text:
When a Creature dies, does the Enchantment Creature attached to that Creature go in the graveyard?
Or can you place that Enchantment Creature as a Creature on the battlefield after the Creature it was attached to dies?

Are you asking about cards with the Bestow mechanic from Theros block, on cards like Cavern Lampad?

My friend bought the Born of the Gods -deck (which seems to be a part of Theros), but he is asking of GENERALLY Enchantment Creatures.
So I don't know.

Not all enchantment creatures can be attached as auras, only those with bestow. (You'll get much more useful answers if you can make your questions specific.)

At the moment, the one and only Enchantment Creature outside Theros block is Lucent Liminid, which cannot enchant anything. Here's a Gatherer search for all Enchantment Creatures outside Theros (which will redirect to the only card meeting those criteria): http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&type=+%5B%22Enchantment%22%5D+%5B%22Creature%22%5D&set=+!%5B%22Theros%22%5D+!%5B%22Born%20of%20the%20Gods%22%5D+!%5B%22Journey%20into%20Nyx%22%5D

Depends on the situation. Normally, when a creature dies (goes to the graveyard) or gets exiled, all attached enchantments are moved to the graveyard as well.

704.5n If an Aura is attached to an illegal object or player, or is not attached to an object or player,
  that Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard.

Unless you have a bestow enchantment:

702.102e If an Aura with bestow is attached to an illegal object or player, it becomes unattached. This is an exception to rule 704.5n.

Of course, that has also has its exceptions, for example when a player casts End Hostilities, then all creatures, and its attached permanents are destroyed.


text:
If Nighthowler is attached as an Enchantment to a Creature, what different things can it do?

Do you add the Power and Toughness of Nighthowler to the Creature's Power and Toughness?
If the Creature is tapped, while the Nighthowler is attached to it, can the Nighthowler both attack or block at another Creature?

When you cast a card for its bestow cost; it becomes an Aura Enchantment spell; and does not act as a creature in any way. So Nighthowler can never attack nor block while it is attached to another creature as an aura.

Nighthowler does not have a power or toughness while it is an aura. You add +X/+X to the enchanted creature, where X is the number of creature cards in all graveyards. This is unrelated to the fact that this is also Nighthowler's strength when Nighthowler is a creature; it's simply because it says that that is the enchanted creature's strength.

No, Nighthowler cannot attack nor block while it is an aura enchantment.

If the creature that Nighthowler is enchanting leaves the battlefield, Nighthowler will become a regular creature on the battlefield.

It might be worth mentioning that the reason you add +X/+X to the enchanted creature's P/T is because Nighthowler says so right on the card: "Enchanted creature gets +X/+X," and has nothing to do with the fact that Nighthowler would have power and toughness X/X if it were a creature.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Must a "target creature" be on the battlefield?
If an ability says "target creature," does the creature have to be on the battlefield? I think I found a loophole that depends on the answer.

If you don't mind me asking, what was the possible loophole you found?

Your question could be simplified to "What is a creature?" Once that has been established, it's clear what "target creature" means.

Yes, it does.  The rules say:

109.2. If a spell or ability uses a description of an object that includes a card type or subtype, but doesn’t include the word “card,” “spell,” “source,” or “scheme,” it means a permanent of that card type or subtype on the battlefield.

i.e., "creature" can only mean a creature permanent on the battlefield.

I'd just like to add that it is a default e.g. card may say "target creature card in your graveyard" in which case, it has to target a creature in the grave. Rule 109.2 does say this but I don't think it has been made clear

@LukeDrew: in that case, it says creature card.

I liked the old "Enchant dead creature" of animate dead. The new wording is so convoluted!

@Luke Drew, Since the word "card" is included, 109.2 doesn't apply. "Creature" acts as an adjective modifying "card" in that sentence. "target creature card" means "target card (that is a creature)", not "target creature (that is a card)".

Maybe I wasn't too clear, I was trying to say that "target creature" is also appears in "target creature card in your graveyard" which is why I had "target creature" in bold. I think in the end, I was trying to point out maybe you should make a point that if it is followed by one of the words in 109.2, then you can't target something on the battlefield. If you think that rule 109.2 makes that clear without explaining it, then feel free to ignore me. I'm sorry if this still makes no sense since I'm not the best at explaining things :(

Yes, when targeting a permanent, creature, artifact, enchantment, planeswalker or land, it must be on the battlefield. When targeting specifies targeting a spell, it must be on the stack (like with counterspell). There are exceptions to this, but they all specify how they work, for example:

Animate Dead specifies it enchants a "creature card in a graveyard".
Zombify uses the words "target creature from your graveyard" by saying it's coming from the graveyard, that's the only place it can be when you target it.
Runic Repetion specifies it returns a card from exile, defining the zone where the card had to be to be targeted.

The first sentence is a bit confusing, because a permanent that isn't on the battlefield isn't a thing that exists in the game; a permanent is always on the battlefield. It also doesn't really address the question; because the asker didn't know if "target creature" meant that the target had to be a permanent.

@GendoIkari better?

In my opinion, calling those examples "exceptions" is less clear than just describing or quoting the actual rule for how this works, as the other answer does.

Right, as Rainbolt's comment on the question says, the issue here is not knowing what the game means when it says "creature". It's not that the creature must be on the battlefield unless stated otherwise.. it's that "creature" by definition can only exist on the battlefield; outside of the battlefield it has a different name ("creature card").

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

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


text:
Does Phantasmal Bear get sacrificed if its affected by spells or abilities that don't say 'target'?
Phantasmal Bear says that if it becomes the target of a spell or ability that it must be sacrificed. If I played Phantasmal Bear and later in the game played a creature that gave all of my other blue creatures +1/+1, would the Bear still be sacrificed, even though the Bear wasn't 'targeted' specifically?

No, you can check this in Magic 2014 by playing out a Lord of the Unreal, a card that really doesn't work if it kills the illusions.

No, you will not have to sacrifice it. See:

114.9a Just because an object or player is being affected by a spell or ability doesn't make that object or player a target of that spell or ability. Unless that object or player is identified by the word "target" in the text of that spell or ability, or the rule for that keyword ability, it's not a target.


text:
A Couple of Hearts Probabilities
Here's what I don't get.  I've played a lot of Hearts for many years - thousands of games I'm sure.  The number of times I've played a low heart, and the trick has gone 2H, 3H, 4H, 5H seems way out of probable reality.  But the number of times I've seen all four players play the any of the same value card (e.g. 6C, 6D, 6H, 6S) is once.  Why is the probability of 2H, 3H, 4H, 5H any lower than any 4 same value cards?  In my naiveté it seems that in both cases, the probability calls for 4 players to have a specific card at the same time. Can anyone explain it to me like a 4 year old?

http://xkcd.com/1364/

The fact that you see 2H, 3H, 4H, 5H seems surprising. If the player stuck with the 5 is trying not to accumulate hearts, I'd expect that player to slap down the largest heart card he has. If he's trying to shoot the moon, then the 5 makes sense.

Sorry for not being clearer - the cards most times do not appear in that order but more likely 5H, 4H, 3H, 2H or some other combination started by the 4H or 5H.  Thanks for  your comments

I'm pretty sure most 4 year olds don't understand probability either.

The reason H2,H3,H4,H5 is more likely than H6,S6,C6,D6 is simply the rules of the game. If a heart is led, it is mandatory to play a heart if possible, so most tricks contain four of the same suit, and a trick with one of each suit is extremely rare. When you add in the requirement for all four to be of the same rank, your second example is vanishingly improbable. This boils down to the fact that a card game is not a random selection of available cards (except when my partner is choosing an opening lead, of course).

There's also the game theory argument that people want to avoid hearts and will be playing their lowest to try and avoid the points, whereas in a situation where they can discard a card off suit, it's much more likely that they might try and discard an off-suite card of high rank. I wouldn't be surprised if all 10s or all Jacks came out in one trick, but other values seem much more unlikely.

Minor insight to improve this answer: there are 2 different factors here: A. As you stated, the rules makes the H6,S6,C6,D6 far less likely - even if we assume the players are just randomly play (legal) a card. B. The players aren't playing randomly - and while there's a solid benefit in not playing a high heart in a round opening with a low one, there's no benefit in playing the same number from a different suite. You mention both, but making it more explicit might make the answer clearer.

The chances of each player getting exactly one card of a set, be that set {2H, 3H, 4H, 5H} or {6D, 6C, 6H, 6S} is the same. However, 6 was just an example; the chance of each player having a card with the same value but a different suit is actually bigger then the lowest four Hearts being distributed like that. So the starting position is in favour of four cards of the same value being played.
But players don't choose cards at random. First of all, they have to follow suit if possible, so for none of the players to be able to follow suit would mean that it's later in the game and the suit has been exhausted, or that the opening player has all cards of that suit.
And that's just following the rules. But there's strategy and tactics to consider as well. Unless a player is trying to shoot the moon, they will typically play the lowest Hearts possible. So a player may play a 4H or 5H, hoping that one of the others will have to play a 6H or 7H at least. A player following suit with a 5H on a 4H may hope for the same. If the other players don't want the trick, the only thing they can do is follow with the 2H and the 3H, sticking the trick on the player with 5H.
There is no strategic or tactical advantage to following value instead of suit, so it really comes down to coincidence — although I can imagine players following value just for fun, after the first two cards have been played.


text:
Can you cast creatures exiled by Ashiok/Nightveil Specter with bestow?
Say you exile a creature such as Eidolon of Countless Battles with a Nightveil Specter or Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver. Can you cast it with bestow as an enchantment aura or can you only cast it as a creature?

