text:
What does "played from your hand" actually mean?
With the Myojin cycle of cards, each of them will enter with a divinity counter if they are played from the hand. Does this mean they will enter the battlefield with a counter if they went from the hand to the battlefield, regardless of how? Or is this an old wording that in more modern days would be to cast.
Myojin of Cleansing Fire

"played" means "played as a land or cast as a spell"

This is old wording. You may check the Gatherer for the most recent wording of cards. Currently that Myojin's gatherer text says the following instead:

Myojin of Cleansing Fire enters the battlefield with a divinity counter on it if you cast it from your hand.

"Cast from your hand" means you took it from your hand, cast it onto the stack, and then it entered the battlefield.
This is as opposed to:

simply being put onto the battlefield without being cast (e.g. via Champion of Rhonas)
being returned from your graveyard to the battlefield (Rescue from the Underworld)
being cast from a zone other than your own hand:

from the graveyard (Havengul Lich)
from exile (Daxos of Meletis)
from your library (Vizier of the Menagerie)
from the command zone in a game of Commander
from someone else's hand (Desertion or Sen Triplets).

Note that the wording was not a functional change; several cards (such as Abbot of Keral Keep) still use the term "play" to refer to casting spells (because it's a blanket term that can mean either cast a spell or play a land). So even if Myojin still said "play" instead of "cast", it wouldn't refer to putting it onto the battlefield from your hand; it would only refer to casting it from your hand.


text:
When "an opponent" has to do something in a multiplayer game, who does it?
In a multiplayer game of Magic: The Gathering, if a card requires an opponent to make a choice — like Fact or Fiction, which states an opponent separates the piles into two piles — who gets to pick which opponent makes that choice, e.g. which opponent separates them? Because in a tournament where four people play against each other and two of the people are friends it just seems unfair that the player can choose anyone to do it.

Remember, even disregarding friendships, there may be in-game reasons for one opponent to give another the cards they want, due to temporary alliances or cards that threaten others' board positions more than your own.

I've always found the political aspect to be the best part of multiplayer magic. If it's just for the interaction, there's better interaction in cube where the format is carefully crafted for fun gameplay, not infinite win combos. If these friends are in kahoots, either it's fun or it's not, but they have plenty of ways to interact without Fact or Fiction.

The player who controls the spell chooses the opponent.
There could be some political issues here, but no more so than if you had a friend in a 4-player game who refused to attack you because you were friends. He's still your opponent in the game, so he should be making the decisions that will give him the best chance of winning; not trying to help you.
From the comprehensive rules:

601.3. Some spells specify that one of their controller’s opponents does something the controller would
  normally do while it’s being cast, such as choose a mode or choose targets. In these cases, the
  opponent does so when the spell’s controller normally would do so.

601.3a If there is more than one opponent who could make such a choice, the spell’s controller
    decides which of those opponents will make the choice.

The rules have changed, this is now 601.5a

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Is Gleam of Authority's bonus constant or one-time?
I am looking for some clarification on the card Gleam of Authority.  The wording on the card is

Enchantment - Aura

Enchant Creature

Enchanted creature gets +1/+1 for each +1/+1 counter on other creatures you control.

There is also a tap ability to bolster and vigilance. My question is on the enchanted creature get +1/+1 for each +1/+1 counter on other creatures you control.  Is this text a one time application?
For example, if I have 3 +1/+1 counters, my enchanted creature gets +3/+3.  If I add another +1/+1 counter to the board later, will the enchanted creature now have +4/+4 or will it remain +3/+3?
Thanks!

Welcome to B&CG!

It is a constant thing, not one-time, so if a creature you control gets another +1/+1 counter after the enchantment comes into play, the enchanted creature will increase in power and toughness.
The ability is a static ability, which means that it is in effect as long as the enchantment is in play, and its effect on the creature depends on the current board state, not the board state when the Enchantment entered the battlefield.
The relevant rules are these:

604.1. Static abilities do something all the time rather than being activated or triggered. They are written as statements, and they're simply true.
604.2. Static abilities create continuous effects, some of which are prevention effects or replacement effects. These effects are active as long as the permanent with the ability remains on the battlefield and has the ability, or as long as the object with the ability remains in the appropriate zone, as described in rule 112.6.
611.3a A continuous effect generated by a static ability isn’t "locked in"; it applies at any given moment to whatever its text indicates.

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


text:
When does a sacrifice on entering the battlefield happen?
My opponent plays Vexing Devil which states:

When Vexing Devil enters the battlefield, any opponent may have it deal 4 damage to him or her. If a player does, sacrifice Vexing Devil.

When does this sacrifice happen? Is he able to play Collateral Damage on the Vexing Devil before the sacrifice resolves? My current interpretation is that the sacrifice resolves instantly on entering the battlefield so the creature is never there to use Collateral Damage on, but we wanted to verify that this was correct.

Related: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/20954/can-i-cast-an-instant-in-the-middle-of-an-ability-resolving

You do have a chance to cast Collateral Damage. Vexing Devil's ability is a triggered ability, so the ability goes on the stack when the creature enters the battlefield, and you can respond to it before it resolves. You can tell that it's a triggered ability by rule 603.1:

Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as "[Trigger condition], [effect]," and begin with the word "when," "whenever," or "at." They can also be expressed as "[When/Whenever/At] [trigger event], [effect]."

Here's how it plays out:

You cast Vexing Devil.
Vexing Devil resolves and enters the battlefield. Its ability triggers and goes on the stack.
You cast Collateral Damage and sacrifice Vexing Devil.
Collateral Damage resolves, and deals 3 damage to something.
Vexing Devil's ability resolves. At this point, your opponent can choose whether or not to take the 4 damage. If they do choose to take the damage, you would sacrifice the Vexing Devil, but it is already dead.

Note that there is no time to respond during step 5. Once an opponent chooses to take damage, the damage is dealt and you make the sacrifice without doing anything in between.

Selected as answer due to making clearer the key point of when I would choose to take the damage or not.

I'm curious about your step 5. The description states "any opponent may have it deal 4 damage to him or her". Since the source of the damage is now gone, can it still apply?

Yes, an object that used to be on the battlefield is a valid source of damage, and it uses the last known information of the object. I can't find hte specific rule, but it's mentioned in 119.7 ("any object referred to by an object on the stack, by a prevention or replacement effect that's waiting to apply, or by a delayed triggered ability that's waiting to trigger (even if that object is no longer in the zone it used to be in)")

Ah yes, I see it now, in 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. ... The source can still
perform the action even though it no longer exists."

Yeah, there's that too. I thought there might be something more specific for damage sources, but maybe not.

This also means that it doesn't make sense to use Collateral Damage in this situation, it's better to wait and see what the opponent does instead, and maybe save a card.

It happens during the resolution of the ability. Here is what happens in detail.

You cast Vexing Devil.
Vexing Devil resolves. His ability triggers.
You and your opponent have the opportunity to cast instants and activate abilities. This is your absolute last chance to cast Collateral Damage before the trigger resolves.
The trigger resolves. Your opponent makes a choice. If your opponent chooses to take four damage, Vexing Devil is sacrificed. All of this happens during the resolution of the triggered ability

There is no point after your opponent makes the choice but before you sacrifice Vexing Devil where you could cast Collateral Damage. You can only cast spells when you have priority, and no player gets priority during the resolution of an ability.
The "If you do [...]" clause is not a separate triggered ability. If it was, it would start with "When", "Whenever", or "At".

Vexing Devil's ability is a triggered ability that happens when it enters the battlefield, and goes on the stack like any other enters the battlefield trigger. No choices are made at all until the ability starts to resolve, at this point you can choose to take 4 damage and the Devil will get sacrificed or not take the damage and it sticks around.
If your opponent uses Collateral Damage before the Devil's ability resolves the Devil will be sacrificed and you will take 3 damage. If they choose to do this there is no reason for you to take 4 damage from the Devil's ability (removing the Devil from the battlefield before the ability resolves don't stop it from happening, it just makes it so the Devil doesn't get sacrificed if you take 4 damage).
There is no time during the resolution of the ability (like after you take 4 damage but before the Devil is sacrificed) where anyone has the ability to respond with any spells or abilities.
The best your opponent can do is wait to see if you take the 4 from the Devil, then if you don't cast Collateral Damage and sacrifice the Devil to that. So they can deal either 3 or 4 damage, never 7.

Are you sure I have the option to avoid it? I would imagine it goes 1) I choose to take the damage. -> Sacrifice trigger goes on the stack. 2) Collateral Damage is cast and goes on the stack. 3) Stack resolves and I take 7 damage.
I've already chosen to take the damage before Collateral Damage is cast. Can I "unchoose" it after CD is cast? Or does CD no longer resolve because the creature is already gone?

@RobertWertz As my answer now explains, you make the choice when the triggered ability resolves, which happens after the Collateral Damage is cast and resolves.

@RobertWertz like murgatroid said choosing to take damage happens when the ability resolves, I'll edit to make that clearer


text:
Can I include a card in my EDH deck that mentions another color?
Is it possible to run a Repentant Vampire in a Grixis (Red Blue Black) Commander deck? I don't see anything in the official rulings, and the card doesn't have a white mana symbol on it. I'm leaning towards yes, as I see mono black decks running it, but the double faced card ruling makes me wonder.

