text:
What happens when you Magical Hack a Quicksilver Fountain?
So Quicksilver Fountain is a pretty unique card that an ability to override land types with flood counters. However, I was wondering about how it interacts with Magical Hack.
Say that I choose Swamp for the basic land type for Magical Hack. From my own thoughts and looking around, it seems like there are 2 possibilities:

All flood counters instantly switch to using the other land type: All flooded Islands become Swamps instead. New counters also turn lands into Swamps.
Previously placed flood counters are unchanged (The respective lands remain as Islands), but newly placed ones will turn lands into Swamps. You can override the older counter by placing a new one on the respective Island.

I was wondering which of these was the case.
In addition, what happens when Quicksilver Fountain leaves the battlefield after being hacked?
Do the flooded lands remain as Swamps, or do they revert to Islands due to Quicksilver Fountain not being on the field anymore?

FWIW: [mtg:Cyclopean Tomb] is a similar card.

Lands with flood counters on them retain their latest type even if Quicksilver Fountain is hacked or leaves the battlefield.
That is because the Fountain's first ability is not a static effect itself, but a triggered ability that creates a one-shot effect that in turn creates a continuous effect. Each flood counter has its individual effect at the time it's placed on a land. As an analogy, you can think of flood counters as token enchantments, except it's a counter instead.
That means your option 2) is correct. Lands that got a flood counter before the Fountain was hacked remain islands after the hack, flood counters after the hack turn lands into swamps, and all lands with flood counters retain their respective type after the Fountain has left the battlefield.

Continuous Effects

611.1. A continuous effect modifies characteristics of objects, modifies control of objects, or affects players or the rules of the game, for a fixed or indefinite period.
611.2. A continuous effect may be generated by the resolution of a spell or ability.

Minor nitpick: It's not really accurate to say that the triggered ability "creates a one-shot effect that in turn creates a continuous effect". The triggered ability just creates a continuous effect directly. The rules don't say anything about one-shot effects creating continuous effects, and it does say that resolving spells and abilities can create continuous effects.

@"Hack"worth is an expert on the nuances of "Magical Hack".  Coincidence?  I think not.

If it were to work the other way, Quicksilver Fountain would need to have a separate ability that says "lands with flood counters on them are Islands".


text:
Mafia - Werewolf: Online play
Is there an online version of mafia/werewolf game that I can play with my friends. I tried to find one but there doesn't seem to be a good one.

https://boardgamegeek.com/forum/58/boardgamegeek/werewolf

Update 06/07/2019
playable on BGA:
https://boardgamearena.com/news?f=10&t=13741&s=The+Werewolves+of+Millers+Hollow

I'm the creator of https://werewolv.es which is an in-browser version of werewolf. The games are more like individual chat rooms or slack/irc channels than the usual forum/message board variants you find online. Most of the games on the site take place over several days, but plenty of 'speed games' are played where the rounds a few minutes.
I decided to embrace the online aspect of this version of the game and added features that would be difficult or impossible to simulate in face to face play. Each game is played with a distinct theme (usually taken from a film or tv series) and players are given a random avatar in addition to their role. This gives a degree of anonymity (at least at the start) to the game.
The anonymous avatars also allow for additional avenues of play. For example, the Puppetmaster has control of 2 extra identities in the game, and can freely talk as them, allowing the Puppetmaster to counter claim and cause confusion in chat.

That sounds neat. I assume that the moderator/admin is handled by the software?

@TheChaz2.0 for the most part, yes. All of the in-game interactions are automatic, but there are human moderators that can be called in if someone is in violation of the rules (out of game comms, screenshotting role info etc)

Town of Salem - https://store.steampowered.com/app/334230/Town_of_Salem/
as of a few months ago, it was quite good, and quite active.

There are a great many; several message boards just run their own Mafia games as part of their forum.
There's a very active Mafia community at http://forum.dominionstrategy.com. And one of the most popular sites for Mafia games is https://www.mafiascum.net/.

A group of friends of mine played a number of Mafia games online just by using a webcam conference program of some sort and some form of IRC/chat. (I think the first rounds were played via a more traditional IRC, a few later rounds were played in Discord with the help of a specially programmed bot.)
As usually in irl games, one person was a designated game master who handed out roles by private messages and regulated the time and day/night phases.
Night phase was simulated by the players turning off their webcams and if they had an active role PM’ing the game master their action. Everybody was awoken (turned their webcams back on), the game master announced the outcome of the night and on it went.
Voting was done rather interestingly: as for the night phase, everyone turned off their webcam (except for the accused) and then turned it on again on the game master’s count. Whoever had their hand visible on camera (usually by putting it in front of the lens) was counted as a kill vote.
This solution of course requires some sort of conference program that can display multiple webcam images across all participants. And all were further connected in a voice chat. It probably is the closest the game can come to IRL mafia while remaining online.
You can find a video of one session on Youtube.

There's quite a few apps as well as sites.
Overall, the best site is Town of Salem by far because if the rich  analogue of characters.
Town of Salem also has an app but the website is much better.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Which discard pile for instant items played on another player's lane?
In XenoShyft Onslaught, in which discard pile goes an Instant Card when played in another player's lane? For example, if I use a "Hi-Ex Grenade" in the reaction phase of another player, do I discard that grenade in my or his/her discard pile?
For references, the rulebook only mentions what happens for troops and equipment played in another player's lane. Nothing about Instant Items:

Note that you can deploy a Troop in a lane that is not your own. If you do so, the owner of that lane becomes the owner of that Troop (it goes to their discard pile if killed).
A player may also at this time equip Troops with the various Equipment Cards they has purchased. To do so simply place the Equipment Card under the Troop you wish to equip it to. It is now equipped to that Troop. A Troop can only have one Weapon Card and one Armor Card equipped at any time. Just like with deploying Troops, you may also Equip Troops that you do not own. If you do so, the owner of that lane becomes the owner of that Equipment card (it goes to their discard pile if the equipped Troop is killed).

The "Hi-Ex Grenade" has the "Instant Keyword":

I found the answer in the official FAQ (not included in the box published by EDGE) published on CMON website (game creator) : https://cmon.com/product/xenoshyft/xenoshyft-onslaught

Q: If I play an Instant on another player’s lane (such as a Med
  Pack or Hi-Ex Grenade), does that card go to their discard
  pile?
  A: No, it goes to its owner’s discard pile. The only time a card
  goes to another player is if it is deployed into their lane.

Keeping Instant Cards played on someone else's lane in one's own discard pile allows us to better "build" around Division Cards abilities (such as "Whenever you play a [Symbol] card, heal 1 troop up to 2").

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


text:
Can troops and equipment abilities be used on another player's lane?
In XenoShyft Onslaught, can Troop Card and Equipment Card abilities be used on another player's lane? For example, can a player use the "Stormtrooper" ability to deal 2 damage to a monster on another player's lane?
For references, the rulebook says that player can use card abilities during the "Reaction phase" after revealing an enemy, but nothing about restricting targets:

At this time all players have a chance to react to the revealed
  Enemy. This includes using Special Abilities on their cards or
  playing Instant cards from their hand.

The "Stormtrooper" card:

I found the answer in the official FAQ (not included in the box published by EDGE) published on CMON website (game creator) : https://cmon.com/product/xenoshyft/xenoshyft-onslaught

Q: Can I use effects on other player’s lanes (such as the Storm
  Trooper)?
  A: Unless a card specifies “this lane” or “your lane” it can be
  used on any player’s lane

Since the Stormtrooper ability is "Once per round, this troop may deal 2 damage to 1 revealed enemy", it can indeed be used on another player lane.


text:
Can HP-granting armor be moved between wounded troops during deployment phase?
In XenoShyft Onslaught, after the combat phase ends, surviving troops on a player lane keep their current damage token. Then, on the next deployment phase, the rules states that a player can move equipment between troops on his lane :

3. DEPLOYMENT PHASE

Once all Troops and Equipment cards have
  been deployed, each player has one last
  chance to arrange their Lane as they wish changing
  the order of Troops (only within
  their own lane), moving Equipment cards
  around, etc.

If a trooper with a certain amount of HP, equipped with a HP-granting armor, takes an amount of Damage Token exceeding his base HP but inferior to his total HP (base + armor), can the armor be removed from this trooper and given to another?
If it can be done, what happens then to the trooper? Is he discarded instantly, thus freeing a slot (which can not be done, since troops can not be undeployed from the lane)?


text:
Do the prices of cards drop when they leave Standard?
I'm looking to build a Commander deck with a number of cards from Kaladesh through Hour of Devastation, which are still Standard legal as of this writing but will drop out soon. I would expect that players who focus on formats like Standard and Brawl might decide to get rid of those cards when the new sets come out, leading to a price drop. I'm curious if this can be seen looking at historical price data.
I've tried to research this on various sites that show price histories, but I don't know enough about Magic's recent history to separate the signal from the noise. That's why I'm looking for your expert opinions here. A good answer would consider a representative sample of cards that were popular during their Standard season and show how their prices behaved after, especially if those cards continued to be popular in Commander. If there is often a price drop, knowing about when it happened (release day, a week prior, a month later?) would also be helpful.
I do not want any speculation about future prices. "Here's the historical data but Guilds of Ravnica will be different because xyz" is not an answer. I'm only interested in past results. Also I'm interested in prices for paper, not online.

This is not really the right place to ask people to perform a fairly complex analysis of a large price history data set. And you should consider that there are a number of factors that can significantly weaken the predictive power of the information you're asking for, including the value a card has in the metagames of other formats, and the number of other reprints a card has.

I see your point, though I'm assuming maybe some folks have already done such analysis, so it doesn't have to be a "go do this" request so much as a "share your findings?" one.  If it's too broad, maybe I could scope it to just the end of season 2017? I'm not terribly concerned about the predictive power, just whether the trend exists; if I make bad predictions with that data, that's a separate issue. But I do want to keep this on topic for the stack, so any guidance you can give would be appreciated.

