text:
Game with changing goal
Are there any board or card games with changing goals?
Before you answer real quick saying "yes", let me define what I mean. When I say change goal, I mean that the player works towards that goal not future goals. That means they aren't trying to be the final victor. They are trying to achieve what they have been assigned right now. The best way to illustrate would be some examples.
Examples

Dodgeball: Some variants of dodgeball are such that if you get hit, you join the other team. Note that if your team is losing, you could increase your chances of winning by getting hit and joining the other team, but this is not the player's goal. The player's goal is to make their current team win, if it is inevitable they won't be on that team when they do.
DnD: In DnD and similar games, a player can get mind controlled. When they do, they have different goals then when not mind controlled. In particular, they will work towards those goals even if they know the mind control is temporary.
Playing a game against yourself: When playing a game against yourself (like Chess), you switch between which side you want to win.

Non-examples

Most board games where you change teams: You are allowed to take into account the fact that the teams are temporary. Your goal is to be the final victor, not help your current team do well.
Card games with effects to change the winning condition. In MtG, for example, you can get into a position where getting your opponent to 0 life is no longer a winning condition. That being said, you can still have the goal of undoing that situation, and then getting your opponent to 0 life. Your goal is always to be the final victor.

Notice that the examples aren't board or card games (playing a game against yourself isn't really a game, just a way to practice a game). Are there any board or card game examples?

You first - and arguably most important - paragraph is pretty confusing. When you say "that means", it's almost like you are making a logical inference... But maybe you're just restating?

You should clearly articulate what you mean by goal, future goal, final victor, and what it means to be assigned [a goal]

Lastly, your three examples are (1) a team game, where your loyalty to the team is stronger than to yourself, (2) a cooperative exercise (RPGs certainly feature play, but they fall outside many definitions of game), and (3) something that you later disclaim as "not really a game". Are you sure that there are actually any competitive games that feature what you're looking for?

@TheChaz2.0 no, that's why I'm asking

Would you count a card game where the overall winning condition changes based on an in-game, two-sided state, you have little control over which state you are in during the game (that is decided primarily by the actions of other players), and progress towards winning in one state would actively harm your chance of winning if/when you switch to the other state?

@KenHerbert uhm, not exactly, but close enough.

Erg, no, rereading the rules for some clarity and I have realised which state you are in is more in your control than I had remembered.

I'm feeling Fluxx is an answer, however your definition of changing goal isn't clear. Can you clarify further with more examples?

"In DnD and similar games, a player can get mind controlled." A character can get mind controlled. If a player is being mind-controlled, that's some seriously powerful DnD.

@Acccumulation I thought that you had to use real life hypnosis so as to get role-playing XP, right?

Fluxx
A game designed where the rules and goals are constantly changing. You can be working towards a specific goal with collecting keepers, only to have your opponent remove the goal and change it for something else. There are many different editions of Fluxx, the later ones introduced new cards like surprises.
You can also have rules that allow for more than one goal, rules that modify how the goal can be won, different methods of winning.
Generally you will always win by having the cards that the goal requires (Or making sure your opponents have the cards you don't need). In some of the later games (Post Zombie Fluxx), there are also ungoals that if achieved, means everybody loses and the game wins instead.

There is also a board game variant of Fluxx along the same lines of ever changing rules and goals

There are many games that sort of qualify, but none that perfectly match your criteria
Fluxx
Draken already mentioned this one, and it is the most obvious choice.  Goals change constantly.  But it is possible to work towards a future goal.  Goals in play are fleeting, but you can hold a goal in your hand for far longer.  I generally would hold promising goals in my hand while working towards them, and only play them when I could win instantly.
Ticket to Ride, Twilight Imperium, etc
In Ticket to Ride you start with two or three routes which provide a source of points to work towards.  At any time (although frequently once your routes are completed) you can draw new route cards, giving yourself new goals to work towards.  Similarly, in Twilight Imperium you start with a minor secret goal, and once that is completed you earn a major one.
There are many other cases with similar mechanics, but the new goals never override previous goals - they just add new ways to earn points.
Battlestar Galactica, The Thing, etc
You specifically excluded traitor mechanic games, but I'm including them anyways for completion.  There are a number of traitor mechanic games where it becomes possible to become the traitor half way through the game.  In theory you could play with this possibility in mind, but my experience is that in practice people don't, because the game is weighted in the traitor's favor and the odds of becoming one are low, so players are too busy keeping their heads above the water to worry about such things.
Betrayal at House on the Hill (and Betrayal at Baldur's Gate)
This is technically another traitor mechanic game, but I'm listing it separately because Betrayal is scenario based.  While everyone knows that someone will become the traitor, it's impossible to know what the traitor's goals will be.  It's still not a perfect fit, though, because until the Haunt begins and the traitor is chosen, there is no goal at all, so the game never has more than one goal per sitting.
Why are there only imperfect examples?
From a design perspective, a game whose goals change in ways that can't be anticipated is generally unfun.  If you can't achieve the first goal before the goal shifts to something else, then all the work you've put towards the first goal is wasted.  When the goal switches, how much progress each player has towards winning is reset essentially at random, which is particularly frustrating to anyone who was ahead before and is now behind, and may be unfulfilling to someone who goes from being behind to ahead through no fault of their own.
Creating a fun strategic game with a shifting, unpredictable goal is extremely difficult, verging on the impossible.

(1) a traitor mechanic is fine. The problem was that dodgeball wasn't a board game. That said, the fact that you can work towards it makes it an imperfect example (2) the future goals don't necessarily need to be unanticipated. In playing a game against yourself, for example, you know that you are going to switch sides every turn, so it is very predictable

@PyRulez I was filing traitor mechanics under "board games where you change teams" which you listed as a non-example

ah yes. I just said most. I think the traitor mechanic is pretty close though.

I do think you could have a successful game with changing goals, btw. For example, a cooperative game where in the first half, players work together to make a puzzle/dungeon, and in the second half, try to solve it. (Note the cooperative aspect. Since they are all on the same team, any good move in the first phase harms the team in the second. In particular, there would be no individual scores.)


text:
Catan Seafarers discovery question
In Catan Seafarers, in a scenario like Fog Island where hexes are unknown, can you build a settlement  at an intersection of a known hex and an unknown hex and if you can, do you uncover the unknown hex or does it remain a mystery until a ship actually is adjacent to it?

From p12 of the rules (emphasis added),

If you place a ship or road that connects to the intersection of an unexplored hex, you must immediately draw the top hex from the pile and place it face up in the empty space.

If you can ever build a settlement on an intersection, you must already have a road/ship connected to that intersection, so all those hexes should already be explored; exploring does not require a road/ship to be built on one of the hex's edges.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
POKER - Is it best to sit out your blinds?
Blinds are paid when in the worst position (1st to act).
If you sit out your blinds, & re-enter on the button, (or just after)
you must now 'buy the button' (pay your missed blinds, or sit-out until
the next tie it is your blinds.
Strategy wise, isn't is best to do this?
Now you are putting your blinds in, while in position.

That defeats the entire purpose of blinds.

You're paying for those hands one way or another.

No.
You can't re-enter on the button (or the small blind)(at least in any game run by sensible and fair people). This would require moving it past the player who has just been in the hands where they paid their own blinds, denying them the position opportunity you are trying to aim for.
The earliest you re-enter is one before the button, defeating the purpose of sitting out.
If this was a viable strategy, everybody would repeatedly do it, paying both blinds on the button and never at any other time. Clearly this doesn't happen.

Even if you could do what you say I don't see how it would beneficial.  You typically cannot come in on the Button (blinds would not move).  You can wait for the BB to come to you or you can pay a bb to enter from any position but the Button or SB.
Assume you can enter from the Cut Off (just before the Button) for the bb and it is 6 handed.  You could play 3 hands for the price of a bb by sitting out the blinds.
If you stay in the game you play 6 hands for the price of sb + bb.  The extra 3 hands (Button, SB, and BB) cost 1/2 as much.  I will take the Button, SB, and BB for the price of a sb every time. The Button is the best position and SB and BB can catch good cards.
If you must pay sb + bb to enter on the CO you are paying the same price to play 3 hands versus 6.  Not a good strategy.
Plus if you sit out 1/2 the hands it is boring and your hourly rate is cut in 1/2.
I use lower case for the cost sb, bb and upper case for the position SB, BB.

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


text:
With Life and Limb do my forest's suffer from summoning sickness
So from what I understand Life and Limb makes your forests into creature. So are you're forests then affected by summoning sickness, and therefore you are unable to be tapped for mana the turn you play them? If so is there a reasonable to animate you're opponents land like this to set them back?

They'll have summoning Sickness. So if your opponent is also in Green, you will set them back if all they have are forests to play.
From the Gatherer Rulings page:

Forests that enter the battlefield while Life and Limb is on the battlefield will enter the battlefield as creatures. They'll have summoning Sickness.

Yes, land creatures will have summoning sickness.
Every one of your creatures that you didn't control all the time since your most recent turn began have summoning sickness, even if they weren't creatures all the time. Since a land's mana ability requires tapping, that ability can't be used in that case.

302.6. A creature’s activated ability with the tap symbol or the untap symbol in its activation cost can’t be activated unless the creature has been under its controller’s control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. A creature can’t attack unless it has been under its controller’s control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. This rule is informally called the “summoning sickness” rule.