It looks like it should be identified with just black:

903.4  ... The color identity of a card is the color or colors of any mana symbols in that card’s mana cost or rules text, plus any colors defined by its characteristic-defining abilities (see rule 604.3) or color indicator (see rule 204).
604.3. Some static abilities are characteristic-defining abilities. A characteristic-defining ability conveys information about an object’s characteristics that would normally be found elsewhere on that object (such as in its mana cost, type line, or power/toughness box) or overrides information found elsewhere on that object. Characteristic-defining abilities function in all zones. They also function outside the game.
604.3a A static ability is a characteristic-defining ability if it meets the following criteria:
(1) It defines an object’s colors, subtypes, power, or toughness;
(2) it is printed on the card it affects, it was granted to the token it affects by the effect that created the token, or it was acquired by the object it affects as the result of a copy effect or text-changing effect;
(3) it does not directly affect the characteristics of any other objects;
(4) it is not an ability that an object grants to itself; and
(5) it does not set the values of such characteristics only if certain conditions are met.

The last clause (5) indicates that since the color change is conditional, it is not a characteristic-defining ability, and hence is not part of the color identity.

Another way to look at it is Pyroblast, any card with protection from a specific color, or even zendikar/onslought fetch lands. Referencing a color or card you cannot play is OK.


text:
Are Planeswalkers "Legendary"?
The new Amonkhet card Lay Bare the Heart says it can remove a non-land, non-legendary card from the opponent's hand. I'm curious if it can hit planeswalkers. I know they suffer from the "legendary rule", but as they don't explicitly say "legendary" on the card I'm inclined to believe that they can be targeted. Does anyone have an official ruling?

The rules for planeswalkers changed with the release of Ixalan on September 29, 2017, so the second part of this answer is no longer correct, but is left for posterity.
With the release of Ixalan all planeswalkers have the Legendary supertype (with all previous ones receiving errata to add it to existing cards), and the Planeswalker Uniqueness Rule has been removed.
This change means that they are no longer be a valid choice for Lay Bare the Heart since Ixalan came out.

They can be chosen with Lay Bare the Heart because Planeswalkers are not Legendary. While the 'Legend Rule' and the 'Planeswalker Uniqueness Rule' have similar effects, they are not the same, and they look at different information on the card.
The Legend Rule looks at the name of the card, so you can have Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius and Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind on the battlefield at the same time even though they are the same character because the card name is different. However you could not have Nissa Revane and Nissa, Steward of Elements on the battlefield at the same time because the Planeswalker Uniqueness Rule looks at the planeswalker type and they both have the planeswalker type 'Nissa'.

704.5j If a player controls two or more planeswalkers that share a planeswalker type, that player chooses one of them, and the rest are put into their owners’ graveyards. This is called the “planeswalker uniqueness rule.”
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.”

It seems that this answer is going to be invalidated soon: http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/ixalan-mechanics


text:
Will destroying an enchantment attached to a permanent also destroy that permanent?
I play Awaken the Ancient and enchant my mountain. My opponent plays Priest of Iroas and then activates its ability to destroy target enchantment and targets my Awaken the Ancient. Now I know that the enchantment will be destroyed, but does this destroy the mountain as my friend argues?
I was assuming not as it is only destroying an enchantment, and that when my mountain is enchanted with the card it only targets the enchantment not the card it is attached to, like if I had another card say, Truefire Paladin attached with Shiv's Embrace and he used it do destroy the enchantment Shiv it will not destroy Truefire just Shiv's.

Why did your friend think that destroying the enchantment would also destroy the mountain?

Obviously not, I'd say?

I suspect that they thought it worked that way because if you destroy the permanent that the enchantment is attached to, the enchantment dies as well.

An effect does what it instructs you to do unless there's a rule that has you do something, and there isn't one here. If you destroy an enchantment, the enchantment is destroyed and your mountain is no longer a creature. Nothing states that the mountain would be destroyed as well.

Although this is correct, it could be confusing because though the card itself only does what is written on the card, game rules can cause side-effects, such as how destroying a permanent WILL also cause any enchantments on it to go to the graveyard.

Yeah, that first sentence was oh-so-wrong. (e.g. Moving an enchanted permanent causes the enchantment to detach and go to the graveyard.) Fixed it. Personally, I would drop that entire sentence.

I tried explaining this to him and he needed a confirmation for some reason. Thanks for the help.

I am guessing that your friend's misconception is that the enchantment somehow "merges" with the mountain, since they now mentally identify it as a 7/7 creature, but this is an error. There is a card affected and a card doing the effect, and they are always separate in this case. The loss of the enchantment stops the mountain from being a 7/7, but that was an effect applied to the mountain; it was always a regular mountain underneath the transformation.


text:
If I use a trainer card that removes damage, can I remove less than that amount of damage?
If a trainer card states that it removes 60 points of damage, can you use it to remove 50 points or less of damage?  I have one card that says up to 30 points of damage, so I know I can use it to remove 10, 20, or 30, but this card states 60 and does not use the words "up to".

Please don't group questions together in the same question unless they're integrally related and don't make much sense being asked separately. I've removed the second of your questions, please click the Ask Question button and ask it separately. You can still access the text of that question by visiting the revision history of this post, which you can usually get to by clicking the "edited X time ago" link in the bottom center of your post.

In Pokémon, there are some core rules. Two of them are relevant here:

"Do as much as you can" -> you can heal less than given amount of damage
"Every card played must have some effect" -> you can't heal zero damage


text:
Are old Magic: the Gathering boosters worth more sealed, or should I open them?
I won some magic the gathering 10th edition core set booster packs, are they worth anything?
Or should I open to get rare cards? Also have 2 core sets — Molimo's might and Exincar's tyranny — and a 2 player starter game that includes 2 booster packs from 10th edition.

Related: Which MTG booster packs have the highest rate of return on investment?

I've removed those questions you added. We don't do on-the-spot price evaluations, I don't think - and if you have a separate question, please ask it separately unless you're doing something like clarifying what you were originally trying to ask here anyway. (Since you already have a pretty solid question, I suggest just asking the new stuff separately if at all.) You can get to the bits I removed in your revision history, which you can visit at any time via the 'edited X time ago' link at the bottom center of your post.

Logically speaking, it would never make sense for the expected value of an opened pack to be higher than the value of an unopened pack.  If that was ever the case, people would just buy unopened packs, open them, and sell them for a net profit.  Unopened packs have the potential to have a high value, and that potential reward comes with an associated increase in cost.

Actually the comparison of value and expected value of booster pack depends on the affinity for risk of buyers among others. For example if you were buying a car, but the dealer offered you a deal where you have 5% chance you won't get a car, but pay 95% of a price, most people wouldn't accept that kind of a deal. But if you could pay 1% for a 1 in 100 chance to win a car, that's more likely.

Basically people are not really spending and obtaining money, they are comparing their quality of life in three scenarios: losing, winning and not playing, account for perceived chance to win and arrive at decision. People who buy one booster or two are going to write it off as hazard and accept low EV. People who buy many are actually paying premium for the experience of randomness, which is part of the collecting thing for them. Otherwise they would just not buy boosters worth below EV.

So if only pragmatic people, not caring for the fun of boosters and trading, buying large quantities of cards remained, boosters packs price would have to be below EV in long term, because they would actually need to be compensated for having to get rid of the cards they don't need. Boosters would perhaps be worth more than EV only in the beginning, when people would be paying premium for early access to cards. Somebody has to buy those boosters after all, or no card would be available in after market.

You can find the higher value 10th edition cards here: http://shop.tcgplayer.com/magic/10th-edition
Packs of 10th edition have recently sold on ebay for around $8.50, if that option interests you.
The expected value of an opened pack of 10th edition, accounting only for rares values from mtgstocks.com, is about $2.38 — according to their page on the M10 set.
Your best bet is to sell the pack.

I've added what I think is the source for that $2.38 figure. Is it, or did you derive that figure some other way? It would be worth noting how, so that others can check your work or determine the same in the future when prices change.

I disagree with your conclusion... just because your expected value from an opened pack is less than the value from an unopened pack doesn't automatically mean that you should sell the unopened pack. You also have to consider potential value. The person may be in a situation where receiving $8.50 is just meaningless to him, so he'd rather take a shot at making a lot more, even if it means he likely gets less. Or he may be in a place where that $8.50 could mean a lot to him.

@GendoIkari In theory that could be a reason to open the pack, but 10th looks like it doesn't really have much of value. There are only about 5 cards that are worth more than $8.50, and at most you are getting about $20 over the value of the pack (and that is 1/121 packs) the rest of the time is you manage to make money on the pack it is only going to be around $1-3.

@doppelgreener The link you added is for M10 not 10th Ed., for some reason the 10th Ed. page doesn't have the EV of a pack.

@Gendolkari I gave a brief analysis of his options, and links to the more notable cards from Tenth Edition.  My opinion is merely aligned with EV of pack open/closed.  If he wanted to gamble it up or hope for specific cards the resources are there.


text:
Does blinking Pantlaza, Sun-Favored reset the once per turn?
I know that usually a blink will reset a once per turn effect, but Pantlaza, Sun-Favored is worded a little different than I'm used to.
Here's the scenario: I cast Pantlaza, Sun-Favored , and resolve the discover into an Ephemerate. I cast the Ephemerate targeting Pantlaza, Sun-Favored. Do I get to discover again?
One of the things that makes me question this is

603.2i A triggered ability may have an instruction followed by “Do this only once each turn.” This ability triggers only if its source’s controller has not yet taken the indicated action that turn.