When a card is exiled with Nightveil Specter, you may play it in any way it could normally be played under all the normal restrictions (such as timing, paying costs, etc).
In the case of exiling Eidolon of Countless Battles (or any other bestow creature), this means you can pay the bestow cost to cast the spell as an enchantment aura.
When a creature card is exiled with Ashiok, you can later use his -X ability to place it on the battlefield. Notice the difference here: You do not cast it. Since it is not cast, you do not have the option of paying the alternate bestow casting cost and casting it as a enchantment aura. Thus, you cannot bestow a creature card exiled with Ashiok.

You should probably also cover "you may cast it without paying its mana cost". (You can't cast it for its Bestow cost because you only have the option to cast it for the alternative cost of "free". As common sense would indicate, you can only use one alternative cost. Additional costs are another matter.)


text:
Combo question: urborg tomb of yawgmoth, torpor orb, kormus bell, dark depths = free Marit Lage?
If I have the following in play:

Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth

Each land is a Swamp in addition to its other land types.

Kormus Bell

All Swamps are 1/1 black creatures that are still lands.

Torpor Orb

Creatures entering the battlefield don't cause abilities to trigger.

And I play Dark Depths:

Dark Depths enters the battlefield with ten ice counters on it.

{3}: Remove an ice counter from Dark Depths.

When Dark Depths has no ice counters on it, sacrifice it. If you do, put a legendary 20/20 black Avatar creature token with flying and indestructible named Marit Lage onto the battlefield.

What I am hoping happens is: The Urborg makes my Dark Depths also a swamp, so Kormus Bell makes it a creature, so then Torpor Orb makes its comes into play ability not trigger, so the Dark Depths will not enter play with any counters, allowing me to immediately sacrifice for 20/20 Marit Lage. Any reason that would not work?

"Dark Depths enters the battlefield with ten ice counters on it." is equivalent to "As Dark Depths enters the battlefield, place ten ice counters on it." It's a static ability that creates a replacement effect that redefines what it means for this card to be moved to the battlefield.

It won't work.  Dark Depths' "Dark Depths enters the battlefield with ten ice counters on it." ability is not a triggered ability; you can tell because it doesn't use the words "when," "whenever," or "at," which are part of the definition of "triggered ability" in the Comprehensive Rules:

112.3c Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as "[Trigger condition], [effect]," and include (and usually begin with) the word "when," "whenever," or "at." Whenever the trigger event occurs, the ability is put on the stack the next time a player would receive priority and stays there until it’s countered, it resolves, or it otherwise leaves the stack. See rule 603, "Handling Triggered Abilities."

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

Instead, the ability is just a plain old static ability (specifically, a replacement ability, but that doesn't matter here).  Thus, Torpor Orb won't stop the ice counters from being placed on your Legendary Snow Creature Land — Swamp, and your combo won't work.
Stick with Vampire Hexmage.

Or Thespian's Stage.

haven't seen Thespian's Stage before, that card is sweet!


text:
Sakashima of a Thousand Faces and its "other abilities"
Sakashima of a Thousand Faces specifies "other abilities" and I'm a bit confused as to what "other" refers to exactly.
Let's say I have a Rhythm of the Wild in play. I then play my Sakashima as itself, choosing to give it haste due to the riot ability. Sakashima now has its own abilities as well as haste and riot. I then play a Clone choosing to have it enter as my Sakashima. Since Sakashima also has an "enter as" effect, it's my understanding that I can then also apply that effect, having it enter again as Sakashima. Will the Clone then also have haste and riot from Sakashima + another instance of riot from Rhythm of the Wild, or does "other abilities" simply refer to the abilities printed on the card?

Sakashima has three abilities: the copy ability, the legend rule ability, and partner. When the copy ability refers to its "other abilities", it means the legend rule ability and partner.
Haste and riot from Rhythm of the Wilds would not be copied because the effect that grants those abilities is not a copyable effect. Rule 702.2 covers what characteristics and effects are copyable:

When copying an object, the copy acquires the copiable values of the original object's characteristics and, for an object on the stack, choices made when casting or activating it (mode, targets, the value of X, whether it was kicked, how it will affect multiple targets, and so on). The copiable values are the values derived from the text printed on the object (that text being name, mana cost, color indicator, card type, subtype, supertype, rules text, power, toughness, and/or loyalty), as modified by other copy effects, by its face-down status, and by "as . . . enters" and "as . . . is turned face up" abilities that set power and toughness (and may also set additional characteristics). Other effects (including type-changing and text-changing effects), status, counters, and stickers are not copied.

As a result, if you control a Sakashima of a Thousand Faces with riot and haste from Rhythm of the Wilds, and you play a Clone, first Clone's replacement effect applies, and it becomes a copy of Sakashima as printed. Then Sakashima's replacement effect applies, and it becomes a copy of Sakashima as printed, as modified by the copy effect. This means that it has an additional instance of the legend rule ability and partner. Then riot's replacement effect applies, and it enters with either haste or a +1/+1 counter.

This gets more interesting if you consider abilities granted by other copy effects, because those are copyable. For example, if you have a Dack's Duplicate copy of Sakashima, its copy effect grants it haste and dethrone. If it applies its instance of Sakashima's replacement effect, I believe the "other abilities" in that case would also refer to haste and dethrone, and it would gain those too. I can't find any relevant rules or rulings about this though, because Sakashima is the only card that refers to "other abilities" in that way.

Thanks for the answer! Just a follow-up question, in rule 702.2 which you references, the text "and by "as . . . enters" and "as . . . is turned face up" abilities that set power and toughness (and may also set additional characteristics)." sounds to me as if it would include the haste given by riot, why isn't this the case?

Riot doesn't set power and toughness.

Wouldn't hase be included in "and may also set additional characteristics"?

That is "additional" as in "in addition to setting power and toughness".

Ah, I see. Thanks!

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


text:
Does a discarded then cast card with madness count as discarded?
Play goes like this:
I have Faith of the Devoted and Anje Falkenrath on the field.

I discard an Anje's Ravager via Anje Falkenrath's tap ability.
For this creature I pay its madness cost and place it on the field.

Does Faith of the Devoted's ability trigger?
What confuses me is what this page on the Discard keyword says:

Discard is an evergreen keyword action which takes cards from a player's hand and puts them in their graveyard.

But the fact is that a creature with madness never hits the graveyard! Instead, it goes to exile, then to the battlefield.
So I'm not completely sure whether the discard ability on Faith of the Devoted should trigger on that.

Yes, that still counts as discarding a card. The Madness ability is defined in 702.34a:

Madness is a keyword that represents two abilities. The first is a static ability that functions while the card with madness is in a player’s hand. The second is a triggered ability that functions when the first ability is applied. “Madness [cost]” means “If a player would discard this card, that player discards it, but exiles it instead of putting it into their graveyard” and “When this card is exiled this way, its owner may cast it by paying [cost] rather than paying its mana cost. If that player doesn’t, they put this card into their graveyard.”

The card is still discarded, and the Madness ability changes where it goes.


text:
Can No Escape counter planeswalker Sarkhan?
Can No Escape counter the planeswalker Sarkhan the Masterless's ability that  created a 4/4 red dragon creature?

Welcome to the site! Please make your question clearer by clarifying which Sarkhan planeswalker you are referring to and by fixing the sentence structure.

No Escape can target the casting of a planeswalker such as Sarkhan the Masterless, but it cannot counter Sarkhin's ability that creates a 4/4 dragon creature. This is because No Escape can only target spells to counter then, but activating Sarkin's ability is not a spell, it is an activated ability.
Spells and abilities are separate things, even when they could both result in a similar outcome like creating a dragon creature. In order to counter an ability, you would need a card that allows you to do so, such as Stifle.


text:
If Rayami, First of The Fallen is in the command zone, does his ability still activate?
So if Rayami, First of the Fallen is your commander and has yet to be played, does his ability still exile creatures that would normally be destroyed, or does he have to be on the battlefield for that to happen?

Creatures will only be exiled by that ability if Rayami is on the battlefield.
In general, abilities on permanent cards only function while the card is on the battlefield. There are some exceptions, but they mostly boil down to "Does the ability only make sense in another zone, or specifically say that it works in another zone?" The details are in rule 113.6.


text:
What deck size is ideal?
The person I have been playing with and I both have decks of around 130 cards.
Now I know that technically you can have as many cards as you can shuffle, but is there some sort of deck size before it becomes ineffective?

Most competitive decks I know of are around 60 cards which is the minimum in order to ensure you get the cards you need.

Maybe duplicate: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/179/why-would-you-want-to-play-with-a-deck-bigger-than-60-cards-in-mtg?r=SearchResults

Possible duplicate of Why would you want to play with a deck bigger than 60 cards in MTG?

There are several fine answers here. I wanted to relate a personal experience that deviates slightly. This is a bit of an edge case, but the probability that you'll have the right number of lands in your opening hand is more important in some of the more aggressive limited formats, so at F.N.M.s I vary from the minimum sometimes. Common wisdom is 23 drafted & 17 land (at 40 max). That risks being mana flooded early on, so once I'm familiar with a set I often run 41-45 cards in aggressive formats. I can get by taking a mulligan once with the deck's lower-than-normal land% in the deck.

I am not sure that is a good duplicate as it is asking why you might play with a bigger deck and this is asking what the optimal size is

I read the title wrongly from the Hot Network Questions, and got worried for a second...

The overwhelming majority of decks will want to stick with their format's prescribed minimum (60 for a normal constructed deck).
A lot of good deck-building is about managing variance. Running the smallest permissible deck:

Increases your chance of drawing your "best" cards when you need them. Think of it this way: a 60-card deck with 4 Lightning Bolts has about 50% more playable Lightning Bolts than a 90-card deck.
Makes prolonged "mana flood" and "mana screw" less likely.
Improves your deck's ability to "self-correct" as you thin it out by drawing or filtering cards.

While many players have deck-building goals besides just optimal efficiency, sticking to the minimum deck size is recommended because it helps you avoid situations where your deck just doesn't work at all.
(See this answer for a discussion of when it's strategically useful to deviate.)

