text:
Parallel Lives and Dance of Many
I was wondering how Dance of Many and Parallel Lives interact.
Dance of Many's Oracle text says:

When Dance of Many enters the battlefield, put a token that's a copy of target nontoken creature onto the battlefield.
When Dance of Many leaves the battlefield, exile the token.
When the token leaves the battlefield, sacrifice Dance of Many.
At the beginning of your upkeep, sacrifice Dance of Many unless you pay {U}{U}.

Parallel Lives says:

If an effect would put one or more tokens onto the battlefield under your control, it puts twice that many of those tokens onto the battlefield instead.

Although the ruling on Parallel Lives states:

If the effect creating the tokens instructs you to do something with those tokens at a later time, like exiling them at the end of combat, you'll do that for all the tokens.

this applies only to delayed triggers like for example the one on Mimic Vat, as far as I know.
My question is: will the second triggered ability on Dance of Many remember that it put two tokens into play? And if it does (implying "the token" becoming "those tokens") , will the third triggered ability trigger on either token leaving the battlefield or on all tokens leaving the battlefield?

Just like the delayed triggered ability and the activated ability of Mimic Vat, the first two abilities of Dance of Many are linked [CR 607.2c], and so are the first and third abilities. The ruling from Parallel Lives applies.

607.2c If an object has an activated or triggered ability printed on it that puts one or more objects onto the battlefield and an ability printed on it that refers to objects "put onto the battlefield with [this object]," those abilities are linked. The second can refer only to objects put onto the battlefield as a result of the first.

"The token" in the second and third ability is short for "the token put on the battlefield by Dance of Many", and refers to that which the first ability created [CR 607.1]. Since

put a token that's a copy of target nontoken creature onto the battlefield.

was replaced with

put two tokens that's a copy of target nontoken creature onto the battlefield.

that which was created was two tokens, so both tokens get exiled if Dance of the Many leaves the battlefield, and Dance of the Many gets sacrificed if either token leaves the battlefield.

Tacked on the answer to the related question the OP asked.

This may be academic as you are most probably right but what bugged me, is that, if "the token" is now "the tokens put on the battlefield by ~", the third ability becomes ambigious. Literaly it would state "When the tokens put on the battlefield by ~ leave the battlefield, ...". Since a triggered ability that needs, things to happen simultaneously is somewhat strange, you might claim that either event triggers it. But why doesn't the third ability now read "When the last token put onto the battlefield by ~, leaves the battlefield, ..."? (similar to the 'vanishing' mechanism)

I agree there's some interpretation needed, but I'm highly confident in my answer. If you want more eyeballs, go here, but that noone posted a dissenting answer or comment is a good sign. Vanishing always only cares about the last, while Dance cares about any of its (normally one) tokens leaving.

@Maxwell: The short answer is that "When the last token put onto the battlefield by ~" would be an actual wording change that changed the effect, beyond that actually required by Parallel Lives.  (It would better represent the theme and intent of Dance of Many to treat it as you suggest, but the rules don't care about either.  Nothing in Parallel Lives text changes that third ability... so it doesn't change.)

@Tynam: The third ability needs to change as it only refers to "the token". But "a token" and "the last token" are both equally rightful extensions to the ability as both do exactly the same when there is just one token (and you only know for sure what happens in this case as it is printed). In my opinion this question is undecidable from the card text alone and AFAIK there is no rule deciding it either. This may be a hole in the rules but if they would fix it I'm pretty sure they would do it in the sense ikegami has proposed.

You should consider the effect of Dance of Many to be instructing you to give the token the properties "When Dance of Many leaves the battlefield, exile this token." and "When this token leaves the battlefield, sacrifice Dance of Many." The ruling on Parallel Lives then says that since you are instructed to do this for the original token, you should do it for both. Thus, you now have two tokens that both have "When Dance of Many leaves the battlefield, exile this token." and "When this token leaves the battlefield, sacrifice Dance of Many."


text:
Can Gandalf's jewel conversion ability be used more than once per turn?
In The Hobbit: Enchanted Gold, Gandalf's ability is as follows:

When you play the Gandalf card, you may (optionally) replace any one jewel required on an Encounter card with two jewels of any other colour – but they must be of the same colour. The jewels may come from your supply and/or from bonus jewels on your defeated encounter cards.

This sounds like you can only use the ability once per turn, since it is "any one jewel". However, the example of play has it being used twice:

You can use Gandalf's special effect to play 2 red jewels instead of 1 of the required 2 purple ones on the Bolg card.
With Gandalf's help (again) you can use the blue jewel in your supply and the blue bonus jewel on the Orcs card instead of the 2nd purple jewel.

Which is correct? The rules or the example of play?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Does adding a +1/+1 counter count as "gaining attack?"
The Mystique Main Character has the following Level Up Power:

Bitter Fury
Level Up (10) - Whenever Mystique gains ATK, she gains that much XP.

The rules have this to say about +1/+1 counters:

Many effects put +1/+1 of -1/-1 counters on characters. These numbers alter a character's ATK and DEF until something removes the counters.

Does adding a +1/+1 counter to Mystique cause her to "gain attack," which  triggers her Level Up Power?

From the FAQ at VsSystem2PCG.AlterVista.org, regarding Mystique's Bitter Fury:
Question

Does adding counters count as her gaining ATK? What about Trickster God switching her ATK/DEF, would she gain 5 xp as she turns into a 6/1?

Answer

Yes and Yes.

This is a handy resource. I'm curious who is providing answers to the questions on this website. The website links to the FAQ from UpperDeck, but that hasn't been updated since September of 2015. Where are the answers for the Defenders and A-Force expansions coming from? It's probably written on the site somewhere, but I don't read Italian and not everything is translated.

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


text:
Does Upper Deck maintain an official errata for Legendary: A Marvel Deck Building Game?
Given that there are errors on some cards, as indicated by this question, is there an official errata list from Upper Deck? The closest I could find is on Board Game Geek, but this list is a collection of notes from their forums and hasn't been updated since February of 2014.

While that errata on BGG is unofficially maintained, the answers in it are as official as you can get since they come directly from two of Upper Deck's game developers.

@winterblood True. I guess that leaves the age of the document as the main issue here.

From reading through the last few comments, there may be an update to it sometime soon, hopefully once some errata has been gathered for the recently released Captain America expansion.

Officially they maintain a Facebook page and twitter account for Legendary DBGs
but there is no official Errata currently being maintained.

The closest thing to an official errata are the updates/comments made by the designer. You can find them here: https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/92138/unofficial-collected-faq-clarifications-and-errata

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


text:
In solo play, am I the player to my right?
Last night I was playing Legendary: A Marvel Deck Building Game using the standard solo rules. The villain group in my game was Underworld, from the Dark City expansion. On one of my turns, I flipped Blackheart who has three abilities:

Ambush: The player to your right (does something)*
Fight: Same effect.
Escape: Same effect.

