text:
Can an imprinted spell be kicked when it is cast?
Can an imprinted spell be kicked when it is cast ?
For example : Isochron Scepter and Orim's Chant
Can I pay the kicker cost each time I activate Isochron Scepter?

So you can cast the copy once per the opponent's turn?!  That is nuts!  How would an opponent defend against that if they can't play any spells or attack?

Presumably, play cards on your turn to cancel it?

Or cast spells in response and/or before it is activated

@Jefromi Yes, I understand - I was responding to the comment above (dmikester's).  And from the point of view switched - "They" are the ones "you" are playing it on, so "they" would play on "your" turn to cancel it.

@Joe Ah, never mind, I thought dimkester had switched point of view for some reason.

Possible duplicate of Hideaway Lands and Additional Costs. I know that this is the older question, but the newer question uses better terminology: Does casting a spell for free prevent a player from paying additional costs? For that reason, I am closing this one as a duplicate of the newer one.

Yes you can pay for Kicker when you can a spell off of the Scepter. The Scepter gives your spell an Alternative Cost, and Kicker is an Additional Cost. These work together to make the full cost of the spell. So you pay {2} to activate the Scepter and then when you cast the Chant you can pay an additional {W} if you want to kick it.

117.9. Some spells have alternative costs. An alternative cost is a cost listed in a spell’s text, or applied to it from another effect, that its controller may pay rather than paying the spell’s mana cost. Alternative costs are usually phrased, “You may [action] rather than pay [this object’s] mana cost,” or “You may cast [this object] without paying its mana cost.”
117.9d If an alternative cost is being paid to cast a spell, any additional costs, cost increases, and cost reductions that affect that spell are applied to that alternative cost. (See rule 601.2f.)
702.32a Kicker is a static ability that functions while the spell with kicker is on the stack. “Kicker [cost]” means “You may pay an additional [cost] as you cast this spell.”

Also from the rulings on Gatherer:

You don't pay the spell's mana cost. If the spell has X in its mana cost, X is 0. You do pay any additional costs for that spell. You can't use any alternative costs.

Yes you can. When casting a spell w/o paying it's mana cost, you are allowed/required to pay any additional costs. The only cost you ignore is the one printed in the top right.

117.8. Some spells and abilities have additional costs. An additional cost is a cost listed in a spell’s rules text, or applied to a spell or ability from another effect, that its controller must pay at the same time that player pays the spell’s mana cost or the ability’s activation cost. A cost is an additional cost only if it’s phrased using the word “additional.” Note that some additional costs are listed in keywords; see rule 702


text:
Alchemists Vial rules
Can you use Alchemist's vial's ability as an instant, if you are able to pay the cost? For example, can it be used to prevent my creature from attacking, once i have declared it.

You are able to activate it anytime you could cast an instant.
However once a creature has been declared an attacking or blocking creature the Vial's ability doesn't do anything, since it prevents a creature from being declared an attacker/blocker but doesn't undo that declaration.
From the Gatherer Rulings:

Activating the last ability of Alchemist’s Vial targeting a creature that’s already attacking or blocking won’t cause that creature to stop attacking or blocking. It will prevent that creature from attacking or blocking in any additional combat phases the turn may have (although this is unusual).

All activated abilities can be played anytime you could play an instant, unless the card specifically states otherwise.
Magic Comprehensive Rules:

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.

(Emphasis mine)

That's a surprising downvote. What did I do wrong? Is it the lack of comprehensive rules excerpt? Or the old "played" term instead of the new "activated"?

I have included the relevant rule, but I'm leaving the wording unmodified. I consider it more accessible for the total newbies - the only group that might benefit from this question.

It might be because you don't answer the entire question, they also ask about removing attackers/blockers after they have been declared

@diego Ah, thank you.
Well, that other part was presented as an "example" of the same situation, and I have treated it as an (unfitting) example, not as another question.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Does Claustrophobia prevent triggered abilities?
If I have a Blightcaster and my opponent enchants it with Claustrophobia will my Blightcasters ability still work when I cast an enchantment?

Blightcaster's ability is a triggered ability that triggers whenever you (the controller) casts an enchantment.
Claustrophobia doesn't say anything about preventing active or triggered abilities, it just taps the creature.
If in doubt, expect no more than what the cards say.

Yes, the ability will still work.
Under very old and outdated rules of MTG, triggered abilities of artifacts didn't work if the artifacts were tapped. These rules were changed in the 6th edition though, so now being tapped or untapped has no effect on a triggered ability, unless that ability specifically says "if [card name] is untapped...".
Also, as Blightcaster is a creature and not an artifact, even under the very old rules being tapped wouldn't matter here.

The ability triggers. Blightcaster's ability is a triggered ability, which means it doesn't matter if it is tapped or not.

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


text:
How does 'The Stack' work?
If I cast Tormented Thoughts on my 3/1 creature and to counter my opponent uses Disperse to return it to my hand, is my Tormented Thoughts wasted?

You don't cast Tormented thoughts on a creature. You cast in on a player.

The stack does not matter here. Sacrificing a creature is part of the cost of casting Tormented Thoughts (it says so on the card). By the time your opponent has a chance to cast a spell, the creature you sacrificed will be in your graveyard, and therefore not a legal target for Disperse.

You opponent can't interact with the creature because by the time he/she gains priority to cast Disperse, the creature is in the graveyard.
The process of casting Tormented Thoughts is:

Place the card on the stack
Announce modes (N/A)
Choose targets
Choose divisions (N/A)
Check targets
Calculate cost
Pay cost

After 7, players can regain priority.


text:
Karlov of the Ghost Council and multiple counters
when I have Karlov of the Ghost Council and Righteous Cause on the battlefield and I attack with three creatures, does Karlos get six +1/+1 counters or only two counters since the creatures attack simultaneously?
Not sure whether the word "whenever" triggers for each creature or whether the attack counts as one trigger.
Thank you again!

I'm not sure if this should be a duplicate of http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/27938/will-karlov-soul-warden-get-multiple-1-1-counters-when-multiple-tokens-are-cr or not...

@GendoIkari I think it's not because this question is essentially "how many attacking creature triggers do I get from combat", while the other is "how many ETB triggers do I get from multiple creatures entering at the same time". The questions just happen to involve similar setups, cards-wise.

Karlov will get 6 +1/+1 counters with Righteous Cause. This is because the trigger says "Whenever a creature attacks", so it triggers for each creature. If however it had been worded like Path of Bravery, which says "Whenever one or more creatures you control attack", that would only be one instance of life gain and thus only 2 +1/+1 counters.


text:
Playing lands with Ugin's ultimate
With Ugin, the Spirit Dragon's third ability, it says "Gain seven life, draw 7 cards, and place up to 7 permanents from your hand to the battlefield." Does this include land because land is a permanent, or is the "1 land per turn" rule still in effect?

You can put lands onto the battlefield with Ugin's ability because you are not playing lands (a special action limited to once a turn) you are just putting them onto the battlefield.

115.2a Playing a land is a special action. To play a land, a player puts that land onto the battlefield from the zone it was in (usually that player’s hand). By default, a player can take this action only once during each of his or her turns. A player can take this action any time he or she has priority and the stack is empty during a main phase of his or her turn.
305.4. Effects may also allow players to “put” lands onto the battlefield. This isn’t the same as “playing a land” and doesn’t count as a land played during the current turn.


text:
No-thanks: What if a player has no card? | If a player hoards cards?
In No-thanks, according to the rulebook:

When finally a player decides to take the card (and all chips next to
  it), he puts it in front of himself face-up and takes the chips up in
  hand. After that, this player turns over the next card of the deck.

So assuming, player C took the card that players A, and B declined. So he now has that card + 2 chips. He then turns over the card and lucky him, it's a card close to his first card so he took it again, and the cycle repeats until there's only a few cards left in the deck.
We played the game and there was a specific scenario like this that luckily for one person, even though the shuffling was a bit random, the cards were close together that he just took almost all the cards (but of course in the end, he lost because there were gaps). But how about other players who weren't able to get a card due to one person's hoarding? Does that mean they get negative points (due to the chips plus the fact that they don't have a card)?

First off, did you remember to randomly remove 9 cards from the deck? This would greatly reduce the chance of a player getting lucky enough for that to be a good idea.
Other than that, it is certainly possible that a player could get negative points (though I don't think I've seen it happen). If you have a player that is purposefully losing the game by just taking every card, and thus making the game unplayable for the other players, then it is simply an issue of sportsmanship, and not one of rules. The rules do not prevent a player from ruining the game in this way.

Thanks @GendolKari, and yes we did randomly removed 9 cards from the deck. Although random, the 9 cards were majority the high value cards. Then one of the players, out of luck again from the deck, managed to get low numbered cards in somewhat of a sequence (probably due to bad shuffling) hence, he was able to hoard cards and one other player got nothing. So, in the case of that scenario, would the player with no cards win as he gets negative points along with his chips?

@Takeshi Yes, lowest total score wins; if players are negative that doesn't change.


text:
How to protect a tribal deck from Extinction?
I put together a Legacy Elfdrazi deck relying on Elvish Piper, Concordant Crossroads, some mana dorks and a bunch of tutoring like Green Sun's Zenith and Worldly Tutor to get Emrakul, the Aeons Torn and Progenitus out by turn 3-6 depending on how I draw.
Problem is that if things go poorly and I don't get Emrakul out til turn 5 or 6, my friend has managed to start playing Extinction which he recently acquired in response to my Elfdrazi deck. He's started winning nearly all our games with this.
I am unsure how to respond. It's a mono-green deck and splashing blue to get my hands on Unnatural Selection or Standardize (cheap blue cards that allow me to change all my creatures' creature types at a moment's notice, protecting them from Extinction) would slow me down a lot, most likely.
What effective ways are there to protect a tribal deck from black type-specific board clear? Is my best choice to buy more concordant crossroads and more pipers and try to make the deck faster so he never gets a chance?

