text:
What happens if you have a Uba Mask and a Thought Reflection in play?
What happens if you have a Uba Mask and a Thought Reflection in play, do both effects still apply will I just be exiling two cards on each draw step?

The rules for interaction of replacement effects specify that

616.1. If two or more replacement and/or prevention effects are attempting to modify the way an event affects an object or player, the affected object’s controller (or its owner if it has no controller) or the affected player chooses one to apply, following the steps listed below.

then

616.1e Once the chosen effect has been applied, this process is repeated (taking into account only replacement or prevention effects that would now be applicable) until there are no more left to apply.

Both cards create replacement effects so when they affect you, you choose the order (also the steps 616.1a-616.1c are not relevant here). If you apply the Mask effect first, the Reflection effect has nothing to apply to - you exile one card. If you apply the Reflection effect first the Mask effect will replace both draws with exiles.
This is also mentioned in a ruling on Thought Reflection:

If two or more replacement effects would apply to a card-drawing event, the player who’s drawing the card chooses what order to apply them.

After digging into the rules I have to expand (and revise) my answer.
Basically there are no exceptions to either card. Thought Reflection causes you to draw two cards instead of one, whenever you draw a card. This is replacement effect #1.
Uba Mask replaces the action of any draw with the exiling of the card that would have been drawn. Replacement effect #2.
But: The moment both effects would become applicable, the affected player chooses, which one to apply first (616 in the rulings). If you choose to apply #1 first, then you replace the drawing of one card with drawing two cards. Then #2 kicks in and you exile both cards instead of drawing them. If you, on the other hand, choose to apply #2 first, you exile a card instead of drawing it. #1 then does not do anything, since you did not draw a card.
For more information on replacement effects, check the ruling.


text:
Can you tap your Dryad Arbor for mana if there is a humility in play?
Do land creatures like Dryad Arbor lose their mana abilities with Humility in play?

Yes it loses them if you look at the rulings on both cards.
Humility
Card Text

All creatures lose all abilities and have base power and toughness 1/1.

Gatherer Ruling

Removes all creature abilities. This includes mana abilities. Animated lands will also lose the ability to tap for mana.

As can be seen Humility removes the ability from animated lands and Dryad Arbor is considered both a land and a creature. Because of this Humility will remove all abilities which includes tapping for mana.

@murgatroid99 I figured it would be helpful as they added it to the rulings for a reason. I can remove it if it is felt that it should be.

I find that ruling on Humility you quote to be confusing/misleading. "Removes all creature abilities" makes it sound like it might be excluding the ability that it has because it's a land. "Removes all abilities from all creatures" is clearer.

@murgatroid99 Removed that ruling.

@GendoIkari I added the card text in addition to the ruling.

What is this trend of answering with only rulings? 99% of questions can be answered with rules refs.

@Hackworth What exactly is wrong with that? It provides an answer and most people don't need a deep dive into the rules and what section it comes from.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to implement numerous resources in a clean efficient way
I am working on a king of the hill type board game.  With it, I have 3 main resources for players, food, stone, and lumber.
In theory, I want these to convert into more complex items that can be in turn, used to create more complex items.
Example:
Wheel <= 2 stone + 1 lumber
Wooden Bed <= 5 lumber
Wagon <= 4xWheel 1xWooden Bed
Now, Part of the thought process is that based on random chance, players will be able to construct these different items, and would benefit from trading with others.
At this point, im comfortable with that idea, despite it needing some tweaking.  The part I am uncomfortable with is the amount of cards(or something) that would be required to be handed out.
Has anyone seen anything that worked in a similar way and was able to do this in an organized fashion?
One of my goals with this game is to keep setup simple (set up board, deal a few cards, GO!).  But if people have a full bank of random items, I feel like it would get a bit too frustrating.  (I look at dominion and it calms me a bit..but still something i want to avoid).

More information such as how many of each resource is available in the game (if there is a limit), and how much that each player can have at one time.

"Who Goes There" has the tech tree like this.

In the game "This War of Mine" they used plastic pieces (middle right compartment) for basic resources such as Wood, Water, Components and used cardboard printed tokens for advanced resources (other compartments).
The "recipes" are described on cards.

Option 1: Use generic markers to track resource quantity, location where you place them determines type of resources. Examples: resource board in Artificium; buildings in Oh My Goods determine type of produced resource and cards - it's quantity.
Option 2: Use pieces, that easy to tell apart. Games like Caverna have a bunch of different resources. Representing them with different colors and recognizable shapes helps to tell them apart and keep stock size reasonable. They also look cool. Also you can use pieces for basic resources and cards - for manufactured goods and parts.

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


text:
Car, jets and bikes card games
When I was a kid, I played these games with cards that came in a set, for example:

Sports cars
Luxury cars
Jets
Trains

and so forth.
Each set had some properties, for example, the cars had properties like:

Torque
Max speed
0-60
Weight
Length
...

We then held these cards in our grubby little paws, and took the top one. We chose a property that was considered good for our chosen card, and asked others to compare their top card's property by the same name. The winner then took all the cards, and started the next round, until someone won the game, landing up with all the cards.
I have two questions:

What were these games called? I do not know what to Google for.
Are these games still found on the market?

After a lot of searches, I finally figured out they are called "Top Trump Cards".
http://www.toptrumps.com (site appears to be down, from my side, though)
But it does appear that I have either recalled the rules incorrectly, or we made our own rules when we were kids (latter is the most probable).
I also found out where I could buy them in South Africa (where I live):
https://www.takealot.com/all?filter=Brand:Top+Trumps


text:
Whenever someone enchants a creature, do they "control" that creature
For example, if someone casts claustrophobia on my creature, do they control it?

No, but the player that cast the Enchantment controls the Enchantment, even if it enchants an opponent's permanent.

Unless the enchantment specifically grants them control they do not. All that the enchantment that you mentioned does is tap the creature and prevent it from untapping as normal.

Thanks! Can I also perform other actions on it with an instant? For example, I wanted to play rallying roar to untap it.

Click on tue link that I edited into your question and you will find more information.

@BrandonRoberts of course, Claustrophobia taps the card and only prevents it from untapping at the untap step, if it is untapped by any other effect, it stays untapped until tapped again, at which point it stays tapped again. There are many cards that do the same, with different costs and targeting rules (permanent vs creature). Similar card Curse of Chains taps it every turn, so it would play a little differently, but it would untap each turn letting you tap it for effects before it taps itself.

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


text:
Is pocketing an opponent's coin considered a foul?
While playing Carrom, if I accidentally pocket (clear from the board) one of my opponent's pieces (coins), is this considered a foul?

@Malco why did you add "without pocketing one of my own" to the question? I wouldn't have inferred it from OP's original question.

@BenjaminCosman: Removed now. Shibu: Please roll back my edit if needed for the best description of the question to be answered..

@BenjaminCosman was trying to make the question a bit clearer. I am fine with the revert if you think I overreached in my edit.

According to the Laws of Carrom 125

When a player pockets the C/M of his opponent knowingly or unknowingly, the Umpire shall stop the player from playing further. If unnoticed by the Umpire or by the opponent, the C/M pocketed shall be considered to have been properly pocketed. The turn of the player shall be lost as and when noticed.

So, while the action is not itself a foul, you do lose the turn, and should the action be noticed immediately the pocketed C/M is returned to the board.

I have seen official rules that state the c/m is not returned but is considered pocketed. "74) If a player pockets the Striker with the C/m of his opponent by a proper stroke, the C/m so pocketed shall be deemed to have been pocketed. The Due as per Rule 72(a) shall be taken out for placing and the player shall lose his turn."

No, It is not a foul. However after pocketing the opponents coin you lose your turn to play.

Welcome to the site! When answering a question, it is a best-practice to cite (and link to) a specific source for your answer. These sources provide an authoritative reference and make it easier for the OP to select the Right answer based on objective standards, instead of what could be just a subjective opinion. I would suggest updating your answer with a link to the rules where you found this information.

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


text:
Can I win in 1v1 if I stole someone else's platinum angel, would lose without it, then defeat them?
While playing in multiplayer Commander, we came across this specific situation where I used Bribery on a player to steal his Platinum Angel.
Later in the game, we are the two last players in play and my life total is 0 or less. Can I still win if my opponent lose the game or do I lose too? Considering that his Platinum Angel will be removed from the game according to the rules below as soon as he loses the game.

800.4a. When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule 109) owned by that player leave the game, any effects which give that player control of any objects or players end, and all spells and abilities controlled by that player on the stack cease to exist. Then, if there are any objects still controlled by that player, those objects are exiled. This is not a state-based action. It happens as soon as the player leaves the game. If the player who left the game had priority at the time he or she left, priority passes to the next player in turn order who’s still in the game

You'll win the game. Once your opponent leaves, and you're the last person standing, you win immediately. From the rules on Ending the Game:

104.1. A game ends immediately when a player wins, when the game is a draw, or when the game is restarted.
104.2. There are several ways to win the game.
104.2a A player still in the game wins the game if that player’s opponents have all left the game. This happens immediately and overrides all effects that would preclude that player from winning the game.
(...)
104.5. If a player loses the game, he or she leaves the game. If the game is a draw for a player, he or she leaves the game. The multiplayer rules handle what happens when a player leaves the game; see rule 800.4.

All of these in approximately reverse order mean the following:

When a player loses, they leave the game. (We handle the processes around them collecting all their stuff in multiplayer games.)
Once they leave the game and you're the only player left, you win. This happens immediately as they leave.
Once you win, the game ends immediately.

There is no time gap between any of these steps; they effectively happen simultaneously.
You'd only lose if the game continued (for example due to a third player still being in the game), as we'd remove the platinum angel, check state-based actions, and determine that you lose for having 0 or less life. But since that wasn't the case for you, you've won! Congratulations.

