text:
Can players in single-elimination rounds agree to split prizes unevenly?
Paragraph five of section 5.2 of the Tournament Rules states the following:

Players in the single-elimination rounds of a tournament offering only cash and/or unopened product as prizes may, with the permission of the Tournament Organizer, agree to split the prizes evenly.

Ana Lucia and Nikki are paired in the finals of a single-elimination tournament. The winner receives four booster packs, and the loser receives one. Five booster packs cannot (objectively) be split evenly. Are Ana and Nikki forced to play out the round, or can they agree to split the prize unevenly?
Assume that the judge is willing to allow Ana and Nikki to split if and only if the split is legal. If the answer differs between RELs, please describe how the situation would be handled differently at each REL.

A more interesting scenario may be where the winner gets 3 packs and the loser gets none.  Then you can't just have one of the players concede on the first turn.

@bwarner The total prize pool is 3 packs in either case, and it can't be split evenly in either case. How does the predetermined distribution of packs affect the final outcome?

@Rainbolt I think bwarner's idea is that 2-and-1 is the most even possible split anyway, and you can achieve it by conceding, so there's no need to worry about making a deal to split prizes.

@Jefromi If conceding in order to obtain a 2-1 prize split is legal here, then by all means make that your answer.

@Rainbolt Right, but... what if as bwarner says it's 3-0, or 4-1, or anything else an odd sum? I think it's still a good question to ask, and that avoids "you can concede at any time" providing an answer.

For the sake of preventing more comments, I just changed it to 4 and 1 (if they played it out). Now the most even split (3-2) and the original split (4-1) are different.

Why the two downvotes? Have I not addressed all of the comments?

You are referencing the wrong part of the MTR for you question the relevant part is a few paragraphs above that.

Players are allowed to share prizes they have not yet received in the current tournament as they wish and may
  agree as such before or during their match, as long as any such sharing does not occur in exchange for any game
  or match result or the dropping of a player from the tournament. As an exception, players in the announced last
  round of the single-elimination portion of a tournament may agree to divide tournament prizes as they wish. In
  that case, one of the players at each table must agree to drop from the tournament. Players are then awarded prizes
  according to their resulting ranking. [MTR 5.2]

So what they are allowed to do is combine their prizes (4 + 1 in this case) and split them anyway they choose to, from 5-0 to 0-5 or anything in between. Then one of the 2 players drops from the tournament and they get their prizes and split them up as previously agreed.
The portion you quote is intended more for when you are in single elimination brackets, but you haven't gotten to the final 2 yet. For example at an FNM after 4 rounds of Swiss and a cut to Top 8, it is 1am and everyone wants to go home to sleep, as long as all the players and the TO agree they can stop the tournament there and split all of the prizes that would go to the Top 8 spots evenly between all of them. The rules do not state what happens if the prize payout in this case is not evenly divisible by the number of players.

This is the way I thought it was. I'm really curious to know where what Rainbolt is quoting is located.

@Waterseas Rainbolt's quote is in the same section (MTR 5.2) but a few paragraphs later

Don't they directly conflict with each other though?

The rule diego quoted is an exception that only applies to the "last round of the single-elimination portion of the tournament." The rule Rainbolt quoted applies to "the single-elimination rounds of a tournament offering only cash and/or unopened product as prizes."

@Waterseas Like murgatroid99 said they have different scopes, Rainbolt's quote is for when you are in the Top 4, or Top 8, etc. For the Top 2 however there is a more specific rule which would be the one I quoted, so that would be the one in effect.

I like this answer because it directly addresses both the question I asked and the question I should have asked.

Is dropping from the tournament the same as conceding the game?

@IvoBeckers Technically no, but depending on the game and where you are in the tournament they can have the same effect. When you drop from the tournament that means you are done with it completely and will not be playing any more. Conceding means you only lose the current match or game (depending on which you concede) but can continue playing in the tournament in future games/matches.

They would use this alternate way of ending the tournament (section 5.2 of the tournament rules):

Players in the announced last round of the single-elimination portion of a tournament may agree to divide tournament prizes as they wish. In that case, one of the players at each table must agree to drop from the tournament.

Is this quote also from the tournament rules that the question was referencing? If so, can you give a more specific citation with the section number?

Yes, same section as the OP's: 5.2 Collusion and Bribery

I didn't ask the question. It would just be helpful to have that information in the answer.


text:
What happens when multiple Canker Abominations enter the battlefield simultaneously?
Alice and Nicholas each control five Elvish Mystics. Each graveyard has a Canker Abomination and nothing else. Alice casts and resolves Exhume.
How many Canker Abominations remain on the battlefield after state-based actions are checked?
More generally, what happens when multiple permanents with "as [this object] enters the battlefield" effects enter at the same time, specifically when the act of entering would change the board state in a way the effect cares about?

It's a good question.  It could help for it to be a bit more general.  Perhaps a title like "What happens when multiple permanents with 'as this enters the battlefield' enter simultaneously?"  This would include cases like: how does Vesuva work when you Scapeshift all of your lands at once?  It's a bit of a shift in question intent, so I'm just posting it here as a suggestion.

@Zags I added it to the body instead of changing the title. There's a chance that the generalized title might cover more than I meant to ask about. My hope is that the added paragraph will be enough to cover any duplicate questions that might be asked in the future, but won't shut down anyone who actually has a slightly different question.

I have attempted to create the general form of the question: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/q/24424/9999  Let me know if you think it needs anything else

After Exhume resolves, there are two Canker Abominations on the battlefield, each with 5 -1/-1 counters. Rule 101.4 says

If multiple players would make choices and/or take actions at the same time, the active player (the player whose turn it is) makes any choices required, then the next player in turn order (usually the player seated to the active player's left) makes any choices required, followed by the remaining nonactive players in turn order. Then the actions happen simultaneously. This rule is often referred to as the "Active Player, Nonactive Player (APNAP) order" rule.

Canker Abomination's ability says

As Canker Abomination enters the battlefield, choose an opponent. Canker Abomination enters the battlefield with a -1/-1 counter on it for each creature that player controls.

This is a replacement effect, as described in 614.1c. Clone, another creature with an enters-the-battlefield replacement effect, has a ruling on Gatherer that says

If Clone somehow enters the battlefield at the same time as another creature, Clone can't become a copy of that creature. You may only choose a creature that's already on the battlefield.

This means that when multiple permanents enter the battlefield simultaneously, they do not see each other when applying replacement effects.
Therefore, the spell resolves like this:

Exhume starts to resolve. Each player must choose a permanent in their graveyard to put on the battlefield.
Alice chooses her Canker Abomination.
Nicholas chooses his Canker Abomination.
Alice chooses Nicholas for her Canker Abomination's ability. It will enter with 5 -1/-1 counters.
Nicholas chooses Alice for his Canker Abomination's ability. It will enter with 5 -1/-1 counters.
Both Canker Abominations enter simultaneously, each with 5 -1/-1 counters.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can I shortcut a loop with conditional actions?
I control Wirefly Hive, Filigree Sages, Darksteel Forge, and some means of making an arbitrarily large amount of mana. My opponent is at two million life, and there are ten minutes remaining on the clock.

I activate Wirefly Hive's regular ability
The ability resolves and I flip a coin
If I win, I get a Wirefly
I activate Filigree Sage's ability targeting Wirefly Hive
The ability resolves and Wirefly Hive untaps

I demonstrate my ability to make an arbitrarily large number of Wireflies. I also demonstrate my ability to make an arbitrarily large amount of mana. My opponent understands, but we call a judge anyway to ask if shortcut is legal.
Does the judge allow me to shortcut making a million Wireflies?

716.1a says that as long as both players understand the intent, I can use any "shortcut system" I want. My opponent understands my intent (to keep flipping coins until I make a million Wireflies), and so the shortcut is acceptable.

The rules for taking shortcuts are largely unformalized. As long as each player in the game understands the intent of each other player, any shortcut system they use is acceptable.

716.2a says that I cannot shortcut a loop with "unpredictable results" or "conditional actions". My loop contains conditional actions, so I cannot shortcut it.

At any point in the game, the player with priority may suggest a shortcut by describing a sequence of game choices, for all players, that may be legally taken based on the current game state and the predictable results of the sequence of choices. This sequence may be a nonrepetitive series of choices, a loop that repeats a specified number of times, multiple loops, or nested loops, and may even cross multiple turns. It can’t include conditional actions, where the outcome of a game event determines the next action a player takes. The ending point of this sequence must be a place where a player has priority, though it need not be the player proposing the shortcut.

I edited to Filigree Sages, which is a simple fix.

Would recommend reading about the four horsemen deck, as it's a similar, although significantly less complex case to that deck's issues.

@Waterseas: Watch out for that comparison, as there was not a simple set of actions to follow with four horseman. You needed to make complex decisions with every shuffle. Much more importantly the deck could not guarantee that it would actually go off. In theory it was possible to whiff before you killed your opponent if my memory serves correctly.

I think the question is worth considering without Darksteel Forge in play also. In this case, to get to a million Wireflies, you need some insanely huge number of iterations (some number with a few hundred thousand digits in it approximately). But given infinite time; you could still do it.

@Guvante That is not the case at all. It's actually a relatively simple set of actions, with no chance of whiffing once it starts. Reason I brought it up is because it was just mentioned (and explained) In this article today: http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/article.asp?ID=12551

@Guvante I believe that's the number of expected failures before you hit your goal, but each failure will take between 1 and 999,999 coin flips. Also, it's hard to define "expected" number here; a good question to ask would be how many flips you would need until you have more than a 50% chance of having hit your goal.