Are you on a budget? If so, what is your budget? Can you provide your entire decklist instead of just a few cards (TappedOut.net is a good place to do that)? Are you open to splashing other colors as long as the original combo remains intact? What other cards in your meta do you need to be worried about? Are you trying to protect your Elves, your Eldrazi, or both? I'm not sure if your problem is that you piper Emrakul and then he kills it, or you just never get to piper Emrakul because he kills your Elves.

Never got to piper emrakul because he kills the elves. I have yet to lose a game where I got Emrakul out. I'll link to decklist in a minute. Spent like $280+ on deck already so at this point I'm probably hesitant to spent more than like another $40.

There's also 4x Defense of the Heart which I take out depending on the opposing deck; sometimes that card is too OP and makes it no fun. http://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/14-11-15-elfdrazi/

Since you said that you have yet to lose a game after getting Emrakul out, I have to ask: you know that if you Piper to put Emrakul onto the battlefield, you do not get an extra turn, right? You also know that Extinction can kill Emrakul?

Yes, of course. But if Emrakul has haste from Concordant Crossroads, he has to sacrifice 6 permanents on turn 3-5. Makes it hard to pay for extinction :) When my starting draw is good, things go well. Oh, I also have 3x Glimpse of Nature coming in the mail.

My previous comment was based on the fact that in significant number of games, you won't draw Concordant Crossroads. You have no way to tutor for it. By the way, there are no Worldly Tutors in your TappedOut list. Also, your list has 64 cards (without Worldly Tutor).

Yes, I added that after I made the list, sorry. 64 cards too many, is that what you mean?

Yes, anything above sixty cards is generally accepted to be too many. Consistency is inversely proportional to the number of cards in your deck.

Hmm. I will try to cut it down after I get Glimpse of Nature in the mail.

Note that Extinction doesn't require you to choose a creature type until resolution. So Standardize is practically useless against it.

Playing Around Board Wipes
For your purposes, Extinction is just a board wipe, like Supreme Verdict. In fact, at CMC 5, it's a slow board wipe. In a no-holds-barred Legacy environment, you'd be having to deal with faster sweepers like Perish and Terminus.
So you could try to get cute with instant-speed creature-type changing here, but nothing really prevents your friend from switching to more conventional mass removal to get the job done — even a card like Marsh Casualties will clean out mana dorks very efficiently.
So, what do you do if you're unprepared for a sweeper? General strategy is to be faster but don't overextend. Aggro decks commonly try to put a lot of pressure on their opponents right out the gate, forcing opponents to scramble to stabilize. "Curve-toppers" (especially creatures with haste or evasive abilities) and burn spells (like Lightning Bolt) help get the last few points of damage in after that Supreme Verdict has dropped.
But, in your case, you're playing a combo deck that uses creatures for mana instead of constantly pressuring life totals, so racing the sweeper is a bit of an all-or-nothing arrangement: if you fail, you've lost a lot of resources with basically nothing to show for it.
So, what do you do?
Combo Deck Fundamentals
Most combo decks want to be fast. That's basically their whole value proposition: devote most of your deck to doing weird, kinda useless-seeming stuff in order to quickly work your way up to a devastating finish.
So, can you tune up your combo engine to make your deck faster? For example:

Tournament-grade elf decks often use Heritage Druid+Nettle Sentinel as a mana engine. Heritage Druid will help speed up hands where you didn't get a Concordant Crossroads.
Tournament-grade elf decks tend to use Glimpse of Nature (or Beck) to chain lots of cards quickly.

Replacing some of your slower elves with these cards might help you gain a turn or more.
You can also speed up your deck by improving its consistency. If you're "going off" on turn 3 50% of the time and turn 4 50% of the time, then getting that ratio down to 90%/10% is effectively the same as speeding your deck up by half a turn. Card filtering, tutors (not just for your endgame piece but for the cards you need to get there), and better access to redundant cards will all help get you there.
But, unless you're playing a truly degenerate format, your opponents will be able to interact with you, and your deck needs to be able to go off despite their best attempts at disruption — especially in post-sideboard games where they might bring in specific countermeasures against you. Some tried-and-true strategies here:

Lots of redundant pieces. Elf decks usually naturally have this covered, since they play a lot of highly interchangeable cards.
"Plan B." A second combo (e.g. slower but simpler), going offensive with your creatures, or the ability to play for the endgame like a control deck.
Disruption. Protect your combo with disruptive elements of your own.

Deckbuilding Suggestions
Your deck already has a fair bit of redundancy to it. "Plan B" is pretty easy: go on the offense with your little elves, perhaps using Ezuri's Overrun ability.
Let's focus on that third pillar: disruption. The best colors for this are blue and black, which are the colors of counterspells and targeted discard, respectively. I prefer targeted discard for true combo decks, because it allows me to go after my opponent's disruptive resources on my own schedule rather than having to wait and hold open counterspell mana (if you want to do that, build full-on combo-control, or play an instant-speed combo deck). Targeted discard also works well in combo decks because oftentimes your opponent only has a few cards that can truly interact with yours — you don't need to deal with all of their cards, just the handful of reactive cards or hosers they're using to slow down your combo.
So, let's just use targeted discard to rip our opponents' hands apart before they can nuke our elves away. As a bonus, we'll get the ability to see their hands, which makes it much easier to play around whatever they still have in hand. The optimal targeted discard cards are Thoughtseize, Cabal Therapy, Duress, and Inquisition of Kozilek; in your case, IoK is suboptimal (you care about some CMC 4+ spells, but in a pinch you can chump-block with an elf or two, so you don't particularly need discard spells that can hit cheap creatures), but all the other ones have their appeal:

Play Cabal Therapy for maximum value, if you're comfortable guessing strategically.
Play Thoughtseize if you want a targeted discard spell guaranteed to hit something.
Play Duress if you're budget-limited or you think Thoughtseize exposes you to too much risk from aggro deck.

Going green/black, even if it's just a splash, also opens up access to a number of other interesting options:

Shaman of the Pack lets you turn elves into life drain.
Black/green gives you access to a lot of great removal, including Abrupt Decay and Maelstrom Pulse (and Pernicious Deed, but that's suicide for your deck).
Golgari Charm is a multifaceted spell that can protect your elves from some (but not all!) sweeper effects.
Black is a great color for digging stuff out of the graveyard. You've even got some mass revival options like Patriarch's Bidding (perfect for a "tribal" deck). Since such spells are costly, I don't really recommend them for one-on-one, but they may be a good addition to a deck for multiplayer.

These are all secondary to the pure defensive benefit or running discard spells to protect your combo, though.

"If you're "going off" on turn 4 50% of the time and turn 4 50% of the time" - did you mean two different turns? :)

There are some really great ideas here. Thanks. Ezuri is actually already plan B, that's why he's there. If I don't get a piper, either Time of Need to hardcast silvos very early with rofellos/priest of titania or else get Ezuri out, one or the other has won me a number of games with this deck. But yeah, splashing another color might be necessary.

@doppelgreener fixed

@AlexP I don't really see how to use the Nettle Elves / Heritage Druid. I get the combo, but isn't it kind of dependent on your having 2 or more nettle elves out? Seems like a mana combo relying on you drawing a specific three creatures is much less reliable than Rofellos or Priest of Titania. I know I must be wrong but I don't see how.

@Aerovistae Heritage Druid allows you to use any three elves to make GGG. Which is like having all your elves be mana elves. Nettle Sentinel is just good because it's reusable: every time you drop a new elf, you get to untap your Nettle Sentinel. Use Glimpse of Nature to chain through a bunch of elves at once.

Beck is essentially Glimpse of Nature if you decide to go the elf "combo" route and also splash blue.

Given green's normal options, I would look at regeneration to protect against Extinction.  The best anti-Extinction card I could find with a little searching was Wrap in Vigor that is mono green.  If you could splash colors then Golgari Charm or Loxodon Hierarch look promising as well.
Of course green has lots of options for single creature regeneration.  You could also look into cards that make your creatures indestructable.  Shield of Kaldra or Darksteel Plate come to mind as possibilities.

One option is to play Wirewood Symbiote. You can activate one in response to Extinction to effectively make an Elf dodge the removal, and assuming that they chose "Elf", the Symbiote itself won't die. Plus, you can also use it to untap mana creatures like Priest of Titania for lots of mana, so it's a good addition to a deck like this in general.
Another option is to play Eldrazi Monument, which makes all of your creatures indestructible, and also costs {5}, so you should be able to play it first with your mana ramp. Plus, it's a flavor match. The downside is that you have to sacrifice a creature each turn.
You should also learn how to play around mass removal in general. If you think your opponent is about to play Extinction, hold some things back in your hand.

Eldrazi monument costs a creature per turn :( but i guess that's a small price to pay as opposed to losing all of them

Actually, I think I'll rearrange my answer. Symbiote is probably the better answer here.

There are effects like Fecundity which let you draw from the destruction of your creatures, refilling your hand and thus enabling you to start setting up your combo once more.


text:
Sacrifice Question
I have two creatures and barrage of expendables on the battlefield. My opponent casts a spell with the effect: "Each opponent sacrifices a creature"
Can I choose to sacrifice creature 1, then before my opponent's spell resolves, sacrifice creature 1 as the cost for barrage of expendables, thus resulting in only having lost creature 1?