I read the answer as "Number 2 happens at the same time as number 3."

To be more detailed: The player dies once state-based actions are checked (704.5a), which happens after the opponent's life total reached 0 and before the active player gets priority. At this point, he leaves the game, taking his angel with him. This makes you win immediately as part of that one state-based action, before state-based actions are checked for a second time.

@Rainbolt Yes and no. They happen consecutively but as part of the same state based action, and as state based actions don't get interrupted, so while the player leaving the game does remove their owned objects from the game, the direct result of the 2nd last player leaving the game causing the last player to win happens after, but still before state based actions are checked again.


text:
Challenging Chain Wild Draw Four's
I was playing Uno, and the card was a yellow 4.  As I didn't have a yellow nor a 4 in my hand.  I played the draw 4 card.  Now should I have been challenged, I would have won the challenge.  But my friend behind me in the rotation, jumped in with another draw 4, making it a +8.  Now that he has played a +4, I am no longer challegeable, but would you be able to challenge him?  I don't think you would be able to, since it wasn't his turn so technically he didn't have to play anything, plus it was a jump in.  So can you challenge a jump in draw 4 card played?

SE Disclaimer: The current question regarding what happens to a challenged and improper wild draw 4 is unclear. My answer assumes that the "wild" part of a wild draw four is still in play (including whatever color was called.)
The "jumping in" and "chaining" rules you refer to are house rules/variants. There is no official rule that allows you to take a turn out of rotation (that rotation may change due to skips, reverses, and other card effects, but there's no playing out of order.) There is no rule that allows you to escape the effects of a card by playing another copy of said card, and no rule that then doubles the effect of the card to the next player. The way to deal with this, then, would have to be house ruled as well, and I haven't seen a ruleset that actually does.
So then... what should it be changed to. I'm afraid that is quite difficult to say.
First, the reasoning behind the wild draw 4 (hereby named as the WD4.) The rule "prevents" the play of the WD4 in situations where another card could legally be played. It's the only card that has this restriction. This rule in particular showcases just how much thought went into designing this game. Without this rule, the WD4 is simply a "better and more flexible draw 2." Why would you ever want a draw 2 when there's cards that would be more painful and be playable in more circumstances? This rule adds that little kicker to the situation. A draw 2 can be played (assuming a legal pile to play it on) at any time, allowing for someone to "save" an uno from the next player. A WD4 is somewhat less likely. It provides a weakness to the greatest card in the game, albeit small. It even provides some interesting mindgames (you're on uno and the player before you plays a WD4. Now, if you draw the 4 it's a major setback. But if you challenge successfully, you're still in the game (though unless you got really lucky with the color call you would still be drawing 1.)But if you challenge unsuccessfully you're back to 7 cards and possibly out of the running. So, did I play in desperation or am I trying to trick you?) For a game that's usually a luck fest, that's a really interesting twist. (now if only they did that with the skip cards too...) There's also the other reason of reducing the take that effect, and giving players the out of "look, it's the only card I could play, I didn't mean to!"
So...with that in mind, how is the best way to play this? There's 2 ways.
1) Don't play with chaining and jumping in with WD4's, keeping everything else the same. This keeps the premise of the WD4: the nuclear bomb that you aren't allowed to control.
2) If you really want those +8 moments, then do this: any and all WD4's played can be challenged, with respect to the card played just before the WD4 chain. (Using your example, the player who jumped in or you could be challenged, and if so it's on the basis of "could you play on a yellow 4?") If a WD4 is challenged unsuccessfully, the offender would draw 6 cards (the WD4 that was challenged + the penalty 2) and that WD4 would be considered "dealt with." The current player can attempt to challenge other WD4's if they wanted to.
If a WD4 is successfully challenged, then all WD4s played after the offending WD4 are cancelled, and returned to hand. (reasoning: the "penalty" for an improper WD4 should be known when the card is played. Read on...) The offending player must then draw for the WD4 he played, and any others played before. This puts the onus on the jumping in player, as they "accepted" the raised stakes (where as the first player had no clue what was going to happen.) The offending player is allowed, however, to challenge any WD4 played before their play (i.e. the jumping in player, if caught, could challenge the first player, with the usual +2 card risk. If successful, their play is cancelled per the above rules.)
In any case: if any challenge is successful then, after the cards are drawn, the player who made the successful challenge then plays the next card (with whoever played the most recent not challenged call picking the color.) If no challenge was successful, that player's turn is skipped (per the normal rules) and the next player is up.
I would personally increase the penalty for an improper WD4 by 2 cards if the WD4 was chained, as part of the nature of the WD4 was the fact you can't aim it, and chaining would allow you some aim. But that's just me, and would probably require some testing first.

I would like to point out that there is a specific rule already in the game related to challenges after the next player has played. In the case that a player only has one card and forgets to call uno they can't be challenged on that mistake after the next player plays. I see no reason why that should not be different for any other challenge such as a wild draw four.

@JoeW I agree with respect to the rules as written. The problem is, the rules that are being used aren't the rules as written. There is no rule allowing for chaining WD4's...or chaining anything for that matter. The reason for the WD4 challenge is that the WD4 "can't" be used unless there's no other option. Allowing the OP's situation of "if someone chains it we're both immune and you just get stuck" removes this mechanic entirely.

The last person to chain the draw four can still be challenged

You could do it that way as well if you preferred (although it does open the door to collusion..."Hey cover my WD4 with yours before I get challenged and we can make this sucker draw 8 cards!") The nice thing about house rules is you can play it any way you prefer :)

Well if your group is playing that way then it has other issues. Not to mention that by basic rules the only person who can challenge a wild draw four is the person who will be drawing 4 cards.

Collusion is illegal, unless you can make arrangements to do this without using "card play suggestions", which force one to draw two cards @J.John

The rules for a Wild Draw Four actually limits who can call a challenge to the person that will draw the cards. So for your house rule of chaining wild draw four you can't be challenged since the next person accepted and and played another wild draw four.
Uno Rules

Wild Draw Four – This acts just like the wild card except that the next player also has to draw four cards as well as forfeit his/her turn. With this card, you must have no other alternative cards to play that matches the color of the card previously played. If you play this card illegally, you may be challenged by the other player to show your hand. If guilty, you need to draw 4 cards. If not, the challenger needs to draw 6 cards instead.

In the case of chaining them I would guess that for a successful challenge the last person to play it would draw all the cards. For an unsuccessful challenge the person doing the challenge would draw 6 times the number of wild draw four played (after a few are chained the risk of just drawing two extra cards is pretty small).


text:
Controlled Creature returns to which hand?
Opponent has taken takes control of my Metalwork Colossus. The card has an ability that states:

Sacrifice two artifacts: Return Metalwork Colossus from your graveyard to your hand.

Who can sacrifice two artifacts to get Metalwork Colossus to his hand - me, the owner, or my opponent, the controller?

Neither of you can - it's not IN the graveyard! Maybe you can rephrase the question, with an example card that returns to hand from play rather than from graveyard? Or include an explanation of how you plan to get it into your graveyard?

If the card was in its owner's graveyard: It's owner's hand. (Even if someone steals control of the ability.)
If the card was in its another player's graveyard: Not possible.[CR 400.3]
If the card is elsewhere: The ability can't be activated.

There seems to be a lot of confusion behind this question, so I'm going to cover the scenario in baby steps.
The ability in question is an activated ability.[CR 112.3b]
When can the ability be activated?
Most activated abilities can only be activated when the card or token on which they reside is on the battlefield. That is not the case for Metalwork Colossus's. The ability can only be activated when Metal Colossus is in a graveyard because it tries to move Metal Colossus out of a graveyard.[CR 112.6k]
Who can activate the ability?
Activated abilities of permanents can only be activated by the controller of the permanent. Activated abilities of non-permanents can only be activated by the owner of the object.[Summary of various] That means that Metal Colossus's activated ability can only be activated by its owner.
What does the ability do?
For an activated ability, the words “you” and “your” refer to the player who activated the ability.[CR 109.5]
So, the player that activated Metalwork Colossus's activated ability must be its owner. They become the controller of the ability. Metalwork Colossus is moved to the ability's controller's hand, which is its owner's hand.
What if someone steals control of the ability?
In that situation, the ability instructs Metalwork Colossus to be moved to that player's hand. But the game doesn't let that happen. It still ends up in its owner's hand because the game doesn't allow cards to to the library, graveyard or hand of a person that doesn't own them.[CR 400.3]

112.3b Activated abilities have a cost and an effect. They are written as “[Cost]: [Effect.] [Activation instructions (if any).]” [...]
112.6k An ability whose cost or effect specifies that it moves the object it’s on out of a particular zone functions only in that zone [...]
109.5. The words “you” and “your” on an object refer to the object’s controller, its would-be controller (if a player is attempting to play, cast, or activate it), or its owner (if it has no controller). [...] For an activated ability, this is the player who activated the ability. [...]
400.3. If an object would go to any library, graveyard, or hand other than its owner’s, it goes to its owner’s corresponding zone.

Another rule that might be relevant here is 201.4: Text that refers to the object it’s on by name means just that particular object and not any other objects with that name, regardless of any name changes caused by game effects. That means that you can't use the ability of one Metalwork Colossus card to move a different Metalwork Colossus card.

That ability can only be activated while the Metalwork Colossus is in your graveyard, to return it to your hand. Your cards in general cannot be be in any other player's graveyard or hand.
Rule 400.3 says

If an object would go to any library, graveyard, or hand other than its owner’s, it goes to its owner’s corresponding zone.

and the rules regarding abilites have these subrules that describe when you can activate that ability:

112.6. Abilities of an instant or sorcery spell usually function only while that object is on the stack. Abilities of all other objects usually function only while that object is on the battlefield. The exceptions are as follows:

112.6k An ability whose cost or effect specifies that it moves the object it’s on out of a particular zone functions only in that zone, unless that ability’s trigger condition, or a previous part of that ability’s cost or effect, specifies that the object is put into that zone. The same is true if the effect of that ability creates a delayed triggered ability whose effect moves the object out of a particular zone.