Also note the ruling on Gatherer, which explicitely answers your question:

Forests that enter the battlefield while Life and Limb is on the battlefield will enter the battlefield as creatures. They’ll have summoning sickness.

If so is there a reasonable to animate you're opponents land like this to set them back?

Not one that animates lands.
Animating lands is a weird effect, because it makes your lands combat relevant, but also vulnerable to interference.  Any mass animation of your opponent's lands allows you to turn a mass creature destruction spell into a one-sided land destruction spell, and that's powerful.  Really powerful.  Which is not to say that it doesn't exist.  Jolrael, Empress of Beasts will temporarily animate all the lands belonging to one player.  But it's ridiculously expensive if all you want to do is give a single land creature summoning sickness (especially as it gives your opponent an army while you do it).
If you do want to slow down your opponent's land drops, I recommend one of the cards which force lands to enter the battlefield tapped.  (+Orb of Dreams, which didn't fit in that list because it affects all permanents.)


text:
How many mono-red damage doubling effects are there?
So I'm making a commander meme deck based around Kumano, Master Yamabushi. I was wondering how many damage doubling effects are there in mono-red. The current ones I can think of are: Furnace of Rath, Dictate of the Twin Gods, Angarath's Marauders, and Gratuitous Violence. The goal of the deck is, along with Heartstone, be able to one shot people for just a red with Kumano. I would welcome any other suggestions for ways to increase Kumano's damage output or decrease the cost.

I'm voting to reopen this, as there's nothing about it that's too broad. The set of relevant cards is small, and the question is completley answerable within our format. We have a specific problem and can provide adequate answers, and there are no multiple questions here.

10 that apply to your commander. (11 if you're willing to do hijinx with Goldnight Castigator.)
Magic: the Gathering has highly standardised ways to word its effects, so when you see an effect you like and want to find more of it, you should search for the words you find in the effect that look like they're fairly unique to that effect. (Recognising which words those are can take some experience.)
You can search in either Gatherer (the official search engine), or a third party search engine like Scryfall or MagicCards.info. I find these second two are far easier to compose searches in. I'm going to be referencing Scryfall below since it's my personal favorite.
If you search only for o:"double that damage" (within a color identity of red, and within the Commander format) you'll find 17 damage doubling effects.
The following don't actually work for your commander:

Charging Tuskodon and Goblin Charbelcher only double their own damage.
Fire Servant won't interact with Kumano.
Blind Fury, Impulsive Maneuvers, and Inquisitor's Flail only interact with combat damage (which won't count Kumano's ability).

Goldnight Castigator doubles damage to you, but works if you you give it away with Harmless Offering or a similar spell.
We can eliminate the ones that definitely don't work from the search results by name for our perusal.

You may also be interested in damage increasers, of which Tok-Tok, Volcano Born and Embermaw Hellion apply. (You can & should apply these before any damage doublers.)

Hm, you seem to still be including Goldnight Castigator, which only helps if you somehow give it to your opponent. Also Blind Fury only doubles damage to creatures, won't help one-shot an opponent. But I do agree that this kind of query is how I'd find the candidates!

I think including Goldnight Castigator is appropriate. It helps the answer remain objective, and allows the reader judge which effects are too difficult to pull off in a real match.

Doesn't Blind Fury apply only to creatures, and therefore not work for targeting a player?

Cool, this is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for!

By my count there are 10 (11 if you count the double-printed card as two).
You can find them when you follow this link.
You can use the Gatherer to search for such cards, as shown here.


text:
City was not first a settlement. How to fix?
In a recent casual game of Catan (base game), a novice player built a city and placed it on an empty intersection. No other players noticed the mistake that the intersection did not first have a settlement.
Much later in the game, the novice player made the same mistake, but it was noticed and corrected by the other players. The novice player admitted that they had previously made the same mistake much earlier in the game.
The novice player had been erroneously collecting two resources and benefiting from two victory points because of this city for several turns.
To rectify the mistake, the other players agreed that the novice player would keep the city on the board, but must play to 11 victory points to win, while all other players would only have to play to the normal 10 victory points to win.
As an experienced player in the same situation, what would you have done to rectify the mistake in a way that the game could continue being played and that no matter who won, the game would be considered fair?

If you don't notice a mistake until long after (or once you can no longer roll back the moves to correct the mistake) it happens then you should just let it stand. In this case the player should get full credit for the city as if it was built correctly.
The problem with trying to penalize the new player for the mistake is it is also the fault of the other players for not paying close enough attention to catch the mistake in the first place.
On the other hand if the player was intentionally making the mistake as a way to win more easily then they should be removed from the game instead.
You should always remember that when playing games with a new player mistakes will always happen and being a new player they have a smaller chance of winning anyways so it will even itself out in the long run.
This also applies to experienced players who make mistakes (everyone can make them) but need to be careful that someone isn't just trying to cheat. The main theory behind this is that everyone playing the game is responsible for ensuring that it is played correctly and also responsible when a mistake that is publicly knowable (like playing a city without a settlement there already) is made.

OP's solution was better than this. Yes, it was too late to roll back the moves, but that doesn't mean you should let everything stand. In the OP's solution the player who made the mistake gets a massive advantage from double resources around the city, but doesn't get the extra point from it. No-one is penalising the player for the mistake as you seem to think; they're just limiting the advantage they get from it.

I disagree, as everyone who is playing the game is responsible for catching major mistakes like that so it is not just the fault of the player who made the mistake fault but everyone. If they can catch the same mistake at a later point in the game they should catch it earlier in the game as well. Not to mention we don't know how other players may have benefited from the mistake either. I believe in the simple rule if a mistake is made (either to help or hurt) and it is not caught in time to fix then the results should stand. And it is penalizing them if they make decisions based on the mistake

Find a mutually agreeable solution
Outside of organized play if a genuine mistake is discovered and it's too late to "fix", finding an equitable solution by discussion amongst the players is the proper course of action. I generally find there are two (plus one) general ways to handle such a situation.
First, if it's a new game and everyone has been making the mistake we often finish that game with the misapplication of the rule treated as if it was the rule. If everyone has been building Cities fresh rather than upgrading Settlements just keep going like that for everyone for the rest of the game. You're not playing Settlers of Catan anymore, but you're all playing the same house-ruled variant of it.
Second, if only one person has made the mistake and it gives significant, but not gaming breaking advantage finding some sort of way to ameliorate the situation (as you did in the example in your question) is best, especially if everyone agrees to the solution.
Finally, in some cases the mistake will be so huge that you'll basically need to scrap the game and restart. Sometimes when a mistake is to far back to be undone the group won't be able to come to a consensus on an equitable solution in which case scrapping the game can result in the least hurt feelings.
Ultimately as long as it really is a mistake, and not an attempt to cheat, finding the least disruptive way to complete the game is best. I generally try and avoid the last option if at all possible (hence listing two + one options).

It hasn't been called Settlers Of Catan for a few years now, I don't think anybody would be playing it at all...

@Nij Fair point... but in my mind the game is called Settlers and I expect that most folks who have bought 1st/2nd editions of the game haven't bothered buying it again and so most people are actually still playing SoC.


text:
Can you pay more life than you have?
If I have 35 life, and I have Lich's Mirror, which

If you would lose the game, instead shuffle your hand, your graveyard, and all permanents you own into your library, then draw seven cards and your life total becomes 20.

can I play Aetherflux Reservoir?

Pay 50 life: Aetherflux Reservoir deals 50 damage to target creature or player.

Would I be able to play Aetherflux Reservoir, use up 35 life, use Lich's Mirror to get back up to 20 and pay the last 15 life? Or would Lich's Mirror require me to shuffle the card back into my deck first? In which place could I use Exquisite Archangel?

If you would lose the game, instead exile Exquisite Archangel and your life total becomes equal to your starting life total

Or would I just not be able to play this Aetherflux Reservoir in this manner at all?
If Rhox Faithmender

If you would gain life, you gain twice that much life instead.

is on the field when Lich's Mirror is played, do I get 40 life, or is he shuffled back into the deck first? Would I get 40 life if I used Exquisite Archangel?
If my opponent plays a card such as Approach of the Second Sun

If Approach of the Second Sun was cast from your hand and you've cast another spell named Approach of the Second Sun this game, you win the game.

for the second time, and I have Exquisite Archangel and Rhox Faithmender, and I have 8 life, do I exile Exquisite Archangel and get 20 life, 40 life, or 32 life?
What would happen if I had 30 life when Approach of the Second Sun was played and I exiled Exquisite Archangel? Would I be reduced to twenty life, or could I remain at 30 life?
Sorry for all of the questions. I am somewhat new to magic, and just got a deck, and was wondering about the new combos that I could do with them.

Welcome to Stack Exchange!  The general policy on this site is to keep to 1 question per post.  Please [edit] your post to pare it down to one question, and consider posting your other question(s) separately.  (In this case, I would recommend cutting it before "If Rhox Faithmender...")

No, you cannot pay more life than you have.  From the comprehensive rules (emphasis mine):

118.4. If a cost or effect allows a player to pay an amount of life greater than 0, the player may do so only if his or her life total is greater than or equal to the amount of the payment. If a player pays life, the payment is subtracted from his or her life total; in other words, the player loses that much life. (Players can always pay 0 life.)

