text:
What is the difference between Owning and Controlling an object on the Battlefield?
I’m a little confused on what the outcome of this scenario is – any help would be appreciated.
Let’s say I cast Turn Against on one my opponent’s creatures.  So I would “Gain control of target creature until end of turn.” However If I use the ability of Eldrazi Displacer on the same creature after gaining control which says “Exile another target creature, then return it to the battlefield tapped under its owner's control.” Will this creature become mine forever?
I assume that the effect of Turn Against only applied to the first instance of the creature I targeted. Then when I use Displacer’s ability a new version on that creature is placed on the field and all equipment etc. is removed including effects from spells?

After using Displacer’s ability will I be the “owner” of the targeted creature
Will the creature return to my opponent at the end of my turn?

If this doesn’t make sense – please let me know.

You won't ever become a creature's owner in a game if you already weren't.

108.3. The owner of a card in the game is the player who started the game with it in his or her deck. If a card is brought into the game from outside the game rather than starting in a player’s deck, its owner is the player who brought it into the game. If a card starts the game in the command zone, its owner is the player who put it into the command zone to start the game. Legal ownership of a card in the game is irrelevant to the game rules except for the rules for ante. (See rule 407.)

So, when you use Turn Against on a creature, you become its controller, not owner. If you used Eldrazi Displacer's ability on the same creature, it would return under your opponent's control, since he owns this creature.
To answer your second question, let's assume that you somehow retained control of the creature that you blinked with Eldrazi Displacer. The creature would not return to your opponent's control at the end of the turn. This is because an object that changes zones, even if it returns to the same zone it came form, becomes a completely new object every time it changes zones.

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

There are seven exceptions to this rule, and none of them apply here.

I added quite a bit of content to your answer in order to address the second question posed by the OP, because even though it turned out to be irrelevant in this case, the answer to the question is useful in other situations. Feel free to roll back my revision if you don't want it.

To become owner of an opponent card you must start the game announcing you are going to play with ante. This happened mostly a long time ago, in Ancient 90'MTG games, and with cards like "Contract from below", or "Darkpact",or others  allowing you to become owner (not only controller) of target card.

While you might not be an owner of a creature itself, you can be an owner of a token copy.

There are also un-cards that have ownership changing effects.

@ManoFromBerlin This still doesn't really affect the word owner as used in game terms, since cards in the ante aren't a part of the current game being played anymore, but the prize for winning that game.

The ruling on the card on the gatherer website says:

After the creature returns to the battlefield, it will be a new object with no connection to the creature that was exiled. It won’t be in combat or have any additional abilities it may have had when it was exiled. Any +1/+1 counters on it or Auras attached to it are removed, and any Equipment will no longer be attached.

So it will return to the battlefield under your opponents (it's owners) control because it will no longer have a connection to Turn Against being cast on it

Thanks for the reply - Sucks though as I thought I found an amazing strategy.

@ConsumerTester Even though you can't steal things permanently with displacer, you can get the "flicker and gain control indefinitely" by using cards like Cloudshift

To answer a couple other parts of the question, any auras and equipments, when you gain control, stay on the creature, but are actually controlled by your opponent. Normally they can't do much, but it depends on the cards.
When you use the Displacer's ability, since it leaves the battlefield and returns as a "new card", the auras and equipments are unattached. This also does apply to spells targeting the creature. Once the blink is done, the original target of the spell is no longer there (now a new card) so it should fizzle.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. Displacer is my new favourite at the moment.

It matters with e.g. Sword of the Animist. I had a player use Magnetic theft to attach my Sword to their creature, but when they attacked I got to fetch the land. It also matters because on the equipment-controllers turn they can re-equip it to a creature they do control.

In such a situation, you are not the owner of the card - although you may control it - and you could not become owner of that card in no legal way.
The "owner" of a card is, generally and according to the rules, "the player who starts the game with that card in his deck"  - as established by rule 108.3, although with one important exception, which I will discuss later.
He is therefore the owner of that card because that card simply "belongs" to him, since he probably bought it previously, or obtained it through an exchange between players.
The "controller" of a given card is instead who, during the game, actually  controlling it; because, firstly, the general rules and those written on the cards give him control of that card , which at this point can be either a spell still on the stack, or a permanent on the battlefield.
I remember that,in old MTG times (in 90's), it was possible to become owner - not controller only - of a target opponent's card. But it was possible only announcing you are playing with ante before start playing. Then, you are allowed to become owner of a card when some kind of card expressely told you this.It happened with old black cards like Contract from below, or Darkpact;with the red 3/3 creature Tempest Efreet or with others dealing with ante's or with opponent cards,such as Bronze Tablet.
The exception I mentioned earlier would apply exactly in these cases. I'll explain better.
If a player starts the game with a given card in the deck - and is therefore the "owner" of it, according to rule 108.3 - but then one of the just introduced cards (Tempest Efreet,for example) comes to change the situation  (and therefore this means that the two players are playing with the ante) then the card owner can change during the game itself.
  Therefore, at this point the "owner" - and then we call him rather the "new owner" - is no longer who started playing with that card in the deck, but rather the "new owner" , since in the meantime the card has changed "owner": this means that it must be taken into account not by the "first owner", but the "new owner" instead , when the word "owner" should reappear on other cards during the same game.
In these cases it is always good to give an example, to better clarify the scope of the exception to rule 108.3: that is, the rules for playing with the ante, established by rule 407, which is also referred to by rule 108.3, at the end:- "... except for the rules for ante (See rule 407).".
Player 1 has a Tempest Efreet on the battlefield, and decides to use his ability (see the card,for details).

He then chooses a random card from player 2's hand, and it is a creature: for example, a Serra Angel.
At this point, the “owner” of the Serra Angel is no longer player 2, but player 1.
During the game, player 1 brought Serra Angel into play; then, player 2, to improve his situation, decides to use Eldrazi Displacer's ability to exile the Serra Angel, and then put it back into play under the control of "its owner", apparently removing it from player 1.
But this is where the exception must be taken into account in its important effect.
The player who started the game with Serra Angel is in fact player 2, and therefore, taking the text of the rule 108.3 (to the letter), the Serra Angel should return to the battlefield of player 2.
However, in the meantime the “owner” of the Serra Angel has changed,due to the ability of the Tempest Efreet; therefore, whenever the word "owner" appears on the various cards, it must be understood in the sense of the "new owner", who is now precisely player 1 and not player 2,as regards to Serra Angel.
So, in this case, the use of Eldrazi Displacer's ability would bring the Serra Angel back under the control of player 1  - since this last is the “new owner” of this card - and the action taken would essentially be of little use in improving the game of player 2.
However the game ends, player 1 eventually leaves, but with one more Serra Angel in his deck, and one less Tempest Efreet, which instead goes into player 2's deck,too. This is because the "owners" of these cards have changed during the game.

I think it was a fair thing - and perhaps even interesting, for some users - to give an example that shows a game situation about the exception to rule 108.3. I have also put  a card that the OP knows in this example - Eldrazi Displacer  - to make it understandable faster.


text:
How do I avoid making a "video game forced to be a board game"?
My last playtest for the game, useful as it was, resulted in a player saying it feels like a board game, but the players have to run and update the normally-passive numbers manually.
I'm worried that the time-delayed effects, debuffs/buffs wearing off, additional information for each unit, resources being assigned passively, among others, are the traits of a video game closely resembling Battle For Wesnoth or Duelyst.
What are some common pitfalls and solutions to them when a board game feels like a video game that you have to basically "compile" every turn?

Is your first sentence supposed to say "feels like a video game"? Also, it seems like this might be a better question for this site if you focus more clearly on the specific issues in your game, rather than the broader set of possible common pitfalls across all game. The questions in the title and last paragraph invite broader answers, while your second paragraph begins to explain some of what you're doing - so maybe add a bit more detail there, and rephrase the questions a bit?

Particularly, if you could elaborate on what kind of game you are designing, it would help a great deal.

In general, when a question has "What are some common pitfalls and solutions" it's not a question that's appropriate for Stack Exchange.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is there a "gotcha" with Caged Sun?
I'm reading the text of Caged Sun carefully and comparing it to Gauntlet of Might/Power.
Gauntlet of Might (cost 4)

Red creatures get +1/+1.
  Whenever a Mountain is tapped for mana, its controller adds R to his or her mana pool (in addition to the mana the land produces).

Gauntlet of Power (cost 5)

As Gauntlet of Power enters the battlefield, choose a color.
  Creatures of the chosen color get +1/+1.
  Whenever a basic land is tapped for mana of the chosen color, its controller adds one mana of that color to his or her mana pool (in addition to the mana the land produces).

Caged Sun (cost 6):

As Caged Sun enters the battlefield, choose a color.
  Creatures you control of the chosen color get +1/+1.
  Whenever a land's ability adds one or more mana of the chosen color to your mana pool, add one additional mana of that color to your mana pool.

It seems that the Caged Sun's ability prevents my opponents from benefiting, while providing the benefits of either of the Gauntlets.  Further, it seems like Caged Sun could be interpreted to work with lands of any sort, including non-basic.
Given the cost of this card is $1-$2 and the other two command moderate to large premiums, is there a drawback to this card that I am overlooking?  Surely the 2 mana difference cannot be the overriding factor here, can it?

I was confused when you listed the casting costs -- U usually means blue. Could be that you're using a convention I'm not familiar with.

Sorry, I meant colourless, I'll remove the U's

I think the big drawback is simply the cost. If you hit Gauntlet of Might on turn 4, you can play 8/10-cost cards on turn 5. That's pretty strong, and much stronger than getting 12/14-cost cards on turn 7, at least in non-multiplayer games.
In general, you want your mana acceleration to be as cheap as possible, else by the time you can play it you don't need it. That said, Rise of the Eldrazi does bend that rule.