Even if the "source" becomes a new object, the "indicated action" has already been done this turn so maybe it wouldn't trigger? Although, that would also break clones, and I'm pretty sure clones should trigger.

Yes, blinking Pantlaza allows the ability to trigger again.
The card Riveteers Ascendancy has this ability

Whenever you sacrifice a creature, you may return target creature card with lesser mana value from your graveyard to the battlefield tapped. Do this only once each turn.

and this ruling:

“Do this only once each turn” refers only to the ability it is attached to, not other instances of the same ability. In other words, if you control multiple copies of Riveteers Ascendancy, you will be able to do this once for each of them.

When you exile a permanent and then return it to the battlefield, it is a completely separate object, so its ability is a separate instance of the same ability. That means that the "Do this only once each turn" clause refers to the new instance separately, and the ability of the newly entering permanent can trigger again.

Ah that's perfect! I checked the rulings on Pantlaza, but it doesn't have that ruling, probably because it's legendary. Thanks!

@ToxicGLaDOS The editors at Wizards are famously inconsistent as to whether cards with the same ability contain a ruling or not.

@PhilipKendall rulings often come out when there's been shown to be a need for them - cards that are too new or don't see much play are less likely to be ruled on or show the need

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


text:
Do counters combine? Can three +1/+1 counters be considered one +3/+3 counter?
Some cards like Animation Module allow you to copy a counter. My question is if a creature has three +1/+1 counters, is that considered one counter or three distinct counters.
Would Animation Module be allowed to use it's second ability to get +3/+3 or only copy one (of the three) counters to get an additional +1/+1?

If three +1/+1 counters are placed on an object, that object then has three counters on it. Animation Module's second ability can only put one additional counter on it each time you activate it. The counters do not change type, so they are still +1/+1 counters, and that is the only type of counter you can give it another of.

"If three counters are placed on an object, that object then has three counters on it." There is an exception to this rule. If I put one -1/-1 counter and two +1/+1 counters on an object, then the object only has one counter on it.

Well, it does have three until state-based actions are performed and "cancel" the counters.

@Rainbolt There are many exceptions. I answered the question assuming there were no other relevant effects or objects. There could, for example, also be a Vampire Hexmage or a card that says "Counters can't be placed on permanents".

@KSFT I only hoped you would narrow your answer's scope. I didn't intend for you to cover every exception in existence. I edited to show what I meant, and you are welcome to roll it back.

I don't think there are any other exceptions like the +1/+1 and -1/-1 counter one - that's something directly in the rules, that causes different kinds of counters to interact with each other. Vampire Hexmage and "counters can't be placed on permanents" aren't exceptions in that sense - they're examples of ways in which counters could be removed or never placed, but they don't change the fact that if you actually put three counters on something it ends up with three counters on it.

@Jefromi That depends on what you mean by "ends up with". If you put three counters on something and then use Vampire Hexmage, you could say that it ends up with zero counters. As Michael Snook mentioned above, there is a nonzero amount of game time when all the counters are there if you put both +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters on it.

@KSFT It's not that I don't understand the events you're describing. But there's a difference between "the game rules say X happens" and "there is a card that will let you change this later." It's pretty much implicit when you talk about how the rules work that you're excluding something coming along later and changing it. When you say a creature spell resolves and becomes a permanent, you don't carve out an exception for "maybe someone will Murder it later."

@Jefromi It's obvious that you don't mention that exception, but sometimes it isn't. I chose to consistently assume that there were no other relevant effects or objects and that everything is of the most general possible type where it isn't specified and that makes sense. The edit does not make my answer less accurate, does make it more precise, and might make it clearer, so I don't plan to change it.


text:
Temp agencies point distribution in “Welcome To...”
“Welcome To...” is a game that claims to support any number of players.  Despite this, there are some points which only are shared by a potentially few number of players who complete goals first or have the most of a particular effect used.
The player who has used the most temp agencies gets seven points.  The player who scored next highest gets four, and third gets one point.  To be eligible for points of this type one must have used at least one temp agency.  If there is a tie, players share points both getting the full number.
Herein lies the confusion.
Supposing we have five players, how many points does each player get in this scenario?

A: 4 used, B: 4 used, C: 3 used, D: 3 used, E: 2 used

A and B would get seven points as they tied for first place for number of temp agencies used, there is no doubt about that.  Would C and D get four points as they have the second highest unique score and E get one point as the third highest unique score? Or would C and D get one point as there are two players who scored higher than them putting them as tying for "third place" and E gets no points?

Are you referring to this game? If so, it would be helpful if you linked it because we don't all have our telepathy function enabled yet. Thanks!

@L.Scott FYI: Make sure you add a tag description after creating a tag that's only got a single use. The system automatically deletes tags after a short while if they've only got one question and no description. I've added one this time.

According to designer Benoit Turpin here

It will wind up being in my above hypothetical scenario that A and B both get seven points, C and D both get four points, and E gets one point.
The correct way to score this is to look at the list of number of temp agencies used ignoring duplicates, sort, and then all players who scored the top number get seven points each, all players who scored the second highest number (if it exists) get four points each, and all players who scored the third highest number (if it exists) get one point each, all of this subject to the constraint that they must have used at least one temp agency to be eligible for points of this type in the first place.


text:
Small go board history
Does anyone know origin of smaller go boards (9*9,13*13)? When (and where) was first introduced? I looked on Sensei library but didn't find anything about history of go boards.

I'm only aware of the (I think) old Tibetan variant with 17x17 boards. Maybe the 9x9 and 13x13 are even modern inventions?

Supposedly the board was originally 17x17, then went to 19x19. Smaller boards were invented 'on the side' for various purposes, but there's no source anywhere to verify this purpose or a time in history when they were introduced.

9*9 would be 1/4 of a 17x17 board. I suspect 1/4 board would have be used to teach the game when that board size was popular.

The oldest reference I found of official 9x9 pro games were those played between Go Seigen and Miyamoto Naoki in 1968. The purpose was to decide the proper komi on 9x9.
As for unofficial 9x9, it's probably been around forever...

A Japanese pro 9-dan, Tomoyasu MIMURA (born 1969) writes in his blog entry (3 Feb 2014), ''I had never seen, or heard of 9x9 board in my childhood'' and ''In 1987 started the TV show 'Mini-Go One Game Match (ミニ碁一番勝負)'.... Professionals had begun to pay attention to the unexpected depth of 9x9 board game some time before''.
Therefore, around 1985 would be a good guess.

It must be older, at least in Germany. I had my first games of Go on a 9x9 board before that date.

Asian kids directly learn on 19x19. I guess one reason is that learning joseki is part of their curriculum from the start.

Here is a reference from 1978: In Winfried Dörholt, Das japanische Brettspiel Go, both games on 13x13 and 9x9 are presented in a very natural way to introduce the rules and to have beginners games (no claim that it is a brand new invention). Therefore, at least in Germany, the small boards were well-known in the 1970ies and probably much earlier.


text:
Does Hope Everthorn's 'duplicate' ability also copy the tokens on the conjuration?
Hope's 'duplicate' ability says:

Choose a conjuration you control with a life value of 1. Place a copy of that conjuration onto your battlefield. At the end of this turn, destroy that copy.

Does this ability also copy the tokens (wound, exhaustion, status)?
The ability is similar to Strange Copy, which does not say that the tokens on the copied card are copied. So the tokens probably also aren't copied with the duplicate ability?


text:
Does Livewire Lash trigger if a spell is countered by Chalice of the Void
I have a creature equipped with Livewire Lash and my opponent has Chalice of the Void in play.
I play a spell which targets the creature equipped with Livewire Lash but the spell is countered due to Chalice of the Void.
Does the Livewire Lash still trigger even if the spell was countered?

@Rainbolt "Whenever you cast a spell that targets" vs "Whenever this creature becomes the target of a spell" are different wordings that, even if in this scenario have the same outcome, in some other scenarios they would have different outcomes. I think this is not a duplicate.

@Pablo Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't realize that the trigger condition was worded slightly differently. I'll retract my close vote, and hopefully the other guy who voted will too. Just to reinforce your comment: Changing the target with Spellskite would trigger Livewire Lash but not Heroic.

Yes, Livewire Lash will still be triggered. Here's how it'll go down:

You place your spell on the stack, pick your targets (including that creature equipped with Livewire Lash), and pay for it. Casting's now done.

That creature is now the target of a spell. Also, you've just cast a spell that the Chalice cares about. Both of you have a triggered ability to put on the stack. From this question, triggers go on the stack in APNAP order: active player first, then non-active player.

The creature's Lash-granted ability, and the Chalice ability, will go on the stack. (If it's your turn, the Chalice ability will be on top, otherwise Lash will be on top. Either way, the effect is the same.)

Now things will start resolving, if nobody does anything else.

The two triggered abilities resolve in whichever order is applicable. Chalice's ability resolves, and counters the original spell. The creature's Lash-granted ability resolves, and its damage is dealt.
(The spell would resolve here, but it was countered.)

So go ahead and fire off spells like this if you find it's worth the damage.


text:
Can I activate a Legendary creature's abilities before the Legend rule kicks in?
Say I have a Krenko, Mob Boss on the field. I use Krenko's ability to create X tokens. Then, I play a Progenitor Mimic choosing Krenko. When the Legend Rule takes effect, I sacrifice the original Krenko. Since the Mimic comes in untapped, on my opponent's turn I tap it for the X tokens. My opponent takes and ends his turn.
Now it comes back to my turn. The Mimic untaps, and then copies itself during upkeep. Would I be able to tap the token copy after it's created for its X tokens, and then use the mimic later in the round for another X? Would the Legend Rule take effect before that could happen? Would I be able to tap the copy in response to the Legend Rule effect, placing the tap on top of the stack?