You're not allowed to "split the cost" to pay part now and part later, either.  All costs must be payed in full before a spell or ability can be activated.CR 117.3
In order to use Aetherflux Reservoir's ability, you have to have 50 life to pay the cost up front.


text:
How long do you keep the rattlesnake card in Bang!
I just bought the Valley of Shadows extension for Emiliano Sciarra's game Bang!
I can't find anywhere in the rules (or the internet) if you're supposed to discard the card after being bitten by the snake.
Does it work like the Dynamite or like the Jail card? Do you keeep it until you can self "cat balou" it ?
Thanks

It stays in play and checks every turn until someone (most likely yourself) either Cat Balou's or Panic's it away.
Edit:
This thread on Boardgame geek has the same answer.


text:
Gatling and backfire in Bang!
If a gatling is played by player A and player B uses a backfire (as it counts as a Missed!), is player A the target of a Bang! ?
Thanks

Related: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/2829/can-a-barrel-block-gatling

Yes.
From the rulebook:

Even though the Gatling shoots a BANG! to all the other players, it is not considered a BANG! card.

(Emphasis mine).
And the Wikipedia for Bang! says:

BackFire – Counts as Missed!. Any player who targeted you with Bang! is now a target of Bang!.

When you play Gatling, you target every other player with a Bang!. So BackFire will respond to Gatling just like it would to a regular Bang! card.

but the rulebook says [Gatling] it is not considered a BANG!

@Hakim No, it say it is not considered a Bang! Card. It IS considered a Bang!. A Bang! Card is one way to shoot a a Bang!. The difference being that you can only play one Bang! Card per turn, but you can use any number of other things that cause a Bang!.

Ok, thank you very much for the clarification. I did not see the word card at the end of your sentence, it makes sense now

No problem! Bang! uses icons heavily for card effects. What matters for Gatling is that it has the Bang! icon on it.

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


text:
Bang! Distances scope
Does the scope card change the distance at which you can Panic somebody ?
As the Panic card has the symbol "Distance of 1", I'm wondering if the scope changes that. Same question for Rose Doolan who sees everybody at a distance decreased by 1.
And does that apply to the tomahawk card as well ? (which means you could throw it to somebody that is at a distance of 3).

Yes, cards like the scope allow you to see everyone as if they where 1 distance closer. This lets you use any card with restricted range to hit someone 1 distance further away then normal. This is great with panic or to let you shoot someone who was just out of range before.
On the other hand cards like mustang increase the distance that other players see you by 1. So if you have a scope and the person next to you has a mustang the two effects would cancel each other out.

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


text:
How do I (self) promote a board game?
I design a board game. It has a Middle Eastern folklore theme.
It’s a casual family board game for 2-6 players.
It takes about 90 minutes for each level to play. There are total 5 levels and more than 25 scenarios.
I have no idea how much paid marketing will really work.
need feedback where and how do I (self) promote to make a reasonable audience?

Welcome to Board and Card Games Bruhan! Currently your question is a bit broad and likely to be closed, but don't worry with some edits you can narrow down the focus a bit (and allow others to give you better answers). Try including what you have actually tried so far, along with what specifically you are having an issue with (ie. online promotion, or finding people to play your game in person). Also feel free to check out the tour to learn more about how to write good questions and answers.

As mentioned, the question is very broad.  I think you're asking how to move forward from prototype to store shelves?  This is a long process.  See if any of these help: https://www.toyassociation.org/App_Themes/toyassociation_resp/downloads/resources/toy-association-toy-inventor-and-designer-guide.pdf, https://www.bgdf.com/forums/game-creation/publication, https://www.boardgamegeek.com/spsearch.php?objectid=1&objecttype=region&q=marketing&searchauthor=&forumids%5B%5D=13&searchfield=all&displayresults=excerpt&B1=Submit

First you'll want to build up a fan base.  To do that, you could:

Introduce it at board game meetups and conventions.
Send print and play files to interested people over the internet.
Show it off on board game forums.

Once you have a fan base, then it's time to think about options for publishing the game.  I wouldn't recommend spending any money on marketing until you have a publishing route worked out, since you won't have a product to sell yet, and (depending on which way you go) your publisher will probably already have their own marketing ideas and budget.

thanks Joe for replying, i do not understand "files" you mean to say send prototypes to interested peoples?

can you please recommend any online forum, where I can easily add or show my board game?

@BurhanUllah, by sending "print and play files" I mean sending people what they need to print out their own copy of the game and play it.  The big site for boardgame forums is boardgamegeek.com.


text:
Discard a card not working?
Ok so I was playing against the AI (Star Realms Android app) today and every time I played a card that should have had my opponent discarding ( Imperial Fighter), it instead made ME discard as I played the card. In addition, the AI still drew 5 cards at the start of their turn. This has to be a bug, right?

I can't answer directly without seeing what happened, but here are some things you might have backwards that might clear this up. 1) Players draw 5 at the end of their turn, not the beginning. 2) Discarding never affects how many cards you draw; you always draw the full amount and then choose which to discard. 3) In the app, discards happen at the start of the opponent's turn rather than immediately (presumably they changed this rule to speed up async games), so if it's working correctly then no player should discard immediately when you play the Fighter.

If you believe there is a bug you should probably contact the developers as i'm not sure this is a question that can be answered here. The above comment is correct about players drawing 5 cards at end of there turn.  However when you play a card that caused opponent to have to discard you should see a grey arrow pointing down appear by there cards showing the number that they will discard.  That might help explain whats going on.

If you were playing the campaign, make sure you read the `rules´ page as some of them break the normal rules of Star Realms and it isn´t always immediately obvious what is going on.

You draw cards at the end of your turn, not at the start. This allows you to discard cards when your opponent cards say so. If you were drawing them at start of your turn most of the time you would have nothing to discard.

The campaign game changes some of the rules, depending on which mission you are playing.
For example, on Mission 3 "A test of strength (hard)", the rules are

[...] If you would make your opponent discard a card, you gain 2
  Authority instead. [...]

I'm pretty sure you were playing a mission with special rules.


text:
Leading Aces in the game of Spades
I see that some players start by playing all their Aces in the first opportunity.  By doing so the Ace usually beats low cards.  By letting some one else leading the suit, the ace can beat higher cards (maybe even the King).
Is it usually a bad practice to lead an Ace?
When leading an ace is a good move?  Maybe if you got A,K / A,K,Q ?

It depends on a lot of context whether leading an Ace is a good idea.
When to lead an Ace:
Leading an ace when you have strong control of the suit is good.  For example, leading from A-K or a bare Ace is good.  Since you can win any follow up, you don't really lose much if your opponents playing low.  And it can also give your partner an idea of the strength you have in that suit.
You also may consider leading an Ace when your partner has bid nil.  This gives your partner an opportunity to get rid of problematic cards in that suit.
If you think your team underbid, you may also want to lead the Ace to actively weaken your hand to avoid getting too many bags.
When to lead another suit:
Leading an ace is not usually a good idea in the early part of the hand when other players are unlikely to be void in suits.  Assuming you don't also have the king, your opponents are twice as likely to have the newly promoted winner instead of your partner.
You can still play the Ace the first time the suit is lead if you're paranoid about the risks of voids, but you'll get extra value from your opponents playing ahead of you.  And you might even be able to win an extra trick due just to your positioning.
If your suit is long but weak like A-T-x-x-x-x-x you probably want to hold suit control instead of leading the Ace.  It's too risky to lead this Ace and then have your opponents get valuable discards while also winning tricks.
Additionally, if you can get trump control, you can run these lengthy side suits, so saving the ace to win important tricks can be very helpful.  Leading the suit outright negates this advantage.
Do not underlead your Ace:
There is almost no reason to underlead an Ace.  You put your Ace at risk of being trumped while also giving up the positional advantage to your opponents.

Leading an ace is almost always a good idea.

It keeps you in control of the next lead.
It takes a trick with your ace before someone is likely to have voided that suit and be able to trump it.

More subtle plays are possible (trying to hold your ace to trap the opponent's king), but because you can't see your partner's hand like you can in bridge, they are harder to pull off. Trying to transfer the lead to another player so that you can hope to play the ace over an opponent's king is likely to lose you more tricks than it will gain.

Playing other suits doesn't reduce the number of cards in this suit.  So the chance for an opponent being void does not change.  I agree that not playing the Ace in the first trick that suit is played increase chances to get trumped.

If you lead an Ace because you don't know what to do, you will likely win the trick, and still not know what to do, but now you've spent your Ace without hurting your opponent much.

Ideally you should never "not know what to do". You should have a plan of where all your tricks are going to come from. Then you should lead the ace if you are counting on it, unless you need to save it in order to regain the lead or to finesse a trick.


text:
In Gin-Rummy, when both players Pass, can the active player make a Pickup?
In Gin-Rummy, if both players pass the first face-up card, does the first player must Draw from the pile or she can Pickup the first discard?
Obviously, there is no benefit in first pass a card, then when the opponent also show no interset by passing, to pick it up, however, does the rules allow it?

Pagat says the first player cannot go back and take the face up card but must draw from the stock:

If both players refuse the turned-up card, the non-dealer draws the top card from the stock pile.

It seems to be the common rule.
Wiki, Spruce Crafts, WikiHow all agree

Gin-Colony state that after both players have passed the first player must Draw.  However I am not sure if that is a (common) house rule or a formal rule.

If both players pass (refuse) the very first upcard, the non-dealer
  must start a game by drawing the top card from the closed deck. He
  adds this card to his hand and discards ANY card on top of the
  original upcard to build the waste pile.


text:
Gin Rummy with Jokers
Is there any known variant of Gin-Rummy that includes the Jokers?
If yes then, what are the rules about jokers?