Am I the player to my right? In other words, do I have to do the effect on this card if I am playing by myself?

I can't remember what this something is, but that's unimportant to the question.

Yes, you are the player to your right (and left) when playing solo.
From Devin Low, the designer of Legendary:

Blackheart's effects say "The player on your right reveals a [MARVEL KNIGHTS] Hero or gains a Wound." When you do this effect in a two-player game, the other player is the player to your right, so that player must reveal or gain a Wound. In a solo game, the player to your right (going around the table) is yourself, so you gain a Wound.

In the main rule book from the base set under solo play, any action that you would do to another player you do to yourself if playing solo.

Welcome to Board Games Stack Exchange. This answer would be even better if you included a direct quote from the rule book to support your answer.

I'm at work, and my rule book is at home. It is near the end of the book, the last 3 or 4 pages roughly.

Does this add anything that wasn't present in the other answer?

@JoeW I think it's nice to know that this rule is included in the rulebook.

@KingofNES I don't know if it's the right file, but I don't see it here: http://www.upperdeck.com/OP/RuleBooks/Legendary_Rules-Core_Set.pdf


text:
What happens to the Capitol City during a Temporal Anomaly?
In Conquest of Planet Earth, the players are (usually green) bug-eyed space aliens doing the thing in the game title. There are ray guns, superheroes, strange events and, more to the point, temporal anomalies.
Here's the text of the Temporal Anomaly card:

PLAY IMMEDIATELY
Discard all Location cards on the board that do not currently have an Alien or marker on them, then shuffle all discard piles back into their respective decks.

The Capitol City lives in the middle of the board; it's put there at the beginning of the game. (All other locations are dealt from the Locations deck once someone moves a ship to an empty space.) It's pretty common for the Capitol City to have no Alien or conquest marker on it. (The capitol city is worth 5 victory points, in a game where victory happens at 8 points. It's also the best-defended location in the game.) However, the Capitol City is a truly singular card; it's a Location, but it quite definitely doesn't go in the Locations deck, because it's a double-sided card. (The other side is the Historical Monument, worth fewer victory points and less well-defended. If you play with that, it makes the game less of a race for the capitol.)
Since the Capitol City "can't" go in the Locations deck, what happens to it if it's unclaimed when Temporal Anomaly is drawn? Do you flip it to the other side? Randomly decide whether to flip it? Keep it intact? Shuffle it into the Locations deck anyway? Discard it, don't put it in the deck, and the Capitol City will never be seen again?

The Objective Location Card is unaffected.
The rules differentiate between regular Location cards, and the Objective Location card. (Page 2) Game Contents

35 Card Location Deck
1 Double-Sided Objective Location Card

You clearly cannot turn it over, since the rules tell you don't use the Historic Monument in the same game as the Capitol City (page 7).

(On the back side of this Objective Location card is the Historic Monument which can be used as an alternate Objective in later games once you have gotten a handle of the rules).


text:
What is Majestic Myriarch's power and toughness if I "eternalize" it with God-Pharaoh's Gift?
I have a God-Pharaoh's Gift in play and a Majestic Myriarch in my graveyard with no other creatures on the battlefield. At the start of my combat, I use the ability of God-Pharaoh's gift to "eternalize" the Myriarch. When it enters the battlefield, what is its power and toughness?
Based on the rulings for eternalize, I assume the Myriarch will be a 4/4 with no additional power and toughness (from gatherer, emphasis mine):

The token copies exactly what was printed on the original card and nothing else, except the characteristics it specifically modifies. It doesn’t copy any information about the object the card was before it was put into your graveyard.
The token is a Zombie instead of its other types (unlike Zombies created by an eternalize ability) and is black instead of its other colors. Its power and toughness are 4/4. These are copiable values of the token that other effects may copy.

Is this correct? Does eternalize override the variable power and toughness ability of Myriarch?

It will be a 4/4.
As the rulings indicate, God Pharaoh's Gift's effect is a copy effect with modifications; in particular, it modifies the type, color, power, and toughness of the copy. this means that rule 706.9d applies:

When applying a copy effect that doesn’t copy a certain characteristic, retains an original value for a certain characteristic, or modifies the final value of a certain characteristic, any characteristic-defining ability (see rule 604.3) of the object being copied that defines that characteristic is not copied. If that characteristic is color, any color indicator (see rule 204) of that object is also not copied.

This means that Majestic Myriarch's first ability is not copied, so it is just a 4/4.


text:
Does it have to be exactly five quarks to win?
I have sets in the detector like this:

Green Up / Red Up / Blue Charm
Anti-Green Anti-Up / Green Down
Anti-Red Anti-Charm / Red Strange

The rules say the player needs to "assemble a set of 5 quarks at the detector," but this set of 7 contains a winning set. Is this game considered a win, or did I need to contain the quarks more concisely?

Extra quarks in the detector are irrelevant. The written rules say you win if at any time there is a pentaquark in the detector. If the pentaquark needed to be alone in the detector, the rules should state that explicitly. Fortunately, on their website they have a "How to Play" video made by the designer. In the video, he won with 6 quarks in the detector. The video is on YouTube at https://youtu.be/2WdbX97mUpQ and on the website at https://buttonshygames.com/pages/pentaquark

You need exactly 5 quarks at the detector in order to win. While I am unable to find the rules online I have found other information that provides clarification of what the game is trying for.
Pentaquark Wiki

A pentaquark is a subatomic particle consisting of four quarks and one antiquark bound together.

With the name of the game being the same as a real subatomic particle it can be assumed that you are trying to create one in the game. Since the subatomic particle is defined by the specific amount of quarks it has it can be assumed that the game also needs to have that exact amount in order to be a winning combination.

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


text:
When taking damage to an outfit, does damaging an arming space also apply a -1 to the outfit's die?
The Xia rules are just slightly vague about damage to outfits. It has two separate sections for "putting damage on an outfit" and "putting damage on a use space":

Use Space: If the (damage marker) is placed on a Use Space of an Outfit, any Markers are immediately moved to a Disarmed Space, and the Use Space is no longer usable until repaired.
Outfits: Damage Markers can be placed on any Section of an Outfit. Each
Section of the Outfit can hold one (damage marker). Damage Markers on an Outfit cause that
Outfit to become less effective. Each (damage marker) placed on an Outfit reduces rolls by 1.

Do these two descriptions stack, so that putting a damage marker on a use space of an outfit causes both -1 to rolls with that outfit and the arming spot cannot be used? Or are they separate, so that if you decide to damage an outfit, you have to choose between losing a use space or having the outfit be less effective?

