text:
When can I discard the Death Creeper Card?
On the Death card it says you can remove it when it stands alone. So my question is, As soon as I draw it and it stands alone can I remove it right then, or do I have to wait till my next turn to discard it?

I disagree with the other answer.
The card text says:

If you have this at the start of your turn, discard something else you have in play (a Keeper or a Creeper). You may discard this anytime it stands alone.

This card has two effects:

The first effect, discarding something in play, must take place at the start of your turn (as accurately explained in the other answer).
The second effect, being able to discard Death itself, can be done at "any time".

I believe the second is the effect you are asking about. That means that if, at any point during anyone's turn, that is the only card you have in play, you may discard it. To answer your specific scenario. If you draw it (and automatically play it) and it is the only card in front of you, you can discard it immediately.

The rules state, "Players take turns going clockwise." And the Optional Rules is inside the box labeled "On your turn." (Although I agree with your interpretation that the second ability is separate from the "If you have this at the start of your turn," rule.) There is also the issue of drawing multiple creepers during a multiple card draw event. If the first draw is Death (and you have no other cards/keepers in play), can you immediately discard it since it is alone before drawing a second card that is a Creeper?

@user1873 I still disagree, though Fluxx doesn't really have (or want) a rigid rule structure to settle this kind of dispute. As far as I'm concerned, all rules are stated on the appropriate cards, and "anytime" suggests to me that it's not restricted to your turn but can happen at any time. My interpretation would still be as in my answer because of this wording. I've looked and haven't found any clarification either way, so I think it ultimately comes down to interpretation.

@user1873 (And for while drawing Creepers, I'd allow the player to discard Death immediately - if it was the only one - before drawing to replace it. Again this could be open to interpretation.)

Agreed, it is open to some interpretation, but since the Optional Actions rule is in the On Your Turn: box, I would lean towards that interpretation.

Thanks for the answer Johno. Just picked up the game last week and some of the scenarios and rules are unclear. Thanks again!

@MattF Glad I could help and welcome to the site!

You can discard it at any point during your turn, if it is alone at the end of the draw
The rules text on the Death Creeper card says (emphasis mine):

If you have this at the start of your turn, discard something else you have in play (a Keeper or a Creeper). You may discard this anytime it stands alone.

The Rules state under the On Your Turn: box, "Optional actions allowed by New Rules, Keepkers, etc may be performed at any point during this sequence." The Death Creeper's last ability, may be performed at any point during your turn. (With a minor exception mentioned in the Creeper Rules when drawing multiple cards, "You might have to accept several Creepers at once as you draw cards, until you've drawn the required number of non-Creepers and added them to your hand.")
Also from the FAQ, you cannot take any actions during other players turns, so anytime isn't as often as you think.

Q: Do I get to play any cards or take any actions when it's not my turn?
A: When it's someone else's turn, there's not much you get to do -- there are no cards you can play out of turn. But you will sometimes need to make minor decisions and perform card maintenance during other players' turns. For example, if someone plays a Hand Limit and you have more cards in your hand than are allowed, you'll need to decide what to keep and what to discard.

the second sentence of the card gives when; it's easier to see if the sentence is paraphrased: Anytime this card stands alone, you may discard it. The anytime is part of when...


text:
If I reveal a land with Daxos of Meletis, can I play it?
What happens if my Daxos of Meletis deals combat damage to a player, and the card revealed by that player is a land? Am I able to play that land or does nothing happen, because Daxos's ability is worded as "you may cast" that card and you don't cast lands.

The land is exiled and you gain 0 life. You may not play the land, because as you point out, the card says "cast" not "play":

[...] Whenever Daxos of Meletis deals combat damage to a player, exile the top card of that player's library. You gain life equal to that card's converted mana cost. Until end of turn, you may cast that card and you may spend mana as though it were mana of any color to cast it.

[CR601]. Casting Spells

601.1. Previously, the action of casting a spell, or casting a card as a spell, was referred to on cards as "playing" that spell or that card. Cards that were printed with that text have received errata in the Oracle card reference so they now refer to "casting" that spell or that card.

601.1a Some effects still refer to "playing" a card. "Playing a card" means playing that card as a land or casting that card as a spell, whichever is appropriate.

Djinn of Wishes and Intet, the Dreamer allow you to play exiled lands, Daxos does not.
The CR define what you can do in MtG, since no rule exists for Casting a Land, you cannot do it. Additionally, rules exist for cards that share the land type and an indication that lands are not spells (about the closest you will get that lands aren't spells).

305.9. If an object is both a land and another card type, it can be played only as a land. It can’t be cast as a spell.

505.5b During either main phase, the active player may play one land [...] Neither the land nor the action of playing the land is a spell or ability.

There is a rule for casting a card, so there is a rule instructing you how to cast a land.

CR 601 tells you how. Priority and cards such as Daxos of Meletis instruct you to do it.

See the second section of my answer.

"There is a rule for casting a card, so there is a rule instructing you how to cast a land." Incorrect. There is a rule for casting a spell. No rules for casting just any card.

@GendoIkari, Quite the opposite. The rules that describe casting, CR 601, say how to cast any card as a spell, and land cards are cards. When Daxos instructs you to cast a land, you'd follow the instructions in CR 601. How can you possibly say 601 doesn't apply?!? It's a real pity this misinformation was accepted.

Your answer relies on 601.1a, but 601.1a doesn't apply. 601.1a defines what it means to play a card, but Daxos instructs to cast a card.

@ikegami, didn't we have a very long back-and-forth comment discussion about this same thing last year? As I remember, nothing was really resolved then, but we both agreed that a land could never be "cast"; we just had different understandings of which rule prevented that.

@ikegami I actually just noticed that this was the same question; the discussion was in the comments of your answer; though it looks like most of them were deleted.

@ikegami I think I understand your point a bit better now than I did previously. I feel that the intent of the rules was to never allow you to cast a land, but I think I can agree with what you said about "I just wish the rules said that." I suppose I can agree that if Daxos said "Until end of turn, you may cast that card without paying its mana cost", then you would actually be able to cast a land. But I believe that this is only because of an unintended loophole, and they would change the rules to be more clear if such a card were printed.

@GendoIkari, It might already have happened (305.9), though they'd simply add "if it's not a land" or some such language to the alternate Daxos's ability rather than change the rules.

You cannot play the land, because Daxos only allows you to "cast" the card. The land will still be exiled; and it will simply stay in exile.

601.1a Some effects still refer to "playing" a card. "Playing a card" means playing that card as a land or casting that card as a spell, whichever is appropriate.
601.2. To cast a spell is to take it from where it is (usually the hand), put it on the stack, and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect.

You can see in 601.2, "casting" specifically means to put it on the stack, which you do not do when playing a land.
Also note cards like Djinn of Wishes, which allow you to play a revealed card, as opposed to allowing you to cast a revealed card. That's the wording needed to allow you to play a land.

You don't say why he can't cast the land. You just say he can't play it.

I said that casting means to put a spell on the stack which playing lands doesn't do.

Saying why you can't play a land isn't the same thing as saying why you can't cast a land. Daxos instructs to cast the card, so it's useless to say why you can't play the card.

The land will be permanently exiled. Specifically,

You will exile the card.
You will gain zero life, which is to say you won't gain any life. Abilities that trigger when you gain life won't trigger[CR 118.9].
You cannot cast the land because it has an unpayable mana cost[CR 117.6, 601.2e,g]. As such, it will stay exiled until the end of the game.

If Daxos of Meletis instructed you to play the card, that would be a different story. To play card is either to play it as a land or to cast it as a spell. You would be able to put the card on the battlefield for free if it's your turn and if you haven't already played a land that turn. It would count towards your limit of one land per turn.
If Daxos of Meletis instructed you to put the card on the battlefield, that would be a different story too. The card would immediately be moved directly from your hand to the battlefield. This wouldn't count towards your limit of one land per turn.

Interestingly, there's no rule forbidding casting a land[1]. MTG will simply never let you do it.

Land cards, as printed, have an unpayable mana cost, so they can't be cast.

What if the land's mana cost was replaced?
Cards that replace the mana cost (e.g. "you may cast [card or copy] without paying its mana cost") will specifically exclude land cards. (e.g. Counterlash).

What if a card with a mana cost gains the land type?
There's a rule specifically excluding these from being cast[CR 305.9].

Notes

GendoIkari claims the rules say a land can never be a spell, but I believe he's misreading a rule[CR 305.1]. 305.1 describes what happens when playing a land as a land. The land is not placed on the stack when playing it as a land, so the land is never a spell when playing it as a land. That doesn't mean it can't go on the stack at other times. That doesn't mean it can't be a spell at other times. But he thinks it does. He's right they can't, but not because of 305.1.

Referenced Rules

118.9. Some triggered abilities are written, “Whenever [a player] gains life, . . . .” Such abilities are treated as though they are written, “Whenever a source causes [a player] to gain life, . . . .” If a player gains 0 life, no life gain event has occurred, and these abilities won’t trigger.

117.6. Some mana costs contain no mana symbols. This represents an unpayable cost. [...]

601.2. [...] Casting a spell follows the steps listed below, in order. [...]

601.2e The player determines the total cost of the spell. Usually this is just the mana cost. [...]

601.2g The player pays the total cost in any order. Partial payments are not allowed. Unpayable costs can’t be paid.

305.9. If an object is both a land and another card type, it can be played only as a land. It can’t be cast as a spell.

305.1. A player who has priority may play a land card from his or her hand during a main phase of his or her turn when the stack is empty. Playing a land is a special action; it doesn’t use the stack (see rule 115). Rather, the player simply puts the land onto the battlefield. Since the land doesn’t go on the stack, it is never a spell, and players can’t respond to it with instants or activated abilities.