I don't think that it's necessarily off topic, and it's not really too broad, but it's sort of... out of scope?  It's a single, well defined question with a fairly well defined answer about a topic that is strongly related to card games, but it's not one we're well equipped to answer.

Related: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/15528/what-generally-happens-to-card-prices-when-a-new-set-is-released?rq=1

I agree that though a tough question that would require a lot of analysis, it isn't off-topic or too broad. It would probably take a long time to grab a really good answer, but I don't think it should be closed.

I don't have any data on this, so I don't want to make this a full answer, but I would expect that the price drop from cards leaving Standard is canceled out by the fact that they're now in more limited supply, since they're not being printed anymore. I doubt you're going to see the value drastically change, especially because those cards have already been in Modern and Commander for almost a year now.

"Too much work" is not a close reason. This isn't too broad, nor is it unclear, nor is it fundamentally off topic. In fact it is very on topic and of particular importance to Magic: the Gathering players. +1 and I hope this stays open and will vote to reopen it if it's closed.

TLDR: Great cards do not significantly drop in price when they rotate out of standard, as great cards are usually playable and viable in other formats.
When a card is great, and used across many formats, there is no reason for someone to reduce the card's price when they sell it. This includes when it rotates out.
Though, there are some things that DO cause card prices to drop. If you are looking to buy a card at a drop, try and look for one of the Three Rs.
Remember however, that predicting when these can happen is very hard to do. It is very similar to the stock market, for predicting both upwards and downwards price spikes.
Reprints, removals, and realizations. This is because a great card in standard can be used across multiple formats, and thus has a cross format value. So unless something impacts it greatly (like one of the Three Rs) it will not drop in price. That being said, if a card is only seeing play in Standard and Standard alone, then the Three Rs are pointless, and the card will probably drop when it leaves (but if that is the case, the card is probably not a great card). This drop however is not sudden, and is usually over the course of the end of the lifespan of the sets.

Reprints: When a card is reprinted, no matter how good it is, it will go down in value. This is because there are now more of the card.
  Even if it is still a valuable card, there are more of it,  and thus it is
  less valuable.

On the other hand, a card that has been confirmed that it will never be printed again will go up in price, such cards like Black Lotus or Bayou. This applies to very old cards most of the time, but some rare versions of cards have their cost raise in a similar way (such as Kaladesh Masterpieces or Zendikar Expeditions). This may change if the lottery cards get reprinted eventually.
Example: Seedborn Muse is a card that has been worth a lot in recent time. When it was released, it was not worth much, but as time passed, it went from a card worth ~2.5 USD up to a card worth ~30 USD. But, it was reprinted as of recent in the set Battlebond. Since then, it's price has dropped excessively, going down towards ~13 USD (Specifically the Tenth Edition one, the Battlebond one is worth even less).

Removals: When a card gets removed from a format (through a banning), it instantly loses a lot of value it has. While this could be looked at similarly
  to a card rotating out, the shock of an important card getting banned
  has people rushing to sell it. This causes the price to drop
  as a lot of them are pushed into the market at once.

Example: Emrakul, the Promised End was an extraordinarily powerful card in standard. But, come January 2017, it was hit with the ban hammer, and was removed from standard. It dropped by around 50%, going from ~20 USD to ~10 USD, and stayed rather low for a while. (Recently, it has began to climb back up however, but this is assumed to be because another format has began to use this version of Emrakul).

Another example: Smuggler's Copter was a card that was seeing an absurdly high amount of play in Standard. Along with Emrakul, the Promised End, it got banned in January of 2017 from Standard. Before the ban, it's price had been steadily declining from ~20 USD to around ~10 USD, but when the ban hit, it began to rapidly drop in price. Within a week, it dropped down to ~6 USD. From here, it slowly declined to ~2 USD, where it has stabilized and been for a long time.
The main reason for this type of downwards price spike is people rushing to sell their copies before the price reaches it's lower stabilized price.

Realizations: Very often, during spoiler season or when new cards are released, cards will get over hyped and over priced. Eventually,
  they will go down once people realize they are not as good as they
  thought.

This can work in the other way as well, where a card that was under the radar gets realized for hidden potential. Examples being cards that fit in a combo or cards that counter a popular deck type nicely.
Example: Karn, Scion of Urza, was very expensive shortly after his release (reaching around ~60 USD at his peak). But, once players began to realize he was not as good as people made him out to be, his price slowly fell back down to his original price (~40 USD), and eventually even lower (~30 USD).

As you can see, those are some major ways prices drop. If a card is good outside of Standard (such as EDH), do not expect it's price to drop until it receives a reprint, a banning (from a format it sees play in), or it is replace/realized to be not as good as it is.
An example of a good card not dropping after it rotated out is Thought-Knot Seer. Once the hype for it died down, it stabilized at ~6 USD, and is even climbing today. This climb has been happening even after it was rotated out of Standard (as it became a staple in a Modern deck).

Conclusion: If a card in standard is truly great, it will not lower significantly in price when it rotates out of a format. This is because a truly great card will see play across multiple formats, and thus keeps some level of value across them. It takes something much more ground shaking to have a card spike downwards in price, such as a reprint, a removal, or a realization.
A note: the opposite is true for upwards price spikes, as it seems those happen a lot more often in comparison. People are faster to sell high than to sell low, as it is logical when running a card selling business/selling cards for profit.

All of the cards mentioned are also popular in non-Standard formats, so I think that will introduce bias in the results. Also, I don't think a sample size of three is statistically significant.

@Rainbolt This answer, as of now, is showcasing that the cards that see play in other formats (such as EDH, like how he asked) take more than just rotating to drop in price. I do plan on adding more to the answer though, showcasing other cards that did not drop in price after they rotated out, at-least significantly. That all being said, this answer would change with how good it is depending on what cards he wants to try and get.

Realizations can happen both ways, a card can be realized to be worse than originally expected, but it has also happened that a price shoots up due to realization that the card is better, or combos, and thus causes prices to shoot upwards.

@Andrew I added a little tid bit about that in the answer.

Anecdotally, I'm not seeing any sharp price drops.  Logically, this makes sense.
Browsing through the price histories of the highest valued cards from Eldritch Moon on mtggoldfish, I have not been able to find any sharp drops in price corresponding with the set rotation.  Logically, this makes sense.  The amount of Standard play you can get out of Splendid Reclamation purchased a week before the release of Ixalan is not substantially different than what you would get by purchasing it a week afterwards.  Play value is a value over time proposition, and the amount of time available to use a card in any format drops linearly even though the exit is abrupt.  (The only card I could find to show a precipitous drop was Emrakul, the Promised End which was banned part-way through the season.
Also, while price drops tended to be gradual, price hikes tended to be precipitous.  Every set released contains new cards with the possibility of making older cards unexpectedly powerful in Modern.  Bedlam Reveler abruptly spiked after the release of Rivals of Ixalan, and while some of that spike dropped away, the price it stabilized out was five times higher than where it had been before.  (The price spike wasn't immediate, but I'm sure that there are some examples that are).

High value cards hardly drop, some even increase in value over time, since they found a slot in modern or are a must play in commander (yes, even that's become an issue nowadays).
Take a look at Collected Company: It is a strong card, costing about 9 to 10 Euro when Clans of Tarkir was still standard-legal. Nowadays it is about 14 Euro when purchased in a reasonable quality.
A similar fate should befall some of the more valueable cards from Kaladesh and Amonkhet, e.g. Heroic Intervention. Actually I am surprised Chandra, Torch of Defiance is that cheap currently - she peaked about 25 Euro. So, depending on which cards you seek to acquire, and also at which price you draw the line, you might consider buying now.
In the end Magic cards are a lot like stocks - hard to predict, and a bit risky.

Chandra is cheap because she was reprinted in a challenger deck.

Meh, and I was that glad I got her in my half of a display from Kaladesh. Still, nice PW.

Most card prices start dropping a little before the standard rotation, continue dropping up until the December or January that follows the rotation, and then start rising (very slowly).  This pattern is least likely to hold true if the card is equally or more sought in non-standard formats than it is in standard, e.g. Monastery Mentor, Snapcaster Mage, Past In Flames, Griselbrand.


text:
Appetite for the Unnatural and Clone Legion vs. hexproof creatures
Clone Legion

For each creature target player controls, create a token that's a copy of that creature.

Appetite for the Unnatural

Destroy target artifact or enchantment. You gain 2 life.

Will this effect an enchantment on a creature which has hexproof?

@GendoIkari Targeting the player is not directly covered in the linked question, may not be enough to save this on it's own but worth considering.

From the Comprehensive Rules:

702.11b “Hexproof” on a permanent means “This permanent can’t be the target of spells or abilities your opponents control.”

Appetite for the Unnatural targets the enchantment, not the creature itself, so it will resolve and destroy the enchantment (unless the enchantment itself somehow has hexproof too).
Clone Legion targets a player, not creatures, so unless that player has hexproof, it will make a copy of all their creatures, including the ones with hexproof. Any enchantments on those creatures won't be copied.

Hexproof or shroud on auras is rare, you'd need something like Privileged Position to create that situation, but it is possible, as for players something like [Leyline of Sanctity] (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=397677)

Yeah, it's rare. I was thinking of Diplomatic Immunity which probably has a hexproof variant as well.


text:
Does Herald of Secret Streams work with +1/+0 or +0/+1 counters?
I have Herald of Secret Streams, with his ability

Creatures you control with +1/+1 counters on them can't be blocked.

Say I were to put +1/+0 or +0/+1 on a creature, would Herald's ability still apply or does it have to be a +1/+1?

Be careful about using terms such as "activate" here; it may make sense in English, but to activate an ability in MTG means something different than what this card does.