They stack.
Damage Markers can be placed on any Section of an Outfit
An outfit is made up of sections of two types; use spaces and empty spaces for storing cargo i.e. A use space is considered to be a section of an outfit. Therefore this rule
Damage Markers on an Outfit cause that Outfit to become less effective. Each (damage  marker) placed on an Outfit reduces rolls by 1
means that damage anywhere on an outfit will cause it to be less effective.


text:
How do bonus tiles and booty tokens work?
In Pantheon, you represent... the collective interests of a pantheon that's trying to get worshiped. (You score points for getting deities worshiped, but the scoring system isn't picky about which deity gets the praise or which culture does the praising.)
At the beginning of the game, you get Bonus Tiles, which have varying effects: extra movement during the spread-civilization phase, a free random god, a free upgrade to an offering tile, etc. During the game, you can pick up Booty Tokens that have similar effects to the Bonus Tiles. The rules, unfortunately, are quite sparse on what to do with the tiles and tokens. (The rules are also poorly copy-edited.) When can you use the tiles: are they only usable immediately, or can you keep them until some useful moment later and use them then? Does the "Bonus Movement" tile grant you bonus moves every time you do the Movement step, or is it usable only once and then it's gone?
Some of the bonus tiles are much better than others; here's a quick overview.

Bonus Movement: if usable once, has the effect of half a card. If usable repeatedly, is equivalent to one of the less powerful gods. (But there's a booty token that has two bonus movement, which could well be over-powered if it's usable repeatedly.)
Random God: In perfect circumstances, worth 13 victory points. On average, worth one victory point plus some continuing bonus that will last throughout the game.
Upgrade a Sacrifice Tile: If you're required to use this immediately after the game starts, it's worth 1 gold coin plus part of one buy action. If you can hold it for later (upgrading a sacrifice tile from 3 to 4), then it can be worth up to 4 gold coins plus the part of a buy action to do the upgrade.
Place a Column anywhere: Depends on whether you're trying to win via placing columns or not; worth between 2 and 8 victory points.

Since the effect of the bonus tiles varies greatly depending on when and how you can use them, I really do want to know exactly how they're supposed to be used.
(Side note: I'm talking about the Pantheon game published in 2011 by Hans im Gluck and Rio Grande, not any of the other games that happen to be called Pantheon.)

Having now looked over two different English translations, I'm better able to figure out some of the ambiguous wording.
Bonus Tiles have the same coloring system as gods: gold backgrounds mean "play immediately, then discard," and blue backgrounds mean "keep."
All bonus tiles are revealed immediately after the first Prepare-Civilization phase, and all gold tiles are immediately executed and discarded. (If you got the God bonus tile, and it's one of those gods that give you a bonus every turn, you don't get that bonus this turn; using that tile happens after the phase in civilization-preparation where you'd get the bonus in the first turn.)
The "Movement" Bonus Tile is kept permanently, and gives +1 Move on every movement action. (You're not required to use it each Movement action, though.) This can add up to a quite decent bonus over the course of the game.
This means that the single-most-useless tile is the one that upgrades a sacrifice tile, because you're required to use it immediately, and you can only use it to buy a Level 1 tile. This makes it worth one-gold-plus-the-buy-action-to-acquire-it, which isn't particularly useful because you're allowed to do many things during a normal buy action.


text:
Do the shipping rules restrict my choices if all ships are empty?
Under page 6 of the rules it states.

Loading/shipping rules: When shipping, players must follow these rules:

Each cargo ship will carry goods on only one kind.

Players may not load goods on a cargo ship if goods of that same kind are on one of the other two cargo ships.

Players may not load goods on a full ship.

On a player's turn, he must load goods if he can. However, he may only load one kind of goods.

When a players loads good of a kind, he must load as many of that kind as he can. A player cannot hold back goods where there is space on a cargo ship carrying the kind of goods he has. If a player has a kind of goods that can be loaded on several empty ships, he must choose the ship where he can load the most goods, leaving none behind, if possible.

If a player has several kinds of goods that he can load, he may choose freely, which goods to load. He need not choose the goods that would allow him to load the most barrels.

The bolded part above is what is confusing me. So say you only had 1 corn and all the ships are empty. Does this mean you are free to choose any ship? Or is this rule saying you must choose the largest ship?
I read the rule as saying you cannot choose a ship that is smaller than the amount of goods you have to ship, unless it's the largest of the only available ships.

Wow, I've played Puerto Rico probably close to 100 times, and I've never noticed this rule! It's probably not come up very often at all, but I always thought that if there wasn't a ship with your type of good already, you could choose any empty ship.

The rule what you stated, but your wording is awkward. I would say:

If a player has a kind of goods that can be loaded on several empty ships, he must choose a ship at least as large as the number of goods of that kind, leaving no goods behind. If no ships are large enough, that player must choose the largest ship.

That wasn't my wording, its written as such in the rulebook. I agree you rewording is much clearer.

I meant that this isn't how I would word it (I don't like the official version either), "you cannot choose a ship that is smaller than the amount of goods you have to ship, unless it's the largest of the only available ships." It would make more sense to say, "You cannot choose a ship that is smaller than the amount of goods you have to ship. If no large enough ship exists, you must choose the largest empty ship, leaving the fewest unshipped goods behind."

Yep, there's no restriction about which ship you load the corn onto if all the ships are empty.  It's often a good idea to load onto a ship that makes other players' loading decisions most inconvenient.
The restriction does exactly what you assumed it does: stops you from loading a few of your goods into a small ship, if you could load all of them into a big ship.   You must ship if you can, and you must ship as much of the resource that you choose to ship as you can, each time.


text:
Can the Dispatcher spend actions to allow others to knowledge transfer?
I saw the following question: exchanging cards in pandemic
And now I am wondering if the following (specifically step 3) is a legal move in pandemic?
1. Play the dispatcher (can spend actions to move other pawns).
2. Use a couple of my actions to move other player's pawns into the same city.
3. Spend an action to allow them to exchange cards.
The linked question has this excerpt from the rules:

Transfer a card from one player to another. Every card transferred
  costs 1 action. Both your pawn and your fellow player’s pawn must be
  in the same city, and you may only transfer the card of the city that
  you are in together.

The first sentence says that any players can be involved in the transfer, but the second makes it sound like the active player needs to be involved.

No. This is not a legal action.
The Dispatcher's two abilities are:

Move your fellow players' pawns on your turn as if they were your own

Move any pawn to another city containing a pawn for 1 action

The rule book has a very specific wording for each action. The actions Drive (or Ferry), Direct Flight, Charter Flight, and Shuttle Flight all use the word "move" to explain what you do during that action. All of the others, including Share Knowledge, do not. These actions do not deal with moving, which is all the Dispatcher is allowed to do to other pawns.
Or more simplistically, the rules state specifically:

The Dispatcher may move other player’s pawns on his turn (using any of the available Basic actions) as if they were his own pawn. He may also spend an action to move a pawn to any city that contains another pawn. He may only move other players’ pawns if they permit him to do so. Note: For the Charter Flight action, the Dispatcher must play the card corresponding to the current location of the pawn he wishes to move.