Only you, the owner, can return it to your hand from your graveyard. This is in fact the only way and time that ability could possibly be used or work out. Cards always return exclusively only to their owners' hands, or libraries, or graveyard — they never get put into the hand, library, or graveyard of someone who doesn't own the card.
First, the ability returns to hand that creature from the graveyard. It can't return from the battlefield or anywhere else. There's a ruling on Metalwork Colossus clarifying this:

Metalwork Colossus’s last ability can be activated only if it is in your graveyard.

Second, a creature that's heading to someone's graveyard or hand always gets put into its owner's graveyard or hand. State-based actions for handling creature death/destruction all say "put it into its owner's graveyard". And then there's rule 400.3 on zone changes:

400.3. If an object would go to any library, graveyard, or hand other than its owner’s, it goes to its owner’s corresponding zone.

It's impossible for someone to get your own Metalwork Colossus into their graveyard, and so they couldn't possibly activate that ability for themselves. Further, even if somehow it would return to their hand for any reason (e.g. they cast Disappearing Act) it instead returns to your hand, always.

It says from "your graveyard".  If it's in the graveyard, then it's in its owner's graveyard, and has no controller.  Only the player whose graveyard it is in (i.e. its owner) can use that ability.


text:
Can I use Improvise to pay for activated abilities?
The card Inspiring Statuary states:

Nonartifact spells you cast have improvise.

From the Comprehensive Rules (Ixalan (September 29, 2017))

702.125a Improvise is a static ability that functions while the spell with improvise is on the stack. “Improvise” means “For each generic
  mana in this spell’s total cost, you may tap an untapped artifact you
  control rather than pay that mana.”

From the Comprehensive Rules I understand that I can tap artifact to pay {1} of the spells cost. However does the same apply for activated abilities with {X} mana cost on permanents on the field. Example: Mirage Mirror

{2}: Mirage Mirror becomes a copy of target artifact, creature,
  enchantment, or land until end of turn.

I don't understand what you're asking. You added the definition of the ability to the question, so I don't understand what it is that you think applies to mana abilities.

@murgatroid99 Thanks for calling me on this - I edited my question.

So is your question 'Can I use Improvise to pay far activated abilities?'

@diego Yes, that is my question. Will edit with the proper title now.

No. Improvise only works for casting spells. Activating abilities, while similar is not casting a spell, thus it cannot be paid for with Improvise.

111.1. A spell is a card on the stack. As the first step of being cast (see rule 601, “Casting Spells”), the card becomes a spell and is moved to the top of the stack from the zone it was in, which is usually its owner’s hand. (See rule 405, “Stack.”)
112.1b An ability can be an activated or triggered ability on the stack. This kind of ability is an object.


text:
Canasta and the rules on invalid melding
Would like to know what happens when you come down with an invalid meld You have now exposed all your cards on the table. I was told you have to leave them down on the table and use them as discards. Until they are all gone. My question is is if you come down with a valid meld can your partner open and put her meld down? Or do you have to wait till all the cards that were exposed are discarded?

There are two different rules that pertain to this and it will differ based on the exact rules being played at the time. Some rules list for the first meld you would take it back but have a penalty for next attempt. Others say you would take back the invalid meld and pay a point penalty.
The main point of having to leave the cards face up on the table if you expose them is to prevent partners from sharing information for their benefit.
Rules

If a player exposes any cards from his hand, but does not meld them, he must leave them face-up on the table, and discard them one at a time in subsequent turns. However, if these cards can be validly melded before they are discarded, he may do so, rather than discard them.
If a player makes an invalid meld by adding more than three wild cards to a meld, he may either transfer the extra wild card(s) to another valid meld, discard them, or return them to his hand and take a 100-point penalty. (This penalty also applies to the initial meld.)

More Rules

If you put down an initial meld that doesn’t meet the minimum point requirement, you can put down additional melds on that same turn to make up the required total without penalty. You can also take back your attempt, but the minimum total you have to meet the next time you try goes up by 10 points — quite a severe penalty.

My question is is that if someone puts down an invalid meld and leave that meld down because those cards are exposed and uses them as discards can his partner now meld or does that person who melded  have to complete his meld to Officially come down

Why would the partner not be able to meld? And why would they have to complete the meld they tried when they are discarding the cards? That would just mean they might as well give up the game and start again as they won't ever be able to get a meld in once they mess up.


text:
Teferi's Time Twist and Gideon's Sacrifice
I recently had a match with a friend. This was the situation: On my board, I had a 4/4 Zombie token produced with Amass and a Vampire Opportunist. My opponent had Neheb, Dreadhorde Champion on the board.
In this situation I was unsure, if I could do this. I would attack my opponent with my 4/4 Zombie token. In the case he would block with his Neheb, Dreadhorde Champion I would cast Gideon's Sacrifice and redirect all damage to my Vampire Opportunist. In response of casting Gideon's Sacrifice I would cast Teferi's Time Twist and target my Vampire Opportunist.
After resolving Teferi's Time Twist, my Vampire Opportunist isn't on the board anymore, so the damage dealt to my Zombie token is redirecting to nowhere, so my Zombie token would survive and his Neheb, Dreadhorde Champion would die. In my end step then, Vampire Opportunist would return with an additional +1/+1 counter.
Are my thoughts right? Or do I miss something here?

This question would be better with a lot less detail.  The only relevant cards here are Gideon's Sacrifice and Teferi's Time Twist.  The rest of the creatures could be described as "a 4/4", "a 1/1", etc.

@Zags In SO, we talk about mcve :)

@Zags Sorry. The next time.

That is incorrect and if you look at the rulings on the card in gatherer you will see that they have a ruling for this case that states that the damage will not be redirected.

If the chosen creature or planeswalker isn’t on the battlefield or isn’t a creature or planeswalker at the time damage would be dealt, the damage won’t be redirected.

In the sequence of events both the zombie token and the Neheb, Dreadhorde Champion will die from damage in combat unless something else is done to save one of them.
This is based on 614.9 of the comprehensive rules

614.9: Some effects replace damage dealt to one creature, planeswalker, or player with the same damage dealt to another creature, planeswalker, or player; such effects are called redirection effects. If either creature or planeswalker is no longer on the battlefield when the damage would be redirected, or is no longer a creature or planeswalker when the damage would be redirected, the effect does nothing. If damage would be redirected to or from a player who has left the game, the effect does nothing.

This doesn't work.   Gideon's Sacrifice only works while the permanent you chose is on the battlefield.  See the reminder text on the card:

Choose a creature or planeswalker you control. All damage that would be dealt this turn to you and permanents you control is dealt to the chosen permanent instead (if it's still on the battlefield).

A minor thing for this question, but a mis-wording I've seen way too often. You wrote:

In response of casting Gideon's Sacrifice I would cast Teferi's Time
  Twist and target my Vampire Opportunist.

Note that Gideon's Sacrifice is not a targeted spell, so you choose the creature/planeswalker that will receive the redirected damage when Gideon's Sacrifice resolves. If you have exiled the Vampire Opportunist in repsponse to Gideon's Sacrifice, you simply cannot choose it when Gideon's Sacrifice resolves.
Of course, you can do this part of your plan by casting Gideon's Sacrifice, let it resolve and choose the Opportunist, then exile the Opportunist afterwards.
As has been explained in the other answers, the overall plan doesn't work either, but this answer is only about the quoted part.


text:
How to give checkmate in the game of xiangqi?
There is a board game called xiangqi. It is also known as Chinese chess. I have found a very nice website which allows people to play xiangqi with computer. This site uses western pieces. http://www.springfrog.com/games/chess/chinese/
I have learnt all xiangqi rules from Wikipedia. I have no problems with understanding them. I even know a little about xiangqi tactics (forks, pins, skewers, checks etc.). And I know the value of each Chinese chess piece.
My problem is I cannot win. I played nearly about 300 games, and I tried to checkmate my opponent (computer) but I constantly fail. Computer always checkmates me despite playing on easiest difficulty.
It seems I have no idea how to give checkmate to the opponent, unlike standard chess where I have very good knowledge of checkmate patterns. In xiangqi, I have almost no idea how to use my general, and I usually don't know how to protect him. I have no idea what exactly I should do to opponent's general either. Sometimes I manage to trade chariots and cannons but not horses.
Is there anyone who can help me? I know that in xiangqi I can also win by stalemating my opponent... But my wish is to give a checkmate at least once. And I want to play normal games, without any handicaps.

The best pieces for giving checkmate are the chariots and cannon that move in straight lines and at long range. Horses can be used, but only at close range, which is to say that they are vulnerable to counterattack by the guards and elephants. It's helpful to realize that the two leaders are limited to nine points of their "headquarters."
The "textbook" method of checkmate is the double cannon attack. If you manage to get both cannons on the vertical line in front of the enemy leader with the other soldiers removed, and the other pieces in their original position, the leader can't move sideways because he is surrounded by the guards. The "back" cannon fires over the forward cannon at the leader, and the leader can't block it with a guard or elephant, because then the forward cannon will fire over it.
Another thing you need to know is that the two leaders can't be on the same vertical line with no pieces between them. So you might use a chariot to drive the other leader to one side, while your own leader controls the central file (after the soldiers have been exchanged), and then movie the chariot to check and checkmate the leader on one of the side files of the two headquarters.


text:
Open the Graves and blocking segment
Let's assume the following situation: On the battlefield on my side lying these permanents: Open the Graves, Thallid Soothsayer and another non-token creature. My opponent is attacking me with two creatures.
Am I supposed to do this: With my non-token creature I block one of the creatures of my opponent. Then I sacrifice my creature with Thallid Soothsayer so I get a token Zombie creature. Can I now block the other creature of the opponent with the token Zombie creature?