This pedantic minutiae seems unnecessary, but CR117 doesn't forbid you from "Casting a Land" ... 117.6. Some mana costs contain no mana symbols. This represents an unpayable cost. An ability can also have an unpayable cost if its cost is based on the mana cost of an object with no mana cost. Attempting to cast a spell or activate an ability that has an unpayable cost is a legal action. However, attempting to pay an unpayable cost is an illegal action."

@user1873, I never said it did. 117.6 in conjunction with 601.2e and 601.2g prevents it if the unpayable cost doesn't get replaced. "Attempting to cast a spell or activate an ability that has an unpayable cost is a legal action" is there to allow you to cast spells whose unpayable cost will be replaced. (Which I've also covered.)

None of those rules prevent you from casting a land. they all specifically refer to Casting a spell, "To cast a spell is to [...] Casting a spell follows the steps listed below, in order."

@user1873, Where does it say that spell can't be a land?

where does it say that a spell is a land?

Sure thing. At the least, I found this to be an interesting discussion. Hope there's no hard feelings!

BTW, I went to ask a magic judge with this question... and basically got both your answer and my answer from different people.

@GendoIkari, It's easy to misread 305.1, so I'm not surprised. I'm actually surprised that 305.1 wasn't the only reason given. To be clear, I have no doubt that it's absolutely forbidden for lands to be cast. I just wish the rules said that.

@user1873, 111.1. ("A spell is a card on the stack. ...") "Casting a spell" is short for "Casting a card as a spell". The only limit on what types of card can be cast is aformnetioned 305.9. ("If an object is both a land and another card type, it can be played only as a land. It can’t be cast as a spell.")

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
In the official rules of Monopoly, can you offer immunity to other players in deals?
In the official rules of Monopoly, can you offer immunity to other players in deals? Also, what about tournament play, which has different rules again?
For example, it was a common house rule from my childhood that where two players were making a deal, but one of the players was more at risk of landing on the other player's property in the next move or two, the owner of those properties would offer immunity for the next time around the board (or maybe even the next two or three times around the board). So this is a popular house rule, but is it allowed in the official Monopoly rules and in tournament play?

There's nothing anywhere to stop you making a deal: the question is whether it can be enforced when you do land on the property next. My own view is that it can't, except in the sense that anyone who does insist on the rent will find it difficult to make deals in future.

You cannot offer free rent to any player under any circumstance. I specifically remember reading this on a questions & answer listing on a cardboard insert of a Monopoly game.

This was a matter of contention many Christmases... it's particularly wack if there are 5+ players and three players gang up on one person.

Going by the official rules, you don't have a choice whether to collect rent or not:

When you land on property owned by another player, the owner collects rent from you...

This doesn't give the property owner any choice in the matter, they simply do collect rent.
However, you could offer immunity as follows:

The player who lands on your property pays rent.
You immediately pay them back the amount they just paid.

To do this, you'll have to be able to give money to another player.  There is a rule forbidding loans between players:

No player may borrow from or lend money to another player.

but a gift is not the same as a loan.  Another way to give money to another player is to sell them an unimproved property for $0, then buy it back for the amount you wish to give them.  This is allowed by a different rule:

Unimproved properties, railroads and utilties (but not buildings) may be sold to any player as a private transaction for any amount...

All of this comes with a caveat: You can't do anything to force someone to grant you immunity, it's entirely up to them choosing to act in good faith.

Interestingly however I used to have a copy of an official monopoly PC game and they did offer immunity as part of the trading. Unfortunately it was quite an old one and I can't find a screenshot.

You cannot offer free rent to any player under any circumstance. I specifically remember reading this on a questions & answer listing on a cardboard insert of a Monopoly game.

You only have to pay rent when the property-owner asks for it (before the next player rolls). So it would be perfectly consistent with the rules to mutually agree to not ask each other for rent. Or not only for specific properties, specific number of turns, or other condition.

The official rules are here. I can see nothing in the rules that would explicitly prevent one player offering immunity to another player. You only have to pay rent if the owner of the property asks you for it:

The owner may not collect the rent if he/she fails to ask for it before the second player following throws the dice.

However, you could argue that offering immunity violates the spirit of the no lending rule:

No player may borrow from or lend money to another player.

Suppose Alice wants to offer immunity to Bob as part of a larger deal.  Alice could informally "forget" to collect rent from Bob, and she could informally tell Bob that she tends to become rather forgetful when she is given the better end of a trade.  But I see no provision in the rules to prevent Alice from changing her mind after the deal has been struck, since this immunity does not formally exist within the rules of the game.

"Immunities", whether lifetime or partial, are not permitted in the official rules.
"Official" tournament rules used to be available online that addressed this, but Hasbro has sent cease-and-desist letter to most sites hosting copies of the official Monopoly rules. Their current site's section for instruction manuals is less than helpful.
Unofficial but credible reference: http://mospaw.com/monopoly/some-obscure-monopoly-rules-explained/12/information

Do you have a reference you could point to that backs this up? It would make your answer much stronger.

There's no official reference, as the rules themselves are quite spartan. I'll add an unofficial (but credible) reference.

With respect to tournament rules, how about this: http://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/26289/monopoly-us-tournament-rules-final-pdf I'm not in a place where I can view this right now, but perhaps you can, and add it if it's relevant.

Seems like you can "offer" it regardless, but there is nothing that enforces you to provide it when the time comes, same as any trade conditions that occur in the future.  So it is "caveat emptor".  But maybe that is just me being a Diplomacy player.

@bwarner: I don't think the game allows you to waive the other player's obligation to pay. But you could probably get around that by selling a property for $x and immediately buying it back for $x+$y, where $y is the amount the other player would need to pay (and $x is arbitrary). Your remark about enforcement is of course still true.

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


text:
Gaining and losing life at the same time
I have a question about a specific scenario involving life loss and gain.
Say I have 3 life left, the creature Soulcage Fiend on the battlefield, and also the enchantment Exquisite Blood on the battlefield.
Now say my opponent kills Soulcage Fiend with some instant, would I lose the game? Or does the gain of life happen first, keeping me at 3 life when all is said and done?

It's worth noting that in this scenario you don't gain and lose life at the same time. First you lose the life, then only later, you gain the life (if you haven't already lost).

The word "whenever" usually means that the card triggers, which goes on the stack.
From the Oracle Text for Exquisite Blood:

If you and an opponent both lose life simultaneously, and this causes your life total to become 0 or less, you'll lose the game before Exquisite Blood's triggered ability can resolve.

You would lose the game.


text:
Goldnight Redeemer and Angel's Tomb
I was playing a casual game with a friend the other day testing out a new angels deck I built and came accross this situation....
I had an Angel's Tomb, which has this artifact may become a 3/3 flying white artifact angel  until end of turn whenever a creature enters the battlefield under your control, on the field as well as 2 other creatures and I then summoned Goldnight Redeemer, which has WETB gain 2 life for each other creature you control.
The question is does the Angel's Tomb effect trigger before or after Goldnight Redeemer since both are activated by Goldnight Redeemer entering the battle?

To expand on user1873's answer ever so slightly - they're both your abilities, so you can put them on the stack whichever way you want.  You want to put the Goldnight Redeemer's ability on the stack first, and then Angel's Tomb's ability on the stack after that.
The abilities then resolve in a Last In, First Out style: at the top of the stack, the Tomb becomes a creature.  Then we move on to the Redeemer ability and gain 2 life for each other creature - which now includes the Tomb-Angel.
Stacking triggered abilities correctly can be a bit difficult to visualise at first, so I thought it would be useful to provide a little walkthrough...

You control both triggered ablities, so you choose the order that they resolve. Under Handling Triggered Abilities in the Comprehensive Rules:

603.3b If multiple abilities have triggered since the last time a player received prority,each player, in APNAP (Active Player Non-Active Player) order, puts triggered abilities he or she controls on the stack in any order he or she chooses.(See rule 101.4.)


text:
Killing with Divine Deflection
I am at 2 life, and my opponent is at 3 life. It is my opponent's turn. He attacks me with a Kindercatch. After blockers are declared (none) but before the combat damage step, I cast Divine Deflection, targeting my opponent with X declared as 4.
Who wins?

The oracle rulings of Divine Reflection state:

If Divine Deflection prevents damage, excess damage (if any) dealt by
that source is dealt at the same time. Immediately afterward, as part
of that same prevention effect, Divine Deflection deals its damage.
This happens before state-based actions are checked, and before the
spell or ability that caused damage to be dealt resumes its
resolution.

So, the damage is done at the same time and only after are state-based actions checked.

704.5. The state-based actions are as follows:
704.5a If a player has 0 or less life, he or she loses the game.

As checking the life totals is a state-based action, both players will have 0 life at the same check, thus the game ends in a draw!

This is in direct contradiction to a ruling that was given to me by a L3 at a SCG tournament last month, but the Oracle rulings seem to support your answer. Thanks!

Assuming that you choose your opponent as the target of divine reflection, the game it's a draw. You'll be at 0 life and your opponent at -1 life the next time state based actions are checked.
Rule that shows that damage from divine reflection is done (almost) at the same time that combat damage, and both are done before state based actions are checked:

615.5. Some prevention effects also include an additional effect, which may refer to the amount of damage that was prevented. The
  prevention takes place at the time the original event would have
  happened; the rest of the effect takes place immediately afterward.

Rule for the state based action of losing the game:

704.5a If a player has 0 or less life, he or she loses the game.

Rule saying that if two players lose the game at the same time, the game it's a draw:

104.4a If all the players remaining in a game lose simultaneously, the game is a draw.


text:
Trample + Deathtouch
If I attack with a Primeval Titan (6/6 Trample) that has Necrobite (Deathtouch), what happens if my opponent blocks with another Primeval Titan?

