text:
If I can't "win the game" in multiplayer, do my opponents still lose?
Let's say I'm playing a multiplayer game, and I'm drawing from an empty deck with Laboratory Maniac out while an opponent has Platinum Angel.

104.3h In a multiplayer game, an effect that states that a player wins the game instead causes all of that player’s opponents to lose the game.

Is 104.3h a replacement effect created by the game rules, or does it modify the effect "win the game" on the card?
A different angle: Platinum Angel says "your opponents can't win the game". Does this refer to the game action "win the game", which instead causes your opponents to lose, or to actually winning the game? (or both?)
If 104.3h is a replacement effect, and "can't win" precludes following the "win the game" instruction, then nothing would happen. The event for 104.3h to replace didn't occur. I think this is the more likely outcome.
Otherwise, if we can follow the Maniac's instruction, then each opponent loses the game, except Platinum Angel's controller, because they can't.
Paraphrased from a comment for clarity: This question might boil down to "can game rules be replacement effects?" I haven't seen why not. The question I have regarding PA's effect is does it stop just the game event of "you win", or does it stop everything that, due to language, looks like "you win"? i.e. if 104.3h changes the game to mean the game action "you win" has nothing to do with winning, it might slip through, but if 104.3h is a replacement effect then it never sees LM's ability to replace it.
Further development: @ikegami commented: The confusion stems from the fact that 104.3h effectively turns "win (the game)" into a keyword action with a different effect than "actually winning the game". So which one does PA prevent now, the pseudo-keyword, or "actually winning the game"? or both?

I'm having issues with the Platinum Angel card link, but I can't figure out why. It looks like it's spelled correctly. The Laboratory Maniac link works just fine. (Edit: I see that we were having the same issue with this question, so I went ahead and edited to use a direct link.)

@Rainbolt Oops, I broke it again with an edit, and then had a fire alarm! Fixing it now :D

@ikegami I think you're right with this; part of what I'm checking to understand is if "win the game" action is distinct from "win the game" outcome. Probably not, it seems? In the particular text you quoted, "does it modify the instruction" better reflects my meaning.

@ikegami Yes, I think the way you phrase that probably summarises the issue at the heart of the matter.

Additionally, doppelgreener mentioned 609.3. If an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible. What's the interpretation of this rule in this context? How much is possible?

I could see an argument that if you can't "win instead" for L. Maniac you'd lose as normal when you tried to draw and failed.

@aslum: This definitely does not happen, as either way, Laboratory Maniac's own replacement effect isn't messed with, and it will still replace the event of drawing a card. The event of winning a game, while introduced by the same ability, is another event.

For those catching up, TheThirdMan's answer reasons through "everyone lives" and mine provides Matt Tabak's support. response. Rainbolt's answer reasons through "everyone else dies" and ryanyuyu's provides WotC support's response. What a muddle!

Note that as of 4/28/17 104.3h has been updated to only apply to games that use the limited range of influence optional rule

No player will lose the game, and the game continues normally

104.3h In a multiplayer game, an effect that states that a player wins the game instead causes all of that player’s opponents to lose the game. (...)

This multiplayer rule that modifies how winning and losing works normally makes Laboratory Maniac's ability work different in multiplayer games. While in a two-player game, a player would win with Laboratory Maniac and drawing from an empty library, that rule makes each opponent of that player lose instead.
Now, if one of those players controls a Platinum Angel which has a continuous effect stating that they can't lose the game and opponents can't win the game, it will prevent any opponent of that player from winning the game.

101.2. When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can’t happen, the “can’t” effect takes precedence.

Platinum Angel will effectively prevent Laboratory Maniac's ability from going through with the event of winning the game, meaning the rule 104.3h never applies to this situation.
This course of events is backed by Matt Tabak's response to a question asked by Samthere:

In a multiplayer game, if P1 tries to win via Laboratory Maniac but P2 controls Platinum Angel, what happens? Nothing, or do P3, P4, etc, lose the game?
Nothing. LM’s replacement effect does apply, and then P1 winning the game just doesn’t happen.

This is actually independent from whether rule 104.3h is actually a replacement effect or not, and whether this has been discussed at large in answers, comments and in chat to the point where everyone seems to be agreing to disagree.
Until further enlightenment in this regard, let's cover both cases, and why they're largely identical...

If the rule was considered to be a replacement effect, since the event of winning the game wouldn't actually happen (with Platinum Angel preventing it), the following rule prevents the entirety of the respective replacement effect (in this case, rule 104.3h) from taking place:

614.7. If a replacement effect would replace an event, but that event never happens, the replacement effect simply doesn't do anything.

For a concrete example, Leovold, Emissary of Trest can prevent people from drawing cards, and has a ruling which notes that "Replacement effects can’t be used to replace draws that Leovold disallows." Replacement effects replace the event as they happen; if the event is prevented from happening, there's nothing for them to replace. Therefore, similarly, replacement effects can't replace winning the game if you're prevented from winning the game.
If it wasn't considered a replacement effect, the game would just as well never reach the event of that player winning the game, seeing as there's "you win the game" simply clashing with "you can't win the game", which is settled by rule 101.2. Again, rule 104.3h would never be applied, as the event of a player winning the game is never reached.

I think this may be right, but I'll let it stew and see how people read it for a bit.

Let's assume that rule 104.3h is a replacement effect. I don't agree with this, but that is not why I downvoted. I want to argue that the last paragraph is wrong. If an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible (CR 609.3). So even though Platinum Angel prevents one opponent from losing, the rest of the players opponents still lose. What do you think?

@Rainbolt: The thing is that Platinum Angel prevents anyone from winning, including the player controlling Laboratory Maniac. Since they cannot win, 104.3h won't ever have anything to replace in the first place.

@TheThirdMan Ah. Now I understand. Thanks for clarifying.

@TheThirdMan Personally I would like the answer to include some more explicit support for the point in your last comment, namely that a restriction like Platinum Angel's takes priority over a replacement effect.

@DavidZ: I tried to provide as much detail as I could now. One of my earlier revisions used to mention this answer by Rhadamanthus on tappedout as support for the replacement effect theory, which seems hard to include in the answer at this point, but seems fine as a comment.

At least I am still confused.  Does the player with Laboratory Maniac immediately lose the game after the win effect fails? It does not say "instead of loosing the game..."

@Andrey: They don't - what would make that player lose is the state-based action happening as they draw from an empty library (CR 704.5b). Laboratory Maniac replaces that event, even though the replacement doesn't achieve anything in this case. This is explained in a little more detail in this answer from a similar question.

Again, I'd like to know why this answer keeps getting downvoted... at this stage of things, I have to be curious how you could see this answer as not useful, and not leave a commit or edit.

Rainbolt's answer is correct: everyone except the controller of the "win the game" effect and the Platinum Angel would lose.   Because you're playing multiplayer, Laboratory Maniac can never make anyone win the game.  It could only ever make everyone else lose the game.  This means that Platinum Angel can only prevent the personal "you lose the game" effect, since there never was a "win the game" effect to prevent.
I actually contacted WotC support, and they confirmed this is what happens.  I haven't figured out a way to publicize this support question, so here's a screenshot of the interaction:

@TheThirdMan With an official response from WOTC this seems to make Rainbolt's answer correct. Would you consider editing your answer to reduce confusion? As for OP it is probably a good idea to change your accepted answer to either this one or Rainbolt's now that there is more information.

@Malco: If you had made an effort to read all answers, this one should've raised an eye - it quotes Matt Tabak, the MtG Rules Manager, who sides with my interpretation of the rules. Therefore, for all I know, my answer is correct. Furthermore, if you had bothered actually reading or at least looking at my answer, you would've noticed that I had already editted it with this information well after this answer was posted. At the very least, I now can take a good guess on why I keep getting comment-less downvotes on my answer...

Everyone loses except for you and the player who controls Platinum Angel.

Does rule 104.3h create a replacement effect? Can game rules create replacement effects?

No. Replacement effects are continuous effects (CR 614.1). Continuous effects can only be generated by the resolution of a spell or ability or by a static ability (CR 611.2, 611.3). There is no rule that allows for a rule to create a continuous effect.

Does 104.3h modify the effect "win the game" on the card?

Yes. Even though they are not replacement effects, rules can modify all aspects of the game. In a multiplayer game, 104.3h says that any effect that causes you to win the game instead does something totally different.
Despite this, rule 104.3h is not a replacement effect. It's still just a rule.

In a multiplayer game, if I would draw on an empty library while I control Laboratory Maniac and one opponent controls Platinum Angel, what happens?

Here is how this would go down:

You would draw on an empty library.
Laboratory Maniac replaces this action with "You win the game." This is a replacement effect.
Because this is a multiplayer game and you would win the game, rule 104.3h applies. Instead of you winning, all of your opponents lose. This is not a replacement effect - it's simply a rule.
The player who controls Platinum Angel can't lose. Thanks to CR 101.2, The "can't" takes precedence over the effect that would cause that player to lose.
Each opponent that doesn't control a Platinum Angel loses, because nothing says they can't lose.

You are going to have a hard time understanding the rules if you ask "Why not?" Why can't game rules be replacement effects? Why can't I do X? Why can't I do Y?
There are infinitely many things you can't do, and yet there are not infinitely many rules. How could this be? The answer is simple: you are not allowed to do stuff unless the rules specifically allow you to.

I added a small rant at the bottom of the answer. Looking for feedback on whether it makes the answer better. I don't mind rolling it back (or even someone else rolling it back).