The Basic actions only include the four I mentioned above, plus Pass. You cannot spend an action to allow other players to trade cards using the Dispatcher; Share Knowledge is a Special action and outside of the Dispatcher's abilities.

Just remember you can do what he suggested when moving the Researcher - as the Researcher's special ability is to trade cards outside of their turn as well.

@AviadBenDov No where can I find that the Researcher can trade cards outside of their turn. Since Share Knowledge uses an action, it can only be done during any player's turn.

@AviadBenDov The only way this works is if the Dispatcher moves the Researcher to the city they are in with the intention of the Researcher giving the Dispatcher a card. However, this is true for any pawn. The Researcher is the only one that could give the Dispatcher any card; any other player is restricted to trading cards of the city both players are in.

what you say is true of course, except that the Researcher can hand over cards out of turn. It says so in a comment under the Share Knowledge explanation in the rules.


text:
Cloudshifting an existing Fiend hunter
The trick that involves Cloudshifting or Unsummoning (or any similar effect) a card with the Oblivion Ring effect (most commonly in current standard is Fiend Hunter) to permanently exile a creature is well-known to even mildly experienced players, and questions related to it are relatively common on forums.
Recently, I've had a player claim that, at the time that a recent GP was played in my hometown, he was told by a judge that this trick will also work on a Fiend Hunter that has been on the battlefield since the beginning of the turn with a creature that is already exiled. This supposedly results into a permanently exiled creature (the originally exiled one) and a second, "temporary" exile.
Since I have never seen anyone claim so or ask the question, I find myself having to ask because, well, let's just say that the "judge aura" is not exactly helping me making my arguments here, and I am much less experienced than the other player. My only theory is that there was some miscommunication and the judge assumed this was the classic, constantly-asked question about a Fiend Hunter cloudshifted as it enters the battlefield.

two cloud shifts

I'm unsure what the judge was talking about, and how this "trick" explained works.
The well-known "trick" takes advantage of the fact that the Fiend Hunter has two triggered abilities. One that triggers when it enters the battlefield, and one that triggers when it leaves the battlefield.
If you trigger the second ability before the first resolves, the first will still resolve but the exiled card will no longer be linked to the Fiend Hunter because it has left the battlefield (if you used an unsummon effect) or because the original Fiend Hunter permanent no longer exists (if you used a flicker effect, when Fiend Hunter returns to play it is a new object and has no relation to the previous Fiend Hunter which triggered the first ability.)
However, if the Fiend Hunter has been on the battlefield linked to an exiled creature since the start of turn, the second ability's trigger will be placed on the stack when it leaves play. At that point nothing short of a Stifle or similar ability will stop the exiled creature from returning to play.
As Pow-lan mentions in a comment, a possible scenario the judge was referring to is that you use two Cloudshift spells (or other flicker effects), where you "reset" the Fiend Hunter with the first, thus allowing the first ability to trigger again when it returns to play, and then remove it from play with the second before the first ability resolves… but that seems pretty obvious.

I think I know what the judge was saying, but I think they were mistaken, or maybe being over zealous with interpretation.
Since the LTB and the ETB would trigger at the same time, and you get to pick the order they are placed on the stack since they all trigger before a player gets priority, this 'trick' would work with a single cloudshift if the ability did not know what creature was exiled with the original Feind Hunter.

603.3b If multiple abilities have triggered since the last time a player received priority, each player, in APNAP order, puts triggered
  abilities he or she controls on the stack in any order he or she
  chooses.

The wording on the card says:

...return the exiled card to the battlefield under it's owner's
  control

Thanks to ghoppe who pointed out this is defined as a linked ability by rule 607.2a

607.2a If an object has an activated or triggered ability printed on it that instructs a player to exile one or more cards and an ability
  printed on it that refers either to "the exiled cards" or to cards
  "exiled with [this object]," these abilities are linked. The second
  ability refers only to cards in the exile zone that were put there as
  a result of an instruction to exile them in the first ability.

Because it is a linked ability there is no escaping it. When the ability is triggered it has intrinsic knowledge of the card that was exiled with the ETB ability. There is no way that the Fiend Hunter could exile two creatures if it was already on the battle field without using a pair of cloudshifts or other flickering mechanisms..

This question is answered by CR 406.5: An object may have one ability printed on it that causes one or more cards to be exiled, and another ability that refers either to "the exiled cards" or to cards "exiled with [this object]." These abilities are linked: the second refers only to cards that have been exiled due to the first. See rule 607, "Linked Abilities."

Even though you get to stack the LTB and ETB in either order, it doesn't matter, since the LTB ability will use "last known information" (CR 112.7a) of the Fiend Hunter which no longer exists. I don't see how this is different than say, an unsummon or kill spell on the Fiend Hunter… the LTB ability has to know which card was exiled when it resolves even if the Fiend Hunter is no longer on the battlefield.


text:
How to use 'Nisei MK II' free 'End the run'?
From the 'Nisei MK II' card:

Place 1 agenda counter on Nisei MK II when you score it.
Hosted agenda counter: End the run.

Does this really means that you get a free 'End the run' that the corporation can use a any time?

Yes, you get one 'End the Run' ability, because the card has one hosted agenda counter. From the rule book

Cards can also host counters and tokens. Hosted counters or tokens can be spent, or leave play, without affecting their host. If a trigger cost requires one or more hosted counters, those counters must be spent (retuened to the token bank) from the card that the ability appears on. (page 22)
Paid Abilities - Some card abilities have trigger costs that a player must pay before the effect of the ability can be resolved. These abilities are called paid abilities. A card’s trigger cost is always listed in its text box before the effect, following the format “cost: effect.” (page 11, sidebar)

user1873's answer is correct. To clarify further, the Corp will probably choose to use Nisei's ability at phase 4.3 of the "Timing Structure of a Run" diagram located in the FAQ. After the Runner has bypassed the final piece of ice, approached the server, and decided whether to jack out or continue the run, but before the run is considered successful, there is one final chance to use paid abilities such as Nisei's. It is during this final chance that you will use Nisei's ability.
If your intuition is telling you that this is a powerful ability, your intuition is right. There is some BGG discussion here. 4 cost for 2 agenda points is a bit on the steep side, but the ability is extraordinarily powerful.