Outside of the mathematics of building a strong deck, also consider:

It's easier to properly shuffle a smaller deck. You end up wasting less of your friends' time, and yours.
Magic cards are very much not created equal, but building 60-card decks instead of your 120-card decks means you can, conceivably, build more decks from a small collection. (Outside of tournament play, it's often considered more fun and sporting to switch decks so people aren't playing against the same deck again and again and again in a single sitting.)
Another small side benefit is that other people's decklists and tutorial resources (such as articles about mulligan strategy, optimal land counts, &c.) will make a lot more sense to you.

"a 60-card deck with 4 Lightning Bolts has about 50% more playable Lightning Bolts than a 90-card deck" What's the math on that? Why not 50% more playable Lightning Bolts than a 120-card deck?

50% of 4/90 is 2/90. So 50% more than 4/90 is 6/90, which is equal to 4/60. A 60 card deck with 4 bolts has a 50% greater proportion of bolts than a 90 card deck with 4 bolts.

Yes, and the limit may surprise you: it's 60 cards, which is exactly the minimum number of cards in a deck.
Why is this so? It's very simple: some cards are more powerful than others, but (with a few exceptions such as Relentless Rats) you can only include a limited number of copies of them in your deck. Generally speaking, you want to maximize the chance you draw your most powerful card(s), and apart from including as many copies as possible (four), the only other thing you can do about this is including as few other cards as possible. That means running 60 cards, and not a single one more.
Of course, this is a general rule, and there are some exceptions (e.g. if you build a deck around Battle of Wits you'll want somewhat more than 200 cards, but not too much more) but they are few and far between. In Limited tournaments (e.g. booster drafts) the minimum deck size is 40 cards, but again the ideal deck size is equal to the minimum size, 40.

To pick nits, if you have a Battle of Wits deck, you probably want more than 200 cards, since BoW needs 200 just in your library to win.

The other big fact is that you want the cards of a win condition to appear together. If you make a 120 card deck by putting together two 60 cards decks, each with a strong win condition, you'll often end up with half of two win conditions, and unless their win conditions work together, that doesn't equal one whole win condition.

The same logic also applies in Yu-Gi-Oh!, where everyone aims to run a size-40 deck because that's the minimum. In Pokémon, the deck has to be exactly 60, so that's one fewer thing to worry about.

I can't remember where I saw it, but I remember a popular sentiment being: "If there was a sorcery that cost 0 and just drew you a card, every deck would run four."

And Manamorphose is a $10 common for the same reason.

60 cards is not the maximum number of cards you can have so calling it the limit is probably not appropriate @Glorfindel.

I doubt that 60 cards is the actual optimal limit.  If there were no minimum deck size, I'm sure most decks would run much less than 60 cards (I'll hazard a guess that ~10 cards is the actual optimal deck size).

@J.G. And just like in magic, YuGiOh decks would play cards that effectively reduced their deck size (upstart goblin, pot of greed) until those are banned. In magic it's harder to do since you need the colors and mana to pay for them, but the equivalent cards get banned, restricted or expensive.

Large decks can be fun. My primary deck is 1200+ unique cards. I can play it all night long without getting bored. However, this is a fun deck, not suited for serious play. It works surprisingly well in a four person free for all against other fun decks.
That said, all the advice above is correct. If you are playing to win, you generally want the smallest legal deck. But if you're more concerned about enjoying the play rather than winning the game, then go with whatever is fun. Since you are both playing with similar sized decks, neither of you is at a disadvantage for having a large deck.
As for the design of large decks, I recommend allocating a proportion of cards for different roles. For example, you might decide to dedicate 5% of your cards with ways to deal with annoying enchantments. The point is to have more than one way to deal with situations, so you aren't looking for a specific card, but for any of the cards that handle that situation.
Please take my advice with a grain of salt. While I've been playing magic for a long time, I've never been more than a casual player. But I've always had a big deck as my primary deck.

This seems to go into aspects that are not covering the ideal deck size and what does is already covered by other answers.

Jesus, it must take at least 10 minutes to get that many cards even close to being shuffled!

It is worth noting that if you are playing limited and your opponent just provided you some bad-beats with mill cards then going up to 50 or 55 cards is a valid strategy, there does exist some corner cases.


text:
Emissary of Grudges vs. Annihilator
If I have Emissary of Grudges on the battlefield and my secretly chosen player controls a creature with Annihilator which attacks me, can I activate Emissary of Grudges and choose a new target for that creature's Annihilator?

No, there is no interaction. Emissary of Grudges can change a target, but the Annihilator ability does not target.
"Target" has a specific meaning in Magic. If an ability does not specifically include the word "target" somewhere, then there is no target for Emissary to change.

115.10a Just because an object or player is being affected by a spell or ability doesn’t make that object or player a target of that spell or ability. Unless that object or player is identified by the word “target” in the text of that spell or ability, or the rule for that keyword ability, it’s not a target.

Annihilator does not target anything:

702.85a Annihilator is a triggered ability. “Annihilator N” means “Whenever this creature attacks, defending player sacrifices N permanents.”

No, Emissary of Grudges does not interact with Annihilator.
Annihilator does not target a player, it just affects the defending player, which is the player that the creature attacked.
The full definition of Annihilator is in rule 702.85a:

Annihilator is a triggered ability. “Annihilator N” means “Whenever this creature attacks, defending player sacrifices N permanents.”

Additionally to the answers already given, a card that doesn't say "target", doesn't target anything (although there are cards and abilities that "target" implicitly, for example Aura spells and Equip abilities).
From the rules:

115.1d A triggered ability is targeted if it identifies something it will affect by using the phrase “target [something],” where the “something” is a phrase that describes an object and/or player. The target(s) are chosen as the ability is put on the stack; see rule 603.3d.

and especially

115.10a Just because an object or player is being affected by a spell or ability doesn’t make that object or player a target of that spell or ability. Unless that object or player is identified by the word “target” in the text of that spell or ability, or the rule for that keyword ability, it’s not a target.


text:
Put two +1/+1 counters and -1/-1
What does it mean when some creatures put two +1/+1 counters onto another creature?  Does that mean a) target 3/3 creature becomes 5/5 or b) the creature is now 1/1 + 1/1 + 3/3 and the enemy has to first destroy this creature with 1/1, when the creature dies, the next enemy has to destroy the second 1/1 on this creature and next, the enemy has to destroy the creature with 3/3?  For example, card Scrounging Bandar. And does putting a -1/-1 counter on that creature means a 3/3 creature becomes 2/2? And does putting a +1/+1 counter on target creature mean the same thing, like putting a +1/+1 on target creature?

Comprehensive rules 121.1a

Possible duplicate of Does a +1/+1 counter remove a -1/-1 counter?

Definitely not a duplicate of that one.

It means option A but there's slightly more to it. +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters alter the creature's power and toughness and stay on the creature unless some effect removes them. Compare putting 3 +1/+1 counters on something to Giant Growth, an instant which reads

Target creature gets +3/+3 until end of turn

If both are targeting a 1/1; each one will result in a 4/4, however Giant Growth will wear off at the end step making the creature a 1/1 again whereas the counters will keep the creature as a 4/4.
-1/-1 Counters work the same way, each one will shrink a creature's power and toughness, to the point where if they have 0 toughness, they'll die due to state-based actions.
Final thing to note is that +1/+1 counters negate -1/-1 counters and vice-versa at a 1:1 rate. For example, if Baleful Ammit which reads

when Baleful Ammit, enters the battlefield put a -1/-1 counter on target creature you control.

targeted a 2/2 creature that had two +1/+1 counters on it, the -1/-1 and one +1/+1 counter would be removed (also due to SBA) resulting in the creature now being a 3/3 (a 2/2 with one +1/+1 counter on it)


text:
How does this interaction between Rustmouth Ogre and Padeem, Consul of Innovation resolve?
This tricky interaction came up in the comments of the question When do artifacts lose hexproof when Padeem, Consul of Innovation dies? about the specific timing of when an artifact will lose hexproof when Padeem, Consul of Innovation dies. It was related to the original question but different enough that I was recommended to ask it as a new question.
The situation involves two players, Aaron (Active Player) and Nick (Non-Active Player), and the following board state:
Aaron's Board:

Rustmouth Ogre (Whenever Rustmouth Ogre deals combat damage to a player, you may destroy target artifact that player controls.)
Silverback Ape (5/5 creature)

Nick's Board:

Padeem, Consul of Innovation (gives all of Nick's artifacts hexproof)
Ornithopter (0/2 artifact creature)

During combat Aaron swings at Nick with his entire board, blocks are as follows:
 - Silverback Ape is blocked by Padeem (Padeem dies)
 - Rustmouth Ogre is unblocked (its ability triggers)
My question is, can Aaron use Rustmouth Ogre's ability to destroy Nick's Ornathopter?

In this situation, Rustmouth Ogre's ability can target and destroy the Ornithopter.
First of all, triggered abilities trigger immediately when their trigger event occurs, but don't get put on the stack until the next time a player would gain priority. The rules that describe this are in the triggered abilities section of the rules:

603.2. Whenever a game event or game state matches a triggered ability’s trigger event, that ability automatically triggers. The ability doesn’t do anything at this point.

603.3. Once an ability has triggered, its controller puts it on the stack as an object that’s not a card the next time a player would receive priority. [...]

603.3d The remainder of the process for putting a triggered ability on the stack is identical to the process for casting a spell listed in rules 601.2c–d. [...]

601.2c The player announces his or her choice of an appropriate player, object, or zone for each target the spell requires. [...]