No, you cannot.
Let's go through this step by step:

I use his ability to create the X tokens. Then, I play a Progenitor Mimic targeting Krenko. When the Legend Rule takes effect, I sacrifice the original Krenko.

So far, so good. A minor detail is that the mimic doesn't actually target, but that's beside your main question. You currently have an untapped Krenko with a duplication clause.

Since the Mimic comes in untapped, on my opponent's turn I tap it for the X tokens. My opponent takes and ends his turn.

This doesn't work out so well. Yes, the Mimic came in untapped, but it has summoning sickness until your next turn. You'll need to give it haste somehow if you want this batch of tokens.

Now it comes back to my turn. The Mimic untaps, and then copies itself during upkeep. Would I be able to tap the token copy after it's created for its X tokens, and then use the mimic later in the round for another X? Would the Legend Rule take effect before that could happen? Would I be able to tap the copy in response to the Legend Rule effect, placing the tap on top of the stack?

As soon as the Mimic's ability resolves, you have two Krenkos on the field, and lose one to the Legend Rule. This is a State Based Action, does not use the stack, and cannot be responded to. You could tap the Mimic in response to the ability triggering, then keep the token, but the token has summoning sickness, so you can't get an additional activation that way.

Ah, I see. Thanks! This answered a lot of other, minor questions I wasn't going to ask about and a few points I didn't even know I was confused on!

One point of style:  The legend rule being a state-based action is the "feature" of the answer to this question, and you should talk about that bit first.

The reason is, it is not entirely unexpected for someone to scan your post, find this text:  "Yes, the Mimic came in untapped, but it has summoning sickness until your next turn. You'll need to give it haste somehow if you want this batch of tokens.", and assume that is the answer


text:
What is the origin of the term "converted mana cost"?
In Magic: the Gathering, a card's converted mana cost is the card's mana cost converted to an integer by replacing all mana symbols with 1's and summing all of it.
My conjecture here is that it was named "converted" because it's "mana converted to an integer".
Still, I was wondering when has the term been first used and why is it named "converted". An official explanation would be preferred.

The term started to be used in Classic Sixth Edition.
In Fifth Edition, Spell Blast says total casting cost. In Sixth it says converted mana cost.
Pyromancy also says total casting cost, and Urza's Legacy was the set immediately before Sixth.
Sixth introduced many major rules changes, including the removal of interrupts and the introduction of the stack. You can read more details here, but in general it was a major push by WotC to redesign the rules and wording to lead to a more consistent environment.
I don't know why they chose the exact wording they did, but it makes sense as a term. A spell's mana cost includes colours and generic mana. The word "converted" (as opposed to "total") makes it clear that you're not paying attention to the composition of colour symbols (and later, other symbols), and instead just want a single number answer.
This would be important for comparing two spells in different colours, or reducing a spell's cost by a number but still requiring coloured mana.

I remember of an article by MaRo covering this term (and a few other "rules oddities"), but I can't seem to find it.

The stack has been around well before Sixth Edition, it just was used more consistently for abilities and effects.

There were series and batches. The stack, as a rules term, was introduced in Sixth edition.

Converted mana cost is much better term for some special mana costs like hybrid generic {2/W} and phyrexian {P/U}.


text:
When a permanent has a "When a creature dies" ability, and gets destroyed at the same time as creatures, does that ability trigger?
Say I control Fecundity, which states:

Whenever a creature dies, that creature's controller may draw a card.

If I control 2 creatures and my opponent controls one creature, and I cast Planar Cleansing to wipe the board (including Fecundity), what happens?  Do I get to draw 2 cards?  Does my opponent get to draw 1 card?  Or do neither of us get to draw any?

I'm not sure what the confusion is here: one thing destroys creatures, another says when they die people draw cards. Is there any reason you believe one or both of you might not draw cards?

@doppelgreener It's the fact that the thing that says you draw cards is also dying. Simple answer, as diego showed, but a common enough question, and not clear from the words on the cards.

@Jefromi ah, that's fair enough then.

Both you and your opponent will draw cards, since the game looks back before an event to see if anything would trigger.

603.6d Normally, objects that exist immediately after an event are checked to see if the event matched any trigger conditions. [...] However, some triggered abilities must be treated specially. Leaves-the-battlefield abilities, [...] will trigger based on their existence, and the appearance of objects, prior to the event rather than afterward. The game has to "look back in time" to determine if these abilities trigger.

Example: Two creatures are on the battlefield along with an artifact that has the ability "Whenever a creature dies, you gain 1 life." Someone plays a spell that destroys all artifacts, creatures, and enchantments. The artifact's ability triggers twice, even though the artifact goes to its owner's graveyard at the same time as the creatures.

Note that for this to work the destruction must happen at the same time, if you had used Austere Command instead the enchantment would be destroyed before the creatures thus it wouldn't trigger.

Boy, I find this rule non-intuitive.


text:
Who draws a card if my opponent has stolen control of Pelakka Wurm when it dies?
If an opponent casts Act of Treason to gain control of Pelakka Wurm then sacrifices it who will draw the card?

Your opponent would draw the card. When an ability triggers, what matters is who controlled the object with the ability (in this case the Pelakka Wurm) when it triggered. With "dies" triggers, what matters is who controlled it just before it died.

112.8. The controller of an activated ability on the stack is the player who activated it. The controller of a triggered ability on the stack (other than a delayed triggered ability) is the player who controlled the ability's source when it triggered, or, if it had no controller, the player who owned the ability's source when it triggered. To determine the controller of a delayed triggered ability, see rules 603.7d–f.
603.6d Normally, objects that exist immediately after an event are checked to see if the event matched any trigger conditions. Continuous effects that exist at that time are used to determine what the trigger conditions are and what the objects involved in the event look like. However, some triggered abilities must be treated specially. Leaves-the-battlefield abilities, abilities that trigger when a permanent phases out, abilities that trigger when an object that all players can see is put into a hand or library, abilities that trigger specifically when an object becomes unattached, abilities that trigger when a player loses control of an object, and abilities that trigger when a player planeswalks away from a plane will trigger based on their existence, and the appearance of objects, prior to the event rather than afterward. The game has to “look back in time” to determine if these abilities trigger.

If your opponent takes control of Pelakka Wurm and it dies while they control it, they draw the card.
The first thing to note is that rule 700.4 says

The term "dies" means "is put into a graveyard from the battlefield."

So the Wurm's ability is equivalent to "When Pelakka Wurm is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, draw a card." This is a triggered ability, and specifically, it is a "leaves-the-battlefield ability" (rule 603.6c):

603.6c. Leaves-the-battlefield abilities trigger when a permanent moves from the battlefield to another zone, or when a phased-in permanent leaves the game because its owner leaves the game. These are written as, but aren't limited to, "When [this object] leaves the battlefield, ..." or "Whenever [something] is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, ..." An ability that attempts to do something to the card that left the battlefield checks for it only in the first zone that it went to. An ability that triggers when a card is put into a certain zone "from anywhere" is never treated as a leaves-the-battlefield ability, even if an object is put into that zone from the battlefield.
603.6d. Normally, objects that exist immediately after an event are checked to see if the event matched any trigger conditions. Continuous effects that exist at that time are used to determine what the trigger conditions are and what the objects involved in the event look like. However, some triggered abilities must be treated specially. Leaves-the-battlefield abilities, abilities that trigger when a permanent phases out, abilities that trigger when an object that all players can see is put into a hand or library, abilities that trigger specifically when an object becomes unattached, abilities that trigger when a player loses control of an object, and abilities that trigger when a player planeswalks away from a plane will trigger based on their existence, and the appearance of objects, prior to the event rather than afterward. The game has to "look back in time" to determine if these abilities trigger.

This means that when the Wurm dies, it looks at its existence before it died to determine how the ability triggers. Specifically, when the Wurm was last on the battlefield, your opponent controlled it, so they control the ability and draw the card.

The person who controlled it with Act of Treason when it died will draw the card.
What matters is the state that Pelakka Wurm was in when it was last on the battlefield, so it matters whose control it was under then.

603.6d Normally, objects that exist immediately after an event are checked to see if the event matched any trigger conditions. Continuous effects that exist at that time are used to determine what the trigger conditions are and what the objects involved in the event look like. However, some triggered abilities must be treated specially. Leaves-the-battlefield abilities, abilities that trigger when a permanent phases out, abilities that trigger when an object that all players can see is put into a hand or library, abilities that trigger specifically when an object becomes unattached, abilities that trigger when a player loses control of an object, and abilities that trigger when a player planeswalks away from a plane will trigger based on their existence, and the appearance of objects, prior to the event rather than afterward. The game has to “look back in time” to determine if these abilities trigger.


text:
Can I use a creature's ability on my opponent's turn?
If I were to have a card on the battlefield such as Archers' Parapet and it was my opponents turn could I play the ability of Parapet if I had player priority?

{1}{B}, {T}: Each opponent loses 1 life.

I am wondering if it is possible to play the ability during my opponents end step?

You may use a tap ability at instant speed, so as long as the cost is payed and the creature does NOT have summoning sickness you may use the ability whenever you have priority.