When you're assigning the damage that will be dealt by your Primeval Titan, you have to deal lethal damage to each blocking creature before you can deal any damage to the defending player. Normally, "lethal damage" means the defending creature's toughness minus whatever other damage it's already taken that turn. But if the creature dealing the damage (here, your Titan) has deathtouch, "lethal damage" is 1. Period. So your Titan has to deal 1 damage to your opponent's Titan. The rest (5) can then be assigned to the defending player. (It doesn't have to, though - you can still assign any amount of damage to your opponent's Titan if you want to.)


text:
Resetting Soulbound
Say I have a creature with the Soulbound ability, Stonewright, which is currently bound to my Llanowar Elves. If I play a Birds of Paradise, can I switch my Stonewright to be bound to the Birds instead?

NO.
Says right in the reminder text:

(You may pair this creature with another unpaired creature when either enters the battlefield. They remain paired for as long as you control both of them)

You may only pair when either enters the battlefield.

They remain paired for as long as you control both of them.

another unpaired creature implies the creature with soulbound must also be unpaired.

Of course, you can "reset" the soulbound by causing the card to cease to exist for an instant and re-enter the battlefield with, say, a cloudshift.
Another opportunity for pairing with another creature is of course if you lose control of the elves, if only temporarily; or if it leaves the battlefield.
These restrictions are made more explicit in the comprehensive rules where there is a lot more room to write out the two triggered abilities in full:

702.94a. Soulbond is a keyword that represents two triggered abilities. "Soulbond" means "When this creature enters the battlefield, if you control both this creature and another creature and both are unpaired, you may pair this creature with another unpaired creature you control for as long as both remain creatures on the battlefield under your control" and "Whenever another creature enters the battlefield under your control, if you control both that creature and this one and both are unpaired, you may pair that creature with this creature for as long as both remain creatures on the battlefield under your control."

So, the Birds is entering the battlefield. Why wouldn't I be able to pair them, since the Birds is unpaired?

@Hyppy "Another unpaired creature," meaning that the Stonewright has to be unpaired.

another unpaired creature implies the soulbound creature must also be unpaired.

No
I was going to answer yes because the reminder text is a little bit misleading, as it doesn't actually say that both creatures have to be unpaired, only the one that just entered the battlefield. At a prerelease I've been playing, the local judge also said that you can break an existing pair when a new creature enters the battlefield, but the Comprehensive Rules say it clearly:

702.94a. Soulbond is a keyword that represents two triggered abilities. “Soulbond” means “When this creature enters the battlefield, if you control both this creature and another creature and both are unpaired, you may pair this creature with another unpaired creature you control for as long as both remain creatures on the battlefield under your control” and “Whenever another creature enters the battlefield under your control, if you control both that creature and this one and both are unpaired, you may pair that creature with this creature for as long as both remain creatures on the battlefield under your control.”

Side note: They even managed to bork up that sentence ("and this one and both are unpaired")

if ( (you control both that creature and this one) and (both are unpaired) )


text:
What happens when you play Cloudshift on Borderland Ranger?
I believe that when I play Cloudshift which reads:
Exile target creature you control, then return that card to the battlefield under your control.
On Borderland Ranger which reads:
When Borderland Ranger enters the battlefield, you may search your library for a basic land card, reveal it, and put it into your hand. If you do, shuffle your library.
Then Borderland Ranger's triggered ability triggers. Is this correct?

Yes, that's correct. Re-triggering "enters the battlefield" effects is certainly a good use of "flicker" cards like Cloudshift. Perhaps you'd be interested in this discussion of various uses of Cloudshift for more examples.


text:
Pillar of Flame, Blood Artist and Goblin Arsonist Trigger Ability
Quick Question on these Spells
Pillar of Flame, Blood Artist and Goblin Arsonist
Lets say I cast pillar of flame on Goblin Arsonist or Blood Artist, would it still trigger their ability? From my understanding after being hit by Pillar of Flame the creature still dies but instead of going to the graveyard, it'll be exiled. Can anybody help me with this?Thanks!

Good question, welcome to the site! :D

Pillar of Flames replacement effect prevents the other cards triggered abilities from triggering, because it replaces the put into the graveyard event with exile.
Die is a new Magic 2010 keyword.

"When [this card] is put into the graveyard from the battlefield"

Pillar of Flame says:

Pillar of Flame deals 2 damage to target creature or player. If a creature dealt damage this way would die this turn, exile it instead.

When Pillar of Flame resolves, this is what the event looks like assuming it is targeting the goblin.

Pillar of Flame deals 2 damage to [Goblin Arsonist].
PoF's replacement effect is set up waiting to see if Goblin Arsonist dies this turn. "If [Goblin Arsonist] would [be put into the graveyard from the battlefield] this turn, exile it instead."
State-Based Actions are checked, (see rule 704.5g)
Goblin Arsonist would be destroyed because of State-Based Actions, but that event is replaced. The new event looks like:
move [Goblin Arsonist] from the battlefield to [exile].

Because Goblin Arsonist was never placed in it's owners graveyard, but instead was placed in exile, it never triggers the "dies" event.

704.5g If a creature has toughness greater than 0, and the total damage marked on it is greater than or equal to its toughness, that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed. Regeneration can replace this event.
701.6a To destroy a permanent, move it from the battlefield to its owner’s graveyard.
614.6. If an event is replaced, it never happens. A modified event occurs instead, which may in turn trigger abilities. Note that the modified event may contain instructions that can't be carried out, in which case the impossible instruction is simply ignored.

The Basic Rulebook doesn't cover Handling Replacement effects extensively, but you can figure out the correct answer from it. We know that Pillar of Flame is creating a replacement effect, because it uses the word "instead." Replacement effects wait for a particular event to occur, and instead of that event occurring they cause a different one to occur.
Pillar of Flame, Goblin Arsonist, and Blood Artist are all waiting for Goblin Arsonist to die. Die is shorthand for, "is put into a graveyard from the battlefield." The triggered abilities of Goblin Arsonist/Blood Artist never trigger, because Pillar of Flame replaces the placing the putting the creature in the graveyard with putting the creature in exile. The creature never hits the graveyard at all, so the event that would have triggered Gobling Arsonist/Blood Artist never happened.

REPLACEMENT EFFECT - A kind of effect that waits for a particular event and then replaces that event with a different one. Replacement effects have the word “instead” in them. For example, Darksteel Colossus reads, in part, “If Darksteel Colossus would be put into a graveyard from anywhere, reveal Darksteel Colossus and shuffle it into its owner’s library instead.” The effect replaces the action of putting Darksteel Colossus into the graveyard with the action of shuffling it into its owner’s library. Darksteel Colossus never hits the graveyard at all. (Glossary, page 31)

DIES - “Dies” is another way to say that a creature “is put into a graveyard from the battlefield.” (Glossary, page 25)

TRIGGERED ABILITIES - A triggered ability is text that happens when a specific event occurs in the game. ... (page 12)


text:
Picking up opportunity card on exiting career path
I recently bought a board game called Careers for a themed party. It looks a lot of fun, I am just reading the rules but cannot work out something.
On exiting a career path you are allowed to take a number of experience cards up to 3, based on the number of times you have been through the career that bit is quite clear. What it doesn't explain is that the same square you return to the main board is usually an opportunity square, which would allow you take a card that would move to another career almost immediately. Is that right?

It would, if you actually landed on the Opportunity Knocks square, which only happens 1/6 of the time. When exiting the career path, you continue moving clockwise the full number of spaces that you rolled. Additionally, you need to meet one of the requirements of the new career to enter the career path that the Opportunity card sent you to. From the rule book (2003), (the 1990 version has the same rules, but they are not written as clearly).

Move Your Pawn - Moving After Rolling: If your pawn is on the main path, move it clockwise by the full count of both dice. If it's on a Career Path, move it toward the end of the path by the full count of one die. (page 3)
Before entering the career path, you must meet one of the requirements Listed on the Entrance space (unless you played the Special Opportunity card, which let's you in for free). For example ... (page 5)
Completing A Career: When you leave a career path, continue moving clockwise along the Main path. ... (page 5)

Ah that is clear, this is the 1950s version so I can go Plutonium Prospecting in Peru! thanks

I also though it was a bit funny that on exiting the Uni career you are met with a food bill!


text:
How does Babylons's second stage wonder work for building/discarding your last two cards?
Babylon: When you have the second stage of the wonder that allows you to buy your last 2 cards in the age instead of discarding, does this count as 1 turn or as 2 separate turns?  Here's why I ask...  I needed to buy glass from my neighbor.  Each card needed me to buy a glass, and he only had 1 glass.  If the cards count as 1 turn, I could only buy 1, and would have to discard the other card to collect 3 coins.  If the cards were 2 turns, then I would buy the glass twice in 2 separate transactions.  After 15 minutes debate, our group voted that it was 2 turns.  But we would like to know what other people think.

Same question: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/5140/can-a-resource-card-be-used-more-than-once-in-a-turn-when-allowed-to-build-more

The designer, Antoine Bauza, has responded to this question on BGG, it is as if the Babylon player had two turns. You get to produce resources twice, buy twice from your neighbor, and even receive production from your newly built/discarded 6th card.

Q: When playing both cards in round 6 to build two buildings: Can you use one resource twice for each of the buildings?
A: Yes, it's two different cards, like two different turns... The first could help you to play the second (discard the 6th for money and use the money to play the 7th for example...)

This can also be somewhat surmised from the rules, since you need to have that stage of the wonder built to "use it." (page 9)

Clarification: - during the sixth turn, the player can therefore play both cards they have in hand. If the second stage of the Wonder is not built, the Babylon player can then build it on their sixth turn and then play the seventh card instead of discarding it.