Well... It's not a perfect duplicate, since the sacrifice caused by Chainer's Edict* isn't strictly speaking a "cost". (*or whatever spell OP is talking about. AFAICT no card contains the exact text "Each opponent sacrifices a creature" and nothing else)

Also http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/5892/can-you-claim-a-double-sacrifice-bonus (but it's already marked as a dup of the final dup chosen here).

The way you've phrased this there's actually one thing worth mentioning that's left implicit in the other questions: when a spell says to sacrifice a creature, you choose the creature to sacrifice when the spell resolves. It's not like something that says "target creature" where you pick up front; you wait until something says to sacrifice and then choose. That means there's never any way to cheat out of it like this: as long as you have at least one creature, you're going to lose one.

This is also a near duplicate of Can I cast a spell while another spell or ability is resolving?. You cannot begin resolving a spell by choosing a creature to sacrifice, then go do something else, and then finish resolving the spell. You have to resolve the spell all at once, and then you can do other stuff.


text:
Progentius vs Cowardice
So my friend thinks that Cowardice will get rid of Progenitus but since a spell can't target Progenitus it can't target it. Now he also said I can target it but it fizzles but he would be doing an illegal move if I'm correct.
What can get Progenitus off the field? I know counterspells can and anything that doesn't directly target Progenitus such as sacrifice a creature you control or In Garruk's Wake if I'm correct.
Basically as long as it doesn't specifically say target creature?
I'm doing a hydra deck but my friends run counterspells so I'm thinking of using Boseiju, Who Shelters All, Cavern of Souls, Grand Abolisher, and Banefire. (White Green Hydras) (Can run red for Bane)
Basically I wanna be able to get my big creatures on the field without being countered (also this would be on side board since only 2 of my friends run counters)

You are correct that Cowardice is of no benefit vs. Progenitus.  Declaring Progenitus to be the target of something is an illegal action so you back up to just before it was done, it doesn't "Happen but fizzle."
The easy way to keep track of protection is the acronym DEBT.
D - Damage, the thing you have protection from cannot damage you
E - Enchant and Equip, the thing you have protection from cannot enchant you or be equipped to you
B - Block, the thing you have protection from cannot block you
T - Target, the thing you have protection from cannot target you
So, for example, Day of Judgment can remove Progenitus because it does none of those things.  Fleshbag Marauder could also get rid of Progenitus if you have nothing else to sacrifice, etc.

Cowardice will have no effect of old proggy. Cowardice bounces things that get targeted but because old proggy has protection from everything everything that is a thing cannot target it.
Remember the DEBT rule for when you are dealing with protection. A permanent with proteection from X cannot be...
Dealt DAMAGE from X
Enchanted / Equipped / Fortified  by X
Blocked by X
TARGETED by x

Even if a token had a targetted effect (e.g. you have a token copy of a creature with such an ability) it doesn't matter. Tokens are still a thing that exists in the game, therefore Progenitus has protection from them too. By my interpretation Everything even extends to include Emblems, which are neither permanents, cards nor spells.

2/1/2009 "Protection from everything" means the following: Progenitus can't be blocked, Progenitus can't be enchanted or equipped, Progenitus can't be the target of spells or abilities, and all damage that would be dealt to Progenitus is prevented. This includes emblems that deal damage or target, but not emblems with static effects like +1/+1 to all creatures, which would affect Progenitus.


text:
Pocketing the last coin and the striker at the same time

Only one black (mine) and one white (opponent's) coin are on the board. (All the other coins and the queen have been pocketed)
I pocket my black coin, but accidentally also pocket the striker.

Who will win?

Have you already covered the Queen, or are you trying to cover the Queen with this shot?

I have already covered queen.

Nobody wins yet. You return 2 C/m to the board and continue your turn. According to the ICF rules:

If a player pockets the Striker with his own C/m by a proper stroke, the number of C/m so pocketed, with a Due C/m, shall be taken out for placing and the player shall continue his turn.

If we put the opponent's last coin without finishing red then we are lost. If we put our last coin without finishing red then we have to place one minus.


text:
Scion of the Ur-Dragon and Grave Pact
When I use Scion of the Ur-Dragon's ability and put a dragon card from my library into the grave yard, does that trigger Grave Pact?

No, Scion puts a dragon card directly from the library into the graveyard. Grave Pact triggers on things moving from the battlefield to a graveyard.
Note the Oracle text on the card has been updated to say 'Whenever a creature you control dies' instead of 'Whenever a creature you control in put into a graveyard from the battlefield', though they mean the same thing:

700.4. The term dies means “is put into a graveyard from the battlefield.”

It might help to point out that all actual printings of Grave Pact use the "whenever a creature you control is put into a graveyard from the battlefield" wording, and that that's equivalent to the eratta'd wording.

Also worth noting that even without "dies" / "from the battlefield", a creature card in your library is not "a creature you control."

@Gendolkari I considered adding that too but didn't feel it was necessary


text:
Magic The Gathering can this combo be done?
Quick question, can I use Smallpox and choose to sacrifice Strip Mine but in response sacrifice Strip Mine to use it's effect too?

Also relevant: Can I pay two different costs with the same payment? and Can you claim a Double Sacrifice Bonus?

You can only respond to spells being cast and to abilities being added to the stack.  You can't respond to sacrifices


text:
Interaction with descent of the dragons and dragon tempest
Let's say I have 4 creatures on the battlefield, and the Dragon Tempest enchantment out as well.
If I use Descent of the Dragons and replace all 4 of my creatures, how does this interact with dragon tempest?
1) 4 damage dealt to target controller or target creature (enchantment interprets all 4 dragons being placed as one event).
2) 10 damage dealt to target controller or target creature (enchantment triggers for each time dragon enters battlefield (1 dmg, 2 dmg, 3 dmg, 4 dmg)).
3) Something else entirely!
Thanks

So I see this is a duplicate, referring to this rule: 603.6a Enters-the-battlefield abilities trigger when a permanent enters the battlefield. These are written, "When [this object] enters the battlefield, ..." or "Whenever a [type] enters the battlefield, ..." Each time an event puts one or more permanents onto the battlefield, all permanents on the battlefield (including the newcomers) are checked for any enters-the-battlefield triggers that match the event.  <--- So in this situation it deals 10 damage? I still don't know if I am reading this rule correct.

If someone can just tell me how much damage it deals, instead of just marking a dupe that would be great!@

Did you read the answer in the first link? It says "whenever multiple objects enter the battlefield at the same time, their enters the battlefield triggers will all see all of them as on the battlefield." You have 4 triggers. Each of them sees all 4 dragons on the battlefield. That makes 16 total damage.


text:
Spells placing effects on heroic
I know this may really sound dumb for asking, but..
Say you have a card like Dragonrage and it applies onto say Favored Hoplite.
I know the Dragonrage's affect will trigger Heroic, but the "R: This creature gains +1/+0" wouldnt affect Heroic if used correct since it isn't technically a spell right?

I know the Dragonrage's affect will trigger Heroic...

Actually, it doesn't. The word "target" doesn't appear anywhere on Dragonrage, and it's not an aura, so it doesn't target, and so it doesn't trigger heroic.
As an alternative example, Dragon Mantle is an aura, so it does trigger heroic when you initially cast it.

the "R: This creature gains +1/+0" wouldn't affect Heroic if used correct since it isn't technically a spell right?

Right. This is an activated ability, not a spell. Additionally, it doesn't target, so even if it was a spell, it wouldn't trigger heroic anyway.


text:
Rescue from the Underworld on an unearthed creature
With Sedris, the Traitor King on the battlefield, I pay the 2B cost to unearth a creature. Then I cast Rescue from the Underworld and sacrifice the card that was just unearthed. I understand that the creature will go to exile instead of in the graveyard, but will it still be returned to the battlefield later ? Do you know other cards that could "save" a unearthed creature to go into exile ? Thank you very much.

You will get the card back after it goes to exile because it doesn't say to return the card from the graveyard, rather just return 'that card'. From the Gatherer rulings on Rescue from the Underworld:

However, if the sacrificed creature is put into another public zone instead of the graveyard, perhaps because it’s your commander or because of another replacement effect, it will return to the battlefield from the zone it went to.

The unearth creature going to exile instead of the graveyard is a replacement effect.
Normally, effects cannot find objects that change zones. There are eight exceptions to this rule, and you found one of them:

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 eight exceptions to this rule:

[...]
400.7h If an effect causes an object to move to a public zone, other parts of that effect can find that object. If the cost of a spell or ability causes an object to move to a public zone, that spell or ability’s effects can find that object.

Other ways of getting around the exile part of Unearth involve other cards that are worded like Rescue (specifically ones that do not specify the zone the card needs to be in to move), and ones that 'blink' or 'flicker' a creatures like Cloudshift that exile the creature and return it either immediately or at some time in the future.


text:
What does outlast do?
On Disowned Ancestor it says

Outlast {1}{B} ({1}{B}, tap: Put a +1/+1 counter on this creature. Outlast only as a sorcery.)

Why do you pay the cost to activate it twice?
Would it not be the same if it said

Outlast {2}{B}{B}, tap: Put a +1/+1 counter on this creature. Outlast only as a sorcery.

I don't understand what the point of paying the mana twice instead of doubled would be?

You do not pay the cost twice. The part in parentheses is called reminder text, and doesn't actually do anything it just reminds you how Outlast works. The card would function exactly the same if it read "Outlast {1}{B}"

207.2a Reminder text is italicized text within parentheses that summarizes a rule that applies to that card. It usually appears on the same line as the ability it’s relevant to, but it may appear on its own line if it applies to an aspect of the card other than an ability.
702.106. Outlast
702.106a Outlast is an activated ability. “Outlast [cost]” means “[Cost], {T}: Put a +1/+1 counter on this creature. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.”

