text:
How many counters does Kalonian Hydra get with two Corpsejack Menaces on the battlefield?
Suppose I have 2 Corspejack Menaces on the battlefield. I play a Kalonian Hydra which is given haste by another effect, and decide to attack with it right away.
How many counters are actually put on the Hydra by the time damage is resolved?
One of the issues were if the Corpsejack Menace reacts to the Hydra being played. Since the Hydra comes into play with 4 +1/+1 counters on it, is that considered counters placed on it?
And does one Corspejack Menace react to the other Corpsejack Menace?

Both Corpsejack Menaces will double the counters, so if you would get 4 counters, you will now get 16 instead. (First doubled to 8, then doubled to 16). So in this case, the Hydra will enter with 16 counters, then when you attack, 16 more would get placed on it, which is doubled twice, so 64 more get placed on it, meaning that it is 80/80 when it attacks.
Both questions are addressed in the rulings on Corpsejack Menace:

If a creature you control would enter the battlefield with a number of +1/+1 counters on it, it enters with twice that many instead.

If you control two Corpsejack Menaces, the number of +1/+1 counters placed is four times the original number. Three Corpsejack Menaces multiplies the original number by eight, and so on.

The reason this works is described in rule 615:

Interaction of Replacement and/or Prevention Effects

615.1. If two or more replacement and/or prevention effects are attempting to modify the way an event affects an object or player, the affected object’s controller (or its owner if it has no controller) or the affected player chooses one to apply, following the steps listed below. If two or more players have to make these choices at the same time, choices are made in APNAP order (see rule 101.4).

615.1a If any of the replacement and/or prevention effects are self-replacement effects (see rule 613.14), one of them must be chosen. If not, proceed to rule 615.1b.

615.1b If any of the replacement and/or prevention effects would modify under whose control an object would enter the battlefield, one of them must be chosen. If not, proceed to rule 615.1c.

615.1c Any of the applicable replacement and/or prevention effects may be chosen.

615.1d Once the chosen effect has been applied, this process is repeated (taking into account only replacement or prevention effects that would now be applicable) until there are no more left to apply.
Example: Two permanents are on the battlefield. One is an enchantment that reads “If a card would be put into a graveyard from anywhere, instead exile it,” and the other is a creature that reads “If [this creature] would be put into a graveyard from the battlefield, instead shuffle it into its owner’s library.” The controller of the creature that would be destroyed decides which replacement to apply first; the other does nothing.

Note that entering the battlefield with counters is itself a replacement effect:

614.12. Some replacement effects modify how a permanent enters the battlefield.

aha okay. And if I declare the Hydra as an attacker, it will resolve it's damage with 80 +1/+1 counters on it? Is that correct?

@lund Assuming that there are no other relevant effects that happen, then yes, it will have 80 +1/+1 counters on it.

@Gendolkari That is good news! To me at least :) Thank you for the response!

Note that if you had 4 Corpsejacks, and then played and attacked with 4 Kalonian Hydras, then each Hydra would have 5,345,344 counters on it.

That would end most games!


text:
Can a card be un-cast, if the player realises it was a bad decision?
Let's say a player casts a spell, completely allows it to resolve, and accepts its consequences - then realises that was a bad idea, or there was something better to do. That player realises there was a better card to play, or that the spell will do something they don't want to happen, such as deal enough damage to that player to kill them.
Does the caster have the opportunity to go back and fix that mistake (and to stay alive), even though they already accepted the consequences?

Do you mean using a card illegally (i.e. it shouldn't have been possible to cast that card in the first place) or someone completely legally casting a card, then realising there was probably something better to do?

I mean that if someone misread the card like to protect them self from damage and then accepting the damage dealt to them but then realizing that the Card was used wrong after he accepted the amount of damage that would have killed him wouldn't the game have technically already ended? Or would he be aloud to correct his mistake

Once a game has ended, it's ended. While you're welcome to do whatever you like in casual play, no tournament would return to a finished game or retroactively change the result due to a mistake.

Sorry, even with your comment clarification, I don't understand what you mean. By "used wrong", do you mean he did something with the card that the card doesn't do (like he dealt himself 3 damage even though the card only says to deal him 2 damage), or that he just realized that the 3 damage the card does will kill himself and he wants to not play it because of that.

He used a target creature protection card and misread it and put it on his blocking creature other than my attacking creature and accepted the damage

@Maraththecommander I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying he cast it on the wrong blocker? How did that even happen?

It was a card used to protect damage from a ceature but accept for using it on one of my attackers he used it on his blocker misreading the card thinking that it made him have to sac his creature for no damage being dealt therefor the card was misused and he accepted the damage when if he read the card right he could have protected himself

Sorry I'm bad at explaining things

So.the card was played incorrectly? Its instructions were not followed accurately?

Specifically, you don't get to sacrifice a creature just because - you have to be allowed to do so, because for some decks doing so is actually a good thing. Was an illegal action performed that a card was not saying to do?

Can you please post the exact cards involved here, rather than paraphrasing their effects?

Yeah let me find them really quick

He used a terrifying presence on his creature thinking that it would kill his creature and protect himself from damage which is really bad cause that's not even close to what the card said xD

Then accepted the damage that would have killed him

It would entirely depend on the type of game you're playing.
If you're playing in any sort of tournament or other "serious" venue, you're SOL.
In a casual setting, it would depend on your opponent, I suppose. If they agree to rewind, then you're good.
But to put a proper answer in, strict RAW says that once you've done it, you've done it.

And if you're running into things like this (misreading a card you're playing with) sounds pretty likely it's a pretty casual setting.

@Jefromi I've seen instances of people playing cards in tournaments not realizing that it won't do what they expect (due to card interactions or just a mental misfire). So it's possible for this to happen in a game where the results matter.

Depends on what you mean by "misused".
If the card was cast illegally, such as trying to Shock a creature with Hexproof, the game is rewound to the point immediately before the spell was cast. This does depend on how much time has passed- if so much time has passed that fixing it would be difficult, just correct anything currently illegal and continue the game.
If a player just did something silly, like trying to Shock a creature that actually had 3 toughness because of a Glorious Anthem, the answer is no in any tournament setting. Once you've taken an action, you can't suddenly change your mind. In casual play, it's up to the opponent. If the opponent decides it's sporting to allow take-backs, they can allow them.

The asker has left comments clarifying what they mean by misused.

@JonathanHobbs and those comments are no more clear than the original question

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Borborygmos Enraged's ability around dying in combat
I attack with Borborygmos Enraged. My opponent blocks with a 6/6 (which means Borborygmos will die). When Borborygmos Enraged deals damage to the player, I assume I still reveal the top 3 cards and put lands into my hand as part of the triggered ability. Am I able to use the "Discard a land card" ability with the new cards I draw with the triggered ability or is he dead and I can't use that ability?

The ability triggers, but you can't use these lands to activate Borborygmos Enraged's ability
The ability triggers when Borborygmos Enraged deals combat damage, even if at the same time it's dealt lethal damage itself. State-based actions see lethal damage marked on it and destroy it, causing it to go into your graveyard. The ability is then put on the stack and you get priority, but since Borborygmos Enraged isn't on the battlefield anymore, you can't activate it's ability.
If nothing else happens, the triggered ability will resolve and possibly reveal an amount of lands you may put into your hand.

Relevant Rules

510.2. Second, all combat damage that's been assigned is dealt simultaneously. (...)
510.3. Third, the active player gets priority. (...)
510.3a. Any abilities that triggered on damage being dealt or while state-based actions are performed afterward are put onto the stack before the active player gets priority (...)
704.3. Whenever a player would get priority (...), the game checks for any of the listed conditions for state-based actions, then performs all applicable state-based actions simultaneously as a single event. (...) Once no more state-based actions have been performed as the result of a check and no triggered abilities are waiting to be put on the stack, the appropriate player gets priority. (...)

I doesn't really effect your answer, but technically the SBA that destroys Borborygmos occurs before the triggered ability goes on the stack (it triggers prior to the SBA occurring, but isn't put on the stack until after they are checked)

@diego: If you check the edit history, that's how I wrote it in the first place, but after multiple attempts of making it more readable, it must've gotten lost in translation. Thanks for the hint! :)

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


text:
Are you allowed to attack creatures instead of a player?
Are you allowed to attack creatures instead of a player during the combat phase? Because it seems to me it's much more easier to block (because you can actually choose what you attack) than to just throw all your critters at the player and hope the right ones don't get blocked.

Since this is a basic rules question, a quote from the basic rules:

In your combat phase, you choose which of your creatures will attack, and you
  choose who or what they will attack. Each one can attack your opponent or one of your opponent’s planeswalkers, but not any of his or her creatures.

You say it'd be easier to just attack creatures. Sure - and that's kind of the point. If you could just use a bigger creature to kill off a smaller creature, combat wouldn't be nearly so interesting, and the game would lose a lot. You really do have to work out how to manage to attack your opponent and get through without losing too many creatures or leaving yourself vulnerable. It's more work, but it's part of what makes the game interesting and challenging, and gives you an edge if you're better at it than your opponent.

In the (computer)game Hearthstone you can attack creatures and there's a different strategy, I wouldn't call it less interesting. Sorry for not reading the rules!

@GerbenJacobs Perhaps I stated it too simply, then. Magic was designed around this idea, so removing it would definitely make the game less interesting. A different game designed around the idea of being able to attack creatures will have made some different design choices.

@GerbenJacobs, Hearthstone is not Magic. Comparing the two in this manner is like asking why your submarine can't attack my cruiser in battleship, because your bishop can attack my knight in chess.

Yep, I understand. In MGT it's asking do I attack yes or no, where with HS it's more who and when do I attack.

Consider that Hearthstone is designed to be a fast-paced game where there is no player interaction (in Magic parlance, passing of priority) during each player's turn. Magic is designed to have a lot of player interaction: its choices with respect to combat rules, instants, and the stack reflect this design philosophy.