The non-multiplayer game comment is important. This card is much more viable in Commander because: A. The asymmetry benefit ratio is much higher, in other words if it were symmetrical there would be 3 other people who could utilize it against you vs only 1 and B.  The games tend to go on much longer and there are more opponents to target so there is more time to use that immense mana and more need to do so. I would still say 6 is pretty expensive for a "do nothing" card

For Gauntlet of Might there is a component of simple raw rarity adding in.  It's one of the cards that was cut from Unlimited to Revised, so there are just plain very few of them out there.  From Gauntlet of Power to Caged Sun, I would say for one thing you probably are underestimating the impact of +1 mana cost.  For a long time 6 would have been considered basically unplayable and casting something for 5 was only considered if it was going to win the game!  (In recent years WOTC R&D has been building more and more powerful cards pushing up what people will play in constructed decks, on the (correct it seems) belief that players find it a lot more fun to play big stompy creatures than to go back and forth with Counterspell and Sinkhole all day.)
Another factor is Caged Sun is from a recent set that sold well, there are lots of Caged Suns.  Gauntlet of Power isn't all that old, but it's from a set that sold poorly and was generally considered a flop by wizards.
And finally, the primary market for all of them at this time is EDH.  So they're not exactly straight substitutes.  Lots of players would happily run both!

If I had them, I would happily run all 3 in an EDH deck that could use massive amounts of mana. If you had all 3, and got quite lucky, by turn 7 be tapping for 21 mana. You could hit that sooner with the right combos, but having 21 available by turn 7 gives you a quick win, even in EDH (which is rarely quick)

@cdeszaq Needs moar Doubling Cube!

And even in EDH, even though Gauntlet is a must-have for mono-red decks, it's only for the anthem ability. The mana fixing is only helpful if you have a lot of card draw, which is tough to get in red.

@cdeszaq: Actually, if you cast GoM on turn 4, you only need to tap 3 lands in order to cast GoP on turn 5, leaving you with one mana in the pool and you can tap the remaining two lands for 3 mana each so that you can also cast CS. So if you untap in turn 6, you will have 24 mana available. On turn 7 it will be 28 (4 per Mountain)

I agree with the above answers that your "mere" 2cc difference is not "mere" at all, but actually huge.  Consider what kind of creatures you would expect to be able to cast for 4 mana, and what kind of creatures you want for 6 (Titans anyone?), and you'll realise power-to-casting-cost is not a linear progression, but a dramatically steepening curve.
Another thing that no one else seems to have mentioned yet is that Magic cards have been getting slowly but steadily more powerful with every passing year.  Back in the early days, Juzam Djinn (a 5/5 creature for 2BB, that deals its controller 1 point of damage per turn) was considered an incredible bomb.  Nowadays, a 5/5 creature for 4 without any downside probably wouldn't even be considered a bargain.  It's not surprising that other types of cards have sustained a bit of power creep too.
Also, Wizards seems to be allergic to printing cards with situational downsides (apparently, having your own cards capable of turning against you is "un-fun").  In the old days cards like Crusade gave +1/+1 to all white creatures, so if you played against another mono-white deck it was practically a dead card.  Apparently cards like Honor of the Pure, that only provide the bonus to your own creatures, leave a much less bitter taste in some players' mouths; so it's not surprising that Caged Sun would follow suit in this regard also.

One caveat: power creep hasn't necessarily been universal. Early magic cards had creatures overcosted compared to spells. Pure dual lands and moxes won't be coming back. Wizards learned that this was detrimental, as red burn decks, blue denial, and black discard made the combat phase virtually obsolete. So yes, creatures generally have gotten more powerful per mana, but cards like Counterspell are put on the shelf.

@ghoppe: obviously power creep hasn't just gone in one direction, there's been a consistent drive to balance the game and as such, some broken cards have been retired.  I would strongly maintain, though, that playing with the 90% of least powerful cards today and with the 90% of least broken cards from Alpha, today's cards would absolutely steamroll the original set into oblivion.

I agree, take out the top 10%, and new would trounce the old. Just pointing out the reasons for power creep and why it isn't universal. The concept of card advantage and tempo still hadn't been fully discovered yet; and they realized that most of the strategy, interaction and fun came from the combat phase of the game. It's best to strengthen cards which encourage beating up each other with huge sticks.

The reason why there's been an upturn of all-upside cards recently is because they feel better for less experienced players. More learned players appreciate downsides on cards (like symmetry or plain ol' detrimental effects) because they know it's possible to play/build around them in such a fashion that it mitigates the downside. But newer players don't know that, and R&D probably believes all-upside cards appeal to them more, even if they are more expensive mana-wise.

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

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


text:
Statistically when to stop rolling in Greed
I want to reduce the level of chance associated with the game Greed (also known as Farkle and Zilch).
Has anyone looked into this or have a source that can give some good stats to answer the following questions.
At what score should I stop rolling:

When I have 1 die left?
When I have 2 dice left?

Edit: ... to maximise my score and minimise risk. Assume that I've entered the game already (scored 500).
In other words: when is it worth rolling a single die to try to get a re-roll.

Greed (a.k.a. Farkle) has an extensive amount of statistical analysis done on the game.
Now that you have updated your question, here is my updated answer.
If you want to maximize your score, what you need to figure out is what is your expected score if you risk rolling, compared to your score if you choose not to roll. So, the first thing you need to know, is what is your expected number of points you will earn for rolling 6-dice. Below is a chart of the different possible Patterns (6-of-a-Kind, 5-of-a-Kind, etc.), the possible ways of ORD 'ering those particular patterns (which are all the same combination), the number of DIF 'erent patterns that can be made with other numbers from 1-6, and the Total permutations (which should add up to 6^6=46656).
+-----------+----+---+-----+
|Pattern    |ORD |DIF|Total|
+-----------+----+---+-----+
|a,a,a,a,a,a|   1|  6|    6| 6-Kind
|a,a,a,a,a,b|   6| 30|  180| 5-Kind (possible '1' or '5' score singles)
|a,a,a,a,b,b|  15| 30|  450| 4-Kind (possible '1' or '5' score singles)
|a,a,a,a,b,c|  30| 60| 1800| 4-Kind (possible '1' or '5' score singles)
|a,a,a,b,b,b|  20| 15|  300| 2 * 3-Kind
|a,a,a,b,b,c|  60|120| 7200| 3-Kind (possible '1' or '5' score singles)
|a,a,a,b,c,d| 120| 60| 7200| 3-Kind (possible '1' or '5' score singles)
|a,a,b,b,c,c|  90| 20| 1800| 3 Pair
|a,a,b,b,c,d| 180| 90|16200| (possible farkle, possible '1' or '5' score)
|a,a,b,c,d,e| 360| 30|10800| (possible '1' or '5' score)
|a,b,c,d,e,f| 720|  1|  720| straight
+-----------+----+---+-----+
|      Total|1602|462|46656|
+-----------+----+---+-----+

I didn't separate these individual patterns by how much they actually score, because it would be way to big of a table. The table would have to differentiate from each different kind of 3-of-a-Kind, and possible '1' and '5' single die scores. I did separate them when running a calculation of the average (total points/permutations). The only important information from that computer analysis is:

1080/46656 : The odds that when you roll 6 dice, you cannot score anything. (Farkle)
388.033 : The average number of points that you make on your first roll of 6 dice, if you score.

You can use the above information, you can examine all possible outcomes of rolling a single die, and look at the risk (how many points you will lose if you fail to score) versus the amount of points that you will gain. You can think of this as you would any sort of gambling question.

Question: Imagine a game where you pay $X, and you roll a die. If you roll a '1' you win $100 plus your original bet ($X), if you roll a '5' you win $50+$X, if you roll anything else you lose your bet ($X). How much would you pay to play this game?
Answer: Anything up to $37.50. Until that point, you expect to win more money than you lose. The sum of your losses multiplied by their probability of happening (-37.5 * (4/6) = 25 = ((100*(1/6)+(50*(1/6)) is equal to the sum of your winnings multiplied by their probability of happening.
1) +$100
2) -$37.5
3) -$37.5
4) -$37.5
5) +$50
6) -$37.5

Now, lets add up all the possibilities for Greed assuming you have X points already, and you intend to roll six dice if you win the single die roll.
|Outcome              |Odds the Outcome Occurs | Points *Odds |
+---------------------+------------------------+--------------+
|Lose rolling one die |4/6                     | -4/6*(X)     |
|Win  50 +Avg six dice|(1/6)*(46656-1080)/46656|(AVG+50)*Odds |
|Win 100 +Avg six dice|(1/6)*(46656-1080)/46656|(AVG+100)*Odds|
|Lose rolling six dice|(2/6)*(1080/46656)      | -(5/648)*(X) |
+---------------------+------------------------+--------------+
                Total | 1.0                    |              |

Time for Some Algebra
Solve for the sum of all the above outcomes equals zero.

(add each line above together)

0 = -(4/6) * X - (5/648) * X + (2*AVG+50+100)*(1/6) * (46656-1080)/46656)

(multiply the first X term by 108 to get the same denominator for both X terms)

0 = -(432/648) * X - (5/648) * X + 150.771547

(Add X term to both sides, simplify two added terms)

(437/648) * X = 150.771547

(Solve for X)
X = (648/437) * (150.771547) = 223.6 (approximately)

Since scores are always a multiple of 50, you should stop rolling when you hit 250 points. I leave the the 2 dice question as an exercise for the OP. You should have all the tools necessary to calculate it (I will check your work if you attempt to answer it. If you do attempt to answer it, post the question in a new thread linking back to this thread, and explain your work).
Optimal Strategy for Multiplayer
Another more difficult question to answer is what is the optimal strategy to win. The calculations for this are more complicated, because you have to take into account how likely the opponent is to win before you (their likely score before your next turn, etc.) I have no doubt that a nearly optimal Greed computer program can be created for (two players). As you increase the number of players though, the problem gets exponentially more difficult. You might want to check the links in this post that talks about how optimal Yathzee for one player was created, and how the two player version is pretty close to optimal.