Why do you think it means +1/+0 if it says +1/+1???

No, it has to be a +1/+1 counter. A counter is a very specific thing, see the comprehensive rules:

121.1a A +X/+Y counter on a creature or on a creature card in a zone other than the battlefield, where X and Y are numbers, adds X to that object’s power and Y to that object’s toughness. Similarly, -X/-Y counters subtract from power and toughness. See rule 613.3.

+1/+0 and +0/+1 counters do not magically combine into +1/+1 counters; the only counters that affect each other are +1/+1 counters and -1/-1 counters:

121.3. If a permanent has both a +1/+1 counter and a -1/-1 counter on it, N +1/+1 and N -1/-1 counters are removed from it as a state-based action, where N is the smaller of the number of +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters on it. See rule 704.

Note that +X/+Y counters other than +1/+1 and -1/-1, like +1/+0 and +0/+1, are very rare; those boosts mostly happen as temporary effects (i.e. a target creature gains +1/+0 until end of turn). This is entirely different from a counter.

The ability refers specifically to "+1/+1 counters", so that is the only thing is would care about. A creature with a +1/+0 counter, or a +0/+1 counter, would not be affected.
It is worth noting that Magic stopped using +1/+0 and +0/+1 counters. Old cards may still have them, but they haven't been seen on any new cards in a long time. Here is an article from 2008 explaining this decision.


text:
Putting opponent’s cards in your hand in canasta
What happens when a player — who just took a very large deck — accidentally picks up her opponent’s hand of 6 cards and adds them to her hand? It was impossible to identify which cards she should not have picked up other than two of them. Should that make the game null and void?

In general, rules don't address what to do when the rules of a game are broken. This is going to be completely up to however your play group wants to handle it. If you are asking for suggestions on ways to handle it, that may be a good question; but it cannot be answered from the perspective of "what do the rules say?"

Similar questions/answers can apply to any board or card game; nothing specific to Canasta. There have been other questions here, here, and here.

The Official Rules of Canasta describes optional point penalties for certain Irregularities in the play.

Point Penalties

Penalties paid in points, rather than by forced plays that rectify the error, are unpopular with many players. Therefore players may choose either to use or to omit the following point penalties, In all cases these penalties are additional to the penalties prescribed in rules 51 to 60.

One of these is for illegally taking the Discard Pile, which seems to clearly apply here:

For taking the discard pile into the hand illegally, 200.

As play on the hand cannot possibly continue, and neither can it be scored in any meaningful sense, it should be redealt by the same dealer after applying the Point Penalty above. THis seems a natural extension of Rule 52:

52. There must be a new deal by the same player if it is ascertained, before each player has had a turn to play, that a card is faced in dealing or found faced in the deck; or that the dealer departed in any respect from the rules of correct procedure in dealing; or that a player was dealt an incorrect number of cards. After this time limit, the deal and any incorrect hand stands as regular.

The Official Rules of Rubber Bridge note two points which I believe are pertinent, and should apply to all attempts at remedying irregularities of any card game:

The Scope of The Laws

The Laws are designed to define correct procedure
and to provide an adequate remedy whenever a player
accidentally, carelessly or inadvertently disturbs the
proper course of the game, or gains an unintentional
but nevertheless unfair advantage. An offending player
should be ready to graciously accept any penalty set
forth in these Laws or any adjustment or decision of an
Arbiter.
These Laws do not deal with dishonorable practices
where ostracism is the ultimate remedy.

1. General Principles:

These Laws cannot cover every situation that might
arise, nor can they produce equity in every situation covered.
Occasionally the players themselves must redress
damage. The guiding principle: the side that commits an
irregularity bears an obligation not to gain directly from
the infraction.

I would extend this to say that an egregious offence, even when inadvertent, should always carry a penalty when it is impossible to restore play - in order to prevent even the possibility of temptation to commit such an offence intentionally. Further, to be so careless as to pick up an opponent's hand when picking up the discard pile is exactly such an egregious offence - as it could otherwise be used to force a likely redeal when the current situation is disadvantageous.
Yes, Rubber Bridge is a different game; but carefully note this commentary on the Canasta Rules:

"The Canasta procedure and Irregularities as described here, and adopted by the Association of American Playing Card Manufacturers, are the same in substance as the rules given in the books of Oswald Jacoby, Ottilie Reilly, Albert H. Morehead, Geoffrey Mott-Smith, Ralph Michaels, Charles Goren, Ely Culbertson, Richard L. Frey, Samuel Fry, Theodore A. Lightner, and others, and endorsed by the Regency Club of New York and other clubs."

Arranged by Albert H. Morehead.

All of Oswald Jacoby, Ottilie Reilly, Albert H. Morehead, Geoffrey Mott-Smith, Ralph Michaels, Charles Goren, Ely Culbertson, Richard L. Frey, Samuel Fry, and Theodore A. Lightner were world class bridge players as well as Canasta experts. Both Morehead and Mott-SMith were at one time chairman of the ACBL Laws Commission. They applied the same standards of fair play to all the card games which they played and excelled at.


text:
Would March of the Machines make artifacts trigger creature enter the battlefield effects?
I am wondering if I had a March of the Machines in play and played a Boros Signet, would it trigger a 'creature enters the battlefield' effect?

Welcome to Board & Card Games! Please note that you can directly link to cards, which helps answering your question. You can [edit] the question to see how it's done.

Yes, it would. The Comprehensive Rules say:

603.6b Continuous effects that modify characteristics of a permanent do so the moment the permanent is on the battlefield (and not before then). The permanent is never on the battlefield with its unmodified characteristics. Continuous effects don’t apply before the permanent is on the battlefield, however (see rule 603.6d).
  Example: If an effect reads “All lands are creatures” and a land card is played, the effect makes the land card into a creature the moment it enters the battlefield, so it would trigger abilities that trigger when a creature enters the battlefield. Conversely, if an effect reads “All creatures lose all abilities” and a creature card with an enters-the-battlefield triggered ability enters the battlefield, that effect will cause it to lose its abilities the moment it enters the battlefield, so the enters-the-battlefield ability won’t trigger.

(emphasis mine)
Your situation is identical to the example but with 'land' replaced by 'artifact'.


text:
Pokemon TCG: is there a way to remove energy from your own pokemon?
I'm starting to get into Pokemon TCG with my daughter and after the first few games I already have some questions to which I cannot find an answer in the official rulebook. One of them is - is there a way to remove an energy card from one of your own Pokemon?
I've found there are some cards that allow you to remove energy from your opponent's pokemon - which is also useful - but what about your own? Like, if I see that my Pokemon will soon be knocked out and I want to salvage the attached energy card(s), is there a way to do that? The rulebook doesn't mention that at all, and Google searching doesn't turn up any cards like that.

OK, I can answer my own question after all. After some more searching I came across the Energy Reset and Energy Pouch cards. Since there are cards like that, that means you can't do it on a whim, but it is possible, if you have the right card.

Correct, the more powerful cards move energy around on your pokemon, since you are limited to playing one energy per turn normally.  I have seen games lost because a player had no more energy in there deck.  Pokemon is a game about knowing how to use your resources including your energy attachments.

if I see that my Pokemon will soon be knocked out and I want to salvage the attached energy card(s)

There are some specific cards for that purpose.

Wishful Baton: If the Pokémon this card is attached to is your Active Pokémon and is Knocked Out by damage from an opponent's attack, move up to 3 basic Energy cards from that Pokémon to 1 of your Benched Pokémon.
Exp. Share: When your Active Pokémon is Knocked Out by damage from an opponent's attack, you may move 1 basic Energy card from that Pokémon to the Pokémon this card is attached to.
Energy Switch: Move a basic Energy from 1 of your Pokémon to another of your Pokémon.

Plus several others, Multi-Switch, for example (which allows moving any type of energy).

The placement of energy is one of the main allocation of resources in the game.  There are cards and pokemon that allow you to pick or move your energy but under most situation you can't move your energy around.  If this was allowed then the limit on special energy would mater less since you could pick it up at any time and decks that could place multiply energy in one turn would be even more powerful.  Also it would break item like max potion which downside is discarding all energy attached to the pokemon.


text:
Can I search for Etched Champion with Enlightened Tutor?
Can a creature in my library with protection from all colors, like Etched Champion be the target of my search spell Enlightened Tutor?

Yes, it can; for no less than three reasons:

Enlightened Tutor (like all other 'search your library' cards printed so far) does not target a specific card in your library, so protection doesn't play a role here.
Protection from X only functions when a permanent is on the battlefield. (Though players can have protection from X as well.)
Etched Champion's Metalcraft ability only works while it's on the battlefield, so it doesn't have protection to begin with.

(not 100% sure about the third one, actually)

It's worth noting that no card that searches libraries has ever targeted, generally when cards look at hidden zones they don't target, targeting really only refers to areas like the stack, grave and battlefield. Cards that go for the hand, deck or outside the game "choose"

Right, it would be physically impossible to choose a target in a hidden zone.

#3 is true because metalcraft is a static ability, and static abilities create continuous effects while the permanent is on the battlefield (this is paraphrased). See rule 112.3d of comprehensive rules

#2 and #3 are kinda the same; the text on a card generally applies only when it's on the battlefield, unless it specifically says otherwise (for instance, you can't activate a creature's activated abilities when it's in your hand, unless it's something like cycling that obviously only applies when it's in your hand).

Re "generally when cards look at hidden zones they don't target, targeting really only refers to areas like the stack, grave and battlefield. Cards that go for the hand, deck or outside the game "choose"", At least one exception: Runic Repetition

@GendoIkari, Re "it would be physically impossible to choose a target in a hidden zone", That's not true. In fact, there's already a mechanic that requires keeping track of a card in a hidden zone.


text:
Winning Splendor with reserve cards
Can you win a game of Splendor if you still have cards in reserve?