As you can see, even though the ability triggers immediately, its targets aren't chosen until the ability is put on the stack. This is important because the State-based actions rules include this rule:

704.3. Whenever a player would get priority (see rule 116, “Timing and 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. If any state-based actions are performed as a result of a check, the check is repeated; otherwise all triggered abilities that are waiting to be put on the stack are put on the stack, then the check is repeated. 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. This process also occurs during the cleanup step (see rule 514), except that if no state-based actions are performed as the result of the step’s first check and no triggered abilities are waiting to be put on the stack, then no player gets priority and the step ends.

In short, the highlighted section of that rule means that triggered abilities are put on the stack after state-based actions have been completely evaluated. The state-based action that is relevant to this question is

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.

So, in the situation described, the sequence of events plays out like this:

Combat damage is dealt. Rustmouth Ogre's ability triggers.
State-based actions are checked. Padeem dies.
Rustmouth Ogre's triggered ability is put on the stack. Its targets are chosen at this time, and Ornithopter is a legal target because Padeem is no longer on the battlefield.
Aaron gets priority for the first time after combat damage.
After Aaron and Nick both pass priority, Rustmouth Ogre's ability resolves and the Ornithopter is destroyed.

Yes.
Triggers are put on the stack after state-based actions happen. The Padeem will die from a state-based action due to having at least as much damage as toughness, and then when Aaron needs to choose targets as part of putting the trigger on the stack, Padeem is already gone.

704.3. Whenever a player would get priority (see rule 116, “Timing and 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. If any state-based actions are performed as a result of a check, the check is repeated; otherwise all triggered abilities that are waiting to be put on the stack are put on the stack, then the check is repeated.
704.5. The state-based actions are as follows:

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 Ogre is able to kill the Ornithopter.
What happens is:

Damage is dealt.
State-based actions happen, and Padeem dies. Trigger from Ogre is waiting to be put on stack.
Trigger from Ogre is put on stack and can legally target Ornithopter.
Ornithopter destroyed.


text:
Divination and Psychosis Crawler
Imagine the following scenario:  My last opponent is at one life. I have a Psychosis Crawler in play with the ability:

Whenever you draw a card, each opponent loses 1 life.

I have 1 card left in my library and cast Divination, which says:

Draw two cards.

Cards are drawn one at a time. So after the first draw, Psychosis Crawler triggers and my opponent loses his/her last point of life.
Now, I am not sure what happens next. Both rules for losing the game apply:

104.3b If a player’s life total is 0 or less, he or she loses the game the next time a player would receive priority. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)
104.3c If a player is required to draw more cards than are left in his or her library, he or she draws the remaining cards, and then loses the game the next time a player would receive priority. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)

Is this a draw?

You'll lose here. You're trying to draw too many cards before your opponent loses any life. (Your statement "after the first draw ... the opponent loses their last point of life" is where you went astray.)
Psychosis Crawler does trigger off your card draw, but you lose the game when state-based actions are checked, before the trigger resolves:

704.3. Whenever a player would get priority (see rule 116, “Timing and 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. If any state-based actions are performed as a result of a check, the check is repeated; otherwise all triggered abilities that are waiting to be put on the stack are put on the stack, then the check is repeated. 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. This process also occurs during the cleanup step (see rule 514), except that if no statebased actions are performed as the result of the step’s first check and no triggered abilities are waiting to be put on the stack, then no player gets priority and the step ends.

Your opponent doesn't lose life until the triggers resolve, so you draw your two cards before your opponent loses any life.
To be specific, what happens is:

You draw your first card. (Psychosis Crawler triggers, but the ability isn't on the stack yet.)
You try to draw your second card, but can't, and now you're going to lose the game the next time state-based actions are checked.
State-based actions are checked, and you lose the game. (Your opponent hasn't lost any life yet.)

For you both to lose the game, resulting in a draw, the card draw and loss of life would have to be part of the resolution of the spell. For example, Urza's Guilt:

Each player draws two cards, then discards three cards, then loses 4 life.

could cause you to draw too many cards, and your opponent to fall to zero life, then you'd both lose at the same time after the spell resolves (when state-based actions are checked), and the game would be a draw.

Would the game be a draw if the card was worded as a replacement effect and said something like "If you would draw a card, instead draw that card and each opponent loses one life"?

@ThePeavstenator Yeah, that would work too; after applying the replacement effect it's indistinguishable from the card itself saying "you draw two cards and each opponent loses two life." Far as I know there's no simple example of that, so I went with Urza's Guilt.


text:
If Dealer is dealt an ace, and then dealt another card, will he bust?
I recently saw this play (not in an official casino, but essentially friends playing with themselves):

Dealer was dealt a 2 and an Ace. Being forced to hit, dealer was dealt a 10.

Player argued that it was a 23, therefore a bust (because Ace would be counted as 11).
Dealer argued that since Ace being equal to 11 would bust him, Ace cannot be 11 and therefore is 1, making his Hand 13, not 23.
Later on a judge decided that the hand was a bust because, and I quote:

The 2+Ace is 13. That's set. 13+10 = 23. What's confusing? once an ace is 11, it's 11.

I find it rather odd that he ruled like that, and I suspect something screwy going on, because (at least from my understanding of the rules) if the Ace were to bust him, Ace is valued as 1, not 11. Which is the right call here?

This sounds fascinating, so you have a source for the lawsuit? I'd love to read more.

"Judge" as in the head of a courtroom, or as in an adjudicator of a gaming event?

@stannius As the adjudicator (referee essentially). If it were an actual judge I'd be flabbergasted

I'm wondering if the judge would argue "once an ace is 11, it's 11" applies also to a non-dealer player. That is, would non-dealer players getting a 10 after hitting on a 2 and an Ace also be considered bust? If so, that's a rather strange handling of Aces.

@R.M. Incompetence or Malitent, especially considering he himself wrote "how to blackjack guide", which contradicts what he ruled, but still insisted in this situation, hence why I preferred to confirm this specific case here.

I'm really not sure what the point of that ruling would be... A+2+10 = 23 or 13 The Ace has its value in this game with its ability to stop you from becoming bust from the card... why would you want to over-rule that? "oh you have higher than 13? It doesn't matter I was bust on 23 anyway" :S Basically "you cant fire me because I quit" sore loser in my eyes.

An Ace has a value of 11, unless it would bust your hand, at which point it becomes 1
Quoting from Wikipedia (due to lack of an official online source for blackjack rules):

If a player holds an ace valued as 11, the hand is called "soft", meaning that the player cannot go bust by taking an additional card; the value of the ace will become 1 to prevent the hand from exceeding 21. Otherwise, the hand is "hard".

In your example of an Ace an a 2, that's a Soft 13. If you draw another card, and that card would push you past 21, you don't bust because your Ace will now count as a 1.

A common rule for casino tables is that the dealer must hit on a Soft 17 (meaning a hand with a value of 17, containing an Ace valued 11) - if they were operating under rules as suggested in the question, that would make the Ace the worst draw for a dealer (and therefore the casino), as a 17 containing an Ace would mean only a 2, 3 or 4 would not make them bust. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that casinos wouldn't blow themselves out in such a manner.

Can confirm based on 4 decades of playing blackjack.  A+2+10 = 13, not 23.

I also have a good amount of game experience to back this up, however I simply did not manage to find a rule source that's serious and not just a rules section of a card company's website, or something of the sort. This might be due to the fact that pretty much every casino has its own rules, so the rules essentially change from one table to the next - but none of them "locks in" the value of an Ace card - that's simply not a game mechanic that would work.

I'm going to support this with professional experience in a region where game rules are fixed by law (the only options are not relevant here). The soft total is one of them - the ace takes on the highest value possible that does not make the hand bust. A+2 is 13, A+2+T is 13. This "judge" iin the question s an idiot.

Also, the very use of "Soft 17" implies that the Ace will change value if necessary.  Under the rules the judge applied, there'd be no such thing as "Soft 17".


text:
Would Averna, the Chaos Bloom allow you to get out all of your lands if you cascade and don't have a lower CMC spell in your deck?
If you fail to find a lower CMC spell in your deck while cascading, would Averna, the Chaos Bloom drop all of the land in your deck into play on one turn?
The wording on the card is:

As you cascade, you may put a land card from among the exiled cards onto the battlefield tapped. (Do this after the last card is exiled but before deciding whether to cast a nonland card.)

No.
Cascade is defined as:

702.84a Cascade is a triggered ability that functions only while the spell with cascade is on the stack. “Cascade” means “When you cast
this spell, exile cards from the top of your library until you exile a
nonland card whose converted mana cost is less than this spell’s
converted mana cost. You may cast that card without paying its mana
cost. Then put all cards exiled this way that weren’t cast on the
bottom of your library in a random order.”

So if you don't have a lower CMC spell in your deck, you will exile your entire library one card at a time.  Once all cards are exiled, you get to put a land card onto the battlefield tapped.  Then you are done.


text:
Does Fumigate deal damage?
During my opponent's turn, he plays Fumigate to wipe the board. I respond with Repel the Abominable.  Do all of our creatures die, or do none die?
Fumigate:

Destroy all creatures. You gain 1 life for each creature destroyed this way.

Repel the Abominable:

Prevent all damage that would be dealt this turn by non-Human sources.

It says destroy not damage.

If something does not say the word "damage", it does not do damage.

Fumigate does no damage; it destroys. All the creatures die; Repel the Abominable does nothing to stop it. If you wanted to keep your creatures, you'd have to seek another means of preventing their destruction, such as by regenerating your creatures (e.g. Dark Dabbling) or making them indestructible (e.g. Boros Charm). For thoroughness, protection wouldn't work.
Damage can lead to a creature being destroyed, but being destroyed doesn't necessarily have to involve any damage at all.
If it did do damage, it'd say so: Wave of Reckoning and Blasphemous Act are board wipes that deal damage.


text:
When can an object have an owner and no controller?
Rule 616.1 has an interesting line about an object having no controller but having an owner.  Under what conditions is this possible?

616.1. 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).