The answers to your questions depend on the details of how you score the game.  For example, Facebook Farkle scores three pairs as 750 points, Gaby Vanhegan's Zilch implementation scores it as 1500 points, and Wikipedia's entry on Greed scores it as 800.  These and other scoring differences affect the expected value of rolls and ultimately the optimal play strategy.
To correctly answer your question for the case of the one die roll, you must not only consider the potential gains and losses of that immediate one die roll, but also the weighted value of ALL subsequent rolls.  For example, if you roll the sixth die and get a 1 (for hot-dice) and then roll six dice and score three-pair (for another set of hot-dice), are you going to stop and bank?  No!  you're going to roll again!  So the true value of rolling that sixth die by itself is more than the weighted value of that one roll; and is more than the weighted value of that roll plus the subsequent 6-die roll.  To get it's true value, you must calculate the expected points for the remainder of the entire turn.
I've analyzed exactly this problem at my website.  The analysis is straightforward, but too long to repeat here.  I wrote a web-app
called the Farkle Strategy Generator (FSG) which allows you to generate farkle strategies that provide exacting answers to your questions.  And here they are...
1 and 2 die rolling rules for Farkle
Setting the FSG for Farkle scoring and overriding the banking theshold to zero you find:

2 dice:  bank when you have 250 or more points.
1 die:  bank when you have 300 or more points.

But the min-bank threshold is actually 300 points, so the above rules
boil down to just:  Never roll one or two dice unless the minimum banking threshold forces you to.
1 and 2 die rolling rules for Zilch

2 dice:  bank when you have 250 or more points.
1 die:  bank when you have 350 or more points.

Again, the 300 point banking threshold will prevent you from banking 250 points with 2 dice to roll, but the 1 die rule is more interesting as it suggests you roll when you have 300 points (which is enough to bank).
I suggest you run the FSG yourself to generate the strategy customized to your own scoring rules.
Why my answer is different
user1873's analysis says to bank when you have 250 points and one die to roll, but the strategy produced by my FSG says to roll in this situation.  Why the difference?  While the analysis presented by user1873 is both instructive and a good estimator of how to play to maximize expected scores; it does not consider the possibility of rolls subsequent to the 6-die roll and neglects the weighted contribution of these positive events.  If you correctly calculate these higher-order effects, you find that it is actually worthwhile to roll one die when you have 250 points for the turn.

I agree, I made an error. The 100 or 50 points from the previous roll should have been multiplied by the odds of the event occurring, not added in. I will correct it soon. +1 for catching my error.

Cool. If you update your post, I'll update mine to remove the needless noise. BTW, I double checked the 388.56. I think that's right. Let me know if you want to compare notes.

I will correct my post regarding adding in the 50/100 points instead of multiplying those points by the odds, which will get the correct risk total of 223. I haven't updated it yet, because I was still checking my math regarding that calculation and others used in my analysis. The scoring rules I used were the ones listed on Wikipedia for Greed linked in the OP, I will recheck those numbers as well, but I agree that the difference between 388.56 and 388.033 is inconsequential when the grandularity of score is by divisions of 50 points.


text:
Card game No-Got
I was at a park in Florida and they were playing a game called No- got. they had two dice per person two decks of cards and you deal out all the cards and then you roll two dice and you followed the suit on your own pile.  if you could’nt play you put a nickel in does anyone know another name for this so I can find the rules

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


text:
What is the board game in ‘Friends’ S05E11?
Does anyone know the name of the board game visible on the following picture?

The image is taken from the eleventh episode of the fifth season of Friends ("The One With All The Resolutions"), at around 4/5 of the episode (17:53 is the exact timestamp of the frame from my version).
The things I thought might help to identify the game:

The game seems to have an oval board.
There are two small blue UFO-shaped parts (maybe dice poppers?): one on the table and one in the hands of Joey (second guy from the left).
There seems to be two different kind of cards involved - in red and blue colors.
The box features a cartoonish drawing of a woman and a man and the dominant color seems purple.
The game seems to support 5 players - but considering it's a tv show, this might not hold true. I recon yellow, red and blue figures on the board, and it seems that there are two from each color.

You mention coloured pieces on the board.  There also appear to be two white pieces off the board as well.  When I zoom in on the board the pawns appear 'wine bottle' shaped but that is not clear.

@StartPlayer The white pieces I think are just the caps of the water bottles, but I may be wrong. But yep, the figures seems 'wine bottle' shaped.

It is Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus. You can recognise the loopy indigo board, the characters on the box, and the red/green card box in this image from the BoardGameGeek page:


text:
What happens when Boldwyr Intimidator makes a creature with Changeling a Coward?
Boldwyr Intimidator has the following ability:

{R}:Target creature becomes a Coward until end of turn.

Changeling is defined as:

702.72a: Changeling is a characteristic-defining ability. “Changeling” means “This object is every creature type.” This ability works everywhere, even outside the game.

What happens to the creature with Changeling's creature type when Boldwyr's ability is applied to it?
For example:
I have a Boldwyr Intimidator on the board, my Opponent has a Changeling Sentinel and Muscle Sliver on the board.
I use Boldwyr on my Opponents Changeling Sentinel to make it a Coward, does it still receive the +1/+1 bonus from Muscle Sliver?

After Boldwyr Indimidator's ability resolves, the creature is only a Coward, and not any other creature types, for the rest of the turn.
This situation is covered in the rules that describe the interaction of continuous effects. In particular, the following rules are relevant:

613.1. The values of an object’s characteristics are determined by starting with the actual object. For a card, that means the values of the characteristics printed on that card. For a token or a copy of a spell or card, that means the values of the characteristics defined by the effect that created it. Then all applicable continuous effects are applied in a series of layers in the following order:

613.1d Layer 4: Type-changing effects are applied. These include effects that change an object’s card type, subtype, and/or supertype.

613.2. Within layers 1–6, apply effects from characteristic-defining abilities first (see rule 604.3), then all other effects in timestamp order (see rule 613.6). Note that dependency may alter the order in which effects are applied within a layer. (See rule 613.7.)

In addition, rule rule 205.1a describes how type changing effects like the one on Boldwyr Intimidator work:

Some effects set an object’s card type. In such cases, the new card type(s) replaces any existing card types. Counters, effects, and damage marked on the object remain with it, even if they are meaningless to the new card type. Similarly, when an effect sets one or more of an object’s subtypes, the new subtype(s) replaces any existing subtypes from the appropriate set (creature types, land types, artifact types, enchantment types, planeswalker types, or spell types). [...]

So, when determining the type of the creature that is affected by Boldwyr Intimidator's ability, first you apply the Changeling ability, because it is a characteristic-defining ability. This gives the creature every creature type. Then you apply the Intimidator's ability, which replaces its set of subtypes with just the type "Coward". So, in the end, it just has the subtype Coward.
Regarding the example, you can see in the interaction of continuous effects rules that layer 7 is "Power- and/or toughness-changing effects are applied." These effects, including Muscle Sliver's effect, are applied after type changing effects, so by the time you go to apply them, the Changeling Sentinel is only a Coward, so it is not buffed by Muscle Sliver's ability.

The creature will be only a Coward (or Warrior), and not get any bonuses for being a Sliver.
This is true for the same reason that using Intimidator on a vampire will cause it to no longer be a vampire; it's type has been set, which overrides any other types it previously had.

205.1a Some effects set an object’s card type. In such cases, the new card type(s) replaces any existing card types. Counters, effects, and damage marked on the object remain with it, even if they are meaningless to the new card type. Similarly, when an effect sets one or more of an object’s subtypes, the new subtype(s) replaces any existing subtypes from the appropriate set (creature types, land types, artifact types, enchantment types, planeswalker types, or spell types). If an object’s card type is removed, the subtypes correlated with that card type will remain if they are also the subtypes of a card type the object currently has; otherwise, they are also removed for the entire time the object’s card type is removed. Removing an object’s subtype doesn’t affect its card types at all.

Changling is a characteristic-defining ability, as as such the layer system applies it before the type-defining ability of Intimidator.

604.3. Some static abilities are characteristic-defining abilities. A characteristic-defining ability conveys information about an object’s characteristics that would normally be found elsewhere on that object (such as in its mana cost, type line, or power/toughness box) or overrides information found elsewhere on that object. Characteristic-defining abilities function in all zones. They also function outside the game.

604.3a A static ability is a characteristic-defining ability if it meets the following criteria: (1) It defines an object’s colors, subtypes, power, or toughness; (2) it is printed on the card it affects, it was granted to the token it affects by the effect that created the token, or it was acquired by the object it affects as the result of a copy effect or text-changing effect; (3) it does not directly affect the characteristics of any other objects; (4) it is not an ability that an object grants to itself; and (5) it does not set the values of such characteristics only if certain conditions are met.

When determining what a card ends up as, different effects are applied in a specific order, starting with the characteristics of the card itself:

613.1d Layer 4: Type-changing effects are applied. These include effects that change an object’s card type, subtype, and/or supertype.

Both the Changeling ability and Intimidator's ability apply in layer 4. When multiple things get applied in the same layer, characteristic-defining abilities happen first:

613.2. Within layers 1–6, apply effects from characteristic-defining abilities first (see rule 604.3), then all other effects in timestamp order (see rule 613.6).

It is worth noting that even though the creature will not have any types other than Coward / Warrior, it will still have the changeling ability; because nothing removed its abilities.


text:
When do artifacts lose hexproof when Padeem, Consul of Innovation dies?
There was an interesting board state that came up the other night while my friends were playing Commander, involving a sliver deck and Padeem, Consul of Innovation. The board state involved two players, who I will call Aaron (Active player) and Nick (Non-Active player), a simplified version of the board was as follows:
Aaron's Board

Brood Sliver (Whenever a Sliver deals combat damage to a player, its controller may create a 1/1 colorless Sliver creature token)
Harmonic Sliver (All Slivers have "When this permanent enters the battlefield, destroy target artifact or enchantment.")
Silverback Ape (it's a 5/5, that's it.)

Nick's Board

Padeem, Consul of Innovation (gives artifacts hexproof)
Ornithopter (0/2 Artifact creature)

During combat Aaron attacked Nick with his entire board, and Nick assigned blocks as follows:

Harmonic Sliver is blocked by Ornithopter (No effects)
Silverback Ape is blocked by Padeem (Padeem dies)
Brood Sliver is unblocked (Brood Sliver's ability triggers)

My question is, when the 1/1 Sliver token created by Brood Sliver enters the battlefield, will Aaron be able to destroy Nick's Ornithopter? Or will the Ornithopter still have hexproof, even though Padeem is killed by Silverback Ape?
That is to say, do Nick's artifacts lose hexproof before or after Aaron is able to target them with the ETB of the created Sliver token?