Unfortunately that plan does not work. The "Declare Blockers" step only happens once during combat, and all your blockers must be declared at the same time at the beginning of that step. So if you declare one blocker and then move on to the part of the step where you can activate the sacrifice ability, it is too late to go back and declare another blocker afterward.

You can't activate Thallid Soothsayer's ability until you gain priority. Looking at the Declare Blockers step here, the first mention of priority is "509.4. Fourth, the active player gets priority. (See rule 117, “Timing and Priority.”)" This occurs after blockers have been declared, and well after "509.1h An attacking creature with one or more creatures declared as blockers for it becomes a blocked creature; one with no creatures declared as blockers for it becomes an unblocked creature." So by the time you get to 509.4, 5091h has already occurred, and the other attacker is unblocked.


text:
Mustangs and Messerschmitts Rules
I am looking for a copy of the rules to a long since gone game called Mustangs and Messerschmitts. Does anyone have a source to the rules?

Synopsis at https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1712093/rule-synopsis-and-review

Available for sale in PDF form from https://www.wargamevault.com/product/219901/Mustangs-and-Messerschmitts


text:
Do Warhammer models that have no models have specific dimensions stated any where?
I have made some tyranid mycetic spores by just covering a dreadnought sized base in some green putty to show how the spore burst when it hit the ground. I have seen many mycetic spore conversions and everyone seems to lean towards making them as tall as space marine drop pods. I am worried about using these in any type of tournament setting because they would be hard to draw true line of site to. When I have played against players in the past I have allowed them to draw line of site to the pods based on them being roughly drop pod sized.
This got me wondering if their was a official source for the dimensions of models that do not have official models?
Also if forge world makes a model is it then considered official for base size and dimensions?

The answer to your question really ends up being no.  Units with no purchasable model have no defined dimensions, and so are up to you and your opponent as to what is reasonable.
However, as of the most recent codex and updates, the Mycetic Spore is no longer a valid unit.  It has since been replaced with the Tyrannocyte, which serves largely the same purposes.  This unit does have a model, and is, as expected, about as large as a drop pod.  If you want to continue using the Mycetic Spore in friendly games, make sure you and your opponent agree on size, line of sight and rules before beginning.
As an aside, the reason for the change between Mycetic Spores and Tyrannocytes are largely legal, and there's quite the backstory behind the removal of the Mycetic spore option.  It's worth looking into if you're curious.

Thanks I didn't know they had removed the myscetic spore. Do you have a link to the story of why it was removed?

The short of it is that they had the unit without a model, so another studio made a model that became the de-facto standard model.  (Chapterhouse Studios, IIRC).  GW did not like that someone else's model had become the standard, and apparently, there were concerns that releasing their own at that point could possibly cause some kind of legal concern.  So, they killed it and changed the concept enough to be something else, the Tyrannocyte.  1d4chan has some info, but I can't verify that link has the whole story, as I don't recommend visiting at work...

Yeah I have been to 1d4chan. It has a lot of good information but it is horrible to sift through all the garbage in between the good information.


text:
Warhammer 40k traitor legions-favored of tzeench special rule
In the book (traitor legions), the favored of tzeench rule refer to ''all units in the formation can reroll any failed saving throws of 1''. In the case of the Tzaangor warherd formation, does the chaos sorcerer/exalted sorcerer benefit from this special rule?


text:
Samurai Sword Rising Sun: Ninjas Finding Ronin
My question is regarding the strategy to identify Ronin in Samurai Sword Rising Sun. In this expansion pack of Samurai Sword, there are 2 Ronins, 2 Samurais, 3 Ninjas and 1 Shogun. The Shoguns and the Samurais will be targeting players that are hitting them. However, how can the ninjas know (or guess) who the Ronins are? To play safe the Ninjas will keep targeting Shogun and Samurai but no one will be able to find Ronin. Won't this make the whole game one sided where Ninjas and Ronins are just targeting Samurais and Shogun?

I think you are missing some of the strategy involved in the game. There is no reason why teammates will not also target other teammates depending on the situation. For example a Samurai may target the Shogun when they are in danger of running out of resilience in order to keep the honor point on their team. It should be remembered that unlike bang there can be some great advantage in attacking a teammate.


text:
What board game was found in this Viking tomb?
I was reading an article on the first genetic proof of female viking warriors, which mentions the inclusion of a game in the tomb:

Furthermore, a full set of gaming pieces indicates knowledge of tactics and strategy, stressing the buried individual's role as a high-ranking officer.  SOURCE: A female Viking warrior confirmed by genomics | American Journal of Physical Anthropology

The image in the paper is too small for me to make out much detail.  A good assumption would be it is a hnefatafl game, but wondering if anyone has more info or a confirmation.
See also: Tafl games

The game is most likely Hnefatafl, the ancestor of a family of derivative modern games referred to as tafl games. Hnefatafl was the most popular board game in early-Medieval Europe, having accompanied the Vikings (who invented it) around Europe during their conquests and raids, until displaced by chess later in the era.
I was able to find Whittaker, H. (2006). Game-boards and gaming-pieces in funerary contexts in the Northern European iron age. online, one of the citations in the original article. It discusses (in English) the context, analysis, and conclusions derived from the frequent association of board game pieces and equipment with high status, usually male, individuals from iron age Nordic burial sites.

The game-boards and gaming-pieces found in northern European graves of this period are usually considered to have been used for playing Hnefatafl, a game which is well known from textual evidence. Hnefatafl was clearly a game of war, and it would seem not unlikely that playing the game was regarded as useful to the development of warrior abilities.

The older citation from van Hamel (1934) appears to not be available in English.
Although no description of the board or of the pieces has yet been obtained in answer to this question note the following:

Numerous tafl variants, on various board sizes and with different numbers of men for both sides,  have been described in the Nordic Sagas and discovered in Viking graves.
The tafl variant most commonly mentioned in saga literature, and most commonly found in Scandinavian graves, seems to have been Hnefatafl itself; as noted above by Whittaker.

Hnefatafl is an asymmetric game, with a designated attacker and defender of unequal strength. One of the defender's pieces is a King, and the object of the game is, respectively, to capture the King (attacker) or rescue the King (defender). Typically the Attacker would have about twice as many pieces as the Defender, not counting the King.
The old 1960's era game Goldfinger, by Milton Bradley, is similar and would impart some of the flavour for this style of game, for those old enough to remember. Certainly my brother and I spent many enjoyable hours playing this game in our pre-teens.

Goldfinger is hiding in Fort Knox (the center of a 9X9 grid) guarded
  by 8 henchmen (blue). 16 agents (red), under the guidance of Mr. Bond,
  have been sent to apprehend him.
Movement of pieces is easy... move any one of your men any distance
  along a straight line. If you can trap an opponent's piece between two
  of yours, it is captured and removed from the board. Goldfinger
  requires all four adjacent points occupied before he is captured.
The object for the red player is to capture Goldfinger; for blue to
  win, Goldfinger must escape.

None of the information that you have provided gives any information about the pieces or the board other then a suggestion at a possible use. Because of that it is hard to get into much specifics about the possible game other then that it appears to be military related.
Here is what is said about it The Washington Post article that you linked.

The shieldmaiden, whose teeth identify her as being at least 30, also appeared to be of high status. Her grave chamber is on a prominent, elevated piece of ground between the town and a hilltop fort, and it also contained a full set of gaming pieces and a gaming board, typically used by military leaders to work out battle tactics and strategy.

Those items might have nothing to do at all with gaming and instead be used for basic simulation and battle prep. Armies have been using basic maps for a long time to get a better idea of geographic issues when preparing for a battle.
Simulation and Gaming

Simulation and gaming as tools of warfare has a long history. At least as far back as the
  Roman Empire, commanders used sand tables with abstract icons to represent soldiers and units
  in battle. These allowed leaders to visualize and manipulate a small physical copy of the
  battlefield. It allowed them to see information in geographic perspective and enabled multiple
  players to pit their own ideas against one another. Though the visual representation provided the
  initial value of the practice, creating a playing board upon which multiple options could be
  compared proved to be even more powerful. These tools allowed leaders and their staff members
  to compete against each other or against historical records in an attempt to determine which
  would be the most effective (Perla, 1990).

We would need more information about the pieces and board game to give a better answer. Also you might be able to get an answer on the history stack exchange side as they might be able to approach it from a side that has more information on Viking history.

The article doesn't say what game it was, but the board game for Viking chieftains, for several hundred years, was Hnefatafl.

@ForgetIwaseverhere That might be a safe assumption if we had some basic knowledge about what these pieces and board looked like.. Neither article has any description of them other then making a claim that they are gaming related pieces. Because of this and knowledge that there are ancient tools that are similar to game pieces that have been created for the use of planning/simulation it is hard to make a jump to say exactly what they are. Until more information is provided about the items anything other then a guess isn't possible/


text:
Does anyone have the rules for Tank Turn Tactics?
Does anyone else have a more complete copy (or an 'as played' copy) of the rules?
There's a video I discovered:

The Game Prototype That Had to Be Banned by Its Own Studio
YouTube Link
video by  :  PMG (People Make Games) with Chris Bratt
featuring :  Halfbrick Studios with Luke Muskat, & Joe Gatling

... which contains a posted copy of the rules in the studio (@ ~ 8:57) and thanks to Imanton1@reddit for transcribing the posted rules:

TANK TURN TACTICS
Survive to the end and win the cash!
1st $30 | 2nd $20 | 3rd $15 | 4th $10 | First Blood: $5
RULES
All players start at a random location on the grid, and have 3 hearts and 0 Action Points.
Every 24 hours on a work day, everyone will receive 1 Action Point (AP). The time the point is given may vary day to day.
At any time you like, you can do one of the four following actions:

Move to an adjacent, unoccupied square (1 AP)

Shoot someone who is within your range (1 AP). Shooting someone removes 1 heart from their health.

