeild. it confused me as put doesn't seem to suggest it was "summoned". Although Flavour of cards usually confuses me in terms of the actual effect of the card so...

@ThunderToes: that is answered by the first sub-bullet under the heading "Which creatures are affected?". It says there "It doesn't matter how the creature entered the battlefield or whether it's represented by a card or a token." So, putting a creature on the battlefield vs casting it doesn't change whether it has summoning sickness.

@murgatroid99 I read that a few minutes after I commented haha cheers

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

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


text:
Are there any copy effects that allow the affected objects to retain original values for some characteristics?
Rule 707.9c says

Some copy effects specifically state that they don’t copy certain characteristics and the affected objects instead retain their original values. Copy effects may also simply state that certain characteristics are not copied.

Are there any cards that apply this rule by making one object a copy of another object, except leaving some of the first object's characteristics unchanged?

Note: I am aware of cards like Dermotaxi and Lazav, the Multifarious with copy effects that explicitly modify the copy effect with characteristics that match the original object, but that is separately covered by rules 707.9a and b. It is also functionally different than what I am looking for: for example, if Mairsil, the Pretender exiles Lazav and activates its ability, its name will become "Lazav, the Multifarious" instead of staying as "Mairsil, the Pretender"

Is there any rule without a card it applies to?

I think rules 304.4 and 307.4 were impossible to trigger for a while before Manifest was introduced. It's also not clear whether it's possible to trigger rule 104.3f.

Vesuvan Doppelganger

You may have Vesuvan Doppelganger enter the battlefield as a copy of any creature on the battlefield, except it doesn't copy that creature's color and it has "At the beginning of your upkeep, you may have this creature become a copy of target creature, except it doesn't copy that creature's color and it has this ability."

Note that, unlike the examples you posted or, e.g., Embalm cards, it doesn't say "except that it's blue".
As of this writing, Vesuvan Doppelganger is the only card whose Oracle text contains either "doesn't copy" or "don't copy". A search of copy effects "except" also doesn't turn up any other examples falling under 707.9c, although it does show a lot of examples of 707.9a and 707.9b modifications.

Ironically, it turns out that I actually referenced this specific fact about Vesuvan Doppelganger in an answer I previously wrote, but I forgot about it.

Volrath, the Shapestealer

(1): Until your next turn, Volrath, the Shapestealer becomes a copy of
target creature with a counter on it, except it's 7/5 and it has this
ability.

Wouldn't he meet the criteria?

No, it exactly matches my note about cards that don't match. It doesn't omit any characteristics from the copy effect, it explicitly modifies the copy effect with characteristics that match the card's printed value.

Ah, now I get the difference.

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


text:
MTG: Enchantments that require opponent to pay mana to attack
I had a deck many years ago that was blue/white and used a blue enchantment that made players pay 2 colorless to attack.  I can't remember the name of the card, but it was around Mirage, no later than Urza block.  I also had Kjeldoran Outpost and Thawing Glaciers.
The main concept of the deck was to get out the mana generating diamonds from mirage, then blow away the lands with Armageddon and keep the opponent locked out of attacking for a while.
This card is stuck in my head and I can't seem to find the name of it anywhere.  I remember seeing it reprinted as a white enchantment sometime ago as well.
If anyone knows what this card might be, please let me know the name.  I have not found anything via searching so far.

This question is too localized. This isn't a vote-to-close, though, because I think there's probably an easy fix.

Alex, what do you mean?  This was driving me crazy and I couldn't figure it out on my own and figured the community would know, which they did.

"Too localized" is defined as "This question is unlikely to ever help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet." I think the current formulation is specific enough that it's unlikely to help other users, particularly because they're not likely to search for the thing that gets them here, but a light edit -- maybe just a name change? -- is all that it would take to remedy that.

Hey @AlexP, I received a "Notable Question" badge for this question.

You're thinking of Propaganda from Tempest, which came out right after Mirage.
Ghostly Prison is the white version and Collective Restraint is a close cousin designed for multicolor-happy decks. (There's also the rather terrible Koskun Falls.)

There is also Dream Tides from Visions which has a similar effect: http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=3638

Sphere of Safety is also worth mentioning. I've used that one to make attacks cost a few dozen mana per creature in standard (It was legal in original theros)

You're right, a version was printed in white. Here's the cards you were thinking of:

Ghostly Prison
Propaganda
More options:
Windborn Muse - If you want a body not an enchantment.
Norn's Annex - Could be a weaker or stronger version, depending on your opponent.
Collective Restraint- Domain Version. If you play 3+ basic land types, even better.
War Tax - In late game if you have lots of mana, can really lock your opponents down.
Peacekeeper - Drawback: Also locks down your creatures, has upkeep cost.
Upside: Hard lockdown.

Peacekeeper only has a normal (not cumulative) upkeep.

More recently, there is the enchantment Sphere of Safety from Return to Ravnica.