I have tried to simplify the board state from the other night by removing the cards that didn't affect this interaction. It was quite the headscratcher for us, but let me know if anything is unclear in the way I presented the question.

This question narrowly avoids a slightly more tricky situation, rule-wise. Since you have the sequence combat damage->Brood Aliver's ability->Harmonic Sliver's ability, the way this plays out is relatively simple. I think it would have been more interesting to look at a creature like Rustmouth Ogre with a "destroy target artifact" effect that triggers directly from combat damage, so that Padeem's death and choosing targets for the ability both occur before any player gains priority.

@murgatroid99 I agree that the Rustmouth Orge interaction would be more interestingand now kind of want to know how that would resolve... perhaps as another question, or as an addendum to an answer to this one. You seem to be pretty knowledgeable about how this works (as by correction comments on the answers below) would you be interested in writing an answer? I usually like to hold off for at least 24 hours before accepting anyway if you need time to write one.

If you want to know that, I would recommend asking a new question. It really is tangential to this question, and it wouldn't make sense to answer this question again just to write an addendum about a related question

@murgatroid99 Alright I asked it as a new question here. Looking forward to any explanations.

tl;dr: Padeem dies from lethal damage before triggered abilities do anything, so the artifacts will not be protected by Hexproof.
When combat damage is assigned, Brood Sliver's ability triggers. However:

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.
603.3. Once an ability has triggered, its controller puts it on the stack [...] the next time a player would receive priority.

State-based actions, such as Padeem dying from lethal damage, occur right before any player gets priority (see 704.3). Thus Padeem is off the board, and its static effect is gone, before Brood Sliver's ability is even put onto the stack, and long before it actually resolves (which is when the artifact-destruction ability would trigger).

Brood Sliver's ability doesn't have any targets, so the specific rule you're quoting doesn't actually come into play here. There's an entire round of priority after Padeem dies and before you have to choose targets for the ability granted by Harmonic Sliver. Also, for the point you are trying to make, I think it would make more sense to quote the actual rule that says that SBAs are checked before triggered abilities go on the stack: 704.3.

Ah oops, let me fix this...

I would recommend just omitting quotations of rule 603 entirely. It doesn't make a difference to how the situation plays out, and I think it's potentially confusion to emphasize the details of the timing of Brood Sliver's ability when it doesn't affect the outcome.

I'd like to leave it in because my guess is that it better addresses OP's missing knowledge than 704.3 does, even though in this case it isn't needed. Based on the general level of knowledge demonstrated in the question (complete with the A-N naming convention) I'm guessing OP is very likely familiar with 704.3, but perhaps not with the more subtle 603. Also, 704.3 is not conducive to concise quotes.

The artifacts lose hexproof, and Aaron is able to target them
The sequence of events is:

Damage is dealt
Padeem dies; the artifacts lose Hexproof
Brood Sliver's ability is placed on the stack
Brood Sliver's ability resolves; the token is placed on the field
The ability granted by Harmonic Sliver activates; Aaron chooses its target


text:
What is the difference between an "Effect" and an "Ability", and how do you identify one from the other?
I know in Magic the Gathering that permanents (Creatures, Atrifacts, Enchantments, etc.) can have either Effects or Abilities that can change the game state in many ways (tap creatures, give a +1/+1 buff to all creatures etc.). There are also some cards that interact with others by modifying or removing their Abilities, such as Humility and Gift of Tusks, or cards that are triggered by being targeted by abilities like Cowardice. Through playing the game you can learn to kind of intuit which is which, but I would like to know what the actual definitions are.
So the question is, what is an Ability and what is an Effect when it comes to Magic the Gathering?
and more specifically,
How can one quickly identify Ability from Effect during gameplay?

Let me know if something is not clear, or there is anything I can do to improve the question. The nitty-gritty specifics of ability vs effect has been bothering me for a couple days now, so I figured it might make a good question to grab some insight and clarity from the community.

BJ Myers' CR quote answers your question pretty well.
An Ability is rules text on a card. With only a few exceptions, abilities all create effects.
An Effect is either the result of a spell or ability being cast/activated/triggered (and then resolving), or is a "continuous effect", caused by abilities or spells (for example, see Glorious Anthem).
There's more, though; Actions. Actions aren't effects, but they're still things that "happen".

Turn-based Actions happen at fixed points in the turn, and include you
untapping your permanents at the
beginning of the turn, and declaring attackers/blockers.
State-based Actions are checked/executed every time a player would be
given priority, and include removing creatures with lethal damage
marked and losing the game.
Special Actions are taken by players, and include playing lands and
flipping morph creatures.

Lastly, paying Costs. Aside from the obvious paying of mana, this includes tapping creatures for Convoke, the additional cost on Fling, or the exiling of cards on Grim Lavamancer's ability. Please note! Tapping lands/mana dorks to add mana to your pool is NOT paying a cost, even when you do it while casting a spell.
Example One; I cast Fatal Push on my opponent's Goblin Guide. When it resolves, Fatal Push has the effect of destroying Goblin Guide.
Example Two; I activate Grim Lavamancer's ability targeting a Goblin Guide, and it resolves. Here, an ability has been activated, and it's effect is dealing damage to the Goblin Guide. Then, as a state-based action, the game sees that Goblin Guide has lethal damage marked on it, and so it is destroyed. Note that Grim Lavamancer's ability didn't kill Goblin Guide; the action did.
Example Three; My opponent casts Fling, targeting my Grim Lavamancer, sacrificing their own Goblin Guide. The spell Fling was cast, with the cost of sacrificing Goblin Guide, and the effect of dealing 2 damage to Grim Lavamancer. Just like example two, the game will see the damage marked on Grim Lavamancer and kill it as a state-based action.
The distinction becomes important when cards look for "effects". The currently infamous example is the interaction between Kalitas, Traitor of Ghet and Anointed Procession.
Kalitas has an ability that replaces "creature XYZ dies" with "creature XYZ is exiled and you get a 2/2 token". Anointed Procession's ability looks for effects that makes tokens, and doubles the number of tokens you get for them. Both of these abilities cause "replacement effects".
So, let's modify our earlier examples. This time I also have Kalitas and Anointed Procession on the battlefield.:
Example One; The spell Fatal Push has the "effect" of killing a creature. Kalitas replaces the effect "Goblin Guide dies" with "Goblin Guide gets exiled and I get a 2/2". Then, Anointed Procession sees the effect giving me a 2/2, and replaces it again, with "Goblin Guide gets exiled, and I get two 2/2s". Net Result: Goblin Guide is exiled and I create two 2/2 Zombie tokens
Example Two; The ability of Grim Lavamancer has the "effect" of dealing 2 damage to Goblin Guide. Kalitas and Anointed Procession see nothing they can replace, so it occurs. The next time state-based actions are checked, the game sees that Goblin Guide is marked with lethal, and destroys it as a state-based action. Kalitas sees the action killing Goblin Guide, and replaces "Goblin Guide dies" with "Goblin Guide gets exiled and I get a 2/2". Anointed Procession doesn't see anything though, because the thing giving me a 2/2 is not an effect, it's an action. Net result: Goblin Guide is exiled, and I create one 2/2 Zombie token
Example Three; My opponent casts Fling, sacrificing Goblin Guide. Kalitas sees the Goblin Guide dying, and replaces the effect "Goblin Guide dies" with "Goblin Guide gets exiled and I get a 2/2". Anointed Procession doesn't see this trigger though, because Goblin Guide wasn't killed by an effect, it was killed as part of a cost! Kalitas doesn't affect your own creatures, so the Grim Lavamancer dying will be unaffected when Fling resolves. Net result: Goblin Guide is exiled, and I create one 2/2 Zombie token. Fling has been cast

As they say, "Damage doesn't kill creatures; state-based actions kill creatures."

Great answer, and an interesting scenario with Anointed Procession.  Just to make sure I've got this straight - in example two, Kalitas' ability still has an effect, but the effect is to change what the game action does - almost like it has rewritten rule 704.5g.  Kalitas can change what the game action does but it does not change the fact that it is a game action and not an effect.  Right?

This is an excellent answer, the Kalitas + Anointed Procession example is particularly eye opening. I was looking for cards that were triggered off of effects or replaced effects to use in the question, but wasn't able to come up with anything that wasn't reminder text.

@BJMyers Absolutely correct. Kalitas' ability doesn't specify that it's looking for effects, so it's allowed to replace game actions.

You've left out an important case. Special actions, such as playing a land or turning a morph creature face up, do not create effects. For example, Doubling Season will not apply to the +1/+1 counter you get when playing Llanowar Reborn or the Megamorph ability.

Example 2 is very surprising/ unintuitive to me. Not saying you're wrong, but I'd have a hard time convincing someone they only got 1 token in that case. Is there a ruling about this? And also, is this an intentional part of why Annointed Procession says specifically "an effect" instead of "if a token would be created..."?

Did some research and found that this is indeed a very unintuitive but correct thing; a lot of people complained because of how unintuitive it is. I still want to know though if there's any reason why Anntointed Procession would use that wording, especially given that Prival Vigor used the other wording that works exactly like most people would think it does.

@GendoIkari When Amonkhet was designed they believed that Battle for Zendikar/Oath of the Gatewatch would have already left the format, so those cards wouldn't interact in standard. It is a little odd that they chose the "effects" wording, seeing as other more intuitive ones exist but that's just the way it is I guess.

@eyeballfrog Good point! I'll add a note on special actions to the answer.

@monoRed Two more things. First, you should make it clear that special actions are not limited to those two things. There are actually 8 types of special actions defined in the rules. The second is costs. Costs can put counters on things (e.g. Devoted Druid, loyalty abilities) or create tokens (e.g. Varchild's War-Riders), and those are not effects and are not affected by Doubling Season/Parallel Lives/Anointed Procession.

@eyeballfrog Under each bullet point I said "includes" because there are more unlisted examples in each of them. I'll mention costs, though!