It is indeed a very powerful card

Technically the corp can use it at any point between ice encounters, but the corp will usually wait to use it after the last piece of ice. There is no benefit to be had kicking the runner out early, force them to pay their way through all the ice then kick them out, let the ice kick them out and keep the counter, or let them back out on their own between ice, keeping the counter for later.


text:
What can I do to avoid being stuck being able to do nothing in Settlers of Catan?
My friends and I play a fair amount of Settlers of Catan (normally with 3-4 players).  Sometimes I do well and sometimes I do badly; however, the most infuriating games are those where I'm unable to do anything for pretty much the entire game.
For example, in the last game with 4 players, I managed to (in total) build 3 roads and buy 2 development cards (a knight and a victory point).  As the starting player, I placed my first settlement in a strong central position in the map with good access to both wood and brick. However, by the time everyone else placed their cities, I was forced to place my last city on the coast to get access to any ore, and I was left completely cut off from wheat (and my other settlement).
My problems became fairly evident in the early stages of the game - without access to wheat, I struggled to gather the resources to build new settlements, and to make matters worse, my initial settlement placement was very hemmed in by other players, meaning I didn't have many options on where to expand to.  By the time I managed to scrape together the resources to build a settlement, other players had already built settlements too close, meaning I needed to use up my resources to build more roads.  Trading with other players didn't really help me out, as they were all racing for the same settlement positions that I was.
These sorts of games seem to come around reasonably frequently, which leads me to believe that it's something that I'm doing rather than just being something that happens every now and then.
I've read both How to start in Catan games? and In Settlers of Catan, how do you overcome bad initial settlement placement? and now always try to make sure I start with an initial placement that at least involves a good supply of brick and wood. However, I've found it difficult to get a mixture of all resources. For example, in the last game before this, I found myself cut off completely from ore, which seriously hampered my ability to buy cities and development cards.
What can I do to avoid getting stuck in these sorts of situations?

There are many ways to win at Settlers. The only type of starting position which limits your options is the one you described - good access to wood and brick but not much else, and then getting hemmed in. This situation doesn't happen too often in our group because the more experienced players usually dissuade newer or poorer players from placing an initial settlement that has a strong likelihood of leading to a disastrous outcome - which reduces the chance of a tedious game for all.
However, I've seen many poor starts in Settlers that ended in victory. I have two sections worth of thoughts for you describing the advantages of starting out behind, and the various ways I've seen players come back after a poor start.
The advantages of starting from behind:

other players more willing to trade with you
you can drive a harder bargain in trades (i.e. you must give me 2 cards to get the 1 you need, or you must give me 3 cards to get the 2 you need)
the robber gets put on you less often
when the robber does get put on you, the card is drawn from a different player's hand if hex is shared
people don't pay as much attention to what you're doing, so you can be secretly planning for your dramatic surge to victory without everyone pointing out what you're planning (good players tend to carefully monitor and point out who is close to winning and why but often neglect this analysis for those who trail by a lot)

Various ways to win with seemingly poor initial starting positions

monopolize a scarce resource and obtain advantaged trades (something the player going first is sometimes best positioned to do)
go for a 2:1 port strategy if circumstances allow
if placing first, consider carefully where the good settlement sites are for initial placement. You might purposely shift to a slightly worse settlement site because it is obvious nobody else will place near it (or maybe one side will obviously be open for expansion). You will often need to very carefully place the second settlement to preserve a swath of territory for yourself to pull off this strategy. I have often started slow because I purposely chose slightly worse resources for this reason, but had far more expansion territory than the other players who end up crowding each other while I slowly catch up and eventually surpass them.
Ultra-cooperate your way to a chance at victory. I had a game recently where I got off to an extremely unlucky start getting cut off from my two best expansion possibilities (which literally had only a 1/6 chance of happening). Another player also started poorly and we both still had 2 settlements while the other two players already each had 4-5 VPs worth of cities and settlements each. So we started doing hugely helpful trades to each other - so he would give me an ore for my whole hand on one turn so he could build his first settlement. Then I gave him a brick for his entire hand to build my first city . . . and so forth. We broke off cooperation when we were both in the lead and he won but you get the idea.
Get other players fighting against each other. Point out who is winning and why, and convince everyone to gang up on that person until someone else gets the lead then do the same thing to that person. That can give you a lot of time to catch up.
Most important: Make sure you have some way to access wheat and ore, even if it's just a way you can expand to get them or someone who you're pretty sure will be willing to trade with you (See Which of the 5 resources in Settlers of Catan (base version) is most important? Why?). You have many more options with these resources, whereas brick/wood strategies require either a port (preferably 2:1) or lots of expansion territory to work. I literally once won a game without any brick or wood, and without building a single road, when I was cut off early (see picture below: white, with 15 development cards)

"Another player [and I] started doing hugely helpful trades to each other." Reminds me of the story of two graduates of the naval academy who made a secret pact to talk each other up at every possibility. Both became Admirals.

I'll contribute one suggestion: I don't think that prioritizing placements that offer brick and wood is a very sensible philosophy.  Yes, those resources maximize your chances of coming strong out of the gates with early roads.  On the other hand, dominating in the early game is only a small part of being good at Settlers of Catan.  You're discovering that you often end up powerless in the mid-to-late game.  I'd say it's very likely that your focus on early-game resources is contributing to this problem.
Suppose you grab two plum locations for brick and/or wood - if they're on opposite sides of the map, with other players in the way, your ability to connect your roads together will be severely hampered, maybe to the extent of cancelling out the advantage you gained from cornering road-building resources in the first place.  And here's another thing: by apparently doing quite well in the early game with your wood, brick and roads, you strongly incentivize other players to do something to contain your position.  Meanwhile, the player who is unassumingly building up a nice collection of development cards is probably actually doing better than you.  Subtlety is a great virtue in Catan!
If I were you, I'd try aiming for abundance of resources and two placements that are harmonious with one another, in strong preference to this notion of "I mustn't do badly in the early game".  I think you may find it reaps dividends, and even if you crash and burn a few times at least it'll provide you with some interesting new perspectives in ways to try and win the game.

if they're on opposite sides of the map, with other players in the way, your ability to connect your roads together will be severely hampered -- who cares about connecting roads? I often go for wood and brick to claim territory (with settlements) before others claim it, the longest road is a trap for novices. I'm yet to see the situation where the collection of dev cards leads to the better position, because more settlements increases production, resource diversity, and number diversity, in an ongoing way. And victory points!