I'm not sure that 611.2 means it can only be generated by the resolution of a spell or ability. Replacement effects can exist as static abilities on permanents, which is generated by the permanent existing, not by the permanent spell resolving. Additionally, I've just remembered 903.9 (commander command zone rule), which gives the rule and then refers to it as a replacement effect. I think you have a good investigation here but there are still mysteries to me :D

@Samthere I said in the answer that replacement effects can be generated by static abilities. That particular sentence was littered with references to the CR, so I understand that it was probably choppy and difficult to read. I edited to hopefully improve the readability of that sentence.

So you did; my bad for missing it. However, the 903.9 reference is still relevant. At least, it explicitly states it's a replacement effect. Whether that means other rules can be is questionable.

@Samthere Yes. Rule 903.9 explicitly states that it is a replacement effect. Similarly, rule 608.2b explicitly states that  a spell with no legal targets is countered, and this is why it will trigger Multani's Presence. Both cases are explicit. 104.3h is not explicit, which is why I believe it isn't a replacement effect. You could argue that it is implicit, and I don't think I could prove you wrong. :P

You have a point. However, one thing I'd mention about 903.9 is that it refers to it as "this replacement effect", but doesn't need to mention "this is a replacement effect". Like I say, I'm not certain what this means. In your answer, I'm not certain that PA's "opponents can't win" doesn't step in before LM tries to do something. However, the breadth of answers does help me to narrow down why I'm confused :D

Nothing happens.
In contrast to ryanyuyu's response from WotC support, I asked Matt Tabak (the official MTG rules manager) and he had the following to say.

In a multiplayer game, if P1 tries to win via Laboratory Maniac but P2 controls Platinum Angel, what happens? Nothing, or do P3, P4, etc, lose the game?
Nothing. LM’s replacement effect does apply, and then P1 winning the game just doesn’t happen.

From this we can see that Platinum Angel does see the attempt to "win the game" and stops it before it happens. This means that 104.3h alters the way you follow the "win the game" instruction, but doesn't change the instruction itself. This lines up with TheThirdMan's interpretation.
For clarity, the case with Platinum Angel works because of the "your opponents can't win the game". Every "you can't lose" effect currently in Magic also includes that clause. If there was a standalone "you can't lose" effect, the other players would lose. Additionally, if the Platinum Angel player instead controlled an Abyssal Persecutor, only that player would lose in that instance.
As TheThirdMan mentioned, it doesn't matter whether 104.3h is a replacement effect (although based on the course of the discussion I believe it isn't).

As a note, I'd like to mention that this seems to be an issue that has confounded many of us — novices, judges and WotC support alike — and numerous others in the past. I think both of the main interpretations are reasonable and well represented in other answers here.

Nice quote! It's good to have an official source for this finally, even when it's opposed by yet another official source ;) I'm tempted to believe Matt Tabak on this one, though, not just for the reason that it's what I originally said.

This has been a very good question, it is unfortunate that there are conflicting official sources....

@Malco I'm of the opinion that WotC support is only "semi-official". They're knowledgeable about the game but don't carry authority, but as far as I know the Rules Manager is the ultimate authority on the rules.

I would say that everyone but you and the Platinum Angel owner would lose and gameplay would continue with you two (if you so choose).
By the wording of winning effect in multiplayer, it certainly sounds like a replacement effect.

614.1a Effects that use the word “instead” are replacement effects. Most replacement effects use the word “instead” to indicate what events will be replaced with other events.
104.3h In a multiplayer game, an effect that states that a player wins the game instead causes all of that player’s opponents to lose the game.

And since replacement and prevention effects are applied at the same time, you can pick which one you want to apply first.

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

So if you wanted to keep the other players around (Platinum Angel controller is way ahead), you could have the prevention effect apply first. Or just make the world burn (everyone else lose).

I don't think this works, because PA's ability isn't a replacement effect, it's a continuous effect.

@Samthere It's a prevention effect, not a replacement effect (see 615)

Ah, I had missed that prevention effects apply at the same time. However, the rules for prevention effects only define them as using the word "prevent". I think cards that say something "can't" happen modify the game rules, rather than being a prevention effect, but I'm not sure about this!

I agree with Samthere. An ability that says "X can't Y" is a continuous effect that modifies the rules of the game.

@JonTheMon, I agree with your conclusion, but it's not a replacement effect. It simply defines what it means when an effect causes a player to win the game (just like 701.3 defines what "Activate" means).


text:
Who wins when the would-be last wizard standing is killed by a reaction?
Say player A has a spell that kills player B (and any other survivors by the time B dies).
Well, it turns out that B has a reaction card waiting that will kill A (but not save B)! Who wins?
This depends on when reactions happen. Obviously at the table, reactions happen after you die, but in game terms they seem to resolve before, or at the same time as your death (evidenced by reactions that enable you to survive damage). Thus there are three potential outcomes:

A wins because they were were necessarily already the last wizard standing for the reaction to trigger. (reasonably likely)
A and B both win because each of them killed their last remaining foe. (most fun)
B wins because reactions take place before the lethal damage. (less likely)

When this happened, we agreed to go with the "most awesome" result that fits the game's flavour of rewarding (or not punishing) glorious death, which caused a joint win. Everyone was happy with this as a conclusion to a 6 player game with 5 LWS tokens.
Still, I'm curious if there's an official ruling.

Based on the rules, Player A should receive the sole LWS token. (For official ruling, see below the break.)
The relevant rule can be found on page 17 (emphasis mine):

When the dust settles and there is but one Wizard alive, the game ends and that Wizard earns a Last Wizard Standing token. In the unlikely event that a Wizard kills himself, leaving no Wizards alive, that Wizard still earns the token. Going out in a blaze of glory is never frowned upon in Epic Spell War!

As you've already noted, in order for a Reaction to happen, the player needs to have died according to the rules. This is confirmed by Matt Hyra from Cryptozoic on Board Game Geek:

Gregg Prendergast: Doers the "reaction" effect only take place at the time your character is killed, or does it take effect any time you are attacked (even if you don't die as a result of the attack)?
Matt Hyra: Only applies if you are killed. If you are not killed, any Reactions in your spell remain face down.

So the order of events would look something like this:

Player A kills Player B
Player B dies
Player A is the last remaining Wizard
Player B has a Reaction that kills Player A
Player A dies
Steps 4 & 5 don't really matter because Player A receives the LWS token even though they are dead

I asked this out on Board Game Geek to get an official answer. From Matt Hyra, Cryptozoic R&D, in response to my question:

The player had to die to trigger the Reaction, so unless the Reaction tells you you are resurrected, the Wizard who killed you gains the LWS token.

Thanks for the answer! Unfortunately the bit about the blaze of glory doesn't apply since it wasn't suicide; B definitely killed A. I agree that B has to be killed for the reaction to trigger, but in game progress this happens at the same time as the part of A's spell that killed B. The "killed" requirement for a reaction can't be instant and final; see Gonzo Shroompuss. I think this might need a direct answer from Matt. :)

@Samthere I expected I'd need more a more definitive ruling, so I already have a question out on BGG with this question. Matt Hyra seems to be pretty good about answering questions there. I'll update when something happens.

@Samthere Updated to include Matt Hyra's response from the BGG forums.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What happens if Mirrorhall Mimic copies a transforming creature?
Mirrorhall Mimic is a transforming double-faced card added in the new set that copies a creature as it enters the battlefield.
Unlike previous clones, that weren't physically on double-faced cards, if this copies a transforming creature (e.g. a werewolf), it's able to transform because it actually is a transforming DFC.
Rule 712.5 seems to be relevant here:

712.5. Only permanents represented by transforming double-faced cards can transform. (See rule 701.28, “Transform.”) If a spell or ability instructs a player to transform any permanent that isn’t represented by a transforming double-faced card, nothing happens.

And the following example given leads me to believe a certain outcome applies:

Example: A player casts Cytoshape, causing a Kruin Outlaw (the front face of a transforming double-faced card) to become a copy of Elite Vanguard (a 2/1 Human Soldier creature) until end of turn. The player then casts Moonmist, which reads, in part, “Transform all Humans.” Because the copy of Elite Vanguard is a transforming double-faced card, it will transform. The resulting permanent will have its back face up, but it will still be a copy of Elite Vanguard that turn.

I think the first of these possible scenarios has to be correct:

The physical Mirrorhall Mimic card will transform whenever relevant, but the replacement copy effect still applies, and so it retains the properties of whatever it copied.
The Mirrorhall Mimic will transform and have the properties of its back face, but becomes an aura and so is put into the graveyard as a state-based action.
The Mirrorhall Mimic can't transform as it doesn't have the matching back face for what it's copying (I don't believe the rules support this.

Is this right?

#1 is almost correct, except for one small detail: you wrote "the replacement copy effect still applies"; the replacement effect was only applied once, and the thing that still applies is a continuous effect.

If Mirrorhall Mimic copies a creature capable of transforming, whether through a triggered or activated ability, it may transform. This follows from 702.145b and and 712.5, for how a card transforms and detailing that only permanents represented by a transforming double faced card can transform.
The Mirrorhall Mimic copies all characteristics of the active face of the transforming cards, detailed by 707.8, 712.4c, and 712.4d. This includes the ability that would effect the transformation.
In the general sense, if Mirrorhall Mimic copies a creature capable of transforming, it can be transformed into Ghastly Mimicry. This is a departure from preceding Clone-esque creatures that could not transform because they were not represented by transforming cards.
Note, Glasspool Mimic is not a transforming card, but a modal double faced card.
The deviation is if Mirrorhall Mimic copied a Nightbound creature. The triggered abilities for Nightbound, 702.145e, specifically check if the permanent is back face up.
702.145e Nightbound is found on the back faces of some transforming double-faced cards and represents two static abilities. “Nightbound” means “As it becomes day, if this permanent is back face up, transform it” and “This permanent can’t be transformed except by its nightbound ability.”
Despite Mirrorhall Mimic copying the characteristics of the Nightbound creature, it remains the Front Face of a card (712.1b).
When the Mirrorhall Mimic transforms, it will not transform into the opposite face of the permanent it copied. Instead, it will transform into the Ghastly Mimicry. Ghastly Mimic is an aura not attached to a creature, so it will be put into its owner's graveyard (704.5m).