Yes. The rules only specify "The player who then has the highest number of prestige points is declared the winner (don’t forget to count your nobles). In case of a tie, the player who has purchased the fewest development cards wins." There is no mention that having a reserved card prevents winning in any way, but note that the cards in reserve don't count towards your score.
This means you can reserve cards you have no intention of buying to prevent someone else from buying them. Or maybe you just want a Gold Joker.

from rules for evidence. "The player who then has the highest number of prestige points is declared the winner (don’t forget to count your nobles).
In case of a tie, the player who has purchased the fewest
development cards wins."    There is no mention that having a reserved card prevents winning in anyway.


text:
Felidar Guardian exiling Soul Seizer
If I use Felidar Guardian to exile a transformed Soul Seizer I control, does it return as the enchantment and is put in the graveyard, or is it returned as the creature Soul Seizer?
I think exiling makes it lose all properties prior to the exiling, so it should return as the creature, shouldn't it?

If an aura like Ghastly Haunting enters the battlefield like that, it doesn't go to the graveyard, you actually attach it to a legal enchantment target. And if it doesn't have anything to attach to, it would stay in exile instead.

Yes, you are right: the rules say

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 nine exceptions to this rule:

But being transformed or not is not listed among the exceptions.
So in exile it's no longer transformed, and it will return to the battlefield as a creature, as that is the 'normal' way for this object to enter the battlefield:

711.8. A double-faced card enters the battlefield with its front face up by default. If a spell or ability puts it onto the battlefield “transformed,” it enters the battlefield with its back face up.

I suggest quoting rule 711.8 as the rules reference for the last sentence.

Right, that certainly doesn't hurt ...


text:
Omnispell Adept and Alternative/Additional costs of Sorceries/Instants
Can I use Omnispell Adept's ability to cast spells with alternative or kicker cost?

Can I cast Roil Spout for its Awaken 4 - 4WU cost?
Can I cast Saproling Migration and paying its kicker cost?

Or can I only use the default mode when casting spells with Omnispell Adept?

Alternative, no; kicker: yes. The rulings below the card in Gatherer state so:

If you cast a spell “without paying its mana cost,” you can’t choose to cast it for any alternative costs. You can, however, pay additional costs, such as kicker costs. If the card has any mandatory additional costs, such as that of Severed Strands, those must be paid to cast the card.

Basically, Omnispell Adept's ability is already an alternative casting cost and you can't replace that. The relevant rule is 117.9:

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.” Note that some alternative costs are listed in keywords; see rule 702.
117.9a Only one alternative cost can be applied to any one spell as it’s being cast. The controller of the spell announces their intentions to pay that cost as described in rule 601.2b.


text:
Jaya, Venerated Firemage + Chandra's Pyrohelix = 4 damage among two targets?
I have a Jaya, Venerated Firemage in play and cast Chandra's Pyrohelix, targetting two creatures.
Jaya's static ability reads:
If another red source you control would deal damage to a permanent or player, it deals that much damage plus 1 to that permanent or player instead.
Pyrohelix reads:
Chandra's Pyrohelix deals 2 damage divided as you choose among one or two targets.
Does this mean that the two targets both get dealt two damage, because 1 damage gets replaced by 1+1 damage, so Pyrohelix deals four damage in total?

It would be four damage; this is indicated in the rulings below the card on Gatherer:

If damage dealt by a source you control is being divided or assigned among multiple permanents an opponent controls or among an opponent and one or more permanents they control simultaneously, divide the original amount before adding 1. For example, if you attack with a 5/5 red creature with trample and your opponent blocks with a 2/2 creature, you can assign 2 damage to the blocker and 3 damage to the defending player. These amounts are then modified to 3 and 4, respectively.

Chandra's Pyrohelix will deal 4 damage total (2 to each target) because it's damage to each target is increased by 1.
While Jaya, Venerated Firemage has a ruling that supports this claim, I prefer the ruling on Pyromancer's Swath (which has a similar ability) for its brevity:

If damage is being dealt to multiple creatures and/or players at the same time, the damage being dealt to each one is increased

To explain why this is the ruling, the important thing is how Jaya's ability works.  Jaya's ability, as indicated by the word "instead", is a replacement effect:

614.1. Some continuous effects are replacement effects. Like prevention effects (see rule 615), replacement effects apply continuously as events happen-they aren't locked in ahead of time. Such effects watch for a particular event that would happen and completely or partially replace that event with a different event.
614.1a Effects that use the word "instead" are replacement effects. Most replacement effects use the word "instead" to indicate what events will be replaced with other events.

So now, the question is, what is it replacing?  The type of event Jaya is looking for is "another red source you control would deal damage to a permanent or player".  Thus, when you cast a burn spell, Jaya is not replacing the total damage your spell deals, but rather the subtotal that it deals to each creature (or player or planeswalker).
The fact that Chandra's Pyrohelix divides its damage isn't relevant to the replacement effect.  That choice happened when you cast the spell, creating a spell dealing 1 damage to each of two creatures.  The replacement effect, meanwhile, is happening when the spell resolves.  From the perspective of the replacement effect, there is no difference between Chandra's Pyrohelix (the way you are using it here) and Dual Shot.

I would argue there is a difference between dual shot and chandra's pyrohelix. One deals 2 damage divided as you choose to up to 2 targets, the other one deals 1 damage to up to 2 targets. if you only have 1 target, chandra's pyrohelix would deal 3 damage to that target while dual shot would only deal 2 damage (with Jaya's ability). Also neither of them allow 4 damage to the same creature to be dealt

@fireshark519 I'm not claiming that they are equivalent spells.  They are quite different when you cast them.  I'm merely claiming that if you use Chandra's Pyrohelix in the way that is described in the question, it looks the same as Dual Shot at the point of resolution.


text:
Increasing Savagery: can you change the target?
In MTG can Increasing Savagery flashback to a different target if the original target is removed from the battlefield?

What exactly do you mean? Do you mean changing targets while the spell is on the stack?

Here's an example: I cast increasing savagery to put +5/5 counters on my elf warrior. My opponent then destroys that elf warrior on his turn, sending it to my graveyard. My question is, can I now cast increasing savagery from my graveyard for its flashback cost to put +10/10 counters on a different creature I have on the battlefield, say a war elephant or can it only be used on the elf warrior I first used it on?

Got it. Then Glorfindel has the right answer. Thanks for clarifying

Yes, the new flashbacked invocation of Increasing Savagery is an entirely different instance of the spell, and you may choose a new target, even if the original target is still on the battlefield.


text:
Multiplayer card game based on Rock Paper Scissors- what is it called?
A few years ago I played a fun multiplayer card game unashamedly based on Rock Paper Scissors.  The players each had a hand of cards that were "Rock", "Paper", or "Scissors", but there was text on the the cards that added extra powers and an added element of strategy.  Can't remember what it was called though.
I already searched Boardgamegeek for "Rock Paper Scissors" and googled it, but haven't been able to find anything that matches what I vaguely remember.
I know it's not much to go on, but anyone have a guess what game I played?

Are you sure, this isn't the game: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/24260/rock-paper-scissors-card-game

If you like the game you describe, you might want to check out Custom Heroes. It's basically "President" with powerups like you describe.

"Rock Paper Scissors: The Card Game" can't be it because it's only two-player. We were 5 or more people sitting around a table.

Pyramid Arcade has a great rock-paper-scissors tournament game included. Doesn’t sound exactly like what you’re talking about though.

I think it might be GG.
Was a Kickstarter back in 2016.


text:
Multiple Lathliss, Dragon Queen - multiple Dragon tokens?
If I have 2 of the same creature in play and I activate the ability by playing another card, does it trigger twice since I have 2 of them or does it only activate once?
Example:
I have 2 Lathliss, Dragon Queen and 1 Mirror Gallery (so I can have both out) in play.
I play Archwing Dragon triggering the ability to create a 5/5 Dragon with Flying.
Would this create two 5/5 Dragons with Flying or just one?

Cards in MTG are usually quite precise in their language, and mean exactly what they say. Specifically, if two events (the triggers of the two Lathlisses) don't refer explicitly to one another, then they are entirely as independent as the rules allow them to be (one will happen before the other because the game only permits one resolution at a time, but that's it).

You'll get two Dragon tokens.
Lathliss, Dragon Queen's ability is a triggered ability; each card's ability goes on the stack separately and will resolve separately. It doesn't really matter that they're identical cards; they're different permanents.


text:
Can Feasting Troll King be countered when it returns to the battlefield?
If I return my Feasting Troll King from my graveyard using its activated ability:

Sacrifice three Foods: Return Feasting Troll King from your graveyard to the battlefield. Activate this ability only during your turn.

can troll, as a creature, be countered? I know that the activated ability can be countered, but I would like to know if my opponent could counter the troll itself, using for example Essence Scatter:

Counter target creature spell.

Similar; probably not quite a duplicate: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/51414/can-no-escape-counter-planeswalker-sarkhan

No.
Essence Scatter counters a spell, and Feasting Troll King's activated ability does not cause a spell to be placed on the stack as it does not use the word "cast" in the description. If it were to create a spell, it would be worded something like

You may cast Feasting Troll King from your graveyard by sacrificing three Foods rather than paying its mana cost.

The correct template would be something like "Sacrifice three food tokens: Until end of turn, you may cast FTK from the graveyard. Activate this ability only if FTK is in your graveyard."

@Hackworth - my edited version there is pretty much the Escape template. I acknowledge it's different from the activated ability version in some way, but this is all hypothetical anyway. Is there a card which uses the wording you're suggesting?

The closest match to my template would be on Chainer, Nightmare Adept and Idol of Endurance, although they both allow casting other cards rather than themselves, so your version might be right as well. Also I missed "without paying its mana cost", but that doesnt really change the template.

