Guile replaces the actual countering of the spell while Syncopate's self-replacement effect only modifies what zone the countered spell is sent to. Since Syncopate never technically counters the spell (Guile exiles it instead), its self-replacement effect is never applied.
Trait Doctoring targets a permanent, so by the time you are able to target Master of Waves with it, the Master has already ETB'd and his triggered ability will already be on the stack. Changing his text at this point will not alter the text of the ability that is already on the stack.
You would need to alter the text of the Master of Waves spell while it is on the stack (see Sleight of Mind and several others) in order to accomplish what you want to do.
Opponent Stifles that player's fetchland ability. Now what?
ALL steps must be predictable, not only the last board state.
If the proposed shortcut includes the opponent passing priority rather than Stifling his fetch activation, I would call that a legal shortcut. If the opponent wished to Stifle it, he would reject the shortcut.
It's not nonsense, scenario: They have a fetchland, you want them to pop it. Checking the top card and leaving it on top (suggesting it's bad) is prone to get you that result.
Yes, but knowing whether or not you were bluffed this time indicates nothing about whether or not it will be a bluff next time. It's nonsense to think the opponent is getting an advantage from that knowledge.
He was bluffing people online, sometimes putting good cards on top sometimes not.
Unless he does the same thing every time and the opponent somehow knows that fact, knowledge of the card left on top the last time in no way indicates the quality of the next card he decides to leave on top. That's nonsense.
Once a spell is put on the stack who has priority, the active player or the player that played the spell?
The player who played the spell or activated the ability receives priority first afterward (citations above).
HOWEVER, in tournament play, if that player does not explicitly announce his intention to retain priority or otherwise make it clear that he is "responding" to his own play, it is assumed that he has passed on that priority and the next player in turn order receives priority.
From section 4.2 of the TR: Whenever a player adds an object to the stack, he or she is assumed to be passing priority unless he or she explicitly announces that he or she intends to retain it. If he or she adds a group of objects to the stack without explicitly retaining priority and a player wishes to take an action at a point in the middle, the actions should be reversed up to that point.
But the game does keep track how many times I've cast her & how much commander dmg she has dealt, so why not what cards exiled with her?
How is this different from abilities like Ashling the Pilgrim or Dragon Whelp[/CARD] where the game keeps track how how many times the ability has resolved? Why is the number of times an ability was used different from the results of an ability?
It's actually not different. In the two cases you mention (Ashling and Whelp), if the object changes zones and then returns to the battlefield or if the ability is somehow removed and then restored in the same turn, the game's count of the number of activations of those abilities does in fact reset because the game treats them as new instances of those abilities (with an exception for Planeswalkers in the latter case which remember if ANY ability has been activated). It's pretty much the same thing.
Asking which creature is being targeted doesn't reveal any information. It's simply an immediate and appropriate disambiguation of the game state. The only reason an opponent would have to believe that such a question is revealing information is if that player has previously displayed a tendency to allow similar ambiguous game states to exist without question. So I'd recommend not doing that.
712.5b The controller of another player can't make choices or decisions for that player that aren't called for by the rules or by any objects. The controller also can't make any choices or decisions for the player that would be called for by the tournament rules.
Citing this rule, one could attempt to make the argument that since the rules do not call for the player to reveal his hand to his controller's teammate, he is not allowed to do so. However, there seems to be precedent that indicates otherwise. The rules also do not call for a player to view his sideboard during a game, yet it has been ruled that a controlling player may choose to view the controlled player's sideboard. Given that precedent and the fact that it is legal for a player to reveal his hand to an opponent any time he chooses, I would find no infraction.
In rarer cases, it's a draw when each player controls part of the loop and the choice to stop it involves hidden information. Since your hand is hidden information, you have no obligation to play anything in it that would alter a loop's function.
The public or private nature of the zone currently occupied by an object that could be used to end a loop is not relevant.
716.5. No player can be forced to perform an action that would end a loop other than actions called for by objects involved in the loop.
We are having a little debate with our friend. I know the question is really a noob one, but still: can you play creatures when there is something on the stack?
There is no rule that prevents creature spells (or non-instant spells in general) from being played while the stack is not empty (otherwise mechanics such as flash and suspend wouldn't work at all on those types of spells), but there is no rule that allows it under normal circumstances either. The rules most commonly used to play non-instant spells require that the stack be empty, but if another ability or effect allows or instructs a player to play such a spell at other times (see flash and suspend, respectively), the player may do so regardless of what may be on the stack or, in the case of suspend, who (if anyone) has priority.
For example, as soon as Player B gets priority during my main phase, he slams Silence on the stack. Can I tap all my lands for mana and respond by casting a creature?
Technically, your opponent does not receive priority in your main phase until you pass it to him, so you will be able to cast at least one non-instant spell before he is able to do anything. Of course, your opponent is free to cast Silence during your upkeep or draw step instead to largely avoid the priority issue.
There's no reason it should behave differently than the comprehensive rules entry for events that have an "as long as" duration.
"Exile X until Y" makes exactly as much sense as "Return X to its owner's hand until Y", which is to say not much at all under the current rules. When the duration expires, it is not at all clear that a reciprocal action is to be performed or even what such a reciprocal action would entail, until and unless those procedures are defined by the rules.