Add a heart (3 AP)

Upgrade your range (3 AP) At the start of the game, everyone has a range of 2. That is, they can shoot or trade with somehow within 2 squares of them. Upgrading your shooting range increases this by 1 square each time.

If a player is reduced to zero (0) hearts, then they are dead. Any action points the dead player had are transferred to the player who killed them. Dead players remain on the board and not removed.
Players are able to send gifts of hearts or actions points to any player currently within their range.
Dead players can have a heart sent to them. This will revive that player who will have 1 heart and 0 AP.
ADDITIONAL NOTES
Dead players form a jury. Each day they vote, and whoever received most votes will be 'haunted', and not revive any AP for that day.
Once a day, at a random time, a hear will spawn on the field. The first player to move into the square containing the heart will revive an additional heart.
The game ends when a clear 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place can be determined. Once there are 4 players left, they will see if they can agree on the placing.
Action points are secret! Probably a good idea to try and hide how many you have.
You can't win this game without making some friends and stabbing some backs. Probably.

However, there's a discrepancy between the video and the rules...  If you listen to the video (@ ~ 8:30), you'll note that the jury does not operate as per the printed rules.?. Instead he states that:

<{ once per day, the jury gets to pick who they help out; any player(s) who receive three (3) votes from the jury gets an extra action point }>

In addition, there are timing items that are not discussed ..

for instance what if two players want to both move into the same square at the same time?
secondly, given : TankA & TankB only have one heart each .. if TankA shoots TankB, can TankB return fire? .. or is it a race to who "registers" an order first?
finally, given : TankA & TankB only have two hearts each, & two AP's each, can TankA "register" two shoot orders first, before TankB can even return a single shot?

Finally, what about hearts?...  with a literal interpretation of the rules, there's nothing stopping you from having more than three (3) hearts.?.  But was that how it was really played?

Hope someone finds the right game rules. Good luck!


text:
Texas Holdem All-In Question
This is regarding a Texas Holdem No Limit home game.

After the flop, Player 1 and Player 2 are the only remaining betting players.
After the river card, Player 1 goes all in.
Then Player 2 decides to call, but instead of saying "call" he says "full house" and flips his cards over.

Player 2 has the highest hand.
What happens in this situation?

I think that would depend on where you are playing.

After thinking about it I think it would just let other people fold/bet as they wanted with the new info

@JoeW - Seems like there aren't any "other players", just Player 1 and 2. Since Player 1 has already declared all-in, they are already all in. Are you suggesting they should be allowed to retract the all-in bet and fold if they want to?

@Duncan While this case may only involve 2 players I thought it would be wise to consider a situation where more players where involved who had not finished betting/calling yet.

Because Player 1 made the final raise, he should be the first to show his cards when players reach the showdown. However, according to the World Series Of Poker rules,

When a player holds a hand that is likely the winner, they should show that hand immediately to speed play.

In this case, it appears Player 2, in an effort to speed up play, short-cutted the word "call" and went straight into the showdown. Showing your hand in response to a shove (an all-in raise) is definitely considered a call by poker pros.

When there are only two players left, player 2 showing his hand hurts him and no one else. Thus you can just ask him to make an official move (i.e. actually call), and then proceed with the game. This would work even if the previous bid wasn't All In - player 1 could continue playing with full knowledge of player 2's hand, and player 2 has only himself to blame.
If there are more than two players left, however, showing your hand is unacceptable because it tells the remaining players things about each others' hands (i.e. which cards the others are not holding).

It could be angle shooting: show the hand, then based on the opponent's facial expression, decide whether to claim it was a fold.

It depends on the board and how strict you want to be. Since it's a home game, it's probably informal and you wouldn't be sticklers for the rules, and count it as a call (or ask to clarify). If the full house is the nuts, then that would also be justification for considering it a call. But if Player 2 has the worst full house the board allows, or if the board allowed a straight flush, and Player 1's betting pattern implies one of the better hands, then some skepticism as to whether Player 2 intended to call is warranted.


text:
Magic The Gathering, Blinking the source of a transformation
When the action that makes a card flip back-face up goes on the stack, I use a card ability like the Eldrazi Displacer to blink Archangel Avacyn
After the "blink" resolves, the card I have on the battlefield now is no longer the source of the ability I have on the stack.
In the ruling it says that

112.7a. The source of an activated ability can perform an action even if it no longer exists.

So, the Avacyn source of the triggered ability no longer exists, but it should be flipped bottom-face up.
What will happen? Will a new object be created? Will the activated ability resolve without effect?

Please name all the cards involved in your situation, that will make answering it a lot easier. You can use the syntax "[mtg:cardname]" to link each card. Be sure to use the exact name if you do.

I don't completely get your question. Are you talking about blinking Avacyn with her flip-trigger on the stack? If so, she would return face-up and wont flip to 'Avacyn, the Purifier'

If you blink Archangel Avacyn while its transform trigger is on the stack, the new Archangel object will not transform.
You are correct in that the transform trigger will still resolve, even though its source object no longer exists. However, the Archangel that put the transform trigger on the stack was also the object to be flipped. When you blinked the original Archangel, the transform trigger lost track of that object. The transform ability will resolve, but it will not do anything.

400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence.


text:
Distance between characters
In Bang!, does the distance between characters decrease when a player is eliminated? Or, if a character is at a distance of 3 from you, will they always be a distance of 3 from you?

An eliminated player no longer contributes to distance.  If this were not the case, in a large game you could quite easily have situations where nobody could reach anybody else for many turns in a row.
From the rules:

When a character is eliminated, he is no longer counted when evaluating the distance: some players will get "closer" when someone is eliminated.


text:
How can I find a FNM-competitive affordable deck?
I've played Hearthstone for about 2.5 years and I'm looking to get into Magic. Since my favourite decks in HS are control, I'd like to try to get into Magic with a control deck. I'm aware a large part of playing a control deck is knowing what to play around, and how you use/save your removal. I went to a con recently where I played a couple of games with the starter decks, and the Blue deck was a lot of fun, despite just eyeballing what seemed good and when to use it.
I've played through the tutorials in Magic: Duels and I'm planning on heading down to my local store on Friday to see what FNM is like. I'm aware of MTG Goldfish's budget decks section, but I can't see any control decks in there.
Are there any good resources for finding decks (in my case, specifically control decks) that aren't going to break the bank, but will get me into MTG with a somewhat competitive deck for FNM? I've found things like TappedOut which lists a ton of decks, but has little explanation of what each one is or how it plays out.

In the current standard, a few decks I would look for are UW control, Mono-blue Brains and BW control. UW control utilizes white sweepers and blue counter magic.  Mono-blue brains is a control deck that tries to play sorceries at instant speed. BW control relies on spot removal to keep the board clear.
Another site you might want to check out is StrictlyBetterMtg's youtube channel. He does a lot of deck techs, with a fair number of them being budget.
Reddit also has good resources, with a particular subreddit for budgets: budgetdecks
For format information check out another question: Magic The Gathering: Where To Begin

That's really handy - I like the look of the UB Budget Control (£35) from StrictlyBetterMtg's channel as it's (a) cheap, (b) control, (c) from what I can tell, reasonably playable :P Do you have thoughts/comments/criticisms on the deck? (That last question may be off-topic here, I don't know) http://deck.tk/02l02Z6d

@Joe I don't tend to play control decks, so I can't comment much on them.  It does seem a little light on finishers, but it is a control deck.


text:
What are Death's stats for the “Chess with death” haunt in Betrayal at the House on the Hill?
In the "Chess with death" haunt, death appears in a room and starts a chess game with the players. If a player isn't in the room to take their turn when death's turn rolls around, the players lose the game. However, if one of the non-traitor players is in the room, they get to play a game of chess with death.
death and the players must make a knowledge roll against each-other, death must win the roll or the traitor loses the game. if the player loses, all players (including the loser) take a penalty, usually stat-lowering effects.
There are holy symbols around that players can destroy to make death perform worse on their rolls. There are 4 symbols that the players can destroy. each destroyed symbol will subtract 1 or 2 dice from death's rolls.
The thing that puzzled my players is that there seemed to be no skills or stats for death in the traitor's tome, as confirmed by every player at the table. We assumed that Death had perfect 8 for every stat, but there are haunts where some creatures get up to 12.
What are Death's stats tor the "Chess With Death" haunt in the game Betrayal at the House on the Hill?

Monsters only have the traits that the tome says they have. Lots of monsters don't have sanity, or don't have strength, or don't have intelligence, etc.

@GendoIkari death kind of needs a knowledge start to play chess, though .