In addition to the ones mentioned above, there's also Elephant Grass, which unlike the others has a cumulative upkeep (making it harder to keep around), but which trades that for costing just G, making it a perfect card for the Enchantress decks in Legacy.

Most of these pillow fort effects have similar wording, which includes the phrase "can't attack you".  Here's a Scryfall search for cards printed in a core/expansion set (no Commander or promo sets) which returns 19 results as of this answer's posting.
Results seem to be divides into a few categories:

Permanents that tax or otherwise prevent opponents from attacking you. Examples include  Blazing Archon, Baird, Steward of Argive, Propaganda, Koskun Falls
Permanents that prevent some creatures from attacking you. Examples include Sandwurm Convergence, Reverence
Single-turn effects such as Chronomatic Escape or Forbidding Spirit


text:
Can a creature with summoning sickness be targeted?
Can I target a creature as soon as it is played, even with summoning sickness?
Example: If my card, Beguiler of Wills, reads "Gain control of target creature," or Dungeon Geist's "tap target creature opponent controls," can I gain control or tap a creature my opponent just played? I have a friend arguing I can't, because they're in summoning sickness, but I thought that just stopped their tap-ability and attacking for the first turn.

Yes you can target a creature with Summoning Sickness. Summoning Sickness only prevents creatures that you haven't controlled since the start of your turn from attacking or using activated abilities with {T} (Tap) or {Q} (Untap) in their activation cost.

*Summoning Sickness Rule *
Informal term for a player’s inability to attack with a creature or to activate its abilities that include the tap symbol or the untap symbol unless the creature has been under that player’s control since the beginning of that player’s most recent turn. See rule 302.6. See also Haste.
302.6. A creature’s activated ability with the tap symbol or the untap symbol in its activation cost can’t be activated unless the creature has been under its controller’s control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. A creature can’t attack unless it has been under its controller’s control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. This rule is informally called the “summoning sickness” rule.
107.6. The untap symbol is {Q}. The untap symbol in an activation cost means “Untap this permanent.” A permanent that’s already untapped can’t be untapped again to pay the cost. A creature’s activated ability with the untap symbol in its activation cost can’t be activated unless the creature has been under its controller’s control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. See rule 302.6.

You are right. The only thing that summoning sickness prevents is using the creature's own tap ability or attacking. You are allowed to target a just-summoned creature with spells and abilities. You're also allowed to enchant it, to sacrifice it, to attach Equipment to it, and to block with it. You can even tap it if the tap ability belongs to a different spell or ability, such as if you have an ability that includes in its cost, "Tap 2 untapped creatures that you control."

Thank you all very much just a follow up question . Say i tap an oppponents creature that gives a static ability like Immer wolf gives all wolf creatures +1+1 would that ability stop since he is "tapped".

@chris There used to be a rule for "mono artifacts" which would say that artifact's static ability is "turned off" when it is tapped, but that rule went out years ago and text was added to certain artifacts such as Howling Mine to keep the original functionality intact. There is no rule that says abilities turn off if the permanent is tapped.


text:
Can creatures with Undying or Persist escape from Grave Betrayal?
Can creatures with Undying or Persist escape from Grave Betrayal?

702.78a Persist is a triggered ability. "Persist" means "When this permanent is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, if it had no
-1/-1 counters on it, return it to the battlefield under its owner's control with a -1/-1 counter on it."
702.92a Undying is a triggered ability. "Undying" means "When this permanent is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, if it had no
+1/+1 counters on it, return it to the battlefield under its owner's control with a +1/+1 counter on it."

Yes. According to Gatherer, Grave Betrayal creates a delayed trigger that looks for the original corpse:

Each creature you don’t control that dies causes a delayed triggered
  ability to trigger at the beginning of the next end step. If there are
  multiple such abilities, you can put them on the stack in any order.
  The creatures will return to the battlefield one at a time as each
  ability resolves. The last ability you put on the stack will be the
  first one to resolve.
If the creature card leaves the graveyard before the delayed triggered
  ability resolves, it won’t return to the battlefield. This is also
  true if the card leaves the graveyard and returns to the graveyard
  before that ability resolves.

Yes (assuming the creature didn't have the relevant counter on it when it died).
When a card changes zone, it becomes a new object with no relation to the object it was in the earlier zone. (There are exceptions that allow Persist, Undying and Grave Betrayal to find the card in the graveyard, but the exceptions don't allow them to find the cards if they move from there to anywhere else.)

400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. There are seven exceptions to this rule: [...]

