You do not continue to discard cards from a deck after emptying and reshuffling it, so there are only 4 cards in the discard.
 

The plot is not revealed again.

The plot is not revealed again.

Unfortunately not. From page 25 of the online Rules Reference/FAQ (v1.3):

It originally had a similar description to those of attack and thwart, that "if a triggered ability is labeled as a defense... resolving that ability is considered a defense", which has been removed in the new revision. I assume this is what @Khudzlin was referring to.
This can be seen in the v1.1 Rules Reference (third bullet point under defend, defense) which is archived here: https://web.archive.org/web/20200104010906/https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/4e/cd/4ecda1b3-22b0-4eb8-a2e3-7236afd92aa3/mc_rulesreference_v11.pdf

The RRG has the full definition. Reminder text is reminder text, it is not full rules text. 

Historically with their games the keyword definition always comes from the rules reference as not all cards will always have the reminder text. Also, it is easier to update a keyword definition than errata every card.

From the RR:
Guard — While any minions with this keyword are engaged with a player, that player cannot attack villains without this keyword.
The reminder text on the minion cards is incomplete. Guard doesn't prevent you from attacking the villain it only prevents you from attacking a villain without guard.  

My suspicion is that we won't see this. While this has happened with recent games (L5R, Marvel Champions), it seems that for games released before the decision was taken to have an online "living rules references" they are sticking with keeping all the pdfs identical to the printed versions.
It would definitely be nice to have, but an alternative is to use https://arkhamdb.com/rules. It isn't completely up to date but it has added keywords that have appeared in expansions and incorporates some of the changes from the FAQ directly into the relevant part of the document.

Haven't even read the OP or any of the other post. You must sleeve. 

Let's say the Seeker draws Grasping Hands and the Guardian plays Let Me Handle This. For the purposes of resolving Grasping Hands, the Guardian is considered the one who drew it. However, it still counts as the Seeker's mythos draw, and the Guardian will draw his own encounter card in addition to Grasping Hands.
In effect, the Guardian has to deal with two mythos draws, and the Seeker deals with none.

This is what was posted on BGG, courtesy of Brendan Little:
 

heals and gains are the same in this instance. It's a misprint.

Unfortunately not. The stun card is discarded when the villain would attack, i.e. instead of attacking, while Charge is only discarded at the end of an attack that Rhino actually makes.

The simplest and most plausible explanation to me is that the wording for Piledriver is wrong and that "gains" should read "heals". The alternative creates more problems than it solves.

Given that only one of those cards is an attachment, I would say that for that one card, the Villain adds three to the current and max HP. For the other temporary effects, it's just current HP that changes. There shouldn't be any permanent changes to the game state without any way of tracking it. The fact that the cards have the same name would also lead me to believe that the intention is they have the same effect.

That's looking at it backwards. Collating randomised packs together after printing is very expensive and needs a large audience purchasing a lot to keep it financially viable. CoC and AGoT had dedicated fanbases that were ultimately too small to support their CCGs, so as a last ditch effort to get cards in their hands cheaply (a move that FFG saw as a 'thanks for the support, enjoy these last cards but this game is dead now') they released fixed (therefore cheaper to make) expansions for the two games. They proved popular enough that it prompted FFG to pursue LCGs as a model, selling customers on the benefits of fixed distribution and an even playing field and taking advantage of lower costs to still make money without needing a Magic- or Pokemon-sized audience.
(Op: FFG have posted articles on their site before covering these topics. Dig back in the archives of the older LCGs and you might find them. Particularly around the time AGoT announced the transition from 1.0 to 2.0 they were very introspective, as in addition they finally shuttered CoC, and revised the LCG model to include rotation as LCGs had proved successful enough to live until some of their cardpools were problematically bloated and hard to keep in print.)
I think the trend since has been showing that while LCGs can be profitable with a smaller player base than CCGs, *competitive* LCGs still need a large and active enough player base to have a thriving tournament scene, which can be difficult, while co-op/solo LCGs are easier to support as they work well as kitchen table boardgames with occasional in-store events instead of regular tournaments or leagues.

Captain America can’t control the Shield with his mind - he throws it at an angle that he’s calculated will bounce into additional people. If that’s interrupted, by someone jumping in the way or catching it or whatever ever, that can throw off his aim. If someone is really well protected by something it might not be possible for him to even throw it at his real target. It makes perfect sense that he can’t target the villain while they are being guarded...

Except in extreme cases, theme can always be adapted to rules without issues. Doing the reverse leads to overly complex rules with loads of special cases.

Except in extreme cases, theme can always be adapted to rules without issues. Doing the reverse leads to overly complex rules with loads of special cases.

Except in extreme cases, theme can always be adapted to rules without issues. Doing the reverse leads to overly complex rules with loads of special cases.

I was actually thinking about the very same thing this morning. I think the prescribed thematic interpretation here is that once the shield is tossed, Cap can't change the way the shield ricochets around, an action he initially gauged under different conditions (i.e., the villain cannot be targeted). 

Maybe but theme helps you remember the rules.  It's like a mnemonic device.  So it may be helpful to explore this issue he's having.  I know if I can't resolve the theme of a ruling I do tend to resent the ruling even though I obviously adhere to it for game balance purposes.  Also if we can't match theme to mechanics then what is the point?  We might as well just play spider solitaire.
In this instance I would consider that shield can't react to a dynamic situation.  In that way Cap's targeting of the minions and villain is simultaneous.  Cap pictures the angles of the room to try and hit all the enemies he is targeting, but that Guard changes that plan by literally jumping in front of the shield hit for the villain in the scene.  So when the shield bounces from enemy to enemy it never has an opportunity to hit the villain since it bounces off his human shield jumping in front of the blow and continues onto the next enemy in the angle sequence that cap initiated.

Didn't we get a ruling for Iron Man with his 'remove one threat from each scheme' being unable to remove threat from the main scheme while a Crisis scheme was in play, even if you're going to defeat the crisis scheme with the 1?
I would consider this pretty similar. It doesn't specify a sequence for the attacks, so I assume they are all simultaneous.

In this particular instance I think balance >>> theme.