No, you cannot. You can only attack a player, or a planeswalker he or she controls.

508.1. First, the active player declares attackers. This turn-based action doesn't use the stack. To declare attackers, the active player follows the steps below, in order. If at any point during the declaration of attackers, the active player is unable to comply with any of the steps listed below, the declaration is illegal; the game returns to the moment before the declaration (see rule 717, "Handling Illegal Actions").

508.1a The active player chooses which creatures that he or she controls, if any, will attack. The chosen creatures must be untapped, and each one must either have haste or have been controlled by the active player continuously since the turn began.
508.1b If the defending player controls any planeswalkers, or the game allows the active player to attack multiple other players, the active player announces which player or planeswalker each of the chosen creatures is attacking.


text:
Can I transform Skinshifter twice in one turn?
Let's say that you have Skinshifter in play and your opponent attacks with a 3/3 token. You choose to block with Skinshifter and in response to the block, transform him into a 4/4 rhino creature with trample. Then your opponent (in response to you transforming Skinshifter) plays Magma Jet and targets the now transformed Skinshifter. Can you transform Skinshifter a second time provided you have the mana?

With regard to "targets the now transformed Skinshifter" - You seem to have some confusion about what it means to "respond to" something. When your opponent responds to Skinshifter's activated ability, it has not transformed yet. It dies to Magma Jet, and then the ability resolves, but Skinshifter is dead now, so nothing happens.

No. the last line of the ability literally states: "Active this ability only once each turn"

Actually, with Rings of Brighthearth, you can manage to transform Skinshifter twice in one turn. (But do note that you can't change modes on the copied ability.)

Whilst that's technically true, it won't help the asker do what they're trying to do.


text:
Can negative toughness effects kill a creature?
There are some spells and abilities that subtract from a creature's power/toughness: for example, part of Ulcerate says "Target creature gets -3/-3 until end of turn."
If the target creature is only a 2/2, is that target destroyed (goes to graveyard) from the -3 toughness given to it? If not what happens, does it stick around with negative toughness?

A creature with 0 or less toughness will be sent to the graveyard immediately, so yes, getting -3/-3 can kill a creature.
Note that this is not technically being "destroyed", it is a different way of sending the creature to the graveyard. This matters for things like regeneration.
From the basic MTG rules:

Your creatures go to your graveyard if the damage they’re dealt
  in a single turn is equal to or greater than their toughness,
  or if their toughness is reduced to 0 or less.

Just in case anyone is looking for the comprehensive rules, rule 704.5f describes the action that moves a creature to the graveyard, and rule 121.1a explains how counters affect toughness. I didn't post this as an answer because the basic rules are definitely more suitable here.

It's moved to the graveyard the next time SBA are checked, which for most purposes is effectively "immediately", but there are cases where it's not.

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


text:
Would Guttersnipe plus a cyphered card result in an infinite loop of damage?
Guttersnipe says:

Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery spell, Guttersnipe deals 2 damage to each opponent.

Hidden Strings says:

You may tap or untap target permanent, then you may tap or untap another target permanent.

Cypher (Then you may exile this spell card encoded on a creature you control. Whenever that creature deals combat damage to a player, its controller may cast a copy of the encoded card without paying its mana cost.)

and Shock deals two damage to a target opponent.
Here's the process:

Have Guttersnipe on the field.
Play Hidden Strings; cipher it on to him.
Play Shock instant.

Because shock causes guttersnipe to deal damage, this activates the cypher ability and you can now cast hidden strings, which will then cause him to deal two more damage, which allows you to cast hidden strings, which deals two damage, which allows you cast to hidden strings, which deals two damage.... and well you know where this is going.
Does this combo work?

No, that doesn't amount to an infinite loop, because of this term in cipher's definition:

Whenever that creature deals combat damage to a player [...]

(That's an extract from the reminder text, but the actual rules definition is virtually identical.)
Combat damage is just the damage dealt during the combat damage step. In other words, it's the damage Guttersnipe would deal if you tapped it to attack, and it wasn't blocked and ended up attacking the player. The damage dealt by Guttersnipe's triggered ability does not count as combat damage, so it doesn't trigger cipher.
Your combo would work if cipher just triggered off any damage at all, in which case it'd say this:

Whenever that creature deals damage to a player [...]

Note that if this wasn't true, "Zhur Taa Druid + Hidden Strings" would be one of the fastest, most unbeatable combos in all of Magic. Tap-Ping-Hidden-Strings-Untap-Repeat-Till-Opponent-Dead-And-You-Have-All-The-Mana.

Niv-Mizzet the Firemind + Curiosity...  ;)


text:
Why do dwarves only have a racial base of 3 tokens?
You only get three dwarves for a base, whose special ability is an extra victory token for mine tiles, and that this ability is retained when in decline.
This seems like a rip off! There are other races (like humans) who get an extra VP for farms, and they get almost twice as many from memory. The fact that you get to keep them when in decline doesn't especially help, as they're much easier to kill in decline.
So is there a reason why dwarves are apparently treated as powerful? What strategy should one use to utilise them?

This seems like a rant. Is there an actual question you are asking here?

What is the rationale for there being only three dwarves? Am I missing some strategy for using the dwarves?

I suggest that you put that in your question then. Right now it just reads like a complaint about game imbalance.

I don't know if you've missed something in the rules, but you can get as many as 8 dwarves depending on what their special power is. Since there are no special powers with a token modifier of 0, it's actually impossible to only get 3 dwarves to start.

@JonathanHobbs Yes i'm aware of the combo modifier, but I'm talking about the dwarf component of it.

@Jonathan There are no token modifiers of 0 in the base game.  "Cursed" is a 0 from the Cursed expansion.  Cursed Dwarves are a game of brinksmanship to see how high they can go before someone takes them for the free points.

Related: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/q/4538/409

Because their power continues to work in decline, Dwarves are not intended to be played for very long. In most cases probably 2 turns with them is all you should be doing. Get 2 or 3 mine spots, and move on to your next race. This is why there are fewer Dwarves, because you aren't intended to use them for more than a couple turns or to conquer more than just a few spots.

This. The ability to work in decline is very powerful in early game, especially as most of the mines are in difficult to conquer areas.

@deworde I think calling the Dwarves "very powerful" is a bit of an overstatement.  They are pretty universally considered the weakest race.

@bwarner The effect is powerful. The handicap is too much.

I found Commando Dwarves a very successful race and power combo. You can conquer any region with 1 less race token than usual, which helps you easily extend early game.  I found that aiming for 3 mines that are the closest together on the game board is a good strategy (so as to not over-extend yourself). And mines are often found in mountains so when in-decline, it's likely that other players will not want to use 4 tokens on that one region to conquer it.

Fortified Dwarves = takes 3 mines, one on the mountain, get  9 coins from three regions, in decline

"Fortified" doesn;t retain coin bonus in decline, only defence bonus


text:
How does the Tribute mechanic work?
Full disclosure, I am relatively new to the game and haven't experienced all the mechanics yet.
There are a couple premade decks in the Born of the Gods set that use Tribute. We're a little hazy on how exactly it works...Is it simply a yes/no answer to paying tribute from the target player? Or is there a mana/health/whatever cost as well? It seems like some of the pay/don't pay choices are total no brainers.

For most of them, the decision is obvious. For others, like Fanatic of Xenagos or Ornitharch, it is less obvious.

I actually disagree with the "obviousness" of most Tribute cards. In most (all?) cases, the decision depends on the state of the battlefield or your cards in hand (do I have removal which makes Tribute irrelevant, etc.) I can't really think of a Tribute card where you can say "always pay Tribute for card X" or the reverse. Which is the point of how they're designed, of course.

The following is a how a card with Tribute would play out.

You cast Nessian Demolok and place it on the stack.
You pass.
I pass.
Nessian Demolok resolves. During resolution, the following occurs.

Nessian Demolok begins resolving.
You ask an me to make the choice for tribute.
I choose to deny tribute.
Nessian Demolok enters the battlefield without counters.
Nessian Demolok's ability triggers, but it doesn't go on the stack just yet.
Nession Demolok finishes resolving.

A spell finished resolving, so you, the active player, receive priority.
As soon as you receive priority, you choose a target to destroy and then place Nessian Demoloks triggered ability on the stack.
You pass.
I pass.
The triggered ability resolves, and my permanent is destroyed.

How you communicate whether you are paying tribute is not written in the rules. It's just a yes or no question that you are obligated to answer while the spell is resolving.
It works about the same in multiplayer games. The player who controls Demolok gets to choose which opponent pays tribute (or not), and there are more passes of priority in between (everyone at the table must pass before anything can resolve).

This doesn't address multiplayer games at all.

@Gendolkari "At all" seems a bit strong. I added a short paragraph to the end that will help readers apply the exact same process to a multiplayer game.

As a creature with tribute enters the battlefield, an opponent of your choice "may" place +1/+1 counters on the creature. The "may" means that he has 2 choices: do it, or don't do it. There is no "overpay", and no health or mana costs associated with this. Just read the reminder text literally.
Also note that it is not a "target" opponent. Tribute doesn't target, meaning you could choose an opponent with hexproof.
Here's an excerpt from the Born of the Gods new mechanics notes:

As Pharagax Giant enters the battlefield, you choose an opponent. That opponent then decides whether to "pay tribute" by having Pharagax Giant enter the battlefield with two +1/+1 counters on it. If he or she does, then that's it—you've got a bigger Giant. If he or she decides not to pay tribute, then Pharagax Giant's enters-the-battlefield ability will trigger instead. Either way, it's good for you—and in the meantime, you get to watch your opponent sweat.