As such, once persist/undying moves the card from the graveyard to the battlefield, the object Grave Betrayal's delayed triggered ability effects ceases to exist. When the ability triggers at the beginning of the next end step, it will have no effect.
This is the case regardless of whether Persist/Undying or Grave Betrayal resolves first (which depends on whose turn it is), since Grave Betrayal's ability merely creates a delayed triggered ability that will have effect later.
If the card were to find itself back in the graveyard before the beginning of the end step, it would be a different object and wouldn't be affected by the delayed triggered ability created the first time it died. (Of course, if Grave Betrayal is still on the battlefield, it'll create a new delayed triggered ability the second time the creature dies.)


text:
Illusionist's bracers and werewolf rulings
Lets assume that I equip an Illusionist's Bracers on Mayor Of Avabruck.
When he flips on the trigger of not casting a spell, can he technically flip twice, meaning that he would turn into a werewolf and then back again, or does he remain as a werewolf permanently?

Illusionist's Bracers only copy activated abilities.

112.3b Activated abilities have a cost and an effect. They are written as “[Cost]: [Effect.] [Activation instructions (if any).]”

Most transform cards, like werewolves and Delver of Secrets, have triggered abilities. Illusionist's Bracers have no effect on them. They will, however, double the activated abilities of Bloodline Keeper, causing it to flip twice when it transforms.
All of the abilities of Mayor of Avabruck and Howlpack Alpha abilities are triggered, so he won't benefit from Illusionist's Bracers unless you give him an activated ability from an outside source.

Note that the loyalty abilities of planeswalkers are activated abilities even though their artistic representation belies their true "[cost]: [effect]" form. Certain keyword abilities (e.g. Equip) are represent activated abilities.

Also note that planeswalkers are not creatures and as such, can't be equipped (unless they turn into creatures, but when they turn back, the equipment falls off as a state-based effect)

Mayor of Avabruck doesn't have any activated abilities, so I fear this is a bit of a nonbo.  Equipping him with Illusionist's Bracers won't usually do much...
Something like Civilized Scholar may reap you greater rewards.  If you activate HIS ability you will indeed get to use it twice (and transform to Homicidal Scholar and back again straight away.)

Ah I assumed so much of the cards forgot the ultimate rule of mtg. The "RTFC".


text:
When a land is granted a basic land type, what effects does that have?
For example, Quicksilver Fountain says

At the beginning of each player's upkeep, that player puts a flood counter on target non-Island land he or she controls of his or her choice. That land is an Island for as long as it has a flood counter on it.

At the beginning of each end step, if all lands on the battlefield are Islands, remove all flood counters from them.

I imagine this card is useful specifically because it denies the opponent the appropriate color of mana, if they are not already playing a blue deck. If I make a Swamp into an Island, then it produces U instead of B.
But what about with non-basic lands? If I turn Hinterland Harbor into an Island, does that mean it can no longer produce green mana? What about Seat of the Synod? Will that still be an artifact?

I run this card in my Merfolk Tribal deck that focuses on Islandwalk. That way, not only are you messing with their mana base, you're also getting unblockable attackers.

Keep in mind that there is a difference between "gaining" a basic land type (Aquitect's Will, "in addition to") and a land "becoming" or "is" a basic land type. When a land becomes a basic land type, it loses its old rules text and gains the appropriate implict basic land mana generating ability. Supertypes and Types are unaffected, so a land that is also a creature or artifact remains one.

305.7. If an effect changes a land's subtype to one or more of the basic land types, the land no longer has its old land type. It loses all abilities generated from its rules text and its old land types, and it gains the appropriate mana ability for each new basic land type. Note that this doesn't remove any abilities that were granted to the land by other effects. Changing a land's subtype doesn't add or remove any card types (such as creature) or supertypes (such as basic, legendary, and snow) the land may have. If a land gains one or more land types in addition to its own, i keeps its land types and rules text, and it gains the new land types and mana abilities.

There are two types of effects that change a land's subtype. One adds a new subtype, the other replaces all subtypes with a single subtype. Quicksilver Fountain's effect is a replacement effect. The land stops being what it was before and becomes just an island, losing all effects and abilities printed on the card (but not abilities gained from other sources such as Abundant Growth). This is covered in the comprehensive rules (emphasis mine):

305.7.: If an effect sets a land’s subtype to one or more of the basic land types, the land no longer has its old land type. It loses all abilities generated from its rules text, its old land types, and any copy effects affecting that land, and it gains the appropriate mana ability for each new basic land type. Note that this doesn’t remove any abilities that were granted to the land by other effects. Setting a land’s subtype doesn’t add or remove any card types (such as creature) or supertypes (such as basic, legendary, and snow) the land may have. If a land gains one or more land types in addition to its own, it keeps its land types and rules text, and it gains the new land types and mana abilities.

For your specific questions.