@GendoIkari: Good catch, I thought I was missing some thing with that number ><. In either case I don't think it is important as the interesting factor is "Can I specify an end condition for a shortcut that requires an unknown number of loops". Removing my glossing about scales of numbers which was off topic.

Can we move the extended discussion to chat?

As for why a restriction like this makes sense: in this case it's pretty easy to demonstrate the behavior (probability -> 1 as n -> infinity) but things can get pretty complex (apparently you can even build a Turing machine), so by (over-)restricting to no conditional actions, you hopefully avoid all the icky situations.

@Jefromi You do realize that the Turing machine you linked to has zero conditional actions, right?

@Rainbolt It actually has some "may" in it (although the author is trying to get rid of them). And if you modified it to insert more points where players have choices, you'd only make things more complicated. But in any case the point is merely to show how incredibly complex board states can be - whether it's due to mandatory actions based on board states, or players describing conditional actions based on board states, it can be a mess, so attempting to allow shortcuts through anything but the clearly simple cases is a recipe for trouble.

Just activate the ability 100 billion times (to avoid the conditional termination) and win the game with 99.999...% probability :P. You can probably find some website to do the flips for you in ten minutes

@Zags Given the prohibition of electronic device usage in tournaments, good luck with that XD

@Waterseas good point.  Guess you'll just have to settle for 0.999999 points for the match.

This loop definitely includes conditional actions, because when you have 999,999 Wireflies, when activate the ability and it resolves, you make the following choice:

If the ability created a Wirefly, you stop
Otherwise, you flip again

Rule 101.2 says

When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can't happen, the "can't" effect takes precedence.

Therefore, the restriction in 716.2a overrides the allowance in 716.1a.
In addition, if you assume that 716.1a effectively allows any shortcut that both players agree to, then the restrictions in 716.2a don't really make sense.

"Conditional actions" seems to be defined by the next few words: "where the outcome of a game event determines the next action a player takes. " In this case, the outcome of the game event does NOT determine the next action a player takes.

That is a reasonable argument for the other conclusion: this loop is in fact predictable and unconditional (overall), so the restrictions in 716.2a don't apply. On the other hand, the fact is that after n flips, the number of tokens is anywhere between 0 and n, so it's arguably still unpredictable.

@GendoIkari I addressed your comment in the answer.

@murgatroid99: You may want to instead focus on counting, as the reason that is usually used is counting requires a deterministic set of actions. You can say "I do this till I have four million life" because you are really saying "I do this thing that gives me four life one million times" just indirectly.

If you want to make that argument in your own answer, you can, but I'm not actually convinced that it's directly relevant to this situation.

I believe the answer depends on a few things.  First is how technical the judge wants to be with the rules.  As you cited above:

... It can’t include conditional actions, where the outcome of a game
  event determines the next action a player takes. ...

The coin flip is a conditional action.  You win, you get a Wirefly.  You lose, you don't.  That also determines, to some degree, how many iterations the loop takes to get to a million Wireflies.  For some people, that may be one million iterations, for others, around two million.  For people with luck like mine, the loop may never terminate.  In any case, we can safely say that once this loop of all legal actions terminates, the board state will be that everything is as it was when you started plus one million Wireflies for you.  If the judge wants to be hyper-technical, you cannot do this, because of the conditional action.  If he wants to follow the spirit of the rule, I believe this is fine.
However, what if your loop has side effects?  Consider the scenario where you control a fictitious card that has the following effect:

Whenever an artifact you control is untapped, put a +1/+1 counter on
  each creature you control.

How many +1/+1 counters does your Filigree Sages have on it?  Unless you can specify exactly how many times the loop executes for you to get to a million Wireflies you cannot accurately tell me what the board state will be when the shortcut is over.  At this point the shortcut is illegal because you don't know what the game is like when you are done.
(I realize the card I used in the example is made up, but any side effect that causes an unknowable board state could cause this.  For example, if your mana engine has a side effect every time it runs, what is the board state at the end of the shortcut?)

@Guvante, Note that the OP specifies Darksteel Forge in play to avoid this issue. However, I believe that the answer should be the same either way; it's just the difference between needing about 2 million flips, and needing somewhere around 2^1000000 flips.

The judge will not allow you to do this for 3 reasons.

When one rule says you can do something and another says you can the can't rule wins.

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

Starting a loop requires "predictable results of the sequence of choices." since you have no way of stating how many iteration of the loop it will take to get your desired result, or what the game state will be after N iterations (you could have anywhere from 0 to N tokens) it is not predictable.
Related to #2, according to the MTR you need to be clear about what the board state will be after any number of priority passes. You don't know what the game state will be like after any number of priority passes.

MTR 4.2 Most tournament shortcuts involve
  skipping one or more priority passes to the mutual understanding of all players; if a player wishes to demonstrate
  or use a new tournament shortcut entailing any number of priority passes, he or she must be clear where the game
  state will end up as part of the request.

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


text:
What exactly does the "If you do [...]" clause on Mimic Vat check for?
Mimic Vat has two abilities. The one I am concerned with is:

Imprint — Whenever a nontoken creature dies, you may exile that card. If you do, return each other card exiled with Mimic Vat to its owner's graveyard.

Anthony controls his commander, Ezuri, Renegade Leader. He also controls Mimic Vat with Llanowar Elves imprinted. The following occurs:

Ezuri dies
Mimic Vat triggers and resolves
Anthony chooses to Exile Ezuri
Anthony replaces the event, "exile that card", by sending Ezuri to the Command zone

We are not done following Mimic Vat's instructions.

If you do, return each other card exiled with Mimic Vat to its owner's graveyard.

This is where I get confused. I see two possible interpretations of "If you do":

"If you [exile that card], ..."
"If you [choose to exile that card], ..."

Which interpretation is correct? Have we satisfied the condition? Does Llanowar Elves end up in its owner's graveyard, or does it remain in exile?

Isn't Rofellos banned in commander?

Rofellos was banned specifically as a commander back when it was EDH; looks like Wizards ported that by just having him banned writ large, which is too bad

@Zags Wizards didn't do that, the Commander Rules Committee decided fairly recently to get rid of the "Banned as Commander" list and just merge it into the regular Banned List to reduce confusion.

With the current Commander rules, there is no longer the mentioned replacement effect. Instead, if the commander moves to the graveyard or exile, its owner can then move it to the command zone as a state-based action afterward [CR 903.9]. That simplifies this scenario considerably: now you choose to exile the commander, and you do exile the commander, and then it moves to the command zone afterward. The condition is satisfied, and the Llanowar Elves moves to the graveyard.

Under the previous Commander rules, this worked as follows:
The correct interpretation is the second option. You have satisfied the condition, and Llanowar Elves ends up in its owner's graveyard. This is because rule 117.12 says

Some spells, activated abilities, and triggered abilities read, "[Do something]. If [a player] [does or doesn't], [effect]." or "[A player] may [do something]. If [that player] [does or doesn't], [effect]." The action [do something] is a cost, paid when the spell or ability resolves. The "If [a player] [does or doesn't]" clause checks whether the player chose to pay an optional cost or started to pay a mandatory cost, regardless of what events actually occurred.

in addition, rule 117.11 says

The actions performed when paying a cost may be modified by effects. Even if they are, meaning the actions that are performed don't match the actions that are called for, the cost has still been paid.

In this specific scenario, the cost of moving Ezuri to the exile zone is replaced by moving it to the command zone, but the cost still counts as paid.

More specifically, it's choosing to exile it in the sense of choosing to and initially being able to. I'm not sure the distinction matters in this case, but for example if you put an Assault Suit ("can't be sacrificed") on a Living Lore ("...you may sacrifice it. If you do...") then you can't make that choice in the first place.

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

Worth noting the change to the commander rules, where commanders now do die and are exiled before moving to the command zone as an SBA rather than a replacement effect, makes this situation no longer possible, Ezuri would be put into exile on mimic vat fully under the current rules and then moved from exile to the command zone (other replacement effects for exile might still exist)

Which situation are you saying is no longer possible? It no longer plays out exactly as described in the answer, but the difference is fairly marginal: now Ezuri is exiled and then it goes to the command zone, but practically speaking the rest is the same.

@murgatroid99 AFAIK the commander replacement effect was the only effect that would replace a card being put into exile with something other than putting it into exile (like unearth would) since commanders now go to exile and then move out of it.

It simply checks the choice you made.

117.12. Some spells, activated abilities, and triggered abilities read, "[Do something]. If [a player] [does or doesn't], [effect]." or "[A player] may [do something]. If [that player] [does or doesn't], [effect]." The action [do something] is a cost, paid when the spell or ability resolves. The "If [a player] [does or doesn't]" clause checks whether the player chose to pay an optional cost or started to pay a mandatory cost, regardless of what events actually occurred.

Even if Ezuri wasn't exiled, the condition would still met because you chose to exile it, so Llanowar Elves does end up in its owner's graveyard.

The example you gave is rather poor because Ezuri was exiled in your scenario. While it didn't enter the Exile zone, it was exiled because it's not the exile action that was replaced but the put into exile action[1]. The following scenario is a better example:

You deal combat damage with Abomination of Gudul.
You have an empty library.
You chose to draw a card.