Your answer might be improved by explaining that Outlast is a keyword, which is why the reminder text is there: all keywords that aren't part of the basic few (like "flying" or "first strike") are printed with reminder text to ensure you won't have to break up the flow of the game by referencing a rulebook just to know what the card does.

You misunderstand.  Everything in the parenthesis and italics is just reminder text.

Outlast {1}{B}

means

{1}{B}, {T}: Put a +1/+1 counter on this creature. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.

So you only pay the mana once.


text:
Blinking face down Auras and Non-Permanents
When I exile a manifested permanent like an enchantment or creature with something like Roon of the Hidden Realm, it comes back face up (from what I understand). What happens if I exile and return an instant, sorcery or aura enchantment? Do their effects take place on the end of my turn?

Instants and sorceries would stay in the zone they're currently in, in your case in Exile. They do nothing.

304.4. Instants can’t enter the battlefield. If an instant would enter the battlefield, it remains in its previous zone instead.
307.4. Sorceries can’t enter the battlefield. If a sorcery would enter the battlefield, it remains in its previous zone instead.

If an Aura enters the battlefield other than by resolving, you can choose a legal object or player for it to enchant. Note that this does not target the chosen object. If you can't because there are no legal objects to enchant, it remains in the zone it came from; in your case, in Exile.

303.4f If an Aura is entering the battlefield under a player’s control by any means other than by resolving as an Aura spell, and the effect putting it onto the battlefield doesn’t specify the object or player the Aura will enchant, that player chooses what it will enchant as the Aura enters the battlefield. The player must choose a legal object or player according to the Aura’s enchant ability and any other applicable effects.
303.4g If an Aura is entering the battlefield and there is no legal object or player for it to enchant, the Aura remains in its current zone, unless that zone is the stack. In that case, the Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard instead of entering the battlefield.

The aura does NOT target in this case, you simply choose a legal object for it. This means that you could still attach it to something with Shroud, for example.

@GendoIkari That's actually kinda useful, if I have an enemy hexproof creature that I want to do stuff with.

I'd vote this up, but I don't have enough rep. :(


text:
Casting a creature and hexproofing
If I play Krenko, Mob Boss and retain priority and cast Swiftfoot Boots on Krenko Mob Boss and at the same time my opponent casts Unsummon on Krenko Mob Boss, will my creature be safe or will he be removed from the battlefield?

The important thing here is that equipping is at sorcery speed. If it was instant, you could then equip again while Unsummon was on the stack, but because it's at sorcery speed your opponent has the choice of timing with their instant.

If I play Krenko Mob Boss and retain priority [...]

First, let's clear up this confusion. If you cast Krenko and retain priority, then Krenko has not resolved. You need to wait until after Krenko resolves, at which point you will have priority because you are the active player.
Now, after Krenko resolves, you decide to equip Swiftfoot Boots to Krenko. Equip is an activated ability. That means it will not resolve until all players pass in succession.

702.6a Equip is an activated ability of Equipment cards. “Equip [cost]” means “[Cost]: Attach this permanent to target creature you control. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.”
608.1. Each time all players pass in succession, the spell or ability on top of the stack resolves. [...]

Your opponent may choose not to pass, and cast Unsummon instead. If they do that, then Krenko will be returned to your hand. Then, the equip ability will attempt to resolve, but will fail because Krenko is gone. Here's a little diagram to illustrate the process:

activate ability -> stuff happens -> ability resolves if target is still legal

As an addendum to this (and correct me if I'm wrong), if the Boots' controller has another mana and is so inclined, she could activate the equip ability again in response to Unsummon being cast. This new equip would resolve first, causing Unsummon to fizzle. The original equip ability would then be a no-op; I don't think the rules even mention equipping to the currently equipped creature.

@matthias This does not work because equip can only be done as a sorcery. You'd need some kind of instant-speed attach ability for that to work.

Bah, I completely skimmed over that phrase in 702 once I noticed the referral back to 301. Mea culpa.

@matthias Your comments were still helpful. I edited my answer to include the entire rule instead of truncating.

Maybe nice to mention is that Leonin Shikari would be an example of a card that let's you respond to the Unsummon with another equip.

Krenko will be returned to your hand. However it should be noted that you cannot cast a Swiftfooot Boots on any creature, you need to have already cast the boots then pay the equip cost to attach them.
Priority doesn't seem to work the way that you think it does, the Unsummon does not happen at the same time as the Equip, it happens in response to it. If you cast Krenko and retain priority you need to then cast an instant (or activate an ability), Krenko will not resolve until all players have passed priority with Krenko being the top thing on the stack. Once Krenko resolves you automatically regain priority (assuming you are the active player), at this point you can activate the Equip ability of the Swiftfoot Boots targeting Krenko.
At this point you need to pass priority to your opponent, rather than passing priority back and letting the Equip ability resolve they instead choose to respond with Unsummon also targeting Krenko and pass priority back to you.
You now have the opportunity to respond with your own spell (or activated ability), and if you choose not to the first item on the stack will resolve, in this case the Unsummon returning Krenko to your hand. Assuming you and your opponent both pass priority again the next thing on the stack will resolve, this time it is the Equip ability. Since the Equip ability no longer has a legal target the ability fizzles and does nothing (if it was attached to a creature prior to activating the ability it will still be attached when the ability is countered).

Casting a spell uses the stack just like activating an ability does.  Your opponent will get an opportunity to respond with Unsummon.  Because Unsummon is instant speed, it can be cast when there are other items on the stack.  However, casting an artifact spell or equipping a creature with equipment is a sorcery speed action and therefore can only be cast on your turn when the stack is empty.
Let's say you attempt to equip Swiftfoot Boots to a creature.  The equip action actually goes on the stack.  Then your opponent can respond with Unsummon.  The stack will then look like this:
Unsummon
Equip

Unsummon will then resolve first because it's on top of the stack.  This is before your creature gains hexproof.  Your creature will return to your hand.  The equip action will fizzle because the creature it was targeting no longer is a legal target.

That is, there is no "at the same time" - it's "in response".


text:
Fight and first strike
I was playing a game earlier and my opponent had a Drana, Liberator of Malakir that was a 4/3 and wanted to use a sorcery to fight Kozilek's Channeler that was a 4/4.
We were wondering if the Channeler would die first because of First Strike? Or would it not be counted as it wasn't combat?

First Strike does not apply because it isn't combat.

701.10d The damage dealt when a creature fights isn’t combat damage.
702.7a First strike is a static ability that modifies the rules for the combat damage step.

Thanks, that's what I thought but we really weren't sure


text:
Does a bestow creature falling off trigger Impact Tremors?
If I cast a Reckless Imp for its Dash cost and Bestow a Nyxborn Rollicker on it, will the Rollicker still become a creature and trigger Impact Tremors upon the Imp returning to my hand?

This had two "unclear what you're asking votes but it sure looks like a clear dup to me; edited to clarify. (Dash isn't really important here, it's just what happens to be the reason the bestowed creature falls off in this example.)

@Jefromi It looks to me like there are 2 separate questions being asked. 1) Will the dash mechanic cause a bestowed aura to become a creature? And 2) Will a bestowed aura becoming a creature trigger ETB effects? Only the second is a duplicate; the first is unanswered.

With impact tremors in play, cast reckless imp for dash cost, attach nyxborn rollicker for bestow cost, swing, return reckless imp to hand as specified and then "nyxborn rollicker" returns to field correct? Then that again triggers "impact tremors correct?

The Nyxborn Rollicker never leaves the battlefield, it just changes into a creature

@GendoIkari I didn't think there was any doubt about the fact that the bestowed creature ends up as a creature, but I suppose we can answer that!

So does nyxborn rollicker have to be cast for bestow to trigger "grim guardian" or does being an "enchantment creature" alone allow for trigger?

@Gendolkari The first question you extracted is a duplicate of When a Creature dies, does the Enchantment Creature attached to that Creature go in the graveyard? The second you extracted is a duplicate of If a permanent transforms into a creature, has it entered the battlefield?

@Bryan If you have a new question please don't ask it in comments, ask it as a new question.


text:
Overseer of the Damned board wipe
What happens with Overseer of the Damned in the case of a board wipe? I know that all the creatures die at the same time, so do I still get zombies or is that ability mulled by the fact that Overseer is now gone?

In that example the creature causing the trigger was not killed.

Sorry, I clicked the wrong link, it should be http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/18269/what-happens-when-a-creature-with-whenever-a-creature-dies-dies-simultaneously?rq=1

@Diego It is indeed.

Assuming your opponent had two copies of Grizzly Bear it would result in all three creatures being destroyed and afterwards you placing two 2/2 Black Zombie creature tokens into play tapped.
Overseer of the Damned has a triggered ability which is placed onto the stack the next time a player would get priority. Put more succinctly, the ability doesn't go onto the stack until after the board wipe has finished resolving.


text:
What does "if there are previously drawn cards in your hand, rearrange the hand so that four cards are visible" mean?
In one-handed solitaire, after discarding cards the rules state "If there are previously drawn cards in your hand, rearrange the hand so that four cards are visible."
What does this mean?

It is unclear exactly what you are asking. First of all what game is this for?