First, the most important big strategy tip for Catan: there is no single winning strategy.  You must adapt to the board and to your current circumstances.  There are many possible successful strategies (e.g., roads + settlements; cities; or single resource + port), but trying to run a particular strategy in inappropriate conditions can easily lead to stagnation.
By the same token, there is no single essential resource.  Getting production of a variety of resources is certainly very helpful, but in my experience, it's not worth giving up very much total production to get that.  In the particular example you gave, you had one settlement that had good road production but was blocked in.  In order to take advantage of your ability to build roads, I would want to place the second settlement somewhere with decent production (probably all the good ones were taken, but the coast is usually even worse) and room for expansion.
However, in my experience, when players stagnate, it is most often not a result of poor initial placement, but of mistakes in the early- and mid-game play.  Here are two specific tips:

Be focused but flexible in your building strategy.  Decide what you need to do to grow and do what you need to do to make that happen.  You said you bought two development cards.  That was probably a mistake -- you were blocked in, so you needed to build cities.  That means you need to save up ore and grain until you can do that.  Don't be tempted to buy something that you don't need, because it means wasting resources and slowing your development.  This is a very common way for novices to stagnate.  However, if circumstances change or the dice turn up a bunch of resources useful for another strategy, don't be afraid to change your goal.
Trade, trade, trade.  If you are missing a resource you need, you must trade for it.  If that means trading 4-1 with the bank, or 2-1 or even 3-1 with another player, then do that.  One resource card that lets you build something valuable is worth much more than 3 or 4 cards that don't.  Also, keep your plan in mind when trading comes around.  Suppose you don't have ore production but need to build cities -- then whenever someone is offering to trade ore, see if you can buy it.  For the first ore, it may seem futile, since you need two more, but save them up and eventually you will be able to build your city.  I should add that you should also consider trading for a resource you need even if you have good production of it but simply don't have any right now.  Mostly you will only want to do this if you can build right away with it, but in that case it can certainly be worthwhile -- a new settlement now is worth substantially more than one in one or two turns.

Another factor that can sometimes cause stagnation is bad dice rolls.  If your production is concentrated on two or three numbers, and those number don't come up much, you won't be able to do very much.  This is not necessarily bad strategy, just high variance: sometimes you will gets lots of resources, sometimes very little.  A single game is not long enough for the randomness to reliably even out.

First seat is usually one of the worst places to be in my opinion. It will guarantee you the best and the lest desirable placements on the board. Every seat has different placement strategies associated with them but I will try to be more general.
Resources alone is not the only thing to consider on initial placement. Rolling ratios and good rolling ratio combinations are also critical to success. I tend to look with intersections containing 10-8-5 or 9-6-4 intersections as well as if they produce the resources to build roads and eventually cities. Even if you have a high ratio placement with similar resources (i.e. 2 wheat and one sheep on a 10-9-6) getting the resources will usually overcome the lack of the proper variety of resources. You have to have something to trade in order to trade is the point.
Even if you can place a second settlement on a port that has the resource (i.e. wheat port on a wheat hex with an 8) do not be tempted by it. Those placements will start producing only one card early in the game and make you a target to easily stunt your growth. You may want to consider a lower number placement but produces more resources.
There are many sites about placement theory which I would encourage you reading. I personally like http://www.settlers-strategy.com/settlers_of_catan_strategy_placement_1.html and have modified it to fit my play style.

Whenever someone wants to make a trade, tell them you'll give them what they're looking for in exchange for any two cards. I know a guy who has come from behind with this strategy so many times it's ridiculous. Everyone thinks they're just handing you their trash, but if you get enough of it it can still work out.

+1 for pointing out something I meant to say in my own answer - but as I read through it I realized I did not make it at all obvious. So I clarified what I meant by "you can drive a harder bargain." I have sometimes received a fistfull of cards (like 3 for 1 or 5 for 2) when I'm very far behind because the person in the lead wanted to build their next city but nobody else would trade with them. Also, although this was mentioned in my answer and one other, it is so vital to coming back from behind that it's worth it's own separate answer.

Sometimes there simply isn't anything you can do about it. There are a whole load of good suggestions on here, but actually changing the game through extensions can help somewhat, changes that I've found reduce this problem:

5-6 player extension, gives you a bigger map so you block each other less and have a greater variety of hex's to choose from.
Seafarers - there are more paths for navigation so you don't get blocked in and can earn victory points/explore using different resources.
Cities & Knights - Change the tactics, people who are winning have to do things to slow themselves down (e.g. buying knights) which can help, and some upgrades allow you to collect cards even if you're numbers aren't coming up.
Distributed Dice - Using a deck of cards (or settlers dice cards if you've got traders & barbarians) allows the hex numbers to come up in a distributed way, reducing the chances of you never collecting your resources.

Judging from the games I've played of Settlers, of the fraction which isn't luck based, about 75% of your win-chance is from initial settlement placement, with the remainder down to strategy. This is partly because your initial settlement placement dictates your strategy, and trying to change it afterwards will normally end badly.
When looking at the board, you need to be able to identify which resources will be in demand, and where all the starting settlements will be. You might not be able to accurately predict which players will go where, but you should be able to identify ~9 spots for a 4 player game of which 8 will have starting settlements placed on them. The only thing to watch out for it when one location will block 1-2 other likely starting places, which can severely restrict the choice of the last player.
Unless you are going for the very unlikely 2City, 4VPcard+largest army strategy, you will want to take 2 settlements. Since you get 2 free roads, you should place these in a direction to get a new settlement. It is very important NOT to place your free roads towards a location someone else will probably place a starting settlement, as then you have wasted your free road! Place them heading out to the coast is normally good, as there is plenty of room for settlements on the coast while there will normally be very minimal room in the interior. It doesn't even matter if you get decent resources from your 2 settlements, they are VPs and allow more cities to be built for even more VPs. If they get you a port or more resources, then that's a bonus.
In your game, you went first which is probably the worse position to be in. However, you should evaluate where everyone else will probably go before placing your settlement. If you think you won't get access to both wheat and ore, then don't place your first settlement where you did, going for the best ore location is rarely a bad move! Then when you come at the end to place your second settlement, you are in the unique position of getting to go immediately afterwards. This lets you do cunning tricks such as placing it on a wood/brick location (even if poor numbers) to start with those resources, then immediately building a road which combined with your free one can be used to block another player's starting road for a race to a good location.


text:
How does Haktos the Unscarred's protection ability work if no number was chosen?
Haktos the Unscarred has an unusual pair of abilties:

As Haktos enters the battlefield, choose 2, 3, or 4 at random.
Haktos has protection from each converted mana cost other than the chosen number.

It is possible for a creature to have the protection ability without ever choosing a number. For example, Lazav, the Multifarious could become a copy of a Haktos in the graveyard, or Mirage Mirror could become a copy of a Haktos on the battlefield. In a situation like that, what will the ability do?

Just want to mention that I don't think Rayami would ever work for something like this even barring tripping rule 706.7a.  Rayami only gains abilities that creatures have in exile with blood counters, but Haktos doesn't have a protection ability in exile.  Rather, he has an ability that grants him the protection abilities while on the battlefield.  Similarly, Rayami should not be able to copy the protection ability of Empty-Shrine Kannushi.