How much deadwood a joker counts?
Can be used only for Runs or also for Sets?

A similar question on BGG: (with no good answer)

Aside from the fact that jokers are forbidden in Gin Rummy, does
  anyone know what the next nearest, "quais-official" rules are for
  including Jokers in Gin Rummy?

Various sites (e.g., rummyculture) list rummy variants with jokers, but not Gin Rummy specifically. But the rules could be adapted directly. Suggested set of rules:

Jokers are worth 30, as in most versions of Rummikub
Discarded jokers cannot be picked up from the discard pile (optional)
Jokers can be used in sets or runs, but not to make a 5-card set (the "missing" card must be one that exists).


text:
Gin-Rummy with different number of cards
Official Gin-Rummy is played with 10 cards.  I wish to implement in my game a shorter version with less cards.  What are the common/recommended number of cards?

I guess that removing/adding multiplications of 3?  So 7,10,13,... should be nice.  Is that true?
Any other rules modification when playing with less cards?

The standard 13 Card Rummy suggests you're OK to look to 13 as the basis of your pattern, yes.
For Gin, I'd say you have it right: hands should be 4 + 3*k cards for some positive integer k. 11 is conceivable, but strikes me as too confining.
When adjusting the hand size, you should also adjust the point limit barrier to knock. Since it's 10 points for a 10-card version, you might consider just keeping it the same as the number of cards.


text:
What is the Depth reached by chess-AI agents on a regular computer?
I'm looking for some reference for the number of lookahead steps typically used by chess agents (Stockfish / Leela Chess Zero / others?)
From a quick search I found that:
the answer depends on:

complexity of position,
computer hardware/processor speed,
efficiency of software/graphics interface,
time given to the chess engine.

with somewhat mediocre hardware a depth around 15 ply's in one second is typical.
the NPS value for the Stockfish engine: 49,473 kN/s (calculating 49,473,000 positions (nodes) per second).
source:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-Stockfishs-depth-when-analysing-a-chess-position
https://chessify.me/blog/nps-what-are-the-nodes-per-second-in-chess-engine-analysis

You may have better luck asking this at the chess stack exchange (https://chess.stackexchange.com/)

link to the question at chess.stackexchange.com
https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/41183/what-is-the-depth-reached-by-chess-ai-agents-on-a-regular-computer?noredirect=1#comment67315_41183

If you include endgame table bases, that probably makes the number rather large.

@acccumulation you right, I am interested in stats that do not reach endgame tables.


text:
How many Conspiracy Cards are allowed in a deck
Can anyone tell me how many Conspiracy Cards are allowed in a single deck.
I am planning on using 3 of them in one game is that allowed, or is it only one per game.
Adriana's Valor

The rules for conspiracy cards are listed in section 313 of the comprehensive rules. Two of the relevant rules from that section are

313.1. Conspiracy cards are used only in limited play, particularly in the Conspiracy Draft variant (see rule 905). Conspiracy cards aren’t used in constructed play.
313.2. At the start of a game, before decks are shuffled, each player may put any number of conspiracy cards from his or her sideboard into the command zone. Conspiracy cards with hidden agenda are put into the command zone face down. (See rule 702.105, “Hidden Agenda.”)

So you can have any number, but only in a limited format like draft or sealed. Outside of a format like that, you shouldn't use conspiracies at all.

The only formats that conspiracy cards have been legal in are limited formats, draft and sealed, though Conspiracy is mostly played in draft. These formats do not have any limits on the number of cards of any type that can be used.

313.1 Conspiracy cards are used only in limited play, particularly in the Conspiracy Draft variant (see rule 905). Conspiracy cards aren’t used in constructed play.

The conspiracies are the cards from Conspiracy that were not made legacy legal, while all other cards were.
It's worth knowing though that these cards are also not 'in' your deck, conspiracies do not count towards your deck size limit, so you still need the 40 card minimum deck size for the limited formats.
If of course you want to house rule allowing them in your play group, then it is up to you how you limit them, and you should limit them! In constructed play they really are overpowered. Also some of them only work in Limited formats at all, like Worldknit, since you have no "card pool" outside of draft and limited.


text:
Tak - Do you still win, if in creating your road, you also created a road for the other player?
Do you still win, if in creating your road, you also created a road for the other player?

From the rules for Tak on Cheapass Games' website (page 2):

Double Road: If a player creates a winning road for both players in the same move, then the active  player is the winner.

If you create a road win for both players on your turn, you still win the game.


text:
Rummikub buying two jokers
Can I buy Two joker's and use them with two cubes from my hand?  For example. 3 j j 6.
Or is it necessary to have two cubes for each joker?

Unfortunately like many other rummikub joker rules questions, this is unanswerable without a copy of the rules you are playing to. I've played two different editions of rummikub, and the rules they had on jokers were wildly different. In one edition, I would agree with Toon Krijthe's answer, in the other there were no restrictions on joker use at all.

From these rules:

A joker that has been replaced must be used in the player's same turn with 2 or more tiles from his rack to make a new set.

So if you have retrieved a joker from another set, you must place it with tiles from your rack (this can also be a joker). Which could be interpreted as place the retrieved joker in a set using only tiles from your hand.
I know it does not explicitly says you can not use tiles from the table, but the "with 2 or more tiles from his rack to make a new set" is clear enough for me.
Of course, you can always add house rules. Or the rummikub set/edition you have may have different rules.

Edit proposed. See this comment for a fuller explanation.


text:
What is the name of this trick-taking card game?
Years ago, in the 70s, my aunt from Kentucky taught us a card game. She called it "Table".  I've found nothing on the internet but it seems similar to Oh Hell. You were dealt 1 card in the first round, 2 in the second, etc. up to 10 cards in the 10th round then back down to 1. Like Oh Hell, players bid on tricks and score points but only if they make their bid.  Unlike what I've seen of Oh Hell, if a player doesn't make their bid they go set and lose points. I would like to know the actual name of this game and also how it's scored.

According to Wikipedia, Oh Hell can have different variations each with different scoring. So I guess it would still be Oh Hell, just with your aunts preferred scoring method.

It seems to me that Simon Klaver's comment referring to the wikipedia article on Oh Hell and its variations is the answer here. Although there's nothing on a version called "table."

Perhaps the aunt was religious enough not to want to say "H-E-Double-Toothpicks" ever time she talked about the game...

Is Oh Pshaw not a common name for this game? Seems like a better appropriate name than Table

In Wizard, you score ten points for making your bid, plus ten points per trick that you bid.
If you don't get your exact bid, you lose ten points for each trick that you were off (either over or under).
The deal and play are the same as in Oh Hell. Wizard add two ranks of cards: four Wizards that win any trick, and four Jesters that lose any trick.
It's fun, but the scoring is much wilder (and favors strong hands too much, if you ask me).

(One difference between [the published version that I own of] Wizard and your description is that you only ascend in Wizard, and play until you can't deal more cards per player.)

So the score is always a multiple of 10?

That is correct.


text:
Sheriff of Nottingham Negotiation Question
This occurred during a game of Sheriff of Nottingham, during the "negotiation" phase between two other players.
I was going to lie to the sheriff and put illegal goods in my bag, however I was not going to bribe the sheriff. When I offered my bag, the sheriff said to me "If you give me an offering I will not search it." So I decided to add a bribe on top of my bag, as play allows. Then, the sheriff decided to search the bag since I had reached to offer him something.
According to the rules, is this kind of game-play legal?

Before you [as the sheriff] inspect a bag, you may choose to threaten the bag's owner. That player may offer you a bribe to avoid the inspection.
A deal is considered complete when an offer is accepted. An offer is a specific bribe proposed. Once the sheriff has made a choice it cannot be changed.

As you describe it, the sheriff made a vague threat, and then declined whatever offer you were making (possibly before you even specified the amount).
For better or worse, this is within the scope of the rules. Maybe in a future game, you will occasionally adopt the tactic of offering a bribe even when innocent, to make the sheriff's decision less obvious!

As I've heard it played practically, an offer is accepted when the sheriff pops open a bag or hands it back to the player and takes any bribe offered.


text:
Is rolling to escape a monster required?
In some cases, the Bad Stuff of a monster may actually be beneficial, for instance dying to draw new cards, if you were dealt bad cards at the start.
But is rolling required to let the monster take you, or can you simply "lie down at the ground" and let the monster kill you?

No you can't choose to take the Bad Stuff, you must always attempt to Run Away first.
From the Munchkin rules (page 3 under Combat):

If the monster’s combat strength is equal to yours,
  or greater, you lose the combat and must Run Away

Also from page 5 under Running Away:

If nobody will help you . . . or if somebody tries to help, and your fellow
  party members interfere so the two of you still cannot win . . . you must Run
  Away.

Note that in both cases they use the word must - you do not have the choice to run away (or not) - you must make the Run Away check, and must include all bonuses from active Races/Classes etc.
However you could still play one shot cards against yourself to change the possible outcome eg. a loaded die to change the die result to a 1, or a lose your class card to remove a class that gives you a bonus to running away.


text:
Go: How is a "suicidal" move that captures enemy stones handled?
I am trying to get a better understanding of the basic rules of Go. Assume that black has surrounded a white group of stones which has exactly one eye (liberty) inside the group.
What would happen if black placed a stone into this eye? All the white stones will be captured, but what happens to the black one placed into the eye?
I guess my question revolves around the question how capturing is checked after a move. Is it the non-active player's stones first and then the active player's or both at the same time?