@Hackworth I think it depends a bit on how flexible you want it to be; your activated ability would allow you to respond to something like Disenchant attempting to destroy the foods by saccing the foods and then casting the FTK later in the turn whereas mine wouldn't. Yours is probably closer to power of the original ability, mine is more like a normal spell.

I don't know why I didn't think of flashback as a template: "You may cast this card from your graveyard by paying [cost] rather than paying its mana cost” It's on instants and sorceries, but no part of that phrasing requires that.

No. That's an activated ability and not a spell, and Essence Scatter can only counter spells. You'll need something like Trickbind to counter it.
Rules 112 and 113 define what spells and abilities are, and they are distinct:

112.1. A spell is a card on the stack. As the first step of being cast (see rule 601, “Casting Spells”), the card becomes a spell and is moved to the top of the stack from the zone it was in, which is usually its owner’s hand. (See rule 405, “Stack.”) A spell remains on the stack as a spell until it resolves (see rule 608, “Resolving Spells and Abilities”), is countered (see rule 701.5), or otherwise leaves the stack. For more information, see section 6, “Spells, Abilities, and Effects.”

113.1. An ability can be one of three things:
113.1a An ability can be a characteristic an object has that lets it affect the game. An object’s abilities are defined by its rules text or by the effect that created it. Abilities can also be granted to objects by rules or effects. (Effects that grant abilities usually use the words “has,” “have,” “gains,” or “gain.”) Abilities generate effects. (See rule 609, “Effects.”)
113.1b An ability can be something that a player has that changes how the game affects the player. A player normally has no abilities unless granted to that player by effects.
113.1c An ability can be an activated or triggered ability on the stack. This kind of ability is an object. (See section 6, “Spells, Abilities, and Effects.”)


text:
What is offensive about the card "Stone-Throwing Devils"?
In 2020 Magic: The Gathering banned seven cards due to racist or offensive content. But I don't understand the inclusion of the card Stone-Throwing Devils on that list. It just shows a bunch of demons jumping over a fence and throwing stones. What is the problem with it? Everything on the web just includes it on the list of banned cards but doesn't explain why.

A small caveat that might assist towards finding another answer to this question, in the book Us vs Them: The Failure of Globalism, Ian Bremmer refers to stone-throwing as the only way poor and powerless people can express their frustration when they have no ability to change things.

Given the interest in this question, I have opened a phrase history question on the English Usage site. Hopefully, this can provide some historical or literary context to the phrase.

Isn't the question here, "Why did Wizards of the Coast ban the card?"  Not what someone else might find offensive about the card?  That's too broad a question and not appropriate for this site.

@John. I think it is a clear question. The question asker says it was was banned due to 'racist or offensive' content.  So the question can't by 'why did WOTC ban the card' as they know that..  They seemed wanted to better understand why it might be considered racist and the answers below seem rooted in facts with references showing that the question is answerable.  Whilst it might be the usual type of question here it is certainly games related and answerable.

Since the image is removed from WOTC sites, here's one found elsewhere

Over on Geoffrey's question at English Usage, @TaliesinMerlin found this 2002 interview with Richard Garfield, on the WOTC site (Internet Archive) where he talks about the names on all the Arabian Nights cards.

@Quuxplusone It's now replaced on that site too by a placeholder mentioning the removal. Imgur link to card

WotC has talked about this card as accidentally having a slur since the mid nineties (Duelist magazine) so it didn't surprise me to see it on the list. At first they weren't even that clear about which card it was, just said "one of the cards".

I am not convinced that anyone has ever used the phrase "stone-throwing devil" to refer to Palestinians, however throwing stones is unquestionably associated with Palestinian protest (Palestinian Stone-throwing), perhaps especially with the First Intifada.

It has been 30 years since the first Palestinian Intifada, or uprising, exploded onto the scene in the occupied territories.
The prevailing images of unarmed Palestinians throwing rocks at fully armed Israeli troops and military vehicles, which clearly showed the occupied and the occupier, were covered with unprecedented interest by international media.

Stories from the first Intifada: ‘They broke my bones’ (emphasis added)

Indeed, the act of throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers has become a symbolic act of defiance and resistance for the Palestinians. The juxtaposition between boys and men armed with stones against the Israeli military has drawn comparisons to biblical foes David and Goliath.
Like the kaffiyeh, the checkered Arab scarf that Palestinians sometimes use as a shield -- against tear gas, and to hide their identities -- the stone has become a symbol of their struggle.

Why Palestinians Throw Stones (emphasis added)
So, in the contemporary (American) imagination, there's already some connection between stone throwing and Palestinians.
If that connection doesn't feel obvious, also remember that the card was printed in Arabian Nights, which is set in an imaginary Arabia - so these are Arab stone-throwing devils.
Although the connection with Palestinian protestors - intentional or not - is pretty clear when you consider the above, it's not as clear what kind of statement the card would be making.  That said, if there's any statement, it's probably something negative.  The card is black, which is typically (though not exclusively) the color of the most evil creatures; there's the fact that they're called "devils"; there's the flavor text:

Sometimes those with the most sin cast the first stones.

None of this seems very nice to me.  But as long as I'm editorializing, even if no statement were made, the mere fact that this card evokes an ongoing, often passionate political debate would be reason enough to take a very cautious stance.  Why would a company that produces consumer goods want to get into that hot water?

@Geoffrey posted Is the phrase "stone-throwing devil" actually a slur? on English.SE to ask for actual evidence.  But fair point that some people may leap to conclusions on their own, regardless of historical usage, and yeah that's reason enough for a game company to cancel the card.

"Sometimes those with the most sin cast the first stones." This is a Biblical reference to John 8:7b: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

@JohnDumancic, assuredly so.  Do you think that fact should be incorporated into this answer?  I'm not quite sure how I would do so in a meaningful way.

@Juhasz I think the point he's making is that a commitment to read this card as a reference to Palestinians might lead you to perceive the flavor text as a jab at them as well. And that seems to be the way you've presented it here. If the card is somewhat more innocent  (to the degree that the offense is felt by Palestinians although never intended by the hapless and ignorant card designers), then the flavor text - and indeed the color, etc. -  doesn't  matter as much to the argument. Surely, the intention of the designers should matter to some degree.

@Geoffrey, the intentions of WotC might be important if we wanted to judge them for printing this card.  That's not what I'm trying to do.  I'm hoping to answer the question: what might people find offensive about this card.  I'm open to suggestions or edits to better convey this.

@Juhasz Fair enough. I suppose the whole point is that the card was made by people who are familiar with the joke but unfamiliar with the connotation of the term, and it is being interpreted by people unfamiliar with the joke but familiar with connotation. So obviously those people would see that as a judgment of themselves rather than the biblical reference it was intended to be. Good point.

"Although the connection with Palestinian protestors - intentional or not - is pretty clear" If it's so clear, why has there been so much confusion as to its removal? I never saw anyone immediately say "ah, of course, Palestinians" in the reactions to it. It was only after people did went looking for what it could possibly be.

While I am not familiar with this to say for sure I am guessing this could be part of the reasoning as well and not connected to palestinian protesters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning_of_the_Devil

@eyeballfrog, I made the implication explicit: "the connection is pretty clear when you consider the above."  As to your observation about widespread confusion about this subject, I could only speculate about why Magic players are unaware of this issue and I don't think my musings would add much of value.  If you wanted to conduct a survey of MtG players' news consumption habits, there might be some interesting results to be found.

@eyeballfrog well, now you have. As soon as I saw the title of the card in question I immediately expected it to be perceived as derogatory toward Palestinians.

While sources are sparse and unofficial, it appears to be because of the name of the card itself. The term “stone-throwers” or “stone-throwing devils” is used as a derogatory name for Palestinians or Muslims.
Sources:
https://tappedout.net/mtg-forum/general/why-is-it-banned/

This particular card was banned because "stone throwing devils" is an old slur for muslims.

https://twitter.com/itsJulian23/status/1270998016766476288?s=20

What I found is that "Stone throwers" is a derogative term for Palestinians, especially kids.

This, combined with the fact that the characters in the art are dark-skinned.

@PhilipKendall Googling the name, I see creatures with a blueish tint to their light skin?

It might be relevant that it came from the "Arabian Nights" set

And of course if the reason is in the card name (only), it doesn't really make much sense that just the image is redacted from the Gatherer page, but not the name of the card. (The same as with Jihad)

I kinda wanted to see for myself what this was about, but Wizards have made it more difficult than necessary. to see what the card looks like. Of course, I could always do an image search elsewhere, but removing it from Gatherer directly diminishes Gatherer's value as a card database and reference. Why not hide it behind a warning, but let me see it if I insisted?

@ilkkachu I would assume the card removal mechanism doesn't care if the image is offensive or the name is offensive. And the name is important so you can at least identify the card that was removed, plus the image could be more offensive than the name.

@Arthur, that's exactly what scryfall does.

@KodosJohnson, to my eye, most of the cards banned that way, are problematic just through the card name being too close to real-world concepts, and in two, the name plus how the effects consider a particular color "good", and another "bad". Maybe in two of the seven I can see that the image could be the worst part. With that in mind, leaving the rules text visible and not e.g. hiding the whole card page under a notice (like scryfall does for the graphic) seems a bit odd.

Sure, you would need for the card to be searchable, but you could still hide the rules text, or even the card names from search results unless the user explicitly wants to see them. Also, it's amusing to note, that the gatherer pages for those cards don't seem to have any note on them being consider offensive in the text content. The notice is only text in the image, so hard to read programmatically, by search engines etc.

I decided to unaccept this answer because its only sources are two forums. The other answer is much better researched.

Is there a source for this outside of MTG?