And here's the comprehensive rules on it:

702.103. Tribute

702.103a Tribute is a static ability that functions as the creature with tribute is entering the battlefield. "Tribute N" means "As this creature enters the battlefield, choose an opponent. That player may have this creature enter the battlefield with an additional N +1/+1 counters on it."
702.103b Objects with tribute have triggered abilities that check "if tribute wasn’t paid." This condition is true if the opponent chosen as a result of the tribute ability didn’t have the creature enter the battlefield with +1/+1 counters as specified by the creature’s tribute ability.

Perfect. We did read the text correctly. It just felt "too easy" to me if you know what I mean.

@user7504 well, neither choice necessarily works to the benefit of the opponent making the choice, they just have to pick the option that sucks less for them. But they just magically get to put counters on the creature because the card says they can.


text:
How can I remove a Darksteel Citadel animated by Nissa, Worldwaker?
After the coming rotation with Khans of Tarkir being released, will there be any way to remove from the battlefield a Darksteel Citadel that has been turned into a creature by Nissa, Worldwaker's first +1 ability?
It seems the me that being indestructible and also a land protect it from almost all removal, Devour Flesh in the current standard being the only obvious exception.
I'm looking for solutions in the soon-to-be Theros + Khans of Tarkir standard format.

Any card that says "Exile target creature", "Exile target artifact", or "Exile target permanent" will remove an animated Darksteel Citadel. Cards that do this include

Devouring Light
Pillar of Light
Ashen Rider
Chained to the Rocks
Curse of the Swine
Excoriate
Fade Into Antiquity
Gild

In addition, if it's toughness ever drops to 0, it will die as a state based effect. Lash of the Whip, for example, will kill it.

I was hopeing for specific examples from the soon to be Standard format. Thanks though.

Done. There are a lot more. I just got bored of listing them.

Gatherer's got you covered: http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&format=[%22Standard%22]&text=|[%22EXILE%20ALL%22]|[%22EXILE%20ANY%22]|[%22EXILE%20TARGET%22]

Also from Khans: Dead Drop.

I didn't know that you could search for Standard. That's great. But note that that search is currently incorrect (it still shows pre-rotation cards), and that it misses cards like Curse of the Swine and Perilous Vault.

Murgatroid: Fixed for Perilous Vault, and for Standard, we'll just have to give it time... :-)

Fixed link, excludes RTR & M14, handles the Swine Curse Edge Case. Unfortunately Gatherer doesn't handle exclusions well when something is in both a current and old block. http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&format=[%22Standard%22]&text=|[%22EXILE%20ALL%22]|[%22EXILE%20ANY%22]|[%22EXILE%20TARGET%22]|[%22Exile%20X%22]&block=+![%22Return%20to%20Ravnica%22]&set=+![%222014%22]

Or you could just use this: http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&format=[%22Standard%22]&block=+![%22Return%20to%20Ravnica%22]&set=+![%222014%22]&text=+[exile].

@murgatroid99 See "Beckon Apparition", because it's from Eventide as well as Gatecrash the query doesn't exclude it. Also, "Exile" on its own picks up stuff like Act on Impulse. #

No search for this is going to be perfect. Both of ours include stuff like "Exile target non-land...". And the important thing is that the asker knows now what to search for.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Apart from Exile Effects; the Other things that can deal with indestructible creature-lands:

-X/-X abilities like Nightmarish End, Lash of the Whip
Sacrifice abilities like Dead Drop
Bounce effects like Whelming Wave, Peel from Reality, and Aetherspouts
Polymorph effects like Turn to Frog and Polymorphist's Jest (although I think you'll have to kill the frog before ToF wears off).

Retraction Helix does not deal with indestructible lands ;)

@Affe Whups, Fixed.


text:
Can regenerate save a creature from -X/-X effects?
My opponent has a Rakshasa Deathdealer. What happens when I cast a Bile Blight on that creature? Does regenerate let the creature survive or will the -3/-3 until end of turn from Bile Blight simply kill the creature whether it regenerates or not?
I also appreciate that the +2/+2 ability on this particular creature would in fact save it without any of the above interaction, but certain plays beforehand had caused this to be an unviable option for my opponent.

Regenerate will not save the creature. The state based action that moves the creature to the graveyard in this case does not technically destroy it.

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

Even if regeneration could replace this kind of death, the creature would simply die again anyway because it would still have -3/-3.
Regeneration can replace:

Actual destruction, such as the destruction wrought by Dreadbore
The state based action described by 704.5g

704.5g If a creature has toughness greater than 0, and the total damage marked on it is greater than or equal to its toughness, that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed. Regeneration can replace this event.

The state based action described by 704.5h

704.5h If a creature has toughness greater than 0, and it’s been dealt damage by a source with deathtouch since the last time state-based actions were checked, that creature is destroyed. Regeneration can replace this event.

SBAs aren't the only thing that destroy. Spells and abilities can too. Regeneration would replace those as well.

@ikegami Captured your suggestion in the latest edit.

Not relevant, incidentally, but zero toughness hasn't always been an SBA; there was a while where you could attempt to regenerate from zero toughness (and, as you note, die again).  IIRC, problems with Clergy of the Holy Nimbus were one of the primary driving causes for the change.


text:
What happens when I cast a spell incorrectly?
If I cast a spell which then turns out to be un-playable, what happens to my spell? E.G.:  Casting a spell on something that has Hexproof and can't be targeted in the first place. Do I simply place my spell back in my hand? Do I untap the lands used to pay for that spell?

If The Spell Never Had Any Legal Targets
You cannot cast a spell that requires a target unless there is a legal target for the spell.
If you try to cast a spell that requires a target, and discover that there is no legal target for that spell, it is considered an illegal action.
The comprehensive rules on handling illegal actions:

729.1 If a player takes an illegal action or starts to take an action but can’t legally complete it, the entire action is reversed and any payments already made are canceled. No abilities trigger and no effects apply as a result of an undone action. If the action was casting a spell, the spell returns to the zone it came from. Each player may also reverse any legal mana abilities that player activated while making the illegal play, unless mana from those abilities or from any triggered mana abilities they caused to trigger was spent on another mana ability that wasn’t reversed. [...]

So, you would essentially "rewind" the game state, untapping your lands and returning the card to your hand.  Unfortunately, this misplay does mean that your opponent has earned some free information (i.e. they now know one of the cards you have in your hand).
If The Spell's Target Becomes Illegal After Casting It
In this case, your spell has already been cast, because you chose its target while casting it and at that time the spell had a legal target, but during the resolution of the spell, that target is discovered to no longer be legal.  This can happen, for instance, if the card Ranger's Guile is cast in response to your spell, giving the target of your spell Hexproof.
When your spell is resolving, it checks again to see if the target is still legal.  In this case, since the creature now has Hexproof, it will be determined that the target is not legal, and the spell will go to the graveyard and have no effect.  You will not untap your lands.  You simply lose that mana and that spell's effect; similar to if your spell was countered.
The relevant section of the comprehensive rules states (under the heading "Resolving Spells and Abilities"):

608.2b If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. A target that’s no longer in the zone it was in when it was targeted is illegal. Other changes to the game state may cause a target to no longer be legal; for example, its characteristics may have changed or an effect may have changed the text of the spell. If the source of an ability has left the zone it was in, its last known information is used during this process. If all its targets, for every instance of the word “target,” are now illegal, the spell or ability doesn’t resolve. It’s removed from the stack and, if it’s a spell, put into its owner’s graveyard. Otherwise, the spell or ability will resolve normally.

Thanks that's pretty comprehensive! Would that be the same situation if something has protection? Say trying to cast a Hero's Downfall at a Blood Baron? I only asked because i'd recently seen a player try to cast a spell at a Caryatid then when he reversed it his opponent insisted the spell went to the graveyard so thanks for clearing that up for me.

If you tried to cast Hero's Downfall (a black spell) targeting a Blood Baron of Vizkopa (a creature with protection from black), it would be considered an illegal action due to the target not being legal, and you would reverse the game state to just before trying to cast the spell.  The same applies to trying to cast a spell targeting Sylvan Caryatid (which has Hexproof): the spell would have no legal target, and would thus not be cast at all.  The card would not go to the graveyard, but rather back to your hand.

You should add that, if a legal target exists, but the target you wanted to cast on is not legal, you MUST pick a target. That means that if you try to Thoughtseize a player with Leyline of Sanctity on the field, and you're the only other player then you must thoughtseize yourself.

@Cruncher do you have a citation for e.g. a judge's ruling on that? I can see how one would arrive at that conclusion from the comprehensive rules but it's not explicit, and I think it would be useful to have an explicit assertion since that clashes with the way most people play (casually at least).

@DavidZ I can't seem to find an official ruling. Turns out this kind of thing doesn't come up very often in competitive... But I've personally been forced to bolt my own creature before when my opponent and I were both at 2, I had a creature, he didn't, and he had a leyline. I don't know the judge's name that enforced the ruling.

An important thing you missed. You are only required to cast the spell if you have mana in your mana pool to play it. It is perfectly legal to announce a spell with an empty mana pool and rewind the spell when you realize you can't target what you meant to target. Basically what happens is you cannot fail to pick a legal target, but you can fail to use mana abilities to add mana to your pool to pay the cost of the spell. Usually at tournament level play you announce than pay for this reason.

That judge was wrong, the answer is wrong.  If you declare an illegal target the play is reversed.  You aren't forced to change to a legal target.

@Affe, I don't think you're correct at all.  The rules for selecting targets state that you cannot choose an invalid target at all in the first place, therefore you must select a valid target when casting the spell.  However, Guvante is also correct and you can still back out of casting the spell if and only if the mana to pay its cost is not in your mana pool already.  You don't have to activate mana abilities to be able to post the cost, thus failing to pay the cost.  However if you already tapped the lands for the mana to pay the cost, it's too late and you have to compete the casting.