Yes Quicksilver Fountain's effect does affect non basic lands. They will almost become copies of the island card. They will however lack the "basic" supertype and will not be named "Island", for effects that care about it. (such as Awakened Amalgam)
Yes, Hinterland Harbor would not be able to produce green mana if you make it into an island. Using a replacement ability like Quicksilver Fountain's, it would be a non basic land named Hinterland Harbor with the subtype island and the ability to produce only blue mana.
Yes, Seat of the Synod would still be an artifact. Changing the subtype does not change the type or supertypes on the card, and "artifact" is a type. Seat of the Synod would behave exactly as it did without the type change, other than now having the subtype island for cards that care about it (like Islandwalk creatures)

As an addition to your questions, Quicksilver Fountain only works on lands that are not already islands, due to the targeting restriction in the card's rule text (emphasis mine):

At the beginning of each player's upkeep, that player puts a flood counter on target non-Island land he or she controls of his or her choice. That land is an Island for as long as it has a flood counter on it.

This effect is tied to the flood counters placed by Quicksilver Fountain only, since the rules text specifies "that land". The trade off is that the ability doesn't need Quicksilver Fountain to remain in play to work, if Quicksilver Fountain is destroyed the land remains an island. Flood counters placed by any other ability (such as Aquitect's Will) are not affected by the Fountain, nor do counters originally placed by the fountain but moved to another land (say Fate Transfer with two animated lands). This will matter most for the small list of non basic lands that are islands in addition to another type, like Tundra or Steam Vents, as Fountain can't force a player to lose this access to their other color.
If your goal is to mess with colors other than blue, and your deck is mono-blue since Quicksilver Fountain would cut off your access to other colors, you could look at Reality Twist. I used it in a mono-blue deck along with Eon Hub to prevent the cumulative upkeep. Unless your opponent is playing the right combination of colors it ruins their access to proper colors with their basic lands, and non-basic lands that have land types, by swapping the color a land would produce with another color. Only Boros and Golgari color combinations are unaffected.

Can you add citation to back up that Quicksilver Fountain won't affect lands that already have the island type? I don't see anything in the rules to back that up. 305.7 begins by saying: "If an effect sets a land’s subtype to one or more of the basic land types, the land no longer has its old land type." (https://blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/cr305/) Note it doesn't say "... to one or more of the basic land types it didn't already have."

@doppelgreener "target non-Island land" This is due to how fountain targets, since it only puts flood counters on cards that are not already islands and this type of ability modifies only the land targeted, it says "that land is an island', not "Lands with flood counters are islands" so the ability only affects lands that had been targeted to gain flood counters by the Fountain. Moving flood counters or placing flood counters with other cards will not move the effect.

@doppelgreener Alternatively it could have said "target lands without flood counters", and it would then affect these island duals, and regular island lands also, it would also potentially take longer to reset, since any islands would have to be flooded first.

Ah, got it — it's not part of type-changing which I thought you were speaking about in general terms there, it's part of islands being an invalid target.

@doppelgreener exactly, and I should have been more specific, it's because of the specific way the card in the question targets and the wording of it's type change.

@Andrew you might want to try going through and clarifying your answer a bit, specifically that you won't be able to choose to place a flood counter on lands that are Islands in the first place. It is only through moving around the counters with other effects that they can get on there.

@Malco I added the oracle text and emphasized it where it refers to targeting restrictions and cleared up the language

The land becomes an Island. It can no longer produce anything except U mana without help from other cards.
It would have the text 'in addition to its other types' or something similar if it meant anything else.

Can you quote any specific rules to back you up? What about if the card has other Types?


text:
Can regeneration save my creatures from Turn // Burn?
I have a creature with regeneration. My opponent responds to me activating regeneration with the Turn side of Turn // Burn.
Can I then activate regeneration again to make it a 0/1 weird with regeneration?

When you say "with regeneration" do you mean "with an activated ability allowing it to regenerate" or "with a regeneration shield"?

Yes, you can activate an activated ability as often as you can pay its activation cost.
But you don't need to. The ability will still resolve even if the creature no longer has the ability when it resolves.
For example, say the creature in question is a Dutiful Thrull.

Your opponent casts Shock targeting your Dutiful Thrull.
In response, you activate its ability.
In response, he casts Turn.
Turn resolves: The Dutiful Thrull is now a 0/1 red Weird with no abilities.
Dutiful Thrull's ability resolves: A regeneration shield is placed on Dutiful Thrull.
Shock resolves: It deals two damage to the 0/1 Dutiful Thrull.
SBAs are performed: The creature would be destroyed, but the regen shield kicks in. Dutiful Thrull is tapped, removed from combat and all marked damage is removed.

You could activate Dutiful Thrull's ability a second time between steps 3 and 4, which will give it a second shield for later on in the turn.

112.7a Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. Destruction or removal of the source after that time won’t affect the ability. [...]

This way the creature has an extra regeneration shield until the end of the phase(turn?) in case they try to finish it off.

Yes, if you activate it twice, it'll have two shields, which will replace two instances of destruction.

Added an example.

The fact that you can give something extra regeneration shields "just in case" reflects some serious weirdness in the regeneration rules.