A minor point, but the term liberty is preferable, as  eye is also used to refer to a connected set of internal liberties, see eye and eyespace on Sensei’s Library. In fact a satisfactory formal definition of an eye is surprisingly hard to achieve!

This is confusing to many new players. The rule is:

Always capture opponent stones first. That means all opponent groups which are without liberties.
Then, and only then, see if your own stone, or more precisely the group it belongs to, is without liberties

If (after capturing) your own stone is without liberties, the result depends on the rule set used:

In Japanese and Chinese rules, your move was simply illegal. So don't do this!
In New Zealand rules, your own stone (group) now gets captured.

For the second point, you may be wondering why one would ever intentionally play a stone that is immediately taken from the board. The simple answer is that this can sometimes be a ko threat. It can rarely also influence a semeai (capturing race).
There are a few details when performing suicide of a single stone regarding ko/superko, but you would likely never encounter it in practice.


text:
PvP strategy for Through the Ages
I recently purchased the Steam version of the board game so I apologize in advance if this is the wrong place to post my question.
I’ve been successful in winning vs the AIs; however, am struggling to keep afloat in PvP games online.
I understand there’s no one strategy to the game but it would help if I can get some beginner level tips to help me during the first few turns of the game.
My basic moves are to build one mine and one farm in the beginning to keep me from increasing my population and also to be able to complete either the Garden or the Pyramid.
But somehow I end up behind and constantly find myself playing catch-up to the other players
Should I just focus on one thing and not try to complete multiple things?
Also when I keep trying to stay above the corruption line, I find myself digging myself in a hole for some reason.
Any and all advice is appreciated, thanks!

Hey Josh! The question is a little too open-ended for the site. Using this as a guide, try to ask a more specific question that is objectively answerable.

@Manath I'm a bit late here, but "objectively answerable" isn't really a requirement. We don't want things to be primarily opinion-based, but subjective questions that invite folks to justify their answers are fine. It looks like the issue here is more just that a lot of things are being asked at once.

@Cascabel That makes sense. I’ll phrase future comments accordingly.


text:
In Warhammer 40k 3rd to 6th edition, is it possible to use an older rules set but newer codexes?
From what I've read, it was quite common from 3rd to 6th (7th?) edition to use older codexes with the rules set that was supported by Games Workshop at that time. But does it work the other way around as well? Is it possible to use - for example - the rules of 4th edition and the codex of fifth or six edition? And if so, how much tinkering is necessary?

Because the statline format stayed the same, and abilities were written out longhand, the only "tinkering" absolutely necessary would be ensuring Universal Special Rules that appear in the later rulebooks, and are then applied to a unit in the codex for that edition, get backported into the edition you are playing under.
I do want to say, outside of "There hasn't been a codex published for faction this edition", I don't recall it being at all common. The expectation was always that you would use the most recent codex for your faction. Because of the order of publication, and lack of support for some factions, that was frequently from one edition prior, and infrequently more than one edition prior.


text:
Ivy Lane Denizen similar effects
I feel like I have seen it before but I can't find it, I'm looking for a creature that is pretty similar to Ivy Lane Denizen but in a different color. I know about Cathars' Crusade but this is for a Marchesa, the Black Rose deck so green and white won't work (just my luck). If anyone know about a card that is similar to or to the same effect as these cards that would be awesome. Also the counter needs to be able to be placed on any creature, more like Bond Beetle, instead of Elvish Vanguard.
I'm not sure if any such creature or enchantment or artifact exists but if there is that would be spectacular.
While there are plenty of cards that have similar effects, I am looking for one almost functionally identical to Cathars' Crusade. The deck has a lot of tutors in the form of transmute and Night Dealings and I realized that in order to be able to do infinite with Workhorse and Animation Module I just need a way to replenish the counters. The deck also has a lot of sac outlets due to Marchesa's ability to recur the sacrificed creatures. Being able to place even one counter on any creature would be great because it could trigger other effects as well as protect the creature I just sacrificed. Again I'm not sure if this card exists but I feel like I have seen this effect before outside of green white.

Now is it a creature you're looking for, or any type of permanent?

I'm sorry I was not clear, I am looking for any type of permanent

Gatherer is quite a powerful search tool if you know how to use it.
Even a good search will probably pull up lots of useless cards, but a page or two of results is easily searchable (I recommend using Visual Spoiler mode, it makes it a lot easier to quickly scroll through, in my opinion), and some of the cards that don't do quite what you're looking for may be useful anyways.
Here is my search:
Colors: Red, Black, Blue or Colorless (exclude all other colors)
Text contains: "enters the battlefield", "counter", "creature", "+1/+1"
Text does not contain: fabricate, bloodthirst, devour, evolve, modular, sunburst
I chose my search terms to closely match what you were interested in, and filtered to avoid the +1/+1 counter related mechanics that were not interesting but cropped up frequently in the results.
This resulted in 89 results.  Most of them are not particularly useful, but it does pull up the Graft creatures in blue, and Sage of Fables, Oona's Blackguard, and Olivia, Mobilized for War which are all along the lines that you were looking for, albeit more limited in scope.  It also pulls up a bunch of creatures that enter the battlefield with +1/+1 counters which may be interested although not what you were looking for.
The dangers of searching this way is that you get exactly what you ask for.  This search does not, for example, pull up Mikaeus the Unhallowed, because the wording of the Undying reminder text is "When this creature dies, if it had no +1/+1 counters on it, return it to the battlefield under its owner's control with a +1/+1 counter on it." This text misses the "enters the battlefield" search term I was using, and therefore a new search would be needed in order to find it.

Thank you for the information, I have known how the gatherer works but it seemed to complicated for me to try to use to find a specific card. Thank you for the tips I will try it out using it with varius search terms. I already have Oona's Blackguard and I will try Olivia, Mobilized for War. Unfortunately the deck does not have enough wizards for sage of fables to be applicable. I thank you for your quick and extensive response and the instruction on the Gatherer

The only card that readily interacts with counters that comes to mind in U,B,R is Mikaeus the Unhallowed. Also in general when I'm building EDH decks and I'm looking for cards that synergize well with my commander I usually check EDHREC for cards to put in.

I would love to put Mikaeus in the deck but sadly he is just not in my budget for the deck. And yes I agree EDHREC has been one my favorite tools making this (my first) commander deck


text:
Is a spell or ability, targeted against a permanent with protection from that spell or ability's color, an illegal play?
Example.
My opponent has an Auriok Champion in play.
Even though this creature has protection from red, can I still attempt to cast, say, Lightning Bolt on it? Or is that an illegal play? If I can attempt to cast it, does it simply just fizzle? Would it count as a spell cast in the case of something like Aetherflux Reservoir?

It is illegal to cast it at all.
Among other things*, protection prevents things from being targeted by certain things:

702.16b A permanent or player with protection can’t be targeted by spells with the stated quality and can’t be targeted by abilities from a source with the stated quality.

See this question for details on what would happen if you started to cast Lightning Bolt, but there was no legal target on the board. In summary, the game would rewind to the point before you started to cast it; it will never have been considered cast.
*Those other things being damaged by, enchanted or equipped by, and blocked by.

You can remember the foot note by the acronym, DEBT


text:
Sacrificing a creature - Magic the gathering
My question came up after I had a disagreement over what it means when a card states “sacrifice a creature” as it’s ability. The disagreement is in whether or not this text allows a player to sacrifice ANOTHER players creature. The rules for sacrifice didn’t clear up the issue for me, the ruling is still vague enough that I could conceivably sacrifice my opponents creature in a game and think it’s perfectly legitimate. Anyway I wanted to get some feedback on this.

Can you let us know what rules / ruling you were reading that is vague?

You can only sacrifice a creature you control.
A few sources...
From the quick start guide:

sacrifice

Sometimes a card tells you to
    sacrifice a creature or some other permanent.
    To sacrifice a permanent, you move it from
    the battlefield to your graveyard. You can’t
    regenerate it or save it in any way. You can
    sacrifice only your own permanents.

From the glossary in the basic rules, page 31:

Sacrifice

To choose one of your permanents on the battlefield
    and put it into its owner’s graveyard. You can sacrifice
    only permanents you control. Sacrificing a permanent
    is different from destroying it, so the permanent can’t be
    regenerated. You can sacrifice a permanent only if a spell
    or ability tells you to, or if it’s part of a cost.

And the comprehensive rule where that comes from:

701.15a To sacrifice a permanent, its controller moves it from the battlefield directly to its owner’s graveyard. A player can’t sacrifice something that isn’t a permanent, or something that’s a permanent he or she doesn’t control. Sacrificing a permanent doesn’t destroy it, so regeneration or other effects that replace destruction can’t affect this action.

Ah I did not see that specific wording, thank you that’s what I was looking for! I think the wording I had seen was something along the lines of “player removes target permanent from the battlefield”. But this clears it up once and for all. I guess this means you have to use abilities other than sacrifice to get rid of an opponents creatures.