I don't think your last paragraph is correct. Won't the copy effect still be active, meaning it won't actually become Ghastly Mimicry?

@ArcanistLupus, the continuous effect of Mirrorhall Mimic's copy ability is still in place. If Mirrorhall Mimic copies a creature with the ability to transform, its copied that line of text (Daybound, Nightbound, etc.). Since Mirrorhall Mimic is represented by a transforming double faced card, it can transform (712.5).

The card does transform, but with the copy effect still in place, its final characteristics are those of the creature it copied, not Ghastly Mimicry. This is the first time they have printed a TDFC with a clone effect, but it is not the first time a TDFC has been able to become a copy of another TDFC, and this outcome has already been well established. In particular, that is directly stated in the second example of rule 712.5.

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


text:
What happens in these end-game situations?
This is intended to be a canonical question regarding possible endings of the game.
For each question, assume a single proper strike was made, and note where an improper strike would change the game outcome (beyond an additional point for the opponent).
If the Queen has been covered:

What happens if I pocket my last C/m and the Striker?
What happens if I pocket my opponent's last C/m?
What happens if I pocket my opponent's last C/m and the Striker?
What happens if I pocket both players' last C/m?
What happens if I pocket both players' last C/m and the Striker?

If the shot covers the Queen:

What happens if I pocket my last C/m and the Queen?
What happens if I pocket my last C/m, the Queen and the Striker?
What happens if I pocket my opponents' last C/m and the Queen?
What happens if I pocket my opponents' last C/m, the Queen and the Striker?
What happens if I pocket both players' last C/m and the Queen?
What happens if I pocket both players' last C/m, the Queen and the Striker?

If the Queen is left on the board:

What happens if I pocket my last C/m, leaving the Queen?
What happens if I pocket my last C/m and the Striker, leaving the Queen?
What happens if I pocket my opponent's last C/m, leaving the Queen?
What happens if I pocket my opponent's last C/m and the Striker, leaving the Queen?
What happens if I pocket both players' last C/m, leaving the Queen?
What happens if I pocket both players' last C/m and the Striker, leaving the Queen?

From the ICF Laws of Carrom. Bracketed numbers in italics refer to specific rules that cover the questions.

If the Queen has been covered:
1. What happens if I pocket my last C/m and the Striker?
You lose by 1/3* (+1**).
2. What happens if I pocket my opponent's last C/m?
You lose as normal.
3. What happens if I pocket my opponent's last C/m and the Striker?
You lose as normal (+1**).
4. What happens if I pocket both players' last C/m?
You win by 1/3*. For an improper stroke, you lose by 1/3* (+1**).
5. What happens if I pocket both players' last C/m and the Striker?
(110/112) You lose by 1/3* (+1**).

If the shot covers the Queen:
6. What happens if I pocket my last C/m and the Queen?
(97) You win as normal, having covered the Queen. For an improper stroke, you lose by 3* (+1**).
7. What happens if I pocket my last C/m, the Queen and the Striker?
Unsure! You lose by 3* (+1**).
8. What happens if I pocket my opponents' last C/m and the Queen?
(103) You lose as normal, and the Queen is considered covered by your opponent.
9. What happens if I pocket my opponents' last C/m, the Queen and the Striker?
You lose as normal (+1**), and the Queen is considered covered by your opponent.
10. What happens if I pocket both players' last C/m and the Queen?
(102) You win by 1/3*. For an improper stroke, you lose by 3* (+1**).
11. What happens if I pocket both players' last C/m, the Queen and the Striker?
(109) You lose by 3* (+1**).

If the Queen is left on the board:
12. What happens if I pocket my last C/m, leaving the Queen?
(107) You lose by 3*.
13. What happens if I pocket my last C/m and the Striker, leaving the Queen?
(108) You lose by 3* (+1**).
14. What happens if I pocket my opponent's last C/m, leaving the Queen?
(106) You lose as normal, and the Queen is considered covered by your opponent.
15. What happens if I pocket my opponent's last C/m and the Striker, leaving the Queen?
(111) You lose as normal (+1**), and the Queen is considered covered by your opponent.
16. What happens if I pocket both players' last C/m, leaving the Queen?
(105) You lose by 3*.
17. What happens if I pocket both players' last C/m and the Striker, leaving the Queen?
You lose by 3* (+1**).

* This is the value of the Queen: if the winning player did not cover the Queen, or is at 22+ points, they get 1 point. Otherwise they get the 3 points for covering the Queen.
** The opponent may claim 1 additional point as Due (you pocketed the Striker) and/or 1 additional point as Penalty (you made an improper stroke).

Not sure what the standard is for self-answering but I'll accept this in the meantime and change it as appropriate.

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


text:
Does a triggered ability with no legal target for only some of its targets make it to the stack?
Let's say my opponent controls a Spirit of the Hearth, and thus has hexproof.
I summon a Burning Sun's Avatar, and its enters-the-battlefield ability triggers.
I don't have a legal target for target opponent, but I could for up to one target creature.
Does the triggered ability make it to the stack with as many legal targets as possible, or does it get cancelled by not being able to choose a legal target when putting it on the stack?

Possible duplicate of What happens to Death Cloud when there aren't enough legal targets

@steenbergh I think it's quite different. That question is talking about a spell, not a triggered ability, and the spell in question doesn't actually target. The answer there (do as much as possible) is part of resolving the spell, not part of casting it. Were that question about a card that did actually target, the answer would be different (it wouldn't be legal to cast the spell in the first place).

You cannot choose targets for Burning Sun's Avatar's triggered ability, and therefore cannot put it on the stack, if you have no opponents that are legal targets.
Burning Sun's Avatar's ability says

When Burning Sun's Avatar enters the battlefield, it deals 3 damage to target opponent and 3 damage to up to one target creature.

This means that in the process of putting the ability on the stack, you must choose exactly one opponent as the the first target, and zero or one creatures as the second target. If no opponents are legal targets, then you cannot choose a legal combination of targets for the ability, and it will not be put on the stack.
We have the following rules that describe how to put a triggered ability on the stack:

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. If a choice is required when the triggered ability goes on the stack but no legal choices can be made for it, or if a rule or a continuous effect otherwise makes the ability illegal, the ability is simply removed from the stack.
601.2c The player announces his or her choice of an appropriate player, object, or zone for each target the spell requires. [...]

If for one of the targets the spell requires there are no legal choices, then the ability is simply removed from the stack.

No Burning Sun's Avatar's enter the battlefield ability will not resolve, so no damage will be dealt to the creatures.
In order for an ability to be put on the stack it requires legal targets. Burning Sun's Avatar ETB specifies (emphasis mine):

When Burning Sun's Avatar enters the battlefield, it deals 3 damage to target opponent and 3 damage to up to one target creature.

If you can not target one opponent and either one or zero creatures the ability will not go on the stack. This is covered in the comprehensive rules under here (putting the ability on the stack is the same as casting a spell, emphasis mine):

601.2.: To cast a spell is to take it from where it is (usually the hand), put it on the stack, and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect. Casting a spell includes proposal of the spell (rules 601.2a–d) and determination and payment of costs (rules 601.2f–h). To cast a spell, a player follows the steps listed below, in order. A player must be legally allowed to cast the spell to begin this process (see rule 601.3), ignoring any effect that would prohibit that spell from being cast based on information determined during that spell’s proposal. (Such effects are considered during the check detailed in rule 601.2e.) If, at any point during the casting of a spell, a player is unable to comply with any of the steps listed below, the casting of the spell is illegal; the game returns to the moment before the casting of that spell was proposed (see rule 720, “Handling Illegal Actions”).

and

601.2c: The player announces his or her choice of an appropriate player, object, or zone for each target the spell requires. A spell may require some targets only if an alternative or additional cost (such as a buyback or kicker cost), or a particular mode, was chosen for it; otherwise, the spell is cast as though it did not require those targets. If the spell has a variable number of targets, the player announces how many targets he or she will choose before he or she announces those targets. In some cases, the number of targets will be defined by the spell’s text. Once the number of targets the spell has is determined, that number doesn’t change, even if the information used to determine the number of targets does. The same target can’t be chosen multiple times for any one instance of the word “target” on the spell. However, if the spell uses the word “target” in multiple places, the same object, player, or zone can be chosen once for each instance of the word “target” (as long as it fits the targeting criteria). If any effects say that an object or player must be chosen as a target, the player chooses targets so that he or she obeys the maximum possible number of such effects without violating any rules or effects that say that an object or player can’t be chosen as a target. The chosen players, objects, and/or zones each become a target of that spell. (Any abilities that trigger when those players, objects, and/or zones become the target of a spell trigger at this point; they’ll wait to be put on the stack until the spell has finished being cast.)

As an additional note, if your opponent gains Hexproof after the ETB has been put on the stack, when the ability resolves it will still deal damage to what ever creatures have been targeted. This is covered on Burning Sun's Avatar gatherer rulings:

If the ability of Burning Sun’s Avatar has two targets and one becomes illegal, the other will still be dealt damage.


text:
When a land becomes creature, can you kill it?
Some lands have an ability to become a creature, but they usually say they are still a land. If a land is a 3/3 creature and a land, can you target and kill it with a Lightning Bolt to send it to the graveyard, or does it remain in play as a land?