You are normally forbidden to take an illegal or impossible action, but you are allowed to chose to draw a card even when it's illegal or impossible to draw a card[CR 608.2d].
In this scenario, you would have to discard a card because you chose to draw a card even though you couldn't perform the action.

For example, if you were to sacrifice Blightsteel Colossus, Dragon Appeasement would allow you to draw a card even though Blightsteel Colossus never reached your graveyard.

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


text:
Have I missed a trigger if I announce it but then forget to resolve it?
Nathan controls a Seeker of the Way and a Favored Hoplite with two +1/+1 counters.

Alice casts Languish.
Nathan casts Gods Willing,
targeting Favored Hoplite. He announces that Heroic and Prowess have triggered.
Alice acknowledges.
Nathan resolves God's Willing. He scries 1.
Alice resolves Languish.
Nathan puts Seeker of the Way into the graveyard.

Nathan waits for a few seconds and then asks if it is his turn. Alice states that Favored Hoplite is dead. Nathan says that he forgot to put a +1/+1 counter on it from Heroic. Alice claims that the trigger was missed.
The Tournament Rules (TR) define a missed trigger as:

Triggered abilities are considered to be forgotten by their controller once they have taken an action past the point where the triggered ability would have an observable impact on the game.

By the TR definition, the trigger was missed, because Nathan has taken an action beyond the point where the trigger would have an observable impact on the game.
The Infraction Procedure Guide (IPG) defines a missed trigger as:

A triggered ability triggers, but the player controlling the ability doesn’t demonstrate awareness of the trigger’s existence the first time that it would affect the game in a visible fashion.

By the IPG definition, the trigger was not missed, because Nathan demonstrated awareness of the trigger's existence long before it would affect the game in a visible fashion.
I must be misinterpreting one of the two documents. Was the trigger missed or not? Please answer for both Regular and Competitive REL, and make it clear if they differ.

So Alice is the Active player and Nathan is the Nonactive player? I like the convention.

@corsiKa Yes. Although it often doesn't matter, I still like to follow the convention. When it does matter, I spell it out. (I assume you are just asking out of curiosity, but if you ask me to I'll edit the question to make it clear.)

It looks like the TR quote is kind of at fault here; I guess it's using "would have" to imply "would have but hasn't", because otherwise, it's not saying anything at all about "without demonstrating awareness" etc and a literal reading of it would define all triggers to be missed even if they were correctly resolved.

@Jefromi I agree, it looks like that quote is simply about WHEN a missed trigger is considered missed, not about WHAT "missed" means.

The trigger is considered missed.
Because demonstrating awareness doesn't mean stating that it triggered, it means acknowledging it at a specific point in time generally when the visible game state changes. According to the IPG the point that needs to be acknowledged in order for the trigger to be not missed is:

A triggered ability that causes a change in the visible game state (including life totals) or requires a
  choice upon resolution: The controller must take the appropriate physical action or make it clear what the
  action taken or choice made is before taking any game actions (such as casting a sorcery spell or explicitly
  moving to the next step or phase) that can be taken only after the triggered ability should have resolved.
  Note that casting an instant spell or activating an ability doesn’t mean a triggered ability has been forgotten,
  as it could still be on the stack.

The Judging at Regular REL has a similar definition:

These abilities are considered missed if the player did not acknowledge the ability in any way at the point
  that it required choices or had a visible in-game effect.

Since Nathan did not make the visible change to the game state of adding the counter he did miss the trigger.
At Competitive REL the appropriate remedy is:

If the triggered ability isn’t covered by the previous two paragraphs, the opponent chooses whether the triggered
  ability is added to the stack. If it is, it’s inserted at the appropriate place on the stack if possible or on the bottom of
  the stack.

And at Regular REL the remedy is:

If the ability includes the word “may,” assume the
  player chose not to perform it. Otherwise, use your judgement to decide if putting the trigger on the stack
  now would be too disruptive - don’t add it to the stack if significant decisions have been made based on the
  effect not happening!

So at Competitive REL Alice will probably choose not to allow the trigger to go on the stack. At Regular REL since nothing has really changed it would not be unreasonable to put the trigger on the stack, but it depends on if the judge thinks too much has changed since the trigger should have occured.

Huh. I suppose by the letter of the rules there you're right ("...must take the appropriate actions...") but I'm still not super confident - the things you're quoting can just as easily be read as explanations of what kinds of triggers need to be acknowledged and how they can be acknowledged.  This reading makes these rules cause you to miss triggers more easily, when they were actually written to generally make it easier to avoid missing triggers. Certainly before the rules change, if the trigger were explicitly on the stack, it'd just be illegal to do something else without resolving it.

Nathan did make the physical choice of putting the one card in the graveyard that should have as opposed to both, though. How does that play into the mix?

He also scried from God's Willing. I think that's a more definitive point in time than the Seeker being put into the graveyard, since it is unclear whether the Favored Hoplite should have gone with it.

@Jefromi Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of I state a trigger, but it doesn't happen because I forgot about it, but that is what the rules say.

I think you could definitely read all this as I said: as a definition of the expected way that you demonstrate awareness of the trigger (i.e. taking that action or making that choice at this point in time is sufficient to count as acknowledging/resolving the trigger), without it ruling out other ways of demonstrating awareness. That makes the OP's situation into a simple illegal action (with some bits possibly being acceptable out of order sequencing), same as if you'd put an activated ability or spell on top of the stack then tried to resolve things beneath it on the stack first.

(I don't know if that's right, of course, but it does make some sense, and I wouldn't be terribly surprised if a judge did that or if eventually these rules were amended to say that putting it on the stack counts as demonstrating awareness.)

What if instead of a +1/+1 counter the creature simply got +1/+1 until end of turn? Does that mean that now saying "it triggers" is enough to say that you acknowledge the trigger, instead of having to do something else?

@GendoIkari You don't even have to say "It triggers" you just have to acknowledge it when it matters for example when it deals combat damage, or it is in a fight.

@diego But if you don't acknowledge the ability being triggered and put on the stack before it resolves, aren't you depriving your opponent the chance to respond to it?

@GendoIkari No, your opponent can still respond to it, they just have to be paying attention to know it has triggered. You don't have to acknowledge the trigger until it visibly effects the game state, or you have to make some sort of choice. http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/233

@Gendolkari In some cases, a player may be forced to acknowledge a trigger before its controller does. You named a perfect example of when that might occur.


text:
If an effect would prevent a spell from doing damage, does it continue to prevent that damage after the spell changes zones?
Anthony casts Searing Blood, targeting Nathan's Elvish Mystic.
Nathan casts and resolves Dromoka's Command, choosing to 1) prevent all damage that would be dealt by Searing Blood this turn and 2) put a +1/+1 counter on Elvish Mystic.
Searing Blood resolves, deals no damage, and goes to the graveyard.
Anthony casts and resolves Lightning Bolt to kill Elvish Mystic.
Searing Blood triggers from the graveyard, because Elvish Mystic died. Does the prevention effect created by Dromoka's command still apply to it after it changes zones? In other words, will Searing Blood deal 3 damage to Nathan?

Part of the confusion is perhaps the mis-statement 'Searing Blood triggers from the graveyard.'  It would be 'The delayed triggered ability created by the resolution of Searing Blood triggers.'

The damage is prevented.
An reference by an object to its own name is a reference to itself. So "Searing Blood deals 3 damage" has the object on the stack deal three damage. That's the very same object that was targeted by Dromoka's Command.
The object no longer exists when you are instructed to have it deal 3 damage, but that's fine. It can still deal damage. Last Known Information about the object is used if required.

201.4. Text that refers to the object it’s on by name means just that particular object and not any other objects with that name, regardless of any name changes caused by game effects.

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: [none of which are pertinent]

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. Note that some abilities cause a source to do something (for example, “Prodigal Pyromancer deals 1 damage to target creature or player”) rather than the ability doing anything directly. In these cases, any activated or triggered ability that references information about the source because the effect needs to be divided checks that information when the ability is put onto the stack. Otherwise, it will check that information when it resolves. In both instances, if the source is no longer in the zone it’s expected to be in at that time, its last known information is used. The source can still perform the action even though it no longer exists.

This scenario occurs more often for creatures with abilities. Take a Prodigal Sorcerer that was killed before its ability resolved, for example. It's the object on the battlefield that's doing the damage, even though it no longer exists. It's the color of the object on the battlefield that's consulted if the target has any Protection from Red, not the color of the object in the graveyard.

The damage will still be prevented.
This is because Searing Blood sets up a delayed trigger, and the source of the delayed trigger is the spell that created it. We know that Searing Blood is dealing the damage since it says "Searing Blood deals 3 damage to the creature's controller."
Since we know that Searing Blood is dealing the damage, and it is the same Searing Blood that was targeted by the Command the damage will be prevented since the Command prevents all of the damage dealt by its target.

603.7d If a spell creates a delayed triggered ability, the source of that delayed triggered ability is that spell. The controller of that delayed triggered ability is the player who controlled that spell as it resolved.
201.4. Text that refers to the object it’s on by name means just that particular object and not any other objects with that name, regardless of any name changes caused by game effects.

Also note that the Searing Blood doesn't trigger from the graveyard, this is relevant in cases where the card gets removed from the graveyard before the ability triggers.

@ikegami I don't understand your comment. The source is exactly what matters since the Command prevents all damage from a single source.

