I suspect the answer is the same, but the scenario is 1) activate Peacewalker Colossus ability to make Colossal Plow a creature, 2) declare Plow as attacker, 3) cast Armed and Armored, to make Peacewalker a creature and 4) attack with Peacewalker. I see the problem as being that an instant was played after the declare attacker step was over, so it is too late to declare an additional attacker.
Indeed it's "too late to declare an additional attacker". Attacking creatures are declared at the beginning of the declare attackers step. It's only after attackers are declared that players get priority to cast spells (such as Armed and Armored) or activate abilities (such as Peacewalker Colossus's first ability), and by then it's too late to declare more attackers this combat. And this is so even though the declare attackers step hasn't ended yet.
No, that's not allowed. Colossal Plow must have been a creature before it can attack, whether by its crew ability, by Peacewalker Colossus's first ability, or otherwise. Any abilities that trigger when a creature attacks (such as Colossal Plow's first ability) trigger only once the attackers have been declared, but in this scenario, Colossal Plow isn't a creature so it can't be declared as an attacker. See also this thread.
In any case, the cost of both of Pentavus's activated abilities won't be reduced by Heartstone, since in both cases, the mana in that cost is 1 and Heartstone won't reduce "the mana in that cost to less than one mana" (C.R. 108.1). Thus, Heartstone won't provide any benefit in this supposed combo.
Do you have a rule question relating to this combo? If not, then the Magic Rulings forum is not the right place for your question. Instead, post it on a different forum in MTGSalvation, such as the Magic General forum.
It seems as though the two abilities are separate. The first portion doesn't specify the type of spell so could it be used on a creature or artifact also.
I am trying to copy heart stone at least once with mirrorworks. From there I am hoping to use Xenic Poltergeist to turn the mirrorworks into creatures for a turn the text on mirrorworks does not seem to have a limit to how many times you can pay two to copy an artifact spell. With hearthstone and a copy with the now costless creature activated ability that costs 2 i should in theory be able to copy any artifact as many times as I want as the cost is now 0 for that ability. I am going to use that to copy from there I want to copy stone calendar to reduce the casting cost of spells to 0 as well as copy twinning staff and some other key artifacts. Then I should be able to have an unlimited options for how I can create an army, gain Life, Do damage etc. That could be limitless thus destroying the game fairly quickly. Is this on the right track?
It seems you've misunderstood Mirrorworks's ability.
Mirrorworks's ability is not an activated ability (it lacks a colon, for example), but a triggered ability because it starts with "Whenever" (C.R. 602.1, 603.1), so Heartstone doesn't apply to that ability (just as it doesn't to any other ability starting with the form "Whenever ..., you may pay .... If you do..." [C.R. 603.1; see also C.R. 603.5, which applies to such an ability]). An activated ability's text starts with a cost followed by a colon (C.R. 602.1). Also, even if Mirrorworks had an activated ability with an activation cost (e.g., "2: Create a token..."), Heartstone would not "reduce the mana in that cost to less than one mana". See also this thread.
Mirrorworks's ability triggers "[w]henever another nontoken artifact enters the battlefield under your control", not when you cast an artifact spell.
When Mirrorworks's ability resolves, you may pay 2 only once for that ability (C.R. 608.2c).
Also, nothing in your scenario involves copying any spells (creating a token that's a copy of an artifact is not the same as copying an artifact spell [review C.R. 706.10]; compare Mirrorworks with Lithoform Engine), so Twinning Staff's first ability doesn't change anything in this scenario.
hexproof can't be the target of spells or abilities controlled by that permanent's controller's opponents or by that player's opponents, as the case may be (C.R. 702.11b-c).
shroud can't be the target of any spells or abilities, no matter who controls them (C.R. 702.18a).
However, the first mode of Sakashima's Will targets only an "opponent" and its second mode doesn't target anything (C.R. 115.1a). Thus, you can cast Sakashima's Will even if every creature on the battlefield has hexproof or shroud, but can't do so if all your opponents have shroud and/or hexproof and you choose the spell's first mode or both its modes (C.R. 702.18a; 702.11b-c, 602.1c, 602.1). Moreover, if an effect grants shroud or hexproof to Magda, that ability generally won't carry over to any copies of Magda with Sakashima's Will (C.R. 706.2). Remember, just because a spell or ability has a player choose one or more objects (such as a creature), that doesn't necessarily make them targets of that spell or ability (C.R. 115.10a, 115.10). See also this thread, this thread and this thread.
Based on Altered Ego I don't believe this is accurate. The X in the original "instance" does not transfer to the X of the permanent:
If the chosen creature has X in its mana cost, that X is considered to be 0. The value of X in Altered Ego’s last ability will be whatever value was chosen for X while casting Altered Ego. [4/8/2016]
While it is not the same situation it seems to suggest that copying something else confers a brand new instance of "X" that we care about. Ego still provides counters because of its own ability but that will not translate into anything else that has X in the mana cost that might be copied. Just because we are copying the same thing in this situation, it is a new instance and X is 0.