I think I've traced it, from a link in an answer in [this question][1]. I've edited the question to make it clear. [1]: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/2816/looking-to-identify-a-particular-form-of-solitaire-played-in-hand-not-on-a-tabl

In one-handed solitaire, your "hand" is all the face-up cards on the top of the deck. You are always supposed to have the top four of these cards visible, which can be achieved by fanning out the top four cards.
So this rule means that "if the number of visible cards is less than four, and the total number of face-up cards on the top of the deck is at least four, then fan out the top four cards so that you can see them all".

Your question has absolutely no context, so it is difficult to answer in a way that is specific to what you need.
We need the e full context of the rules to explain this.  If you have trouble with terminology, see the original text of this answer, below. Emphasis mine.

Taking a standard, shuffled 52-card deck of playing cards (without Jokers), hold the deck face down in your hand.  Draw from the back of the deck four cards and place them on top fanned out so that the suit and number can be seen.

As the above rule indicates, you draw cards at a certain point in this game. You always draw four cards. There is no maximum limit of cards you may have in your hand written in the quoted rules, so you may have leftover cards from a previous action. Adding four new cards to your hand can result in having more than four cards in your hand. For example, if you had one card in your hand, then drew four cards, you would have five cards in your hand.

If the first and fourth card are the same suit, discard the two middle cards, placing them on your lap if seated or in a pocket or elsewhere if standing. If there are previously drawn cards in your hand, rearrange the hand so that four cards are visible. If there are not enough cards to do this, draw from the back so that four cards are visible.

After performing prior actions, you may still have more than four cards in your hand. If you do do, you need to adjust your hand so that you can only see the faces of four cards.  You shouod effectively be playing a four card hand at this point.
The linked rules don't specify about how to rearrange the cards, or what happens with the cards you can no longer see. As such, based only on those rules, you ha e the option of discarding the no-longer-accessible cards from the gake. However, this seems highly punative and very unlikey that you could win if you took this approach.
The other option, which I suspect is the intended option, and is definitely easier, is if you flip some cards face down so that you can't see them any more, or otherwise set them to the side.  So, if you had 5 cards, flip 1 face down. That card wou k d effectively be out of play, amd could only come back if you have more than 4 cards on the table in the future, prompting you to rearrange your cards again (unless there's another rule that lets you rearrange under otber conditions).
---- Original answer ----
That said, let's break things down...

if there are previously drawn cards in your hand

Your 'hand' typically refers to the set of cards you are playing. You typically hold these cards in the body part also known as your hand (that which is attached to your arm, at the opposite end from your shoulder).  The gaming term is (I believe) derived from the term 'hand of cards'. However, there are games and times when you locate your hand of cards elsewhere, like resting on the table.
As part of many games, you have a reserve of cards, often called a "deck" or a "stack." This pile is defined by the rules of the game, and the way you access the pile is defined by the rules of the game.  Often, you will have a person who is assigned the role of "dealer", meaning s/he is responsible for handing out cards to each player in accordance with the game rules.  Other times, you may have multiple decks/stacks, from which you will obtain cards.  The act of obtaining these cards is called "drawing" them.  The term "to draw" applies whether or not you are dealt cards by the dealer or if you draw them directly from the deck yourself - though individual rules of the game can change that.
"previously drawn cards in your hand" means that you have obtained cards by drawing them, and they are currently in your hand.  The rule and context of the rule will indicate when those cards were drawn.  Perhaps on this turn, perhaps any time since the game started.

rearrange

The cards that you hold in your hand are in some order.  One card may be to the left, another to the right, of that, and another to the right of that.  Or they may all be held on top of each other so that you can see exactly one card.  The term "arrangement" means the way things happen to be placed.  It is nonspecific as to where the particular placements are - just that the specific things in question have locations in physical space.  To "rearrange" is to change the arrangement in physical space.  That is, to change where those things are located in physical space.

rearrange the hand

This specifies that we are looking at the locations of the cards in your hand of cards, and that you are to change the locations that they are take in physical space.

so that four cards are visible

Something is "visible" if you can see it.  It is "not visible" if you cannot see it.  The way that you need to set up the cards you have in your hand of cards is so that exactly four of those cards can be seen.  In particular, this type of rule with card games typically means that the face of the card with interesting information on it is visible - with poker cards, you'd be able to see the number and suit of the card.  However, the specific rule that you are quoting from might contain additional specification that changes exactly which side is visible.
This instruction also means that you should set the other cards so they are not visible.  This could be by keeping them in your hand, or by stacking them under the other cards, or perhaps by placing them face down on the table.  The specific rules of the game will provide any special instructions about how these non-visible cards should be arranged.

If you are unclear about what is being asked you should post a comment asking for clarification, not posting an answer that may end up not answering what the questioner is looking for.

I know Diego's right... but I love the bit where atk says "your hand (that which is attached to your arm, at the opposite end from your shoulder)" :)

Now that the question is actually clear, this looks even more out of place; you might consider editing or deleting.

This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post.

@AndrewVandever, to the contrary, it is an answer to the question as asked. It may or may not answer the aspect with which the OP had trouble, but there is no indication that OP wanted different than what's provided. For example, if they are not a native english speaker and don't understand that hand means hand of card not hands attached to arm. On the other hand (no pun intended) no insight into context of the rule is provided in my answer, since there is no context in the question upon which to provide insight.  Or, more simply stated, it's a very generic answer to a very generic question.

Well, until the most recent edit, anyhow.

Aaaannnndd, updated based on new context.

The way we always played it was that you would just slide the face up cards over so you have the top 4 fanned out and might have other face up cards under the bottom-most fanned card. Then if you are able to eliminate some of the cards you slide those cards back into the fan to make it 4 visible cards. I hope that makes sense, it's kinda awkward to describe. Basically the fan just collapses on the left side (assuming they are fanned to the right) as you add more cards to the right side.

In general, if there's not enough context, I think it's more helpful to ask for clarification rather than give a long, overly complicated answer that could cover all possible interpretations of the question. The latter is at best confusing and obsolete once the question is cleared up, at worst condescending and rude, or "trolly", if you prefer.


text:
Is it possible for a person to lose "Pirate Islands" Seafarers scenario before the game even starts?
So here's where my question stems from: In the Pirate Islands scenario, each player starts with 3 settlements on the Eastern Island. A player only wins if:
a) he has captured the Pirate fortress of his color, AND
b) reaches 10 victory points
There are no special victory points in this scenario besides basic expansion (no Longest Road, no Largest Army, and no VP cards from the Development stack since they are used as Knight cards)
Based on the confined locations of the map, it would appear that if you never are able to expand beyond your initial three placement on the eastern island, it will be impossible for you to win.  Thus, the game could be over for someone before it even begins.

For example, in the attached image which simplifies the situation, let's say I'm White. I have been boxed in on the Eastern Island. I have built my maximum 4 Cities, as well as 1 settlement. These 5 locations are the only eligible spots for me to build. There is no way to get extra victory points, thus I will forever be stuck at 9 VP.
Our solution when we've played is that a player is allowed to build roads on the Pirate Fortress island to expand to an additional settlement (marked by the pink outlined question marks on the map)
According to the rules...

A player is only allowed to build ONE shipping route, directly between his initial coastal settlement, and the corresponding pirate fortress. Note that it only says the shipping route may not be extended beyond the Pirate Fortress, not trade route. It doesn't say anything about building roads on the Pirate Fortress island.
In the second screenshot, it could be interpreted that the rules about additional settlements are only referring to the midway pirate island (i.e. I can't build another settlement on the "8 ore" tile)
Am I missing something? Has anyone else encountered this issue?
If you are not allowed to build additional settlements beyond the Pirate Fortress, I would call this scenario flawed. Any scenario where a player can lose before the first roll of the dice needs to be fixed, in my opinion.

This is a problem with this scenario in its current form. Sebastian Rapp, Catan's Product Manager, suggests lowering the points required to 8 since the point of this scenario is more to build ships and defeat pirates that to develop the starting island.
Your idea of being able to build on the pirate islands is another fix, possibly with the stipulation that you can only build an additional settlement on the pirate islands if it is a position that doesn't produce any resources.


text:
When can you start using the Pirate in Catan Cities and Knights / Seafarers?
In C&K rules, the robber cannot be moved at all until the first Barbarian Attack. When playing C&K combined with Seafarers, does this also apply to the pirate?
It would make a lot of sense to me, but I can't find anywhere that specifically spells it out either way.

From the rules to Sefarers, page 6:

If you roll a "7" during your turn, you may elect to move the pirate
  INSTEAD of the robber.

From the Cities and Knights rules, page 5:

The robber cannot be moved until after the barbarians reach the island
  of Catan for the first time.

Since the robber can't be moved until the barbarians attack, neither can the pirate, as there is no robber movement to replace.

A strict reading of both the Seafarers and Cities & Knights rules says that the rule for waiting until the first Barbarian Attack applies only to the robber, and not the pirate, although there is a small ambiguity in that when you roll a 7 you may move the pirate instead of the robber, but technically you cannot move the robber until the first attack. Additionally, there seems to be no statement about the interaction in the FAQ either under the individual expansions or the crossover between them.
Given the ambiguity, you would probably have to decide which way to play via house rule.


text:
What are the rules updates for Catan in the 5th edition? Are there any?
Page 6 of the new Seafarers rulebook states:
"A general note on Catan rules. This is the 5th English-language edition of Catan Seafarers. Over the years, the rules have been clarified, refined, and occasionally updated. As of January 1, 2015, all of the rules in this version of Catan take precedence over any previously-published rules."
Is this notice simply a formality for the 5th edition release, or is there actually something that was changed, refined, clarified? (And I ask regarding any of the expansions, not just this one.) Because I can't find what it is.
Also, does anyone know if any of the default map layouts changed?