@callahan09 717.1 seems quite explicit to me: "If a player realizes that he or she can’t legally take an action after starting to do so, the entire action is reversed and any payments already made are canceled".  If you've gotten to the point of choosing targets and your chosen target is illegal, then you back up completely and the entire announcement of the spell is undone.

@callahan09 Your bolded section of 601.2c specifically says "if any effects say that an object or player must be chosen as a target", etc.  This is not part of the normal process of casting the spell; this specifically refers to effects such as the 'flagbearer' ability on cards like Coalition Honor Guard ( http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=26371 ).

@callahan09 Yes, of course you're not allowed to declare an illegal target.  The question is, what happens if you accidentally do?  717.1 is very clear: If any part was illegal, you roll back the entire thing, you don't just correct the illegal sub-part.  Judges are human, mistakes happen.

You are never forced to play a spell targeting something you don't want it to target.
Okay, not strictly true. If something was instructing you to cast a spell without giving you any option then you would, but cards aren't written that way.

@Cruncher Magic rules chat disagrees with you on this; you rewind the entire action even if there were other legal targts.

Since there seems to be a lot of debate on the portion of my answer that was inspired by Cruncher's suggestion, I don't feel that it has a place in the answer.  Either it's obviously wrong (which I personally disagree that it is), or at least there is too much open interpretation to assume that it's correct (which I accept), so it doesn't belong in the answer at all.  It's been removed.

@StevenStadnicki "601.2. To cast a spell is to take it from where it is (usually the hand), put it on the stack, and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect. Casting a spell follows the steps listed below, in order. If, at any point during the casting of a spell, a player is unable to comply with any of the steps listed below, the casting of the spell is illegal; the game returns to the moment before that spell started to be cast (see rule 717, "Handling Illegal Actions"). Announcements and payments can't be altered after they've been made." If there's a

@StevenStadnicki legal target then you can comply with all of the steps. And 717 doesn't apply. The first part of casting is announcing that you're casting. By the time you even get to choosing targets, you've already announced it and you must choose a target. It's rather explicit. read all of 601

@StevenStadnicki In the same vain, if my spell costs double green, but I thought it was single green and try to pay single green when I have 2 green, is the game reversed state because paying single green is illegal? No you force them to pay double green. It's the exact same thing.

As others have quoted, rule 717.1 applies:

717.1. If a player realizes that he or she can’t legally take an action after starting to do so, the entire action is reversed and any payments already made are canceled. No abilities trigger and no effects apply as a result of an undone action. If the action was casting a spell, the spell returns to the zone it came from. The player may also reverse any legal mana abilities activated while making the illegal play, unless mana from them or from any triggered mana abilities they triggered was spent on another mana ability that wasn’t reversed. Players may not reverse actions that moved cards to a library, moved cards from a library to any zone other than the stack, or caused a library to be shuffled.

But unlike what callahan09 says, if there are other legal targets you are not forced to name one of them. This post from a Level 2 judge agrees. (Note that the O-ring case is different because Oblivion Ring itself doens't target, only the ability, and the ability is mandatory.)

pretty clear quote for your situation taken from the comprehensive rules.

717.1. If a player realizes that he or she can’t legally take an action after starting to do so, the entire action is reversed and any
  payments already made are canceled. No abilities trigger and no
  effects apply as a result of an undone action. If the action was
  casting a spell, the spell returns to the zone it came from. The
  player may also reverse any legal mana abilities activated while
  making the illegal play, unless mana from them or from any triggered
  mana abilities they triggered was spent on another mana ability that
  wasn’t reversed. Players may not reverse actions that moved cards to a
  library, moved cards from a library to any zone other than the stack,
  or caused a library to be shuffled.


text:
Can I destroy a Planeswalker before its abilities are used?
If my opponent casts say an Elspeth, can I then Hero's Downfall that Planeswalker before any abilities are used?
I think my question boils down to: are planeswalker abilities sorcery or instant speed?

I was looking for that thread but I couldn't find it.

@GendoIkari, It's easier to find when you remember a few words of it because you wrote it. :) I've updated its title to be more representative.

You can only activate a planeswalker ability as a sorcery (when the stack is empty and it is your main phase). However, if your opponent casts a planeswalker, and it resolves, then he regains priority, which means that he will have the chance to activate an ability of his planeswalker before you can destroy it. You can cast Hero's Downfall in response, but that ability will already be on the stack and destroying the planeswalker won't stop it.
However, if there is an ability that triggers on a planewalker entering the battlefield, then it is different. In this case, the triggered ability will go on the stack before your opponent has a chance to activate a loyalty ability, and you can cast Hero's Downfall while that trigger is on the stack.
Here is a quote from the basic rules:

Planeswalker
Planeswalkers are powerful allies you can call on to fight by your side. You can cast a planeswalker only at the time you could cast a sorcery. They’re permanents, and each one enters the battlefield with the number of loyalty counters indicated in its lower right corner.
Each planeswalker has loyalty abilities that are activated by adding or removing loyalty counters from the planeswalker. For example, the symbol {+1} means “Put one loyalty counter on this planeswalker” and the symbol {-3} means “Remove three loyalty counters from this planeswalker.” You can activate one of these abilities only at the time you could cast a sorcery and only if none of that planeswalker’s loyalty abilities have been activated yet that turn.
Your planeswalkers can be attacked by your opponent’s creatures (if so, you can block as normal), and your opponents can damage them with their spells and abilities instead of damaging you. Any damage dealt to a planeswalker causes it to lose that many loyalty counters. If a planeswalker has no loyalty counters, it’s put into your graveyard.

Nitpick: After a spell resolves (PW spell or otherwise), the active player is the one who gains priority. Normally for a PW, this is the same player as the one who cast it (since you can only cast PWs during your Main Phase when the stack is empty), but cards such as Leyline of Anticipation can change that.

Of course, if you flash in a planeswalker somehow, you wouldn't be able to activate its loyalty abilities anyway.


text:
Will I lose the game if I dip below 0hp whilst there's a spell that'll heal me on the stack?
Take the following situation

I'm at 2 life, I cast Sphinx's Revelation for 2 life gain on the stack.
My opponent casts something like Warleader's Helix which deals 4 damage to me
I then cast another Sphinx's Revelation for 1 life gain.

Stack wise my life would go like this:

Start with 2 life
Gain 1 life, for 3 total life
Take 4 damage, go to -1 life
Gain 2 life, ending in a total of 1 life.

So I end up at 1 life, but at one point, my life total was -1. My question is this: Does the stack continue to be carried out until it's complete, or would the game end the moment my life becomes 0 or less?

If I understand the situation you are describing correctly it is as follows:

A player at 2 life casts Sphinx's Revelation with X = 2. this is put on the stack.
His opponent responds by casting Warleader's Helix
The initial player in turn responds by casting Sphinx's Revelation with X=1
Both players pass priority until the stack is resolved or some other event occurs

This being the case, the following would happen:

Sphinx's revelation with X = 1 resolves, you gain 1 life to be on 3.
State based actions are checked (technically, twice immediately in succession as both players pass priority) and everyone is still alive
Warleader's helix resolves (because the players have initiated a shortcut of passing priority until the stack resolves), you take 4 damage to be on -1
State based actions are checked. You are dead. the game ends.
Nothing to see here, the game finished. Sphinx's revelation with x = 2 never happens.

State based actions occur whenever a player would get priority, not just when the stack resolves.

@Patters you're saying I would die and CLockeWork says I wouldn't... :-/

@LuckySevens as Jonathan Hobbs' answer points out with rule references, CLockeWork has things a bit mixed up. it's really easy to do with detailed timing questions like this, which is why the comprehensive rules are there. State based actions is what will kill you, and they are checked after each spell in the stack resolves. That's the bit that CLockeWork missed.

As a historical note, prior to 6th edition (~2000), you would have lived, because death due to 0 life did not get checked until the end of the current phase. The infamous Prosperous Bloom deck used this to fuel its engine more effectively.

Good answer, and one reason Hearthstone is quite nice.

You will lose the game immediately after Warleader's Helix resolves, without getting to heal back into the positives.
This is because of state-based actions are checked every single time someone receives priority1 (rule 704.3), and you receive priority after each item on the stack resolves2 (rule 116.3b). The first state-based action checked is if someone has 0 or less life (704.5a), and if so, they lose the game.
Since you receive priority and check for state-based actions between each and every spell on the stack resolving, you will lose once Warleader's Hex finishes resolving and puts you at -1 life.

Addendum: these rules have quirky and useful side-effects.
1. But they are not checked during spell resolution. This means you can have less than 1 life total during the resolution of a spell, so long as it's back up at 1 or more by the time the spell is fished resolving. That won't help you here though.
2. This also means that you can cast instants whilst the stack still has spells resolving. If the stack has A and B on it, then B resolves, you can put C on the stack, and that will resolve too, before A finally does.

to illustrate this: if a player on 1 life cast Warleader's Helix targeting themselves, they would not die.


text:
In Commander, does color identity prevent me from taking control of a different colored permanent?
In trying out EDH for the first time last night we ran into a confusing issue. I was using Olivia Voldaren as my commander.
One opponent activated Ajani Goldmane's 6 point ability to summon a white avatar creature, which I then used Olivia to vampire and steal. I think this is okay because despite being white the avatar wouldn't have any non-black, non-red dots on the face.
I then wanted to steal another one of his creatures that was white and had white mana on the face, but I wasn't sure if this was allowed.
So in EDH, I know that I can't construct my deck with cards outside of my commander's colour identity, but does this stop me taking control of creatures outside of my colour range?