@Befuddlement: But I don't know the definition of "asking for priority"! Does "let me know when you pass priority" count as "asking for priority"?
Asking who currently has priority is not asking for priority. The player who currently has priority is free information, and failure to answer such a question clearly is likely to draw a Player Communication Violation.
You should note that in any tournament in which the TR is applicable, you are assumed to be passing priority after playing a spell or ability unless you explicitly indicate otherwise:
Whenever a player adds an object to the stack, he or she is assumed to be passing priority unless he or she explicitly announces that he or she intends to retain it. If he or she adds a group of objects to the stack without explicitly retaining priority and a player wishes to take an action at a point in the middle, the actions should be reversed up to that point.
This is especially relevant to this scenario, since a judge is not likely to allow you to back up play if you did not explicitly mention that you were retaining priority before seeing a split second spell from your opponent.
Trait Doctoring targets a permanent, so by the time you are able to target Master of Waves with it, the Master has already ETB'd and his triggered ability will already be on the stack. Changing his text at this point will not alter the text of the ability that is already on the stack.
You would need to alter the text of the Master of Waves spell while it is on the stack (see Sleight of Mind and several others) in order to accomplish what you want to do.
If the proposed shortcut includes the opponent passing priority rather than Stifling his fetch activation, I would call that a legal shortcut. If the opponent wished to Stifle it, he would reject the shortcut.
Yes, but knowing whether or not you were bluffed this time indicates nothing about whether or not it will be a bluff next time. It's nonsense to think the opponent is getting an advantage from that knowledge.
Unless he does the same thing every time and the opponent somehow knows that fact, knowledge of the card left on top the last time in no way indicates the quality of the next card he decides to leave on top. That's nonsense.
The player who played the spell or activated the ability receives priority first afterward (citations above).
HOWEVER, in tournament play, if that player does not explicitly announce his intention to retain priority or otherwise make it clear that he is "responding" to his own play, it is assumed that he has passed on that priority and the next player in turn order receives priority.
From section 4.2 of the TR:
Whenever a player adds an object to the stack, he or she is assumed to be passing priority unless he or she explicitly announces that he or she intends to retain it. If he or she adds a group of objects to the stack without explicitly retaining priority and a player wishes to take an action at a point in the middle, the actions should be reversed up to that point.
It's actually not different. In the two cases you mention (Ashling and Whelp), if the object changes zones and then returns to the battlefield or if the ability is somehow removed and then restored in the same turn, the game's count of the number of activations of those abilities does in fact reset because the game treats them as new instances of those abilities (with an exception for Planeswalkers in the latter case which remember if ANY ability has been activated). It's pretty much the same thing.
712.5b The controller of another player can't make choices or decisions for that player that aren't called for by the rules or by any objects. The controller also can't make any choices or decisions for the player that would be called for by the tournament rules.
Citing this rule, one could attempt to make the argument that since the rules do not call for the player to reveal his hand to his controller's teammate, he is not allowed to do so. However, there seems to be precedent that indicates otherwise. The rules also do not call for a player to view his sideboard during a game, yet it has been ruled that a controlling player may choose to view the controlled player's sideboard. Given that precedent and the fact that it is legal for a player to reveal his hand to an opponent any time he chooses, I would find no infraction.
The public or private nature of the zone currently occupied by an object that could be used to end a loop is not relevant.
716.5. No player can be forced to perform an action that would end a loop other than actions called for by objects involved in the loop.
There is no rule that prevents creature spells (or non-instant spells in general) from being played while the stack is not empty (otherwise mechanics such as flash and suspend wouldn't work at all on those types of spells), but there is no rule that allows it under normal circumstances either. The rules most commonly used to play non-instant spells require that the stack be empty, but if another ability or effect allows or instructs a player to play such a spell at other times (see flash and suspend, respectively), the player may do so regardless of what may be on the stack or, in the case of suspend, who (if anyone) has priority.
Technically, your opponent does not receive priority in your main phase until you pass it to him, so you will be able to cast at least one non-instant spell before he is able to do anything. Of course, your opponent is free to cast Silence during your upkeep or draw step instead to largely avoid the priority issue.
It doesn't always target. "Up to 8" targets includes 0 targets.
That statement was correct in context. Spam warning issued for nitpicking. -Carsten
"Exile X until Y" makes exactly as much sense as "Return X to its owner's hand until Y", which is to say not much at all under the current rules. When the duration expires, it is not at all clear that a reciprocal action is to be performed or even what such a reciprocal action would entail, until and unless those procedures are defined by the rules.
Asking who currently has priority is not asking for priority. The player who currently has priority is free information, and failure to answer such a question clearly is likely to draw a Player Communication Violation.
Whenever a player adds an object to the stack, he or she is assumed to be passing priority unless he or she explicitly announces that he or she intends to retain it. If he or she adds a group of objects to the stack without explicitly retaining priority and a player wishes to take an action at a point in the middle, the actions should be reversed up to that point.
This is especially relevant to this scenario, since a judge is not likely to allow you to back up play if you did not explicitly mention that you were retaining priority before seeing a split second spell from your opponent.