It might be worth noting cards that say, "use this ability only anytime you could cast a Sorcery" would be excluded.


text:
Are two Indestructible creatures safe from each other, or do they somehow cancel each other out and destroy each other?
My friend attacked with Colossus of Akros (Monstrous 20/20 indestructible) and I blocked with my Xenagos, God of Revels (6/5 indestructible). I believe that our creatures are safe since indestructible prevents them from dying by combat damage.
My friend though believes that the indestructible ability would cancel each other out and his Colossus would destroy my Xenagos. Are there any rules that explains what happens in this situation?

Note that Colossus of Akros has trample when it is Monstrous, so you're still taking 15 damage from that hit.

@murgatroid99 Oh it does, I guess we both overlooked that part of the monstrous ability.

No, nothing like your friend's idea happens. Indestructible simply means they can't be destroyed, period. They can be exiled, returned to their owner's hand, sacrificed, have their toughness reduced to zero, shuffled into their owner's library, or even turned into frogs, but if anything tries to destroy them, including lethal damage, it just doesn't happen.

702.12b A permanent with indestructible can’t be destroyed. Such permanents aren't destroyed by lethal damage, and they ignore the state-based action that checks for lethal damage (see rule 704.5g).

There's no secret "...unless..." clause in the rules like your friend believes. The only way to actually destroy an indestructible creature is to make it stop being indestructible; usually that means causing it to lose all its abilities, like if you turn it into a frog!

Also worth noting that they can be turned into frogs and then destroyed, as usually when they're frogs they lose "indestructible".

I meant that they can't be destroyed when I said "our creatures are safe" but thanks for the quick answer!

@JohnOdom I know, and that's what my answer is confirming, just with more rules-ish language. When I said "no" I meant to what your friend said.

Okay, I added those things, but really, I don't think this answer needs to contain a comprehensive list of every last way a permanent can "go away" besides being destroyed. The point is that it can't be destroyed. Yes, you could also keep them from attacking/blocking, you could take control of them, you could turn them over with Ixidron, phase them out with Sapphire Charm... but that's not really the question that needed answering here.

@user777 Also, not that I believe that phasing really matters anymore, but there is no "phase out zone". Phasing out is a status, not a zone change. A phased out object remains in the zone it was already in, but you pretend it doesn't exist.


text:
What happens in this infinite damage/infect loop?
So I have an Exquisite Blood and a Sanguine Bond in play under my control, then I attack my opponent directly for 1 damage, but the opponent has a Phyrexian Unlife and a Melira, Sylvok Outcast in play. What happens after they take the damage? Do I win?

Depends on how much life your opponent currently has.
If your opponent has non-positive life

Your opponent would lose a life from the damage except for Phyrexian Unlife.
Instead, your opponent would gain a poison counter from the damage expect for Melira, Sylvok Outcast.
Instead, nothing happens to your opponent.
Exquisite Blood doesn't trigger since no life was lost.
Sanguine Bond doesn't trigger since you didn't gain any life.
The game goes on.

If your opponent has positive life

Your opponent loses a life from the damage.
Exquisite Blood triggers and gives you life.
Sanguine Bond triggers and cause your opponent to lose a life. Phyrexian Unlife doesn't prevent or replace loss of life, so it doesn't effect this.
Exquisite Blood triggers and— Oh my, we've entered a loop of mandatory actions. If noone has a way of ending it, the game ends in a draw.

104.4b If a game that’s not using the limited range of influence option (including a two-player game) somehow enters a “loop” of mandatory actions, repeating a sequence of events with no way to stop, the game is a draw. Loops that contain an optional action don’t result in a draw.

Note that neither of the players are forced to end the loop even if they could. For example, if your opponent could sacrifice Phyrexian Unlife (ending the loop by losing), he doesn't have to do it.

716.5. No player can be forced to perform an action that would end a loop other than actions called for by objects involved in the loop.

If the opponent has positive life, wouldn't the loop continue until the opponent has 0 life, at which point, the game continues?

@Matt Ellen, No. In the first scenario, nothing happens because the effect of damage is replaced then prevented. In the second scenario, the opponent is losing life (once he's been brought to zero), not taking damage. Like I mentioned, Phyrexian Unlife doesn't replace loss of life, so the opponent will keep losing life past zero.

Oh I see. Sorry, I got confused between life loss and damage.

This would be considered a "mandatory infinite loop" because the effects are recursive.
This is covered in the rules thusly:

104.4b If a game that’s not using the limited range of influence option (including a two-player game) somehow enters a “loop” of mandatory actions, repeating a sequence of events with no way to stop, the game is a draw. Loops that contain an optional action don’t result in a draw.

Now, if someone can respond to one of the triggers (even the 1,000,000th one) the game is not a draw. But if no one can, or if no one reveals that they can (it could be a Doom Blade in their hand, they are not forced to reveal they have it or anything) or simply chooses not to interrupt the loop, it will be a draw. Your opponent could, in theory, lightning bolt himself to put the game into a draw if he thought he was going to lose in a few turns, for instance.

This assumes the opponent has positive life.

No, you don't win. Sloppily spoken, what hapens instead is that either the damage is absorbed by Unlife, or the game crashes.
Let me explain:
Phyrexian Unlife prevents damage for as long as your opponent still has life left, but not the loss of life. That means if your damage manages to pass Unlife, your combo rolls out just as usual, draining life from your opponent in an infinite loop - however, since your opponent in this situation can't lose the game for having 0 or less life, this loop actually never comes to an end, and the effect cannot stop resolving.
Oficially, a situation with an unresolvable loop-up like this and no way to break out of it actually means that the game ends as a draw (see 104.4b, specifically). That's how it's handled in tournament settings.
But I've seen casual playgroups deal with these situations by ignoring the loop and just assuming that the effect has resolved for an amount of times chosen by the effect's controller, which is something making more sense gameplay-wise on my cap. Applying that to your example, you'd be free to have your effect resolve 500 times, dropping your opponent to -500 health and gaining 500 life. But yeah, since that's purely non-official, I'd recommend talking to the people you play with about how they wish to resolve a "game crash" like that in advance.

"Crashes" is very appropriate wording (not sure if that's what you were referencing).


text:
Who gets magic if the Fallen Kingdom Ghoul destroys itself?
The card states:

if the Ghoul did not destroy a Unit during that Attack Phase, place 1
  Wound Marker on this card

In the scenario that the Ghoul is destroyed as a result of having a wound placed on it in this manner, who gets the magic?

The owner gets it, since it was their ability that destroyed the card.

So the general rule is that if a cards ability destroys a unit, the owner of the card with said ability gets the magic?

I think that follows, yes.


text:
What do dusk and dawn count as in Fury of Dracula 3rd ed?
In the 3rd edition, the rulebook says

Dawn occurs before the day, and dusk occurs before the night.

Does this mean that dawn = night, and dusk = day when resolving combat?

First, what edition are you talking about? If I'm assuming third correctly, then:

If combat is at dusk or night, Dracula resolves the “at night” effects of his combat cards.

thus dusk = night; dawn = day for combat effects.

Yes this is third edition

I believe this wouldn't make sense thematically.  With the idea of Dusk and Dawn, they both occur at the end of the light/dark cycle i.e Dawn is the end of night and the Dusk is the end of the day.
It therefore make much more thematic sense that Dawn = day and Dusk = night
Even if the wording of the rules don't quite read correctly, I would stick with common usage of the English terms for the game.

Many games, especially FFG ones, use very specific terminology that not always mean what you expect it to mean. Trying to use "common english meaning" or "thematic sense" in these cases is more confusing than helpful.

Clearly the rules were loosely written, so using common sense is necessary to interpret them.

I think the thing to keep in mind is that it's a vampire game. At dusk, Dracula is waking up and ready to feed/fight, and he's got all night to do so. At dawn, he's in a hurry to get back into his coffin before sunrise, and he's getting weaker every minute that passes, therefore he's weaker at dawn than he is at dusk.

Hi Caelin, and welcome to the site. Please check out our [tour] to see how the site works -- you might have mistaken this place for behaving like a discussion forum, but we expect answers (such as you've provided here) to directly and fully answer the question, rather than provide discussion points. It may make sense to consider the narrative sensibilities of the game, but ultimately that should be backed up by a citation of the game's rules itself!


text:
In Axis and Allies, do infantry units start at the industrial complex or anywhere I want?
I love playing Axis and Allies but think I have been playing it wrong. I place my troops on all of my properties. Is that wrong? Where are they supposed to start when I buy them? At the industrial complex, or anywhere?

At the beginning of the game, units are started at designated spots dictated by the map, and by the rules (reflecting historical deployments).
As the game proceeds, land and air units start at one of your industrial complexes, while sea units start at one of the sea zones adjacent to one of your industrial complexes.
By definition, the industrial complexes are where your unite are organized and armed. That's why they start there (or in a neighboring sea zone).

No.  New units can only be placed at industrial complexes.
From the rules, page 21, "Action Sequence 5 - Place New Units On Gameboard":
Place newly purchased land units and air units in territories where you have owned
industrial complexes since the beginning of your turn-not in just-captured territories
with industrial complexes.

Furthermore
Any units that cannot be placed in industrial complexes are lost and put back in the tray.

Rules: https://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/axis.pdf


text:
Do I have to play a Dead of Winter event card as soon as I draw it, or can I choose to play it later?
When you draw an event card which says to add new people to your colony, does that go into effect right away or can you decide when to play it?