Quoting from the Comprehensive Rules (emphasis mine):

609.1. An effect is something that happens in the game as a result of a spell or ability. When a spell, activated ability, or triggered ability resolves, it may create one or more one-shot or continuous effects. Static abilities may create one or more continuous effects. Text itself is never an effect.

So an activated or triggered ability produces an effect when it resolves, and static abilities produce effects that persist as long as the ability remains in play.

Note that replacement effects and continuous effects are also effects! They exist because of an ability despite not being triggered or activated. This comment inevitably points towards the whole confusion with replacement effects and cards that watch for things occurring because of effects (eg. the Kalitas, Traitor of Ghet and Anointed Procession debacle), which is a fun thing to clear up if anyone needs it.

@monoRed This is the type of information that I am looking for, and would  be a key part of any accepted answer.

If you actually want an answer I suggest mentioning it more explicitly in your question. Right now, the appropriate answer is just the CR quote, and that in game Abilities are text on cards, while Effects are things that "happen". You aren't asking about what game events are effects, and what aren't, which I suspect may be what you're going for?

I will post an answer focusing on the difference between abilities, effects and game actions regardless

@monoRed Yes that is what I was trying to ask, sorry if it wasn't clear


text:
Who are "Johnny", "Timmy", and "Spike" and what do they do?
Often times when browsing different Magic: The Gathering sites, I will come across certain decks or cards that are said to be favoured by a Johnny, a Timmy or a Spike. Also, sometimes certain people will identify themselves or others as being some mixture of Johnny, Timmy or Spike.
What is a Johnny, a Timmy, and a Spike, and what are the characteristics of cards or players that fall into those three groups?

Not related to this question specifically, but interesting reading about various types of gamers and what motivates them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_taxonomy_of_player_types

At first glance, I thought this was a question about the Prodigal sorcery, also known as "Tim".  Hehehe I learned something today

what about Melvin ?

@NeilMeyer TImmy/Johhny/Spike are player Psychographic profiles, while Mel(vin)/Vorthos are player Aesthetic profiles. A separate question about Mel vs Vorthos might be interesting though.

The terms Johnny, Timmy, and Spike refer to the three player Archetypes that were outlined by Magic Card Designer (among other things) Mark Rosewater in a blog post, and later revised on the Magic the Gathering website. They are used to categorize players based on what their motivations to playing the game are, what types of cards they enjoy, and what encourages them to keep playing.
The archetypes are defined as follows:
Johnny/Jenny:
Johnny is often described as the combo player; he wants to carefully craft a plan and then execute it. Johnny players tend to gravitate towards niche cards with unique effects. Sometimes Johnnies will center decks around cards that others consider unplayable just to prove that it can be done. Johnnies are looking for a way to express themselves and their creativity, even if they don't win every time.

The common bond to all the Johnnies is that they are on a mission to show the world something about themselves. What they're showing varies tremendously, but at the core of each Johnny is a similar motivation: “Look at me, world! Look at me!” - Mark Rosewater

Timmy/Tammy:
Timmy is described as the power player. If he wins, he wants to win big just barely scraping by doesn't interest him. Timmy players tend to gravitate to big cards with big effects: anything that will help them dominate their opponents. Though he wants to win big, he doesn't really care about having a finely-tuned and efficient deck; he just wants to have fun. If Timmy only wins a few of his games, but in those games he absolutely destroys his opponent, he can go home satisfied.

Timmy plays with cards that make him happy; cards that create cool moments; cards that make him laugh; cards that allow him to hang with his friends; cards that cause him to have fun. Winning and losing isn't even really the point (although winning is fun – Timmy gets that). For Timmy, the entire reason to play is having a good time. - Mark Rosewater

Spike:
Spike is often described as the tournament player. Spike is in it to win it, and will play the best deck he can find. Spike players often look for any opportunity they can to improve their chances of winning and are considered the most competitive archetype. They are attracted to the most efficient cards and decks. They will often research what decks are currently powerful or performing well and either play them as is or analyze and tune them until they are perfect. Spikes want to win and to prove how good a player they are.

Spike plays to win. Spike enjoys winning. To accomplish this, Spike will play whatever the best deck is. Spike will copy decks off the Internet. Spike will borrow other players’ decks. To Spike, the thrill of Magic is the Adrenalin rush of competition. Spike enjoys the stimulation of outplaying the opponent and the glory of victory. - Mark Rosewater

One thing to keep in mind is that players do not necessarily fit cleanly into one category. Often times you will have mixes, such as Johnny/Spike players who are innovating new decks to be seen on the pro-tours, or more casual Timmy/Johnny players who try to brew convoluted commander decks to play with friends. The Timmy/Johnny/Spike trio is not the end-all solution for categorizing cards and players, but it is useful shorthand for sorting or describing things.
Sources:
MTG Official Blog- Mark Rosewater, TIMMY, JOHNNY, AND SPIKE
MTG Official Blog- Mark Rosewater, TIMMY, JOHNNY, AND SPIKE REVISITED
GDC Talk- Mark Rosewater, Magic: the Gathering: Twenty Years, Twenty Lessons Learned

fwiw, If you're looking for a discussion of why psychographics aren't "the end-all solution," this essay is a pretty good start: http://blog.killgold.fish/2015/10/against-timmy-johnny-and-spike.html

Your quote and your personal description of "Timmy" don't agree.

@T.J.L. added some clarification to the Timmy breakdown

"Ter lering en vermaak", here's a presentation by Mark Rosewater in which the player archetypes are also mentioned - among many other interesing design choices made in Magic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHHg99hwQGY

You're missing 'Vorthos

@steenbergh that GDC talk is really good, would recommend it to anyone interested in magic and how it is made. This talk is where I got the Tammy and Jenny from so might as well throw it in as a source

@Cronax Wasn't aware of Vorthos and Mel. After some cursory research it appears that they similar but separate ways of catagorizing players. TImmy/Johhny/Spike is the players Psychographic profile, and Mel/Vorthos is a players Aesthetic profile. A separate question about Mel vs Vorthos might be interesting though

I find it interesting that the highly competitive one is the only one without a feminized name (ignoring the fact that Spike is harder to transform, I doubt it's impossible). Did you add the Jenny and Tammy, or is that part of the MtG literature?

@Sidney The Tammy and Jenny came from the video linked as the third source. Mark considers Spike a nickname, and so it is unisex.

The player psychographic profiles known as "Timmy", "Johnny", and "Spike" were introduced in an article by Mark Rosewater on the official Magic: the Gathering website in 2002. In his own words:
Timmy

Timmy is what we in R&D call the "power gamer." Timmy likes to win big. He doesn’t want to eke out a last minute victory. Timmy wants to smash his opponents. He likes his cards to be impressive, and he enjoys playing big creatures and big spells.

Johnny

Johnny is the creative gamer to whom Magic is a form of self-expression. Johnny likes to win, but he wants to win with style. It’s very important to Johnny that he win on his own terms. As such, it’s important to Johnny that he’s using his own deck. Playing Magic is an opportunity for Johnny to show off his creativity.

Spike

Spike is the competitive player. Spike plays to win. Spike enjoys winning. To accomplish this, Spike will play whatever the best deck is. Spike will copy decks off the Internet. Spike will borrow other players’ decks. To Spike, the thrill of Magic is the adrenalin rush of competition. Spike enjoys the stimulation of outplaying the opponent and the glory of victory.

Aaaand this is what happens when three people simultaneously reference the same article to answer the question. :)

You an I referenced not only the same article but the same text in the article. corsiKa actually referenced a different, more recent article.

@murgatroid99 I was torn between the two, I figured the more recent one would be better for a newcomer to the idea since ... that's why he re-wrote it!

@murgatroid99 Actually, you and I referenced exactly the same text from the two different versions.  I was also using the 2013 rewrite.

Johnny, Timmy, and Spike are three basic types of Magic players, or "psychographic profiles," that the Magic R&D team use to create new cards and determine the metagame for new expansions.  Creating (and naming) these player profiles provides an easy way to examine how different playstyles will be affected by new game mechanics.
Mark Rosewater has an article describing this in detail.  Here's the short version for each of the players:
Timmy

Timmy is what we in R&D call the "power gamer." Timmy likes to win big. He doesn’t want to eke out a last minute victory. Timmy wants to smash his opponents. He likes his cards to be impressive, and he enjoys playing big creatures and big spells.

Johnny

Johnny is the creative gamer to whom Magic is a form of self-expression. Johnny likes to win, but he wants to win with style. It’s very important to Johnny that he win on his own terms. As such, it’s important to Johnny that he’s using his own deck. Playing Magic is an opportunity for Johnny to show off his creativity.

Spike

Spike is the competitive player. Spike plays to win. Spike enjoys winning. To accomplish this, Spike will play whatever the best deck is. Spike will copy decks off the Internet. Spike will borrow other players’ decks. To Spike, the thrill of Magic is the adrenalin rush of competition. Spike enjoys the stimulation of outplaying the opponent and the glory of victory.

The full article is available here.

Johnny (and Jenny), Timmy (and Tammy) and Spike are the three player psychographs that are used to describe what people get out of their Magic cards.
Mark Rosewater explains them in a Making Magic article.
The crib notes are:
Timmy / Tammy

Timmy cares more about the quality of his win than the quantity of his wins. For example, Timmy sits down and plays ten games. He only wins three games out of ten but the three he wins, he dominates his opponent. Timmy had fun. Timmy walks away happy.

Johnny / Jenny

Like Timmy, Johnny cares more about the quality of his wins than the quantity. For example, let's say Johnny builds a new deck that has a neat but difficult way to win. He plays ten games and manages to get his deck to do its thing… once. Johnny walks away happy.

Spike

Spike cares more about the quantity of wins than the quality. For example, Spike plays ten games and wins nine of them. If Spike feels he should have won the tenth, he walks away unhappy.

Can't tell the difference between Timmy and Johnny from that.

Not sure what to tell you. If you read it, it definitely shows the differences between them.

They both care about the quality of their wins, and they are happy even if they don't win all of their games. Where's the difference?! In contrast, the other answers actually show differences between them.