Changes to the base game
The biggest change in the base game is that the name has switched from "Settlers of Catan" to just "Catan".  They've also updated the art (citation).
Changes to seafarers
Many of the scenario maps are different.  It seems they used the maps from the 2008 German printing of seafarers when making 5th edition.  The big change is that there are now separate maps for 3 players vs 4 players on the first four scenarios.  Additionally, the layouts of "The Fog Islands" has been completely changed.  For a look at historical Catan scenarios, see this compilation.

Prior to fifth edition
Between third and fourth edition of base Catan, they added a rule allowing you to move the robber to the desert, and renamed the "Soldier" card to a "Knight", presumably for terminology consistency with Cities and Knights.
Between third and fourth edition of Seafarers, they changed the game border from rectangular to hexagonal, meaning all of the scenario maps got changed then as well.
Also, see What are the differences between the four editions of The Settlers of Catan base game?

One clarification of the rules regards moving ships. In the 4th edition Seafarers Rulebook, there was a poor translation which made some people think that you could not ever move the ship that is closest to a homeport (i.e. you could never divorce a settlement and its first ship).
The 4th edition rules stated:
"You may only move the ship that is at the end of the shipping route that is not connected to the “homeport” for that route."
Catan's product manager, Sebastian Rapp, clarified that this was a miscommunication. The wording in the 5th edition Seafarers rulebook has been updated with a new diagram to clarify the rule: A ship MAY be moved such that a settlement exists without a ship or a road attached.

The setup for the non-randomized beginner game has changed.  The desert moved from the edge to the center of the map.
They also suggest, if only as a teaching aid, that you consider a turn to have three sequential parts: resources, trade, then build. From page 6:

The separation of the trade and build phases was introduced to make the sequence easier to learn for beginners. We recommend experienced players ignore this separation.


text:
Can i search a copy of a card in the battlefield in my library?
If i use a Cackling Counterpart to create a token of a creature, can i use cards targeting that token (like Pack Hunt) to search my library for that same creature cards?

When you create a copy of something you copy pretty much everything about it including its name [706.2.]. And Pack Hunt only needs a creature to target, it doesn't care if the creature is a token or a real card all it care about is that it is a creature. So Pack Hunt will happily find more of whatever creature you happened to copy.
If the created token isn't a copy, the effect that created the token gave it a name. This name is either specified explicitly by the instruction that created the token, or it defaults to the creature's type(s). This name will usually not be the name of the cards in your library, so you will generally not be able to find any matching cards. There are a few cards like Llanowar Mentor that makes tokens named Llanowar Elves so if you had a token made by the Mentor you could find cards named Llanowar Elves. There is also an odd case with Splintering Wind which makes tokens named Splinter, which would allow you to find the card Splinter even though it isn't a creature card.

"This name will not be the name of the cards in your library, so you will not be able to find any matching cards. " I agree that this is usually the case, but I can think of a few exceptions. For example, LLanowar Mentor creates tokens named "Llanowar Elves", so Pack Hunt ought to be able to search up the real version in that case. As for not-explicitly-named tokens, I don't know of any that share a name with a creature card. Can anything make a Viashino Skeleton token?

@Kevin - You can use Riptide Replicator or Volrath's Laboratory to make tokens of any creature type. There are several you can choose that also have matching card names, such as Atog, Brushwagg, Cockatrice, Juggernaut, Leviathan, Lhurgoyf, Masticore, etc.

@HaoYe Oh yeah, good thinking :-)


text:
Humble Defector and Refocus
Who retains control of Humble Defector if, after it is activated, Refocus is cast targeting it and its ability is used again?
I know that the player activating the Defector would draw four cards (five with Refocus), but would he/she also get to retain the Defector (a la Avarice Totem) is the question.

Your opponent would still gain control of Humble Defector.
I assume that by "after it is activated", you mean before the ability has resolved. After you activate Humble Defector's ability the second time, then there will be two instances of its ability on the stack, both targeting an opponent of yours.
When the second activation resolves, you draw two cards and you give control of the card to the previously chosen opponent.
Then, the first activation resolves. Even though your opponent has control of Humble Defector, you still control the ability that's resolving, so you draw two more cards you give control of the card to the previously chosen opponent (if it's a different opponent than the one that currently controls it).
Even if the effect were written along the lines of "Opponent of your choice gains control of Humble Defector", it would still end up under the control of an opponent since you control both abilities.

That was my suspicion, but I wanted confirmation. Thanks!

Humble Defector's ability targets, so the opponent is chosen when the ability is placed on the stack.

@Hao Ye, Fixed.


text:
Can you shuffle your discard pile?
Is there any rule or reason why you can't shuffle your discard pile during moments of downtime, in order to get a better shuffle once your deck is fully depleted? My understanding is that the discard pile is a space to which order and sequence don't apply.
To clarify: I do not mean shuffle discard pile back into draw pile, I simply mean shuffling the idle discard pile with itself, and still following the rules for when to reshuffle for a new draw pile.

Some interpretations of the rules always puts hand cards on the discard pile last (but it seems this is not the right interpretation). If you choose this interpretation, and you shuffle half way, the top card of the discard pile should be left at the top.

edit: The OP was not clear whether it meant "shuffle the discard pile and put it back in the draw pile" or just "shuffle the discard pile". Now that's clear, I'm adding the following:
True, as the rules stand right now, the order in the discard pile does not usually matter (sometimes it does, see below). Theoretically, you could shuffle the discard pile at any time and just keep it away from the draw pile. The rules do not let you still do it for the following reasons:

The status of your discard pile might still change before the "proper" reshuffle, thus you might still have to reshuffle. Consider the following example:

Draw pile: 0 cards
Cards in hand: Market, 4 others

You are going to play the Market, which lets you draw a card, so why not shuffle the discard pile while waiting for your next turn? Well, you might receive a Curse until then, so you'll still have to reshuffle with the Curse in it.
Reserved for future "discard pile" rules. Currently, there are no cards that do something, say, with the top card of the discard pile, so the order in it does not matter. Despite that, the rules still don't explicitly let you shuffle arbitrarily, because DXV likes to have as much room as possible for future cards. For example, one day he could design a card that does something with the top card of the discard pile.
For the sake of completeness, there are actually cards that care about the order of the discard pile: Watchtower. When you gain a card, you may reveal the Watchtower to trash that card or top-deck it. If you do, then the Watchtower expects to find the card on top of the discard pile. Consider the following:

You have a Watchtower in hand.
You gain an Inn.
Now, there are two things that happen at the same time: you either trigger the Inn or the Watchtower first.

Suppose you resolve the Inn first.
You choose as many action cards as you want from your discard pile and you shuffle them in your deck, but not the Inn.
If you leave the Inn somewhere inside your discard pile, but not on top, then you may not reveal the Watchtower to topdeck/trash it, as the Watchtower has lost track of the Inn.
Nevertheless, if you leave the Inn on top, then you may reveal the Watchtower (source).

According to the base-game rules, you only shuffle the discard pile when you need to do something with the draw pile (e.g., draw cards, reveal cards, etc) and there are not enough cards to do so. You cannot arbitrarily shuffle the discard pile whenever you want to, for a couple of reasons, including:

An opponent likely holds a Witch (or any curser) in hand. Your draw pile has been depleted and you hold your last 5 cards in hand. You would like to reshuffle immediately, so that the Curse will "miss" the reshuffle and will not see it soon.
You are ready to buy your first Province and you're close to reshuffle. You'd like to reshuffle immediately, so that you won't see "soon" the Province.
You have just reshuffled and played a key card (e.g., Witch). You discard the Witch, but you have over 30 cards in your deck. You'd like to immediately reshuffle your discard pile so that you'd see the Witch again.
Any cards that you gain go immediately to your discard pile (unless stated otherwise). Thus, if you shuffle the discard pile, these cards will enter the draw pile, whether you'd like it or not.
There are cards that do something with the discard pile, like Counting House, Hermit, Inn, Herald, etc. Arbitrarily shuffling the discard pile (or not) directly affects these cards.

Thus, there is a general, fair rule, that makes sense as well: you shuffle only when there are not enough cards to do something.

Given that the rules don't specify in which order cards are to be placed in the discard pile during the clean-up phase, it seems unlikely that future cards would depend on the order of the discard pile.

@kasperd When you clean up, indeed you may discard in any order you like. Cards gained that turn should be already in the discard pile, but regarding cards in play and in hand, you may put them in any order to your discard pile. However, there are already cards that look the discard pile. For example, the Watchtower: when you gain a card, it expects it to be found on the top of your discard pile. If the card moves (e.g., you gain an Inn and shuffle it in your deck), the Watchtower won't find it on top of your discard pile, so it will lose track of the Inn.

Your answer reads as though 'reshuffle' also means 'add to your draw pile' and 'do not reshuffle again, if additional cards are added to the discard pile'. As long as these two things are untrue, it would seem that the concerns you raise are for naught.

You are correct that there are no published cards that care about the order of your discard pile.  What I often do is shuffle it, leave it where it is face down.  If I have to discard further, I slide those in and reshuffle, otherwise, I announce that this is my preshuffled discard deck, now needed as my draw deck.

I wouldn't recommend doing this. It's very nonstandard, confusing and prone to slip ups, and looks like sleight of hand even when done correctly.