From the Magic Comprehensive Rules (effective as of November 11, 2016):

119. Damage
119.1. Objects can deal damage to creatures, planeswalkers, and players. This is generally detrimental to the object or player that receives that damage. An object that deals damage is the source of that damage.
...
119.6. Damage marked on a creature remains until the cleanup step, even if that permanent stops being a creature. If the total damage marked on a creature is greater than or equal to its toughness, that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed as a state-based action (see rule 704). All damage marked on a permanent is removed when it regenerates (see rule 701.13, "Regenerate") and during the cleanup step (see rule 514.2).

For absolute clarity, here is part of the rules on "State-Based Actions"

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.

So the sequence goes like this.

You cast Lightning Bolt (when you have priority), spell goes on the stack.
You have priority. If you pass:
Opponent has priority. If they pass:
Lightning Bolt resolves. Three damage is applied to land creature.
If it's your turn, you have priority, if it's opponent's turn he/she does. Regardless. WHOOP WHOOP game checks for state based effects first.
State based effect: damage on land creature >= toughness. It is destroyed.

You certainly can "kill" a land, but "kill" is not the proper Magic term. Over the years Magic has become very specific about the terms used to describe cards, abilities and effects just to avoid "intuitive" confusion like this (how can you kill a land???) The term your friend was looking for was:

701.7. Destroy
701.7a To destroy a permanent, move it from the battlefield to its owner's graveyard.

There are plenty of magic cards which have the words destroy target land in the rules text.

Man, I love me some Magic Comprehensive Rules.  Is it wrong that they often get me kind of excited?

The consensus here is that land-creatures that are dealt lethal damage go to the graveyard, just like any other creature.  That's the way we've always played it among my friends, and this seems to be what that "turn all lands into 2/2 creatures" card is for -- that and a couple general-damage spells can really hurt.
In addition to being creatures, these cards are also still lands and are affected by land-targeting effects (like Strip Mine).  Because it is a land it is not affected by cards that target "non-land", like Abrupt Decay. (Hat tip to Ian Pugsley and Rawgramming for these examples in comments.)

That is the way I always played too, but recently someone protested because it says "it is still a land" and you can't kill land. I figure if it has a toughness then it can take damage.

In the future, ask the person where in the rules does it say "you can't kill land?"

It should be mentioned that man-lands (as they are called) when they are creatures are vulnerable to destroy effects that target either lands or creatures (i.e. both Terror and Strip Mine).

@JimMcKeeth there are some cards where it being a land still matters, for example Abrupt Decay cannot kill it even though it is a creature, as it is still a land. Abrupt Decay states "non-land", which is why this happens. The person protesting may have had a similar experience and mistakenly believed that lands cannot be destroyed at all as a result.

Minor nitpick lethal damage is more of a mtg term than fatal damage.

If you change a card's type, it loses it's existing types [CR 205.1a]. "It's still a land" makes it so it gains the creature type without losing the land type [CR 205.1b]. As such, it is both a creature and a land.
So:

It can be chosen as a creature (e.g. Murder) and as a land (e.g. Craterize).
It can't be chosen as a noncreature (e.g. Bramblecrush) or as a nonland (e.g. Abrupt Decay).
It has all traits of a creature. (For example, it has power and toughness, it is destroyed if it's toughness is non-positive, and it is affected by summoning sickness.)
It has all traits of a land (For example, it can produce mana if it has the basic super type.)

If you change a card's type, it loses it's existing types [CR 205.1a]. "It's still a land" makes it so it gains the creature type without losing the land type [CR 205.1b]. Since it's still a land, it can still produce mana (if it's a basic land), it can still be chosen as land (e.g. for [mtg:Craterize]), and it can't be chosen as a nonland (e.g. [mtg:Abrupt Decay]).

"For example, [...] it is destroyed if it's toughness is non-positive" Rather, it isn't destroyed, but it is put into its owner's graveyard. This is mostly relevant for the purposes of indestructibility and regeneration; it can save your creature from lethal damage, but not from having 0 toughness.

"For example, it can produce mana if it has the basic super type." -- The Basic supertype does no such thing. The five basic land types (Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, Forest) do grant an implicit mana ability, but those are subtypes (not supertypes), and may appear on cards without the Basic supertype.

Yes.  There's no reason why a land creature shouldn't be destroyed by any of the various ways that destroy creatures.  Being a land doesn't confer some kind of special immunity on creatures.
Of course, you can't normally destroy a land with a Lightning Bolt, but that's only because you can't target a land with a Lightning Bolt, and even if you did, it wouldn't have a toughness score to make sense of the damage assigned to it.  Suppose someone targeted your land creature with a Bolt, and in response you removed the effect that was turning your land into a creature (by Disenchanting Living Lands, perhaps).  At this point the land is once again an illegal target for the Bolt, so the burn spell would be countered by game rules and your land would be safe!
Bonus Answer: Of course, every rule in Magic has its exceptions.  If you want your creature land to survive taking lethal damage from a Lightning Bolt, you can always play Consecrate Land on it!

...or Teferi's Response. That card is such a blowout! (If you manage to cast it)

Yep, I remember Teferi's Response.  Wasn't that a (typically extravagant, but not especially effective) attempt by Wizards to stop the tournament scene from being completely overrun by Rishadan Ports?

I think it may depend on the effect and the version. For example, if you look at Living Lands, the ruling is right there on the card:

Treat all forests in play as 1/1 creatures. Now they can be killed, enchanted, and so forth, and they can be tapped either for mana or to attack. The living lands have no color; they are not considered green cards.

Creeping Tar Pit, on the other hand, has the wording that you heard:

... Until end of turn, Creeping Tar Pit becomes a 3/2 blue and black Elemental creature and is unblockable. It's still a land.

Now, I'm not up on current rules, but to me, the key is to take that last sentence in context. This is what I see:

becomes a creature
is a land

I believe that "becomes a creature" indicates that it can be targeted by effects that affect creatures, and that "is a land" indicates that it can also be targeted by effects that affect lands. (In other words, it isn't converted into a creature; it is a land and also a creature.)

You are correct that creature does not replace land, it is a land and a creature. However, whether it can be destroyed or not doesn't depend on the effect which turns the land into a creature: if it is a creature and has damage > toughness on it, it is destroyed.

@ghoppe, I looked at the objection as "but the card says it's a land [and thus not a creature?]." Except I don't think the card says that ... and of course if it's a creature then it's just like other creatures (except that the land effect is removed once the land is placed in the graveyard).

If it's a Land, it's a Land on the battlefield or in the graveyard. If an effect makes forests in play a creature until the end of the turn, it's also a creature until end of turn. Creatures can be destroyed by damage, and, indeed, the rules specifically state that damage dealt to a creature stays on the permanent even if it stops being a creature. See my answer for the comprehensive rules.

@ghoppe, I didn't mean to give the impression that I was contesting the creature part anywhere ... and obviously damage greater than a creature's toughness (normally) sends a creature to the graveyard. I was countering the objection that "it's still a land" meant that it was somehow not also a creature (despite the effect that made it a creature).

@DaveDuPlantis I think your example is a little bit confusing, because both effects - Living Lands and Creeping Tar Pit - do exactly the same thing (except for the color of the resulting permanent); they make the permanents in question both creatures and lands.  It's a change in templating, but it's not a change in functionality; the way you've worded your answer draws out the contrast and suggests that the two are somehow different.


text:
What's the difference between the versions of Cards Against Humanity?
I have version 1.3 of Cards Against Humanity, but it's got different cards than the free to download PDF file.  Which cards are different between the various versions of CAH?  Since I've also got some blanks from the expansion pack, I'd like to make some new cards without duplicating anything.

Changes to the base game are discussed here. There is also some additional information on this thread included photos showing old and new versions.
Between the original and version 1.2, it seems like they got rid of a lot of cards that mention proper names. It seems that cards mentioning Glenn Beck have been removed in 1.3. The second post indicates that at least 8 black cards were replaced and 80+ white cards were changed (though some changes seem small) between the version that came out in early 2012 and the previous one.
This page also has a link to a PDF file (must login) that lists some changes for the first expansion (v1.2 Changelog). Here is a summary:
A bunch of white cards were added:

A pluger to the face
The ooze
Clenched butt cheeks
Stockholm Syndrome
Salvia
Syphilitic insanity

Some white cards removed:

Appreciative snapping
Dancing with a broom
Good grammar
Pistol-whipping a hostage
Slow motion
The Fanta girls

A few minor corrections as well.
A bunch of black cards were also modified:

Orig: My plan for world domination begins with _ / New: He who controls _ controls the world
Orig: Science will never explain the origin _ / New: Science will never explain _
Orig: Next season on Man vs Wild, Bear Grylls must survive in the depths of the Amazon with only _ and his wits / New: This season on Man vs Wild, Bear Grylls must survive in the depths of the Amazon with only _ and his wits

please summarize the contents of the links to prevent link rot

I summarized to some degree, but the original photos are the best source since there are quite a few differences.


text:
Can the Big Blind Player Post More than the Current Big Blind?
In a Texas Hold-Em No-Limit Tournament, where the blinds are 200-400, can the big blind initially post more than 400 or does the Big Blind need to wait until it's his turn to raise?
For example we had a player who was the big blind and wanted to know if he could post his 550 chips (all-in) as the big blind instead of waiting for his turn to come around to raise 150 chips.

In a tournament, "blinds" are set by formula, based on the number of rounds that have elapsed. So the big blind amount in this instance is 400.
It's a LIVE blind, which means that the big blind can raise, but only after others have had a chance to do so. That's the disadvantage of being a big blind.
Essentially, he raises the little blind from 200 to 400, and then again at the end of the round (if no one else has raised 150 or more). But he can't "protect" his blind by raising the whole 550 the first time.