@Cameron Belt, Any definition of sacrifice that uses the word "target" is wrong.


text:
What happens if multiple events combine into one (e.g. via damage redirection)?
This is not a very practical question, I'm just seeking a better understanding of the rules. The rules define "events" quite loosely as "anything that happens in a game" (700.1). I am wondering if it is possible for a replacement effect to change one event so it combines with another (simultaneous) event. If this happens, I wonder what are the consequences for how replacement effects, prevention effects, and triggers are resolved. I have constructed a scenario that plausibly combines two events, but I would also be interested in other possible cases if this one doesn't work for some reason.
Consider an attacking Flesh Reaver (a 4 power creature which has an ability that triggers whenever it "deals damage to a creature or opponent") that's enchanted to have trample. If it's blocked by two 2-toughness creatures, it's clear the ability triggers twice. (See rule 700.1 and its example, or consider a card like Matsu-Tribe Sniper which must trigger twice to work properly.) Then consider if the Flesh Reaver is blocked by only one 2-toughness creature so it deals damage to the blocker and the opponent. Its ability should still trigger twice.
So, what happens if we redirect the damage from the creature to the player via Blood of the Martyr? Does the ability still trigger twice or now only once?
What if there is another replacement or prevention affect? With Urza's Armor ("if a source would deal damage to you, prevent 1 of that damage."), does the ability prevent one of the trample damage plus one of the redirected damage, or just one overall?
What if the defending player controls Empyrial Archangel (which redirects all damage from its controller to itself)? There are several interesting cases here if the events combine. If a replacement has already been applied to only part of a combined event can it be applied again (considering 614.5 which prevents replacement from applying more than once) to the whole event or to only part of the event? If it matters in what order we consider events, how do we choose the order? What does choosing an order even mean when events can combine?
Case A:

Apply Blood of the Martyr to redirect damage from the blocker to the player.
Apply Empyrial Archangel's effect to redirect all the damage.
Blood of the Martyr has already been applied to part of the damage. Does this mean it cannot be applied again at all to Empyrial Archangel?
If we choose not to use Blood of the Martyr again, we have successfully redirected all the damage to the archangel by considering damage to the blocker first.

Case B:

Apply Empyrial Archangel's effect to redirect the trample damage.
Apply Blood of the Martyr to redirect the damage from the archangel back to the player.
Apply Blood of the Martyr to redirect the damage from the blocker to the defending player.
Does Empyrial Archangel's effect apply to the damage redirected from the blocker, or can it not apply as the damage has been combined with damage that has already been redirected through the archangel?
If not, we have successfully redirected all the damage to the defending player by considering the trample damage first. I think this is not possible if considering the events in the opposite order.

Case C:

Apply Empyrial Archangel's effect to redirect the trample damage.
Apply Blood of the Martyr to redirect damage from the blocker to the defending player.
Apply Empyrial Archangel's effect again to this redirected damage. (Surely this is possible even though the effect has already been used on the trample damage.)
Can Blood of the Martyr now be applied to the Empyrial Archangel for only part of the damage, or is it blocked because Blood of the Martyr has already redirected some of the damage? (This is the weakest case, as we have already moved on from considering the event dealing the possibly-redirectable damage.)

Rule 616 does not seem robust enough to cover such cases. Neither event contains the other (although they are contained inside a single larger "Flesh Reaver deals damage" event), so 616.2 does not apply. (Of course, one could invent a way for these things to work.) And, the events are initially separate, so it is not clear that 616.1 applies. Can 616.1 be interpreted to justify resolving simultaneous damage events together as part of a larger "one or more sources deal damage" event? (Does the APNAP clause imply that multiple events are considered together, or is there another reason for it?)
I think the rules interactions are simpler if the events don't combine, but I couldn't find a rule that I thought justified keeping them separate.
This answer suggests that redirection effects can cause damage events to combine, but whether the events combine or not doesn't matter much to the actual question asked there, and further implications are not considered.

A Flesh Reaver that tramples over a smaller creature but gets the damage to the creature completely redirected to the defending player has its ability triggered only once. The damage packets don't recombine, because they were never split up between the creature and the defending player; the redirection effect of  Blood of the Martyr prevents the creature from being dealt damage in the first place. Therefore, damage prevention effects on the player controlling the Flesh Reaver apply only once.
Damage of the same combat damage step is dealt simultaneously:

510.2. Second, all combat damage that’s been assigned is dealt simultaneously. [..]

As you already noted, a creature dealing combat damage to another creature is an event, one that is different from dealing to another creature or a player. However, since Blood of the Martyr is a replacement effect, that event never happens:

603.2f An ability triggers only if its trigger event actually occurs. An event that’s prevented or replaced won’t trigger anything.
614.6. If an event is replaced, it never happens.

So what happens is that one Flesh Reaver deals 4 damage to one player in one "packet", and you get 1 trigger of Flesh Reaver's ability.

119.4. Damage is processed in a three-part sequence.
119.4a First, damage is dealt, as modified by replacement and prevention effects that interact with damage. (See rule 614, “Replacement Effects,” and rule 615, “Prevention Effects.”) Abilities that trigger when damage is dealt trigger now and wait to be put on the stack.

This means first you replace damage dealing events, which causes the defending player to be dealt 2+2 damage. Those 4 damage are dealt as one event, then applicable abilities such as Flesh Reaver's trigger.
Since you only get one Flesh Reaver trigger, Urza's Armor would only apply once, reducing the damage from 4 to 3.

The evidence I can find indicates that for the purpose of evaluating replacement effects, damage that is dealt simultaneously to multiple things is considered to be multiple separate effects, and even if that damage is redirected, those events are not combined in a way that affects applying replacement effects.
The card Angrath's Marauders has this ruling:

If a creature with trample you control would deal combat damage to a blocking creature while you control Angrath’s Marauders, you must assign its unmodified damage. For example, a 3/3 creature with trample blocked by a 2/2 creature can have at most 1 damage assigned to the defending player. It will then deal 4 damage to the blocking creature and 2 damage to the defending player.

This indicates that a single replacement effect can apply separately to multiple instances of damage dealt at the same time, such as in combat.
In addition, Ghosts of the Innocent has this ruling:

If damage is redirected, it’s only halved once.

If you could combine damage events and re-apply replacement effects the way you describe, then it would be possible to halve damage more than once in some cases, in violation of this ruling. So, my conclusion is that damage events do not combine that way.
In the specific situation you describe, there are two separate damage events. For the damage dealt to the blocker, first Blood of the Martyr applies, and if the player chooses to apply it the damage is redirected to the player, then Empyrial Archangel's ability applies and the damage is redirected to it. For the damage dealt to the player, first Empyrial Archangel's ability applies and the damage is redirected to it, then Blood of the Martyr applies and the player can choose to redirect it to the player.
As far as I can tell, the question of whether those separate damage events are considered to be part of a larger combat damage event for the purpose of evaluating replacement effects is largely moot, because I cannot find any cards that apply a replacement effect across such a single event all at once.
With all that being said, I think that if you actually end up redirecting multiple of those damage events to a single creature or player, you only get one triggered ability, because the end result of applying those replacement effects is that you have a single source dealing some amount of damage to a single thing simultaneously.

Mindblade Render's rulings confirm that multiple damage events that happen simultaneously only trigger effects a single time.  You could argue that Render is worded to specifically force it to work that way and it's not a general rule, but I'm not sure the rules support Render reading all the damage events with a single trigger and other cards reading them separately.

It's really tricky to generalize that kind of thing, because different triggered abilities can split up events in different ways. Even with that particular example, it will see multiple creatures dealing combat damage to a player as one event, but "Whenever a creature deals combat damage to a player" will see multiple events.


text:
Does Touch of Moonglove need another "this turn?"
So, this question is pedantic, but still I must ask.
Here is the current oracle text for Touch of Moonglove:

Target creature you control gets +1/+0 and gains deathtouch until end
  of turn. Whenever a creature dealt damage by that creature dies this
  turn, its controller loses 2 life.

Normally when card text discusses something dealt damage by a creature, it looks for "dealt damage by X this turn" (e.g. Abattoir Ghoul), or for a delayed trigger in a spell, it looks for "dealt damage this way" (e.g. Aggravate; not appropriate here because Touch of Moonglove doesn't deal damage).
So, I think a literal reading of Touch of Moonglove means it would apply to all creatures that have ever (in any turn) been dealt damage by the target creature as long as they die this turn. ("This turn" after "dies" I think can syntactically only apply to the duration of the delayed trigger.)
Clearly this is not the intended reading. If this was intended, it would perhaps be worded like Diseased Vermin ("previously dealt damage", but in this case probably worded something like "dealt damage this turn or previously dealt damage"). But, such a card has memory issues at the very least.
The correct wording is I think "Whenever a creature dealt damage by that creature this turn dies this turn, ...", but it is maybe a bit awkward.
Note that although damage is cleared at end of turn, the "dealt damage" clause cannot be understood to rely on marked damage. It should work with wither or infect which do not mark damage (and last beyond this turn), and I think it still works after regeneration or other effects that would remove marked damage (if it still dies later).
Note also that I am reading that "dealt damage" can refer to damage before Touch of Moonglove resolved. This could even be previous damage dealt "this turn," which is how I understand the card should work.
Is this criticism correct? Is this some reason that Touch of Moonglove doesn't need another "this turn?" Are there other cards with similar issues? (I didn't find any others yet.)

Re "But, such a card has memory issues at the very least.", Yeah. But you can prepare knowing this card is in your deck.

Bone Shaman's Oracle wording says to me that two "this turn"s might be necessary.

@ikegami If we were to accept this reading, then the opponent would have had to have been keeping track as well. After all, they have a right to challenge your assertion that the creatures has been dealt damage.