Only objects on the battlefield or on the stack have controllers - everything else is only owned

108.4. A card doesn’t have a controller unless that card represents a permanent or spell; in those cases, its controller is determined by the rules for permanents or spells. See rules 110.2 and 112.2.

But there are many cards that can affect cards in hand, library, graveyard, and exile - for those cards, choices are made by the owner because nobody controls them.


text:
Does going below 0 life with Ad Nauseam kill you before Phyrexian Unlife can save you?
I play Ad Nauseam and Phyrexian Unlife at the same time with Ad Nauseam on top. Upon resolution I repeat Ad Nauseam's effect, say, 40 times. Do I lose before Unlife can save me? Or does the game proceed with me at -20 LP?

Minor nitpick, but you generally can't cast two spells "at the same time". You cast one, put it on the stack, and then cast the other.

While we're nitpicking minor things, putting a spell on the stack is part of casting it; you don't do it afterwards.

While we're nitpicking minor things, putting a spell on the stack is part of proposing to cast it (601.2a). It isn't cast until 601.2i.

@corsiKa To nitpick.... when 601.2i says "cast", it is using it as an adjective; that the spell has now become "cast".  601.2 uses "cast" as a verb, which is what KSFT meant, and it says that casting a spell is the process described in the steps listed.

@GendoIkari You're missing my point. If I put a marble in a bag, and put that bag in a box, yes the marble is in a box, but it's more accurate to say that the marble is in a bag in a box. That's the further minor nitpick.

Lmao... Love it

In this scenario, you would lose as soon as Ad Nauseam finishes resolving. It doesn't matter if you're about to cast Phyrexian Unlife or if Phyrexian Unlife is on the stack waiting to resolve. However, you can easily avoid this problem by simply letting Phyrexian Unlife resolve before you cast Ad Nauseam.
Losing due to having zero life is an example of what are called State-based actions. These are checked at any time that any player would receive priority and they cannot be responded to.
The rules for which player gains priority at what time are defined in rule 116.3:

116.3. Which player has priority is determined by the following rules:

116.3a The active player receives priority at the beginning of most steps and phases, after any turn-based actions (such as drawing a card during the draw step; see rule 703) have been dealt with and abilities that trigger at the beginning of that phase or step have been put on the stack. No player receives priority during the untap step. Players usually don’t get priority during the cleanup step (see rule 514.3).
116.3b The active player receives priority after a spell or ability (other than a mana ability) resolves.
116.3c If a player has priority when he or she casts a spell, activates an ability, or takes a special action, that player receives priority afterward.
116.3d If a player has priority and chooses not to take any actions, that player passes. If any mana is in that player’s mana pool, he or she announces what mana is there. Then the next player in turn order receives priority.

As you can see, a player will gain priority as soon as Ad Nauseum resolves, and at that time state-based actions will be checked and you will lose the game.

So i am to understand that after each spell resolves priority is passed to the other player? Your link says i may play more than one spell before priority changes. Then the stack would resolve as a set in the order they were played correct?

I added a section on when players gain priority. Does that answer your question?

Spells in the stack resolve in the opposite order that they were played (put on the stack).

Indeed it does. Thank you. The reason that unlife AFTER ad would be better is so deaths shadow could come in as a 32/32 (thanks to the -20 LP)... The solution is Platinum angel... =)

But that's also true if the Phyrexian Unlife is already on the battlefield when you cast Ad Nauseam. Literally the only difference is that you won't lose.

@KonnerRasmussen You can still "lose life" while Phyrexian Unlife is out. Only damage is changed, so that it causes poison counters instead of life loss.

@Samthere thats oh wow... Thank you for pointing that out. ad nauseum is so perfect for this. It doesnt deal damage, it causea life loss. With unlife it cant kill you and doesnt even give counters. Thabk you

You may be interested to know that there is currently a tier 2 competitive modern deck built on the combo you describe here: using Ad Nauseam with Phyrexian Unlife or Angel's Grace to draw your whole deck.


text:
How many boosters should each player crack for a 60-card booster draft?
I plan to create a 60-card booster format. How many boosters should each player crack for a 60-card booster draft?
I think that 4 or 5 should work. Is there any existing format or math about this?
I made a small script in Python but I am not sure that it helps:
import math

def fill_land(deckSize):
    return deckSize / 2.5

def count_booster_per_person(deckSize):
    boosterSize = 15
    landCount = fill_land(deckSize)
    noLandCount = deckSize - landCount
    return math.ceil(noLandCount / boosterSize) + 1

print(count_booster_per_person(40))
print(count_booster_per_person(60))

Try it online!

Depending on what your goal for your 60 card draft is, you might want to decide between 4 and 5 packs per player.
The MtG tournament rules recommend 3 booster packs per player for the default 40 card draft format. Accordingly, you would need 4.5 booster packs for a 60 card draft format to keep the average deck quality on a similar level.
There are no official Limited formats with deck sizes other than 40. I am not aware of official Limited tournaments which used a different number of packs than what is recommended in the tournament rules.
The draft phase itself and deck building afterwards take considerable amounts of time. Increasing the number of packs increases both, and might take significant drain on your players' mental stamina before the actual games even begin. On the other hand, drafting with a lower than recommended number of packs takes less time, but also lowers the average deck quality, since players will have to include more cards in their main deck that would otherwise go into their sideboard.

I'd argue that lower deck quality isn't always a bad thing, and is one of the fun aspects of drafting over constructed, as a "making the best of an imperfect situation" goes a bit more into play skill (and luck of the draw) than strong consistent decks.

Each pack has 14 cards that are put into the pool (10 common, 3 uncommon, 1 rare) giving everyone 42 cards to build their 40 card deck. About 40% of the deck will be land using the standard rules of thumb, leaving 24 cards out of 42 that are used in the deck, or 57% of the pool. To reach those same numbers the pool should be 63 cards, but that doesn't break evenly into packs, it is exactly 4.5 packs.
Both 4 and 5 packs are a good answer, for different reasons, it depends on what you want to focus on with the format:

5 packs allows for much more consistent decks. Drafting is unlike sealed because you get much more control over what's in your pool. 2 extra packs would let you stick to less colours and more consistent strategies, closer to what a constructed deck would look like.
4 packs still would force players to be creative in their deck construction. In drafts most people end up  in 3 colours, 4 packs in a 60 card deck draft would be more likely to keep this happening. It will also keep cost a little lower if that's a concern.

It may also come down to what set(s) are being drafted if you need to round up or down, some sets are harder to build decks for (like all gold card conflux) vs sets which have clear colour distinctions and archetypes pushed by the card design (like Ixalan's 4 tribes).

I rewrote your code since there are only 14 cards in a Play Booster that you use since 1 is unplayable. (15 - 1)
I made the result based on user input which is the deck size. So it calculates the minimum amount of boosters needed to create a deck then adds extra boosters as recommendation. (I grabbed the math for this out of thin air but seems viable)
I also included the display of optimal land amount for the user's chosen deck size. (40%)
The results were the following: 2+1 for Draft, 3+2 for Standard and 5+3 for Commander.
Recommended lands are thus: 16 for Draft, 24 for Standard and 40 for Commander.
import math

deckSize = int(input("Deck Size = "))
    # 40 = Draft, 60 = Standard, 100 = Commander
deckLands = math.floor(deckSize * 0.4)
    # 40% lands in a deck on average
nonLands = deckSize - deckLands
boosterSize = 15 - 1
    # 1 unplayable card
boostersPerPlayer = math.ceil(nonLands / boosterSize)
boostersFraction = round((nonLands / boosterSize), 1)
extraBoosters = math.ceil(deckSize / 40)
    # Makes it easier to create a more consistent deck

print(str(deckSize) + "\n")
print("Recommended Booster Amount: " + str(boostersPerPlayer) + " (" + str(boostersFraction) + ") + " + str(extraBoosters))
print("Recommended Lands Per Deck: " + str(deckLands))

Rewritten code on tio.run
If anyone knows a better way to calculate the extra boosters, let me know.


text:
If Rhonas's power is less than 4 but you control a creature with power 4 or greater, can he attack or block?
I was playing a game of standard where the other player had Rhonas the Indomitable on the board, and I enchanted it with Illusory Wrappings, but he controlled a Honored Hydra. Can Rhonas still attack or block? Because the way I read the card it states another creature, which means according to me that it is also dependent on Rhonas's power.

In magic, the word another means "that is not this card" not "this card and another one must both meet the restriction" look at a card like Fiend Hunter When he enters he exiles another target creature until he leaves the battlefield, if that meant he had to exile himself too, the card would be unplayable.

Yes, Rhonas can attack and block regardless of its own power.

You're asking if

Rhonas the Indomitable can't attack or block unless you control another creature with power 4 or greater.

means

Rhonas the Indomitable can't attack or block unless you control at least two creatures with power 4 or greater, and Rhonas the Indomitable is one of them.

or

Rhonas the Indomitable can't attack or block unless you control a creature with power 4 or greater that's not Rhonas the Indomitable.

It's the latter. The point of that wording is to prevent Rhonas turning on its own power. You don't check if Rhonas actually meets the criteria. Quite the opposite, you only look at the other objects in the game.
In Magic, the phrase "another thing" always means "a thing other than this player or object". In this scenario, the phrase means "a creature with power 4 or greater, other than Rhonas the Indomitable".
They control another creature with power 4 or greater (a creature with power 4 or greater that's not Rhonas), so they can attack and block with Rhonas.


text:
Can a player use only the communal cards when selecting their best hand?
In Texas Hold'em, there are 5 communal cards that are shared by all players, and 2 hole cards, that are private and may only be used by the player that the cards were dealt to.
Can we just select all the 5 communal cards for creating our best hand, or do we need to keep our 2 hole cards and only choose 3 communal cards out of 5 communal cards to make a hand?

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but I took a stab at it...

@shujaa sorry, I have edited the question now so that its more clear. Could you please take a look at it?

much clearer! See my edits below.