@warbaker it used to be more sensible in 4thEdition where there was a damage prevention/regeneration step after damage was assigned where those things were done before creatures were destroyed. The new rules are cleaner, but weirder.

@warbacker, How is that weird? Multiple levels of protection is a common theme in ... well just about every game with such a concept.

@ikegami Because a card doesn't say "Add a regeneration shield," it says "Regenerate." The rules translate that into adding a shield because that's the simplest way to make the mechanic work in a stack-based game, but it leads to some not-very-flavorful edge cases. Flavor-wise, regeneration is something that you do after you've been injured that causes you not to die, but it's too complicated to model it that way in Magic.

@warbaker, "Create a regeneration shield for Wolfir Avenger" is just too wordy to write on the card.

@ikegami See Nick's comment about how it was implemented in 4th Edition. Here are details: http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/52b

@warbaker, (Just saw your comment now) Wow, 4th ed's definition is positively broken. "Enchant creature" enchanting cards in the graveyard? Trivially easy LTB/ETB loops for 1 mana per loop? wow. The problem have nothing to do with MTG being a stack-based game. (Which it's not. Numerous actions don't use the stack.) My earlier comments stand.

@ikegami The point in showing 4th ed's rules was to prove that the intended flavor for regeneration is that something gets mortally wounded, but then regenerates so that it doesn't die. The regeneration shield is a mechanism for cleanly converting that flavor to a stack-based system. It is indeed clean, and it usually corresponds perfectly with the flavor of regeneration, but sometimes it doesn't.

@warbaker, Actually, 4ed had it dying then coming back according to the doc you linked. The current rules is the one where "something gets mortally wounded, but then regenerates so that it doesn't die."


text:
Does Goblin Electromancer reduce both sides of a fused split card?
Does Goblin Electromancer reduce the cost of a fuse spell on both sides of the card? Would Turn // Burn be {1}{U}{R} to cast both sides?

No. Only one spell is cast, so only {1} is deducted for a total cost of {2}{U}{R}.

Fuse is an alternative cost, as evidenced by "you have the additional option to cast both halves as a single spell by paying their combined cost". This refers to their mana cost (as will be stated explicitly in the rules). The combined mana cost of Turn and Burn is {3}{U}{R}.
The Goblin Electromancer provides a cost reduction of {1}.
total cost to cast a fused Turn and Burn
= mana cost or alternative cost + additional cost and cost increases - cost reductions
= {3}{U}{R} - {1}
= {2}{U}{R}.

UPDATE
The rules have been released. It's not an alternative cost. Here's the relevant rule:

702.101a Fuse is a static ability found on some split cards (see rule 708, "Split Cards" that applies while the card with fuse is in a player’s hand. If a player casts a split card with fuse from his or her hand, the player may choose to cast both halves of that split card. This choice is made before putting the split card with fuse onto the stack. The resulting spell is a fused split spell.

702.101b A fused split spell has two sets of characteristics and one converted mana cost. The converted mana cost of the spell is a number equal to the total amount of mana in its two mana costs, regardless of color.

702.101c The total cost of a fused split spell includes the mana cost of each half. (See rule 601.2e.)

702.101d As a fused split spell resolves, the controller of the spell follows instructions of the left half and then follows the instructions of the right half.

That's very poorly worded, but it's clear there's only one spell being cast. I'm going to get confirmation of my answer anyway.

UPDATE
Confirmed

yep. You are right.

The key is that it says "You may cast both halves" not "You may cast both spells" - the former says it's one spell with two components, while the later says it's two spells on one card. It's like a card that says "Choose one or both" except that those cards have the same cost regardless, while this goes up if you choose both.

See the update.

authors: Костя Дряхлов


text:
Countering an uncounterable spell, triggers, and state-based actions
So I just played a game in Arena where my opponent was at 4 life, I had 1 card left in my deck (after drawing my card for the turn), and they had two copies of Drowned Secrets on the battlefield. I played Inescapable Blaze targeting them, and they played Thought Collapse, targeting my Inescapable Blaze on the stack, in response. Arena noted two triggerings of Drowned Secrets.
I then won the game, according to Arena. I am not clear on exactly what happened. I think Arena showed me milling my last card, but I since I won the game apparently having to mill more cards than just the 1 I had remaining did not cause me to lose. I see three basic possibilities:

Thought Collapse fizzled, since it had nothing it could actually counter, and thus Drowned Secrets fizzled and/or didn’t trigger to begin with—I’m kind of surprised that Arena allowed this action and then showed Drowned Secrets triggering if this is the case. And like I said, I think Arena showed my last card getting milled.
Thought Collapse fizzled, but Drowned Secrets still triggered, so I did mill my last card. But then how did I win? State-based actions are determined mid-stack and Inescapable Blaze wouldn’t have resolved yet, right?
Thought Collapse didn’t fizzle, so I actually had to mill three cards for that in addition to four cards for the two instances of Drowned Secrets. The same questions above apply equally-well here.