I believe that @Juhasz's well-reasoned answer lacks full context. Arabic spirit creatures ("djinn") are often depicted as throwing stones to pester or kill humans, and this card seems to be a reference to that. Use of the word "devils" is likely to (a) differentiate this creature from the rare "djinn" and "efreet" cycles and (b) emphasize the Biblical pun in the flavor text.
It seems clear now that the card was banned not because the phrase is a Victorian-era reference to the Stoning of the Devil (as some people have claimed) but rather because the historical context in which it occurs makes it seem to be a reference to Palestinians. However, I believe that this reading of the card is ignoring the more obvious historical context from Arabic mythology.
I have gone into more detail on the English.SE site with this answer.

I've never seen "Stone-Throwing Devils" nor have any special information on the controversy, but for what it's worth, I get it. Remember that the full context is:

The card comes from a pack titled "Arabian Nights."

The name of the card is "Stone-Throwing Devils."

The card text is "Sometimes those with the most sin cast the first stones."

So the card can already be interpreted as referring to someone in Arabia known for throwing stones. For some people, that's the Palestinians; for me, it suggests the Stoning of the Devil so it suggests all Muslims in general. Not explicitly; just, like, "hey reader, remember that thing you know? let's just keep it in mind as we read this card."
So on top of that, the card text is a direct allusion to the Christian Bible. As DavePhD says, it's a play on John 8:7. The meaning of John 8:7 is basically "You shouldn't throw stones at sinners, because you also are sinful (and btw, obviously, let's think about Jesus)." The meaning on the card is basically "These guys throw stones at the good guys because these guys are sinful/evil (and btw Jesus)." At this point it doesn't matter if you've been primed to think of Palestinians or Muslims-in-general or maybe even just the broadest possible Orientalizing "Arabian Nights" setting. It's problematic to say "hey these dudes in Arabia (whoever they might be)? they're evil (and btw Jesus)."

The other "insensitive" card whose image is blocked from this particular deck is "Jihad." Initially I was a bit puzzled, because "Army of Allah" feels like a title with basically the same problem, and "Army of Allah" wasn't blocked.
But then I looked at "Jihad"'s effect: it's basically "pick a color, and make whites more powerful until they succeed in eradicating that color." Again, not necessarily the worst choice of words by itself; but when you put multiple "questionable" things onto the same card, eventually the scales tip toward "hey, this specific card is unusually problematic."
In "Jihad"'s case, I suspect the race-war subtext would have been a huge mental leap in 1993 — "Arabian Nights" was merely capitalizing on the success of Aladdin (1992), and had no inkling that a decade later a lot of Americans would be talking about "clash of civilizations" and contrasting "Islam" and "the West" in explicitly racial terms where the word "white" on a card had a greater chance of being read as suggestive. Notice that these cards were banned for being in questionable taste for the 2020s, not necessarily for the '90s.

Not Aladdin specifically; it was The Sandman #50. But part of the whole Gulf era zeitgeist that gave us Aladdin, al-Qadim etc.

The card says:

Sometimes those with the most sin cast the first stones

This is a clear reference to the Bible quoting Jesus as saying:
John 8:7

"Let him that is among you without sin, cast the first stone at her"

As evidence that the card could be considered offensive to some Christians, see this Christian Gaming review of Magic the Gathering:

it's use of Christian themes and images are poorly handled and missused

The reference is clear, but this doesn't answer why the card was considered offensive.

@doppelgreener Some people will be offended that Jesus's message is being usurped for the purpose of the card and some people will be offended that the card has a theme of Christian origin.

@doppelgreener I added evidence that some Christians are offended by the misuse of Christian themes in Magic the Gathering.

It's not just a reference, it's a manipulation of the quote for humorous effect that kind of makes fun of the message of the quote. Many or most Christians consider the Bible to be a sacred text that should neither be manipulated nor made fun of, and that quote in particularly speaks to an important Christian value. Also, this is happening on a card with "devil" in the name, which further undermines the quote. This seems like a plausible explanation for the ban, and the answers here are a bit speculative either way, since there doesn't seem to be an official explanation.

@iono sorry, the PhD is only in chemistry, not religion :)

@NotThatGuy That's not true, and this answer is wrong, since there IS official explanation on why the card would never be reprinted (and later was outright banned and 'removed') from MaRo himself where he says on his tumblr blogatog it's because "the title is a slur." I can't think of a much more official source than the head designer for Magic the Gathering for the past 2 decades, except maybe Dr. Garfield.

@NotThatGuy, I'm not seeing any undermining of Jesus's message.  Quite the opposite - this paraphrase seems to suggest the same thing, only more strongly. Jesus said, in essence: you condemn a woman for her sins, but you are sinners yourselves.  Or, to rephrase: "sometimes those with sin cast stones."  The flavor text takes this a step further.  Not only are the ones casting stones also sinners, they are the most sinful.  This seems to echo Matthew 7:5: "You hypocrite! First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye."

@Andrew All the current answers are speculative (as best I can tell) because they didn't reference any official source. I didn't see that quote in any answer posted when I posted my comment, and I'm still not seeing that in any answer. Also, that was posted 6 years before the ban, so it's entirely plausible that reasons changed since then. It will probably still be seen as a slur, but that doesn't mean additional reasons weren't added and didn't become more important than the slur over time. Even the quote itself doesn't remove the possibility of there having been other factors at the time

@Juhasz I'm not invested enough in defending a religion I have little to no investment in on this heavily downvoted answer posted by someone else to try to argue my point in more detail that I already have, but suffice to say different people will interpret it differently.


text:
Can you have same Legendary Creature on the battlefield twice utilizing the Mutate ability?
If you have mutated on top of a legendary creature, are you then legally able to cast onto the battlefield another of the same legendary creature card?

Please note that you are always able to cast another legendary with the same name. It will enter the battlefield and trigger its effects. You just don't get to keep both.

702.139e A mutated permanent has all abilities of each card and token that represents it. Its other characteristics are derived from the topmost card or token.

Being legendary is not an ability; rather, it's a supertype:

109.3. An object’s characteristics are name, mana cost, color, color indicator, card type, subtype, supertype, rules text, abilities, power, toughness, loyalty, hand modifier, and life modifier. Objects can have some or all of these characteristics. Any other information about an object isn’t a characteristic. For example, characteristics don’t include whether a permanent is tapped, a spell’s target, an object’s owner or controller, what an Aura enchants, and so on.

205.4a A card can also have one or more supertypes. These are printed directly before its card types. The supertypes are basic, legendary, ongoing, snow, and world.

That means that if you mutate on top of a legendary creature, you can cast it again (if you have another copy in your hand) without it being affected by the legend rule. If you mutate under a legendary creature, it's still legal to cast another copy, but it's usually not such a good idea.

Also, legendary creatures with Mutate could be mutated under an existing creature without conflicting with any versions of themselves that already exist on the battlefield.

Especially you should be able to mutate a legendary creature under another legendary creature with the same name, correct?


text:
How do I develop a strategy for the board game Santorini?
I'm new to a chess-like board game called Santorini.
The basic rules are:

The rules are simple. Each turn consists of 2 steps:

Move - move one of your builders into a neighboring space. You may move your Builder Pawn on the same level, step-up one level, or step down any number of levels.
Build - Then construct a building level adjacent to the builder you moved. When building on top of the third level, place a dome instead, removing that space from play.

Winning the game - If either of your builders reaches the third level, you win.

How should I approach creating a strategy to consistently do well at this game?
Please note I'm not interested in adding in any 'God Powers' (modifiers) yet as I'd like to get a handle on the base game first.

BGG might be a helpful start. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/194655/santorini/forums/67 there's a thread about running Santorini in something called Ai Ai, but it doesn't seem to go anywhere in terms of an outcome at the moment.

This appears the Ai Ai output for Man Vs Man. http://mrraow.com/uploads/AiAiReports/Santorini%20(Man%20vs%20Man).html#LevelsOfPlay Interpretation though is another thing

This might be a total beginner question, but is there any reason why "move one of your builders back and forth between two squares to win on turn 6" isn't the optimal strategy?

Strategy is heavily dependent on builder placement in relation to your opponents builders. To win you need keep a few things in mind

you need to be in a position to jump to the third level as often as possible
it is important to be within range of your opponent to cap them if they are near an active  third level
using your second worker to block square late game can prevent your opponent from being able to move or cap another square
if you can ever wall in an opponents worker within one square by moving your worker in the way do so as this limits their play.

It is the combination of these that make your strategy. As it is an abstract game there is no hard and fast strategy that will guarantee a win.

Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.

I think this is a fine answer for a question this broad.


text:
Ordering of Triggers
If I have Terror of the Peaks on the board, play Storm Herald and target Colossification, can I order triggers so Storm Herald is enchanted with Colossification before Terror of the Peaks' ability takes place?

Related: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/43710/what-happens-if-multiple-triggers-on-the-stack-would-cause-both-players-to-drop

Both of the abilites are triggered when the Storm Herald entering the battlefield, and since you control both sources, you will choose the order the abilities go on the stack.

603.3b If multiple abilities have triggered since the last time a player received priority, each player, in APNAP order, puts triggered abilities they control on the stack in any order they choose.

In this case, since you want the buff from the Colossification on the Herald before the Terror of the Peaks ability resolves, you'll want to put the Herald's ability on the stack last so the Aura will be placed first. This will buff the Herald to a 23/23 when the Terror's ability resolves. The Terror's ability will see the final power of the Herald and do 23 damage to any target you choose, probably at your opponent. :)
Notably, if the the Herald is killed before the Aura is placed onto it, the Terror deals damage equal to its last known power, which would be 3. If the Colossification is placed, and then the Herald is killed (say, to a spell like Smite the Monstrous), the last known power will be 23 for the purposes of the Terror's ability resolving.