From my personal experience - I am also sometimes inclined to shuffle my discard pile during other player's turns, but I refrain from doing so mainly because of two following reasons:

its potential to disrupt player's orientation (myself including) and flow of the game
possible issues it might create with cards that deal curses or give you cards in other people's turns (e.g. Ambassador)

The temptation is strongest when I know that I will take the cards remaining in my deck through action cards that I have in my hand.
I rather pay attention to the flow of the game i.e. what others are doing in their turns (it pays out), and also develop quick and efficient technique of shuffling cards during my turn.


text:
Thematic relevance of credits when icebreaking
I find Android: Netrunner to be one of the most thematically rich games I've ever played. The role of credits is obvious in many of the interactions and mechanics; in the game, much like in real life, everything costs money. One major use for credits, however, I find thematically elusive: the runner spends credits to strengthen their icebreaker programs and break subroutines. Much of the core action in the game, running on servers, comes down to whether the runner has made enough money and can afford to turn it into a successful run. How does this use for money make sense, in-world?


text:
Is solo play meant to use just 3 heroes?
While I'll allow for the possibility that I'm just no good at the game, first I need to make sure I'm not just doing something wrong.
Having tried 7-8 times, I have not been able to even come close to winning the first quest in the Core Set as a solo player. Most of my games I'm not able to get a single advancement token on the first stage. Playing as a single player with just three heroes, the numbers seem stacked against me to be able to effectively quest and still attack and defend that round. The enemies pile up, or the threat tracker gets to 50 after a few rounds of holding the monsters back, or I have no choice but to take undefended damage and lose my heroes. I'm all good with having a challenging game, but for a quest with a difficulty level 1, explicitly described as an "introductory scenario," I have to wonder: is this meant to be played one player, with a single set of three heroes? It doesn't seem possible to generate enough willpower, attack strength, or resources. The rulebook doesn't address single player mode at all, so if not, what are the official solo play rules?
Update: Upon further research and playing, I think I can safely attribute most of my failures to an underestimation of the importance of traveling to and exploring locations. While still not a total breeze, it made threat level much more manageable.

You are supposed to play as a single player, i.e. with 3 Heroes one your side and drawing a single card from the encounter deck each turn.
The pre-constructed decks in the game are unfortunately not the best and at the same time, the game is quite hard (even the beginner scenarios). Both combined can lead to your frustrating experience.
Here is a link to a guide for solo players who are new to the game:
https://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/16397/guide-new-lotrlcg-solo-players
This should help you in getting started and get over the steep learning curve, which this game definitely has.

Lord of the Ring LCG is hard as hell when played solo. The first few times I was close to desperation. :-)
Most scenarios are definitely easier when played with 2 hero-parties instead of only 1, but this actually is not the way a solo-play is supposed to be and it can get difficult to handle anyway.
Now what I can tell you: the 4 base sets are not equally strong. In the core-scenarios, it's much easier to win with "lore" than with "tactics" or "leadership". So I suggest to start with Lore and the first quest.
What I also found helpful was the "Watch it played"-playthrough on Youtube. It's very well done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80gFPirxZA0&list=PL7691E24FD7613341

I agree that it's difficult to succeed with the tactics starter deck because it has few cards for questing. I played about 6 games until I finally succeeded - it's possible. However I found the leadership deck easy to win with.

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


text:
Core Set ways of dealing with Magnum Opus
So, admittedly, I'm brand new to Android: Netrunner. I only own the core set, I've only played five or six times, and I've only played as the Corp. I have moderately strong gaming experience, and while a bit rusty, know my way around building a deck. My wife, so far my only opponent, plays Shaper and every time has managed to get Magnum Opus up and running pretty quickly. The economy it provides, up to 8 credits a turn, is significant, especially with Kate lowering install costs.
I've only beaten her once (not counting a rule-naïve technical win our second match). I attribute this to her skill, of course, but also to that damn MO. The ice I install is almost always easily dealt with, since credits are often no object. Given the newness of the game and my opponent, my play style has been more exploratory than outright ruthless, but still:
Besides flatlining, or fast-advancing, or just being lucky, what are good strategies (again, I just have the core set) for dealing with the advantage of MO?

I've generally found the corp to be harder to win with.  The hacker seems to have many better options for making money.

When playing a Runner who can reliably and easily out econ you the best way to win is to have a game plan that can ignore their econ.
Flatlining
This is probably best done out of Weyland in core. Splash some yellow tagging cards and Snare! and wait to blow their house up.
You can also try to do this with a Jinteki deck, but it will be much harder as core Jinteki does not have the econ to support this play style.
Fast Advance
With just core this is a little harder to do, as you do not have enough 3/2 agendas. Probably best done out of HP using Biotic Labor with some San Sans splashed in.
Play Faster
This should be your go to strategy for most games with core only. The Runner has inevitability, you need to win before they get there. With just the core set the Runner will have a hard time finding the cards they need. Shaper has no in-faction tutor in core, so will have to either just draw a ton or spend influence on special order (and still draw a ton to find MO). Take advantage of this, win before she has set up. Try to take a few more risks early game, scoring behind a single piece of ice when she does not have the correct breaker to go through it.
Use Traps
This strategy can be hard to pull off. It involves knowing your opponent and being able to bluff. However, it can be devastating. Pretending a Junebug is an agenda can win you the game. Or landing an Aggressive Secretary can blow up their rig, buying you time to score out before they can reassemble it.
Play Sideways
This is harder to do in core, but worth a try if you are feeling adventurous. The general idea here is to play mostly economy assets and upgrades. Spam them out, making many remote servers. The runner will have to waste valuable time and money to check and trash each of your servers. Mix in a few traps and after hitting one she may be more hesitant to check your remotes in the future, allowing you to "sneak" an agenda out with no protection. With core only, this is probably best done out of HB with some traps and San Sans splashed in.
Use Defensive Upgrades/Buy Some Data Packs
You can use upgrades to protect your Agendas. In core you are limited to Red Herrings, which adds a nice tax but is not great if the runner has tons of money. If you want to play this way it may be best to invest a little more into the game and pick up some data packs. Specifically Double Time for Caprice Nisei and RP or What Lies Ahead for Ash.
These are defensive upgrades that help you ignore a rich runner. Caprice brings server access down to a weighted coin flip in your favor. Ash relies on  a trace to force the Runner to try again. It is not the perfect solution to your problem but can help you get agendas out early before the runner is fully set up. Replicating Perfection (RP) is a Jinteki identity that helps you tax the runners clicks as well as money.
I also highly recommend you switch sides a few times. Playing as the Runner will give you a huge insight into how they play the game. What they are worried about, what they are looking for, when they feel safe. It will help you learn to exploit those weakness when you play Corp.

Yeah, good ideas. :) Quick note, as newer players may not be familiar with the term "tutor" - it just means an ability that lets you search your deck, e.g. SMC (http://netrunnerdb.com/en/card/03046)


text:
Is there fan-made version of gbc-version exclusive pokemon cards?
Are somewhere on Internet available fan-made versions of cards which are exclusive to Pokemon Trading Card Game for GBC? I mean fake cards, which are looking as real-game cards. It doesn't have to be in printing quality, but should be readable on display (but I don't mind if the art is low-quality copy from GBC assets).
I'm searching them for hours, but cannot find any. (Except Imakuni which was AFAIK released as non-gbc card only in Japan, but English fan-made version is easily found.)
Edit: in English, of course.


text:
What happens if one of the targets of Role Reversal is enchanted by a spell that changes its controller?
Suppose this board state exists:

Opponent controls Atraxa, Praetor's Voice
I control the aura Control Magic, whose enchanted creature is Feather, the Redeemed.

I cast Role Reversal, targeting my Feather and my opponent's Atraxa.
Role Reversal reads

Exchange control of two target permanents that share a permanent type.

However, Control Magic, which remains under my control, reads

You control enchanted creature.

Rulings on Role Reversal tell us that

Role Reversal’s effect lasts indefinitely. It doesn’t wear off during the cleanup step, and it doesn’t expire if the permanents stop sharing a permanent type after Role Reversal has resolved.

However, this doesn't indicate whether or not this effect can still be overridden by that of an enchantment.
Does my opponent end up with control of Feather?  Or can I abuse Feather's passive ability to keep casting Role Reversal on each of my succeeding turns to take control of more creatures?

Role Reversal will actually exchange the creatures.
All control changing effects, including Role Reversal, are the same sort of effects: continuous effects. Control Magic has a static ability that creates a continuous effect as long as it is on the battlefield. Role Reversal creates a continuous effect at resolution that, as the quoted ruling says, lasts indefinitely.
So, determining what happens with both of them is determined by the Interaction of continuous effects rules. Both of these are control changing effects, so rule 613.6 applies:

613.6 Within a layer or sublayer, determining which order effects are applied in is usually done using a timestamp system. An effect with an earlier timestamp is applied before an effect with a later timestamp.

613.6a A continuous effect generated by a static ability has the same timestamp as the object the static ability is on, or the timestamp of the effect that created the ability, whichever is later.
613.6b A continuous effect generated by the resolution of a spell or ability receives a timestamp at the time it's created.
613.6c An object receives a timestamp at the time it enters a zone.

The end result is fairly intuitive: the Role Reversal was cast later, so its effect gets applied later and it determines the final outcome.

If you could detach and reattach Control Magic, it would get a new timestamp, and it would win out.

Neat! Okay, thanks!  It did seem a bit too good to be true.

Off-topic at this point but does the effect of Control Magic follow if it changes hands?  IE if I Role Reverse Control Magic with someone else's enchantment (instead of targeting the two creatures), do they get Feather, because "you" has been redefined by the change of control?

@intuited, Yes, if CM has the latest timestamp of the change control effects on the enchanted creature, and if CM's controller changes, so does the control of the enchanted creature.