I assume you're referring to Haunt 37, titled Checkmate
As per the REVISED Traitor's Manual, Death has a Knowledge of 8 (and it cheats). It has no other stats, and cannot be attacked by any means. As per the (revised) Survivor's Handbook, Each Holy Seal token removes one die (two in 3- or 4-player games) from all subsequent knowledge rolls by Death. (in a 5-player game, the effective minimum knowledge for Death is 3, while in smaller games, it is possible for Death to be forced to take a 0 on the roll).


text:
Identify this game - 4X board game between 2000 and 2010
Around 10 years ago, I've met a bunch of people who swore this game was THE best thing one could play. At the time I was mostly confused and didn't get all the awesomeness, and now, never found it back. The name still is a mystery so far...
The game played in ages - somehow like Seven Wonders except the actions were quite different between ages, in Age 1 for example you could wage war with neighbors and build infrastructure, in Age 2 you could explore by land and search technologies, Age 3 you could wage war with distant countries and form alliances etc... Each ages took around 1 hour to play, it was really a very very long game.
The game was set in Europe, or at least Western Europe around the 14th century or something. The main board contained at least the Italian states, pretty sure it had Vienna, Paris and Barcelona in it, it was quite a long time ago sadly I do not recall every locations on the main map.
The game used miniatures and cards, if you had some cards you could have a town, castle or something like that built in one location. The board was MESSY. Lot of information, lot of "provinces" and things to move around.
The battle system was a dice and card combo, every contestant rolled dices, you could use cards to help, but it costed money (or something like that).
The starting position were focused in Italy IIRC, kinda sure there was someone who picked Milan and someone else who played as Venice.
With enough technology you could invest, discover a random sub-map and play things in it. If Venice discovered Mexico for example, no other player could go there unless a certain age is discovered, it was very useful to hit the victory conditions.
Pretty sure to win one had to have a certain number of victory points AND a fixed amount of provinces, IIRC it depended on the starting position (Venice needed more victory points less provinces etc) but it might have been technology or external factors that reduced/increased it.
There was a lot of random events that could screw people, like revolts, plague etc, that happened more frequently to the one on top, don't remember if it was dice-based or cards based but it was advertised on the box of the game.
IIRC the box was red-ish and the name in yellow or something. The name was something like "Conquest" or related to war.

@LamaDelRey This surely was a nice one 6 months ago, but shouldn't it be resolved now?

Yup but since the answer isn't exactly it...

I think you talk about Conquest of the Empire (from 2005)

STRUGGLE OF EMPIRES is a better re-implementation of it.

Hmm this does not seem to be it, the main map was more euro-centric and I'm very sure there were mini-maps searchable or so, yet very close. If no answers come close i shall accept yours I might mix two different games together

On your Struggle of Empires i've found Age of Renaissance which looks a bit more like what I remembered tho

Conquest of the Empire reimplemented Struggle of Empires. Unless you are referring to Struggle of Empires reimplementing Conquest of the Empire from 1984.

I think that the description is a composite of several games.
The largest portion is from Age of Renaissance, other fetures are from  Conquest of the Empire, Age of Empires III, Condottierre.

The map, showing whole Europe plus the northern coast of Africa and the western most part of Asia
Starting positions Venice, Genua, Barcelona, Paris, London and Hamburg
Cards, separated into 3 Decks representing an age each (yet not really with different actions for each age)
Lots of provinces and lots of things to move around, resulting in a quite "messy" board
research
the time frame
"events that could screw people, like revolts, plague etc" - there are cards doing this, however they are played at will against another player, the only random effect here is who will draw them...

The battle system from AoR does almost fit: the attacker rolls 3 dice, one attacker die, one defender die and one turn-order die (but you might house rule that the defender rolls the defender die instead), in the whole deck there are 4 1-time-playable cards that give you a small advantage during this round. It does not cost money to play cards, but it costs money to keep cards for the next round.
Some other features are from Conquest of the Empire as suggested in the other answer, namely the description of the box plus the minatures und building of infrastructure (roads, towns, castles). This game, however, has a battle system only with dice, no cards at all.
For some other elements I'm not sure where they come from.

discovery of random sub maps could be from Age of Empires III, this one also has lots of miniatures
the fixed number of provinces to win could be taken from Condottierre
forming alliances in a 4X-game is something I rather connect with space-themed games like Twilight Imperium or Eclipse
random events that hit the top players more frequently is a feature I rather know from computer games
different ages with totally different actions to do is something that sounds really interesting but I've never heard of that in a real game (the only exeption was another hoax in a German board game forum ca. 15 years ago)

That's not how April Fools pranks work...

@AndyT That's not how April Fools pranks work - So you think that it is just a coincidence that this question, which is obviously a prank was posted on 1st of April?

@VolkerLandgraf yes

@VolkerLandgraf - "obviously a prank" is opinion, not fact. It reads as a genuine question to me. And I do believe that it's a coincidence that a question you think is a prank was posted on 1st April. As to how April Fools pranks work - the joy is in revealing to someone that they've been pranked, not sitting there six months later while people still believe its genuine.

@VolkerLandgraf I'd like to know why "it's obviously a prank", since I didn't notice the day and really was searching for a game's name. Since I hardly wish to disturb more people in this community, would you please explain to me what was "pranksty" in it ?

@LamaDelRay Because the description is like a "best of", taking interesting features/mechanisms of too many different games. And some of the aspects or combinations of aspects are just too complicated to really work. And, of course, the date it was asked. So, if you honestly say that it was not a prank of yours, let's take a different approach: Did you ever play this game yourself? Or did you at least see a copy of this game (not in self-made prototype quality)? If not, if you just heard others tell you about this game, then I would guess that they played a prank on you.

@VolkerLandgraf I did say I saw a game myself, and I saw the box and the board. It was from 10 years ago, I may mix things together, but Age of Renaissance is a "close" fit, it very much looks like I remembered and have most of the points I listed. I ended up playing with another player as one.
Don't know where your're from but some Eurogames released "just" in Europe are really complex and are too ambitious for their own good, ending up to complicated and barely played.

@LamaDelRay I am from Germany, and since 1998 I have visited Essen Game Fair every year, so unless this was a self-published work from an over-ambitious author in a mini-edition of 20 copies, I consider it very unlikely that a game like this could had slipped my attention ;-)


text:
Donate Combo Needed
Looking for a really superb and evil combo to DONATE a 'gift' to my opponent. So far I have Glacial Chasm and Thought Lash. I want something that is not easily gotten rid of once the 'gift' is delivered.
Playing blue control but heavy artifact. Goals are lockdown and kill his library. Thoughts and comments welcome.
Thanks.

I just want to point out, as someone mentioned in an answer to your previous question, that donating Glacial Chasm doesn't accomplish anything useful. They can simply choose not to pay the cumulative upkeep as soon as they don't want it anymore. You'd be better off keeping a Glacial Chasm and paying for its upkeep to protect yourself long enough to get your combo online.

Or awaken the Glacial Chasm and stick an Assault Suit on it if you want to get janky. I think I'll try that in my pillow fort deck now that I think of it.

@Michael The assault suit doesn't force anyone to pay the cost, even with the "can't be sacrificed".

No, but it keeps the chasm around, stopping attacks

Zedruu the Greathearted decklists are good sources of cards to use in combination with donate mechanics.
Depending on what you want to do there are a number of options, but some would require you to add an extra color to your deck.
For example to slow down and opponent's board state there are Steel Golem and Grid Monitor,
and for dealing damage there are Rust Elemental, Jinxed Idol and Bronze Bombshell.

Thanks for your response. I like Steel Goelm or Grid Monitor and Phyrexian Obliterator/Negator have possibilities. Also considering Mimic Vat/Acidic Slime.


text:
Mining the Howling Mine
Howling Mine

At the beginning of each player's draw step, if Howling Mine is untapped, that player draws an additional card.

First, there is no bent arrow tap symbol, so how would it tap to begin with? The activated ability is dependent upon being untapped, so tapping it would just prevent activation?
Second, what one-drop could I use to make this work to untap for me, but tap to prevent everyone else from benefiting? If I had 4 cycles in play, that could mean 5 cards per turn?

The search engine is pretty useful I find:
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?page=1&text=+%5Btap%5D+%5Bpermanent%5D

Howling Mine is one of the original cards, all the way back to Alpha, when there were "Mono", "Poly", and "Continuous" artifacts. All "Continuous" artifacts were defined as only working while untapped, so this text is a carryover from when they got rid of those keywords. (Apparently, not all formerly-"Continuous" artifacts kept this restriction, but the Howling Mine did).

I'll be Scrooge this morning. OP, try to ask one question per post. @Josh, avoid answering questions in comments.

Note that Howling Mine has a static ability, not an activated one.

@Rainbolt Honestly I considered what I said more "commentary" than an answer. I haven't played Magic myself in 15+ years but I happened to catch this question and wanted to share some trivia.

@diego: Looks more like a triggered ability to me.

@jwodder You're right, it is triggered, I don't know what I was thinking this morning

In the first release of the game there were 3 different types of artifacts: Poly, Mono, and Continuous. Poly Artifacts were artifacts that had activated abilities that could be used without tapping the artifact. Mono Artifacts were artifacts that required tapping to activate their activated ability. And Continuous Artifacts don't have activated abilities, however their abilities stop working when they are tapped.
Howling Mine was printed in Alpha as a Continuous Artifact, so its static ability didn't have an effect if it was tapped. The rules worked like this until 6th Edition, and at that time the rule was mostly just dropped, except for a few cards that received errata to maintain that functionality. Howling Mine was one of those cards, but there were a few others like Winter Orb.
One-drops that can be repeatedly used to tap them would include Trickster Mage and Vedalken Certarch. And yes, you draw one card for each Mine you have on the battlefield, so with 4 Mines you would draw 5 total cards.
Aside: with the right deck, you don't need to worry about your opponent having 4 extra draws / turn.  An example of this, is turbo fog.


text:
Interaction between Vilis, Broker of Blood and Phyrexian Delver
I resolve a Phyrexian Delver etb targeting Vilis, Broker of Blood. My question is whether the life lost as a part of the Phyrexian Delver etb will then cause Vilis's "Whenever you lose life, draw that many cards" effect to trigger. In a broad sense, because the return to battlefield and lose life effects are part of the same effect, do they happen at the same time? Or because they are written in an order, that they happen in an order?

They happen in the order they are written, so you will get to draw cards.

Resolving Spells and Abilities

608.2. If the object that’s resolving is an instant spell, a sorcery spell, or an ability, its resolution may involve several steps.