No, stealing an opponent's creature of any color is fine.
The only limitations are the ones explicitly imposed by the rules:

Color identity applies during deck creation. You may not put a white card or a card that uses white mana symbols in your red/black Olivia deck. (You could include a black card that creates a white token, though; or an extort card, since that's just reminder text.)
(Historical only.) Before 2016, there was a special rule limiting how you generate mana: mana outside of your color identity would become colorless when it entered your mana pool. So if you were playing Olivia Voldaren and you would add {W} to your mana pool, you'd get colorless mana instead. This meant you would might trouble activating the abilities of some of the creatures you stole with Olivia.


text:
What is this blank purple UNO card?
When I was playing UNO earlier, I found two strange cards: they were purple and blank, with no number or special sign on them. What is this card for? Is it like a Wild Card or +4 Wild Card? It wasn't mentioned in the instructions.

These cards are mentioned in Uno instructions — you can use one if you lose or damage one of the other cards, or you can use it to include custom house rules card into the deck. See reference in manual:

What Are These Extra Cards For?
Blank Card - This is a special card that you may use in one of two ways. If a card from your UNO deck is lost or damaged you may use the Blank Card as a replacement. Example: If you find that your deck is missing one of the yellow 7's you would simply replace it by taking the yellow Blank Card, marking a "7" on it and adding it back into the deck.
If you family has a special UNO rule you prefer to play with you may write that rule on the Blank Cards and add them straight to the deck

It says also that you should have 4 of these; maybe you have lost the other two?

4 Blank Cards in each color [new decks]


text:
How can I make Agricola vegetarian friendly?
Agricola is a great game, with good theming, and I'd like to introduce it to a couple of friends who are vegetarian.
The problem is they might feel uncomfortable with the 'eating your animals' aspect of the game.
How can I change the game's narrative so that they're not eating their animals, but doing something else that converts the animals to food?

Is this really a concern? There are plenty of games out there where players are doing actions that someone would not normally feel comfortable with if they where really doing the action.

You don't have to convert animals to food in the game as it is. I've seen people do fairly well in Agricola with never even taking an animal. Sure, you may lose some points in the end, but you can make it up in other areas. You could explain to them the different paths to victory, and if they choose to avoid butchering animals for food, then bully.

A friend of mine is vegetarian, and we joked that the white cubes were tofu. I mean, they look more like tofu than sheep...

Farmers in the 17th century were eating animals. That's the game.

The usual advice when you're cooking for people and worried about dietary restrictions is just ask them. Your guesses will never be as good as what they can tell you. Surely the same applies here: don't assume your friends have a problem with games about farming and eating meat, just check with them. (I've played Agricola with vegetarians before and it never even occurred to any of us that this could be weird; seems premature to assume your friends will have a problem with it.)

I've a friend who is vegetarian who plays this.  He refuses to eat animals in the game.  Yet he has happy playing games with war aspects that will involving the fictional killing of thousands.  He never wins because he is deliberately putting himself at a disadvantage.  If they are genuinily uncomfortable about something pretend then i'd question if any game other that abstracts is suitable for them.

For what it's worth, my daughter has basically this same question, except for Exploding Kittens.

The game already supports this with improvements like Pottery, which converts clay to food. Clearly, the imagined implication isn't that suddenly your family has a fulfilling case of pica — instead, the clay is used to make some good which can be exchanged for food (and this exchange is abstracted away in the game).
Imagine something similar for animals in the game, and there you go. (Of course, you'll still have to part with the animals — let's happily imagine that they are unharmed in that parting.)
Of course, if your friends follow the strain of veganism which holds that all animal agriculture is bad, this won't do, and you'll have to reskin the whole game significantly.

...and avoid words like reskin.

Hey, vegetables have skin!

Haha, @TimLymington I lol'd at this :)


text:
Does double strike work whilst blocking?
I'm attacking with a 1/1 Satyr Grovedancer. My opponent blocks with a 1/2 Two-Headed Cerberus with double strike. Does double strike still apply when the creature is blocking? I understand my Satyr will die either way but say it were the case with a 4/4 creature, what would happen?

The Judge's Corner on Youtube has a wonderful video on this topic. It covers almost every aspect of Double Strike.

Yes, double strike and first strike work while blocking.
Effectively, there is a "first strike combat damage step" in which one set of double strike damage is dealt, and then a normal combat damage step, where all other combat damage is dealt.
So whether attacking or blocking, that phase always occurs, and damage is dealt simultaneously within it.
So in the case of your Grovedancer:

First strike damage step

Two-Headed Puppy deals 1 damage to the Grovedancer
Grovedancer dies

Normal combat step

Grovedancer already dead, can't hit back

In the case where you attacked with a 2/1 Golden Hind

First strike damage step

Two-Headed Puppy deals 1 damage to the Hind
Hind dies

Normal combat step

Hind already dead, can't hit back

In the case where you attacked with a 2/2 Travelling Philosopher

First strike damage step

Two-Headed Puppy deals 1 damage to the Philosopher

Normal combat step

Philosopher deals 2 damage to the Puppy, Puppy deals another 1 damage to the Philosopher
Philosopher and Puppy both die

In the case where you attacked with a 4/4 Rumbling Baloth

First strike damage step

Two-Headed Puppy deals 1 damage to the Baloth

Normal combat step

Baloth deals 4 damage to the Puppy (Yipe!), Puppy deals another 1 damage to the Baloth
Puppy Dies, Baloth has taken 2 damage, so will now die to a Shock if it gets hit before end of turn, otherwise it'll heal up during
  cleanup

Hope that helps


text:
How To Play Coup: The Resistance with more than one set of cards?
I recently purchased 2 sets of Coup: The Resistance So that I could play with more than 6 people. However, The included rules don't state how many of each card to use when dealing with more than 6 players.
I know the developers intended for more than 6 players to be able to play with additional cards but I can't find the recommended numbers anywhere.

Coup: Reformation is the expansion for more than 6 players.
It contains 15 cards; 3 of each rather than 2 of each. I think the rules from the game say how many cards to use for how many players, since someone quotes it as 25(5 of each) cards for 9-10 players. Since you use 15(3 of each) cards for 6 players, I'm guessing you add 1 of each card for 7-8, 2 for 9-10 and 3 for 11-12.
The rules for reformation are slightly different, as it has 2 factions where you can take an action and 1 money to the almshouse to change your faction; 2 money to change someone else's faction; or take all the money from the almshouse if you do NOT have a Duke.
You are only allowed to attack people of the opposite faction to you, unless everyone is the same faction where you can attack whoever you want.

What contains 15 cards? The base game is 5x3=15.

The expansion also has 15 cards!

Good answer, however, the expansion has two of each of the original set and five of the new character, the Inquisitor. This means there are, with the original and expansion, five cards each of six card types. By your logic, there could only be up to ten with the true expansion, and twelve with two copies of the original, which is confirmed by the numbers listed on the boxes. Judging by the last game we played with 7 people and all the cards in, I like your numbers better and will start to use them. +1

For every 1-2 players added to the game, you would add a full set of cards to the Court Deck.  This ensures that their is sufficient cards that nobody knows the full contents.  One thing that helped me was to purchase a packet of white label stickers.  I put one of these on the upper right hand corner of the face side of each card.  I wrote on the labels of 3 of the 5 of each card "2-6" and on 1 of the 5 I wrote "7-8" and on the last I wrote "9-10."  I also put them in sleeves to make them shuffle easier with the added sticker on them (as well as to protect the edges as mine were getting worn from play).  Now, when I pull the deck out, all I need to know is the number of players and I can quickly pull just the right number of cards by pulling all of the "2-6" cards and the additional sets based on player count without having to remember the card counts or look them up.

Does that information come from the designer or developer, or is it just an amount that you've found works well?

That information comes with the game.  My suggestion is adding the labels so you don't have to hunt that info down every time you set up.


text:
Can Grave Betrayal give me a Mutavault?
Would Grave Betrayal give me a Mutavault? I'm guessing no, but enough rules have changed since Onslaught that I'm not going to guess.

Yes, you get a Black Mutavault with a +1/+1 counter on it. It will not be a Zombie because non-creatures cannot have creature subtypes.

Detailed Explanation
First, you need to know why Grave Betrayal triggers.

603.6c Leaves-the-battlefield abilities trigger when a permanent moves from the battlefield to another zone [...]
603.6d [...] Leaves-the-battlefield abilities will trigger based on [an object's] existence, and the appearance of objects, prior to the event rather than afterward.

Mutavault was a creature prior to death, and so Grave Betrayal will trigger. The trigger doesn't care what Mutavault becomes after death. Second, you need to know how Grave Betrayal can still find the Mutavault in the graveyard even though it is a new object.

603.6 Trigger events that involve objects changing zones are called "zone-change triggers." Many abilities with zone-change triggers attempt to do something to that object after it changes zones. During resolution, these abilities look for the object in the zone that it moved to.

Third, you need to know why lands cannot have creature subtypes.

205.3d An object can't gain a subtype that doesn't correspond to one of that object's types.

Lastly, here is how the events actually unfold:

An opposing Mutavault creature dies.
Grave Betrayal triggers.
Grave Betrayal's trigger resolves. It looks for Mutavault in the graveyard and finds it there.
Mutavault returns to the battlefield under your control. It gains the color Black and a +1/+1 counter. It won't be a Zombie because Zombie is a creature subtype and Mutavault is not a creature at the moment.

One missing note: the Mutavault had to be a creature when it went to the graveyard. If it just a land and gets destroyed, Grave Betrayal does not trigger.

@bengoesboom Corrected (thanks). Also found the relevant rule about subtypes for lands.

If the ability read "Whenever a creature enters your graveyard, ...", it wouldn't trigger. It's not a LTB ability, so you look at its state after the event (as is the norm), so you look at its state in the graveyard.

@ikegami; Do the rules clarify that "dies" is an "LTB" instead of an "ETG"? The definition in the rules is to be "put into a graveyard from the battlefield"; that doesn't make it clear which it is. I do see an example given under 603.6d that mentions "dies", but nothing in an actual rules quote.