So what happened?

You lose when you have to draw a card and can't, not when you have no cards left in your library
Your third bullet point is mostly correct.
All instances of Drowned Secret's triggered ability resolved, then Thought Collapse failed to counter Inescapable Blaze, but still did as many effects as it could, so you milled some cards. Then Inescapable Blaze resolved, and your opponent lost the next time State Based Actions were checked due to having 0 life.
In fact, even if you hadn't won the game at that point, you wouldn't have lost for having no cards in your library. A loss only occurs when a player attempts to draw a card and cannot because their library is empty.

104.3c If a player is required to draw more cards than are left in their library, they draw the remaining cards and then lose the game the next time a player would receive priority. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)

Emphasis mine.
Drowned Secrets simply 'puts' cards from a library into the graveyard. This isn't drawing cards, and if there are not enough cards in the library that the ability attempts to put into a graveyard, the ability simply does as many cards at it can. (It can do this to 0 cards) In this case, the first Drowned Secrets milled 1 card (as many as it could find), then the second Drowned Secrets milled 0 cards (because there were none remaining), then Thought Collapse tried to counter a spell (it failed) and milled 0 cards.

Also note that this sort of interaction is true for any kind of action that causes you to remove (but not draw) cards from your library. For instance, with Omen Machine in play, players will never lose because of rule 104.3c. They may lose through other means (damage, poison counters, etc) but they will not draw cards. Theoretically if an Omen Machine were on the field and players could not destroy it or meaningfully impact each other, play will continue until - and beyond - when players have no cards left in their libraries. (Though in that case, the game will probably end in a draw in a few turns, when the game's state hasn't changed and no player chooses to change the game's state.)

Even cards that move cards from your library to your hand, such as Treasure Hunt, are not considered "drawing" unless they specifically say "draw".

Yeah, I like when people make vids with Risen Reef and Mirror March and then hit big and freak out about decking.  Since Risen Reef doesn't actually draw, you can't immediately die from having a ridiculous number enter at the same time, but you really need to kill the opponent that turn!

@CALEBF As seen here, I take it.

@Acccumulation quite related to my scry question :)

Note that your opponent could have beaten you by playing the thought collapse, letting it resolve, and then - still before the inescapable blaze resolved - activating the first ability of [[Folio of Fancies]], or the fourth of [[Kenrith, the Returned King]], or casting [[Explosion]] for X >= 1 targeting you with the card draw - anything that can force a card draw at instant speed. Since the Drowned Secrets was out, Explosion for 1 already kills, and Folio for 2+ also kills since you only had one card left. I'm just rambling at this point.

You don't lose the game because of "milling" from an empty library. You only lose in that way from trying to draw a card from an empty library.
Here's what exactly happened:

You cast Inescapable Blaze.
The opponent casts Thought Collapse.
The two Drowned Secrets' abilities trigger.
Each Drowned Secrets ability causes you to try to mill two cards from your library. After you mill your last card this stops doing anything because there are no more cards to mill.
Thought Collapse resolves and attempts to counter Inescapable Blaze, but can't. Then it tries to force you to mill 3 cards from your library, but the library is empty so that also does nothing.
Inescapable Blaze resolves and deals 6 damage to your opponent.
State-based actions are evaluated and your opponent dies for having 0 or less life.


text:
What happens when a vehicle dies with Hofri Ghostforge in play? (STX Spoilers)
What happens when a vehicle dies with the Hofri Ghostforge in play (from the upcoming Strixhaven set)?

Whenever another nontoken creature you control dies, exile it. If you do, create a token that’s a copy of that creature, except it’s a Spirit in addition to its other types

What will the type of the token be? Artifact Creature-Spirit, Tribal Artifact - Spirit, Artifact - Spirit or Artifact?

Is this a new card? I am not seeing it in gatherer.

@JoeW Yes, it's a new card for the next set, Strixhaven, just revealed. See the Strixhaven Card Gallery for all the cards revealed so far (spoilers, obviously!!).

@BradC Thanks for that info and this question should contain spoilers for the information and include that it is a card for a new set so that people who don't want the spoilers can avoid them.

Spoiler blocks for upcoming cards from future sets has never been our policy, and it makes the question more difficult to read. I am reverting that edit.

The token will be an Artifact - Vehicle. It will not be a Spirit, even if it becomes a creature later.
This is primarily a consequence of rule 205.3d:

An object can’t gain a subtype that doesn’t correspond to one of that object’s types.

The subtype Spirit only corresponds to the types Creature and Tribal, and the permanent has neither of those types, so it cannot gain the Spirit type either.
The card Glasspool Mimic has a similar ability that copies a creature and adds creature subtypes:

You may have Glasspool Mimic enter the battlefield as a copy of a creature you control, except it’s a Shapeshifter Rogue in addition to its other types.