In Hold'em, each player makes the best possible 5-card hand possible using any of the 7 cards available. To each player, there is no distinction between the communal cards and their own private cards. The selected 5-card poker hand can include 0, 1, or 2 of the hole cards.
It's possible that the best hand you can make uses 0 of your hole cards. In this case, you cannot win (unless everyone else folds), but if no player can make a better hand than the 5 communal cards then it is a tie.
Background info (prior to edit)
Poker hands, that is, sets of cards that can be ranked by standard poker rules, contain 5 cards. Many poker variants, including Texas Hold'em, give players access to more than 5 cards and let them create the best 5-card hand they can out of all the options. In 7-card stud, some of the cards are private, but face-up. In Texas Hold'em, some of the cards are shared.
As you said in your question, in Hold'em there are 5 communal cards and 2 hole cards, so each player has 7 cards from which to choose 5 to make the best poker hand they can. The number of ways to choose 5 from 7 is 21 (Combinations, from Wikipedia).
You might think you can get away with omitting the combination consisting of just the communal cards, but this should still be evaluated because if it's the highest scoring hand, then everyone ties (e.g., if the communal cards are a Royal Flush, then everyone ties regardless of their hole cards).

shujaa's answer is completely correct for Texas Hold'em.
There are other poker games where you are required to use a certain number of hole and community cards. For example, Omaha Hold'em is dealt similarly to Texas Hold'em, but each player gets 4 hole cards instead of 2; and in the showdown, your hand must use exactly two of your hole cards and three community cards.


text:
Are there guaranteed winning strategies for Quarto?
As we all know in standard tic-tac-toe the game can't be won if both players play optimally. So:

Is Quarto a game that will end in a draw if both players play optimally?
If yes, what are the most common drawing strategies?
If no, are there one or more strategies that guarantee a player's win, as in games like Nim for example?

I'm a math teacher creating a course on math games and mathemagic tricks, so I'm looking for games that have optimal strategies that are explained with mathematical arguments, and stuff like that. I'm open to suggestions, but will most likely post a separate question when the project gets more concrete.

What is your definition of 'fair'?

I guessit would be a game that ends in a draw if both player play optimaly, or (equivalently?) a game where any player can win.

While it's outside the scope of this particular question, I certainly recommend Nim (not the 'up to N' version that most people are familiar with, but the multiple-piles remove-any-number version that forms the basis of the mathematical theory) as a 'teaching game'.  From there you can go to something like Kayles as a game whose theory revolves around Nimbers and show how they make it solvable, or even to something like Dots and Boxes as a game that can be partially analyzed through the theory...

Great, I'll look the last two up

Quarto has been evaluated as draw if both players play optimally. There's a presentation on the result here:
http://www.cs.rhul.ac.uk/~wouter/Talks/quarto.pdf
Quarto seems to have been originally solved by  Luv Goossens in 1998, although I'm not sure whether this was published or not.  The presentation links to this old web page by Goossens:
http://web.archive.org/web/20041012023358/http://ssel.vub.ac.be/Members/LucGoossens/quarto/quartotext.htm

Do you know if this conclusion takes into account the advanced rule ? Advanced rule adds winning position when a 2*2 square is made with 4 pieces sharing a unique trait.
If not, maybe this advanced rule makes the game winnable in all situation.

This conclusion doesn't consider the advanced rules. I saw an AI implementation that claimed to be unbeatable in both versions, but I didn't see any more details than just the assertion. I think it would be interesting as a separate question, although it would be worth defining exactly what counts as a 2x2 square in the question. Eg. Do the four corners count? How about squares not parallel to the grid?

I created the question. To answer your question, the 22 square must be "side by side". There are nine 22 squares in the 4*4 board.

Great! When I was looking for research about this earlier I found some confusion about the definition of the 2x2 square here: http://mathpages.com/home/kmath352.htm


text:
Is it possible to counter cards that boost a creatures power during the combat phase?
For example, if someone attacks with a 3/3 creature, and you have a 5/5 creature that will ultimately block and destroy his creature.
If they boosts their creature with a +3/+3 spell, can you counter the spell?
If they boost their creature with an equipment card, during his combat attack phase, can you counter that?
What, if anything, does this have to do with the "Stack"?

This question doesn't make much sense. Is the opponent casting an instant that gives +3/+3 or attaching (note not equipping which happens at sorcery speed) an equipment?

You can equip a Cranial Plating at instant speed after declaring an attacker, but it would be much more likely to give +3/0 than +3/+3!  I think more information is needed to make this question useful and truly answerable.

Suddenly, Brass Squire! :)

It sounds like you need to read this article: http://mtgsalvation.com/794-priority-and-the-stack.html

I do not know what you are asking.  Please name the cards involved in a specific example to clarify what you are hoping to learn.

You might also be interested in this question (perhaps inspired by yours?) http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/9213/how-do-you-handle-fast-players-in-a-casual-setting-that-skip-priority

It depends on what he's doing, and what you have available.
If your opponent has a card like Serra Avenger, which is a 3/3, and he attempts to cast Giant Growth, giving the avenger +3/+3 until end of turn, then you can counter that with a spell like Cancel or by activating the ability of Judge's Familiar (assuming he can't or chooses not to pay the cost associated with the familiar). Otherwise, the aveneger, now a 6/6, will swallow a 5/5 in combat.
Note that he can cast the Giant Growth during his attackers step, or during your blockers step (after you've declared blockers). Consider the following scenario:

Him: delcare attacks

Him: declare Aveneger as attacker

You: block with Thundermaw Hellkite, a 5/5

Him: cast Giant Growth on Avenenger

Result: Aveneger, 6/6 lives, has 5 damage on it, and Hellkite is dead

It's important to note that this is not equipment, but an instant speed spell. Equipment plays by different rules: here's how those scenarios might play out.
If your opponent has a card like Manaforce Mace then he can't equip that during his combat phase, because he can only attach it at sorcery speed. But if you had three basic land types, then you'd have +3/+3 allowing you to take out the Hellkite in the above scenario. Note that this wouldn't really be a surprise like the Giant Growth would be, because you'd have to do this during combat.
If your opponent has a card like Cranial Plating then he could equip that during his combat phase with the activated ability. You can counter this only if you have something that allows you to counter abilities (not spells), for example Stifle
Another option would be something that allows equipment at instant speed, like Brass Squire. You could do this:

Him: delcare attacks

Him: declare Aveneger as attacker

You: block with Thundermaw Hellkite, a 5/5

Him: tap Brass Squire, attaching Manaforce Mace (which was already on the field, not from your hand, and assuming you have 3 basic land types) to Avenger.

Result: Aveneger, 6/6 lives, has 5 damage on it, and Hellkite is dead

I don't have any specific cards, but the situation kinda goes like this: My friend tends to play kinda fast paced, ignoring the concept of stack: for example, he plays card 1, card 2, card 3, and for example card 1 would give card 3 +3. I play the counter spell but he says no were too slow. I was just wondering if I could counter a spell if he played it at the beginning of a long sequence.

@user3483 He has to give you a chance to respond to each spell he casts (except if the card has split second).

@ColinD No, that's not true. If he is the active player (which he is because he's attacking) then he can continue to cast instant-speed spells and activate abilities until he decides to pass priority. 116.3c If a player has priority when he or she casts a spell, activates an ability, or takes a special action, that player receives priority afterward. Of course, you have a chance to respond to any or all of those, and logically, it's to your advantage to pass priority after each one (otherwise you give your opponent more information than necessary), but it's not required.

@corsiKa What Colin said is still true: you get a chance to respond to each of the spells. You can't be "too slow" and lose your chance if your opponent has plowed ahead and cast more spells.

@Jefromi It has nothing to do with being too slow. It has to do with Priority as described in CR 116. You may continue to take actions as long as you have priority. If you cast a sorcery, you may, if you choose, follow up with an instant or activated ability before passing priority, because any player who has currently has priority continues to have priority until he or she passes it.

@corsiKa I think you misunderstood what Jefromi and Colin are saying. Yes, you can keep playing spells and add them to the stack, but you can't say "You were too slow. You can't counter my first spell." Before the stack starts resolving, priority must be passed, and counterspells can target any spell on the stack.

@ghoppe I understand exactly what the comment reads. It states you have to give a chance to respond to each spell cast, and that's incorrect. I could see how he said what he said in response to user3483's comment, and why it appears to address his problem, but it's not accurate (and Magic is a game where subtle things like that matter).

@corsiKa It is entirely accurate to say that you get a chance to respond to all of the spells. The things you're saying about priority just mean that the chance you get may be after some other spells have been put on the stack. But you still get to respond.

using the term 'equipment card' in your question is confusing. Is your opponent using an instant/sorcery spell to provide the +3/+3 or an actual equipment artifact?
Because of this confusion, I will answer this question as if your opponent boosted his creature before attacking. (same stack rules will apply, but in almost all cases your opponent will not be able to play socercys or use equipt abilities [other abilities that boost power and toughness are still available])
If the opponent is casting an instant/sorcery spell to provide the +3/+3 the answer is YES, you can play a counterspell and then block and destroy his creature.
If the opponent is boosting his creature by use the 'equipt' ability of an artifact he controls (or any ability on a permanent), NO, you cannot play a counterspell. You can however play a different spell that would destroy or remove the artifact from his creature and then block.

The opponent could not respond during combat by equipping a creature as the equip ability happens at sorcery speed. They could only do this with an equipment, spell or ability that allows one to attach equipment at instant speed. There are very few things that do that though and given the OPs ambiguity I doubt that one of those factors is in play here. http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/feature/171

@nine9ths, I missed the part of the question where he mentioned the spell was cast after attackers were declared. Even if the 'equipt' ability isn't used specificially, there are instant speed abilities that can boost power and toughness. Hopefully my edit clears this up a little.