Er, I would say that's an advantage of being big-blind - if you have a good hand, you get to wait for everyone else to put in before raising.  The disadvantage is, if you have a bad hand, you're forced to put something in anyways.

The debate between you and me is about raising "in" versus raising "out." I'd rather raise people "out." But $150 versus a blind of $400 won't do it.

In most tournaments, the big blind can go all-in blind as well. However, the actual raise does not happen until it is that player's turn. It does commit those chips to the pot, but other players can raise in front of him and do not have to consider his bet when making their raises. So any raise before the big blind would not have that all-in included in their minimum raise.
It is considered bad form to announce your intentions out of turn. Some players take more offense to it than others. And while this move may be understandable, and even expected, you are inviting players to play against only you, reducing your odds of winning as more hands in means more hands that can beat you. You could win your all-in if a bluff pushes someone out ahead of you that was better for a side pot if they have a worse hand.

It depends on the rules of the poker club. But most clubs I've played in, have the same rule; if a player makes an aggressive move (raise, all-in) before his turn, he cannot change this move on his turn, unless an aggressive move happened before his turn. I guess this can be applied also to this situation, making the "unless.." part unimportant, as the big blind wants to go all-in. This doesn't affect other players' turns, as the big blind made the move before his turn, and it "doesn't happen" until his turn. Big blind should be still allowed to fold and take back the 150 chips, if anyone before him raised.
This rule is of course set to treat player mistakes (moves before their turn), so this cannot be done in online poker rooms, as the computer does not allow you to do anything before your turn.

The "standard" rule is that action out of turn is only binding if the action remains unchanged (no betting or raising, only folding or calling) until that player's turn.
The big blind's early raise of 150 is an out-of-turn action.  The current bet is still 400 until it gets to him.  If there is no change in action before the action gets to the big blind (everyone folds or calls), his action becomes binding, and the raise of 150 stands.  If an action occurs before play reaches the big blind (a player raises), the big blind may fold, keeping his last 150, or call.  If he had enough chips that he could re-raise, he would have that option as well (although then the raise of 150 would have been illegal).


text:
In LOTR with Sauron, what's the timing of Nazgul cards?
We were playing the LOTR board game (Reiner Knizia) with the Sauron expansion (me as Sauron).  On a player's turn, I played a Nazgul card.  They interrupted the card with yellow cards, putting the ring on, and Frodo's special power, and managed to end the scenario, and therefore avoided the entire Nazgul card's effects.
Is this right? I'd argue that although the interrupts seem reasonable, as the Nazgul card is based on a player's turn, and not the scenario, the affects should still happen.  What do others think?

Yes, the players can interrupt the nazgul card and avoid its main effects.
First you must resolve the symbol in the upper left of the Nazgul card.  After that, because the main text of the Nazgul card treated as if an event tile were revealed, it can be interrupted by anything that can interrupt event tiles, such as putting on the Ring, Gandalf, etc.
If this ends the scenario, then the main text of the Nazgul card never occurs.


text:
Does an ability resolve if the source of the ability leaves the battlefield?
Player A taps Goblin Fireslinger targeting Player B; its "deals 1 damage to target player" ability is placed on the stack.
Player B gets priority and responds with Snap, targeting Goblin Fireslinger.
Both players pass priority. Snap resolves, and Goblin Fireslinger is returned to its owner's hand.
Does Player B still take 1 damage from Goblin Fireslinger's activated ability?
I know that if the creature had been killed/sent to the graveyard, the ability would still resolve, but I was told recently that because a player's hand is a private zone it couldn't. If anyone could confirm or deny this for me, it would be most appreciated.

Yes, Player B still takes damage from the Goblin Fireslinger. Rule 112 covers this adequately. Rule 112.3a tells us that Activating an ability puts it on the stack, until it resolves, is countered (Stifle), or it otherwise leaves the stack (Time Stop). Rule 112.7a tells us that the activated ability exists independent of the source, and does not quality this separation with objects moving to a hidden zone.

112.3b Activated abilities have a cost and an effect. They are written as “[Cost]: [Effect.] [Activation instructions (if any).]” A player may activate such an ability whenever he or she has priority. Doing so puts it on the stack, where it remains until it’s countered, it resolves, or it otherwise leaves the stack. See rule 602, “Activating Activated Abilities.”

112.7a Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. Destruction or removal of the source after that time won’t affect the ability.

It is possible that they are confusing this with the rules regarding tracking objects that are moving between zones. Normally, objects have no memory of their previous existence in another zone, and become new objects. There are 7 exceptions, and (d/g) are probably the ones that they are confusing this with. These exceptions exist, because cards like Rancor exist that need to have rules that allow the cards to actually work.

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

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

400.7g A resolving spell or activated ability can perform actions on an object that moved from one zone to another while that spell was being cast or that ability was being activated, if that object moved to a public zone.

Does this also work for triggered abillities?

@Eowyn12 as stated in 112.7a in the first quote, triggered abilities work the same way.

Is it necessary for the ability of Goblin Fireslinger to track it as it returns to hand, as the source of the damage? Is it still possible to choose the GF as the source for Pay No Heed?

The ability still resolves.
Once the costs of the ability are paid and targets are chosen, the ability goes on the stack. Once the ability is on the stack, the source of the ability can be destroyed, returned to hand, shuffled into a library, or exiled --- none of this affects the ability which is already on the stack.
Additionally, because of the rules of priority, the non-active player is not able to respond to you beginning to play a spell or ability by unsummoning your Goblin. Your opponent must allow you to finish declaring your ability, and only then does he have an opportunity to respond with spells or abilities of his own.

Minor correction:  The player who does not have priority must wait not just until the ability is declared, but until the player with priority passes priority after activating the ability (see 116.3c).

yes from what I looked up whatever the ability targets as long as the target is there the effect takes place
if the 1 damage is the issue the only way to NEGATE it still  will resolve is to have a card that resolves first such is a prevent all damage for target monster until the end of the turn as long as he casts the ability it will resolve if you had one health left and that was the win then you could have a card to resolve first giving you 1 or more health so you don't die and your top card will resolve first  the only way to ever prevent direct damage from resolving in the stack is to kill the opponent then get up and walk away before he can write it down but if you have one health left and you kill him before it resolves I do believe you win may need to check the official rules though could be classified as a double ko
I was looking to see if any ability's can be activated and resolve immediately without saying so such as ones you pay 1 light and 3uncolored for and it gives 2/2 to all creatures you control until the end of the turn

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


text:
Does Epic Spell Wars actually contain profanity?
I'm trying to judge the suitability of Epic Spell Wars for one of my kids and wanted to know if the sticker on the front was accurate?
Having watched the table-top episode there was a lot of swearing from the players but it wasn't obvious that the cards were actually the cause, just the general setup and flavour (Pisster and testikill for example).

No, aside from the rulebook's preamble, it does not contain profanity.
Samples:

Sir Lootzor's // Polished // Snakedance
Ben Voodoo's // Boulder-iffic // Bedazzlement
Pam and Hecuba's // Two-faced // Cone of Acid
Midnight Merlin's // Devilicious // Power Vortex
Whirly Do's // Burst-o-Ramic // Meatier Swarm

At worst, it's just a couple of cards that can be removed.

The rulebook of the sequel (Rumble at Castle Tentakill) is clean, and the following are the only offending cards:

Bitch Witch
Sexsquatch
Dr Gravelovers (the art is iffy)
Auto-Erotic
The F-U Suit (spelled exactly like this)

Cheers - how about the rule set - I've had mixed reports on that varying from "a little" to "littered with"...

Polished Snakedance sounds rather vulgar, but only if you already know it's vulgar. It seems unlikely to introduce anything vulgar into the mind of someone who wouldn't put that together.

The question was about profanity, not vulgarity. There is some vulgarity (such as aforementioned "testikill"), but nothing worse than a kid would already be using.

@corsiKa Yes, I wasn't too upset with the innuendo, etc. it was more explicit swearing I'm after.

Don't worry about the rules, I've found them on the publishers site.

The introduction for Rumble at Castle Tentakill contains at least 8 swear words. Also one of the wizards is named "Fu-king".


text:
Mindslaver and Conspiracy's vote cards
I have a Mindslaver and my opponent has a Coercive Portal on the board. I use the Mindslaver's ability to take control of my opponent's next turn. Do I get to choose what his vote is for the Portal's ability?

Yes. You make all decisions for that player, and what to vote for is a decision.

712.5. While controlling another player, a player makes all choices and decisions the controlled player is allowed to make or is told to make by the rules or by any objects. This includes choices and decisions about what to play, and choices and decisions called for by spells and abilities.


text:
Do I or my planeswalker need to take damage for Blood Reckoning to trigger?
If I have Blood Reckoning on the battlefield and an opponent targets me or my planeswalker with his creatures, but I block the full attack with my creatures, does this still activate? Or do I or my planeswalker need to take damage from the creatures for this card to take effect?
Also, if my opponent attacks with multiple creatures does this card activate per creature?