I can't find the quoted question/answer on the linked page. Did you link to a different page?


text:
Why doesn't Undying trigger if a creature with +1/+1 counters dies from -1/-1 counters?
From the Dark Ascension FAQ:

If a creature with undying that has a +1/+1 counter on it receives enough -1/-1 counters to cause it to be destroyed by lethal damage or put into its owner's graveyard for having 0 or less toughness, undying won't trigger and the card won't return to the battlefield. That's because undying checks the creature's existence just before it leaves the battlefield, and it still has all those counters on it at that point.

Why don't the counters cancel?  Could someone elaborate on this?

Section 704 in the comp rules covers state-based actions. Both of these are on the big list of state-based actions:

704.5f If a creature has toughness 0 or less, it’s put into its owner’s graveyard. Regeneration can't replace this event.
704.5r 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, where N is the
smaller of the number of +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters on it.

State-based actions are resolved different from triggered abilities, in that they're only checked during the cleanup step and when it's time for a player to receive priority. They also don't use the stack. More importantly, whenever state-based effects are checked, all applicable ones resolve simultaneously:

704.3. Whenever a player would get priority (see rule 116, "Timing the Priority"), the game checks for any of the listed conditions for
state-based actions, then performs all applicable state-based actions
simultaneously as a single event. ...

So, if an effect puts enough -1/-1 counters on a creature to reduce its toughness to zero or less, you would both put the creature in the graveyard and cancel out the +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters at the same time.
Note the wording of Undying as an ability:

Undying (When this creature dies, if it had no +1/+1 counters on it,
return it to the battlefield under its owner's control with a +1/+1
counter on it.)

When your creatures dies (and it's already in your graveyard), Undying triggers and looks at its last known state on the battlefield. Your creature died at the exact same time as it lost its +1/+1 counters, so it was never actually on the battlefield without a +1/+1 counter on it, which is why it doesn't come back.
The issue here is that the informal way many players resolve the counters rule -- removing the necessary number of +1/+1 or -1/-1 counters while resolving the "apply counters" part of an effect -- ever-so-minutely doesn't match the formal procedure on canceling counters (which only occurs as a state-based action afterward). There are occasionally similar issues with indestructible as well: players often forget that damage dealt to an indestructible creature still stays "marked" on it until end of turn, which will cause it to die if it somehow loses its indestructibility.

Note this counterexample, however, based on the fact that state-based actions can occur in multiple passes:

704.3. ... If any state-based actions are performed as a result of a check, the
check is repeated; otherwise all triggered abilities that are waiting to be put on the stack are put on
the stack, then the check is repeated. Once no more state-based actions have been performed as the
result of a check and no triggered abilities are waiting to be put on the stack, the appropriate player
gets priority.

Imagine I have a Geralf's Messenger with a +1/+1 counter on it and a Cemetery Reaper (which gives the Messenger +1/+1) on the battlefield.
You cast Black Sun's Zenith for three.
In this case, state-based actions resolve in two passes, like this:

First, these two things happen simultaneously: Geralf's Messenger's counters cancel; Cemetery Reaper has a net toughness of -1, so it dies. Geralf's Messenger's toughness is 1 (base 2, +1 from the +1/+1 counter, +1 from the Reaper, -3 from the -1/-1 counters), so it doesn't die yet.
Then, once Cemetery Reaper has left the field, we check state again. The Messenger's toughness is now 0, so it dies.

So, now the Messenger's +1/+1 counters were cleaned up before it died, so Undying will trigger.

Perfect!  Not to be nit picky, but could you please add the relevant comp rules about state-based effects and "looking back"?

@OrigamiRobot Not nitpicky at all!

Thanks.  I love pointing out the fringe cases where shortcuts can go wrong.

To be a little nitpicky... :-)  Note that there's no 'shortcut' (a term that has a technical term in the Magic floor rules!) going wrong here; if the creature were not dying, you really would remove all the canceling counters.  It's just that those counters are still on the creature in the instant before it's put into a graveyard.

I think the "shortcut" (in the non-technical sense) in question is removing the +1/+1 counters as part of the spell effect rather than right afterward.

@StevenStadnicki - I was referring to newer players not understanding the mechanics behind the shortcuts and potentially using them wrong in fringe cases.

And it's things like this that often turn kitchen table matches into family feuds :)


text:
Am I forced to choose targets for "may" abilities?
Lets say my opponent is attacking with Necropede and Phantasmal Dragon. There are no other creatures on the battlefield. I cast Doom Blade on the Necropede. Is my opponent forced to choose a target for Necropede's triggered ability even if he or she does/will not plan to put a -1/-1 counter on it?

Regardless of whether or not the "may" ability is chosen by Necropede's controller, a target still must be chosen for Necropede's ability (assuming one exists).  Thus, Phantasmal Dragon will be chosen as a target and must be sacrificed, and Necropede's ability eventually fizzles.  See the following:

603.5. Some triggered abilities’ effects are optional (they contain “may,” as in “At the beginning of your upkeep, you may draw a card”). These abilities go on the stack when they trigger, regardless of whether their controller intends to exercise the ability’s option or not. The choice is made when the ability resolves. Likewise, triggered abilities that have an effect “unless” something is true or a player chooses to do something will go on the stack normally; the “unless” part of the ability is dealt with when the ability resolves.
114.1. Some spells and abilities require their controller to choose one or more targets for them. The targets are object(s), player(s), and/or zone(s) the spell or ability will affect. These targets are declared as part of the process of putting the spell or ability on the stack. The targets can’t be changed except by another spell or ability that explicitly says it can do so.

Dismiss into Dream just became that little bit more terrifying.

Yes, your opponent has to choose a target for the Necropede's ability.
The controller of a "may" ability chooses whether or not to use the ability at the time that the ability resolves. However, the targets of a may ability are chosen at the time the "may" ability is put on the stack, and choosing the targets for the Necropede's "may" ability will trigger the Phantasmal Dragon's sacrifice condition.
(Comp rules reference forthcoming.)


text:
How can I tell what has changed in a Comprehensive Rules update?
As an example, the Comp Rules were updated February 1, 2012.  I know that a reference to "Fateful Hour" was added to 207.2c since I know to search for fateful hour, but how do I know what else changed?  Does Wizards of the Coast release an official list of changes when they make a revision?

They put an article in their website written by the current Rules Manager (the main authority in Wizards for Magic rules).
This is the one that corresponds to the February 1, 2012 rules update.
If you search for more articles by the same author, you'll find the articles for older rules updates. Searching for articles of previous Rules Managers is trickier.

I don't believe they release a full changelog every time they make a change to the rules, because most of the time, they're minor patches, like adding/removing creature types, or adding a few new block mechanics.
However, when big changes happen, such as Sixth Edition or M10, they usually discuss those changes in detail, in form of an article, such as this.
I do believe though that a full diff of rules changes would be pretty awesome for the rules lawyers among us. A website doing this could be fully automated, just checking the rules in txt format once a day or so.
EDIT: Googling a bit revealed this gem, which seems to be exactly what I had in mind: A privately maintained, exact changelog between rules versions

Wizards releases what they call Update Bulletins. Within this update bulletin, is a section called Comprehensive Rulebook Changes. You can search for the latter, and eliminate most other update bulletins not referring to the rules changes.
Search for comprehensive rulebook changes
Even if Wizards didn't release this list of changes, you could use something like the Internet wayback machine, and a text difference tool (meld, fd, etc.) to find the changes yourself.


text:
How is legality of blockers determined?
Lure says:

All creatures able to block enchanted creature do so.

I know that players cannot be forced to pay extra costs (via War Cadence for example) in order to make a creature a legal blocker, but what about other conditions.  If Stormblood Berserker enchanted with Lure is attacking me and I control two 1/1 creatures, how does the game view their legality as blockers?  Looking at each creature individually, neither are able to block.  Everything I've found says they both have to block, but I can't find a comp rule or official ruling.

In the instance provided (Lure + "cannot be blocked except by two or more creatures"), you are required to block the Stormblood Berserker with your 1/1s.
The vanilla 1/1s are only conditionally able to block, but you must fulfill the maximum number of requirements1 that does not violate any restrictions2 when blocking.
Supporting rules (emphasis mine):

509.1. First, the defending player declares blockers. This turn-based action doesn't use the stack. To declare blockers, the defending player follows the steps below, in order. If at any point during the declaration of blockers, the defending player is unable to comply with any of the steps listed below, the declaration is illegal; the game returns to the moment before the declaration (see rule 717, "Handling Illegal Actions").

Let's assume I'm the blocking player, and go through these steps one by one.

509.1a The defending player chooses which creatures that he or she controls, if any, will block. The chosen creatures must be untapped. For each of the chosen creatures, the defending player chooses one creature for it to block that's attacking him, her, or a planeswalker he or she controls.

So first, I declare blockers. I declare no blockers.

509.1b The defending player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether it's affected by any restrictions (effects that say a creature can't block, or that it can't block unless some condition is met). If any restrictions are being disobeyed, the declaration of blockers is illegal.

My vanilla 1/1s are under the restrictions provided by Stormblood Berserker, but declaring no blockers does not violate the restriction - the declaration of zero blockers is not illegal (yet).

509.1c The defending player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether it's affected by any requirements (effects that say a creature must block, or that it must block if some condition is met). If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximum possible number of requirements that could be obeyed without disobeying any restrictions, the declaration of blockers is illegal. If a creature can't block unless a player pays a cost, that player is not required to pay that cost, even if blocking with that creature would increase the number of requirements being obeyed.