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

and

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

So at the time that you are losing life, Vilis, Broker of Blood is already on the battlefield; it's triggered ability triggers just as if it had been there even before Phyrexian Delver was resolving.


text:
Odin's Smite card and Thor's Primacy card and Heimdall's Watch
player A and B are in battle
1- player A plays Odin's Smite  card(Destroy one warrior from each opponent in this province before comparing STR) and player B plays Heimdall's Watch  card(Discard all revealed cards. Gain glory equal to the total +STR revealed. Then Play new cards)
Now what happen ?
Which card will be used ?
2- player A plays Thor's Primacy card (Cancel the text of each opponent's reveled card before it takes effect) and player B plays Heimdall's Watch  card (Discard all revealed cards. Gain glory equal to the total +STR revealed. Then Play new cards)
Now wha happen ?
which card will be used ?
3- player A plays Thor's Primacy  card (Cancel the text of each opponent's reveled card before it takes effect) and player B plays Odin's Smite card (Destroy one warrior from each opponent in this province before comparing STR)
what happen now ?
which card will be used ?

The wording on Thor's Primacy makes it clear that it happens first, because it cancels the other cards' text before their text takes effect.
Heimdall's Watch clearly has to happen before any "normal" cards, otherwise it would be pointless. "normal" here meaning any card which doesn't specifically affect other cards.
I can see that it's not crystal clear which would take priority out of the two of these cards, but the use of the word "Primacy" meaning first or most important, and the fact that it specifically says "before" other cards, means that it takes precedence.
So it would make sense if the order of priority was:

Thor's Primacy
Heimdall's Watch
Any other card

This is backed up by this link and this link from boardgamegeek, where Thiago Aranha, apparently one of the game's producers, gives them the same priority.

The cards are to be resolved starting from the pillager and moving clockwise in the following order.
CDE where
C - cancel cards
D - discard cards
E - every other normal cards

Can you cite anything to back up that this is how it works, such as a section in the rulebook?

It can't be both "starting from the pillager and moving clockwise" and "C then D then E". In the vast majority of cases those will be contradictory.

This applies only to "Some special Battle cards [that] can be used to
further increase the Strength of your troops even after players have revealed their cards.... The
pillaging player has the
first chance to add Strength from one of these special
cards, and it proceeds clockwise around the table
from there until nobody wants to play any. " Heimdall's Eye is an example.  (page 18) . In the example above this type of card would be #4 in order.


text:
Betrayal at house on the hill #43 the star-sickness
When you die as an explorer but are also a traitor, and are transitioning into an alien, do you still trade monster tokens to spread the trader infection?   The trader died from the person who initiated the haunt during their additional roll that damages everyone if the can't defend the attacks.
The rules do not specifically say but we have argued that the traitor explorer has the alien virus already so isn't really alive to begin with, and you don't drop your items until the next turn after they miss their turn (from dying and going into transition). So it could go either way that you can trade monster tokens or not.

Spoilers Ahead
Turn back now...
Here's my interpretation based on the haunt rules.
It's never stated that the traitor is dead nor does it sound like the traitor is the real enemy it's just one of your party has an alien infection and may be turning into an otherworldly specimen.

 Ever since I touched that meteorite, I can feel the change working in
 me... If I do not succeed [creating an antidote], perhaps these notes will help whoever comes after. I pray, though, that this disease will die with me.

Personally, if someone dies during the attack against explorers immune system I would think that the explorer is no longer an explorer but in a transitioning state. The book says:

 If a traitor dies for any reason... a transformation to the third stage takes place. The transforming traitor skips their next turn.

Since the transforming traitor cannot do anything on their upcoming turn since they're in the process of transforming into the 3rd stage alien, I would assume they're no longer an explorer and would not be able to interact with any of the explorers in the house which includes trading monster tokens.

There's so many haunts that need clarification which unfortunately can't all be verified by the rulebooks. The last page of the rulebook states:

What if there isn't a rule that for x scenario? In such cases, come to
  an agreement as a group for what makes the most sense and go with it.

The most important rule is to have fun!


text:
Walking Ballista and how it works
I assume Walking Ballista does not need to survive for the damage on the stack to resolve. Also I assume that you can remove multiple 1/1 counters before letting any of them resolve

Abilities resolve independent of their source, so removing the final counter from a Walking Ballista will still deal the damage. This can be seen in 112.7a:

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

When you activate an ability, it is implied that you pass priority (so your opponent can respond and the ability can resolve) unless you explicitly retain it. You can get this from 116.3 and the Judge Blog:

Whenever a player adds an object to the stack, they are assumed to be
  passing priority unless they explicitly announce that they intend to
  retain it.

When you activate the same ability multiple times at the same time, in tournament magic, this is a shortcut for "I activate this ability, let it resolve, and repeat this process so many times". If you want to respond to each activation and put them all on the stack at the same time, you have to specify that you are retaining priority (otherwise the shortcut is assumed). This can be seen on the Judge Blog:

If a player adds a group of objects to the stack without explicitly
  retaining priority, they are assumed to be adding them to the stack
  individually and allowing each to resolve before adding the next. If
  another player wishes to take an action at a point in the middle of
  this sequence, the actions should be reversed to that point.

As an example, if you have a Walking Ballista with 5 counters on it, your opponent has a 4/4 in play and a Blossoming Defense in hand, and you want to kill the 4/4, it could play out as:

I deal 4 damage to your 4/4 with my Walking Ballista
In response, I cast Blossoming Defense on my 4/4

At this point, it would be assumed, because of the shortcut, that your opponent is responding to the first activation of your Walking Ballista (or a different activation if they specify otherwise), and you would still be able to remove the remaining 4 counters to kill the 4/4.
If you explicitly retained priority when activating the first 4 times, your opponent could counter all 4 of your activations with the Blossoming Defense (as they would all be placed on the stack before any of them resolve, and all would then attempt to resolve targeting a hexproof creature).
In general, it causes the fewest communication issues if you activate and resolve each ability one at a time, but if there are no communication issues, then it is quicker to use the shortcut above.
If you have a reason to do so, however, you are able to retain priority and put all the activations on the stack at the same time.


text:
What happens with excess damage from a blocked creature
If you play and your opponent attacks you with a 5/5 creature, and you block with a 1/1, your creature dies, but does the extra 4 damage from the opponent just go to waste? Or does it do damage to your lifetotal? This is of course when the opponents creature doesnt have trample.

Consider the following: if the extra 4 damage "went through" and damaged the player, what would be the purpose of Trample?

The 5/5 deals 5 damage to the 1/1, and the 1/1 deals 1 damage to the 5/5.
There would be no point to Trample if the extra damage spilled over.

The attacker needs to assign all of the power of its attacking creatures.

510.1a Each attacking creature and each blocking creature assigns combat damage equal to its power. Creatures that would assign 0 or less damage this way don’t assign combat damage at all.

In this scenario you presented, the only creature to which the attacker can assign the attacking creature's power is the single blocker.

510.1c A blocked creature assigns its combat damage to the creatures blocking it. If no creatures are currently blocking it (if, for example, they were destroyed or removed from combat), it assigns no combat damage. If exactly one creature is blocking it, it assigns all its combat damage to that creature. If two or more creatures are blocking it, it assigns its combat damage to those creatures according to the damage assignment order announced for it. This may allow the blocked creature to divide its combat damage. However, it can’t assign combat damage to a creature that’s blocking it unless, when combat damage assignments are complete, each creature that precedes that blocking creature in its order is assigned lethal damage. When checking for assigned lethal damage, take into account damage already marked on the creature and damage from other creatures that’s being assigned during the same combat damage step, but not any abilities or effects that might change the amount of damage that’s actually dealt. An amount of damage that’s greater than a creature’s lethal damage may be assigned to it.

A creature deals as much damage as it assigned (with no regard for the toughness of the creature being damaged), so the 5/5 deals 5 damage to the 1/1.

510.2. Second, all combat damage that’s been assigned is dealt simultaneously. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack. No player has the chance to cast spells or activate abilities between the time combat damage is assigned and the time it’s dealt.

The extra damage dealt isn't necessary "wasted". Some abilities (such as Lifelink) care how much damage was dealt.
If the attacking creature had trample, the attacker could assign its excess damage to you instead of the blocker.


text:
Sundial of the Infinite and end of turn effects
If I use Sarkhan, the Dragonspeaker first ability, and before the end of my turn use Sundial of the Infinite. Does he stay a 4/4 indestructible dragon until my next turn? And if yes does that mean he cannot lose loyalty as he is a creature and is indestructible?

No.  Sarkhan stops being a dragon when your turn ends.  It doesn't matter that you have ended your turn "early" using the Sundial - the turn still ends.
The reminder text on Sundial of the Infinite makes this clear:

{1}, {T}: End the turn. Activate this ability only during your turn. (Exile all spells and abilities on the stack. Discard down to your maximum hand size. Damage wears off, and "this turn" and "until end of turn" effects end.)

Sarkhan would stop being a dragon
Sundial of the Infinite reads:

1, T: End the turn. Activate this ability only during your turn. (Exile all spells and abilities on the stack. Discard down to your maximum hand size. Damage wears off, and "this turn" and "until end of turn" effects end.)

Italicized text on cards is reminder text.  It is redundant to the actual rules text, but is designed to clarify exactly what a card is intended to do, or introduce the meaning of a keyword or rules term that a player might not recognize.
Sarkhan's first ability reads:

+1: Until end of turn, Sarkhan, the Dragonspeaker becomes a legendary 4/4 red Dragon creature with flying, indestructible, and haste. (He doesn't lose loyalty while he's not a planeswalker.)

So when Sundial of the Infinite's ability resolves, Sarkhan stops being a dragon, and goes back to being a planewalker.