Short answer: all your opponent has to do is declare attackers. As soon as they do that, they lose the life. Blocking and dealing damage come later. And yes, it triggers separately for each creature your opponent attacks with.
Longer answer: You're confusing terminology a bit here. "Target" has a specific meaning (spells and abilities can have targets), and attacking with creatures doesn't target. "Attack", as in "Whenever a creature attacks you" also has a specific meaning - it means in the declare attackers step, that creature is declared as an attacker*. Blood Reckoning's triggered ability sees that happen, triggers, goes on the stack, then resolves, causing your opponent to lose life. All of this happens before going on to the next step, declaring blockers.
For reference, the steps of the combat phase are beginning of combat, declare attackers, declare blockers, assign damage, and end of combat. (Often nothing happens in the beginning and end steps.) The sequence of combat steps is summarized in the basic rulebook, and there's a great detailed walkthrough of combat (and all the details you could want to know about assigning damage) about halfway through this article. (The article's actually about rule changes from Magic 2010, so there's a bit of "this is the new way", but it's a good walkthrough nonetheless.)
As for the per-attacker triggering, there's not much to say - triggered abilities just trigger for every bit of the game that matches their trigger condition. Blood Reckoning cares about "a creature is declared as an attacker" so if there are five of those, there are five triggers. Note though that this is helpfully mentioned in the rulings at the bottom of the card's Gatherer page!
* As pointed out in the comments, "a creature is declared as an attacker" is different from "a creature on the battlefield is attacking". There are cards like Geist of Saint Traft which put a token creature onto the battlefield already attacking. That creature was never declared as an attacker, so it doesn't trigger abilities like Blood Reckoning's.

Once again @jefromi, Thank you for such a detailed response! You not only answered my question but explained it in a way I can apply it to similar situations.

might be worth mentioning the corner case of Geist of St Traft's angel, Hero of Bladehold' tokens and kalia of the vast's ability, all of which wouldnt trigger this

@Rawrgramming , why wouldnt it trigger?

The abilities both happen at the same time, when geist of st traft attacks (i am using that as the example, but it applies to the others too) his angel trigger occurs, and the blood reckoning trigger occurs for the geist attacking. those abilities resolve (the order doesn't matter here) and then the angel is also on the battlefield attacking. but that happens AFTER the attackers are declared. it isn't declared as an attacker, so it doesn't trigger abilities that trigger when a creature attacks.

Thank you for the details. Although in my mind I see a creature put onto the battle field "attacking" although not declared specifically as an attacker, as technically still "attacking me". But the Rulings page says otherwise so I will follow it :). If my opponent had 7 life and attacked me with 7 creatures, would he die due to blood reckoning before his creatures deal combat damage to my declared blockers? Meaning would I even need to declare blockers?

@Damainman When your life total reaches zero, you lose immediately as a state-based action (I mentioned this in a previous answer to one of your questions). If it's a two-player game, that means it's over then and there, during the declare attackers phase. If it's a multiplayer game, your opponent dies and their creatures go away, and you have nothing to block. (See rule 800.4a.)

@Damainman As for your disagreement about the meaning of "attack", all I can say is that it will only cause you trouble if you use words differently than the rules do. A creature isn't attacking until it's, well, attacking.

@Damainman Maybe it would also help you to go look at a general summary of triggered abilities, the things that say "when..."/"whenever..."/"at..." followed by "...do something". These all have to trigger off of a single event; in this case, it's a creature being declared as an attacker (not a creature that's already on the battlefield attacking, and not a creature that's entering the battlefield already attacking). They only trigger off of what they say they do.

Thank you for the extensive replies. Cleared up a lot, and yesterday I lost a game I should have won lol.


text:
Can an opponent destroy an Iron Maiden during their upkeep to avoid taking damage from it?
I'll lay out the situation.  I have an Iron Maiden in play.  My opponent begins his turn with 10 cards in his hand (including a Disenchant), and 1 life.  Iron Maiden's ability triggers at the beginning of his upkeep.
Can he Disenchant it in response to avoid taking the damage?  Is there some other time after untap phase that he can Disenchant it, or was he doomed to lose from the moment his turn began?

He's not completely doomed, there are cards, e.g., Stifle, One With Nothing, that could still save him, but Disenchant isn't gonna do the job.

The yes/no question you asked in your title was different from the ones you ask in the body of your question; I changed the title since the answers are already matched to the body. (Lucky you - often people focus on the title and just skim the body!)

Thanks.  I was unsure how I planned to word it when I made the title.

No.  The iron maiden's ability goes onto the stack before any player gets priority, and it will resolve regardless of whether it's source is still on the battlefield when it does.

112.7a Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. Destruction or removal of the source
after that time won’t affect the ability. Note that some abilities
cause a source to do something (for example, “Prodigal Pyromancer
deals 1 damage to target creature or player”) rather than the ability
doing anything directly. In these cases, any activated or triggered
ability that references information about the source because the
effect needs to be divided checks that information when the ability is
put onto the stack. Otherwise, it will check that information when it
resolves. In both instances, if the source is no longer in the zone
it’s expected to be in at that time, its last known information is
used. The source can still perform the action even though it no longer
exists.

.

503  Upkeep Step
503.1. First, any abilities that trigger at the beginning of the upkeep step and any abilities that triggered during the turn’s untap
step go on the stack. (See rule 603, “Handling Triggered Abilities.”)
503.2. Second, the active player gets priority. Players may cast spells and activate abilities.
503.3. If a spell states that it may be cast only “after [a player’s] upkeep step,” and the turn has multiple upkeep steps, that spell may
be cast any time after the first upkeep step ends.

I thought so, but it came up in a game recently and I wanted to be sure.

The relevant rules are [CR 503] and [CR 112.7a].

No. No player gets priority until after the triggered abilities that happen at the beginning of the upkeep step have gone on the stack.

502.3. No player receives priority during the untap step, so no spells or abilities can be played or resolved. Any ability that triggers
during this step will be held until the next time a player would
receive priority, which is usually during the upkeep step. (See rule
503, "Upkeep Step.")
503 Upkeep Step
503.1. First, any abilities that trigger at the beginning of the upkeep step and any abilities that triggered during the turn's untap
step go on the stack. (See rule 603, "Handling Triggered Abilities.")

http://wizards.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/500/~/magic%3A-the-gathering%3A-phases-and-steps-in-a-turn


text:
While covering the Queen, what happens if I pocket only an opponent's coin?
I pocket the Queen and then, while covering, pocket only an opponent's coin instead of my own. Both players still have more coins left on the board. Does the Queen count as being covered by the opponent or will it be put back on the board?

I've edited this to clarify its meaning, which isn't covered by the other linked question.

No, you fail to cover the Queen so your turn ends and the Queen is replaced in the centre of the board.


text:
Can I pocket and cover the Queen in a single strike and win?
If I pocket my last C/m and the Queen in a single strike, is this a win or a lose or do you put the pieces in the center again?

"If while shooting for the Queen you also sink one of your pieces, the Queen is automatically covered, no matter which went in first." Carrom.org
By this rule the game would be won along with the bonus for the Queen.

What does "covered" mean? Win, lose or retry?

@ire_and_curses To end/win the game, the Queen must be "covered" (by either player). This means that after pocketing the Queen, you take another shot. If you don't pocket one of your C/m in this shot then you fail to cover the Queen, and the Queen is returned to the table. You must have pocketed at least one C/m to qualify to try to cover the Queen. If you win, you get bonus points if you were also the player to do this.

If queen goes first, then the cover goes, then it is secured; otherwise you have to cover it.

Can you provide any reference for this as the other answer disagrees with this and does provide some reference.


text:
When is it worth competing to farm fields?
Is it worth fighting for my opponents' fields when there are still 60+ tiles in the game and I have no fields, or is it too soon?
I usually lose games because of fields and not knowing when to lay my meeples.
Any suggestions?

If you're losing because your opponent is scoring fields and you aren't, then yes, you will have to fight for those fields.  The tricky thing with fields is that you have to commit to them before you know what they will be worth, so try to estimate in your own mind what a field will be worth at the end of the game and factor it in your calculations.
Watch out for the "cloister with a road" tile coming out early, this will cause there to be one large field at the end and a big fight for the farming.
If fighting for the farming doesn't suit your playing style then try to play in a way that prevents large fields forming -- use road junctions to break them up and try to stop people creating loops with roads.  Then build your cities away from the big fields.  Additionally, opponents who commit heavily to farming early on will be short of meeples during the game and you should be able to bully them during the game by playing tiles to slow or prevent them from completing their cities/roads/cloisters, or joining your meeples into their cities generally obstructing their completion.  With your spare meeples you should be able complete lots of features and rack up the points.

That really depends on what expansions you play and on the individual game. Sometimes you can tell very early that a field is going to be very important, when you have lots of tiny cities from the very beginning on that field. In those cases, fighting for that field can become an early priority.
On the other hand, when you're playing with the Princess and Dragon expansion, there is a good chance that you can kick a competitor out of a field (or he does it to you), so you may not have to go all too aggressive on the fields.
All in all, there is no general answer. Try to play consciously, play a lot, and eventually you'll get a good feeling for when to fight for a field and when not.

Yes, fighting for fields in an important part of the game and you should devote a percentage of your meeples to this task.  Using 2 meeples at minimum for fields will help you diversify your strategy.  Be sure to wait until about a third of the  game to lay your pieces down in fields so that you can get an idea of what your opponents' strategies are before committing too early or too late.
Knowing that you have set aside pieces for this strategy will keep you from feeling pressured about laying those meeples down or not.  It will also distract from other strategies you may be pursuing, like building cities or roads.  I would especially keep one or two meeples ready for fields as the game gets close to finishing as those may be the ones that secure the fields for you as your opponents scramble to complete cities and roads.


text:
What is the Goods Station referred to in Scotland Yard
I'm playing the 1996 version of Scotland Yard.
By 174 on the map is Goods Station. I can't find any reference to this in historical London geography.
Was this a real place? If not, what does it refer to?

I believe it might refer to Bishopsgate, it was used as a goods (freight) station, near Shoreditch in Londons East End. ( I'm an old Cockney.)

It's close to where modern Bermondsey station would be but appears as a terminus rather than a through station. Can't be Bishopsgate which would be north of the river.
Couldn't find anything online about a goods station in South London so nothing more I can add


text:
Epic Spell Wars rules clarifications
I have three card clarifications that came up while playing games last night.
Treasure card "Proton Gem":

You may add this card to your spell face up. It counts as a Wild Magic card but is not discarded.