This is the key piece - are my 1/1s under the requirement to block or not? Individually, they are both required to block if able. However, they are not individually able - this seems to imply that they do not have to block, and zero blockers would be acceptable.
However, with zero blockers, "the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximum possible number of requirements that could be obeyed without disobeying any restrictions" - thus, "the declaration of blockers is illegal."
I cannot legally declare zero blockers, because I haven't met the maximum number of requirements that could be obeyed without disobeying any restrictions. The that maximum number can be achieved by declaring two (or more) blockers for Stormblood Berserker, and until I declare each other-wise legal creature as a blocker, my declaration of blockers will be illegal.
EDIT: Alex P points out that 509.1c includes a great example:

Example: A player controls one creature that “blocks if able” and another creature with no abilities. An effect states “Creatures can’t be blocked except by two or more creatures.” Having only the first creature block violates the restriction. Having neither creature block fulfills the restriction but not the requirement. Having both creatures block the same attacking creature fulfills both the restriction and the requirement, so that’s the only option.

While the requirement is different, it's a similar circumstance - achieving the maximum number of requirements forces the creatures to block.

From the comp rules:
[1]: Requirement: An effect that forces one or more creatures to attack or block. See rules 508.1d and 509.1c.
[2]: Restriction: An effect that precludes one or more creatures from attacking or blocking. See rules 508.1c and 509.1b.

Some emphasis on * If a creature can't block unless a player pays a cost, that player is not required to pay that cost, even if blocking with that creature would increase the number of requirements being obeyed.* wrt OP's confusion being based on the apparent 'conflict' with how war cadence works :)

Reading this makes me wonder, geekily: is declaring blockers NP-hard?

Both creatures must block the Berserker.
The general rule with requirements is that you have to satisfy as many requirements as possible without violating any restrictions.
Here's the appropriate blocking comp rules, with a very relevant example:

509.1b The defending player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether it's affected by any restrictions (effects that say a
creature can't block, or that it can't block unless some condition is
met). If any restrictions are being disobeyed, the declaration of
blockers is illegal.
509.1c The defending player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether it’s affected by    any requirements (effects that say a
creature must block, or that it must block if some condition    is
met). If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer
than the maximum    possible number of requirements that could be
obeyed without disobeying any restrictions, the    declaration of
blockers is illegal. If a creature can’t block unless a player pays a
cost, that player    is not required to pay that cost, even if
blocking with that creature would increase the number of
requirements being obeyed.
Example: A player controls one creature that “blocks if able” and another creature
with no abilities. An effect states “Creatures can’t be blocked except by two or more
creatures.” Having only the first creature block violates the restriction. Having neither
creature block fulfills the restriction but not the requirement. Having both creatures
block the same attacking creature fulfills both the restriction and the requirement, so
that’s the only option.


text:
Can an Aura which was not cast be attached to a permanent with shroud?
If an Aura is placed on the battlefield using Genesis Wave or an ability like Sun Titan's, can it enchant a creature that has shroud (or an opponent-controlled creature with hexproof)?
I'm looking at these rules specifically:

303.4a An Aura spell requires a target, which is restricted by its enchant ability.
303.4f If an Aura is entering the battlefield under a player’s control by any means other than by
     resolving as an Aura spell, and the effect putting it onto the battlefield doesn’t specify the object
     or player the Aura will enchant, that player chooses what it will enchant as the Aura enters the
     battlefield. The player must choose a legal object or player according to the Aura’s enchant
     ability and any other applicable effects.
702.17a Shroud is a static ability. “Shroud” means “This permanent or player can’t be the target of
     spells or abilities.”

This question/answer was very confusing until I realized you wered casting the Aura.

Yes, they may. The cards you mentioned returned those Auras to the battlefield, so only 303.4 applies here. It should also be notes that the aura must enchant a legal object (i.e. Auras with "enchant player" must enchant players, auras with "enchant a creature you control" cannot enchant noncreatures and cannot enchant opponents creatures, etc)
Aura spells (i.e. Cards cast from your hand, and added to the stack), do require a target. It is unfortunate that they are the only spells that target, without "target" within the rules text.

Note the full text, though: "legal object or player according to the Aura’s enchant ability and any other applicable effects". So I can't, for instance, return Dead Weight to the battlefield enchanting Mirran Crusader even though it doesn't "target".

Yes, they certainly can.  In fact this is a famous counterintuitive loophole (or we can be polite and call it a "quirk") remaining in the tidied-up modern rules.
ETA: Initially I thought an Aura might even be able to come into play attached to a creature with Protection from that Aura's colour (before falling off again as a state-based effect).  This is not in fact true: protection represents a complete inability to be enchanted by Auras of the stated quality.  So the lesson here is, if you want to make sure your hexproof/shroud creatures really can't be sneakily enchanted by  Auras, give them protection from as many of your opponent's colours as possible too.  The belt-and-braces approach!
Here's a fun question for you in return: if Genesis Wave puts Fist of Ironwood onto the battlefield when it has no creatures to enchant, do you get to put two 1/1 Saprolings into play?  Actually I'm going to have to go and ask this question immediately because I'm not 100% sure of the answer :)

I don't think protection allows you to attach it at all: "The player must choose a legal object or player according to the Aura’s enchant ability and any other applicable effects."

I thought that too, but if so then explain 702.15c: A permanent or player with protection can't be enchanted by Auras that have the stated quality. Such Auras attached to the permanent or player with protection will be put into their owners' graveyards as a state-based action. (See rule 704, "State-Based Actions.") ?

I believe that's the "Faith's Shield = enchantment removal" clause.

Aha, that makes sense!  I'll reconsider and edit my answer as appropriate :)


text:
What should Mono-B put in sideboard against GW-Tokens?
My brother plays a Mono-Black standard-format deck against me often. He has some big threats in there like Phyrexian Obliterator, Sheoldred, Whispering One and Lashwrithe as well as many cards with phyrexian mana to fuel his rage extractors. Smaller creatures I see all the time are Porcelain Legionnaire and Vault Skirge. In addition to that he has some discard spells for control. I don't have his exact deck list but that's what I am facing all the time.
The main idea is to stall me as long as he needs to get his threats out and overwhelm me in the end. This works really well against most of my decks and compete almost on even ground against my strong decks like "elves", "tempered steel" and "solar flare". His weakest match up at the moment is against my GW-Token deck, similar to this one, except that I have 4 Oblivion Rings in the main deck and no Timely Reinforcements.
What should he put into his sideboard to be able to compete against this deck? I would suggest some Ghost Quarters to deal with Gavony Township but this still leaves him with the problem of Shrine of Loyal Legions, Intangible Virtue and Elspeth Tirel which he usually has no real answer to. Especially when I use my Oblivion Rings on his threats it is game over.
Which Mono-Black or Phyrexian-Mana spells can address this problem in Standard (Scars - Innistrad - M12)?

Oblivion Ring, the bane of any deck playing against it

Black Sun's Zenith and Ratchet Bomb can help gain some time and clear the way for his creatures to hit.
If the planeswalkers and the Shrine are still a problem, Hex Parasite should really help fix that!
You can also look at Pro Tour Honolulu deck lists for inspiration. I'd recommend you to watch Jasper Johnson-Epstein's mono-black deck tech — deck list can be found here (search for his name).

Ratchet Bomb really does work wonderfully against tokens.

After seeing Honolulu T8 I am srsly considering maindecking ratchet bombs for the forseeable future :)

Some popular options (besides those mentioned by @rahzark) are as follows:

Sever the Bloodline - exiling all of the tokens of one type (with flashback!) is pretty nice, especially if they're your only fliers and he manages to get a Vault Skirge with Lashwrithe.
Curse of Death's Hold - getting this if you don't have an Intangible Virtue pretty much ruins your day, but otherwise it's a pretty expensive cancellation of said Intangible Virtue. Nonetheless, it's probably worth sideboarding anyway because of its effectiveness in the current meta.

Another option is Corrosive Gale - however, it's pretty specific, and doesn't really work well enough given that Lingering Souls has flashback and your threats can be of the flying or non-flying variety.
If he's willing to splash red, he does have a few more options, but that is a big commitment (especially if he's running things like Obliterator):

Whipflare for non-artifact creatures
Slagstorm for everything
Rolling Temblor for a worse version with flashback

Given all of this, I'd say Sever the Bloodline is actually the best option outside of Black Sun's Zenith and Ratchet Bomb.

"Especially if he's running things like Obliterator" -- I'll say! "Slagstorm deals 3 damage to each creature; also, you sacrifice three permanents" is not a good plan.

@AlexP hopefully that would get sideboarded out if Slagstorm was necessary. Obliterator is great and all, but he's not really useful against tokens.

Actually I think Obliterator is a million times better. It can kill a Planeswalker really fast and make the opponent sacrifice several tokens. You shouldn't be playing a BBBB creature in a red/black deck, though :p

Ah, and it's not Midnight Haunting that has flasback! That would be Lingering Souls.

@rahzark the whole idea of tokens is a massive number of pumpable creatures that are easy to get out, though - with the flashback on Lingering Souls and Elspeth's -2, they'll be able to recover from that fairly easily.

@IanPugsley That's why destroying the Planeswalker is so important. I think Obliterator is way better at that. In the described situation it's probably the most effective solution at 4 mana (assuming a land drop every turn that would make it come in a turn earlier than Elspeth)

@rahzark Trying to keep Elspeth alive would be a pretty bad play - I see it as an easy three soldier for 3WW and extra turn with an Obliterator not attacking a player. That turn five commitment to attacking Elspeth with Obliterator means taking probably 8-12 damage from other tokens if Obliterator isn't left open as a blocker. If he is left open as a blocker, he's just asking to get O-ringed (he's asking to get O-ringed either way, really, but it's even meaner there).

@IanPugsley I agree with everything you said, yet I still think Obliterator is better than the Slagstorm.

@rahzark In this deck, I agree (which is why I don't actually recommend it). Slagstorm is still a very versatile card - it can take out a Planeswalker at 3 or less loyalty counters, or wipe these fliers. For mono-B I'd say no; for anything actually running red, I'd say yes.