The difference is there ("dominate their opponent" vs "get their deck to do its thing"), but it's subtle, maybe could bold key parts?

One card representing one of these archetypes was released in each of the silver bordered sets. With the release of Unstable, this group is now complete. The cards show off the playstyles that the archetypes are known for:

Timmy, Power Gamer - Timmy likes powerful individual cards, generally not caring about their high cost, to him making that huge creature hit is the fun of the game, even more than winning. He likes to play big creatures and swing hard for the win or flashy spells like massive Fireballs. The card's ability, effectively Quicksilver Amulet without the tap, lets him play big creatures for low cost.
Johnny, Combo Player - Johnny likes his combos, he likes to use and abuse the interactions between cards to win with effects that give him infinite turns, or loop infinite damage, and he doesn't care as much about winning as making that epic card combo work. His card is effectively a repeatable Diabolic Tutor letting him pull all the parts of his combo out to play.
Spike, Tournament Grinder Spike plays to win, at any cost, that's what matters to spike, she wants the best cards, creatures with good effects and otherwise high benefit to cost ratios that may not be big enough for Timmy, spells that are good, usually on their own, regardless if they have the interactions with other cards that Johnny lives for. Her card's ability is closest to Death Wish pulling cards from outside the game for you to play, cards that were so good they had to be banned at one point or another in one format or another, and doing so by optionally paying her own life to get that card.

What is this answer intended to provide that is not in the other 4 answers?

@JoeW a concrete example, in the form of the actual archetypal cards of the playstyle and motivations of the archetypes.Not one of the other answers mentions that these three are represented by actual cards in the game.

I am confused as to this provides missing information. Also I am not sure I agree with your descriptions for the 3 players as they don't seem to line up with the other answers and what was posted in article about it. For example it states Timmy cares about big wins and dominating opponents and gives an example of swarms of 1/1 creatures. For Johnny it is more about difficult win that is hard to pull such as a card that lets you win based on library size. And for Spike it is not playing to win at any cost but playing to win and being unhappy if they lose when they think they should have won.

@JoeW now your comment doesn't match any of the answers given, none of the answers mention Timmy liking swarms, two of the answers state "He likes his cards to be impressive, and he enjoys playing big creatures and big spells." The link in one of them does, but attached to Verdant Force... which is a big creature, before which it says he's drawn to the card because of the 7/7 and further goes on to say that exact quote.

More scrutiny will be given for an answer to a question that is almost a year and a half old with 4 existing answers than a new one. I am just not sure what benefit a new answer provides that adds some links to the unglued cards that where made with some examples of cards the players while failing to also include any links to where the the names where officially described by wotc.


text:
How does combat damage work with Party Crasher if he is both Attacking and Blocking simultaneously?
In the Unstable set there is a creature named Party Crasher who has the following ability:

You can attack with Party Crasher once each combat during each opponent's turn.

This leads to some strange interactions and combat phases. The one I am specifically interested in is, what happens when Party Crasher is both attacking in blocking in the same combat phase?
For Example:

It is your opponents turn, they control 2 Hill Giants (3/3 creature). You control a Party Crasher (3/3 creature) that has been given both vigilance and lifelink.
During combat your opponent attacks with one Hill Giant (A), you also attack with your Party Crasher.
During blocks you assign your Party Crasher as blocker for Hill Giant (A), and your opponent assigns Hill Giant (B) as blocker for Party Crasher.

Now what happens? Which creatures die? How much Life do you gain?

Party Crasher simultaneously deals damage equal to its power as an attacking creature, and again as a blocking creature. At the same time, creatures that it is blocking and creatures blocking it deal damage to Party Crasher equal to their power.
The combat damage step rules have these subrules:

510.1. First, the active player announces how each attacking creature assigns its combat damage, then the defending player announces how each blocking creature assigns its combat damage. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack. A player assigns a creature’s combat damage according to the following rules:

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.

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.

For this card, the first rule has to be modified to account for how this card works. I would say that the first sentence should say this instead:

First, each attacking player announces how each attacking creature they control assigns its combat damage, then each defending player announces how each blocking creature they control assigns its combat damage.

Then, this process would play out for the given example as follows:

Each attacking creature assigns combat damage equal to its power. In this case, there are two attacking creatures, each blocked by one creature, so Hill Giant A assigns 3 damage to Party Crasher, and Party Crasher assigns 3 damage to Hill Giant B.

Each blocking creature assigns combat damage equal to its power. Hill Giant B assigns 3 damage to Party Crasher, and Party Crasher assigns 3 damage to Hill Giant A.

All combat damage that's been assigned is dealt simultaneously. Hill Giants A and B each deal 3 damage to Party Crasher. Party Crasher deals 3 damage to each of Hill Giants A and B. Party Crasher's controller gains 6 life.

State based actions are evaluated. All three creatures have been dealt lethal damage, and die.

This is backed up by two questions that Mark Rosewater answered on his Tumblr blog:

mroltv asked: Party Crasher: how does a creature that's both attacking and blocking assign combat damage? If it isn't blocked, does it have to deal damage to the creature it's blocking before the player? Does it get to deal damage to both?
If it is both blocked as an attacker and blocks as a defender, all damage in combat is done at the same time (save last strike, first strike, double strike and triple strike).

otterofslaughter asked: In regards to the question about Party Crasher, we know WHEN it does damage, the problem is if it's both attacking and blocking, does it deal damage to what it's attacking AND blocking or do you divide it's damage between the things it's hitting
It does its full damage to each creature and takes full damage from each creature. It’s simultaneously fighting.

Note that if Party Crasher both blocks and is blocked by the same creature, it doesn't deal or receive double damage. (See the Gatherer rulings, too long to quote here.)

Your Party Crasher will kill both of your opponent's Hill Giants, and die. You will gain 6 life
From Mark Rosewater's Unstable FAQAWASLFAQPAFTIDAWABIAJTBT! (That's "Frequently Asked Questions As Well As Some Less Frequently Asked Questions Plus a Few Things I Doubt Anyone Would Ask But I Answered Just To Be Thorough.") (Emphasis mine):

During each combat, there's a time when attackers are declared. Normally, only the active player declares attackers, but Party Crasher doesn't play by those rules. During the declare attackers step of your opponent's combat phase, after they're done declaring their attackers, you may choose to declare Party Crasher as an attacker. After you declare blockers, the defending player can declare blockers for Party Crasher. All combat damage is dealt simultaneously, unless a strike ability (first, double, last, and/or triple) is involved.


text:
How does Cheat Code interact with Monster's Ballroom?
Cheat Code's Boss Item ability allows a player to choose a room in any dungeon and ignore its ability text for the duration of a turn. Monster's Ballroom deals damage *, where * is equal to the number of Monster Rooms in the dungeon it is in, but I am unsure whether the explanation for the * is considered ability text or if it should just be seen as explaining how to resolve the *. I checked the Room Card wikia page to see if Monster's Ballroom's text fell under any of the Room Ability categories and it seems to fall under passive, but this doesn't really get me any closer to an answer on this.

How does Cheat Code affect Monster's Ballroom? Does it remove the text that determines how the * is calculated and thus force this room to deal 0 damage for a turn? If the damage isn't simply set to 0 for the turn, how is the damage determined?
Or does Cheat Code simply not affect Monster's Ballroom, under the idea that the card's text is not considered an ability, but rather an explanation of the * (implying this card has no ability in lieu of it having the potential to be rather powerful)? I assume that this would be how Cheat Code would interact with Dragon Hatchery, as its "ability text" only says "This Room contains all four treasure types", but simply ignoring this text doesn't change the fact that it has all four Treasure Type icons, so I'm wondering if Cheat Code is similarly ineffective here.

What makes this room special is that its ability is not just a passive ability, but a characteristic-defining ability.
I can see both interpretations as valid. But in the absence of anything rules to the contrary, you are instructed to ignore the ability, so you should ignore the ability.
The room therefore deals an undefined amount of damage, and therefore no damage.

In M:TG, if an object loses all abilities, that includes characteristic-defining abilities, but that's hardly binding.


text:
Redeeming sets on Magic the Gathering Online
I just got a full set from a treasure chest and was wondering if I need to open it to redeem it or if I need to leave the set in my Other Product section of MTGO.

I don't know, but here are the redemption rules: https://magic.wizards.com/en/gameinfo/products/magiconline/redemption

@AulisRonkainen Yeah I looked at those and it wasn't clear to me whether I should open it or not.

It seems to me that the line "To redeem a set, you must have at least one of every card in the set you are trying to redeem in your collection." indicates what you need to do here.

In order to redeem the set you will need to open the full set.
However you can always try purchasing a Redemption Request for the set that you have before you open it, the request will stay in your Other Products until it can either be processed using the cards in your inventory, or two redemption attempts have failed.


text:
Does a spell cast via cascade resolve before the cascade trigger finishes resolving?
Cascade says to:

Exile cards until you reveal the appropriate spell
Optionally cast that spell
Return the exiled cards to your library

I am wondering whether or not 3 happens before the cast spell resolves. For example, if you cascade into Pull from Eternity, could you choose one of the cards that was exiled by the cascade trigger?

To cast a spell is to put it in the stack, make some decisions, and pay its cost. Period. Resolving happens latter when someone gets priority.

Pull from Eternity will be useless. Those cards will be put into your library again immediately after you finish casting the spell, before it resolves.
This means you could choose one of those exiled cards for a target of Pull from Eternity as it's cast via Cascade, but the exiled card will have left exile when Pull from Eternity resolves. That makes it an illegal target (since it doesn't exist) so this manoeuvre becomes a fancy way to get Pull from Eternity to fizzle and put into your graveyard.
The steps
First for clarity let's grab the Cascade reminder text off Bloodbraid Elf:

When you cast this spell, exile cards from the top of your library until you exile a nonland card that costs less. You may cast it without paying its mana cost. Put the exiled cards on the bottom of your library in a random order.