You decide when (or if) to play any card from the item deck, including Event cards that add survivors. Players may play item cards (including event cards) on their turn, but they are not required to do so.
The one difference with Event cards is that they are not added to the waste pile but are instead removed from game.
Unfortunately the rulebook doesn't do a good job explaining Event cards, but this topic has come up repeatedly on the BGG rules forum. One such link posted below where one of the co-designers Jonathan Gilmour comments on a thread specific to this rule.
http://boardgamegeek.com/article/17160807#17160807

Do you have a reference for Event cards being removed from game instead of going to the Waste Pile? The rulebook just says "To play a card, place it on top of the waste pile", with only an exception for Equipment.

Nevermind. Apparently this sentence made it into the printed rulebook but somehow not the PDF!

It seems ridiculous that the online PDF isn't the most up to date version, but it appears to be so. I myself was searching it for mention of Event cards and trash and found the printed version to contain this reference where the online version didn't.  Odd.


text:
Does a tapped or removed attacking creature still deal its damage?
If an attacking creature gets tapped, removed from the game, returned to hand, put in the library or destroyed during combat, does its damage still get through to the blocking creature or player?

Well you're asking 5 different questions really, but they're closely related.
Tapped - There is no effect other than the creature is tapped. No change to combat.
This is assuming that the creature was already declared as an attacker before you tapped it. Before the "declare attackers" step, there is a "beginning of combat" step, in which you could use a spell or ability to tap your opponent's creature. If you do this, then that creature won't be able to be declared as an attacker. But once your opponent does declare him as an attacker, you won't be able to tap it to do anything (normally it would just be tapped as part of being declared as an attacker anyway).
Removed from the game, returned to hand, put in the library, or destroyed - The creature is removed from combat and will not deal any combat damage.
The rules you need to know here are related to the steps of the combat phase. This is detailed here. Basically, during the declare blockers step, after blockers have been declared, each player has a chance to cast instants and activate abilities. Once players have done all they want, it moves to the assign damage step.
If you use an instant to destroy or otherwise remove an attacking creature during the declare blockers step, then it will not be around to assign any combat damage during the assign combat damage step.

This is why the 'beginning of combat' step exists. If you tap a creature before it attacks, it can't attack and therefore can't deal damage.

Might be useful to mention that effects like regeneration or change in control also remove a creature from combat.

Maybe just say removed from your side of the field for any reason

It is worth noting that the rules for both parts have changed over time. Tapping blockers during combat used to prevent them from doing damage, and damage used to be put on the stack like an ability which meant it would still happen even if the creature left play for any reason. This can be important if being taught the game by someone who learned a long time ago, or just playing with someone who hasn't played in a while.


text:
Do permanents phase out with Spectral Adversary even if it leaves the battlefield?
I cast Spectral Adversary:

When Spectral Adversary enters the battlefield, you may pay {1}{U} any number of times. When you pay this cost one or more times, put that many +1/+1 counters on Spectral Adversary, then up to that many other target artifacts, creatures, and/or enchantments phase out.

It enters the battlefield, then the "kicker" goes on the stack. In response my opponent shocks my creature. Can I still pay 1U and phase out a permanent?

Yes, you can still pay for that ability's cost even if Spectral Adversary is no longer on the battlefield.
Once an ability is activated or triggered, it exists independent of its source. If the creature leaves the battlefield, the ability will stay on the stack and it will still resolve as usual.
In this case, the main ability just asks you to pay a cost. There are no targets so it won't fail to resolve as a result of not having targets. So, there's nothing stopping it from resolving. The ability that triggers after you pay that cost targets the permanents that you want to phase out, so whether it resolves depends only on whether those targets continue to be valid.


text:
Double faced cards multiple transform triggers
Wizards recently changed the ruling for double faced cards:

if a DFC has an activated or triggered ability that transforms it, that permanent transforms only if it hasn't since that ability was put on the stack.

Ok, so that means that you can't flip-flop a DFC card around with the ability on one side. Does that mean you can't activate/trigger the ability more than once, for other effects? (e.g. Elusive Tormentor's "{1}, Discard a card: Transform" and I want multiple Madness triggers)

Your second question: Do you mean it's not on the stack ever? Or it's not on the stack when a non-Angel creature dies?

I think by now the 2nd question is better off as its own question since it is more about the timing of delayed triggered abilities rather than the DFC rules changes.

@Hackworth bah, i was worried that its scope would get too big. Will do

Several points for the first question:

Elusive Tormentor's ability is not triggered, it is activated.
Discarding the card is not part of its effect, but part of the cost, and there is no limit to how often you activate that ability.
Even if it was part of the effect, you could still activate the ability several times and discard several cards, because the discard and the flip would be separate effects. If one effect of a spell or ability gets prevented or replaced somehow, the other effects are not affected.

@murgatroid99 Not sure any more, I assumed he meant when a non-angel creature dies. I asked him to clarify.


text:
Did Balance change when its wording was changed?
I noticed that the original text of Balance, from Alpha, says that someone must discard some number of lands to equalize (sorta).
In the most recent reprint, I notice they have to choose some number and get rid of the rest. Is this the same for the old print? (Is it the same card after all?)
Was old magic kind of like Pokemon (in that when it says discard an energy from this card it means send to the discard pile) where any card not destroyed by battle is considered discarded?

What do you mean by "get rid of the rest?" Are you asking what Balance does, or something else?

To be clear, you're asking whether "discard" once meant "sacrifice" when talking about permanents, right?

I think he just misread the new text: Each player chooses a number of lands he or she controls equal to the number of lands controlled by the player who controls the fewest, then sacrifices the rest. Only change I see to the new wording and the old one, is that the old one only accounted for 2 players and the new wording for multiple players.

Yes, "discard" was once used to describe removal of permanents from the battlefield like "sacrifice" does now.  Consider the original text on City in a Bottle and Golgothian Sylex, which have you "discard [cards] from play" — they're obviously not talking about discarding cards in your hand!

In general, the old wordings on cards could be notoriously bad.  You can find the official errata on gatherer.

Each player chooses a number of lands he or she controls equal to the number of lands controlled by the player who controls the fewest, then sacrifices the rest. Players discard cards and sacrifice creatures the same way.

Specifically, "discard" has been updated to sacrificing instead of destroying.  The new rules are much more consistent.  So now only cards in a players hand can be discarded, but any permanent in play (such as lands or creatures) can be sent to the graveyard as a result of being destroyed, sacrificed, or other state-based checks.   The old card writers were being lazy, but made the card's text confusing.

It's a bit judgmental to say they were lazy. Magic terminology simply wasn't as codified and structured as it is today. I don't understand what point you're making in the last paragraph, the only functional difference I see between the wordings is that the gatherer text accounts for a game with more than two players.

"lazy"?  Please explain and provide evidence.

Lazy describing the language, not the writers.  By that I mean that instead of explicitly listing out every single way to sent a card to the graveyard, the tried to catch all these with one "discard."  That is, trying to save text instead of being very specific.  And yes, older rules were not as comprehensive so that's what let this wording happen.

There are two answers to this question.  One of them is lame.  The other is educational, but I don't consider it as correct as the first one.
The lame answer is that yes, the card changed.  This is because the rules back then were different, which means that understanding what a card does is different.  That is, trivially, every card changed when the rules did.
If you don't buy this answer you can also consider the fact of the special case: that the original magic rules, and card texts, just weren't well-defined.  Asking if behaviour changed, when behaviour could in many cases only be a matter of Rules-As-Intended not embodied in any discernible object (in objective reality), itself becomes not a matter of answering something definitively but a matter of discerning an opinion held in the past.  So Old-Balance did 'something', which exists and is basically unknowable.  Balance does a thing, and if that thing equals what Old-Balance did seems to be just like asking if a value is equal to the undefined type - useful to consider that 'false' on principal.
The esoteric answer is that there is a difference between discarding "until" your possessions satisfy a property P(x) and choosing possessions satisfying P(x) and discarding the rest.  The second case clearly involves no sequence of actions.  The first case might possibly have been a sequence of actions.  As the order of things matters, the two cards are different.


text:
What happens when I deal lethal damage to everyone at the same time?
In an EDH game, I was able to get infinite mana, and I used it to cast a Squall Line with X = 1,000,000. What is the result of this decision? Do I win, or does everyone lose and thus tie?

The relevant rule is this one:

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

So the game is a draw. Nobody wins.

You might however be able to convince your friends that you have achieved a moral victory by ending the game on your own terms!

Equally all your friends might decide it was the desperate act of someone losing and count it as a loss for you :)


text:
Layers: Lose abilities vs creatures have ability
My opponent had a Archetype of Finality and a Borderland Minotaur.
I attacked with my Ancient Crab and casted Turn to Frog on her Borderland Minotaur once she blocked.
Am I correct that both the

Creatures you control have deathtouch.

and the

...target creature loses all abilities...

happen on layer 6 (Ability Adding or Removing Effects) and with the timestamps in mind, the Borderland Minotaur first gained deathtouch and then lost it?
Thanks and "Ribbit"!

Yes, these both happen on layer 6: ability-adding and ability-removing effects. When one effect is adding one or more abilities, and a second effect is trying to remove them, then the one that "wins" is the one generated last in timestamp order. The Borderland Minotaur won't have deathtouch in that scenario: it gains it, then loses it.
Rule 613.8 actually provides a direct example about this, using Flying rather than Deathtouch:

613.8. One continuous effect can override another. Sometimes the results of one effect determine whether another effect applies or what another effect does.
Example: Two effects are affecting the same creature: one from an Aura that says “Enchanted creature gains flying” and one from an Aura that says “Enchanted creature loses flying.” Neither of these depends on the other, since nothing changes what they affect or what they’re doing to it. Applying them in timestamp order means the one that was generated last “wins.” The same process would be followed, and the same result reached, if either of the effects had a duration (such as “Target creature loses flying until end of turn”) or came from a non-Aura source (such as “All creatures lose flying”).