Proven answers:

Ratchet Bomb: against Tokens, this is a one-sided sweeper; you can also ratchet it up to destroy cards like anthems or O-Rings.
Black Sun's Zenith: a regular ol' sweeper.
Curse of Death's Hold: great weenie hate, although somewhat ineffective in this anthem-happy format unless you can actually deal with the anthems.
Ghost Quarter: kills Inkmoths and utility lands; I'd maindeck these if you plan to run them, unless you're already got Inkmoth Nexus watering down the colors in the maindeck; almost every Standard deck has lands you want to kill, though.

Niche cards:

Sever the Bloodline: like a more limited Ratchet Bomb against decks that tend to just have one type of token, but it does double as spot removal in a pinch.
Hex Parasite: kills planeswalkers (also Illusions), keeps Shrines (of Burning Rage, but also Loyal Legions) in check; could probably be maindecked.
Surgical Extraction: a niche solution, but it fixes "I can answer this once but it's gonna suck if my opponent finds another one"; much better if you're playing Snapcasters or hand-peeking cards, though.

Despise is a great early card that can potentially remove some big threats


text:
Tsumego elementary problem 157
I tried to solve this tsumego, black is on the move:

it seems to me that white can kill black only if he wins the ko two times. Is that correct? After first ko win he will connect at 1-3 and after second win he will take at 3-2.

Black lives:
$$B
$$ -------------------
$$ | . 1 . . X O . . .
$$ | O X . X X O . . .
$$ | . X X O O O . . .
$$ | O O O . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .

White kills unconditionally:
$$W
$$ -------------------
$$ | . 2 1 . X O . . .
$$ | O X . X X O . . .
$$ | 3 X X O O O . . .
$$ | O O O . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .

This doesn't work for Black, either.
$$W
$$ -------------------
$$ | . . 1 . X O . . .
$$ | O X 3 X X O . . .
$$ | 2 X X O O O . . .
$$ | O O O . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .

OK thanks, I didn't see the "black lives" sequence. I was only reading the sequence when black starts at 3-1 (right next to your "1"). I don't know why I missed this one.

I think black should play 2-1 then 3-1 and 1-3 are miai for b life, no need for ko


text:
Mistake on Josekipedia after probe & invasion on keima shimari?
I have found a possible problem in this joseki, see josekipedia:
http://www.josekipedia.com/#path:qdttocrdreqcpdpbrcrbsdobnbncmcndmbpcodsb

They comment this white's move as "Makes life". But it seems to me that white is dead actually - what about this sequence?
$$c Black kills white?
$$ ---------
$$ ...3412.-
$$ .XXOO5OO-
$$ .XOXOOX.-
$$ ..OXXX.X-
$$ ......X.-
$$ ........-

So that T18 move seems like a big mistake. White perhaps should have played R19 instead and go to a ko fight?
So is there a mistake on josekipedia or did I miss something?

White Q19 is a mistake.  The correct move is R18.  Then Black can't connect at Q19 because the stones would still be in atari.
$$c White survives!
$$ ---------
$$ ..63512.-
$$ .XXOO4OO-
$$ .XOXOOX.-
$$ ..OXXX.X-
$$ ......X.-
$$ ........-

After the capture, a and b are miai to make White a second eye.
$$c Resistance is futile!
$$ ---------
$$ ..Oab.O.-
$$ .XXOOOOO-
$$ .XOXOOX.-
$$ ..OXXX.X-
$$ ......X.-
$$ ........-

and taking 3 stones yields an eye (it s important to add, as if there was only 2 it could be a false eye)

Sometimes even taking three gives a false eye.

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


text:
Is there a site to play Go online against a computer?
There are many go servers but all of them seem to be for player-player games. I want to play online against a computer. I found some but it is not an actual go. I was not able to find a real go brain online. Are there any at all?

PS: In the end, I registered to KGS and later at WBaduk (but liked KGS much more) and I ended up playing against human players only. I found it much more fun than playing against a computer and since I tried it for the first time (online) I never went back to playing against the computer.

Related question (for a specific bot): http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/31473/what-is-the-easiest-way-to-play-darkforest-probably-the-strongest-publicly-avai

In the end, I registered to KGS and later at WBaduk (but liked KGS much more) and I ended up playing against human players only. I found it much more fun than playing against a computer and since I tried it for the first time (online) I never went back to playing against the computer.

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is a game recommendation. While it was on-topic at the time, such questions are now banned and should not be used as a model for future questions.

@Thunderforge this is a server recommendation, not a game recommendation.

@Tomas A few days ago, we had a similar question about playing Diplomacy online that was closed as a recommendation question. I presume that "a server recommendation" means the same as "a website recommendation". Is there some difference here that I'm not seeing?

I see no reason to close this question, it asks for something very specific and it isn't obvious on which (of the rather few) online Go sites you can also play against some bots.

thanks @jknappen. Unfortunatelly usefulness is not the first priority of this site. It's the rigid rules that are praised here, which later lead to creating strange sites like this one which are pulled out of context of any community. I've already given up this fight....

@jknappen You can vote to reopen this question if you like.

I've reopened this because, whether or not it's on topic, it's not a game recommendation question. It's not a "which game should I buy/play?" poll question, which is what's covered by the game recommendation policy.

Some Go servers allow computers to "log in" and play just like regular users. On KGS, for example, they are marked with a computer icon, and there is a setting in the "automatch" for finding games with bots. More details are available here: http://www.gokgs.com/help/faq/bots.html

Aha, nice, I didn't expect to find this on these player-player sites! I was looking for something easier though, here you have to register, find a bot etc... but it will become the last resort if I don't find any other online service.

@Tomas KGS has guest access.

Check out Cosumi, it plays around 8kyu in my opinion. After the page loads just click on the HTML5 button, don't get scared by the Japanese symbols..
If you browse their page a bit you can even find different modes regarding sizes or rules (for example one color go).

+1. I believe it's the simplest option (no need to register) and a great one for beginners.

Online-go.com has two bots to play and you don't need an account.
The levels of the bots are 26 kyu and 13 kyu.
Also the bots are always available to play
To challenge a bot:

Go to online-go.com click game lobby and chat on the sidebar.
Click new game which is located by the bottom left of  the chat box
A popup will appear on your screen, click in the top left on the icon of the globe.
A dropdown menu will appear click on the option that says computer
You can then specify the game settings.
Click on Challenge and enjoy!

Following your instructions, I get a "Authentication credentials were not provided." error.

@TheThirdMan registering is free. Bots have significantly improved in the past 2 years, the one currently available on OGS plays 1 kyu.

@Christophe sure, registering is free, but you have to register. I wish there was something like lichess.org that let you play random games without an account against friends online with spectators thanks to the unique URL you can share. There doesn't seem to be anything decent like this for Go.


text:
4-4 high approach joseki incomplete?
I have a problem with the 4-4 high approach joseki - the left variant:

In the left variant, black ends the joseki and white can play anywhere else, i.e. has sente. But the position is pretty weak for white! Black can invade at 6-1, leaving white in a very bad position - it takes a lot of points from white and it seems like the two white stones at 4-3 and 5-3 will not form any kind of territory and are pretty much useless. So it seems that the Joseki shouldn't end here but fix the position by playing 4-2 for white, leaving the black in sente.
Or am I wrong? Why is this joseki ending in this weak position?

Monkey jumping and blocking at 4-2 are big endgame moves (a monkey jump is approximately 9 points in sente), but in the opening there are generally bigger/more urgent moves.

First of all, simply playing joseki does not mean the result will be even (or even good for you) on a given board.
A joseki is a sequence that is considered as often optimal given a particular situation. If the situation changes, a joseki which was fine before might suddenly become a terrible choice.
The situation depends on the whole board. In particular, ladder breakers have a huge impact, as does thickness (or the opposite, existing weak groups). Lots of other stuff can be considered in addition.
The high approach and the following moves are, to my knowledge, pretty much exclusive to only two situations:

As a ko threat
To enforce central and top side influence

If played as a ko threat, the situation is completely different, and white will certainly not continue locally in case black answers. Thus I'll talk about point 2 only.
This is played for instance when white already has a lot of central influence and feels compelled to expand it at any cost.
Comparison with the low approach
Let us suppose this situation.
$$W
$$ --------------
$$ |.............
$$ |.............
$$ |.............
$$ |...X.1...,...
$$ |.............
$$ |...2.........
$$ |.............

Approaching high instead of low mostly removes the possibility to invade at 3-3, because there is no good connection between 6-4 and 3-3 possible. If it were low, a connection would be easier to achieve in good shape: Contrast white 1 with white a.
$$W
$$ --------------
$$ |.............
$$ |.............
$$ |..3..a.......
$$ |...X.1...,...
$$ |.............
$$ |...2.........
$$ |.............

Typically, black can block at 2 and draw back to 4, which leaves white in an uncomfortable position that is actually not easy to live (depends on a ladder). Either way black will get great influence, which is contradictory to white's initial move.
$$W
$$ --------------
$$ |.............
$$ |.............
$$ |..12.........
$$ |.3.X.O...,...
$$ |.............
$$ |.4.X.........
$$ |.............

I'm not certain, but black might possibly consider simply drawing back, to continue with a or b to harass the white shape, which would not be possible if white had approached low.
$$W
$$ --------------
$$ |.............
$$ |.............
$$ |..13ab.......
$$ |..2X.O...,...
$$ |.............
$$ |...X.........
$$ |.............

So we see that the high approach has less nice continuations locally. Why is it ever played then? Because sometimes we don't really care about the corner! We are rather interested in the center and top side.
$$W
$$ --------------
$$ |.............
$$ |.............
$$ |.....1.2.....
$$ |...X....a,...
$$ |.............
$$ |.............
$$ |.............

Had we played low, black could easily pincer us with a move like 2 or somewhere around a. It would then be reasonable to enter the corner:
$$W
$$ --------------
$$ |.............
$$ |.....7.......
$$ |..35.1.2.....
$$ |..4X6....,...
$$ |......8......
$$ |.............
$$ |.............