The Command simply cares about the source of the damage. The ability says who deals the damage ("Searing Blood deals ..."). 603.7d identifies the source of the ability, but nothing's checking the source of the ability. For example, if the Command had targeted an instant that says "Each of your creatures deals 1 damage to target opponent", the Command would not prevent any damage.

@ikegami Ok, I understand what you are saying now. Though I disagree that the rule I stated isn't relevant, it is just needed in conjunction with the ones you cited.


text:
Can I stack Miracle and other "at the beginning of of your draw step" triggers however I want?
I control Howling Mine. At the beginning of my draw step, I draw Temporal Mastery. Can I stack the Miracle trigger and then the Howling Mine trigger, such that I draw my second card before the Miracle trigger resolves?

You can order the triggers as you like.

Draw Step

504.1. First, the active player draws a card. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack.
504.2. Second, any abilities that trigger at the beginning of the draw step and any other abilities that have triggered go on the stack.

702.93. Miracle
702.93a Miracle is a static ability linked to a triggered ability (see rule 603.10). “Miracle [cost]” means “You may reveal this card from your hand as you draw it if it’s the first card you’ve drawn this turn. When you reveal this card this way, you may cast it by paying [cost] rather than its mana cost.”

You first draw the normal card. If you want to play it for its Miracle cost, you reveal it.
Then  Howling Mine and Miracle goes on the stack at the same time. Since you control both triggers, you can arrange them as you like.
Then you get priority and afterwards the stack starts resolving.
Note that if another player controlled the Howling Mine, you would have to place them on the stack in turn order, starting with you.

405.3. If an effect puts two or more objects on the stack at the same time, those controlled by the active player are put on lowest, followed by each other player’s objects in APNAP order (see rule 101.4). If a player controls more than one of these objects, that player chooses their relative order on the stack.

405.3 doesn't seem to be relevant to me, because the two abilities are not both put on the stack by the same effect. I think the one you're looking for is 603.3b.


text:
Should "standard errata" be applied to silver-bordered cards?
Should players play cards from the Un-Sets as they stand, or should errata be applied to remain consistent with rules and Oracle updates? In the case that the general question is too broad, opinion-based, or otherwise not a suitable question for Stack, I provide the following, much more specific, question.
Example
Desert Twister, Northern Paladin, Red Elemental Blast, and many other tournament legal cards received similar errata that changed the phrase "card in play" to "permanent". The Cheese Stands Alone did not receive this errata, and so still contains the phrase "If you control no cards in play". How should the card play?

Play the card as if the Oracle text were "If you control no permanents ..."
Play the card as it stands. The state-based triggered ability of Cheese contains the word "card", so rule 108.2a applies. It reads, "In the text of spells or abilities, the term "card" is used only to refer to a card that's not on the battlefield or on the stack". This means that an Elvish Mystic on the battlefield is not a card.
Play the card as it stands, but ignore rule 108.2a and instead interpret "card" to mean something totally different, perhaps because of

old rules text, an unofficial ruling from a judge, an article by Wizards staff, etc., or
because "card in play" means something different than "card"

Which situation is correct? Feel free to wander outside of my three proposed situations. I am by no means claiming that any of them are correct. The rules appear to point to the second option, but the result - The Cheese Stands Alone can win without standing alone - seems odd.

The Cheese Stands Alone also got turned into the (slightly different) black bordered card Barren Glory, so even before the official errata to silver bordered cards, this particular example should be pretty unambiguous.

Much more recently, silver-bordered cards have in fact received "standard errata" like the ones you mention. The Oracle text of The Cheese Stands Alone now says

When you control no permanents other than The Cheese Stands Alone and have no cards in hand, you win the game.

Even the card R&D's Secret Lair has ironically received errata to its second ability as part of a recent standard errata to mana abilties.

They even errata'd the oracle wording of flavour text on The Ultimate Nightmare of Wizards of the Coast® Customer Service

One of the wonderful things about silver-bordered cards is that we can do stuff that maybe doesn't technically work but that players would have lots of fun trying to make work.

—Mark Rosewater

In other words, the Un-sets were never designed to perfectly follow the rules of Magic. That's probably a big part of why they don't bother giving them rulings and errata in Gatherer.
So, what should you do? It sorta depends on what your goals are.
Serious casual play: play 'em like any old cards
How do people play old cards without looking up Oracle rulings all the time?
Well, if you get familiar enough with the comp rules and the general shape of Oracle errata, you don't really need to most of the time. Sure, I might need to look up the rules for Chains of Mephistopheles every time, but I can just look at most cards in Legends and know what they're trying to do, even if the words are all backwards and the text is terrible inconsistent about "sacrifice" vs. "destroy" vs. "bury."
You can apply the same approach to your Unglued/Unhinged cards. What does "cards in play" mean? It's clearly old-Magic language for either "permanents" or maybe "non-token permanents." When someone proposes a crazy nonsense reading instead, give them an angry look and tell them they're just wasting time. (Or laugh at their joke, haha — and then tell them that they're wasting time.)
Note that some of the Un-cards are too crazy to really stand up to this kind of rigor. You will have to just do your best to make sense of a weird situation at times, but honestly this isn't nearly as big of a muddle as trying to play Magic with old-school rules.
Easygoing casual play: use "common sense" and don't sweat it
The Un-sets aren't really designed for attention to detail and exacting technical play anyway. Arguably part of the "joy" of them is experiencing Magic with a newbie's sense of wonder and discovery (though this is rather personal and your mileage may totally vary).
So, just play like you're still figuring out the game. Try to do what the cards say as best as you can. Don't stress about what the "real" rules are. Don't get technical or demand precision from players at the table. If the game state gets too complicated due to some interaction of the cards, have the group make up something that sounds halfway fair and just move on.
If it helps, imagine you're twelve. (No offense to twelve-year-old "Spikes" who play tournaments and love the comp rules. In fact, mad props to twelve-year-old "Spikes" who play tournaments and love the comp rules!)
I recommend this approach if there's a significant skill gap within the group, or if you intend to play Magic while intoxicated.
Zany nonsense: make stuff up

"If Floral Spuzzem attacks an opponent and is not blocked, then Floral Spuzzem may choose to destroy a target artifact under that opponent's control and deal no damage."

"But... how does it decide?"

Some people look at Unglued/Unhinged as an opportunity to joke about playing Magic rather than play Magic per se.
If that's what your group is doing with their silver-bordered cards, then all sense of consistency goes out the window (with the exception of appeal to precedent, maybe).
At this point nothing an outside authority says about the rules is meaningful at all. So just make up your own interpretation and accept that you're playing Mornington Crescent.

+1, these are definitely the big possibilities, and Mark Rosewater's quote there conveys their intent pretty well: you're supposed to figure it out yourself, not ask for help from on high.

Here are some statements from Mark Rosewater, the Un-rules manager:
why Erase (Not the Ursa's Legacy One) doesn't have new Oracle text:

The Un-sets have never been updated because they are not in Oracle. Unglued still has Summon Creature for goodness sake. I have brought this problem up and I’ve been promised that it will eventually be fixed, but that it’s a low priority item so please be patient.

why silver-bordered cards don't get Oracle text, not even trivial stuff:

It’s a matter of resources. The Un-cards aren’t used for tournament play so they are low cards on the totem pole. I hope to get them Oracle-ish text one day.

For the purposes of Delirium, how does it work in Silver-Border?

Assume logical eratta on the Un-cards for card types. Entire-cray is “creature” just in another language.

My understanding from these replies is that the Un-cards would ideally be played with the Oracle updates, but that they simply have not gotten around to posting the updates, so there's no way to know for sure exactly what the Oracle text would be.

Officially, Un-cards don't exist. In fact, many cards are in the Un-sets specifically because the rules team couldn't figure out how to make them work within the official rules (Staying Power is such an example. Rocket-Powered Turbo Slug was another, although the Future Sight pacts captured the spirit pretty well). Randy Buehler even went on the record saying that he didn't know the ramifications of R&D's Secret Lair.
In the specific case of The Cheese Stands Alone, the only reason it wasn't reprinted in Eighth Edition was because having a tournament-legal Unglued printing would have caused rules problems, so instead Future Sight ended up with Barren Glory. So a reasonable casual rule would be to say that The Cheese Stands Alone is functionally Barren Glory, if someone wants to split hairs.

The major difference between cheese and barren glory is the timing - cheese works immediately, Glory is at the start of your turn and thus much harder to make work.

"Officially, Un-cards don't exist." Are you claiming that an Un-Card can't be named with Pithing Needle?

@Acccumulation When this question was asked and the answer written the rules required you to name a card that was legal in the format, and at that time silver bordered cards had no oracle entry, so you couldn't name them due to rule 201.3 - this all changed when they got oracle text and 201.3 lost the "is legal in the format of the game the player is playing. (See rule 100.6.)" text

Oracle text isn't updated normally for Un-cards, since they are not legal in any format. Heck, the reason they did not reprint The Cheese Stands Alone was due to a conflict of interest between "Any reprint can be played" and "Only white and black cards can be played". Thus we got Barren Glory.
One of the major points about the Un-sets was they weren't supposed to be rules perfect, since they wanted to focus on the humor.
Personally I would play any card as you describe in (1). Effectively "if this were templated today, how would it work?" as an example of a card that could be updated: Charm School

Enchant Player
When Charm School comes into play, choose a color and balance Charm School on your head.
Prevent all damage to you of the chosen color.
If Charm School falls off your head, sacrifice Charm School.

With more recent templating (give or take).