In more detail
Ending the turn with a spell or ability is covered by rule 716

716. Ending the Turn
716.1. Some cards end the turn. When an effect ends the turn, follow these steps in order, as they differ from the normal process for resolving spells and abilities (see rule 608, “Resolving Spells and Abilities”).
716.1a If there are any triggered abilities that triggered before this process began but haven’t been put onto the stack yet, those abilities cease to exist. They won’t be put onto the stack. This rule does not apply to abilities that trigger during this process (see rule 716.2).
716.1b Exile every object on the stack, including the object that’s resolving. Remove all creatures and planeswalkers from combat. All objects not on the battlefield or in the command zone that aren’t represented by cards will cease to exist the next time state-based actions are checked (see rule 704, “State-Based Actions”).
716.1c Check state-based actions. No player gets priority, and no triggered abilities are put onto the stack.
716.1d The current phase and/or step ends. The game skips straight to the cleanup step; skip any phases or steps between this phase or step and the cleanup step. If an effect ends the turn during the cleanup step, a new cleanup step begins.
716.2. No player gets priority during this process, so triggered abilities are not put onto the stack. If any triggered abilities have triggered since this process began, those abilities are put onto the stack during the cleanup step, then the active player gets priority and players can cast spells and activate abilities. Then there will be another cleanup step before the turn finally ends. If no triggered abilities have triggered during this process, no player gets priority during the cleanup step. See rule 514, “Cleanup Step.”
716.3. Even though the turn ends, “at the beginning of the end step” triggered abilities don’t trigger because the end step is skipped.

This is a lot of text, but the main gist of it is that anything that was waiting to happen goes away, and the game skips straight to the 'cleanup step'.
What is the cleanup step?  I'm glad you asked!
A turn has 5 phases:
Beginning Phase (Untap, Upkeep, and Draw)
First Main Phase
Combat Phase
Second Main Phase
Ending Phase
The Ending Phase has two parts: The End Step and the Cleanup Step.
The End Step (not the End Phase) exists so that delayed triggers that happen "At the beginning of the next end step" have a clear time to happen.  Like the Upkeep Step, it only matters if a card is making it matter.

513. End Step
513.1. The end step has no turn-based actions. Once it begins, the active player gets priority. (See rule 116, “Timing and Priority.”)
513.1a Previously, abilities that triggered at the beginning of the end step were printed with the trigger condition “at end of turn.” Cards that were printed with that text have received errata in the Oracle card reference to say “at the beginning of the end step” or “at the beginning of the next end step.”
513.2. If a permanent with an ability that triggers “at the beginning of the end step” enters the battlefield during this step, that ability won’t trigger until the next turn’s end step. Likewise, if a delayed triggered ability that triggers “at the beginning of the next end step” is created during this step, that ability won’t trigger until the next turn’s end step. In other words, the step doesn’t “back up” so those abilities can go on the stack. This rule applies only to triggered abilities; it doesn’t apply to continuous effects whose durations say “until end of turn” or “this turn.” (See rule 514, “Cleanup Step.”)

The Cleanup Step is where everything that happened "Until end of turn" wears off.  While the End Step only happens once each turn, and any "at the beginning of the end step" triggers that appear after it passes by will wait until the end step of the next turn, the Cleanup Step has to happen, and it continues to happen until there's nothing left to clean up.

514. Cleanup Step
514.1. First, if the active player’s hand contains more cards than their maximum hand size (normally seven), they discard enough cards to reduce their hand size to that number. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack.
514.2. Second, the following actions happen simultaneously: all damage marked on permanents (including phased-out permanents) is removed and all “until end of turn” and “this turn” effects end. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack.
514.3. Normally, no player receives priority during the cleanup step, so no spells can be cast and no abilities can be activated. However, this rule is subject to the following exception:
514.3a At this point, the game checks to see if any state-based actions would be performed and/or any triggered abilities are waiting to be put onto the stack (including those that trigger “at the beginning of the next cleanup step”). If so, those state-based actions are performed, then those triggered abilities are put on the stack, then the active player gets priority. Players may cast spells and activate abilities. Once the stack is empty and all players pass in succession, another cleanup step begins.

Ending the turn skips the end step, but does not skip the cleanup step.

I think the amount of citation in this answer might be excessive. We don't need all the rules for ending the turn, the end step, and the cleanup step, and the turn phase structure to explain "until end of turn effects end when the turn ends". Are you able to quote only specific rules, or summarise processes, such as summarising there's a cleanup step we proceed to that makes these effects wear off?


text:
Feather, the Redeemed and Dire Fleet Daredevil
It has already been clarified by WotC that Flashback and Aftermath will work with Feather, the Redeemed. Specifically, because you control both replacement effects, you choose which one resolves, allowing you to cast a Flashback card that targets your creature from the graveyard then exile it, and return it to your hand at the end of turn.
My question is about what this means for Dire Fleet Daredevil? Does the fact that it would not go to Your graveyard mean that Feather's replacement effect would not apply? Although the wording specifies "your graveyard" the language is not as clear as usual ("exile that card instead of putting it into your graveyard", rather than "if that card would go to your graveyard, exile it"), so it leaves open the possibility of putting a card you don't own in your hand...

That was an edit by Joe W, but I did check and at the time it wasn't in Gatherer. I did think 3rd May was weird, as here in the UK it's available this weekend at MF London; I assumed it would be available prior to the prerelease this Friday. I'm at work now and gatherer is blocked, so I can't confirm what you say now.

It is in there now I thought I saw a release date of May 3rd for the set. I removed my remarks about it not being in gatherer yet.

Feather's replacement effect does not apply to a card exiled and cast with Dire Fleet Daredevil.
Dire Fleet Daredevil specifically takes a card from an opponent's graveyard, so you do not own any card cast this way. Then the final step of resolving spells and abilities, rule 608.2k, says

As the final part of an instant or sorcery spell's resolution, the spell is put into its owner's graveyard. As the final part of an ability's resolution, the ability is removed from the stack and ceases to exist.

Since your opponent owns the card, it would be put into that players graveyard, not yours, in this step.
The exact wording of Feather's ability is as follows:

Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery spell that targets a creature you control, exile that card instead of putting it into your graveyard as it resolves. If you do, return it to your hand at the beginning of the next end step.

Since the card would not be put into your graveyard at all, Feather's replacement effect does not apply and the card is exiled by Dire Fleet Daredevil's replacement effect.
This is confirmed in an official ruling on Feather's Gatherer page:

If you cast an instant or sorcery spell that you don’t own, it won’t try to be put into your graveyard, so you won’t exile it with Feather’s effect or return it to your hand.

If Feather's ability instead replaced the spell moving to any graveyard, it still wouldn't put the card into your hand. Rule 400.3 says

If an object would go to any library, graveyard, or hand other than its owner's, it goes to its owner's corresponding zone.

So, in that situation Feather's replacement effect would end up putting the card back into your opponents hand. This is almost always undesirable, so it's very likely that Feather's ability was purposely written to avoid that.

Thanks, that is what I expected, but wondered if the wording was due to an assumption that as you are casting the card, you own it, rather than an explicit attempt to rule out the scenario I described.

Fundamentally, it doesn't really matter what the intention of the wording is, only what it actually says. In this case, they probably did it on purpose, because the alternative would be putting the card into the opponent's hand, because that's what would happen if you try to put a card they own into your hand (rule 400.3).

Could you add that rule to your answer? My only experience with this effect is [mtg:X], but was not aware that it was an exception to the rule.

And that's why it has the further wording "If you do, return it to your hand at the beginning of the next end step": it's possible that the replacement might not take effect.

This could also refer to the requirement that the spell resolves, so again, I didn't feel that it was obvious that the card had to be going to your graveyard strictly. I think murgatroid's answer is complete.


text:
How does a duel work in the game BANG?
Not sure how a duel works in the game BANG! If both the person playing the duel card has a single bang card, and the person they challenge has a single bang card - is it a draw?
Or does the person playing the duel card have the advantage of going second - meaning when the person they challenge runs out of bang cards - they win without having to put down a bang card? Like can they win without throwing down a bang card?
Or does it work like an actual gun duel works - where each player has to throw down bang cards head to head until someone runs out?
Can there be a "draw" if both players have the same number of bang cards?  Or is the challenged player always disadvantaged...?

A duel is a special attack that must be responded to by discarding a bang. If the person the duel is played on is unable to discard a bang they take a hit. If they are able to it goes back to the person who played the duel. If they can't discard a bang they take a hit however if they can the process repeats by going back and forth between the players until one of them is no longer able to discard a bang and that player takes a hit.
Duel

With this card you can challenge any other
  player (staring him in the eyes!), regardless
  of the distance. The challenged player may discard a BANG!
  card (even though it is not his turn!). If he does, you may
  discard a BANG! card, and so on: the first player failing to
  discard a BANG! card loses one life point, and the duel is
  over. You cannot play Missed! or use the Barrel during a
  duel. The Duel is not a BANG! card. BANG! cards discarded
  during a Duel are not accounted towards the “one BANG!
  card” limitation.

OK thanks Joe.  We were arguing because if the player that it is played on doesn't have ANY bangs, the player that played the duel card technically doesn't have to have a bang card either to win the duel.  That didn't seem fair in the spirit of an actual duel.  I think a couple of us had the concept of playing "war" with a deck of cards in mind...with both players throwing down head to head.

Think of the duel card as the first bang that starts it off and if the player doesn't have any bangs in their hand they are just risking it.


text:
Can anyone identify board game with 2 rows 2 holes wide each and 2 upright metal pins?

The Gatorade bottle has been placed for scale

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cribbage

Cracker Barrel appetizer

This is a basic cribbage board.
The pegs are moved alternatively to track score for each of two players. There are sixty holes so that each player completes a number of "laps of the board" to reach a winning score of 61 or 121.

Probably should add that this is a SCORE board - not the actual game itself (which is a card game)

?? I'm not sure how else you can interpret "to track score" especially if you've read that it's for cribbage and have made some effort to work out what that game is.

The winning score is 61 or 121. You must exit the track to win.