Indeed, this situation is arguably covered under C.R. 107.3j, because the object in question "gains an ability" that "doesn't define a value of X", namely "Stonecoil Serpent enters the battlefield with X +1/+1 counters on it". However, both C.R. 107.3j and C.R. 107.3m say they're exceptions to C.R. 107.3i and both rules appear not to be mutually exclusive. Namely, in this scenario—
that ability has an "enters-the-battlefield ... replacement effect [that] refers to X, and [the associated spell] had a value of X chosen for any of its costs", so that X should be the same as that spell's (C.R. 107.3m, 614.1c), yet
that ability was "gain[ed]" by an object and "doesn't define a value of X", so that X should be 0 (C.R. 107.3j),
and unfortunately, nothing in C.R. 107 explains which rule takes precedence, either C.R. 107.3j or C.R. 107.3m. But note C.R. 400.6, which applies to the event of moving one object from one zone to another: "If any effects or rules try to do two or more contradictory ... things to a particular object, that object’s controller—or its owner if it has no controller—chooses which effect to apply, and what that effect does"; though note also that C.R. 107.3j and 107.3m are rules, not effects. If C.R. 400.6 cannot be understood to allow that player to choose which rule applies this way, then there would arguably be nothing in the comprehensive rules that explains whether C.R. 107.3j or C.R. 107.3m takes precedence.
In both cases, the "enter the battlefield as copies" replacement takes precedence over the "enters the battlefield with counters" replacement effect (C.R. 616.1c, 616.1e, 614.1c). As a result, Stonecoil Serpent's copiable values will be replaced with those of the chosen creature (see also an example in C.R. 616.1e). And the latter include the ability "Stonecoil Serpent enters the battlefield with X +1/+1 counters on it" in both cases. Now we apply the new replacement effect from the latter ability (C.R. 616.1e). Since the newly acquired ability has an "enters-the-battlefield ... replacement effect [that] refers to X" (C.R. 614.1c), the X on that ability is the same as the spell's (C.R. 107.3m), so the creature will enter the battlefield with X +1/+1 counters on it.
EDIT: Struck out certain text after comment 8 was posted. See comment 4.
The mechanics article for Strixhaven: School of Mages clarifies that a player who "learns" can either reveal a Lesson card they own from outside the game and put it into their hand, or discard a card to draw a card, or do neither of these.
Note, however, that nothing in the rules for the Commander variant (under C.R. 903) changes what "outside the game" means. In general, under the comprehensive rules, a card "outside the game" means a card that's not in any of the game's zones, including a card in a sideboard (C.R. 400.11, 400.11a). But the players in an unsanctioned casual game can agree on modifications to the comprehensive rules (that is, "house rules") that address various game details, such as the meaning of "outside the game" or whether players can have sideboards. In sanctioned tournaments, a card "you own from outside the game" means only a card "you own" in a sideboard, even if the tournament uses the Commander variant (M.T.R. 3.15). Sideboards, though, are generally used only to "modify [a] deck between games of a match" (C.R. 100.4); the usual number of games in a match is given in C.R. 100.6a. See also this thread.
EDIT (after comment 4 was posted): Also, in the Commander variant, you can't bring a card you own into the game from outside it (whether by learning or otherwise) if—
the card has the same name as a card in your starting deck (including your commander [C.R. 903.3]) or a card you already brought into the game, or
the card's color identity includes colors outside your commander's color identity
You should post this question on the Magic General forum, rather than on this one. The Magic Rulings forum generally deals with current rules, not issues on how older rules worked or how players might have played under those rules. But see, for example, this thread, which gives pointers on how trample worked before the comprehensive rules of Magic existed.
See also this thread; your question applies not only to Banishing Light, but also to Grasp of Fate and, in general, any other permanent with an enters-the-battlefield ability that—
exiles certain permanents until that permanent leaves the battlefield, but
can target only certain permanents controlled by opponents.
Yes. Putting a land card onto the battlefield with Jadzi is not the same as playing a land, so you do so even if you played a land this turn and even if it isn't your turn (C.R. 701.14a; review C.R. 116.2a).
Creatures assign the same amount of combat damage as though Gratuitous Violence weren't on the battlefield. Gratuitous Violence doubles certain combat damage when it would be dealt, so after it's assigned (C.R. 510.1, 510.2).
Gratuitous Violence's ability doesn't change how combat damage is assigned (as trample does [C.R. 702.19]); effects that would affect the damage a creature would deal, as with Gratuitous Violence's ability, don't change the amount of combat damage creatures assign (C.R. 510.1c-d apply generally and C.R. 702.19b applies to trample). Therefore, creatures assign combat damage without regard to those effects.
Yes, the card will enter the battlefield under its owner's control, regardless of who last controlled the creature before it was exiled with Mystifying Maze. (But note that even if Mystifying Maze omitted "under its owner's control", so that the card would enter under your control since you activated Mystifying Maze's ability [C.R. 110.2a, 608.2c], it still wouldn't matter who last controlled the creature before being exiled [C.R. 400.7].)
You should post this thread on the Magic General forum rather than on the Magic Rulings forum. There appears to be nothing in your post that you don't seek a clarification for in terms of the rules.