@GendoIkari, That's not the definition, that's one example. The first sentence of 603.6c is the definition. If you saw nothing, then you missed "but aren’t limited to". "Die" is not a keyword action. (e.g. "Die target red creature" makes no sense.) As such, "die" is transparent, a mere synonym that's fully interchangeable with its definition. 700.4. The term dies means “is put into a graveyard from the battlefield.”

@ikegami, I quoted the same definition of "die" that you did, from 700.4. How do you know from that wording if 603.6d applies to that or not, if it wouldn't apply to "enters the graveyard" abilities?

@ikegami, sorry, never mind. I read 603.6c now, and I understand. Thanks!

@GendoIkari, It really should be added as an example to 603.6c.

@Ikegami I hope you don't mind - I shortened the rules that you added. And we had "It's not a creature anymore, but it doesn't matter." in two places, and "It won't be a creature on re-entry" also in two places, so I removed the redundancies. Just explaining my edit so we don't start an edit war.

@ikegami You pointed out in a now deleted comment that First, Second, Third, Finally was grammatically incorrect. I went ahead and changed it, but I thought you might be interested in watching this question unfold. Hurray for using Stack Exchange to improve Stack Exchange!


text:
Do gods keep their +1/+1 counters if they stop being creatures?
Do counters added to a god with Gleam of Battle disappear when the god stops being a creature?
Scenario: Purphoros, God of the Forge is a creature (due to devotion reaching the required amount) and Gleam of Battle is also on the battlefield. Then Purphoros attacks and gets a +1/+1 counter for attacking. If my devotion to red then drops below 5 and Purphoros is no longer a creature, would the +1/+1 counters stay on him or will he reset to his original power/toughness level?
My thinking is when he becomes an enchantment he loses it due to the fact that he is no longer a creature and that his power and toughness are technically not there and so he gets remade into being a creature only when devotion is high enough.

They absolutely stay. According to the comprehensive rules, emphasis mine:

205.1a Some effects set an object's card type. In such cases, the new card type(s) replaces any existing card types. Counters, effects, and damage marked on the object remain with it, even if they are meaningless to the new card type.

Impressively short and to the point. There are 245 occurences of the word Counter in the comp rules, and section 121 is literally titled 121. Counters, and yet you somehow found this in section 205.

Counters are not removed from a permanent even when they stop being relevant to it.
Take the example of Raging Ravine : it says

2RG: Until end of turn, Raging Ravine becomes a 3/3 red and green
  Elemental creature with "Whenever this creature attacks, put a +1/+1
  counter on it." It's still a land.

On gatherer we can see the ruling :

Any +1/+1 counters put on Raging Ravine remain on it even after it
  stops being a creature. They'll have no effect until it becomes a
  creature again.

Related : Can non-creature permanents have +1/+1 counters?

Better yet, Llanowar Reborn prove that +1/+1 counters can exist on non-creatures without relying on rulings.


text:
Small World, what does "permanently discard" mean?
In Small World, after conquering region for loosing player rules state:

Permanently discard one Race token back into the Storage tray

Now I'm not totally sure what does that mean. For most races there really is no difference, but for skeletons and sorcerers I see two interpretations that lead to two different results:

Move tokens back to the box/tray from where you took them, this means that skeletons and sorcerers can use them again, that is their maximum token count is not affected

OR:

Move tokens back to the box, and not to the tray where you took them from. Meaning that maximum possible count for skeletons and sorcerers would be decreased this way.

While I understand that tray is place where you take tokens from, the word "permanently" is a bit confusing. I have been playing by second interpretation so far, and it seems kinda fairer. Though I'm not sure if this is the intended way to play game. Though difference would most likely be minor, only two races are affected, and the number of tokens is quite large and hard to deplete. Still theres a difference! So anyone knows what how this should be handled officially?

Because it says "back into the Storage tray", it is the first option; Skeletons and Sorcerers can reuse them. Note the limitation in the rules for both Skeletons and Sorcerers:

If there are no more tokens in the storage tray...

Both Skeletons and Sorcerers state that the new unit comes "from the storage tray", and the rules for the loosing player state that the killed unit goes "to the storage tray".


text:
When do static bonuses go away relative to damage dealt?
I use Radiant Archangel in a deck full of flying creatures. It is a 3/3 flyer with +1/+1 for each other flying creature in play. During a game, I had seven other flying creatures, making it a 10/10. My opponent cast a spell (and I'm sorry I don't recall the spell) that did 6 damage to all my creatures.
He contends that this kills Radiant Archangel as well because the static bonus of +1/+1 for all the flying creatures in play goes away once they are dead and the damage sticks around until the end of turn. Thus, after the spell resolves, the other flying creatures are gone so Radiant Archangel is only a 3/3, and it has 6 damage so it's dead.
I contend that when the damage was dealt, it was a 10/10 and survived the attack, and that the 6 damage can come out of the +1/+1 bonuses that the other flying creatures provided and that it lost once they were gone.
Does anybody have any official rulings on this?

Re "I contend [...] that the 6 damage can come out of the +1/+1 bonuses" No. Damage to creatures adds to marked damage. It doesn't subtract from anything.

Your friend is correct. By CR 119.6, and/or 302.7, Radiant has six damage marked on it for the rest of the turn. The damage doesn't come out of the toughness, buffed or otherwise. What happens in order is:

His spell does 6 damage to your creatures
State-based actions are checked. Your other seven creatures now have 6 damage, and are destroyed for having damage greater than or equal to their toughness. Radiant is not destroyed yet, having toughness greater than damage.
Since state-based actions destroyed creatures, they are re-checked with the new gamestate. The other flyers are no longer buffing Radiant, so she is now a 3/3 creature, still with 6 damage marked on it, so Radiant is destroyed at this point.

119.6. Damage marked on a creature remains until the cleanup step, even if that permanent stops being a creature. If the total damage marked on a creature is greater than or equal to its toughness, that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed as a state-based action (see rule 704). All damage marked on a permanent is removed when it regenerates (see rule 701.11, "Regenerate") and during the cleanup step (see rule 514.2).
302.7. Damage dealt to a creature by a source with neither wither nor infect is marked on that creature (see rule 119.3). If the total damage marked on that creature is greater than or equal to its toughness, that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed as a state-based action (see rule 704). All damage marked on a creature is removed when it regenerates (see rule 701.12, "Regenerate") and during the cleanup step (see rule 514.2).

+1 Might be worth saying: creatures don't die from their toughness being subtracted from; it isn't HP. They die from having damage exceeding or matching their toughness.


text:
Is there data available on the relative strengths of the World Championship decks?
For the World Championships this year, WotC allowed Arena players to play the decks in Best of 1 against other arena players.  Has untapped.gg or any similar "play monitoring" tool put together a "results" comparing these decks as played by Arena players?
I have been unable to find any data, but my google fu is weak.

I expect that there probably isn't. WotC has taken deliberate actions in the past to try to obscure this kind of data from players in an attempt at preventing the meta from being so quickly solved.

@nick012000 The point here is that it doesn't matter too much what WotC do as Untapped etc happily go round any restrictions by gathering data directly from the client. (Yes, WotC could break the logging in the client again - but they didn't in this case so the data exists)

That all said, I'm not sure the Arena data will be that relevant. The World Championships decks were designed to be played in a small field Bo3 tournament by the best players in the world in full "try hard" mode. The win rates obtained in zero stakes Bo1 matches by any player on Arena are probably different enough that I wouldn't trust any ranking of them.

I remember a YouTube series were Randy Bueler played a bunch of pro tour standard decks against each other to see what deck to win a PT was the best.

@PhilipKendall not to mention that the average MTGa player doesn't have the same level of skill piloting those decks as the professional players who "built" them, so they aren't playing the deck optimally.

@Andrew Errr... I did mention that "by the best players in the world" :-)

@PhilipKendall your comment seemed to focus more on the Bo1 vs Bo3 distinction (the loss of sideboarding drastically changes things after all)

This is not an answer to the specific question asked.  As it appears that data hasn't been made available.
However, a very large tournament, that occured near world championship can be found here:
https://mtgazone.com/standard-metagame-analysis-innistrad-midnight-hunt-week-5/

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


text:
What counters can be attached to a player?
Steady Progress allows you to choose any player, and put another counter on them, of a type that already is on them.
I am only aware of poison counters on players.  Are there others?

Side note: proliferate (the mechanic that's on Steady Progress and another dozen or so cards) doesn't target. You just choose players and permanents; it doesn't matter if they're hexproof or otherwise untargetable.

Side note to @Cascabel's side note: "choosing" players and permanents (instead of choosing counters) means you always add another copy of each counter on the chosen player or permanent, you can't pick and choose. So you can't proliferate a creature's shield counter but not its stun counter, or proliferate just a player's poison counters without also proliferating their experience counters.

At present, there are four types of counters that can be placed on players.

Poison (Originally seen in Legends, prevalent in Scars of Mirrodin block)
Experience (Commander 2015)
Energy (written as {E}) (Kaladesh)
Tickets (written as {TK}) (Unfinity)

We can search through Scryfall for cards that give players counters to determine that those are the only ones. As we can see with cards like Caress of Phyrexia and Aether Hub, cards that explicitly put specific kinds of counters on players use the wording

[Player] get(s) [amount] [counter description]

Since Scryfall supports regular expression search, we can turn that into a regular expression to search for cards with that wording. For now, let's see what we get if we pretend that counters are the only things players can get. We can search for that with the following regular expression:

re:"(player|opponent|you) (get|gets)\b"

This mostly finds relevant cards, but it also finds some irrelevant cards, including planeswalkers that grant emblems and Paradox Haze. So, we can also exclude cards that give players emblems or additional votes or steps, or make players get you something:

o:/(player|opponent|you) (get|gets)\b(?! (+|-|you|an emblem|an additional|a boon))/ -is:funny

This is the same search before, but it looks at the next word to exclude sentences like "target opponent gets you [something]", "you get an emblem", "that player gets an additional [something]", "creatures attacking you get -1/-0", and "you get a boon...". It also removes joke cards. This results in 83 cards, all of which put some sort of counter on a player. A visual inspection shows that they all add poison, experience, energy, or ticket counters.

how do you know this to be true?  I accepted, because you seem to know everything about MtG, but is there an easy or straight forward way to determine the answer to this question?