The example uses auras, but the very last sentence in this example says you'd also do the exact same thing if the effects came from "a non-Aura source", such as your Archetype of Finality or Turn to Frog.

Does it also work like this for Humility and Akroma's Memorial ?

@Dennis I've given this an update to make it slightly more broadly descriptive. It would indeed work the same for those. One's trying to add a bunch of stuff, the other's trying to remove all of them.


text:
Will Panharmonicon entering the battlefield duplicate ETBs it triggers?
If I have a Reckless Fireweaver on the battlefield, and I play a Panharmonicon, will the Fireweaver's ability trigger twice?

By the time Reckless Fireweaver's ability triggers, due to it being an ETB ability, Panharmonicon is already on the battlefield and will already work. Reckless Fireweaver will trigger twice.

Aaargh! I've been shortchanging myself T_T


text:
Can you counter a spell with indestructible?
Can you counter an indestructible enchantment spell? For example, I cast Kruphix, God of Horizons. Can you counter the spell with a spell like Dissipate while it's on the stack?

Don't forget to come back and vote for the answer if you found it useful.

Yes, you can.
The entirety of the rules for indestructible is that a creature with indestructible cannot be destroyed:

702.12a Indestructible is a static ability.
702.12b A permanent with indestructible can’t be destroyed. Such permanents aren’t destroyed by lethal damage, and they ignore the state-based action that checks for lethal damage.

To destroy a permanent is not related to countering a spell in any way.
To get even more technical, the spell does not have indestructible until after it resolves and becomes a permanent:

112.6. Abilities of an instant or sorcery spell usually function only while that object is on the stack. Abilities of all other objects usually function only while that object is on the battlefield. The exceptions are as follows:

(None of the listed exceptions apply here).

Ok, that clears things up. so anything on the stack is not considered on the battlefield so any abilities that is on the card won't activate until after the stack has resolved.

@user11582 Correct; in fact I was updating my answer with that clarification just now.

It comes mighty close to being a characteristic-defining ability [CR 604.3a] (which function everywhere, even outside of the game), but it's not.

@ikegami Was it a characteristic-defining ability a couple years ago, before they added the keyword?

Not if the definition of CDA was the same then. It has to modify colour, p/t and/or types

@Gendolkari Indestructible (and unblockable) before they keyworded (or removed) the word was weird because they looked like keywords but they were really just normal English words with their English definition.

Indestructibility has never been a characteristic, or alternatively, indestructible has never been a characteristic-defining ability. Characteristics are color, subtypes, power, and toughness [CR 604.3a(1)], at least in the current rules, but I don't think that has been changed for a long time, if ever.


text:
How do I create an account with Wizards of the Coast if I have a very old DCI number without activation code?
During Battle for Zendikar prerelease yesterday I played my first "real cards" MTG tournament since GP Vienna around 2003-ish. Now I learned that there is now a DCI website where you can look up your tournament results, Planeswalker points, etc. Apparently, it is this one: https://accounts.wizards.com
Now I am wondering how to actually create an account there using my existing (8-digit) DCI number from way back. Using Create Account won't do, as it seems to create a new, unchangeable, DCI number. Using Activate DCI number functionality does not do what I want, since my number is from long before activation codes were a thing.
I have considered contacting support, but based on previous interactions I was hoping that there is an easier solution.

The website http://wizards.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2301/=1
Actually answers this question, but not quite obvious.
It says numbers shorter than 10 digits have been converted and that you can receive your DCI number either at a local WPN store (where you have to ask) or via the contact form.

I tried the contact form just some hours ago with my old DCI number and they just have sent me an activation code. So, I can confirm that using it works.

The FAQ indicates that you can merge multiple DCI numbers into one account. This may be a way for you to get what you want, by first making a new account, and then merging in your old DCI number. The fine print, however, suggests that this will only work for previously activated DCI numbers, so you may again be out of luck there and need to contact customer support.

Tried, but the "merging" functionality actually merges accounts, not DCI numbers. You have to log into both accounts first (which I cannot).

You may already have an account, and just need to reset your password. I have an 8-digit DCI number and resetting my password was how I gained access to the account. You don't need to merge unless you have multiple DCI numbers.


text:
If I have an Equipment equipped to something and it's enchanted by Ensoul Artifact, how is that handled?
Imagine I have an Equipment attached to something, e.g. a Chariot of Victory on a Runeclaw Bear. I then enchant that equipment with Ensoul Artifact.
Would the Equipment card still grant its effects to the creature it was attached to? Additionally, would it still be able to attack? Or is it treated more like an enchanted creature?

Your question was a little hard to follow - I tried to edit it into something clear, but I'm not 100% sure if it asks everything you were trying to ask. Please edit further if not!

Are you asking whether the equipment will gain the effets of ensoul artifact, or if it will gain its own effects?

@doppelgreener I'm asking for: will the equipment grant its effects to its "equiper" and also can still be tapped by it self to attack, as a creature can do.

@Zaibis Ok, thanks for clarifying. I've edited the question, please check it over and see if it captures what you're after.

@doppelgreener: Didn't the edit falsified that? (sorry if my english is jsut worse)

@Zaibis Oh. Are you asking if it can still be equipped to something, and give its effects to that thing, while also being a creature that can attack on its own?

@doppelgreener: exactly thats what I asked other wise I guess it would be a duplicate ^^

@Zaibis Ok, how is that?

An Equipment Creature can't be attached to anything, so there is no Equipped Creature to which to grant a boon. If a Chariot of Victory was animated using Ensoul Artifact, it would not grant First Strike, Trample and Haste to anything, much less itself.

301.5a The creature an Equipment is attached to is called the “equipped creature.” The Equipment is attached to, or “equips,” that creature.

It's impossible to use the Equip ability of Creature Equipment.

301.5c An Equipment that’s also a creature can’t equip a creature. [...]

If for some reason an Creature Equipment is attached to an object or player, it will cease to be when State-Based actions are performed.

704.5q If a creature is attached to an object or player, it becomes unattached and remains on the battlefield. Similarly, if a permanent that’s neither an Aura, an Equipment, nor a Fortification is attached to an object or player, it becomes unattached and remains on the battlefield.

Wouldn't 301.5c actually stop you from attaching a creature equipment to itself? The SBA handles the case where an attached equipment becomes a creature, but 301.5c prevents a creature equipment from becoming attached.

FYI the question has been edited to capture the asker's intentions. They were not trying to ask about whether the equipment would gain its own equip benefits.

@doppelgreener, np. Already covered by my answer

@ikegami: does this technically mean: I can technically pay the costs for equipping it, but after that it will instantly unequip and remain in a state it was before (as long the equiping process didn't changed anything in its state)?

@ikegami I'm pretty sure that "can't equip" in rule 301.5c refers to the definition of "equips" in rule 301.5a. It is not saying that you can't activate the equip ability.

@ikegami If you read the rest of rule 301.5c, the only meaning that makes sense is "attached". Read the last paragraph: "If a spell or ability would cause an Equipment to equip more than one creature, the Equipment’s controller chooses which creature it equips.". See rule 303.4d for the equivalent rule for auras, using analogous wording.

@Pablo, It can't mean "attached" (because it's possible for a creature to be attached until SBAs fix the situation), but maybe it means "become attached". (If so, that would mean you could activate a creature's Equip ability, but it wouldn't do anything on resolution.)

If you use Ensoul Artifact on an equipment it will not gain the effects it grants to the equipped creature. This is because the equipment is not equipping itself (it can't equip anything as long as it is a creature). So a Bonesplitter enchanted with Ensoul Artifact will be a 5/5, not 7/5.

FYI the question has been edited to capture the asker's intentions. It is asking about something different to this.


text:
Why doesn't Rishkar, Peema Renegade have Support 2?
This bugs me.
Rishkar, Peema Renegade's Enter the Battlefield ability:

When Rishkar, Peema Renegade enters the battlefield, put a +1/+1 counter on each of up to two target creatures.

Lead by Example spell text:

Support 2. (Put a +1/+1 counter on each of up to two target creatures.)

Another creature with support: Saddleback Lagac

When Saddleback Lagac enters the battlefield, support 2. (Put a +1/+1 counter on each of up to two other target creatures.)

So, why isn't the text for Rishkar, Peema Renegade:

When Rishkar, Peema Renegade enters the battlefield, support 2. (Put a +1/+1 counter on each of up to two other target creatures.)

Huh?

Somewhat relevant: http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/storm-scale-zendikar-and-battle-zendikar-2016-11-21

Rishkar can put a counter on himself. You can't do that with support.
If that were not the case, there's another reason: most keyword mechanics only last for the single block in which they are introduced. For example, support was introduced in Oath of the Gatewatch. Once that block was printed, that's it for support. Future cards which have functionally identical mechanics will have the text of the mechanic written out, rather than using a keyword. An example is Gearseeker Serpent, which functionally has affinity for artifacts, but does not use the keyword.
The exceptions are evergreen mechanics, which can be used in any set. These are things like flying, deathtouch, and scry. Support is not evergreen, though.
I'm not sure exactly what reason Wizards uses to justify limiting keyword mechanics in this way, but I can think of one good possibility: when they use a keyword in a set, they want to make it common enough that people playing with those cards will internalize the keyword. That's the whole point of a keyword, after all; you see it often enough that you come to learn what it means and then you don't have to read the reminder text or the relevant rules. But putting a keyword on only one card doesn't save any mental effort compared to writing out the text of the mechanic, and it may even be more confusion than it's worth to newer players who would then have one more unfamiliar word to deal with on the card.