608.2g If an effect requires information from the game (such as the number of creatures on the battlefield), the answer is determined only once, when the effect is applied. If the effect requires information from a specific object, including the source of the ability itself, the effect uses the current information of that object if it’s in the public zone it was expected to be in; if it’s no longer in that zone, or if the effect has moved it from a public zone to a hidden zone, the effect uses the object’s last known information. See rule 113.7a. If an ability states that an object does something, it’s the object as it exists—or as it most recently existed—that does it, not the ability.

Yes, you can.
When Storm Herald enters the battlefield, 2 things trigger simultaneously: Storm Herald's triggered ability and Terror of the Peaks' triggered ability.
The next time a player would receive priority, you get to place both on the stack at the same time in an order you choose. If you choose to put Terror of the Peaks's ability on the stack first, with Storm Herald on top, then Storm Herald will resolve first, causing Colossification to return to the battlefield attached to Terror of the Peaks, and then Terror of the Peak's ability will resolving, counting the new +20 power.

603.3b If multiple abilities have triggered since the last time a player received priority, each player, in APNAP order, puts triggered abilities they control on the stack in any order they choose.

It doesn't matter what Terror of the Peak's power is at the time its ability triggers; the ability only does something when it resolves.You can see rulings on similar cards such as Burning Anger:

Use the power of the enchanted creature as the activated ability resolves to determine how much damage is dealt. If the creature isn’t on the battlefield at that time, use its power as it last existed on the battlefield.


text:
Kathril, Aspect Warper and his ability's "targets"
I have a question regarding Kathril, Aspect Warper's ability. The ability is as follows:

When Kathril, Aspect Warper enters the battlefield, put a flying counter on any creature you control if a creature card in your graveyard has flying. Repeat this process for first strike, double strike, deathtouch, hexproof, indestructible, lifelink, menace, reach, trample, and vigilance. Then put a +1/+1 counter on Kathril for each counter put on a creature this way.

Now, as I understand it, this ability is a triggered ability that is put on the stack when Kathril enters the battlefield (so the spell "Kathril, Aspect Warper" has resolved). This means any player can immediately react to this trigger, before it has resolved. This has led to some confusing situations regarding the creatures that receive a counter.
The part that confuses me is this:

put a flying counter on any creature you control

According to rule 115. Targets:

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

This is not a target-ability since it does not state "target [something]".

So what is this ability then?
Do I need to specify targets as soon as the ability is put on the stack?
Can the chosen creatures be changed by something like Willbender?
Is there even a moment opponents gain priority between Kathril entering the battlefield, en putting counters on creatures?

Question 2, 3 and 4 matter quite a lot when you want to make Kathril hex-proof and indestructible, but an opponents wants to remove Kathril before the trigger resolves.
Any info or relevant rules would be greatly appreciated.

In regards removing Kathril before the trigger resolves; note that doing so wouldn't prevent the ability from resolving. Your creatures would still get the appropriate tokens (except the +1/+1 counters on Kathril).

Your general understanding is correct; this ability does not target, because it doesn't use the word "target". It IS still a normal triggered ability though.

603.1. Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as “[When/Whenever/At] [trigger condition or event], [effect]. [Instructions (if any).]”

Your confusion seems to be that you were under the impression that all abilities (or at least all triggered abilities) target. This isn't the case. What we have here is simply a triggered ability that has no targets.
Because the affected creatures are not targeted, you do not have to choose them when you put the ability on the stack. Instead, you choose them as part of resolving the ability.

608.2d If an effect of a spell or ability offers any choices other than choices already made as part of casting the spell, activating the ability, or otherwise putting the spell or ability on the stack, the player announces these while applying the effect.

So when Kathril, Aspect Warper enters the battlefield, its ability triggers. The next time a player would receive priority, that ability goes on the stack. Because there are no targets (and it is not a modal ability), no choices are made as part of putting it on the stack. Players will receive priority like normal and could respond to that ability. Something like Willbender cannot be used here, because the ability doesn't have a target, making the ability an invalid target for something like Willbender.
When both players pass priority, the ability will resolve, at which point you follow the instructions, making choices as needed.

You're right, it doesn't target. Not all abilities target, even if they directly affect a single object. That means you don't have to announce the creatures when the ability triggers and is put on the stack (rule 601.2c, referred to from 603.3d). Choosing the creatures is part of the resolution:

608.2c The controller of the spell or ability follows its instructions in the order written.

Since there is no targeting, Willbender can't change which creatures receive the counters. (In fact, nothing can happen during the resolution of a spell or ability, apart from 608.2c.) But between Kathril entering the battlefield (causing its ability to trigger and be put on the stack) and the resolution of the ability, opponents can counter it with something like Trickbind.


text:
Female world chess champion?
Has there ever been a female world chess champion (or, before the title existed, any woman who was widely regarded as the best chess player in the community or region)?

There's a correct list of World Champions (preceded by a list of players regarded as the world's strongest before the title existed) on Wikipedia. All of them are men, there hasn't been any woman considered to be the strongest chess player at a certain point of time.
As for regional championships, Judit Polgar, mentioned by @BenjaminCosman, won the Hungarian National Championships. There are probably others who achieved this.

There has not yet been a female world champion in chess. According to Wikipedia, Judit Polgár is "generally considered the strongest female chess player of all time"; see the article for her many accomplishments.

Well, there is a regional (and pretty famous) female chess player I have heard of. Her name is Koneru Humpy. Her Elo rating is 2606 according to Wikipedia.


text:
A question about flickering a stolen creature
Some cards like Mistmeadow Witch and Ghostly Flicker specify under whose control the flickered creature will return. What happens when it isn't specified whose control the creature will return under? For example if I'd play Yannik, Scavenging Sentinel or Lumbering Battlement which doesn't specify that, would the creature return under my or my opponent's control?

They won't be 'stolen' anymore when they return to the battlefield. One of the rulings under Lumbering Battlement says

When the cards return to the battlefield, they will be new objects with no connection to the cards that were exiled.

'Stealing' a creature is a continuous effect, i.e. a creature is always controlled by its owner unless another effect changes this. When a stolen creature returns to the battlefield, the game doesn't know about the effect anymore and its owner will control it.

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.

Nine exceptions are listed there but this isn't one of them.
There is even a special ruling about these type of cards/effects which I didn't know about (thanks @doppelgreener):

One-Shot Effects

610.1. A one-shot effect does something just once and doesn’t have a duration. Examples include dealing damage, destroying a permanent, creating a token, and moving an object from one zone to another.
610.3. Some one-shot effects cause an object to change zones “until” a specified event occurs. A second one-shot effect is created immediately after the specified event. This second one-shot effect returns the object to its previous zone.
610.3c An object returned to the battlefield this way returns under its owner’s control unless otherwise specified.

Finally, @murgatroid99 mentions a card which explicitly modifies this behaviour, Cloudshift:

Exile target creature you control, then return that card to the battlefield under your control.

It may also be good to specify that a permanent will by default enter the battlefield under their owner's control, in this case according to 610.3b

For contrast it might be good to mention cards like Cloudshift that explicitly have the creature enter the battlefield under your control.


text:
Can I get multiple effects from Alhammarrett, High Arbiter when using Brago, King Eternal's ability?
I'm playing a commander deck with Brago, King Eternal as commander. I also have this card called Alhammarret, High Arbiter I'm considering adding to the deck.
If I cast the arbiter, chose a spell (let's say Shock) and then blink it via Brago's ability, I know I can choose another spell (maybe Goblin Locksmith), but can I have both Shock and Goblin Locksmith 'blocked' at the same time? Does the effect on shock disappear when the arbiter blinks, limiting to one spell 'blocked' at once?

The effect disappears as soon as you blink the Arbiter.

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.

The rules list a few exceptions, but the situation you describe isn't one of them. The blinked Arbiter does not know anything about the Shock you chose when it was cast.


text:
In this Go game why does the territory appear as being completely captured
I've been learning to play Go for the past few days, and in this game I'm playing I don't understand exactly how I captured the whole board in one move. These images show what happened.

Looks like the AI could tell there's no way for white to defend that last group. To see, just play it out yourself. (which is what players do anyhow when there's no agreement as to who would win a certain area)

I strongly suggest you increase the board size to at least 11 x 11 instead of 9 x 9. The AI you're playing against is making terrible first moves in the corners, so clearly thinks the board is bigger than it is. even an 11 x 11 board has all edge and corners, so a first move should never be further out than the 3-3 or 3-4 point. Allowing an opposing corner invasion at 3-3 on these small board sizes is suicide.

Even if this move does kill the white group you arguably only captured the rest of the board (about a third) rather than the entire board with that move, as you had apparently already captured the other c. two thirds before you moved. This may seem like nitpicking, but it is important to think about how much difference each move makes.

A corner invasion can in some cases can make a huge difference. In this case the play on th 3-3 point threatens to cut the white group in the upper left into three pieces, two of which have no chance at life and the third is in bad shape.
That siad, I think the AI is a bit premature in declaring all these stones dead.  A play by white to connect  at the 4-3 point or to undercut at the 3-2 point could lead to life for at least the largest part of the white group, depending on the further line of play by both players. I am not an expert (I was about 10 Kyu at my best, years ago), but I would not concede with the white position after this move,
I agree with the comment that a larger board size may avoids tactical oddities with this AI.
Addition: A comment by @ilkkachu points out that in the 2nd image it is black's turn, not white's, Given that, white doesn't seem to have much chance. If as the comment suggests black extends to the left of the previous store, ther does not seem a plausible line for any white group to form eyes, assuming reasonable play by black. I had incorrectly read the 2nd image as white to play, that makes a sizable difference.

In the second image, white is shown to already have answered below the black stone. After that, the only move is that black extends to the right, taking either the lone white stone in the middle or the chain to the lower left. Either way, white has no space to make eyes anymore. Had white answered to the right of the black stone (the other 4-3 point), there might be something, but that's not what the image shows.