Here's the basic order of what happens:

You cast a spell with Cascade. In doing so, you take it from your hand, put it on the stack, choose targets (if any) and pay its costs.
The cascade triggered ability goes on the stack.
Cascade resolves:

You reveal cards from your library until you find Pull from Eternity.
You choose to cast Pull from Eternity, pay costs, and choose targets: you pick one of the cards in exile.
You remove those cards from exile and put them back in the bottom of your library.

The stack now looks like this:

Pull from Eternity (top)
The original spell (bottom)

Pull from Eternity resolves. It can no longer find its target, and so it gets countered by the game rules. [400.7, 608.2b]
The original spell resolves.

Rule 400.7 governs step 5 here, which reads like this:

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

None of the exceptions match. Pull from Eternity wasn't expecting the exiled card to change zones and so doesn't keep track of it as it leaves exile. The card now at the bottom of your library has no relation to the object Pull from Eternity was targeting in Exile. Because there are no more legal targets, Pull from Eternity fizzles (i.e. does not resolve, but is also not countered), and is put into your graveyard per rule 608.2b:

608.2b If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. A target that’s no longer in the zone it was in when it was targeted is illegal. [...] If all its targets, for every instance of the word “target,” are now illegal, the spell or ability doesn’t resolve. It’s removed from the stack and, if it’s a spell, put into its owner’s graveyard. [...]

I don't disagree with your answer, but 3.2 is causing me some confusion. When you cast PfE, is Cascade still on the stack, so that PfE is above Cascade yet Cascade is removed first as it finishes resolving before you start resolving from the top of the stack down again? Or are items removed from the stack when they start to resolve and not after they have resolved so that PfE is never 'above' Cascade? Last option would be that PfE isn't cast until after Cascade resolves, but then PfE should be on the bottom of the library as it wasn't moved from exiled to the stack yet, which clearly is wrong.

@DavidJacobsen Yes, PFE will be briefly above Cascade on the stack. When an object on the stack is resolving, removing it from the stack is the very last thing we do to it (608.2m). This doesn't cause any issues—we already picked the object to resolve, and we're busy resolving that one, even if new things go on top of it.

Cascade is a single ability, so all parts of that ability resolve before players gain priority116.3b or anything else resolves from the stack116.4.  In your example, this means that all the exiled cards will already have been put back in your library before Pull from Eternity resolves.  Pull from Eternity then gets countered because it can no longer find its target608.2b.
This post from the MTG Salvation magic rulings archive has a step-by-step breakdown of casting Shardless Agent, a spell with Cascade:

You cast Shardless Agent, paying its costs and putting it on the stack.
Cascade triggers and is put on the stack above shardless agent.
Each player receives priority.
Cascade resolves. You reveal cards until you reveal something with a CMC lower than 3- e.g. Watchwolf. You cast Watchwolf and put it on the stack. You put the other revealed cards on the bottom of your library.
The stack now looks like this:
-top-
Watchwolf
Shardless Agent
-bottom-
Players receive priority.
Watchwolf resolves
Players receive priority.
Shardless Agent Resolves.

No, the cascaded cards will already be on the bottom of your library when you put the spell on the stack.
Cascade (When you cast this spell, exile cards from the top of your library until you exile a nonland card that costs less. You may cast it without paying its mana cost. Put the exiled cards on the bottom of your library in a random order.)
All these actions are done in one and no one gets priority between them (Unless stated otherwise). You still need legal targets for the spell even if you are not targetting it.
It is worth noting that the cascade trigger is a may ability, you can choose not to cast whatever you cascade into if that would be better for some reason. If you have no legal targets for the spell you cascade into then you will be forced not to cast the spell.

But yes the spell you cascade into does resolve before the card with cascade does.
The cascade trigger goes on top and the stack works on a first-in-last-out principle.


text:
Can I sacrifice a sacrificed permanent?
If I cast Perilous Research and I choose to sacrifice my Chromatic Star, can I sacrifice Chromatic Star and get one mana and also draw two cards?

Slight difference in that Perilous Research is an effect, not a cost, but the outcome is the same.

It's close but not a duplicate, since the sacrifice for Research is not a cost. Research still works if you have no permanents to sacrifice (cast with black lotus mana for instance)

No.
Either:

You sacrifice Chromatic Star before Perilous Research resolves, in which case it's not there and you have to choose something else.
You sacrifice Chromatic Star as part of Perilous Research, in which case it's gone before you have the opportunity to activate its own ability.

However, you'll still draw the card from Chromatic Star's graveyard triggered ability, as it doesn't care how it got there.
This is because, in general, you can only activate abilities at certain times (when you have priority). When a spell is resolving, nobody gets priority until it's finished, so you can't activate the Chromatic Star during the decision to sacrifice it. That is, when a spell resolves, it has to finish completely before anyone can do other things.


text:
How likely is it to get a complete set of commons from a single booster box?
I am looking at getting into MTG again. Thinking about just playing pauper and maybe some EDH. However it's kind of fun opening packs. My thoughts are I buy a box at the release of a set and just use it to build play sets of the commons.  Sell off everything else except perhaps a couple cards that may work with EDH or something. Not asking if this is the cheapest way, just whether or not it would be viable to get a full common play set from a single box or maybe two.

Kind of seems like a question for the math section - it's probability based on total commons in the set, commons in a pack, and packs in a box.

@sirjonsnow Indeed, although we have had some other questions here that were basically math questions and nevertheless seem to have been received well enough by the community.

Here is an example of the analogous question asked on [math.SE]. Also, this BCG question is related, in that the underlying math seems to be the same, but the approach I took there is somewhat less practical for this case.

You could probably just buy 5 Commander pre-cons for the 100$ a booster box costs you. Cracking packs for cards is never the solution, Cracking packs to play limited is fine though.

The exact value is difficult to calculate. This is due to the print runs of the cards - the 74 commons have "print runs" of 5 to make the printing easier. There are hundreds of these, but the fact that no pack contains the same cards does complicate the calculation.
I did throw together a pack simulator to test this and it ran in the background. Below is the output after 10 million trials. The highest was 200 packs and the lowest was 45. On a different run (of about 22 million trials) I was able to get a playset in only 44 trials. This run I've let go for 35 million trials and it was only able to get that 45, although eventually I got so unlucky I needed 215 packs on one of them. The last 17 million trials have not changed the min and max, though. I don't expect them to be changing any time soon.
Thus I think it's safe to say you are never going to get a playset from a single booster box.
I modified it to check the number of boxes and found a very consistent: 2 boxes were sufficient 39.2% of the time, three boxes 58.8% of the time, and four boxes sufficient 2.0% of the time. Five boxes were only necessary on 0.03% of runs but that was consistent far far into the tens of millions of trials.
If you want to play it safe, buy 3 boxes - you'll have them all 98% of the time.
new max: 72 on trial: 2
new max: 77 on trial: 3
new max: 81 on trial: 4
new low: 72 on trial: 6
new max: 87 on trial: 9
new max: 88 on trial: 10
new low: 65 on trial: 21
new max: 92 on trial: 25
new low: 64 on trial: 31
new max: 95 on trial: 42
new max: 108 on trial: 64
new low: 61 on trial: 78
new max: 115 on trial: 80
new max: 116 on trial: 110
new max: 119 on trial: 146
new low: 60 on trial: 153
new low: 59 on trial: 162
new low: 58 on trial: 222
new low: 56 on trial: 296
new low: 55 on trial: 607
new low: 53 on trial: 744
new max: 140 on trial: 2928
new low: 51 on trial: 6183
new max: 156 on trial: 9309
new low: 49 on trial: 49366
new max: 162 on trial: 60593
new max: 170 on trial: 112123
new low: 48 on trial: 117347
hit trial: 500000
new low: 47 on trial: 830525
hit trial: 1000000
new max: 186 on trial: 1307797
hit trial: 1500000
hit trial: 2000000
hit trial: 2500000
hit trial: 3000000
hit trial: 3500000
new max: 195 on trial: 3563925
hit trial: 4000000
hit trial: 4500000
hit trial: 5000000
hit trial: 5500000
hit trial: 6000000
new max: 198 on trial: 6005659
hit trial: 6500000
new low: 46 on trial: 6614767
hit trial: 7000000
hit trial: 7500000
hit trial: 8000000
new low: 45 on trial: 8015142
new max: 200 on trial: 8333263
hit trial: 8500000
hit trial: 9000000
hit trial: 9500000
hit trial: 10000000

Oh man, on my 80 millionth trial (or so) it took 220 packs. Yikes!

Wow, that's a details rundown.  Thanks for doing that work. I dont think I would invest in 3 boxes to get commons. Again thanks for the rundown.

@nitsua60 In 39% of cases I bought two boxes (72 packs) and I had my entire play set. In the other 61% I had to go back to the store to buy a third box. 2% of the time, I had to go and get a fourth box, but very rarely did I have to buy a fifth. I mean, if I was a person buying stuff instead of a computer simulation.

Yanno, on second read it makes perfectly good sense. I don't know why I was getting twisted up last time I read it. In an case, be sure you recycle those hundreds of millions of wrappers! =D

@nitsua60 I was planning to just sell the rares. You know how many planeswalkers you get opening 100,000,000 BOXES of magic cards?

No, I don't--because I haven't played since... Fallen Empires? Legends? (Don't quite remember their order, or if there was another around there.) Which is why I particularly enjoyed someone's comment about "way back in [names three systems I've never heard of] I did this...." =D

Can you post (or link) the implementation of the sim?

I'll try to remember the next time I'm on that machine, Caleth. Remind me like... tomorrow? :-)

Many e-tailers sell preorder and post-release packs of common playsets, which will guarantee you the full playset. Coolstuffinc has a pack that you can preorder for $19.99 that includes a full playset of commons (link is for Ixalan). You can also do this through ebay vendors both before and after set release (link is for Hour of Devastation).
This solution also prevents you from having to spend a lot of time selling extra cards you don't want. Additionally, sometimes you won't make back your initial cost anyway, depending on set value and the rares you open. A listing of all expected box values can be found at mtg.dawnglare.com. If you look at Hour of Devastation, assuming you don't get an invocation, the expected value is just over $83. If you buy a box at $110 from your LGS, you probably aren't making that back by trading in cards you don't plan to use.
You best solution is probably to just buy the playset outright, and buy any uncommon or rare cards you want as singles.