@Accumulation, I agree that that looking back to the start of the game is problematic, but that's not a factor in determining what the effect does. And no, they could track the info, but they wouldn't have to. For starters, "details of current game actions and past game actions that still affect the game state" such as this qualify as free information "to which all players are entitled access without contamination or omissions made by their opponents."

Given the Oracle wording on Bone Shaman (as pointed out by @ArcanistLupus in the comments), I would say it probably should have another "until end of turn".
Bone Shaman's Oracle text

{B}: Until end of turn, Bone Shaman gains "Creatures dealt damage by
  Bone Shaman this turn can't be regenerated this turn."

Clearly someone at Wizards decided that Bone Shaman needed similar wording to be more clear as to the purpose of its ability.  I would guess that Touch of Moonglove's wording is just an oversight (or maybe whoever wrote Bone Shaman's Oracle text wasn't involved with Touch of Moonglove).
Ultimately though, as you've pointed out, the intent was obviously not to deal with all creatures damaged throughout the course of the game.  You could try to rules-lawyer it that way, but I doubt any reasonable judge or playgroup would allow it to happen.

Re "It probably should have another "until end of turn".",  ...if it works like Bone Shaman. Could you please establish that? You say it's obvious, but it's never obvious that a card works differently that worded, as that's a contradiction of the rules.

@ikegami Name one other card that references something that happened on a previous turn, and isn't marked with something such as a counter, tapping, exile, etc. How would a judge rule on that? "Is the judge supposed to rely on a player's declaration as to what happened several turns ago?

@Accumulation, What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying it's impossible for cards that do things no other cards do? (If it mattered, I'd refer you to the comments on the other answers that reference Diseased Vermin.)

Re "Is the judge supposed to rely on a player's declaration as to what happened several turns ago?", It wouldn't be the first time.

I'm not saying you're conclusion wrong; I'm just saying that, "Yes, because it's obvious" is rather lacking as an answer, especially when that contradicts the rules. [CR 608.2c]

@ikegami You are correct that there is nothing stopping Wizards from making a card that does something no other card does.  However, if Wizards wanted everyone to start having to keep track of historical damage, they probably would have made a bigger deal about it.  When they made changes to how combat worked and you could no longer put damage on the stack and do shenanigans there were rules change notes and reminders everywhere.  It was blindingly apparent to anyone, new or veteran, that combat works differently now.  (cont..)

@ikegami (cont..) Any other changes to the rules, even minor ones, get some sort of announcement or fan fare to remind people of the change. If Touch of Moonglove was to change how people had to fundamentally play the game (by constantly having to keep track of historical damage on the off chance the card gets played or someone uses a wish effect to pull one in) I would have expected more from Wizards. I would have expected instructions in the rules stating that a player must keep track of historical damage (and failure to do so might fall under failing to maintain and track game state).(cont)

@ikegami (cont..) I would have expected rules changes and announcements.  But we got none of that.  We got a simple, common level card that quietly got added to the game.  If something was game changing, I would have expected it on a rare or mythic rare level card.  Commons are meant to be the most simple, easy to use, beginner friendly cards in the game.  Stuff that is
Chains of Mephistopheles level complicated don't make it as common cards (at least not in modern era Magic).  Given all that, I'd be stunned if Wizards really intended for this card to be that complicated.

The question isn't about what Wizards intended to do; it's about what they did do. I think we all agree that MG shouldn't look back that far, but the question is what does it actually do. Has it been used in any tournaments?

No, Touch of Moonglove does not need another 'this turn'
Theoretically, damage dealt by a source to another source can be remembered across the game, because it's part of the game's history. However, for practical reasons, no card references damage dealt in previous turns without a system (e.g. counters), because it would be a large impediment to the game if players had to keep track of all instances of damage, even if they knew beforehand they might need it later.
The only exception is commander damage to opponents, which is remembered for the whole game, but only because every player knows beforehand to keep track of that damage, and it's only one card per player.
Wither and infect are kind of remembered through -1/-1 counters, but those don't count as "remembered damage". The counters could come from anywhere, could be removed, and, most importantly, those counters are damage results, not the actual damage:

119.4. Damage is processed in a three-part sequence.
119.4a First, damage is dealt, as modified by replacement and prevention effects that interact with damage. [..]
119.4b Next, damage that’s been dealt is processed into its results [..]

Marking damage on a creature is also a damage result, not the actual damage.

"... no card references damage dealt in previous turns without a system ..." Surely my example of Diseased Vermin is an exception to this? (Granted it's an old card and such a card would probably never be printed today in this exact form.) And, is this not begging the question? I agree every other card probably works like this, but only because they say so on the card. Why in particular is "this turn" the default duration? Your rules citations don't seem to explain this. Noting that marked damage is not actual damage was one of my arguments that "this turn" was needed...

"no card references damage dealt in previous turns without a system" -- Well, it might be that no other card does. But the question was if Moonglove does so. I don't think it would be only Magic card with a unique effect, so this doesn't really answer the question.

@tehtmi the difference between Diseased Vermin and Touch of Moonglove is that Diseased Vermin can't deal damage before it enters the battlefield, and as soon as it did ETB, players can start tracking. ToM on the other hand, if interpreted your way, would look back in time and would therefore require players to keep track of every creature's damage assignments for the entire game just on the possibility that someone plays ToM on some creature.

@tehtmi The very next words after the part you quote was "such as counters". Diseased Vermin puts counters on creatures it has damaged.

@Acccumulation It does not. The counters go on Diseased Vermin.

@Hackworth, I think we all agree that MG shouldn't look back that far. The question is what does it actually do.


text:
What is wrong with Escaped Shapeshifter's original wording?
Escaped Shapeshifter has an interesting functional erratum.
The oracle text reads:

As long as an opponent controls a creature with flying not named Escaped Shapeshifter, Escaped Shapeshifter has flying. The same is true for first strike, trample, and protection from any color.

The part in bold ("not named Escaped Shapeshifter") is not printed on the card.
I presume this text was added to avoid rules complications. So, what happens if it isn't there? Note, the added text can be circumvented by cards like Sakashima the Impostor that can copy creatures without copying the name (though this may not have been possible at the time the text was added).
I guess this is the problem case: both players control an Escaped Shapeshifter. One player plays a creature with flying. Now both shapeshifters fly. The flying creature leaves the battlefield. Do the shapeshifters still fly?
(I would also be interested in other problem cases that I might not be seeing.)

There are three situations that are affected in meaningful ways by this wording change, all of which had different behavior with the old wording.
In the first situation, two players each have an Escaped Shapeshifter, then one plays a creature with one of the named abilities (e.g. flying). Under the old ruling, both Escaped Shapeshifters would gain flying. With the new wording, only the Shapeshifter opposed to the creature that naturally has flying would gain flying. There is nothing really problematic rules-wise in this situation, but I suspect that the behavior with the old wording was a worse fit for the flavor of the card.
The second situation is the one you describe, where you start with the same creatures as in the first scenario, and then the creature that naturally has flying goes away. With the old wording and the current rules, both Shapeshifters would lose flying. With the new wording, it is pretty clear that the opposing Shapeshifter would lose flying. This is a problematic scenario, because under the old wording it's not obvious to most players what would happen.
In the third situation, two players each have an Escaped Shapeshifter, and one also has a creature with flying and the other also has a creature with first strike. With the old wording and the current rules, unintuitively, one Shapeshifter would gain only the ability the opposing creature has naturally, and the other would gain both abilities, and which one gets which depends on the order in which they entered the battlefield. With the new wording, each one only gets the ability that the opposing creature naturally has. This is the most problematic situation, because the old behavior is surprisingly asymmetrical and requires players to track an unusual piece of information: when the creatures entered the battlefield.

To understand why this ability behaves this way under the old wording, we have to delve deep into the rules regarding the interaction of continuous effects. In Magic, evaluating the outcome of effects like this uses what is commonly known as the "layer system". In this case, the layers themselves are less important because the ability in question only operates on one layer: "Layer 6: Ability-adding effects, ability-removing effects, and effects that say an object can't have an ability". When applying multiple effects in the same layer, two subrules of that section apply:

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

613.7. Within a layer or sublayer, determining which order effects are applied in is sometimes done using a dependency system. If a dependency exists, it will override the timestamp system.

This dependency system is the way the rules rigorously represent the idea of "one Shapeshifter gains flying because the other Shapeshifter gains flying". The rule for deciding whether the dependency system applies is 613.7a:

An effect is said to "depend on" another if (a) it's applied in the same layer (and, if applicable, sublayer) as the other effect (see rules 613.1 and 613.3); (b) applying the other would change the text or the existence of the first effect, what it applies to, or what it does to any of the things it applies to; and (c) neither effect is from a characteristic-defining ability or both effects are from characteristic-defining abilities. Otherwise, the effect is considered to be independent of the other effect.

Using the old wording, we can see a difference in how this would be evaluated in the two situations:

Let's call the Shapeshifter controlled by the player with the flying creature Shapeshifter A, and the one controlled by the opponent Shapeshifter N. We can see that there is a dependency here: (a) they are both in the same layer; (b) if Shapeshifter N's effect is applied first then it gets flying from the creature that naturally has flying, which changes the outcome of applying Shapeshifter A's effect; and (c) the ability is not a characteristic-defining ability. The same is not true the other way around: applying Shapeshifter A's effect first will do nothing, which will have no effect on what Shapeshifter N's effect will do.