Enchantment - Aura
Enchant you
When Charm School enters the battlefield, choose a color and balance Charm School on your head.
Prevent all damage to you of the chosen color.
When Charm School falls off your head, sacrifice Charm School.

Note that I can't find an example of an aura that could only target you, so guessed as to how it would be templated.

Charm School doesn't use "enchanted player" anywhere.  It isn't substantially different from a non-aura enchantment that simply applies to its controller.

@Brilliand This is probably why it has been changed into an enchantment and not an "Enchantment - Aura" I'm not sure but I think this was a 2017 update along with the unstable release.

Yeah I had just looked for an example that would need a rules update and a local enchantment seemed like an easy pick. This was before any local enchantments on players existed and I believe the type line was made as a joke since you typically place local enchantments under or over the thing they enchant so an enchantment on your head was enchanting you. Just making it a non-local to clarify it can't target a different player but affect you is cleaner rules wise though.

There is no authoritatively correct answer. Unglued and Unhinged cards do not have official rules.
Unglued and Unhinged were created explicitly to mess with the rules. They are not tournament legal, so there is no need for there to be real rules.  I don't know of a single reference where someone from Wizards says just that. But it's clear from several things.
First, as you've noticed, they've never received Oracle text updates. This is not an accident. Normally, when rules change, Wizards goes and finds every affected card they possibly can and updates the Oracles text. For example, here's the update from Magic 2014. They have not somehow forgotten about Un- cards for years, they have deliberately not updated them. The lack of Oracle updates for these cards is Wizards (passively) saying, there are no updated rules for these cards.
Second, when Mark Rosewater wrote some "rules" FAQ for Unhinged (the closest you'll get to anything official), he said:

But when the subject of the Unhinged set comes up, the opposite appears to happen. When I brought up the fact that we needed to produce an Unhinged FAQ(TIWDAWCC), the rules team left skid marks getting away.

So the Wizards rules folks have not touched Unhinged, and there are no official rules. Those FAQ clarify some things for Unhinged, and there is no similar document for Unglued.
The same applies to your specific case with The Cheese Stands Alone: there will be no authoritative answer. It's probably most reasonable to play it as if the templating were updated - "card in play" changed to "permanent" - because that's what was done to other cards, so it's most likely what Wizards would have done if they had updated it. But it's up to you to try to make decisions like that for each card; whatever you decide will be just as authoritative as what someone else out there has decided. Even if someone ran an Un-tournament, and had judges, and for some reason recorded their rulings, they wouldn't really be official - they'd have been working off their own knowledge same as you, without any actual rules or Oracle text to look to.
 I've discussed in chat some with the OP, and come to understand that he's not interested in ways to personally choose how to play the cards, just authoritative advice. But since there is no such advice, I feel that the other answers are actually much more helpful than simply stating what I have, so I'd encourage anyone looking for actual advice on how to play with the cards to look to any of the other answers.

Should players play cards from the Un-Sets as they stand, or should errata be applied to remain consistent with rules and Oracle updates?

You should do whatever you please. These are prank sets that can only be played with friends. Anyone telling you and your friends how to play with cards that aren't legal for play is being pretentious. And they're wrong! How can there be a right way to play an illegal card?
If you meant to ask what works best, I recommend on agreeing on what an updated wording of the card would be. e.g. The Cheese Stands Alone would probably have been updated to affect tokens like most (but not all) similar cards. Of course, if you want to change the a card's text, it works best if you do that before the game starts.

By the way, I don't agree with your reading of 108.2a. It doesn't say that permanents aren't card; it simply states that abilities won't refer to them as cards. Even so, some abilities (and rules) still use the word "card" to refer to them as required. Sorry, I can't seem to remember an example.


text:
How many rules does Magic have?
More specifically, how many subrules exist in the September 25, 2014 revision of the Comprehensive Rules, located here?

1 Game Concepts

Not a rule. This is a header.

100 General

Also not a rule. This is a subheader.
Just to clarify, CR 100.1 and CR 100.1a are two different subrules. Please explain how you arrived at your number. If your solution can be generalized to cover more than one revision, please note that.

This is a localized question, and is guaranteed to change with every revision. Why are you asking this?

@murgatroid99 It will not change with every revision, because I asked about a specific revision.

I know you asked for a specific revision, as my answer demonstrates. But what is the use of having the number of subrules in an old revision of the Comp Rules?

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

There are 2008 subrules in the September 26, 2014 revision of the Comprehensive Rules. I found this by running the following command on Linux:
curl --silent http://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/MagicCompRules_20140926.txt | \
  grep -c '^\s*[0-9]\{3\}\.[0-9]\+[a-z]*'

This downloads the text version of the Comprehensive Rules and then finds every line that starts with 3 digits, a period, more digits, and possibly a letter (which is the pattern that represents a subrule).
The number of subrules in any other revision can be found by running the same command and replacing the URL with the URL of that revision's TXT rules page.

This number seems very small. I was bored and counted 376 just in section 1, and 702 looks like it has over 300 too.

That's a good point. I had a minor bug.

The rules with zeroes in them aren't very interesting anyway, don't worry.

New EDH variant: 00Commander, License to Mise.  Rules with 0s in them do not apply.

That number seems much more reasonable :)


text:
Can an ability track a card across multiple zones?
Here is the situation:

I use Jace, Telepath Unbound's -3 ability, targeting Walk the Aeons.

−3: You may cast target instant or sorcery card from your graveyard this turn. If that card would be put into your graveyard this turn, exile it instead.

I cast Walk the Aeons with Buyback.
Walk the Aeons resolves and returns to my hand.
I cast Walk the Aeons again, without buyback.

Where does Walk the Aeons go when it resolves for the second time that turn? Can Jace's ability track Walk the Aeons across multiple zones?

Objects that move from one zone to another become a completely new object.

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 eight exceptions to this rule:

Rule 400.7h is an exception to 400.7. This is the rule that allows Jace's -3 ability to keep track of cards that you cast from the graveyard.

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.

As soon as the card moves to any other zone, rule 400.7h no longer applies, and Jace's ability loses track of it. If you cast Walk the Aeons after that, it will go to the graveyard like normal.
As another user pointed out, this is also the most logical outcome. The game has no way to tell in all situations if the second Walk the Aeons is the same physical card as the first one.

Logically, the game can't really track that sort of thing, because there's no way for the game to know if the second Walk the Aeons that is cast is the same physical card as the first one or not.

@GendoIkari That's one possible argument, but it's not watertight - what if the player had an empty hand before the Buyback? Then it would be the only card in that player's hand and the game could know. Of course, it would be a silly way of doing things on a case-by-case basis. The "game object" concept is much more broadly applicable.


text:
Does Essence Scatter affect Artifact Creatures?
Does the Instant Essence Scatter affect Artifact Creature spells such as Stuffy Doll?

"205.1. The type line is printed directly below the illustration. It contains the card’s card type(s). It also contains the card’s subtype(s) and supertype(s), if applicable." Stuffy Doll has two types: artifact and creature. As such, it is a creature.

Note that it only affects Stuffy Doll spells, not Stuffy Doll permanents.

Yes
From a ruling on the Essence Scatter Gatherer entry:

A "creature spell" is any spell with the type Creature, even if it has other types such as Artifact or Enchantment. Older cards of type Summon are also Creature spells.

Was this the case in the past for Remove Soul and Summon spells? As then Artifact Creatures were not Summon spells, while Summon Elf would be a summon spell.

@Nick The Oracle text on Remove Soul reads "Counter target creature spell." The Oracle text has precedence over the words written on the card, even in casual play. Other than card name, Remove Soul is identical to Essence Scatter.


text:
Instantaneous creature death and checking conditions
I have a Night of Souls' Betrayal, and so does my opponent. Creatures get -2/-2.
I have a Marchesa, the Black Rose, relevant text:

Whenever a creature you control with a +1/+1 counter on it dies, return that card to the battlefield under your control at the beginning of the next end step.

I play a Rakdos Cackler, a 1/1 with Unleash.
If I choose to have Rakdos Cackler enter with a counter, will it have a +1/+1 counter on it when it dies? Will Marchesa's ability return Rakdos Cackler to the battlefield at the next end step?

What part of this interaction are you unsure about? Do you want to know whether the Cackler has a counter when it dies, or whether it dies at all, or something else?

If it will be reanimated when it dies

As in, will it have a +1/+1 counter when it dies

OK, I tried editing your question to make sure that point is emphasized.

Night of Soul's Betrayel is Legendary. How can there be two copies in play?

@steenbergh As of M14, each player can have his or her own copy of a legendary permanent.

Yes, it will trigger every time it returns.
Let's start when the Cackler is on the stack, when you originally cast it.
If no one has a response, it resolves. When it is resolving, you choose whether or not to have it enter with a counter. Assuming you do, it enter with a counter on it, as a 0/0, because of the Night of Souls' Betrayals.
At this point, state based actions are checked. The Cackler dies, but Marchesa will see it with a +1/+1 on it, and this process will repeat every end step.

[mtg:] card links don't work if there's an apostrophe in the card name.

@GendoIkari They actually do, as of a recent site update. Or at least they did, very recently.

@murgatroid99 They aren't working for me...

@diego Thanks, I see. Great to see that's finally been fixed!

It might be useful to point out that Unleash is a replacement effect, which is why the Cackler enters the battlefield with a counter, and that this is different from a triggered ability, like on [mtg: Bond Beetle].


text:
Can I play two instants back to back?
Basically lets say I attack with Triton Shorestalker. My opponent can't block. Can I then play Become Immense and Titanic Growth?
Or if I attack with a creature that can be blocked and my opponent chooses not to can I then play Become Immense and Titanic Growth?