I added an explanation of how to determine/verify this. Does that help?

@Jefromi I added that quotation to the answer

It's unfortunate that when someone creates such a significant rewrite, that so significantly improves an answer as murgatroid99 and doppelgreener have done on this answer, that we can't vote for that particular edit.  Clearly this is a labor of love for both of you, and both of you are to be commended!  Nicely done.

@murg Just a note: we don't actually know for sure what the oracle text for the tickets symbol is yet. When Scryfall asked staff we got contradicting answers. This isn't necessarily an issue, but an FYI to keep an eye out and update when we find out what's actually the symbol.

I know. But I wanted that list at the top to be consistent with the cards I found in the searches, so I thought that was the best available option.

The fallout universes beyond reveals has added rad counters


text:
How do Mana Flare and Mana Reflection interact?
I've been thinking about integrating Mana Flare and Mana Reflection into a deck.
As far as I can tell, by reading the Layer's rules (rule 613).  They resolve in timestamp order.
That is, if Mana Flare is played first, and Mana Reflection is played second, each mountain I tap would give me {R}{R}{R}{R}.
However, if Mana Relfection is played first, and Mana Flare is played second, each mountain would  give me {R}{R}{R}.
Is this interpretation correct?  I'm still new to this layer stuff.

Layers don't apply here. There aren't any continuous effects interacting.
Mana Flare is a triggered ability (it says "whenever"). It would normally use the stack, but since it's a mana ability, it simply resolves immediately after the event that triggered it. Mana Reflection is a replacement effect (it says "instead"). It just happens as you tap the permanent.
So if you tap a Mountain, Mana Reflection causes it to produce RR instead of R. Mana Flare also triggers, and when it resolves, you add an additional R to your mana pool, for a total of RRR.

Even if they were both replacement effects, or both triggered, layers still wouldn't come into play. You'd get to pick the order, presumably choosing to maximize the generated mana.
If two replacement effects apply to the same event, the affected player picks what order to apply them in. (If the event affects an object, that's the controller of the affected object, or its owner if it has no controller.)
If two triggered abilities you control trigger at the same time, you choose the order to put them on the stack. If they're controlled by different players, the active player puts their triggers on the stack first. (If they're mana abilities like this, you still get to pick the order, even though they don't use the stack.)
In both cases, if they're both affecting you tapping a permanent for mana, you get to pick what order they happen in.

Layers are used for determining interactions of continuous effects, which are effects that are simply stated as a fact, something like "Enchanted creature gets +1/+1" or "Target permanent becomes blue". Fortunately, the most common time they matter is with power/toughness effects, and the vast majority of those are simply setting base power/toughness before applying things that change it.
You can get a pretty good idea of the kinds of things where layers matter by simply reading what the layers are: copy, control-changing, text-changing, type-changing, color-changing, ability-adding/removing, and power/toughness. If the effect isn't in in one of those categories, it's a good bet you don't need layers. (Timestamp order is only used within layers as a last resort.)

Re "Even if they were both replacement effects, or both triggered", Two Mana Reflection is an example of the first, and two Mana Flare is an example of the second.

@ikegami True - I didn't bother saying that since if it's two of the same thing, being able to choose the order doesn't matter so much.

@IvoBeckers Fixed. (The answer is still correct, because they still resolve after the triggering event.)

@Jefromi So, the "rule of thumb" here, is that "replacement effects" occur "immediately" (i.e. they "replace" something) and a "triggered ability" occurs "after" the "thing" occured.  Correct?

@John Mostly, yes. I'd go a little further for replacement effects: they make it so that the thing they replaced never actually happened, so they really have to happen before anything else at all. Triggered mana abilities happen just after the thing that triggered them, but they're the exception. Normal triggered abilities use the stack like other spells and abilities, so they happen not only after the event that triggered them, but also after anything done in response.

The timestamp of the two is irrelevant in this case; tapping a mountain with these two permanents will always produce a total of {R}{R}{R}. The reason is that Mana Flare doesn't actually increase the mana the mountain itself produces: it's a triggered ability that triggers when the mountain is tapped instead of a replacement effect. When you tap a mountain for {R}, Mana Reflection replaces this with putting {R}{R} into your pool, then Mana Flare puts an additional {R} from its trigger, for a total of {R}{R}{R}.
On a side note, even if Mana Flare was a replacement effect with something like "If a land you control would produce mana, it produces that mana and an additional mana of any type it produced instead", the timestamps still wouldn't matter: you get to choose which order the replacement effects apply in without worrying about timestamps.

Small quibble: if it were a replacement effect, it wouldn't say "whenever". That means triggered ability, so you won't see it as part of a replacement effect ("...instead").

Yeah, I wasn't super precise on my hypothetical. I'll fix that.


text:
Will Aegis of the Gods negate my opponent's Erebos, God of the Dead for me?
I am playing a life gain deck and I find that if an opponent plays Erebos, God of the Dead my deck is ruined because of its effect "your opponents can't gain life." If I run Aegis of the Gods, whose effect is "You have hexproof", does that mean Erebos' ability is negated, or because it doesn't actually say "Target opponent can't gain life" Aegis' effect doesn't actually work?

Aegis of the Gods will have no effect. You still won't be able to gain life, for the exact reason you suspect. From the definition of Hexproof:

702.11c "Hexproof" on a player means "You can't be the target of spells or abilities your opponents control."

Since Erebos' ability doesn't say 'target' anywhere, it doesn't target you, and Hexproof has no effect.
Alternately, you can find a way to remove Erebos from the battlefield. Exiling is one way. Erebos can't be destroyed, since Gods have Indestructible. Have you considered cars such as Deicide or Banishing Light?

Re: Deicide: Banishing Light also works and is a bit more versatile.

So in that case all i really need to do is exile it?

@srekcuf5 You need to remove it from the battlefield somehow. Exiling it is one way to do so.

Though note that it does help with skullcrack

That it will, since it'll make Skullcrack get countered for its targets becoming invalid. But I don't think these comments should get too active with discussion. If only chat here were more active! (ง ͠° ͟ل͜ ͡°)ง


text:
How does Athreos, God of Passage respond to creature tokens?
If I have Athreos, God of Passage on the field and a creature token dies, does Athreos' effect trigger and they automatically lose three health because I can't return a token to my hand, or does it not because its a "creature token" that dies and not a "creature"?

To help clear up some confusion: a creature token is both a creature and a token. It can be returned to your hand because Athreos says so and it's a creature, it won't actually get to your hand because it's a token (CR 110.5g).

I'd say it more like "It triggers the ability because it is a creature, but it won't be there to return to your hand because it's a token".

Neither of these scenarios happen. What does happen is called out in a ruling on Athreos:

4/26/2014: Athreos’s last ability will trigger if a token creature you own dies. The target opponent has the option to pay 3 life, although the token can’t return to your hand.

The ability triggers as normal, since a creature died, even if it's a token. Your opponent is still given the choice to pay 3 life or pay nothing — no choice is made "automatically".
However, tokens cease to exist after they leave the battlefield. Even if your opponent declines to pay 3 life, the token won't ever enter your hand - it's already gone to the graveyard and will cease to exist there. So the result is the same either way: the token disappears. Naturally, your opponent is likely to just not pay the cost.

Technically, tokens cease to exist as a state based action because they are in a zone that is not the battlefield. This is important because they do enter the graveyard when they are destroyed or sacrificed, satisfying the definition of "die" in Athreos's ability.

Even if it didn't cease to exist, it still wouldn't go to your hand since a token that's left the 'field cannot be moved to another zone. CR 110.5g

Whoops. Somehow got it into my head this was a replacement effect. Updated.

It is a creature, so Athreos's ability does trigger, but the token ceases to exist before the ability resolves, so the token cannot be returned to your hand.

A creature is a card or token on the battlefield which has the type "creature". Also, a creature token on the battlefield does die (get moved to the graveyard) when it's destroyed just like creature cards on the battlefield. As such, Athreos, God of Passage's ability does trigger.
But before Athreos's ability resolves — in fact before it's placed on the stack and anyone can respond to it — stated-based actions have caused it to cease to exist.
(Even if it didn't cease to exist, it still wouldn't go to your hand since a token that's left the battlefield cannot be moved to another zone.)
None of that stops Athreos's ability from being placed on the stack and from resolving. The targeted opponent could still choose to pay the cost, but there's no incentive for him to do so. Because the token no longer exists, it cannot be returned to your hand.

110.5f A token that’s phased out, or that’s in a zone other than the battlefield, ceases to exist. This is a state-based action; see rule 704. (Note that if a token changes zones, applicable triggered abilities will trigger before the token ceases to exist.)

110.5g A token that has left the battlefield can’t move to another zone or come back onto the battlefield. If such a token would change zones, it remains in its current zone instead. It ceases to exist the next time state-based actions are checked; see rule 704.


text:
Athreos, God of Passage and Gift of Immortality
With Gift of Immortality, if a creature is destroyed, it is returned to the battlefield and then at the next end phase Gift of Immortality is returned onto the creature.
With Athreos, God of Passage, when a creature dies an opponent can choose for it to return to my hand or they lose three health.
If when my monster equipped with Gift of Immortality dies, would Athreos' effect trigger, and if it does and they decide to return the card to your hand does it go to your hand because of Athroes or does it return to the battlefield because of Gift of Immortality?