Interpretation 1: Spells are crafted before a round starts. The player places the treasure in place of either a source, quality or delivery card. When the player's spell is revealed the treasure is placed aside and the wild card action takes place.
Rebuttal: The treasure says the player can add it to the spell, but does not specify when.
Interpretation 2: A player composes its spell then when revealed the player adds the treasure to its spell and goes through the wild card action.
Rebuttal: Spells are composed before a round so the treasure can't be added whenever the player wants.
Delivery card "Nuke-U-Lur Meltdown":

3 damage, and 1 damage to each player adjacent to that foe.

Interpretation 1: The caster is considered a player. If the caster is also adjacent to the target for the caster will take 1 splash damage.
Interpretation 2: The intent of the card would not be to have it damage the caster even if the caster is adjacent to the target.
Source card "Professor Presto's"

If you played a Wild Magic card as part of your spell, gain a treasure.

Interpretation 1: The action of drawing a treasure triggers once even if the player composes its spell with more than one wild magic card.
Interpretation 2: The action of drawing a treasure triggers once for each wild magic card in the player's spell.

You may add this card to your spell face up. It counts as a Wild Magic card but is not discarded.

1. Everyone with whom I've played has intuitively understood it's added add the same time as the other parts. It should be part of the spell on reveal.

3 damage, and 1 damage to each player adjacent to that foe.

1. There's no reason to believe the caster can't be damaged by this spell. This is hardly the only spell with a drawback.

If you played a Wild Magic card as part of your spell, gain a treasure.

1. Standard board game language. It's not "For each Wild Magic played card as part of your spell, gain a treasure."


text:
What algorithm does Better Settlers use?
I have been using Better Settlers and found that it sets boards that have even probabilities. I would like to understand the algorithm used to generate the board layout, and how it achieves a "fair" setup.

Just an opinion on the very premise of "Better Settlers": I like the ueven probablilities, with good and bad spots on the map. The tension when going around the table in deployment is one of the best things with Settlers. The first player might get the best spot, but will likely have to cope with the worst spot also. I like the experience of trying to balance probablilities, blocking other players and getting a good mix of resources. Instead of copying "Better settlers" algorithms, I would think differently on how to generate interesting maps :)

The code for Better Settlers is open-source and can be found at github.com/andrewflynn/bettersettlers. Not the easiest format to read on the algorithm, but hopefully that helps a little bit.
Also to answer Markus' concern above about taking away the tension of setup, Better Settlers still has that same tension (and arguably even more so because it's actually even more difficult to figure out what the best spots are).
The thing that Better Settlers tries to avoid is situations where combinations of starting positions are completely unbalanced. You still have the same pros/cons of placing first vs. last; it's just at the end of it, everyone stands a much better chance of still being in the game.

Specifically, you can read the placement file at bettersettlers/app/src/main/java/com/nut/bettersettlers/logic/PlacementLogic.java

any plans to create an iphone app?

as well as MapLogic.java which lays out the tiles (PlacementLogic.java lays out the "best" initial placement suggestions)

@AndrewFlynn any plans to create an iphone app?

Definitely! Unfortunately though Better Settlers is just a fun side project for me, so I don't get as much time to devote to it as I'd like and haven't had a chance to finish creating one. Hopefully one day though :)

@AndrewFlynn if you create an iphone app, let me know in advance (please post app release data over here). I would like to be the first user who downloads it :)


text:
Randomly but Evenly Distributing Tokens on a Board
I'm designing a board game where, as more sections of the board are added, tokens are randomly placed on the new board section. Each board section is 2'×1' (24"×12"), so we using dice to randomise coordinates: 4d6 for the X coordinate and 2d6 for the Y coordinate.
Note that the board is not in a grid; the dice results just correspond to inch measurements on the board.
For some reason this system doesn't seem to work very well, as tokens tend to be grouped together rather than spreading evenly. Are there better ways to distribute the tokens more evenly?

2 feet by 1 foot is a large thing, is your game field large like warhammer fields?

the total length is 4 feet by 2 feet, tiles are added to the board as the game progresses.

so there is a total of just 4 board sections?

yes that is correct

oh ok, so you add terrain "tokens" to the section right? is there a fixed amount of terrain tokens on each section?

That too is correct, as players move across the board, new sections are added, as sections are added the idea is to add terrain tokens to the new section. We haven't decided on how many tokens are added yet either, that will probably be another question :)

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

so which idea are you following?

added an answer below describing our solution

If you're making the board sections yourself, you could always cut the edges so each terrain type can only be adjacent to types you want.  (Disclaimer: I'm the designer for that game.)

It's not the board sections that's the problem. It's terrain tokens on each section we want to randomise

Note that what you're describing actually is a grid. it's a rectangular board with equally spaced out possible locations for tokens. At least it is with your current dice solution.

So, after some discussion, this is the idea we're going with.
We will create 12 (not concrete yet) set layouts for tokens that can be applied to any given board section. These layouts will be drawn onto cards and shuffled together to make a deck. When the game is started and the Board is tiles are placed, a card is drawn for each section and tokens will be placed on the section as depicted by the card giving a semi-random placement.

The more dice you use to generate a single random value, the closer each random value will be to a certain average. You can see this happening in Catan: rolling two dice results in a lot more sevens than twos.

If you do this with 4 dice, almost everything will be centered around the 14th coordinate. If you don't mind some normalization, you could use 2d12 instead of 4d6.
You could give the players some say in where the pieces are placed. There are many ways in which you could do this, either before or after the dice are rolled.
If you want 'complete' randomness with dice, you'll need a 1d10 and a 1d20, or two decks of numbered cards.

how have you done that dice graph? =)

Someone else did over at Math SE: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1204396/why-is-the-sum-of-the-rolls-of-two-dices-a-binomial-distribution-what-is-define

I think freekvd explained rather well why your probability distribution is not flat, but if you want a flat distribution, you could do one of the following:

get a 24-sided and a 12-sided die and do basically the same thing you had already done.
make cards numbered 1-24 and draw two of them for each token placement. Those on the 12-inch side can either be divided by two or taken mod 12 (meaning that you subtract 12 from anything above 12, just like with time). You could also have a separate 1-12 deck.
If you only have 6 sided dice and only want to use dice, then you could roll two six sided dice for each side. The two dice are not interchangeable, so they'll have to either be different colors or be rolled one at a time. For this example, let's say you have a black and a white die.

Roll both dice and subtract 1 from each roll.
Multiply the roll of the white die by 1/6.
Add the two values.

This will give you a total between 0 and 5 + 5/6.
(You could then add 1/12 to that number if you're worried that two edges will have tokens and the other two won't.)
For the 24-inch side, multiply that total by 4 inches and for the 12-inch side, multiply it by 2 inches.

Mark the edges of your board with number pairs from 1-1 to 6-6 which are evenly spaced. Forget about inches and just place the token on the corresponding part of the board.
Put walls around your board and then toss the tokens in from a few feet away. There's no guarantee that it'll be an even distribution, but it'd probably be more fun than rolling dozens of dice and making measurements just to set up your game.

If I understand your question correctly, you want a way to determine terrain on a X by Y grid such that a logical terrain layout is created.
You start with putting the upper left square first (for example a mountain). Next you determine the tile to the right (methods below). Continue until you reach the right end. Then use the same method to find the tiles below the first row. Continue until the board is filled.
There are two possible methods:

Use a table with probabilities using dice. For example, a mountain has 40% chance for another mountain, 30% for hills and so on.
This method is a bit cumbersome.
Use several stacks of tiles one for each terrain type. So if you want a tile next to a mountain, use the mountain stack. If that is a hill, use the hill stack. This method is faster but requires more tiles.


text:
Can I conquer anywhere if I have no pieces left on the board?
I came across the following scenario this weekend:
Suppose, in a single turn, all of a player's remaining elves are wiped off the board and returned to his hand, leaving him without any elves in play. On his next turn can he start from anywhere (that would be a legal starting territory), since he has no adjacent territories to attack?

Absolutely, the rulebook (on page 4) under the section on Enemy Loss & Withdrawals explicitly covers this:

If all of a player's Regions were attacked this turn, leaving him with some Race tokens in hand but none on the board, he may redeploy these as if he was doing a First Conquest, on his next turn.

As stated in the other answer, you can also voluntarily withdraw troops from some or all regions.

Yes - but you can also do this every go anyway. You simply need to abandon all regions when starting your turn.

Abandoning a Region
If the player chooses to abandon all the Regions he previously occupied, his next conquest must follow the same rules as its First Conquest (see First Conquest, p. 4).

http://cdn1.daysofwonder.com/smallworld/en/img/sw_rules_2015_en.pdf

Oh wow, i did not know that. I thought minimum was 1 per area. Learned something new again!

The minimum 1 token per area rules only is in play at the end of your turn: it is allowed to empty regions at the beginning of your turn (when you gather your troops for attacking) but it's not allowed during the redeployment phase.


text:
Do you look at the bottom card when you draw an owl as the first card in a gathering?
For the IELLO game Little Red Riding Hood, any time you start a new gathering and flip the owl card as the starting card, do you get to look at the bottom card of the deck?
The rules state that you do the special actions (owl, riding hood) when you choose to gather and flip the corresponding card versus choosing to stop gathering. In the beginning section before this player choice the rules state to start the gathering by flipping the first card and placing path tokens according to the number of flowers (with no mention of the special action cards). A strict reading of the rules would mean we don't do the owl action. Thoughts?

No, you don't do any special actions. You only do what the rules tell you to, which is to add tokens based on the number of flowers. From this version of the rules (IELLO's own link was broken):
The rules are ordered quite clearly. At the beginning of the game:

In order to start, the youngest player flips over the first card of the Path card deck (and adds to it as many face-down Gathering tokens as there are flowers on the card). This will be the first card for Gathering. Then, this player takes the first turn of the game as explained below.