Related: instants and priority; the top answer there quotes from the basic rulebook.

Tangentially, it is better strategy to play one, see if your opponent does anything, then play the other.

Oh ya of course I guess I was curious cause I thought u had to respond to something in order to play an instant but thanks attack play titanic growth wait then play become immense

Yes, you can. There's no limit to the number of instants you can cast, other than having the mana available to pay for them. Is there anything in particular that made you think such a limit would exist? If you haven't done so, check out the basic rule book.
For your second question, yes, at the end of the "declare blockers step", in which your opponent will have decided whether or not to block, each player then gets a chance to cast instants or activate abilities.
From the basic rulebook:

An instant is just like a sorcery, except you can cast it just about any time you want,
even during your opponent’s turn or in response to another spell. Like a sorcery, an
instant has its effect, then you put it into your graveyard.

And

Your opponent decides which, if any, of his or her
untapped creatures will block your attacking creatures,
then they do so. If multiple creatures block a single
attacker, you order the blockers to show which is first
in line for damage, which is second, and so on. Players
can then cast instants and activate abilities.

Note that there are 2 ways to cast 2 instants during the same step:

You can cast the instants one at a time, waiting to cast the second until after the first resolves. Most commonly this is smarter, because you can see what your opponent does before deciding to cast the second one.
Or:
You can cast the second instant immediately after casting the first, in which case the second one you cast will resolve first. If you wish to do this, then you must state as you cast the first instant that you wish to retain priority, otherwise you are assumed to be passing it after casting the instant. You would need to do this if, for example, you wanted to cast Fork, targeting your first instant.

No nothing in particular just wanted to make sure what I am doing is legal but thank you you deff helped alot.

I think it's worth mentioning that in a tournament, the only way to stack instants is to explicitly state that you are holding priority.

That's only if you care about having the second one resolve before the first one. Otherwise, you can just cast the second one after the first one resolves.

@Gendolkari There's more to it than that. Say you attack with Triton Shorestalker. Then, you cast Become Immense and Titanic Growth without holding priority. Your opponent responds with Bile Blight. Because you are assumed to have passed priority between each spell, you are assumed to have never even cast Titanic Growth. Titanic Growth will return to your hand. It is important to know this so that you don't get bullied into being three-for-oned at a tournament. It happens more often with abilities that you can activate multiple times (e.g., "Pump my guy six times?").

Wouldn't "I cast Become Immense then Titanic Growth" be a valid understood shortcut for "I cast Become Immense retaining priority, then I cast Titanic Growth"?

@Rainbolt And even if not, my point is that you don't need to cast both before your opponent responds. It would be smarter usually to cast Become Immense, then wait for your opponent to pass priority allowing Become Immense to resolve, THEN cast Titanic Growth.

@Gendolkari No, it is not a valid shortcut. The word "explicit" means exactly what you think it means. You're right - it would be smarter to cast and resolve these two specific spells sequentially. My point is that is exactly what happens by default. Also, what about the cases where it isn't smarter? For example, Humble Defector and Refocus.

@Rainbolt - I believe that such an example is outside the scope of this question. The OP wanted to know if he could cast more than one instant during the same step; he was not interested in the difference between casting a second before the first resolves and casting the second after the first resolves.

@Gendolkari Fair enough. It is outside the scope of the very specific example used in the question.

@Rainbolt I added a brief paragraph about it anyway.

@GendoIkari, No, "I cast Become Immense then Titanic Growth" doesn't clearly mean what you suggested. In fact, to me, it means the opposite. It tells me you mean to cast Titanic Growth after Become Immense resolves (similar to when you say "I activate it 4 times"). That would require that you pass priority after casting Titanic Growth.


text:
If I copy a mythic rare, will both survive?
I control Keranos, God of Storms. I play Fated Infatuation, which reads:

Put a token onto the battlefield that's a copy of target creature you control.

Can I copy Keranos as it is a mythic rare and have both survive, or would this force them both to the graveyard?

Do you mean Legendary instead of Mythic? Mythic is a rarity with no rules meaning at all, Legendary is a Supertype that effects how many of a permanent you can have on the battlefield at one time.

The copy will have all Keranos's copiable values, so it will be a
Legendary Enchantment Creature — God: Keranos, God of Storms. Due to the legend rule, you will have to choose which one stays on the battlefield, and which goes to your graveyard.

706.2. When copying an object, the copy acquires the copiable values of the original object’s characteristics ... 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)...
704.5k If a player controls two or more legendary permanents with the same name, that player chooses one of them, and the rest are put into their owners’ graveyards. This is called the “legend rule.”

The rules do not care about card rarity. You can have as many of the same Mythic permanents on the battlefield as you want.

You may want to point out this has nothing to do with it being a mythic and everything to do with it being a legendary.


text:
Do enchantments played by my opponent on creatures I control count towards my devotion?
If my opponent enchants my Spellheart Chimera with Encrust, will Encrust be counted towards my devotion or his?
This is for devotion towards my god, Keranos, God of Storms.

Who controls an Enchantment has no relation to who controls that which it enchants. For example, if your opponent's Ocular Halo was attached to your creature, you could tap your creature to draw a card, but you couldn't give it Vigilance. Only your opponent can do that.

Let's have a look at what devotion is:

Devotion
A numerical value a player has, equal to the number of mana symbols of a certain color among the mana costs of permanents that player controls.

The fact that Encrust is attached to your Chimera does not make you its controller. Your opponent still controls the enchantment, so Encrust will count towards your opponent's devotion to blue. You can take control of enemy's Enchantments with something like Confiscate.

Encrust will count toward your opponent's devotion.
This is because your opponent is the controller of Encrust, and Devotion looks at the mana symbols in the costs of permanents each player controls.

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

Is there a reason for the downvote?


text:
Does Olivia Voldaren's second ability still work if I steal her in response?
Olivia Voldaren has the following for her second ability:

{3}{B}{B}: Gain control of target Vampire for as long as you control Olivia Voldaren.

Meanwhile, Merieke Ri Berit has this for her second ability:

{T}: Gain control of target creature for as long as you control Merieke Ri Berit. When Merieke Ri Berit leaves the battlefield or becomes untapped, destroy that creature. It can't be regenerated.

My opponent activates Olivia Voldaren's second ability, targeting a vampire. In response, I activate Merieke Ri Berit's second ability to steal Olivia Voldaren. Will my opponent still gain control of the vampire?

Remember that duplicate questions are redirected to the question they have linked as "duplicate of" for anonymous users. That would certainly not work for this question, because they would get the wrong answer.

@Pablo I've edited and retracted my close vote - the question as worded before simply asked it it resolved and didn't mention what the ability was, so it was pretty easy to think it was actually the same question.

This one is an edge case, so it's interesting. Yes, the second ability resolves, but as the player activating the ability no longer controls Olivia, the end result is similar to if it hadn't, as she is no longer under that player's control.
There's a ruling on the gatherer page confirming this:

If you activate Olivia Voldaren's last ability, and before that ability resolves you lose control of Olivia Voldaren, the ability will resolve with no effect. You won't gain control of the targeted Vampire.

This is because of the sentence "for as long as you control Olivia Voldaren" in the ability. See rule 611.2b.

Berit's ability resolves, stealing Olivia. Olivia's ability resolves but as the player no longer controls Olivia the vampire she targeted stays under your control.


text:
How do "side effects" interact with a card that grants hexproof?
I was looking at the card Leyline of Sanctity and noticed that it gives its controller hexproof. I understand that this means that I can't use any spells or abilities that target the player, but what about "side effects" that target another permanent, and then result in damage or an effect on the player?
If I use Draconic Roar and reveal a dragon, will the 3 damage fizzle or will it get through since the player isn't the primary target?

If you tag a card like [mtg:Draconic Roar], a link will be created automatically for you. The feature has a few bugs, but it works most of the time. Also, more often than not, taglines like "Hello" or "Thanks" will be edited out of the post (see why here). You can edit it back in if you really want it to be there. Otherwise, nice question!

Hexproof only prevents targeting. Any effects that affect the player without targeting (e.g. "Deal 2 damage to each opponent") still work. Draconic Roar doesn't target your opponent, so his hexproof has no effect.

While both answers answer the specific case, would like to explain a bit more broadly, since the question is a lot more broadly worded than the specific instance. Since the player has hexproof, but the card Draconic Roar does not say 'target player', all effects of the spell will occur. However, a very similar card, Searing Blaze instead reads:

Searing Blaze deals 1 damage to target player and 1 damage to target creature that player controls.

In this instance, if your opponent had Leyline of Sanctity out, you would not be able to cast Searing Blaze targeting your opponent's creature, because in order to cast a card, you have to have a valid target for each instance of target of the card, and you can't target your opponent. If you have a creature though, you could still cast it targeting yourself and your creature.
Now, a bit more niche of an instance that still is relevant to the general question at hand: lets say your opponent has Leyline of Anticipation out, as well as a creature. You cast Searing Blaze targeting them and their creature. In response, they cast Leyline of Sanctity, giving themselves hexproof when it resolves. Searing Blaze will still resolve and deal 1 damage to their creature (or 3, if Landfall is in effect), but won't deal any damage to them.

Awesome, thank you for this explanation!  I enjoy learning all of the interactions between cards/keywords and this helped explain it in more depth.