You're right, that wouldn't work. I replaced that bit with another copy effect.

If no number was chosen, the ability does nothing.
This is a result of rule 706.7a:

If an ability causes a player to “choose a [value]” and a second, linked ability refers to that choice, the second ability is the only ability that can refer to that choice. An object doesn’t “remember” that choice and use it for other abilities it may copy later. If an object copies an ability that refers to a choice, but either (a) doesn’t copy that ability’s linked ability or (b) does copy the linked ability but no choice is made for it, then the choice is considered to be “undefined.” If an ability refers to an undefined choice, that part of the ability won’t do anything.

This is also stated in one of the card's Gatherer rulings:

If Haktos somehow has no choice made for its ability, its last ability grants it no protection abilities.

Same is true for Stuffy Doll (no player chosen), Seal of the Guildpact (no colours chosen), and any other "choose X" cards. Worth saying that if you chose for one instance of the card, but not a second (e.g. Mirror Entity copying a Stuffy Doll), the second instance will not benefit from the original choice.

It would be nice if "that part of" was more fully defined in "If an ability refers to an undefined choice, that part of the ability won’t do anything" - as it stands, I could see them also ruling the other way, i.e. the bold part of the ability won't do anything: "Haktos has protection from each converted mana cost other than the chosen number."

The only reason I can see for granting itself the ability ("Haktos has..." vs just "Protection from...") is that it isn't granting itself the ability "Protection from each CMC other than the chosen number", but rather "Protection from each CMC other than (2|3|4)". If the number is not chosen, the protection ability it would grant itself is undefined, so it doesn't get the ability at all.

With Stuffy Doll, it's more clear that it does nothing: it does damage to the chosen player, the chosen player doesn't exist, therefore there is no player to deal damage to. But in this case, one could interpret Haktos is having protection to all CMC that are not equal to the chosen CMC, no CMC is chosen, therefore no CMC is equal to it.

I think the gatherer ruling clarifies that it's not that it has "protection from each CMC other than undefined" and that doesn't function, but rather it doesn't grant itself any protection ability at all because the ability it would grant itself is not defined.


text:
Do rockets or destroyed systems count for the green d8?
From Mobile Frame Zero Rapid Attack, page 64:

A mobile frame with neither direct fire nor artillery range weapon systems get 1 green 8-sided die as well. This doesn't count as a system and can't be destroyed.

And from page 65:

In addition to its frame and systems, a mobile frame can also carry up to 3 single-shot rockets.
A single-shot rocket provides 1 red d8 at direct fire range, once only. Discard it after you use it.

And from page 123:

When a mobile frame takes damage:
For each damage it takes, it loses one system. Its owner chooses which system it loses. Pop it off the frame and drop it on the field. Since that system's gone, it doesn't provide its die or dice in any future turns.

This leads to the following questions:

If I make a melee mech with all of its red dice devoted to a claw attack (hand-to-hand range), can I put a rocket on my mech and still get the green d8 movement bonus? Even when I'm firing my rocket?

If my mech had a gun, but it got blown off so now it doesn't anymore, do I get the green d8 movement bonus for my last big dramatic charge? Or am I a sitting duck on the battlefield?

If I make a melee mech with all of its red dice devoted to a claw attack (hand-to-hand range), can I put a rocket on my mech and still get the green d8 movement bonus?

Yes.  Since Single Shot Rockets don't count as systems, the bonus Green d8 for having no ranged weapons ignores them.

Even when I'm firing my rocket?

Yes.  (See above.)

If my mech had a gun, but it got blown off so now it doesn't anymore, do I get the green d8 movement bonus for my last big dramatic charge?

Yes.  Once you have no ranged weapon systems left you gain the bonus Green d8.

Thanks, Raymond, and welcome to the site! (I added some quote blocks to your answer. Hope you don't mind.)


text:
How can I beat green Tron with a control deck?
I've been building a Modern control deck based around the Gifts reanimator engine. The general gameplan is to slow your opponent using counters and removal until you can reanimate a big creature for massive advantage, hopefully negating a bunch of your opponent's cards.
Based on playtesting, my worst matchup by far is green-based ("mono-brown") Tron. I can barely win about one match out of ten against the deck.
Compared to blue-based Tron decks (UR with Through the Breach and UW with Unburial Rites combo), green-based Tron has fewer critical spells and a higher density of threats, making it more resistant to counters and disruption. They also have a broader variety of angles of attack, thanks to the easier inclusion of cards like Karn and Mindslaver. I've had games where I've Needled Karn, Extracted all four Mindslavers and Urza's Towers, only to still lose to an Emrakul hardcast the hard way.
The deck is practically all colorless once it gets past the first few turns, so Iona isn't nearly as strong as she is against the Gifts-based Tron deck.

Which creatures (i.e. reanimation targets) are most advantageous against Tron decks?
What general strategies can a blue-based control deck employ against green Tron decks?

For reference, this is my current decklist.

Based on testing, here are the strategies that worked for me, specific to the Gifts reanimator deck.
Attack their mana base

As Rahzark mentioned, the green Tron deck's greatest weakness is the UrzaTron combo itself. Forcing Tron to play with lands that tap for 1 mana each turns it into a deck that can barely ever cast anything relevant. With the massive quantity of land-tutors in the deck, however, just destroying one land is unlikely to keep them off of UrzaTron for more than one turn.
Because Tron can cast cards like Karn Liberated and Wurmcoil Engine using just three lands, Ghost Quarter is better land destruction than Tectonic Edge. Playing some of both makes it much easier to construct powerful Gifts piles.
The best way to buy a lot of time against the deck is to follow up land destruction with Surgical Extraction or Extirpate (the latter is much stronger for playing around cards like Relic of Progenitus), which will prevent your opponent from simply reassembling the Tron combo next turn.
Crucible of Worlds allows you to use Ghost Quarter or Tectonic Edge as repeatable land destruction. Your Ghost Quarters will essentially become Strip Mines once you run your opponent out of basics; Tectonic Edge does have one advantage, though: because your opponent isn't shuffling every turn, a tournament match is less likely to go to time.
Answer their threats

A Tron deck doesn't actually have that many threats to throw at you: six to ten in the whole deck, probably. You can win on resource attrition if you can answer an opponent's threats in a way that makes it difficult to recur them. The Tron player has a lot of ways to dig for a threat, though, so you don't have much breathing room if you run out of answers.
For instance, Tron decks can easily recycle Eldrazi that are sent to the graveyard, but Path to Exile will efficiently remove Ulamog once and for all; it's also an easy answer to Wurmcoil Engine. Dealing with Emrakul requires permanent-based removal or Mindbreak Trap. Sundering Titan should likewise be dealt with on the stack.
Karn Liberated and Mindslaver can be hated out with Pithing Needle or counterspells (especially Negate).
The big thing here is to sideboard in more appropriate counters, because format staples like Spell Peirce or Spell Snare can be used to fight the early tutor cards but tend to come up short against actual threats.
A reanimation target with shroud or hexproof (e.g. Inkwell Leviathan can also help answer Karn more easily.