Before I answer, I'm not sure that you understand what a spell is, so I'm going to cover that first. My apologies if you know.
A spell is a card on a stack, which is to say a card that has been cast but hasn't yet resolved, hasn't been countered and hasn't otherwise left the stack.
e.g. If you cast Llanowar Elves, it is a spell from the time you take it out of your hand until it enters the battlefield.
e.g. If you cast Giant Growth, it is a spell from the time you take it out of your hand until it resolves to give a +3/+3 bonus to a creature.
A continuous effect is not a spell.
e.g. The +3/+3 granted by Giant Growth is not a spell.
Cards on the battlefield are not spells.
e.g. An artifact attached to a creature is not spell.
Now on to the questions.

If they boosts their creature with a +3/+3 spell, can you counter the spell?

Depends on the spell you used to counter.

If they boost their creature with an equipment card, during his combat attack phase, can you counter that?

It's not clear what you mean.
If they are casting an Equipment spell, you can counter that. They wouldn't normally be allowed to do cast an Equipment spell in the Combat Phase, though.
If they are using the Equip ability Equipment, you can counter that, there are a very few cards (e.g. Stifle) that can do it. They wouldn't normally be allowed to use Equip in the Combat Phase, though.
If they are attaching the Equipment using an ability other than Equip (e.g. Brass Squire's), Stifle would do the trick again.
Keep in mind that you can't counter permanents (objects on the battlefield) and the effects of their static abilities (e.g. Bladed Bracers's +1/+1), just abilities on the stack and spells.


text:
How exactly do cures affect future infection in Pandemic?
How does finding a cure affect future infections in Pandemic?
Scenario 1) Cure IS found, disease cubes for that same color DO exist on the board, and player draws an infection card matching that color.
Scenario 2) Cure IS found, disease cubes for that same color do NOT exist on the board, and player draws an infection card matching that color.
My current understanding is that scenario 2 would be the only time that the disease cubes would not be added to the location (excluding special player roles like quarantine specialist and event cards).
Is this correct?

I don't have the rules handy here at work, but look up "eradicate".  Cure + no cubes on board = eradicated, so (except with some variants in On the Brink) it can't come out again and those infection cards have no effect.

possible duplicate of Bottom card drawn during epidemic: Are 3 cubes added to the city pictured, when the disease in that city's region has already been eradicated?

Scenario 1: continue adding cubes, as you have been doing all the way along. The example of "Playing the Infector" specifically states: "Even though the Black disease is Cured, it can still spread!")
Scenario 2: nothing happens. The rules state:

Eradicating a Disease
If a cure for a given disease has been discovered and all of the disease cubes of that color have been removed from the board, flip the Cure Marker for the disease to the "Sunset" side. From now on, cards of this color have no effect when drawn on the Infector's turn (emphasis mine -- StasK). Take all of the cubes of the eradicated color and place them back in the box -- they will not be used again for the rest of the game.

So finding a cure affects the game via the change in how "Treat Disease" action is played.

The Medic character starts treating the disease without spending an action: if say the red vaccine has been discovered, whenever the Medic is in the city with these red cubes, he or she can take them out without spending an action. This also means that the Dispatcher (or the Airlift special event) can throw the Medic into a red city that is about to outbreak, and the city will be cured with no other actions spent by any of the players.
All other players can remove all of the cubes in one action (rather than just one cube) when they treat disease in a city.

In the longer term, discovering the cure makes you one step closer to the victory -- you need to discover all four cures to win the game. The Infection step, however, is not affected by the discovery per se -- only by eradication.

" The Infection step, however, is not affected by the discovery per se -- only by eradication." Couldn't that have been said with just the rules quote, without all the need for inconsequential Medic, Dispatcher, and treatment action changes that have no effect on future infection?

This. The succinct distinction is between a disease that has been Cured, and one that has been Eradicated. You can Cure a disease without Eradicating it, but you must Cure a disease to Eradicate it by removing all cubes.


text:
When you change the skill used, do any modifiers for the original skill still count?
There are several cards and powers that can change what skill is being used to pass a task: Incredible Ninja Leap uses Climbing for any skill, among others. ("I don't need to disguise myself to get past the Vatican tourists, I just leap over them from a nearby building!")
What does changing the skill you roll do to modifiers to the original skill roll? If your mission has a Combat test, and one of your opponents plays "Slipped!" on you to give -3 to your next Combat roll (i.e., this roll), but you change the skill to Climbing, does that -3 still apply to your roll? If there's a whole-mission penalty to Combat (such as "-2 to all Combat rolls on this mission"), does it still apply?

Modifiers related to the old skill are discarded and don't count, unless they are Mission bonuses/penalties. rules

Skill Substitution: Some special abilities and cards allow the ninja to substitute one skill for another. In this case, the roll is against the new skill. If the Mission card specified bonuses or penalties to the roll, they still apply to the new skill. However, cards relating to the old skill can no longer be used (and if they had already been used, they are discarded without effect). For instance, “Little Kids Watching” affects Disguise skill. If you sub- stitute another skill for Disguise, then “Little Kids Watching” can no longer affect that roll.

In your first example, the new skill is Climbing not combat, so your opponents -3 Combat modifier doesn't apply and is discarded. In your second example, the mission is specifying a -2 Combat modifier, its -2 Mission penalty continues to apply to the new skill.


text:
What happens when you need to tear-down a hotel but no houses are in the bank in Monopoly?
Strictly following the rules of Monopoly will show that just because you have the cash to out-right buy hotels for your properties, you cannot if there are not enough houses in the bank to support an even build (ie, there are less than 12 in the bank for a 3 property street).
Likewise, when tearing-down hotels, there need to be an appropriate number of houses available to support the even tear-down (at least four houses to remove one hotel, and 8 more if you want to remove all of the improvements on a 3 property street).
What happens if you cannot tear-down your hotels because there are fewer than four houses in the bank (or fewer than 12 for the whole street)?
The scenario is not that far-fetched - a property group has been fully improved, some large rent is now due, and the player needs to recoup the sunk cost of their improvements to pay the rent due.
If they cannot tear-down the hotels, they cannot pay the rent. But property cannot be traded between players if improvements are on it.
What is the appropriate resolution to this case?

The monopoly house/hotel limit is awful.  Playing with unlimited houses and hotels (using suitable replacement or pieces from a second Monopoly set) doesn't change the balance of the game and removes many stupid situations like this.

I heartily disagree, @Zags :: the house/hotel balance is highly beneficial to the overall flow of the game

It's the opposite of beneficial to game flow.  More development means the game goes faster, meaning less time rolling and moving and more time making meaningful strategic decisions such as building and trading

@Zags obviously, yours is the minority view. Strategic use of limited resources to bankrupt every other player (and debt then the ability to use resources because you have them tied up) is the point of the game.

I find it far from obvious that I am in the minority.  Monopoly is one of the games most commonly played with variants (that is to say, not in accordance with its printed rules), indicating the weakness of the Monopoly rules as written (in a game with good rules, people would play the game as intended instead of needing to modify the rules to make it more fun).  Unlimited houses/hotels is among the most commonly used variants (it's been included as an option in basically every Monopoly computer game ever made as one piece of evidence).

I'm with Zags. I actually have never played Monopoly with a limited housing supply rule. The game still stinks, but at least it's over in under 3 hours.

@Spivonious :: you're now only the 2nd person I've ever heard who plays without limiting the housing supply (along with Zags) - and yet I've hardly ever had a game go more than ~2 hours

@Zags I'd argue that that doesn't indicate weakness of the rules, that argues that players are ignorant. Take UNO, for example. Few players play with the challenge rule for Wild Draw Four cards, yet the game is more balanced with it.

" (and debt then the ability to use resources because you have them tied up)" What does this mean?

@Acccumulation - it would appear you found a typo / autocorrect fail. If you can get others too far in debt in Monopoly, you can win faster (usually).

@warren An extreme version of this is in a two player game where you don't actually have enough cash flow to purchase every property you land on and can often take advantage of a player who assiduously buys everything they land on.

@Michael - not that I would know anything about such "assiduous" gameplay ... but I've heard (from a Very Reliable Source™) it's possible to bankrupt your opponent before all the properties have been purchased - even with no improvements to any of them

The rules state:

When the Bank has no houses to sell,
  players wishing to build must wait for some player to return or sell
  his/her houses to the Bank before building.

and

Houses and hotels may be sold back to the Bank at any time for
  one-half the price paid for them.

and

All hotels on one color-group may be sold at once, or they may be
  sold one house at a time (one hotel equals five houses), evenly, in
  reverse of the manner in which they were erected.

I would say that if it is NOT possible to break up a hotel into four houses, you must sell all hotels at once, at half-face value for the entire purchase of each hotel and four houses, thus satisfying the condition "all hotels on one color-group may be sold at once".

interesting read of the rules .. I've always applied it that the houses had to be there because you were actually tearing-down the hotel, then each of the houses

At a minimum, I would say you should tear down all the hotels on a color group to the number of houses left in the bank, and evenly distribute those houses.

@warren - That is the way the game works on the computer.  You can not sell your hotel unless you can put houses back up.  And you can not mortage a property that has been improved.

@Chad - if that's the way it "works on the computer", and the game is 'official', then it would seem that would be the 'right' way to do it, no?

@warren, that was kind of my thought.  It is the way it consistantly works too.  They also allow for "Custom" rules surrounding it.

"or they may be sold one house at a time"  To me, that reads that you can break up a hotel into houses.

Normally you could, but not if there aren't houses to place.. that's what the question is about. See also http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/8049/housing-shortage-in-monopoly; same question.

the OR means you normally have the choice, but obviously if there aren't enough houses, you can't take the choice of selling one house at a time and must instead sell "All hotels on one color-group at once"

@GendoIkari I missed the "if" in "... if it is not possible..."  IGNORE ME.