Questions asking why certain cards are worded one way rather than another, especially where the other wording is claimed to be "better", are out of scope for the Magic Rulings forum.
. Instead, post it on a different forum in MTGSalvation, such as the Magic General forum.Also, nothing in your scenario involves copying any spells (creating a token that's a copy of an artifact is not the same as copying an artifact spell [review C.R. 706.10]; compare Mirrorworks with Lithoform Engine), so Twinning Staff's first ability doesn't change anything in this scenario.
However, the first mode of Sakashima's Will targets only an "opponent" and its second mode doesn't target anything (C.R. 115.1a). Thus, you can cast Sakashima's Will even if every creature on the battlefield has hexproof or shroud, but can't do so if all your opponents have shroud and/or hexproof and you choose the spell's first mode or both its modes (C.R. 702.18a; 702.11b-c, 602.1c, 602.1). Moreover, if an effect grants shroud or hexproof to Magda, that ability generally won't carry over to any copies of Magda with Sakashima's Will (C.R. 706.2). Remember, just because a spell or ability has a player choose one or more objects (such as a creature), that doesn't necessarily make them targets of that spell or ability (C.R. 115.10a, 115.10). See also this thread, this thread and this thread.
- that ability has an "enters-the-battlefield ... replacement effect [that] refers to X, and [the associated spell] had a value of X chosen for any of its costs", so that X should be the same as that spell's (C.R. 107.3m, 614.1c), yet
- that ability was "gain[ed]" by an object and "doesn't define a value of X", so that X should be 0 (C.R. 107.3j),
and unfortunately, nothing in C.R. 107 explains which rule takes precedence, either C.R. 107.3j or C.R. 107.3m. But note C.R. 400.6, which applies to the event of moving one object from one zone to another: "If any effects or rules try to do two or more contradictory ... things to a particular object, that object’s controller—or its owner if it has no controller—chooses which effect to apply, and what that effect does"; though note also that C.R. 107.3j and 107.3m are rules, not effects. If C.R. 400.6 cannot be understood to allow that player to choose which rule applies this way, then there would arguably be nothing in the comprehensive rules that explains whether C.R. 107.3j or C.R. 107.3m takes precedence.In both cases, X/X (3/3 in your example).In both cases, the "enter the battlefield as copies" replacement takes precedence over the "enters the battlefield with counters" replacement effect (C.R. 616.1c, 616.1e, 614.1c). As a result, Stonecoil Serpent's copiable values will be replaced with those of the chosen creature (see also an example in C.R. 616.1e). And the latter include the ability "Stonecoil Serpent enters the battlefield with X +1/+1 counters on it" in both cases. Now we apply the new replacement effect from the latter ability (C.R. 616.1e).
Since the newly acquired ability has an "enters-the-battlefield ... replacement effect [that] refers to X" (C.R. 614.1c), the X on that ability is the same as the spell's (C.R. 107.3m), so the creature will enter the battlefield with X +1/+1 counters on it.EDIT: Struck out certain text after comment 8 was posted. See comment 4.
Note, however, that nothing in the rules for the Commander variant (under C.R. 903) changes what "outside the game" means. In general, under the comprehensive rules, a card "outside the game" means a card that's not in any of the game's zones, including a card in a sideboard (C.R. 400.11, 400.11a). But the players in an unsanctioned casual game can agree on modifications to the comprehensive rules (that is, "house rules") that address various game details, such as the meaning of "outside the game" or whether players can have sideboards. In sanctioned tournaments, a card "you own from outside the game" means only a card "you own" in a sideboard, even if the tournament uses the Commander variant (M.T.R. 3.15). Sideboards, though, are generally used only to "modify [a] deck between games of a match" (C.R. 100.4); the usual number of games in a match is given in C.R. 100.6a. See also this thread.
EDIT (after comment 4 was posted): Also, in the Commander variant, you can't bring a card you own into the game from outside it (whether by learning or otherwise) if—
- the card has the same name as a card in your starting deck (including your commander [C.R. 903.3]) or a card you already brought into the game, or
- the card's color identity includes colors outside your commander's color identity
(C.R. 903.11).Gratuitous Violence's ability doesn't change how combat damage is assigned (as trample does [C.R. 702.19]); effects that would affect the damage a creature would deal, as with Gratuitous Violence's ability, don't change the amount of combat damage creatures assign (C.R. 510.1c-d apply generally and C.R. 702.19b applies to trample). Therefore, creatures assign combat damage without regard to those effects.
Questions like yours tend to arise whenever trample as well as another effect that affects how combat damage is dealt are involved (examples include Calamity Bearer; Torbran, Thane of Red Fell; Insult; protection abilities [C.R. 702.16, especially C.R. 702.16e]; Kor Chant; Opal-Eye, Konda's Yojimbo; Gisela, Blade of Goldnight; and so on).
See also this submission (Vorinclex, Monstrous Raider), this thread (Insult), and this thread (Kor Chant).
Questions asking why certain cards are worded one way rather than another, especially where the other wording is claimed to be "better", are out of scope for the Magic Rulings forum.