That card also has a couple of rulings that explain how that is handled with non-creature cards:

Glasspool Mimic copies exactly what was printed on the original creature (unless that creature is copying something else or is a token; see below), except that it’s also a Shapeshifter Rogue. It doesn’t copy whether that creature is tapped or untapped, whether it has any counters on it or any Auras and Equipment attached to it, or any non-copy effects that have changed its power, toughness, types, color, or so on. Most notably, if it copies a creature that’s not normally a creature, it won’t be a creature.

If Glasspool Mimic isn’t a creature, most likely because it copied a creature that was only temporarily a creature, it won’t be a Shapeshifter Rogue, even if it becomes a creature later.

Like on Glasspool Mimic, Hofri's ability says "in addition to its other types", so it will still have the Artifact and Vehicle types.

If, instead of a Vehicle, the artifact in question was an animated Tribal Artifact such as Thornbite Staff, the token copy would have the Spirit type because the Sprit subtype corresponds to the Tribal type.

Unless the Vehicle was already a Tribal Artifact - [Creature subtype], anyway, in which case it'd become a Tribal Artifact - [Creature subtype] Spirit, I think. I don't think there are any such cards yet, but I could see something like a Tribal Artifact - Plant Vehicle being a thing.

Yes, there are Tribal artifacts, and if this copied one of those, it would get the Spirit type.  But there is never going to be a Tibal Vehicle, because Wizards doesn't make new Tribal cards.

WotC have said a number of times that they don't have plans to bring back a number of things, only to immediately release a new set bringing back those things. I'm not too sure about how much we can trust them about not bringing back Tribal.


text:
Would enchanting an opponents Stuffy Doll with Pariah cause a Draw?
I'm not sure how I haven't stumbled upon this amazing combo of cards before! I was just thinking, would it cause an infinite loop if I controlled a Pariah that was attached to an opponents Stuffy Doll?
In turn would this be a draw?

Yes, that would be a draw as soon as any damage would be dealt to you or the Stuffy Doll, assuming that you are the chosen player for Stuffy Doll.
Once damage would be dealt to you or Stuffy Doll, that damage is dealt to Stuffy Doll. Then Stuffy Doll's triggered ability triggers and it tries to deal damage to you, but it deals that damage to itself instead, which triggers its ability again. This creates an infinite loop, which results in a draw because of rule 719.4:

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

That's a mental combo though... I'm tempted to invest in both of those cards just for the sheer unfriendliness of it... haha

I think it's worth pointing out that if you control the Stuffy Doll, it's better to just name your opponent with its ability. Pariah still works well with Stuffy Doll, but setting up this combo on your own is probably more trouble than it's worth just to end the game with a draw.

Yeah I'm aware of that haha I was just looking for a contingency if i ever faced it.


text:
Can I imprint my commander and move it to the command zone?
I would like to know if it is possible, if the following Criteria are met, for me to imprint my commander and return it to the Command Zone:

Commander is in my hand
Soul Foundry has entered the battlefield
I choose my commander to be imprinted

When I remove my commander from the game this way, am I then able to move it to the Command Zone instead and keep it imprinted with Soul Foundry?

No.
Soul Foundry refers attempts to copy the exiled card. However, if you used the Commander replacement effect to put your Commander in the Command Zone instead of exile, that card doesn't exist in exile. Thus Soul Foundry doesn't see the commander card and can't copy it.

As an extra note, even if you did this, the copies don't count as your commander (e.g. to deal commander damage or count for Bastion Protector, etc.); only the physical card has the property of being your commander, and this isn't copied.

Commander rule 10: Being a Commander is not a characteristic [MTG CR109.3], it is a property of the card and tied directly to the physical card. As such, "Commander-ness" cannot be copied or overwritten by continuous effects. The card retains it's commanderness through any status changes, and is still a commander even when controlled by another player.

Ah... That is a shame, although possibly beneficial if running Omnath, Locus of Rage... Something for me to think about before acquiring this card. Thanks.

It's probably not worth the risk with Omnath itself; the Soul Foundry artifact is easily dealt with, but it would be hard to get Omnath back from exile. Omnath has a lot of mana ramp, so it's often easier to pay for the more expensive Omnath again.

It could still be a useful card in an Omnath deck if you had some relevant elementals you'd like to throw into the foundry, but I wouldn't take the risk with the commander unless it was late in the game and a desperate move.

@Samthere I've added a paragraph (& rules citation to back it up) that I feel is relevant. Could you check it out and edit or roll back as you please?


text:
What are the other games in this series?
A few weeks back me and my friends were remembering our childhood games, and it turned out all four of us had at least one of these themed board game collection books. The link has pictures of the book with superheroes. I had a book themed with insects, and two other friends of mine remember having one with racing tracks and action movie heroes. I'd like to know what other games were in this series, and possibly find some pictures of them to share with my friends and be all nostalgic for a while.
I very much hope this type of questions is on topic here.