We're dealing with two triggered abilities here that trigger upon death and move the card around:

Gift of Immortality's ability: When enchanted creature dies, return that card to the battlefield under its owner's control. Return Gift of Immortality to the battlefield attached to that creature at the beginning of the next end step.

Movement: Graveyard → Battlefield

Athreos, God of Passage's ability: Whenever another creature you own dies, return it to your hand unless target opponent pays 3 life.

Movement: Graveyard → Hand
The important rules
Both abilities attempt to move the card out of the same place. Because of rule 603.6, they're in a sort of race: the one to do the move first 'wins', whilst the other will fail to find the card in the graveyard and do nothing to it. Important part emphasised:

603.6. Trigger events that involve objects changing zones are called "zone-change triggers." Many abilities with zone-change triggers attempt to do something to that object after it changes zones. During resolution, these abilities look for the object in the zone that it moved to. If the object is unable to be found in the zone it went to, the part of the ability attempting to do something to the object will fail to do anything. (ed: the rest snipped)

From rule 603.3b, you get to define the order these two go on the stack, and thus you choose which one will resolve first and win the race.

603.3b If multiple abilities have triggered since the last time a player received priority, each player, in APNAP order1, puts triggered abilities he or she controls on the stack in any order he or she chooses. (ed: the rest snipped)

1 This refers to the "Active Player, Nonactive Player order" rule, defined in 104.4, and modified by 805.6 for teams. In short: the player/team whose turn it is puts their stuff on the stack, then the next player/team in turn order, and so on until everyone's done.
Therefore: what happens depends on the order you choose.
If you let Gift of Immortality resolve first...
Put Athreos's ability on the stack first, and Gift of Immortality's ability last. They resolve in this order:

Gift of Immortality's ability returns the card to the battlefield. Gift of Immortality will return attached to it later.
Athreos's ability triggers. It will do nothing regardless of your opponent's choice, because it can't move the card.

If you let Athreos's ability resolve first...
Put Gift of Immortality's ability on first, and then Athreos's last. They resolve in this order:

Athreos's ability offers your opponent a choice to pay 3 life, or do nothing.

If they pay 3 life, the card stays in your graveyard. (They will probably not choose to do this, because it works out badly for them.)
If they do not, it returns to your hand. (They will probably choose this.)

Gift of Immortality's ability resolves.

If the card's still in your graveyard, it moves to the battlefield, and Gift of Immortality will return attached to it later.
If your opponent made it return to your hand, Gift of Immortality does nothing and becomes a benign card in your graveyard. It will not return from the graveyard even if you re-cast the card, because of rule 400.7: the newly summoned creature will be considered a new and different creature to the one the Gift of Immortality remembers. None of 400.7's exceptions apply here.

authors: บุญจันทร์ สว่างบ้าน


text:
Will Eidolon of Rhetoric also prevent Cipher from working in the same turn as another spell?
Say Eidolon of Rhetoric is on the battlefield and an opponent has a Cipher card (Hidden Strings for example) encoded on one of their creatures. If that player casts a spell and then deals damage with that creature in the same turn, would they be able to cast Hidden strings? Would it work because the Ciphered card turns additional casts into an ability or would it not work because the cipher ability says "cast"?

They cannot cast the ciphered spell because they've already cast a spell. Rule 101.2 says

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

The cipher ability allows the player to cast a spell, and Eidolon of Rhetoric says that they can't cast any spells after their first each turn. So, Eidolon prevents them from casting the spell.

From the Cipher rules, as long as the card is encoded on a creature, that creature has an ability that says

Whenever this creature deals combat damage to a player, you may copy this card and you may cast the copy without paying its mana cost.

So, when the creature deals damage to a player, the player can make a copy of the spell, and then they can cast the spell just like they would cast any other spell except that when they pay the cost, they don't have to pay the mana cost. This spell is affected by Eidolon of Rhetoric, just like any other spell

Is there a rule showing definitively that "casting a copy" counts as "casting a spell"?

A copy of a spell is a spell. There is only one meaning of the word cast in Magic. I don't think there's any ambiguity here. The specific rule on how to copies is 706.12.

It doesn't matter whether the instruction to cast comes from an ability or from having priority. They can't cast a second spell since they've already cast a spell.

As the saying goes, "can't trumps can"[1]. This means Eidolon of Rhetoric's ability to forbid him to cast more than one spell per turn overrides any instruction to do soCR 101.2.
The triggered ability granted by Cipher is as followsCR 702.98a:
Whenever this creature deals combat damage to a player, you may copy the encoded card and you may cast the copy without paying its mana cost.
You cannot obey the instruction to cast the copy. When faced with an effect with a mandatory instruction that cannot be obeyed, you perform as much as the effect as possibleCR 101.2. However, the instruction to cast is optional in the case of Cipher ("you may"). As such, you are forbidden to chose to take the forbidden actionCR 608.2d.
So all that happens is that a copy of the card is made if you so desire. The copy ceases to exist immediately afterCR 704.5e.

Doing things in the opposite order wouldn't help. If he started his turn by attacking, he'd be able cast the copy of Hidden Strings, but he wouldn't be able to cast anything else in his second main phase for all of the same reasons.

"Can't trumps do" is more accurate, but not as poetic.

101.2. When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can’t happen, the “can’t” effect takes precedence.
609.3. If an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible.
608.2d [...] The player can’t choose an option that’s illegal or impossible, with the exception that having a library with no cards in it doesn’t make drawing a card an impossible action (see rule 120.3). [...]
702.98a [...] “Cipher” means [...] and “For as long as this card is encoded on that creature, that creature has ‘Whenever this creature deals combat damage to a player, you may copy the encoded card and you may cast the copy without paying its mana cost.’”
704.5. The state-based actions are as follows:
704.5e [...] If a copy of a card is in any zone other than the stack or the battlefield, it ceases to exist.

Honestly, this normally wouldn't bother me, but was it really necessary to post an answer that follows basically the same reasoning to the same conclusion half an hour after I posted mine?

@murgatroid99, I'm not interested in a philosophical on what's necessary and what's not. I felt there was far more to say that what you said, and far more than appropriate for a comment or to add to your answer.

This just leaves in an uncomfortable situation. I can either improve my answer by effectively taking ideas from yours, or I can leave my answer to be overshadowed by yours even though it was first and correctly answered the question.

@murgatroid99, Earlier, you said I wanted too long, but now you're saying I didn't wait long enough for you to make changes. Either way, I have no problem with you improving your answer.

I think it's a little unfair to say that you waited for me to make changes when you never made any comment indicating that changes were needed. It just feels, from my point of view, like you read my answer and then posted basically the same information with a little elaboration. It feels like a rep grab, even if that wasn't the intention.

Also, I don't think 609.3 is relevant. The player can choose to copy the spell, but he simply isn't allowed to choose to cast it because the Eidolon forbids it. It's not so much the effect not doing something impossible as the player's choices being restricted.

@murgatroid99, fixed.

Something that the other answers haven't really emphasized, but might be the key to your confusion: you said

Would it work because the Ciphered card turns additional casts into an ability or would it not work because the cipher ability says "cast"?

Cipher does not "turn additional casts into an ability." What happens is that when the creature deals damage to the defending player, the cipher ability triggers, and then resolves, and while resolving it gives you the opportunity to copy the exiled card and cast that copy. But you are still casting something. In almost all respects this is just like any other instance of casting a spell: you pick targets, pay costs, and put it on the stack as normal, and anything that affects your ability to cast spells also affects this. There are only two differences: (1) the thing you're casting is a copy, so is not represented by a card, and (2) it's being cast from exile, not from your hand. Neither of those two things make a difference to Eidolon of Rhetoric, though. (Hypothetically, if the Eidolon said "Each player can't cast more than one spell from his or her hand each turn," then it would make a difference, and the spell cast via cipher wouldn't count toward that limit of one.)


text:
Can you ron with these hands?

Can a person ron from a person that sits across or right next to him but the last tile he takes from discard pile are sequence melds? (assume all hands are closed)
Can a person call ron and the last tile he need to complete are the pair? And if this can, can it call ron from everybody or just some people who sit left to him?

Generally yes, but it will depend on which variant you are playing and any special rules. It sounds like you are playing Japanese Mahjong (since you use the term "ron"), in which case you will need to be sure your hand has at least one yaku if you use someone else's tile to win, and obviously you can't be in a "no ten" state.
Precedence rules may also apply if two players are trying to simultaneously win off of the same discard.

Rules vary, but in in most forms of mahjong, it's OK to win on anything that gives your final hand the basic structure of 4 groups of 3 and your pair of two. This can be on sequence groups from anyone (not just the previous player on the left), or on a single wait to form a pair.
Where it gets tricky is that sometimes, the wait might influence some of the winning conditions or the scoring. Hong Kong scoring doesn't care about such considerations. Riichi mahjong cares about fu points for the structure of the last element (minor stuff), as well as for certain winning conditions (yaku) like pinfu that would require an open-ended sequence, or the ankou-based hands that require that the element itself be fully concealed (for sanankou: AAABC XXX YYY ZZ is a hand structure that can win on A/D/Z, but you can't claim the sanankou yaku on Z because the group counts as exposed even as you are finishing. Winning on D is fine, and winning on A simply requires a player to mentally split it into AAA A+BC as opposed to A+AA ABC. Riichi mahjong forces you to score the highest possible score if there can be a variation due to the structure of the hand given any shape or wait.)
edit
(Since I lack rep, small correction on the other answer. If a hand is "no-ten", you aren't in a position of winning at all (as in "not tenpai"). If a hand is "furiten", the hand is in a position of winning ("tenpai"), but is not allowed to win off a discard because of its 3 associated stipulations [persistent: can't win if any of your waits has been discarded by yourself; temporary: can't win off a discard if you let one slide before you get to play again (actually play, call+discard or draw+discard: a turn jumping over you does not absolve this); permanent: can't win off any discard if you let any of your waits slide after calling riichi].