In this case, if you apply either Shapeshifter's effect first, it gains no abilities because none of the opponent's creatures have any of the named abilities (yet), which means that it doesn't change what the other Shapeshifter's effect does. So, this fails the second condition and there is not a dependency.

This case is similar to the first, except that the second condition is true in both directions. If you apply Shapeshifter A's effect first, Shapeshifter N also gains first strike. And if you apply Shapeshifter N's effect first, Shapeshifter A gains flying.

Once there are dependencies, rule 613.7b describes how to apply the effects:

An effect dependent on one or more other effects waits to apply until just after all of those effects have been applied. If multiple dependent effects would apply simultaneously in this way, they're applied in timestamp order relative to each other. If several dependent effects form a dependency loop, then this rule is ignored and the effects in the dependency loop are applied in timestamp order.

With this we can see how the effects actually get applied in each situation.

In the first situation, Shapeshifter A's effect depends on Shapeshifter N's effect, so we wait until after we apply Shapeshifter N's effect to apply Shapeshifter A's effect. Shapeshifter N sees an opposing creature with flying, so it gains flying. Then Shapeshifter A sees an opposing creature with flying, so it gains flying.

In the second situation, there is no dependency, so we use the timestamp order. Whichever Shapeshifter entered the battlefield first sees no opposing creatures with the listed abilities, so it gains no abilities. Then the other Shapeshifter does the same.

In the third situation, since each creature's effect depends on the other there is a dependency loop, so we end up using the timestamp order again. In this case, whichever Shapeshifter entered the battlefield first sees one opposing creature with one of the abilities, so it gains that ability. Then the other Shapeshifter sees two different creatures with different abilities that it can copy, so it copies both of them.

The discussion on Gatherer says there would be an infinite loop of gaining and losing the ability when a creature triggering the ability leaves the battlefield as a state based action. Is this correct?

@JollyJoker No, I don't think so. The shapeshifter gaining trample from an opposing creature with trample is not a state-based action. So it wouldn't gain trample simultaneously with the opponent's creature dying (thus setting off a hypothetic infinite chain of state-based actions). It would gain trample during the resolution of the opposing creature spell, the moment the opposing creature enters the battlefield.

@JollyJoker There is no state-based action that causes this creature to lose or gain flying. Similarly, you have an Elvish Champion making your Llanowar 2/2; when your Champion dies it is not a state-based action that makes your Llanowar 1/1 again. It is simply 1/1 because Champion is no longer on the battlefield. These sort of things are just always true, at all times, they don't require things like state-based actions to apply them.

You might want to add a bit about Sakashima (since the OP mentioned it), and why she does not create a dependency loop.

I don't know what I can say that's not obvious based on what I already said. It should be easy to deduce how the "not named Escaped Shapeshifter" clause interacts with creatures that aren't named Escaped Shapeshifter.

The main thing is that it might not be obvious to everyone that "named Escaped Shapeshifter" doesn't become "named Sakashima the Imposter", the way self referential text changes.

That's really tangential to the question. I'm sure there are other questions about how "named " differs from other uses of the card name on the card.


text:
What happens if a spliced spell leaves the stack mid-resolution?
Some spells remove themselves from the stack. For example Glittering Wish exiles itself or Unexpected Results sometimes returns itself to your hand.
If you splice Everdream onto such a card, what happens? Do you draw the card from Everdream even if it leaves the stack first?
According to the rules for splice:

702.47e. The spell loses any splice changes once it leaves the stack for any reason.

(Perhaps this is meant to ensure that splice changes wouldn't apply the next time the spell is cast, for example.)
But also:

608.2k. If an instant spell, sorcery spell, or ability that can legally resolve leaves the stack once it starts to resolve, it will continue to resolve fully.

There is a distinction between a spell and a card. Once a spell had started resolving, it is independent of the card it used to be on. It gets a lot of properties from the card, like colour and owner, but it is more or less entirely decoupled.

The spell will continue to resolve with its splice effect.
702.47e only means to say that the modified spell does not keep the spliced text when it leaves the stack. It is a corrolary of 400.7:

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.

608.2k is not affected by this.


text:
MTG Enchantment vs instant
During the main phase my opponent plays an enchantment on my creature. I respond with an instant to give my creature hexproof. Is my creatue enchanted or not because of my instant?

702.11b “Hexproof” on a permanent means “This permanent can't be the target of spells or abilities your opponents control.” Assuming the creature gains hexproof before the opponent's enchantment resolves, it'll no longer be a legal target and the creature will not be enchanted. See this related question for more details on when the validity of a target is checked.

One of these needs to be made into an answer instead of a comment.

I felt a comment was most appropriate as I didn't want to leave a formal answer for a duplicate question.

Say that we have two players, Alice and Bob. Assume that Bob has a German Foil Storm Crow out and its Alice's turn. Alice wants to cast Pacifism because god, that's a scary Storm Crow. So the enchantment goes on the stack, targeting Storm Crow. Now priority gets passed to Bob and say this German Foil Storm Crow holds sentimental value to Bob. He casts Blossoming Defens targeting the Storm Crow. Now Blossoming Defense is on the stack targeting Storm Crow. Priority gets passed back to Alice and she has no response. The Blossoming Defens resolves first, giving Storm Crow indestructible and hexproof. Now the Pacifism resolves attempting to target Storm Crow.
Because of:

Resolving Spells and Abilities

608.2b If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. A target that’s no longer in the zone it was in when it was targeted is illegal. Other changes to the game state may cause a target to no longer be legal; for example, its characteristics may have changed or an effect may have changed the text of the spell. If the source of an ability has left the zone it was in, its last known information is used during this process. The spell or ability is countered if all its targets, for every instance of the word “target,” are now illegal. If the spell or ability is not countered, it will resolve normally. However, if any of its targets are illegal, the part of the spell or ability’s effect for which it is an illegal target can’t perform any actions on that target, make another object or player perform any actions on that target, or make that target perform any actions. If the spell or ability creates a continuous effect that affects game rules (see rule 613.10), that effect doesn’t apply to illegal targets. The effect may still determine information about illegal targets, though, and other parts of the effect for which those targets are not illegal may still affect them.

The Pacifism tries to target the Storm Crow but now that its an illegal target it just fizzles and goes to the graveyard. Bob precedes to then beat Alice's face in with a Storm Crow and win.
TL;DR the creature becomes an illegal target and the enchantment fizzles, just going to the graveyard.

Nit-pick: "Now priority gets passed to Bob" No, it doesn't. Alice gets priority after casting her pacificm because presumably she's the active player. She's fine with the state of the game, so she passes priority on to Bob, who uses it to cast a spell. "Priority gets passed back to Alice and she has no response." Again, you missed that Alice first passes priority to Bob, who passes, and only then does Blossoming Defense resolve.


text:
Why you can't summon face-up monsters in defense position?
I know it is the rule you can only summon in attack position or set (face-down defense position), but I'm curious about why it is a rule that you have to place all the defense position's monsters face-down.
Is there some overpowered strategy if I'm allowed to put face-up defense position's monsters or something like that?

I know it is the rule you can only summon in attack position or set (face-down defense position)

To correct on your phrase, one can only Normal Summon in Face-up attack position.
Unless otherwise restricted, you can Special Summon in Face-up defense position.

The actual reason for doing so I guess is something only Konami knows. If I were to conjecture on the reason, I would say that it is because not only is your monster in defense, which could be tactical advantage, but you will also be able to activate its effects.
To prevent this abuse, the rules force you to Normal summon in Attack position (possibly a disadvantage, or at least open for battle damage) if you wish to activate your monster's effect. Think of it as "if you want to activate this effect you have to take some risks".
On the other hand, I also think this could be a "Legacy" rule, one that has lost its original impact, as now there are many ways to summon in face-up defense position (one barely Normal summons now days). Perhaps Konami decided to let it be, to prevent possible abuse.

It's never been a "Legacy Rule" in the real-world card game, but the characters in the Yu-Gi-Oh! manga and anime series sometimes summon monsters into face-up defense position to speed things up for the sake of drama. In most cases, there's no reason they wouldn't have wanted to set the monster face-down, but it saves a few turns of back and forth if they just reveal their monsters right away.

@Thunderforge by Legacy I mean old rule that perhaps could be modified/removed but is preserved. The anime point is a good one, that was one of many things done to speed up or slow down the pace of the series. That being said, the main reason for the rule is, as stated in the answer, to prevent effect monsters from activating their effs without risking some Battle Damage.


text:
How to play the Harbinger card in Dominion
If I play a harbinger card, I draw from my deck and then have an action and am able to take a card from my discard and put it onto my deck.  Am I able to draw a card, then put one from my discard onto the top of my deck and then play an action card that allows me to draw that card right off the top and play it or do I have to wait until the very end of my turn to move the card to my deck?

Short answer: yes, you can draw it immediately with, e.g., another action card.
Long answer: the golden rule in Dominion is to follow a card's text entirely, top to bottom, before moving on to your next play. In this case, you:

Play the Harbinger.
Draw a card from your deck, shuffling it if empty.
May optionally put a card from your discard pile on top of your deck, if there are any cards in your discard.
Play subsequently another action card, such as a Village, to immediately draw that card.

You should have another step between 2 and 3... "add 1 to the number of actions you can play this turn (don't immediately play another action yet)".