They don't want to reprint ability words because it makes the game to complicated for new / casual players to remember them all without serving any puprose (they don't change how the cards work and they don't work in the theme of the set, in fact they distract from it). Morbid and metalcraft are two of the few silently returned mechanics in the past few months aside from affinity and probably a few more.

@Autar Yep, that was basically the point of the second part of my answer.

You can see just from the text you quoted that Rishkar's ability is not functionally identical to Support 2. Its ability says

When Rishkar, Peema Renegade enters the battlefield, put a +1/+1 counter on each of up to two target creatures.

but the rule for Support (rule 701.33a) says

“Support N” on a permanent means “Put a +1/+1 counter on each of up to N other target creatures.” [...]

The difference is that Rishkar can put counters on himself.

Nothing to say Other than that.

One more thing to say would be that Support is a block-specific keyword mechanic. Those are usually not re-used in other blocks.


text:
Madness and Conspiracy Theorist
Strixhaven introduces Conspiracy Theorist, with the triggered ability:

Whenever you discard one or more nonland cards, you may exile one of them from your graveyard. If you do, you may cast it this turn.

Madness is a keyword ability that let's me cast cards that were discarded for an alternative cost.
Is the following possible for a non-permanent card with madness, assuming timing supports?

Discard card with madness

Exile card, and cast it for the madness cost. It goes to the graveyard on resolution.

cast card with Conspiracy Theorist ability.

No, I cannot do this.
A card discarded with madness is discarded, but is sent to exile instead of the graveyard. Rule 702.35a.
The complication is the act of casting it from exile for its madness cost. On moving it from the exile zone to the stack, the spell becomes a new object. Rule 400.7
When it resolves, and is put in the graveyard, the triggered ability of Conspiracy Theorist would not be able to find the card that was discarded.
If the card was not cast for its madness cost, it would remain the same object as it passed through exile, and could be cast from the graveyard. Rule 400.7i

A clarification on the last point: an object always becomes a different object when it moves to a different zone. Rule 400.7i causes the object to be tracked through the zone change in this situation, so that effects that are watching the discard can find it, but it's not the same object.

No, you cannot do that.
Once you cast a spell using the Madness ability, it is no longer getting discarded. Instead, it is a spell on the stack. Once that spell resolves, it does go to the graveyard as usual, but this is a completely separate event from the card getting discarded.


text:
Whose turn is it when the end-of-round 5 turns are called and the turn is being passed?
In the midst of the third game of a match, the active player has just suggested a short cut to pass priority until their turn ends. Simultaneously, the judge announces the end of the round, leaving 5 turns for each game that has not yet completed to attempt to determine a winner. Assuming the opponent hasn't acknowledged the start of their turn by untapping permanents or announcing intentions for "At the beginning..." triggers, which player has turn zero, the turn recognized before the countdown of 5 turns commences?

The turn has not yet ended.

To end your turn, all players must pass priority until the stack is empty, all players must pass priority once more to end the current step or phase, and then all players must pass priority again if you ever regain priority (e.g. in subsequent steps or phases).[1]
Since you can't unilaterally end your turn, telling the next player they can take their turn is merely proposing a shortcut to have all players pass priority until it becomes the next player's turn. The others need not accept the shortcut in its entirety, so the turn hasn't ended yet. Only once the last player has accepted the shortcut does the turn end.[CR 719.2a-c]
Having taken no action since your proposal, the other player has not accepted (or shortened) your shortcut (explicitly or implicitly, e.g. by untapping), and it hasn't occurred yet.

There are effects that override these rules. e.g. Sundial of the Infinite

719.2a 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. [...]
719.2b Each other player, in turn order starting after the player who suggested the shortcut, may either accept the proposed sequence, or shorten it by naming a place where he or she will make a game choice that’s different than what’s been proposed. (The player doesn’t need to specify at this time what the new choice will be.) This place becomes the new ending point of the proposed sequence.
719.2c Once the last player has either accepted or shortened the shortcut proposal, the shortcut is taken. The game advances to the last proposed ending point, with all game choices contained in the shortcut proposal having been taken. If the shortcut was shortened from the original proposal, the player who now has priority must make a different game choice than what was originally proposed for that player.

When player A ends his turn, he usually does so by implicitly proposing a shortcut to pass priority through the remaining steps and phases of the turn, which his opponent Player B may or may not accept:

719.2a 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. [..]
719.2b Each other player, in turn order starting after the player who suggested the shortcut, may either accept the proposed sequence, or shorten it by naming a place where he or she will make a game choice that’s different than what’s been proposed. (The player doesn’t need to specify at this time what the new choice will be.) This place becomes the new ending point of the proposed sequence.
719.2c Once the last player has either accepted or shortened the shortcut proposal, the shortcut is taken. The game advances to the last proposed ending point, with all game choices contained in the shortcut proposal having been taken. If the shortcut was shortened from the original proposal, the player who now has priority must make a different game choice than what was originally proposed for that player.

Accepting a shortcut can also be done implicitely, by acting conclusively (such as starting to untap permanents). The rules for shortcuts are largely informal and are subject to mutual agreement:

719.1a The rules for taking shortcuts are largely informal. As long as each player in the game understands the intent of each other player, any shortcut system they use is acceptable.

If no such explicit or implicit acceptance has happened before the judge has announced the 5 extra turns as per Tournament Rules, it is still player A's turn. Should player B dispute that because of a misunderstanding of the shortcut system used by both players, a judge has to be called to decide.

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


text:
What happens if I exile an HOU God from the graveyard?
The Gods from Hour of Devestation (The Scorpion God, The Locust God and The Scarab God) have the following clause: "When [God Name] dies, return it to its owner's hand at the beginning of the next end step.
If I were to kill a God, then exile it from its owners graveyard (for example using The Scarab God's activated ability), does it still return to its owners hand at the beginning of the end step? The card did die, which fufils the clauses requirement, but I'm not sure if it still happens when the creature is exiled.

Those Gods have the following Gatherer ruling:

If this creature dies but leaves your graveyard before the next end step, it will remain in its new zone.

That means if you put one of those God cards into your library, or exile it, or return it to the battlefield or to your hand, the ability won't return it to your hand.
This is because of the way objects are handled when they move between zones:

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

400.7d Abilities that trigger when an object moves from one zone to another (for example, “When Rancor is put into a graveyard from the battlefield”) can find the new object that it became in the zone it moved to when the ability triggered, if that zone is a public zone.

Rule 400.7 means usually nothing can keep track of a card as it moves between zones. However, since this triggered ability is that exception, it's able to keep track of that God card as it moves into the graveyard, and it will be able to find it there at the end of the turn.
However, if that God moves anywhere else, this ability can no longer find that God because the ability has lost track of where that God is. It can't find it anywhere in the graveyard, and the God card now in exile (as far as it cares) is something completely different to the card it's looking for.
(If the God moves back your graveyard, such as via your opponent's Ulamog's Nullifier, it's once again a different object to the one the ability is looking for and it will still not be returned to your hand.)


text:
Can I sacrifice 5 creatures?
I have Westvale Abbey, it reads:

{5}, {T}, Sacrifice five creatures: Transform Westvale Abbey, then untap it.

Can I just sacrifice 5 creatures? Or do I need another creature or sacrifice spell to carry out the sacrifice?

Possible duplicate of Can I pay two different costs with the same payment?

@Hackworth I don't think this is exactly a duplicate - the OP doesn't actually want to sacrifice creatures as a cost for two things, they're just unclear on what "sacrifice" as a cost actually means.

@Jefromi It's close enough I believe. The answer in that old question contains exactly what I would have answered here as well: an activated ability is something else than a triggered ability. "Another creature or sacrifice spell" would constitute sacrificing a creature for a different effect, and Westvale Abbey's cost would not be paid by it.

Question is a simpler version of the suggested duplicate, demonstrated a lack of knowledge on how to pay the costs of an activated ability, and the importance of the colon. This is less about buying two things with the same dollar as described in an answer there, and closer to trying to put the dollar into the coin return.

It is important that Westvale Abbey's ability reads "{5}, {T}, Sacrifice five creatures: ...", not just "Sacrifice five creatures: ..."

@DavidZ I have updated the quote.

Sacrificing creatures here is part of the cost, so you can simply sacrifice five creatures (all at once) to pay for the ability.
Costs are always things that, if you're able to spend the resource in question or perform the action in question, you can do so to pay for the ability. If something has mana or energy as a cost, you can pay mana or energy for it. If a permanent has an ability with tapping as a cost, you can tap that permanent to pay it. If it requires you to discard cards, or exile cards from your graveyard, or sacrifice creatures as a cost, you can do so to pay it.
So no, you don't need anything separate, and in fact, you can't sacrifice the creatures for anything separate. They're the cost for this ability, and that cost has to be paid here, just like a mana cost would be - see Can I pay two different costs with the same payment?

Recommend clarifying the second clause of the first sentence: they can just sacrifice 5 creatures, together at a time of their choosing, to activate the ability.