@ilkkachu see edited answer above.

Yep, thanks. And yes, the image is a bit odd. I don't think it makes much sense to mark stones as dead before both have passed, and you wouldn't do that there...

In the second image, the strongest attack for black seems to be the 3-4 atari on the single stone: This gives the invading stones a third liberty while the big white group has only two, as such, that white group can be considered dead. And the remaining white stones do not have enough eye space to make a living group. As such, I think the AIs conclusion is perfectly ok.


text:
In Monopoly, if your Community Chest card reads "Go back to ...." , do you move forward or backward?
In Monopoly, if your Community Chest card reads "Go back to ...." , do you move forward or backward?

This page lists all the community chest cards, and none of them say "go back to." What edition do you have, and what is the complete text? https://monopoly.fandom.com/wiki/Community_Chest

I don't know what version that page is based on, but I certainly remember the monopoly set I played on as a kid having a "go back to old kent road" card.

@jejorda2 Chance has a Go Back Three {3} Spaces card.

@PeterGreen - Not just you. :-) And it's listed on this page as "Cards in the UK Standard Edition which are derived from the 1935 Darrow/Parker Brothers edition and are now omitted in the U.S. edition, or are entirely new" along with "Go Back to Baltic Avenue" which was apparently in four U.S. editions prior to 1936.

@jejorda2 - See above. UK editions have "Go Back to Old Kent Road," and a long time ago there were four U.S. editions that had "Go Back to Baltic Avenue."

What part of "back" do you not understand?

@user253751 Passing Go and collecting $200.

It says 'Go back to', so that definitely means backwards. There are no tricks involved, it's just plain English.
There are other cards for moving forwards, e.g. a (Chance) card which says 'Advance to Boardwalk'; they use a different phrase.

And the 'go  (directly) to jail' cards, which don't care about forwards or backwards but tell you to go there right away. The 'do not pass GO' variety. Forward, backward, right to jail, those are the options.

The reason for "go back to" is to prevent you from passing GO and collecting $200.

Unless the target tile is in front of you, in which case backwards actually puts you over GO, right? The cards that don't want you to pass go explicitly say so.

@mast Exactly. In fact it could be just as likely to make you pass GO, which makes the above answer incorrect.

In the standard Monopoly game, there are no Community Chest cards that say "go back."
There IS one Chance card that says "Go back three spaces." That is basically the only time in the game when you would "go back."


text:
Can I use a bus ticket straight away after rolling a double?
I would like to know: if a player rolls doubles twice then lands on the birthday gift and collects a bus ticket, can that player use their bus ticket immediately or do they have to roll again because they rolled doubles?

From the rules here

If doubles entitle you to roll again, you may use a Bus Ticket in
place of rolling the dice.

The rules for birthday gift say

BIRTHDAY GIFT If you land here collect $100 from the Bank, or draw a
Bus Ticket for use on a later turn. Your choice.

So the question is is rolling again due to a double is the same turn or a new turn. The rules state the following.

After you have completed your play, the turn passes to the left.

So reading that it sounds like rolling again it part of the same 'turn' or 'play' and not a new and separate turn.  So if a bus ticket is taken for 'use on a later turn' then they would not get to use it immediately.
However this terminology is contradicted in rules for getting out of jail by rolling a double.

Even though you rolled doubles, you do not take another turn.

So it seems the rules are confused on what is 'a turn' and if that differs from 'rolling again'
Personally I would let them as that seems to make more sense thematically that you can use a ticket straight away, maybe one to discuss as a house rule before you start as there is an argument in the rules for both.


text:
Will an 8/8 with trample die if it's blocked by 4 2/2 creatures?
When attacking with a creature that has trample, can it die if the blockers' power succeeds or equals the attacking creatures' toughness?
Example: A 8/8 with trample attacks. 4 creatures, all 2/2, block. So all 4 creatures blocking and the attacking 8/8 with trample would die correct?

Why do you specify that the 8/8 has trample? Do you expect a different outcome than a non-trampling 8/8 being blocked by 4 2/2s?

If the 8/8 didnt have trample there would be no need to block with 4 creatures... only 1 creature and no extra damage goes to player... only the 2/2 would die... why would you use 4 creatures to block when there's no need to? I mean, unless you just want to kill off 4 of your blockers to take down 1 big creature? Which to me seems dumb... but I guess that depends on how you gear your deck too...

There are lots of cases where killing the 8/8 would be worthwhile. For instance, if the 8/8 survives, it can be used as a blocker after it untaps (or, if it has vigilance, your next turn).

Yes, it will die. In general, trample only affects what happens with excess damage from the attacking side, i.e. when the attacking creature's power is higher than the total toughness of the blockers. The other way around (blockers' total power vs. attacker's toughness) is not affected.
The blocking creatures will die too, except when the attacking player makes the (usually inferior) decision to distribute more than the necessary 2 damage to some of the creatures, e.g. 4 to the first and 2 to two others.


text:
Can Dive Down protect a creature against Pacifism?
If my opponent casts Pacifism on my creature and in response I cast Dive Down, what happens?

Dive Down resolves first (since it's the last spell on the stack) and will give your creature Hexproof.
Then, Pacifism (an Aura, which by rule 114.1b is a targeted spell) tries to resolve, but its target has become invalid, so it will not resolve and end up in your opponent's graveyard.

608.2b If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. A target that’s no longer in the zone it was in when it was targeted is illegal. Other changes to the game state may cause a target to no longer be legal; for example, its characteristics may have changed or an effect may have changed the text of the spell. If the source of an ability has left the zone it was in, its last known information is used during this process. If all its targets, for every instance of the word “target,” are now illegal, the spell or ability doesn’t resolve. It’s removed from the stack and, if it’s a spell, put into its owner’s graveyard.

(source: Comprehensive Rules, emphasis mine)

It's also necessary to show that auras are targeted spells.

Specifically, the comprehensive rules clarify that Auras (enchantments like Pacifism) require a target (emphasis mine)

303.4a An Aura spell requires a target, which is defined by its enchant ability.
608.3a If the object that’s resolving is an Aura spell, its resolution involves two steps. First, it checks whether the target specified by its enchant ability is still legal, as described in rule 608.2b.

Relevant portion of 608.2:

If all its targets, for every instance of the word “target,” are now illegal, the spell or ability doesn’t resolve. It’s removed from the stack and, if it’s a spell, put into its owner’s graveyard.

The rest of rule 608.2 only applies to instants, sorceries, and abilities.  But auras do check their implicit targets on spell resolution.  Then, as Glorfindel describes in their answer, Dive Down would make your creature an invalid target due to hexproof, so your opponent's Pacifism would not have any valid targets and be put into their graveyard instead of resolving.

Your creature would gain hexproof before the pacificim hit it therefore the pacifism would go to the graveyaard and your creature would be left on the battle field with hexproof and  +0/+3 until end of turn.

What does this address existing answers? Especially since it doesn't even refer to any rules like they have.


text:
Can't remember name of board game
So in the very early 2000s (in the U.K.), I had this board game that was essentially a large purple monster head. I was quite young at the time so I can't fully remember the rules of the game either, but it was something like a player has to place or retrieve plastic bugs from the monsters mouth without it noticing and spitting at you. I've asked family members about this game and nobody seems to remember it except my Dad but like me he can't remember what it was called at all. Help!

This sounds like Purple People Eater by Waddington's.

I found what appears to be an image of this game:
http://www.theoldtoyguide.com/2015/02/19/70-s-game-waddingtons-purple-people-eater-rare-electrical-game-working-complete/

Could it be this game : hongerige harrie ?
Seems strange though, because it is listed on BGG (link) as a 2013 game.
[Edit : The Youtube video says that it is "slime monster game" from 1977, but it appears that "slime monster game" is another game.]


text:
Anje Falkenrath and Madness order
Let's say I activate Anje Falkenrath to discard a card with madness. The madness card goes to exile instead. Do I get to draw a card before I decide to cast the madness spell? Do I get a choice to draw or cast first?

The rulings below the card in Gatherer state:

If you discard a card with madness to pay the cost of Anje’s activated ability, you’ll draw a card last. You may untap Anje before or after you choose whether to cast the discarded card, but not after you’ve chosen to cast it but before that spell resolves.

(emphasis mine)
Why? The first object on the stack is the 'draw a card' ability, and you pay for it by discarding the card. That causes both the triggered ability part of Madness (see below) and Anje's last ability to trigger, and you may choose in which order you put them on the stack:

702.34a Madness is a keyword that represents two abilities. The first is a static ability that functions while the card with madness is in a player’s hand. The second is a triggered ability that functions when the first ability is applied. “Madness [cost]” means “If a player would discard this card, that player discards it, but exiles it instead of putting it into their graveyard” and “When this card is exiled this way, its owner may cast it by paying [cost] rather than paying its mana cost. If that player doesn’t, they put this card into their graveyard.”

Those abilities resolve first, while the 'draw a card' ability is still on the stack, and therefore drawing the card always happens last.
If you expect it makes a difference in your decision to pay the Madness cost or not, consider putting the Madness ability on the stack first, followed by Anje's untap ability. The untap ability resolves first, which gives you the opportunity to activate Anje's second ability again, and the card draw from that activation will happen before you have to decide to pay the madness cost for the first discarded card. (Then again, maybe you expect the next card draw to matter, so I'm not sure it will make much of a difference.)

I'm not 100% sure but I think that if you put the Madness ability on the stack first, so Anje's untap ability resolves last, you could activate Anje a second time to draw a card before having to choose whether to pay the Madness cost or not.

Yes, except that you said "untap ability resolves last" when you meant resolves first. If you had several madness cards you could have multiple in exile with their triggered abilities on the stack at the same time.

Thanks for catching that (and verifying that my idea should work, though its value is debatable).