Hexproof is very simple: if a spell or ability uses the word "target", that target can't legally be that player. It doesn't affect damage, or life loss, or anything else once the spell is resolving.
In the specific case of Draconic Roar, the only target you choose is a creature, so it is legal to cast and it resolves. The Leyline can't affect what happens once the spell starts resolving, so the damage is dealt to the player.


text:
Does Battlefield Forge add two mana to your pool each time it is tapped?
Do cards like Battlefield Forge add 2 mana each time it's tapped or is it just one of the two tapped mana options? Or can you choose between both at once vs one? And is the mana only there while it's tapped?
{T}: Add {1} to your mana pool.
{T}: Add {R} or {W} to your mana pool. Battlefield Forge deals 1 damage to you.

I believe your second question is answered by the other question you asked; mana is there until it is spent or until the end of the step/phase. The tapped status of the land has nothing to do with it.

Whoops, hadn't looked at the other question - agreed, the two questions here are already answered.

"is the mana only there while it's tapped?" From this question, I suspect you have a misunderstanding between the relationship between land and mana. A lot of new players think that a card that says "Add {R} to your mana pool" means "search your library for a Mountain card and put it on the battlefield" or "pretend you have a Mountain card in play which hangs around permanently" or something similar. But neither of these is how the card actually works.

You'll only get one mana, and like all mana, it'll be there until you spend it or until the end of the current step/phase. (There are a very small number of cards like Omnath, Locus of Mana in the game which change this, but they clearly, explicitly say so.)
Abilities are of the form "cost: effect". You pay the cost, and get the effect. In this case the cost is simply tapping the land. So you can choose one of those abilities to activate, then you'll have tapped the land, and you won't be able to activate the other anymore.


text:
Returning card to hand off Emeria Shephard from Plains trigger
If I trigger Emeria Shepherd ability of a Plains, may I choose to place the card in my hand instead of into the battlefield?

The other good thing to know here is when you make that decision - do you get to pick between all three options (leave it alone, hand, or battlefield) when it resolves? That's definitely true with simple optional triggered abilities, but a little less clear for the self-replacement effect.

You may choose to put the card into your hand, or onto the battlefield, or leave it in the graveyard.

Landfall — Whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control, you may return target nonland permanent card from your graveyard to your hand. If that land is a Plains, you may return that nonland permanent card to the battlefield instead.

Using Magic terminology, here is how Emeria Shepherd's ability reads:

[Keyword ability] - Whenever [trigger event], [optional one-shot effect]. If [condition], [optional self-replacement effect].

The result is that you have the following options:

Choose to apply the one-shot effect. Choose to apply the replacement effect. The card goes to the battlefield.
Choose to apply the one-shot effect. Choose not to apply the replacement effect. The card goes to your hand.
Choose not to apply the one-shot effect. The card remains in the graveyard.

603.4. A triggered ability may read “When/Whenever/At [trigger event], if [condition], [effect].” [...]

610.1. A one-shot effect does something just once and doesn’t have a duration. Examples include dealing damage, destroying a permanent, putting a token onto the battlefield, and moving an object from one zone to another.

614.1a Effects that use the word “instead” are replacement effects. Most replacement effects use the word “instead” to indicate what events will be replaced with other events.

603.5. Some triggered abilities’ effects are optional (they contain “may,” as in “At the beginning of your upkeep, you may draw a card”). These abilities go on the stack when they trigger, regardless of whether their controller intends to exercise the ability’s option or not. The choice is made when the ability resolves.

There are differing interpretations on whether the "may" makes the application of the replacement effect optional, or only the action of returning the card to the battlefield. It's a purely linguistic argument, so I won't get into it.
I will, however, quote Matt Tabak's ruling on this particular case that supports the interpretation taken by this answer:

The replacement is optional.

You're right about the conclusion, of course, but I'm not sure how satisfying the explanation is. Essentially the entire question is, does "may" make the self-replacement optional, or does it make the one-shot effect specified by the self-replacement optional? The rules you quote about optional effects are just about simple triggered abilities, with no mention of how they interact with self-replacement effects.

@Jefromi I'm not satisfied either. In my opinion, the rules covering this situation are ambiguous. "Because Matt Tabak said so." and "Because that's how other cards work." are not satisfactory explanations, which is why I chose not to include them in the answer.

I see - that's something you could say in the answer, then. As-is the implication is that you're citing rules that fully back you up, so you're assuming the reader will just believe you (which is way worse than citing the rules manager's thoughts), or else forcing them to read very carefully in order to conclude that you're making a partially-supported decision based on ambiguous rules.

Whomever downvoted my answer: I hope you considered the fact that I at least provided a more detailed explanation than Vilmar's answer (which has zero downvotes currently). @Jefromi I will take your suggestion and add that information to my answer.

@Jefromi Fixed. Now the reader can clearly see that the answer is based on a specific interpretation that happens to be supported by a ruling from Matt Tabak. The reader can then decide whether they are satisfied with that explanation.

Thanks, though given that you've clearly stated you're not satisfied with this answer, I was more envisioning leading with that. While you certainly know the answer finishes with some backpedaling, anyone reading it is going to start at the top, think "aha, a solid ruling", then move on to rules, possibly get confused about how they actually back up the ruling, and then read that you actually think it's ambiguous.

Also to be clear: when I say giving your own view is worse than citing the rules manager, I don't mean it's bad - it's fine - just that it feels a little silly to act like your own view is more worthwhile than the rules manager's. I just might've written it more along the lines of "as far as I can tell, it's X, and the rules manager agrees. The actual rules are ambiguous, here's what they do say..."

@Jefromi I chose to lead with the correct interpretation and finish with the incorrect one. This does require some backpedaling, but it is hardly confusing.

Again, I understand that you don't find it confusing, but it was confusing to me when I first read it, and since I read top to bottom, it'd be confusing in exactly the same way if I read it again fresh. You can make a small change to avoid that, or not - up to you.

Yes, you can. When Emeria Shepherd triggers from Plains entering the battlefield, you target a nonland permanent in you graveyard to return it to your hand. Since it is a Plains, you may choose to return the permanent to the battlefield instead, but you don't have to.

I don't disagree, but why? How do you know that the "may" is read in that way?

@Jefromi Cause that's how English works. You can ask about it on English SE if you like.

@DCShannon Sometimes the Magic rules say very specific things about what is meant by certain kinds of phrasing. (In fact, both "may" and "instead" are loaded words.) In this case they don't, so the question is essentially about whether this means "...instead, {you may X}" or "you may {X instead}". If you really can decide unambiguously between those purely based on how English works, awesome - and that's a relevant explanation to include in the answer here, not something to brush people off to another site about.

Additionally, there is the 'may' option of targeting a nonland card in your graveyard for return to the graveyard. If the land is a plains, there is an additional May option that works as a replacement effect, which you've noted.

I disagree with Vilmar's answer. I believe the "may" is not linked to the "instead". The "may" in this case means "return it to the battlefield" or don't return it at all. But I do think it's a bit an ambiguous wording.

Whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control, you may
  return target nonland permanent card from your graveyard to your hand.
  If that land is a Plains, you may return that nonland permanent card
  to the battlefield instead.

To look at the wording. Usually when the word instead is used, it is as if you actually replace the words of a previously mentioned phrase to other words so this is how I see it:

Whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control, you may
  return target nonland permanent card from your graveyard to your hand.

If that land is a Plains replace "to your hand" with "to the battlefield" in the above phrase. So it becomes:

Whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control, you may
  return target nonland permanent card from your graveyard to the battlefield.

The Rules Manager disagrees with this answer: http://tabakrules.tumblr.com/post/131309594414/if-i-control-emeria-shepherd-and-play-a-plains

Or you could read it: you may (return that nonland permanent card to the battlefield instead) with the instead also being part of the Plains may.

Disagree. If the card worked the way you think it does, it would have been templated like this: Whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control, you may return target nonland permanent card from your graveyard to your hand. If that land is a Plains, return it to the battlefield instead.

I don't think get to pick and choose which pieces of the original effect get replaced. You either apply the replacement effect in its entirety or not at all.

I guess I read it as "you (effect) instead" instead of "you may (effect) instead", thinking the word "may" is part of the replacement

@IvoBeckers That is much clearer than what is written in your answer, and it makes sense to me. I cannot think of any good reasons why you are wrong.

@IvoBeckers That is definitely much clearer than what it says in the answer, as I can now at least see where you might get that idea. It's still definitely wrong, though.

"Usually when the word instead is used, it is as if you actually replace the words of a previously mentioned phrase." This is not accurate. Unless a replacement effect specifically references text, it replaces an effect, not verbatim text. For example, the replacement effect of Ana Sanctuary replaces "target creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn" with "that creature gets +5/+5 until end of turn" (conditionally). The effect is modified, not the text of the effect.


text:
Do I tap a creature when it fights? Can a creature with summoning sickness fight?
If a card has text: target creature fights (another creature), do I have to tap the target creature?
Can I target a creature, that has summoning sickness this way?

Related: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/7504/does-fight-involve-combat?rq=1 and http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/20971/is-fighting-considered-attacking?lq=1

Does the card you're talking about have reminder text for the "fight" keyword?