Now black controls the outside and possibly the top side, while we "only" got some comfortable corner territory. We will see why this is not always good for black below.
$$W
$$ --------------
$$ |.............
$$ |.............
$$ |.......a.....
$$ |...X.1.b.,...
$$ |.............
$$ |.............
$$ |.............

It is possible to pincer around a or b instead of responding, but this pincer has much weaker continuations. White has a bunch of options how to continue, and it will be very difficult to refuse white center access.
$$W
$$ --------------
$$ |.............
$$ |.............
$$ |.....1.2.....
$$ |...X.4...,...
$$ |.............
$$ |.............
$$ |.............

With the low approach, it would be questionable to tenuki. Black can connect his stones and gain a quite strong outside shape once he covers white with 4.
There are a lot of additional variations of importance here, but I'll leave them to you do discover. I'll now try to answer the actual question :)
After joseki
$$W
$$ --------------
$$ |.............
$$ |..4..........
$$ |..213....5...
$$ |...X.O...,...
$$ |.............
$$ |...X.........
$$ |.............

In the above situation, white established a reasonable base for herself. As we found out earlier, black will usually follow a path similar to this, so white can expect this result with rather high probability.
$$B
$$ --------------
$$ |.....a.......
$$ |..X..........
$$ |..XOO..b.O...
$$ |...X.O...,...
$$ |.............
$$ |...X.........
$$ |.............

We discussed that white will only chose the high approach if she is fine with yielding local profit. We can assume white to have more influence in the other quarters of the board, possibly a large framework of stones on the fourth row.
You correctly recognized that black 4 is a very big move - if white were to play there, the corner territory white is very important in endgame would be white's. At the same time, 4 opens up continuations against white, which we will look at now.
$$B
$$ --------------
$$ |...5314......
$$ |..X..26......
$$ |..XOO....O...
$$ |...X.O...,...
$$ |.............
$$ |...X.........
$$ |.............

Let's start with the monkey jump. I would expect something similar to the above line. White is confined to a narrow space, and locally, it seems like white is too tight. However, white was also made quite strong - the white group will find life without problems (possibly playing a tiger mouth shape with 6 instead).
White being strong means black won't have a target to attack, which further implies black won't be able to start a running battle with a white group. A running battle might be a great way to destroy white's framework (which we implied earlier). Black might be a little sad to lose this opportunity.
In case everything else on the board is settled and black is winning, the monkey jump is likely a good idea. Just don't play it too early.
$$B
$$ --------------
$$ |.............
$$ |..X..........
$$ |..XOO..1.O.a.
$$ |...X.O...,...
$$ |.............
$$ |...X.........
$$ |.............

We could also invade at 1. This invasion may be difficult to handle for white. This means that black should consider this option instead of blindly monkey-jumping and forcing white to become very solid.
My knowledge of this particular shape is too thin to explain much about it. You may be interested in looking it up or exploring it in your games. Obviously, a stone around a will be greatly helpful for b. I would consider a checking extension to a as probably sente for black.
Note that there are other invasions to consider in addition.
$$B
$$ --------------
$$ |.............
$$ |..X.....e....
$$ |..XOO.c.dO.a.
$$ |...X.Ob..,...
$$ |.............
$$ |...X.........
$$ |.............

Black b or c are conceivable. With support at a, black can also think about moves like d or e.
If white is afraid of an invasion, she might simply extend less far:
$$W
$$ --------------
$$ |.............
$$ |..4..........
$$ |..213...5....
$$ |...X.O...,...
$$ |.............
$$ |...X.........
$$ |.............

With 5 being one space closer, it will be almost impossible to invade. However, white had to slow down her speed considerably, and obviously the monkey jump will leave white even more concentrated.
Result
We found that white will only play the initial joseki if she strives for certain influence. Locally, white is worse off. If white is not fine with that (i.e. the influence is not worth it), then white should simply not pick the high approach.
Your proposed move at 4-2 is large yose and also somewhat strengthens the white group. However, it would be contrary to white's original goal and thus should only be played later.
Variation
Note that it is also possible to play a high extension (this applies to quite a lot of josekis, actually).
$$W
$$ --------------
$$ |.............
$$ |..4..........
$$ |..213........
$$ |...X.O..5,...
$$ |.............
$$ |...X.........
$$ |.............

Once space closer and higher is fine as well. Obviously, this aims even more for the center. White is unlikely to gain much territory at all in this situation, but she won't care, because her whole attention is on the center.

+1 Thank you mafu, great answer! I still think that the monkey jump should actually be prevented as I suggest because it takes points from white, but in the beginning of the game there are bigger moves, right? This is probably what you wanted to say as well? You could perhaps mention this more explicitly. You also could add the ladder breaker reason to your numbered list. Just suggestions :) Great answer!

The high approach is not for territory, but always a special approach due to a particular scenario of the whole board.
One purpose of high approach is to attack. Refer to this, the 3rd game of the Kamakura jubango between Go Seigen and Minoru Kitani. White 12 is the high approach. The idea is to cut the black 1 (4-4) from black 11. A low approach is not appreciated as black 11 is quite near to black 1, white has no chance to settle down, so, white would rather take the high approach, which is easier to run to the center and more preferable for the potential fight.
The game did not go as the Joseki, but the strategies of the two is too detailed to be explained here. Interested, please refer to Go's book on mid-game fighting.
Another possible purpose of high approach is to build the moyo. Refer to to http://eidogo.com/#xYvNft8F , a Fujitsu Cup game between Norimoto Yoda and Nie Weiping.
Black 41 is the high approach. Nie trapped Norimoto Yoda on the right side and build a black "wall", so he took the high approach to build up the moyo. If black take a normal (low) approach, white would happily counteract by 5-6 to limit the black moyo, or even step further to a pincer.
This purpose is possible as, comparing to the low approach, black (4-4) is not easy to counteract by a pincer or kenuki (play at other places). For example, if black kenuki, white could attach on the other side of the (4-4), possibly another high approach, this double-high-approach is much more serious than a double-low-approach.


text:
3-3 invasion into 4-4,6-4
In josekipedia, they state that this exchange is a mistake

See http://www.josekipedia.com/#path:pdttpfqcpcqdqepbobrbpaqaqb for the full sequence they argue with.
But, I think that their argument is wrong! Why would white not follow making this shape, which is alive?

It is true that there are perhaps better possibilities for white's second move (in terms of points, not life & death), but the followup of the "mistake" and argument they present doesn't seem right for the above reason. Or did I miss something?
EDIT: actually, this shape works in the following joseki: http://josekipedia.com/#path:qettodqcpcqdperb

Given your proposed S18, black would just play Q18 and while white is alive, she'd be confined completely and black's outside would have no weaknesses at all (and end in sente, of course). Compare to joseki, in which white gets more points and black gets a weakness (cut) on the outside.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think that shape is alive.
$$B
$$ ----------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . O 7 1 . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | 4 . O X . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . 5 O X . . . . . , . . . .
$$ | 6 2 X . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . 3 . X . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7 is atari, so White loses the eye in the corner.
$$B
$$ ----------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . O . 1 . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | 5 . O X . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . 4 O X . . . . . , . . . .
$$ | . 2 X . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . 3 . X . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

This is dead, too.
$$B
$$ ----------------------------
$$ | . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | 4 O . 1 . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | 3 . O X . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . 2 O X . . . . . , . . . .
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

And again.
Update: Turns out I didn't show the trickiest variation.  When White plays 4, 5 is hard to find, but it's often a tesuji in this kind of shape.
$$B
$$ ----------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . O . 1 . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | 4 . O X . . . . . , . . . .
$$ | . 2 X . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | 5 3 . X . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I think White is still dead.  If he goes this way, 4 is the tesuji:
$$W
$$ ----------------------------
$$ | . 3 2 . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | 4 O 1 X . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | 5 . O X . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | O 6 O X . . . . . , . . . .
$$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | X X . X . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Here he gets a false eye:
$$W
$$ ----------------------------
$$ | . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | 1 O . X . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | O 3 O X . . . . . , . . . .
$$ | 2 O X . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | X X . X . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

This way, the throw in still destroys the lower eye.
$$W
$$ ----------------------------
$$ | . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . O 2 X . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | 1 . O X . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | O 4 O X . . . . . , . . . .
$$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | X X . X . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OK, good! I was learned this shape by some 7-8k who claimed it to be alive. Thanks for making it cledar! BTW, what rank are you?

I looked into white 2 at 1-4 and couldn't find anything but death there as well.

I'm between 1-2d AGA.

Tim, what if in the 1st variant of yours white plays 4 one space below, i.e. at 1-4? I cannot find a way how black could kill this.

White hanes at S15, and when Black counter hanes at S14, White plays the key move, Q18. After two hane and connection moves, White lives with T16, ending the sequence.
Black should have haned at S 18 instead of playing 1 (R15), and then connected at R18.That forces White to crawl along the second line to S14, just to live. Black plays R13, and has White running along the "line of defeat."
The corner sequence is "double sente" for either Black or White, and more to the point, relates to the life or death of White.


text:
Go software for studying/reviewing sgf games
I got a great review of my game from another player on GoKGS. So I got this *.sgf file with lots of variants (tree branches) with lots of comments... So now I am looking for a good piece of software that would:

Allow me to browse through all the variants and not get lost (it would be great if it could distinguish the variants I've already seen or something, otherwise I can get lost easily...)
There were certain situations (like in move 51) where the reviewer told me "this is the key point to kill the opponents group". I would like to experiment with this. It would be nice if the software could tell me if the group is alive or dead - i.e. some help in the analysis, since I am (as a beginner) not always able to find the optimal move for either side... (I've heard of GoTools, but 1) I've also heard that they have lots of bugs, besides of being closed & paid only and 2) I don't know how they comply with requirement 1).