Apparently they were made by Tormont Publishing out of Canada in the early 90s, and they made them with all kinds of themes.
I have been able to find a reference to a disny version, 'game' version and others. Sadly there is no real documentation for any of it, not even a wiki. This is a partial list of books that Tormont published. You can see a bunch of the game books in there.
Board game geek has an entry for the 'game' book and a science fiction version which was apparently made in the late 90s.
Here is an add for a Disney-themed one on Amazon.
It seems they licensed all kinds of material but they must not have been that popular because they do not seem to have survived. There are very few pictures of them out there and copies, when available, range between $40 - $100.
I guess you will have to pick something else to wax nostalgic about.


text:
How do Isochron Scepter and the Fuse mechanic interact?
The split cards in the expansion set Dragon's Maze contain a new mechanic "Fuse". This mechanic allows you to cast both sides of the spell, a new option for cards of this type.
Isochron Scepter allows you to imprint any instant card with casting cost 2 or less, and then produce copies of that card once per turn.
The interaction of Isochron Scepter and instant split cards is a highly useful one, in that you can imprint a split card providing one side meets the requirements of Isochron Scepter, and then cast either side of the card using Isochron Scepter's linked ability.
The fuse mechanic allows you to cast both sides of the card. How does this mechanic interact with Isochron Scepter? This is relevant so far to Turn // Burn and Far // Away.

I recognize it may not be possible to answer this question correctly until the official rules are released, however I am sure it is one that will be asked.

Are you asking specifically whether Isochron would let you cast both sides of the card for 2 mana?

I am going to upvote this. Very good question.

@SocioMatt Yes - specifically whether fuse allows you to cast both sides using Isochron Sceptre's ability. I know already that you can for example cast Away for 2 mana due to being split with Far.

@Rawrgramming: By the way, one of the reasons for a hold on official rules at most sites is to ease quoting the relevant rule, in this case the exact mechanism through which the reminder text is enforced.

You cannot use Fuse.
The reminder text reads "You may cast one or both halves of this card from your hand." The scepter allows you to cast a copy of the card from Exile. That it's not a card may or may not be relevant, but the addition of "from your hand" will surely be present in the rules, so it's pretty clear that Fuse cannot be used here.
As such, it's as if you were casting a regular split card. You can cast either side (even if the mana cost of that side is more than two), but not both.

UPDATE: The rules have been released, and the "from your hand" is indeed present in them.

702.101a Fuse is a static ability found on some split cards (see rule 708, "Split Cards") that applies while the card with fuse is in a player’s hand. If a player casts a split card with fuse from his or her hand, the player may choose to cast both halves of that split card. This choice is made before putting the split card with fuse onto the stack. The resulting spell is a fused split spell.
702.101b A fused split spell has two sets of characteristics and one converted mana cost. The converted mana cost of the spell is a number equal to the total amount of mana in its two mana costs, regardless of color.
702.101c The total cost of a fused split spell includes the mana cost of each half. (See rule 601.2e.)
702.101d As a fused split spell resolves, the controller of the spell follows instructions of the left half and then follows the instructions of the right half.

Nice catch on reminder text. +1

I am very tempted to agree with you, and I think this is likely going to end up being the final word on this interaction, however there are a number of instances where reminder text can be a little misleading, so I will hold off on accepting for now (until the full rules for this mechanic are released)

There's no reason to specify "from your hand" if it wasn't limited to castings from your hand. It would be shorter not to specify this limitation.

The rule change have been released. My answer is confirmed.

This post on Tumblr from a judge makes this pretty clear:

YOU CAN ONLY CAST BOTH HALVES OF A SPELL WITH FUSE WHEN YOU CAST IT FROM YOUR HAND.
Sorry for having to yell there, but people don’t seem to be getting that point, so I have to keep reinforcing it. Also, you can cast either half of a split card that’s imprinted on Isochron Scepter. Just not both.

As ikegami said, this is because of the clause in the Fuse reminder text that says "from your hand." So after you imprint it, you can use either side like with other split cards, but not both at the same time.

I realise this thread is a number of years old, and I wouldn't normally necro such a thread. However, because I just had the same question myself now with new Split cards about to be released in the Return to Ravnica set in October 2018, I thought to check the Gatherer rulings on Isochron Scepter directly:
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=413765

18/04/2017
The converted mana cost of a split card is determined by the combined mana cost of its two halves. When you activate the second ability, you may choose to cast either half of the split card, but you may not cast both halves.

It seems that the rules might have changed slightly since the Dragon's Maze expansion, and the current thinking is that you would NOT be able to imprint cards such as Turn // Burn and Far // Away any more, because their CMC (for both halves) would be 5 in both instances.
Edit:
See also:
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/amonkhet-split-card-rules-changes-2017-04-04

Isochron Scepter can't imprint Far // Away or Bound // Determined.