I would recommend reading the rules regarding layers.
As both effects are control changing effects, they are applied on the same layer. Effects within the same layer follow the time-stamp rulings.
The latest effect is the one that will prevail. As Control Magic was cast first. and then Role Reversal, the latest one cast will be the prevalent one.
The interactions between different layers might be a bit more difficult to understand, but within the same layer, time stamp always trumps everything.

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


text:
Is checkers just tactics?
I've been playing tournament chess for 20 years. Recently I started playing checkers (the American version).
In chess, tactics is about calculating the next few moves ahead. Strategy is the long-term kind of thinking, what to do when there is nothing to do tactically. I tried to apply these methods of thinking to checkers too.
After I read some books on checkers, I was pretty disappointed. While they all claim to teach strategy, all they contain are some openings and tactical positions. Nothing about strategy, positional guidelines or how to select your candidate moves. Only "if white moves here then red moves here" and so on.
The only strategical guideline I found was: "try to control the center", but again with a concrete game as an example. During a game, most of the time I have absolutely no clue who has the advantage, because I am missing a set of theoretical guidelines.
So, my question is: Is checkers "just" tactics, or is it more and I have overlooked something?

Checkers is a solved game.  Two perfect players will always play to a draw.  So in a sense there is one perfect strategy and it's just a test of tactical ability to see who makes a mistake first.  (In tournaments it is normal to draw the opening moves out of a hat as mitigation.)

@Affe You switched context mid comment. A perfect player would never make a mistake. A human player couldn't know a perfect strategy. It makes no sense to say "there is one perfect strategy and it's just a test of tactical ability to see who makes a mistake first"

I've voted to close this as primarily opinion based, as I think it's a question that's going to draw out opinion and discussion, and doesn't have an objectively correct answer. It's a fine question, but for a discussion site rather than here.

@Affe i don't know if being solved matters.  chess is certainly solvable (with a large enough computer).  The optimal "tactic" is just to do whatever that hypothetical, very big computer says to do.

Checkers is defintely not just tactics! While checkers is not in the same strategic league as chess, there are clear strategic concepts. For example, controlling the long diagonal is somewhat similar to the idea of controlling the centre in chess.
Another example is playing to open one side, for the purposes of crowning pieces. This is analogous to the idea of king-side or queen-side pawn storms in chess.
Even choosing whether to commit to an exchange or not is strategic, just as it is in chess. You are weighing up not only the material consequences of the exchange, but the positional consequences as well, both short and long term.

So how do I evaluate any random checkers position on who has any advantage? In chess there are clear and easy rules for this. But for checkers? Should I make this a new question?

It's a new question, although it's rather hard to answer. If you asked the equivalent chess question, that would be hard to answer too. Feel free to ask though.

Well, your wikipedia link on chess strategy answers the question pretty good.

And if a good player could not answer this question, it would prove my point of the main question :-)

Regarding strategic depth chess vs. checkers: former world champion Marion Tinsley has been quoted by the principal scientist that solved the game: "Playing chess is like looking out over a limitless ocean;
playing checkers is like looking into a bottomless well."

Here are some examples of strategy.
There are 8 different formations in checkers, including the dyke formation (a long line of pieces directed towards the opponent's double-corner) and the triangle formation which is primarily defensive.
The time factor has 20 facets. Here are just 2. First, the role of the opposition in the endgame, which is primarily used to win several classic endgames featuring level pieces and to draw several classic man-down endgames. Secondly, the role of development: unlike chess, in checkers it is generally a disadvantage to be ahead in development in the opening.
Your own double-corner generally needs to be protected, while your single-corner men are generally developed quickly because this area of the board is less vulnerable to attack.
The centre should be fought for, but not crowded with your own men as this often leads to a winning pincer movement by the opponent.
Your own king-row men should NOT be retained as a matter of general policy - this is a fallacy which reveals a total lack of understanding of the need to develop sound midgame formations.
And there is so very much more! In short, when an adult says they can't see anything in checkers, they are simply speaking the literal truth. However, it doesn't mean that there is nothing there to see!
Free program: KingsRow - world class program written by Dr Ed Gilbert.
Free books to download - see The Checker Maven website which includes my own book Checkers for the Novice.
Finally, winning tactics - and there are 8 minor tactical devices and 20 major ones - arise from sound strategy. (Although there are rare occasions when a player does everything 'right' strategically and still gets blown apart: this is one of the great attractions of the game and prevents one playing by rote.
'Checkers is a splendid game, possibly the marvel of games of pure skill.' (Al Horowitz: The Personality of Chess)

Would you like a challenge to prove your answer?


text:
How may it be possible to win and lose the game simultaneously?
Take the following rule.

104.3f If a player would both win and lose the game simultaneously, that player loses the game.

How is it possible to do this, has there been a documented case of this happening?

In some ways this is just an extension of Magic Golden Rule 101.2 which favors "can't" over "can".

The rule exists "just in case". It is not actually possible to win and lose at the same time under current rules and with current cards.
Ways to win/lose a game
The rules define all the ways to win and lose a game:

104.2a A player still in the game wins the game if that player’s opponents have all left the game. This happens immediately and overrides all effects that would preclude that player from winning the game.

Since you can't lose the game when this rules makes you win, it's irrelevant to the question.

104.2b An effect may state that a player wins the game.
104.2c In a multiplayer game between teams, a team with at least one player still in the game wins the game if all other teams have left the game. Each player on the winning team wins the game, even if one or more of those players had previously lost that game.
104.2d In an Emperor game, a team wins the game if its emperor wins the game. (See rule 809.5.)

It doesn't explicitely say so, but "have left the game" is the same wording as in 104.2a, so I would assume the same restriction about not being able to lose the game  also applies. Either way, I don't see how this could be exploited to create a "win/lose at the same time" situation. As for Emperor games, if a single player can't win and lose at the same time, the team that player is on can't either, so it's not relevant to the question either.

104.3a A player can concede the game at any time. A player who concedes leaves the game immediately. That player loses the game.

No way to concede and win at the same time.

104.3b - 104.3d

The 3 state-based actions that make a player lose the game. There are more state-based actions for team games and special game modes that make a player/team lose.

104.3e An effect may state that a player loses the game.

So in summary, the only times when a player can win/lose the game are the result of a state-based action, the resolution of a spell, or when a player concedes, the last of which can have no other result than one player losing. Only state-based actions and spell/ability resolutions are potential sources of win and loss at the same time.
You can not win and lose the game at the same time
Two events that make a player win or lose happening at the same time means they all have to happen during a single state-based actions check, or they have to happen during the resolution of a single spell or ability. Events in any other situation are not simultaneous.

State-base actions can only make a player lose, rule 704.5:

player has zero life or less
10 or more poison counters on a player
player attempted to draw from empty library
several other ways to lose the game in multiplayer or special game modes such as Commander

There are no cards that could make a player directly win and lose at the same time with a single resolution of a spell or ability to satisfy 104.2b and 104.3e at the same time. Such a card would have to include the terms "win" and "lose" in its ability text at the same time in one of its abilitites. None of the cards that satisfy this condition could be used to create a simultaneous win and loss for a player. Multiple spells/abilities cannot resolve at the same time, they use the stack.
State-based actions checks and spell/ability resolutions can never happen at the same, so you can't win the game due to a spell/ability and lose at the same time to state-based actions.

The rule may also be used to cover cases where everyone at the table meets a loss condition simultaneously and some players may assume that the active player wins (because, ya know, there has to be a winner). Things like an activation of Heartless Hidetsugu while Furnace of Rath is in play and everyone is at an even life total.

If every player loses at the same time, it's actually a draw. 104.4a If all the players remaining in a game lose simultaneously, the game is a draw.

@Hackworth Since you answered this, I just want to make you aware that I have closed this question as a duplicate. This answer disagrees with the one I wrote on the other question, so please feel free to write a dissenting answer on the other question.

@murgatroid99 I can see how the two questions are related, but I think that this question would be the better dupe target.  This post asks the question point-blank, while the other one asks a question that is answered by answering this question.

This question is "Does rule 104.3f ever apply?" and the other one is "would it ever matter if rule 104.3f were different?". Those are essentially and clearly asking for exactly the same information. Given the similarity, the older question is preferred as a dupe target.

This answer is wrong.  The accepted answer to the linked dupe contains an actual example of a situation in which this rule could apply.  That situation involves replacement effects, which are capable of making the text of multiple cards take effect at the same time.


text:
Can you destroy your own starbases?
The title says it all.

Can I destroy my own starbase?

Why would you want this? You might want to 'move' the starbase to another system. By destroying your own starbase you can build a new one at the desired new location. Only of course when you have built all starbases and have none left.
If so, should I have to shoot it? or pick it off the board (is it then a build/move action)?

Be me. See Eclipse tag. Almost flag to move to Stack Overflow. Realize I'm dumb. Post comment saying so.

No, you cannot. The rules don't specifically clarify this; but there is nothing that would ever allow you to destroy a starbase or ship of your own. A combat only occurs when multiple ships/starbases belonging to different players are in the same sector; and combat is the only way that the rules allow for something to be removed from the board.


text:
When does "at the beginning of the next end step" trigger?
When casting a creature for its the Dash cost, will the creature return on the same turn's end step or the next turn's end step?

The phrase "at the beginning of the next end step" means "the next time an end step begins." So, after you play a creature with Dash, when an end step starts, the creature returns to your hand. Usually, this means that it returns to your hand at the beginning of the end step on the turn when you played it. However, if you somehow play it during an end step, it won't return until the following turn's end step because that is the next time that an end step begins after you play the creature.
Note that it doesn't say "your next end step," so if you play it during your own end step, it returns to your hand at the end of your opponent's end step.