No you don't tap the creature; even tapped creatures can fight. If you had an instant fight card you could use it during combat as a combat trick. Summoning sickness only effects combat, and tap abilities; fight cards can certainly target a creature with summoning sickness.
The relevant rules from the comprehensive rule book:

701.10. Fight
701.10a A spell or ability may instruct a creature to fight another creature or it may instruct two creatures to fight each other. Each of those creatures deals damage equal to its power to the other creature.
701.10b If a creature instructed to fight is no longer on the battlefield or is no longer a creature, no damage is dealt. If a creature is an illegal target for a resolving spell or ability that instructs it to fight, no damage is dealt.
701.10c If a creature fights itself, it deals damage equal to its power to itself twice.
701.10d The damage dealt when a creature fights isn’t combat damage.

Also relevant, since it isn't combat damage, first strike doesn't do anything, but abilities like lifelink, or deathtouch do work.

Oh, That's why when I "fought" with my White Knight, it died anyway, even though it has first strike.

Fighting doesn't require tapping, and it doesn't care if one of the creatures has summoning sickness.
While fighting has some similarities to combat (namely 2 creatures deal damage to each other equal to their power) it is not actually combat, so things that are required for combat (like tapping to attack and not having summoning sickness) are not required for fighting.

701.10a A spell or ability may instruct a creature to fight another creature or it may instruct two creatures to fight each other. Each of those creatures deals damage equal to its power to the other creature.
701.10d The damage dealt when a creature fights isn’t combat damage.


text:
Whose graveyard is "a graveyard"?
Shadowfeed card has following text:

Exile target card from a graveyard. You gain 3 life.

Does it mean my graveyard, or any graveyard, including my opponents'?

'A' graveyard...

Any.
Your graveyard is a graveyard.
Your opponent's graveyard is a graveyard.
Cards in either graveyards are cards in a graveyard.
It would say "your graveyard" or "an opponent's graveyard" otherwise.

Gotta love literalness.

Still has to be within your own game, though. No destroying cards in games you can see from your seat. :P

What  AlbeyAmakiir is saying is that only the players have a graveyard. If it's not in the game, it's not in a graveyard.

The card doesn't specify which graveyard, so it can be any graveyard. That means that you can exile any card from your graveyard, one of your opponents' graveyards, or even one of your allies' graveyards in certain kinds of multiplayer games.

It means you pick the graveyard. So, it could be your graveyard or one belonging to an opponent; i.e. any graveyard. If it were supposed to only apply to your or an opponent's graveyard, the card would say so.


text:
If multiple players must make a choice, in what order are the choices made?
For example, if Merciless Executioner enters the battlefield, and both players have multiple creatures, which player chooses a creature to sacrifice first? Obviously the latter will have an advantage. Technically it can't be done simultaneously, so who should go first?

Technically, the choosing can be done simultaneously. But it's not. As for the actual sacrifice, they are performed simultaneously as far s the game is concerned.

When multiple players must make a choice simultaneously, they do so in "Active Player, Non Active Player" order. This means that first, the player currently taking their turn chooses, then each other player chooses in turn order.
Rule 101.4 says

If multiple players would make choices and/or take actions at the same time, the active player (the player whose turn it is) makes any choices required, then the next player in turn order (usually the player seated to the active player's left) makes any choices required, followed by the remaining nonactive players in turn order. Then the actions happen simultaneously. This rule is often referred to as the "Active Player, Nonactive Player (APNAP) order" rule.

How does this go with warp world?

I'm not sure what you're asking. It works the same with Warp World: you follow the instructions in order, and when multiple players need to make a choice, they do so in APNAP order. The Warp World Gatherer rulings have a good description of what exactly you do.


text:
Can I respond to Elesh Norn's ability?
I have yet another timing question:
Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite enters the battlefield under my opponent's control. I have Teysa, Orzhov Scion on the field with three other white 1/1 creatures.
Normally, the three white ones would die due to Elesh Norn's ability (-2/-2).
BUT can I first sacrifice them with Teysa's first ability in order to remove Elesh Norn from the game?
I am not sure about the timing. Elesh enters the battlefield and his ability resolves. Can I react to that with creatures that would be affected by this ability (-2/-2)?

No, you cannot do that.
You cannot target Elesh Norn with Teysa before Elesh is on the battlefield. However, as soon as Elesh is on the battlefield, its static -2/-2 ability is in effect, and your tokens will die as a state-based effect, before anyone gets priority and the opportunity to use regular spells or abilities. Note that Elesh's ability does not resolve, because it does not go on the stack. As long as Elesh is on the battlefield, the ability is permanently active.

If you're simply looking to use the three white 1/1 tokens usefully, you CAN sacrifice them when your opponent announces that he is casting Elesh Norn and then passes priority to you. You cannot target the Elesh Norn since it has yet to hit the battlefield, but you can target another creature if your opponent has one.

Reference: CR 604.1 and 604.2


text:
Do effects that reduce a spell's casting cost also reduce its converted mana cost?
If I have Grand Arbiter Augustin IV in play, can Zur the Enchanter's triggered ability pull a card like Æther Storm from my library, which would originally have a converted cost of 4, but which is lowered by the Grand Arbiter's ability?

FYI - You can make use of the site's autocard feature. If you use the syntax [mtg:Card Name], the cards will automatically become links to the Gatherer. It fails in some cases, such as names with apostrophes (like Black Sun's Zenith), and names that are part of another name (such as Sun Titan and Sundering Titan). Someone went ahead and did it for you this time.

The adjusted value is called the "total cost" to cast the spell.

I'm tempted to vote for all CMC questions as duplicates.

You can not find Æther Storm with Zur. This is because Augustin's cost reduction ability only effects casting the card, it doesn't apply at any other time. "White spells you cast cost 1 less to cast".
Also, the only thing that can change the CMC of a card is chooseing the value of 'X' while casting it. This is because CMC is what is printed on the top right of the card, not what you actually pay for it.
For example Divine Deflection costs {X}{W}, when you cast it you pick a value for X (let's say X = 5). That makes the CMC of the card 6 (5 from {X} + 1 from the {W}) even though with the Grand Arbiter out you only need to pay {4}{W} because of the cost reduction.

202.3. The converted mana cost of an object is a number equal to the total amount of mana in its mana cost, regardless of color.

I think the only way to be really clear about X is an example: if the card says {X}{W} and you choose X=5 so it would normally cost a total of 6 mana, but have a cost reduction of 1 so you only pay 5, the CMC while it's on the stack is still 6.

With regards to {X}, it is counted as 0 for CMC while the card in question is not on the stack, and {X} when cast. Payment for {X} may be reduced by Arbiter or similar effects.

No. The converted mana cost is always the cost that is printed on a card; it is not changed cost reduction or alternate costs.

It is changed by decisions about "X", though. 202.3b When calculating the converted mana cost of an object with an {X} in its mana cost, X is treated as 0 while the object is not on the stack, and X is treated as the number chosen for it while the object is on the stack.

It's better to say that converted mana cost is a function of the printed cost, because even cards without mana costs have CMC.

Nope the CMC has to do with the mana cost as it is printed on the card itself. There are many cards that may add or reduce the actual mana spent to cast a card but that does not change the CMC.
There is one exception. When you have cards that have X in there mana cost X is considered 0 in regards to the CMC everywhere except when the spell is on the stack.
So for instance a Blaze with X equal to four is a legal target for Disdainful Stroke (because it has a CMC of five while on the stack.) but for all other purposes Blaze has a CMC of one.


text:
Nature's Way ability clarification
I don't understand the last line of Nature's Way:

It deals damage equal to its power to target creature [...]

Does it mean when I cast this card, one of my creatures gains vigilance and trample and also deals damage (like an instant)? And after this, can I also attack with this creature?

Hi, and welcome. Perhaps wait a bit before accepting an answer, as folks are less likely to answer, and you might get more information that way...

Unless your creature becomes an illegal target when the spell resolves (your opponent could play a removal spell on the creature you have chosen in response to you playing Nature's Way), your creature will deal damage to a creature your opponent controls (again, unless it became an illegal target).
The ability won't cause your creature to tap, so you can still attack with it.

Not the case that the first ability needs to resolve in order for second to resolve. They are separate. Can't think of an example where something is prevented from gaining trample, but it doesn't have to in order for the damage to be dealt. (-1)

It's worse than that. 1) There's only one ability. You mean "effect". 2) Neither the ability or its effects resolve. Only the spell is on the stack and resolves. 3) The first effect doesn't need to be successful for the second effect to happen. Fixed.

I've expanded the answer. Actually, the first effect has to happen for the second one to happen, it's even in the Nature's Way rullings: "If either target is an illegal target as Nature’s Way resolves, no damage will be dealt."

That doesn't mean that the creature needs to gain vigilance or trample for the damage to happen.

Given "609.3. If an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible." so, if for some reason the creature haven't got vigilance or trample, the effect still happened, just did nothing.

Does Nature's Way deal damage like an instant?
Sort of. Your thinking is correct that Nature's Way is similar to an instant in that it causes damage. If you choose a creature with 3 power as the first target, it would behave similar to a Lightning Bolt.
On the other hand, there are many differences between Nature's Way and Lightning Bolt. Nature's Way is not the source of damage. Your creature is. This matters if, for example, your creature has deathtouch. Also, Nature's Way is a sorcery, which restricts when you are allowed to cast it.
Can my creature attack afterwards?
Sure. Your creatures don't give up and die (or tap) for no reason. Nature's Way makes your creature deal damage, but it doesn't make the other creature deal damage back. If the card said "fight" then it would become a two-way exchange.

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