Thanks in advance!

It looks like KGS's SGF is not really standard. So you probably are stuck with cgoban3.

In the last 6 years there might have been some advancements. Might be posting a new question specifically asking whether Part 2 is possible yet.

I'm afraid I can only partial answer your question, but since there are no other replies yet, here goes:
To browse SGF files I use cgoban3 (the KGS client), which has a reasonable tree view and allows for browsing with arrow keys instead of the mouse. It has a few bugs, but it is generally easy to navigate around them.
There does not seem to be any editor that can determine L&D status. This is already very (very) difficult for advanced specialized Go playing bots and requires a lot of computing power. You'll probably not find anything really usable, much less in a general purpose SGF viewer.
Also, from the SGF specification it is implied that an SGF file has no way to keep track of which variations or text messages were added in which order (please correct me if wrong), so you won't find any tool that can display everything in the right order. This is quite annoying sometimes (and one of the reasons I don't regard SGF exactly highly).


text:
How do I set language in GoKGS?
I am forced to use czech language, but I would like to use English. How can I switch languages in GoKGS?
This is what I see when I click File (1st in the menu) and Set preferences (3rd in the submenu):

I don't see anything to switch languages. My preferences should probably look like in the help page (https://www.gokgs.com/help/setPrefsWin.html) but unfortunatelly they don't!

Are you using the applet or webstart?

@CodesInChaos I am using applet. What is webstart?

The problem was that I ran it directly from the page: https://www.gokgs.com/applet.jsp - this doesn't allow to change the language (options are reduced).
Once I downloaded and installed CGoban3 at my computer (https://www.gokgs.com/download.jsp), it works as expected and I can change the language.

CGoban v3.3.19 Working ok for me. Check version, update, if that doesn't work, consider contacting https://www.gokgs.com/help/faq/index.html#morequestions

I didn't have it as because I was using an applet directly from the GoKGS webpage (see @CodesInChaos comment). Now it works perfectly, thanks.


text:
Do I draw a card if I enchant an opponent's Eidolon of Blossoms with Hypnotic Siren?
The situation is just as stated in the title: my opponent controls Eidolon of Blossoms:

Whenever Eidolon of Blossoms or another enchantment enters the battlefield under your control, draw a card.

I target the Eidolon of Blossoms with Hypnotic Siren, gaining control of it:

Bestow 5UU (If you cast this card for its bestow cost, it's an
  Aura spell with enchant creature. It becomes a creature again if it's
  not attached to a creature.)
Flying
You control enchanted creature.
Enchanted creature gets +1/+1 and has flying.

Do I draw a card for Hypnotic Siren coming into play?  My instinct says yes, because of rules 603.6b and 603.6d:

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.
603.6d Normally, objects that exist immediately after an event are checked to see if the event matched any trigger conditions. Continuous
  effects that exist at that time are used to determine what the trigger
  conditions are and what the objects involved in the event look like.

but I'm not 100% certain.  (I had it ruled the other way at FNM this evening; at the time I agreed with the ruling, but now I'm less sure.)

First gatherer note on Hypnotic Siren:

If you Hypnotic Siren for its bestow cost, and you gain control of a creature with a constellation ability, that ability will trigger when Hypnotic Siren enters the battlefield. You'll controll [sic] that triggered ability.

Looks like the answer is "yes".

Yes, this is because of rule 603.6d: Normally, objects that exist immediately after an event are checked to see if the event matched any trigger conditions...

Yes.

603.6d Normally, objects that exist immediately after an event are checked to see if the event matched any trigger conditions. Continuous effects that exist at that time are used to determine what the trigger conditions are and what the objects involved in the event look like. [...]

We're trying to determine if the ability triggers for when Hypnotic Siren enters the battlefield, so we look at the state of the game immediately after the event occurs.
As soon as Hypnotic Siren enters the battlefield, Eidolon of Blossoms is under your control, and thus its ability will have triggered.
The same logic allows two creature cards with "Whenever another creature enters the battlefield under your control" to see each other enter if they enter simultaneously. e.g. Two Bojuka Brigand entering simultaneously get two +1/+1 counters each. This is well known behaviour.


text:
The charged unit dies before combat
What happens if I charge an enemy unit and it dies before the first close combat after the charge? Suppose they die from my magic phase. Do they get any additional movement or anything?

No, they do not get any additional movement.
What happens is the unit is not engaged in a combat, so it does nothing in the close combat phase.
I assume you are thiking of the Overrun rule? Where if you wipe out a unit in close combat on the turn you charge you get to move another 2D6" forward afterwards.
The rules for Overrun (8th Edition Rulebook, pg 58) specify that a unit only gets an Overrun if "all it's enemies have been wiped out as a result of the combat". So if the opposing unit was wiped out before the close combat phase began, they would get no Overrun move.

I was hoping for something similar to overrun. Thanks


text:
How do I identify non-English Magic cards?
In my collection is a Magic card printed in a language other than English. How can I determine which card this is?

This is the earlier question, and it has a far better answer, but the other question has some good alternative answers. So I'll vote to make this one a dup of the other and copy my answer there. So sad we didn't catch this earlier!

First of all, if you are able to type in the name, just search for the name using Scryfall. It accepts non-English names (in part and in whole). Typing the name without accents works.
If you can scan or photograph the card, another easy way of identifying the card is to submit it to Google Image Search (click the camera). This will find pages about that card, and these will surely tell you its name. (In fact, you might very well get the card's Gatherer page.)
Otherwise, determining to which set it belongs would greatly narrow down the search space. For at least 15 years, Wizards has been placing a set icon on the card. Wizard maintains a list of the icons for the proper sets, but this doesn't include the special sets (e.g. duel decks). A quick search reveals that TCGPlayer maintains a comprehensive list. If you have a card that predates the set icon, this earlier post will allow you to determine the set to which it belongs.
Armed with the set, obtain the card number from the small print at the bottom of the card. Locate the set (in the appropriate language) on this page and locate the card by its number.
Tips:

If the number is illegible, you can still easy locate the card by looking at all the cards in the set with the correct casting cost.

This approach may fail for promo cards. If this is what you have, the copyright date can help you narrow down the search.

If all else fail, please provide a scan of the image.

To allow people with scans of the card art to be more self sufficient, you should include a suggestion about doing an image search on Google. In fact, if I already had an image in-hand and knew nothing else about the card, it'd be the first thing I do since it's most likely the quickest way to find what card it is.

Only Alpha, Beta, Unlimited, Revised, 4th edition, and 5th edition are missing set symbols. Legends (released after Revised) was the first set released in a foreign language, so a foreign-language card without a set symbol must necessarily be from 4th or 5th.

@BrianS: Starter 2000 cards also lack a set symbol, both English and non-English.

@jwodder, I stand corrected. :)

I usually do a gatherer search. You can do an advanced search and refine by the following:

Artist
Set (if you recognize the symbol)
Converted Mana Cost (CMC)
Color
Power/Toughness if it has them

And on top of this, pick the Visual Spoiler display mode, and I'm sure you can identify it really quickly even with just artist, CMC, and color. (If not, you could probably get card type easily - even if you can't read/type/translate it, you can just look for known cards in the same language.)


text:
Prophet of Kruphix: Can I flash Bestow?
If I have Prophet of Kruphix out (which gives all my creatures flash), can I use the bestow ability of my enchantment creatures during my opponents turn? For example, can I bestow Thassa's Emissary on one of my creatures, during my opponents turn?
Bestow text for reference:

If you cast this card for its bestow cost, it's an Aura spell with
enchant creature. It becomes a creature again if it's not attached to
a creature.

Similarly, if I do not have enough devotion for Thassa, God of the Sea to be a creature, can I use flash to cast her during my opponents turn?
Thassa's devotion related text, for reference:

As long as your devotion to blue is less than five, Thassa isn't a
creature. (Each Blue in the mana costs of permanents you control
counts toward your devotion to blue.)

Yes, you can, for both. Prophet of Kruphix allows you to cast "Creature Cards" as though they had flash. Thassa's Emissary IS a Creature Card. It's NOT a "Creature", as a "Creature" is a permanent on the battlefield, which it isn't while it's in your hand or on the stack. But it IS a "Creature Card", and that's all that matters.
See rules for Bestow, noting that Bestow ability that allows you to cast it as an Aura is a static ability of the card itself, not of a creature or aura permanent.

702.102. Bestow

702.102a Bestow represents two static abilities, one that functions while the card with bestow is on the stack and another that functions
    both while it's on the stack and while it's on the battlefield.
    "Bestow [cost]" means "You may cast this card by paying [cost] rather
    than its mana cost." and "If you chose to pay this spell's bestow
    cost, it becomes an Aura enchantment and gains enchant creature. These
    effects last until one of two things happens: this spell has an
    illegal target as it resolves or the permanent this spell becomes,
    becomes unattached." Paying a card's bestow cost follows the rules for
    paying alternative costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2e–g.

You may want to add a reference to rule 702.102 that defines the ability bestow as a static ability of a card, not a creature. Just so someone does not come through in 10 min and post an answer with that information and make yours unnecessary.


text:
Compost and Plumb the Forbidden
What happens with copies of Plumb the Forbidden and Compost? Do the copies count as cards that hit the graveyard?

No, copies of a spell do not trigger Compost because they are not cards.
Copies of spells (and tokens) do go to the graveyard and can trigger all applicable abilities by doing that. They cease to exist the next time state-based actions are checked, but them changing zones is still a game event that happens.
However, Compost does not apply because Compost only triggers on black cards going to the graveyard. Copies of a spell are not cards, they're only objects without a card representing them.

706.10. To copy a spell, activated ability, or triggered ability means to put a copy of it onto the stack; [..] A copy of a spell is itself a spell, even though it has no spell card associated with it. [..]

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