We found this ruling so absurd we picked up all the houses from an older set that was worn out and dumped it into our current set. ALSO, the amount of houses has been decreasing in newer sets, leading us to believe the out of houses rule is obsolete as the game balance is being altered for Parker Bros to save a buck rather than on considered design.

@Joshua - how many houses are in a "modern" set? Is it less than 32?

@warren: It's equally possible the older sets had more than 32.

@Joshua - nope, it's been 32 houses and 12 hotels since at least the 50s (oldest set I ever played)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/


text:
How does metalcraft work in Two-Headed-Giant?
I'm playing Two-Headed-Giant and have a creature with metalcraft. I control 1 artifact and my teammate controls 2. Does my creature's metalcraft ability 'trigger'?
I know metalcraft says "if you control 3 or more artifacts", but since THG obscures the idea between player and team so much I'm having trouble figuring our what 'you' refers to in this case.

In a word, no.
Players do not share control of permanents in Two-Head Giant.
In addition, with the exception of "attacking player" and "defending player," all of the referents in THG are the same as regular Magic. "You" is you. "Target player" and "target opponent" refer to a single player. "Your opponents" are two players, individually.
Here are the relevant comp rules:

810.5. With the exception of life total and poison counters, a team’s resources (cards in hand, mana,    and so on) are not shared in the
Two-Headed Giant variant. Teammates may review each other’s    hands
and discuss strategies at any time. Teammates can’t manipulate each
other’s cards or    permanents.
810.7b Any one-shot effect that refers to the “defending player” refers to one specific defending    player, not to both of the
defending players. The controller of the effect chooses which one the
spell or ability refers to at the time the effect is applied. The same
is true for any one-shot effect    that refers to the “attacking
player.”
Any characteristic-defining ability that refers to the " “defending player” refers to one specific    defending player, not to
both of the defending players. The controller of the object with the
characteristic-defining ability chooses which one the ability refers
to at the time the nonactive    players become defending players.
All other cases in which the “defending player” is referred to actually refer to both defending    players. If the reference involves
a positive comparison (such as asking whether the defending    player
controls an Island) or a relative comparison (such as asking whether
you control more    creatures than the defending player), it gets only
one answer. This answer is “yes” if either    defending player in the
comparison would return a “yes” answer if compared individually. If
the    reference involves a negative comparison (such as asking
whether the defending player controls    no black permanents), it also
gets only one answer. This answer is “yes” if performing the
analogous positive comparison would return a “no” answer. The same is
true for all other cases    that refer to the “attacking player.”


text:
What cards or types of cards are substantially more/less useful in Two-Headed-Giant than in 'normal' Magic?
I'm just getting into Two-Headed-Giant games, and have noticed that some cards become far more powerful while others become much less powerful. For instance, landwalk cards become better because your opponents control more land, mass damage prevention cards like fog improve because your opponents attack with more creatures, and cards that require a longer amount of time to work better improve because the matches tend to last a greater amount of turns. On the other hand, weanies become slightly weaker because it's more likely your opponent has at least a few blockers than can kill them off, and cards that counteract a specific color tend to weaken because your opponents are very likely to have other colors that are immune to its effects.
What cards or types of cards become significantly better or worse in THG than in 'normal' magic? How can I recognize a card that will be strongly affected by the switch to THG rules? What factors of THG tend to cause these changes in usefulness?

Any cards that care about any aspect of the game that is likely to increase due to there being more Lands, Cards in Hand, Creatures in Play, Higher Life Totals, turns, attack phases, etc.
The above is just a generalization of course. THG is similar to multiplayer in this respect. Aggro decks don't work as well, and Combo and Control decks get better. Some interesting examples are listed below, but in general you should be looking at cards that count things that there are likely to be more of. Truthfully though, most THG decks are built as two puzzle pieces (unless playing draft/sealed). Cards are specifically chosen to complement the other deck. While generalities are useful, they aren't the whole picture.
Life Totals start at 30, and are shared by both players. Any card that counts Life Totals will behave differently. Some interesting examples are:
Heartless Hidetsugu - Instantly kill all even life teams.
Serra Ascendant - Starts off with +5/+5 bonus.
There will be more lands in play, interesting examples are:
Impending Disaster - Almost sure to trigger, and cheaper than Armageddon.
Limited Resources - Broken for Multiplayer, and bad in THG with decks built to exploit it.
There will be more Hands. Interesting examples are:
Unnerve - 1:4 your opponents isn't bad.

Some things that are a bit broken in Two-Headed Giant are things that add phases (e.g. time walk or extra draw steps, or extra attack phases), or do the opposite, like cards that skip phases (e.g. skip your draw step). This is because these effects are effectively doubled.


text:
Can I activate Nim Deathmantle's creature saving ability more than once in a turn?
My opponent attacks with two 4/4 creatures. I block each of them with one 2/2 creature, but have Nim Deathmantle on the field, currently not equipped to anything. When my two 2/2 creatures are put into the graveyard after the damage step, can I pay 4 mana to save one of them, equipping the Nim Deathmantle to it, and then pay another 4 to save the other, unequip from the first 2/2 creature, and now have it equipped to the other?

Yes.
It's a triggered ability, so it'll trigger every time a creature dies. If multiple creatures die simultaneously, you choose how to stack the triggers, then get to resolve them one by one.
From the card's Oracle rulings:

1/1/2011  If multiple nontoken creatures are put into your graveyard
  from the battlefield at the same time, Nim Deathmantle's second
  ability triggers that many times. You put the triggered abilities on
  the stack in any order, so you'll determine in which order they
  resolve. If you pay {4} more than once, each card you paid {4} for
  will end up on the battlefield under your control, and Nim Deathmantle
  will end up attached to the last card that returned to the battlefield
  this way that it could equip.


text:
Can I block with my Llanowar elves and then tap it for mana immediately afterward?
My opponent attacks with a 3/3. I block with my 1/1 Llanowar Elves, and have all of my land tapped from my last turn. Can I now tap my Llanowar Elves after it has been declared as a blocker to play Giant Growth on it, make it 4/4 until end of turn, and destroy my opponent's attacking creature when damage is dealt?

Yes, this works just fine. Once a creature is declared as a blocker, it remains a blocker until it is specifically removed from combat (e.g. Regeneration) or the battlefield (e.g. Cloudshift).
One thing to note: once a creature is blocked, it remains blocked even if the blocker is removed before damage is dealt. This works great against lifelinkers, since they deal no damage to a creature that is no longer there. It works less well on tramplers, since they just deal all their damage to the player instead.

I am not 100% sure on the latest rules of magic but, do tapped blockers deal damage?  I know there was a point in the game when they did not.  The question specifically asks this

Tapping a creature that is blocking does not remove it from combat or prevent any damage. This was settled in the 6th Edition revision, around 1999 I believe.

In previous editions the Llanowar Elf in this situation would have not dealt damage (but would have survived). Would have become effectively a 0/4 creature.


text:
If my opponent casts a spell that exiles a card with flashback from my graveyard, can I play it in response to their spell?
Say my opponent casts Purify the Grave on my Rally The Peasants in my graveyard. If I have enough mana available, can I cast the Rally the Peasants in response to their trying to exile it?

By Spider Spawning you meant Rally the Peasants, right? (I assume you realized Spider Spawning wasn't an instant.)

Yes. You can cast an instant whenever you have priority. All spells give all players the chance to respond to them, before they resolve. Mtg Rules:

116.1a A player may cast an instant spell any time he or she has priority. A player may cast a noninstant spell during his or her main phase any time he or she has priority and the stack is empty.
116.3d If a player has priority and chooses not to take any actions, that player passes. If any mana is in that player’s mana pool, he or she announces what mana is there. Then the next player in turn order receives priority.
116.4. If all players pass in succession (that is, if all players pass without taking any actions in between passing), the spell or ability on top of the stack resolves or, if the stack is empty, the phase or step ends.
702.32a Flashback appears on some instants and sorceries. It represents two static abilities: one that functions while the card is in a player’s graveyard and the other that functions while the card is on the stack. “Flashback [cost]” means “You may cast this card from your graveyard by paying [cost] rather than paying its mana cost” and “If the flashback cost was paid, exile this card instead of putting it anywhere else any time it would leave the stack.” Casting a spell using its flashback ability follows the rules for paying alternative costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2e–g.

So if you really must remove that card from the Graveyard now without fear of reprisal, load up on Extirpates. ;)

@ghoppe, technically you still have the ability to respond. It is just unlikely that you will have much of a response to make (only special actions like Morph, etc)


text:
Can I use a reaction card in response to Minion being used for +2 coins?
Can a player reveal a Reaction card, such as "Secret Chamber", in response to the Minion action, even if the player who played the Minion chooses the +2$ option?

Yes, you can reveal Secret Chamber in response to Minion no matter what.
Secret Chamber is a Reaction that can be played in response to Attack cards, and Minion is an Attack card.  The fact that the person played the card in a way that wasn't "attacky" doesn't change the fact that it is an Attack card.
The same goes for Pirate Ship when using its +$ option. Yes, this makes Secret Chamber an amazing counter against Pirate Ship.

Also, the decision points/micro turn order goes  as follows:
Player A plays a Minion.
Player B reveals a Secret Chamber, and then can even grab a Moat from the next 2 cards into your hand, put two other cards on top of your deck, reveal the Moat, and then put the Moat back onto the top of the deck with another use of the same Secret Chamber.  See the BGG Dominion FAQ and Isotropic Dominion Server FAQ.  In general, you can use a single reaction card as many times as you want.
Note: that B does not yet know if he is forced to discard, and there can be a lot of thinking involved here.  If you are forced to discard, you want to take the best 2 cards with you, and leave 5 junky cards for the discard.  But if you aren't forced to discard, you don't want to wreck your current turn.
Player A then makes his decision about taking $2 or discarding and taking 4 cards.