@scociomatt thanks for the info.  I always came across the common/uncommon sets.  And sometime after shipping you get up to getting within $30 or so of a box.  My reasoning for the question was more if there is a good chance of getting close to the same with the box the extra value for cards may be worth it.  Many say booster boxes are worth it because you get a bunch of bulk of no value. But for those wanting to just do pauper there is a some value there.   Anyway, thanks for the info and the links.

Someone else might be able to do the math a bit better than me, but I will try to break it down for you. For this example lets use the recently released Hour of Devestation set.
Each Booster box you get will contain 36 packs.
Each Pack will normally contain 10 Commons, 3 Uncommons, 1 Rare, 1 Land.
However if you get a foil card it will take the place of one of your commons, so you may only get 9 Commons in a pack.
So one box of Magic cards will get you a bit less than 360 Commons.
In Hour of Devastation, there are 74 Commons not including Basic lands (so a full play set of Commons is 74 x 4 for 296 total cards). Since the cards you get from the packs are random it is unlikely (though I guess technically possible) for you to get a full play set of Commons from a single box.
Note: I really have no idea how to do probability calculations, so anyone who does feel free post an answer with the actual precentage chances. I am kind of intrigued by this now.
However, if you are willing to trade in your cards at your Local Game Shop, you should be able to swap any Rares or Uncommons you don't want for the Commons you are missing. As of writing the Commons in Hour of Devestation are between $0.16 and $0.11 a piece. Where as the Rares range from ~$7 to $0.30 (which you will have around 36 of) are and the Uncommonsrange from ~$2 to $0.15 (which you will have around 108 of). So you shouldn't have an issue converting any of the value you do get into a complete playset.
As a complete aside, if you do plan on doing this I would recommend getting some sort of binder or card box. There are a lot of cards in a booster box (550+ per box with tokens), and it can get pretty unwieldy pretty quick.

Thanks.  I was more looking for experience not an exact mathematical.  Figured there would be people on here that crack boxes and just wondering more how things tend to work out for them.  My guess is your right with thethe randomness a full pkayset of commons is unlikely. Might end up with 10 of one and 1-2 of another or something like that.

@jeffwllms That is possible to get 10 of one and none of another, but I don't think it is that likely. In my experience cracking boxes, there might be a couple commons that you get 5-6 of but you usually get at least 1 or two of each common. It really depends on how big the set is though, since every set is different. If you want a full play set of commons SocioMatt's answer is cheapest, but I find opening boxes to be fun and you may luck out and get an mythic rare that is useful for commander.

thanks packs are fun to bust open and it is nice to possible get some EDH bonuses.

There are many online shops that have bulk deals. Star City Games the shop I usually buy from has for 20$US the gold collection with the following.

865 commons/uncommons
25 rares
25 foil commons/uncommons
5 foil rares
80 basic lands

If you want to get into pauper that would probably be a much better idea than buying maybe 6-8 packs for the same money. I have only bought their rare lots but they are not charlatans. They don't actively try and con you, they are not above putting some casual goodness in their lots.
(PS Unaffiliated)

The probability of getting 4 copies of each common is effectively 0.
Taking @Malco's numbers of 360 commons in a booster box and 74 commons in a set, I believe the probability can be computed as:
360 Choose 292 * (73/74)^4 * (72/74)^4 * ... (1/74)^4
(You are guaranteed to get 4 of one common, so it's not counted in the formula, so there are only 292 cards that you are trying to open).
The product of this is 2*10^-49, which is to say 0.  Even though 360 Choose 292 = 3*10^74, the sum of fractions is around 10^-123.
That said, you will probably get pretty close to a complete playset, and can fairly easily trade or sell the rares to get the rest of the way.

There is an important piece of information, though. Each set of 10 is composed of a limited number of runs of 5. Thus you get 72 sets of 5 cards, and each of those sets is guaranteed to be unique. They are further guaranteed that no two sets that contain the same cards are going to be in the same pack (because packs are guaranteed unique). Exactly how much this changes the math, I don't know.

@corsiKa Well, that makes the math impractically more complicated.  If I had to estimate, I would say that gets you up to about 10^-30 or 10^-20.  It's still effectively 0.  I see you went the route of answering how many packs does it take rather than what is the probability for a given number of packs.
Where are you getting the details about the runs?  I'd be curious to see more about their structure

OP asked for anecdotal evidence in one of the comments.
Back in the day (Tempest, Exodus, etc.) I generally had to buy 2 boxes of boosters to get a complete play set of commons (i.e. 4 of each).

Thanks.  From what I am taking from the people trying to do the math that kinds of sounds right.

"Back in the day" however there was almost no math to it at all because cards were printed and packs packed and boxes loaded in a fixed order. :)


text:
Can you play trump if trump hasn't been played and you have action cards in Rage?

Is it true you can’t lead a trump card unless trump has already been played, or all you have in your hand are trump cards?
Can you play an “Out Rage” card on top of an “Out Rage” card?
Can you play a “Change Rage” card on top of an “Out Rage” card?
Say a player has two action cards, one trump card and trump hasn’t been played yet. Can they play their trump card, or do they have to play an action card?

Welcome to the site, and thanks for your questions! In accordance with site policy, please split this into four separate posts with only one question each (see here for reasons).

No.
Yes, but it would have no effect.
Yes.
Has its own question (asked two hours after yours, but separate questions are better)

PDF of the rules


text:
Does Saving Grace redirect damage from cards that destroy a target creature?
Does Saving Grace also redirect damage coming from cards with the ability of "destroy" target creature? If it does, will it only destroy the creature that has been enchanted by Saving Grace?

Destroy doesn't cause damage. Quite the opposite, damage often results in permanents getting destroyed.

Re "that has been targeted with Saving Grace", That should be "enchanted by", not "targeted with".

No, that will never work.
An effect that outright "destroys" a creature does not deal damage, so there is no damage to redirect for Saving Grace.

No. Saving Grace has no effect because destroying doesn't cause damage.[CR 701.7a]
Quite the opposite, dealing damage to a creature can result it in being destroyed.
When a creature takes damage, that damage is marked on the creature.[1][CR 119.3e] The next time a player would get priority, creatures with at least as much marked damage as their toughness are destroyed.[2][CR 704.3, 704.5g]

Unless the source of the damage has Wither or Infect.
Unless the creature is indestructible.

701.7a To destroy a permanent, move it from the battlefield to its owner’s graveyard.
119.3e Damage dealt to a creature by a source with neither wither nor infect causes that much damage to be marked on that creature.
704.3. Whenever a player would get priority (see rule 116, “Timing and Priority”), the game checks for any of the listed conditions for state-based actions, then performs all applicable state-based actions simultaneously as a single event. [...]
704.5g If a creature has toughness greater than 0, and the total damage marked on it is greater than or equal to its toughness, that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed. Regeneration can replace this event.


text:
Magic the gathering number of cards in a hand
In the quick reference paper they say:

Shuffle your deck, then draw a hand of seven cards. The player who takes the first turn won’t draw a card that turn.

That means, both players will draw 7 cards, first player will start with 7, second player will draw a card, that is 8.
In the rules, they say :

402.2. Each player has a maximum hand size, which is normally seven cards. A player may have any number of cards in his or her hand, but as part of his or her cleanup step, the player must discard excess cards down to the maximum hand size.

So, if the first player plays one card, what is the number of cards in the hand, will he draw 1 card next turn to get to maximum hand size (7) or will he draw 2 cards, to get to maximum hand size (7) plus one?
Because second player began the game with maximum hand size cards (7) plus 1 (the card he drew on his first turn).
So, will the player who goes first always draw cards to have 7 cards in a hand, and the player who goes second will keep the advantage of having 8 cards in his draw step until the end of the game?
Or, will the maximum cards at the clean up step be 7 in the hand, but the number of cards in hand during the player's turn (except first turn for the player going first) is 8. That is to say both players have 7 cards at the start of their draw step and draw one card to have 8? It is little bit chaotic.

You always draw 1 card in your draw step (unless some effect says otherwise), regardless of the number of cards in your hand.
There are card games where you draw up to some number of cards in your hand, but Magic isn't one of them.
Rules:

Draw Step

504.1. First, the active player draws a card. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack.

The player who plays first doesn't get a draw step in the first turn only (rule 103.7a), after that there is no difference between the player who started first and the other. The maximum hand size for both at the end of the turn is 7.

Aha now it is more clear thanks. Unfortunately one cannot understand this just from the quick reference paper :D so one needs more explaining on this. Thanks. I thought there is the stack - base number of cards one returns to it but it isn't ok. So even if i have in my hand 2 cards i draw just one card next draw round? Just to be sure.

@luky The stack has nothing to do with the cards in your hand.  You should probably start with the How To Play guide on the Magic website.

i was just asking to be sure, ok thx

@luky: yes, you just draw one card.

i was confused because i used to play doomtrooper and there was the stack, so DT was kind of very different game.

@luky the quick reference says "Draw step—Draw a card from your library (deck)". That's a card, definitely not "as many as it takes to get to seven".


text:
Yu-Gi-Oh! Card Ruling for Keeper Of The Shrine scenarios
Scenario:  Keeper of the Shrine can be special summoned from the graveyard if a dragon is sent to the graveyard by battle or card effect.

Excluding Tributes.

If my opponent has Keeper Of The Shrine in his graveyard, and I use a monster such as Lava Golem or Winged Dragon of Ra Sphere Mode to tribute his monsters so that I can (as per the effect text) normal summon these cards, can he still special summon Keeper of the Shrine from his graveyard?
Although the card effect is that you can tribute monsters on your opponents side of the field, I can't figure out if this is labeled as "card effect" or a summoning condition and whether or not my opponent should be able to activate the special summon of Keeper of the Shrine.

no he cant, his monsters were tributed by the effect of lava golem/sphere mode

Well, since the card Keeper Of The Shrine excludes tributes, and Lava Golem tributes an opponent's monster, Keeper of the Shrine should NOT summon since the effect of Lava Golem declares it as a tribute instead of a card effect.