The final step for the "Stop Gathering" choice is:

Reveal the first Path card from the deck in order to start the next player Gathering anew (add whatever Gathering tokens should be added). Now it is time for the player to your left to take her turn.

The rules for the special cards (Little Red Riding Hood and the owl) only come up within the "Continue Gathering" choice (and only if the number on the card is high enough), so you only follow them when you draw the card as a result of choosing the "Continue Gathering" action.
If cards resolved as normal at this time then you'd immediately lose your turn before you started with a wolf card, due to it having the number 0!


text:
In a multiplayer game, who can see a player's revealed hand?
If a player reveals their hand in a multiplayer game, does everyone get to look at the player's hand, or only the controller of the ability that forced them to reveal?

You reveal the card to all players.

701.13. Reveal
701.13a To reveal a card, show that card to all players for a brief time. If an effect causes a card to be revealed, it remains revealed for as long as necessary to complete the parts of the effect that card is relevant to. If the cost to cast a spell or activate an ability includes revealing a card, the card remains revealed from the time the spell or ability is announced until the time it leaves the stack.

In case it ever matters, you generally should ask if someone is "done looking" before putting the card away.  You can't keep an opponent from writing down your hand by flashing your cards in front of their face for 5 seconds and then declaring "Well I showed you!"  Don't be that guy.

@EthanTheBrave I think you are half correct. If you cast Wanderwine Hub and reveal a Merfolk card, then you have to give me time to inspect the card. However, if I resolve Thoughtseize, inspect your hand for two seconds, and then choose a card, then by my interpretation of 701.13a you can immediately stop revealing your hand. At casual or Regular REL, I expect that you will be gracious enough to allow me to keep looking. At Competitive REL, I made a sloppy play and that's that.

you are correct! I forgot about that.  If they need to look to complete an action, by completing the action they make it so you no longer need to reveal.


text:
What happens if I pocket both players' last C/m and the Striker in one shot?
Suppose I pot the last red C/m, the last white C/m and the Striker together. The Queen isn't on the board. Is that a win for me or do I return the C/m with a penalty?

According to the ICF rules, it's a loss for you.
Depending on who covered the Queen, your opponent will get 1-3 points, +1 for the Striker, and +1 if it was an improper stroke.

a) If a player pockets the last C/m of his own and of his opponent together with the Striker by a proper stroke he shall lose the Board by one point, if the Queen has been covered by him. One additional point for the pocketed Striker shall be awarded if demanded by the opponent.
b) If a player pockets the last C/m of his own and of his opponent together with the Striker by an improper stroke, he shall lose the Board by one point, if the Queen has been covered by him. Two additional points shall be awarded, if demanded by the opponent.
a) If a player pockets the last C/m of his own and of his opponent together with the Striker by a proper stroke, he shall lose the Board by 3 points, if the Queen has been covered by the opponent. If the score of the opponent is 22 or more, he shall get one point. One additional point shall be awarded, if demanded by the opponent.
b) If a player pockets the last C/m of his own and of his opponent together with the Striker by an improper stroke he shall lose the Board by 3 points, if  the Queen has been covered by the opponent. If the score of the opponent is 22 or more he shall get one point. Two additional points shall be awarded, if demanded by the opponent.


text:
What happens if the Queen and the striker are pocketed together and there are no other pieces on the board?
The case seems a bit complicated. The Queen is the only piece remaining on the board. All Men are pocketed. Both the Queen and the striker got pocketed in the same pot. What should happen then?
Should the player return a Man? If he returns one, should he immediately take a turn and strike the returned Man to try to cover the Queen? Or should he return the Queen anyway?

This can't happen.
From these rules, the Queen can't be left without a piece from each team still being on the board.
Pocketing either player's final piece with the Queen still on the board is a foul, which returns the pocketed piece and a penalty piece.
If the Queen and the striker were pocketed together while pieces were left, this is also a foul. Since a foul ends the turn, this means that the Queen can't then be covered, so it will return to the board.
However, from the ICF rules:
Somebody will already have won. Pocketing your own, or your opponent's final piece while the Queen is on the board causes you to lose.


text:
What happens if I pocket a C/m but accidentally touch a C/m on the table?
While playing Carrom I placed my strike and pocketed my C/m. Mistakenly, my finger touched my opponent's C/m. Do I play on, or is this a Foul?

It will be a Foul. You will lose your turn, the pocketed piece will be returned, and a penalty piece will be returned. Presumably your touch caused the piece to move. According to the ICF rules:

The C/m and/or Queen shall not be moved or disturbed after the Break, except by way of a stroke. If touched, moved or disturbed the same shall be replaced in the original position by the Umpire, as far as possible and a Foul shall be declared against the offending player as per the Laws.

a) If a player pockets his own C/m by an improper stroke, the C/m so pocketed with a Penalty C/m shall be taken out for placing by the opponent and the player shall lose his turn.


text:
If I pocket my man and the queen in a single strike, is the queen covered?
Suppose there are 3 coins remaining on the board: one man of each colour and the queen. If, in a single strike, I pocket my man followed by the queen, have I covered the queen?

If a player puts the queen and a carrom man of the player's own color in the pocket with one use of the striker, the queen is automatically covered, no matter which went first.
Copied from Wikipedia

This is correct. Note that if you didn't have a C/m pocketed yet (and thus didn't qualify to cover the Queen) then this would count as the qualifying C/m (no matter which went first, and you play on to try to cover. If in this situation you pocket 2 C/m and the Queen together then it covers it.


text:
Will an ability on the stack resolve if its source is removed?
Player A casts and resolves Nekrataal. Nekrataal's enters-the-battlefield ability triggers and A and targets Player B's Suntail Hawk.
In response, Player B casts Swords to Plowshares, targeting Nekrataal.
The stack looks like this (top first):

Swords to Plowshares, targeting Nekrataal.
Nekrataal's triggered ability, targeting Suntail Hawk.

Does the Suntail Hawk die?
My thinking is mixed. If I remove the source of the triggered ability, what happens?

The ability doesn't happen. Either the ability is removed from the stack when its source is removed, or the ability is removed when it tries to resolve and sees that the source isn't there.
The triggered ability is simply an object on the stack, and it doesn't matter what happens to the Nekrataal that created it.

Any help would be appreciated.

Wow! Thanks for the edit! This is my first time using the site. Such a cool feature.

A solution would have been to counter the creature spell of Nekrataal. After it comes into play it really is too late.

Just looked at that one, but it's talking about an activated ability and not a triggered ability.

The two questions are slightly different but the answer is the same. Perhaps one should be generalised ("abilities" rather than triggered/activated abilities) and the other marked as a duplicate.

Your Hawk will die. Once a triggered ability has triggered, it is independent from its source:

112.7a Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. Destruction or removal of the source after that time won’t affect the ability. Note that some abilities cause a source to do something (for example, “Prodigal Pyromancer deals 1 damage to target creature or player”) rather than the ability doing anything directly. In these cases, any activated or triggered ability that references information about the source because the effect needs to be divided checks that information when the ability is put onto the stack. Otherwise, it will check that information when it resolves. In both instances, if the source is no longer in the zone it’s expected to be in at that time, its last known information is used. The source can still perform the action even though it no longer exists.


text:
Is an old edition of Cinder Wall able to attack?
The most recent iteration of Cinder Wall has the creature type "Wall" and has Defender. However, the Weatherlight print of this card stood by the old rules where Wall creatures couldn't attack, so it doesn't have the Defender keyword.
If I use a Weatherlight edition of this card, can it attack, or does the fact that its errata gave it Defender mean that older prints would also have it even if they do not say so?

No; Oracle is the authorative source of card wordings.
From the Comprehensive Rulebook:

108.1. Use the Oracle™ card reference when determining a card’s wording. A card’s Oracle text can be found using the Gatherer card database at Gatherer.Wizards.com.

The official text on all versions of Cinder Wall is:

Defender
When Cinder Wall blocks, destroy it at end of combat.

"Wall" specifically is mentioned in the Glossary:

Wall

A creature type with no particular rules meaning. Older cards with the Wall creature type but without defender had an unwritten ability that precluded them from attacking. Those cards have received errata in the Oracle card reference to have defender. Some older cards that referenced the Wall creature type have also received errata. See Defender.

No, it doesn't really matter what is printed on the card, since according to the rules:

108.1. Use the Oracle™ card reference when determining a card’s wording. A card’s Oracle text can be found using the Gatherer card database at Gatherer.Wizards.com.

The Oracle text for Cinder Wall says:

Defender

When Cinder Wall blocks, destroy it at end of combat.

108.1. Use the Oracle™ card reference when determining a card’s wording. A card’s Oracle text can be found using the Gatherer card database at Gatherer.Wizards.com.

All copies of a card, regardless of set or source, have identical rules regarding how they function in game. There are special situations where a card cannot be used as a normal card without some special conditions(the only ones that comes to mind are oversized cards like some commanders, and the slightly differently shaped cards of Alpha set.), but this is due to the cards being visually different from the back and therefore identifiable.
Besides this, there is no difference in game between using different sets versions of a card.


text:
Can I strike the opponent's pieces directly without penalty?
Let's say I have my black coin near the pot but there is a white coin which is blocking it from my strike. Can I pot my black coin by striking only the white coin?

This is fine.
Based on these rules; it doesn't matter which pieces the Striker does or doesn't touch. Rewards/penalties only care about what's pocketed (or overboard).

yes you can. But if your striker only touches opponent's carrommen,then there will be a foul.You need to touch atleast one of your carrommen or red