Glad to see you took the time to write a definitive answer, I hate unanswered questions :D

@rahzark Couldn't have done it without you. :)

For the record, my own way-too-cute suggestion is Azorius Guildmage.

General Strategies:
It is a terrible matchup indeed. Your deck wins on the late game (except for possible reanimation auto-wins with Iona and Elesh) and the inevitability of Emrakul makes that impossible.
Anything that invalidates one of the threats of the deck will just be wasting time until Emrakul comes down, so I would try to attack the core of the deck: the lands!
From the two obvious land destruction lands I believe you are running the right one in Ghost Quarter. Tectonic Edge is probably terrible, since the deck can actually function with only 3 lands.
Crucible of Worlds can make a powerful combo with Ghost Quarter and that would force the Tron to bring in anti-hate from the sideboard.
Reanimation Targets:
I can only think of one: Terastodon, targeting his Tron pieces. If you can counter his threats and get that online on turn 5 he'll probably be in pretty bad shape.

+1 Some good ideas here, definitely. The brilliant thing about Terastadon is that it passes the Karn test. By blowing just blowing up Karn with its ETB.

I disagree on one notable point: Emrakul isn't the end of the line, thanks to Mindbreak Trap. This means you can try to grind out a win if needed. I think the bigger challenge is just playing around Karn (and Relic of Progenitus).

This answer gets the bounty: Crucible of Worlds (supported by Ghost Quarter, Tectonic Edge, Surgical Extraction) was enough to bring the matchup from nightmarish to around 50-50.

General Strategies
This is, as people have mentioned, not a great matchup for you. Karn Liberated in particular is pretty much going to sit there exiling things all willy-nilly. The artifacts, really, aren't what you need to worry about, so the counters you're running aren't going to be nearly as relevant. The only spells you're likely to counter at all would be All is Dust, Wurmcoil Engine, Mindslaver, and Karn Liberated (and possibly some of the SB cards), so save your counters for them. I wouldn't cut too many counters (remembering that you're going to be seeing Ancient Grudge, Seal of Primordium, Combust, and Pyroclasm second game), but you'll need some deck-specific hate after the first game.
Specific Hate
Land Hate
Playing permanent destruction cards (Saltblast, Necrotic Sliver, etc.) and exiles (Extirpate, Surgical Extraction, etc.) get you the opportunity to take out their key lands. Some goofy things to deal with Tron include Herald of Leshrac and Helldozer, though I wouldn't say either are competitive enough for you to actually run. A third option and decent reanimation target (though fairly outside your mana base) is Realm Razer, though if he's already got some mana rocks out he's not as helpful.
Karn Hate
Along with the permanent destruction strategies mentioned above, Scourglass can take care of Karn Liberated (and Emrakul, the Aeons Torn, but only for a little while). There's also Mangara of Corondor, which could make for a good reanimation target.
Artifact Hate
Stony Silence, while goofy, does seem like it would work surprisingly well - Mindslaver and all their mana rocks are dead in the water for CMC 2 sounds really nice. There's also Kataki, War's Wage - it could definitely slow them down a bit (and can be a reanimation target).
Search Hate
Aven Mindcensor does a particularly good job keeping them from using Eye of Ugin and Expedition Map properly, and makes your Ghost Quarters even better, so it seems like a prime reanimation target. Some alternatives include Leonin Arbiter, Mindlock Orb, and Shadow of Doubt (though Shadow doesn't have any real lasting power).
Emrakul Hate
Unfortunately, Extract isn't Modern-legal. There is the idea of pre-Emrakul'ing them, though - something like Gather Specimens, Telemin Performance, or Bribery could work surprisingly well. You could also steal it by reanimating something like Conquering Manticore, Dominus of Fealty, or the new Zealous Conscripts (which could be interesting with Karn Liberated). Lastly, there's always Oblivion Ring and Journey to Nowhere, and Mangara of Corondor mentioned above could also work well.
Hand Hate
Shimian Specter could actually be a very viable threat as a reanimation target here - if you can get him out and swinging, you can do some healthy damage to his deck. Yanking out those Urza lands (or if you're lucky, Emrakul, the Aeons Torn or Wurmcoil Engine) could be pretty rough for your opponent.
Final Recommendations
For everything I've already mentioned here, it still seems worth mentioning that only one Pithing Needle and two Mindbreak Traps seem a little low, and both of those cards seem like much better options than anything I've mentioned (except maybe Aven Mindcensor and Stony Silence). Needle Karn Liberated, and wait for a hard-cast Emrakul that you can trap it - they'll be running maybe four anti-artifact cards, so you running another Pithing Needle or two be smart. As for Mindbreak Traps, I'd say three might be the magic number, especially considering Snapcaster Mage.
Depending on what you can fit in, I'd say running Ghost Quarter and Aven Mindcensor or Stony Silence can also be a very good idea - play around with what feels best. Consider also that third game (if not second) you'll be seeing the Combusts and Pyroclasms, so that will cause some trouble for your Mindcensors.

'Mortify, 1WB, Instant: destroy target creature or enchantment'. Perhaps you're thinking of the non-Modern-legal Vindicate?

Steven darnit, you'd be correct in thinking that. I'll see if I can find another alternative (I suspect there's a reason Necrotic Sliver got played...).

+1 There are some good ideas here, too -- I've actually found examples of Realm Razer used for this purpose in G/R decks.

@AlexP I don't think Realm Razer is that good unless you can kill it before the ETB trigger resolves. A simple Pyroclasm will bring all lands back to the battlefield.


text:
How to show turn order when turn order can change during the round
I'm working on a game where the order of players' turns matters quite a bit, and I'm having trouble coming up with a way of showing the order.

During the round, each player will take their turn.  These turns happen in a specific order.
During a player's turn, they can take actions that will push themselves up or down a single place in the turn order for the next round.  This pushes them past the adjacent player in the turn order.
You can't push yourself earlier if you're already going first.  Likewise, you can't push yourself later if you're already going last.
You only get to take one turn per round.
Whatever is used to show turn order needs to show which player goes next during the current round.

An example might help.  Round one, the turn order is Jim, Steve, then Betty.  On Jim's turn, he does something that causes him to fall back one step.
Round two, the turn order is Steve, Jim, Betty.  On Betty's turn, she does something that causes her to move up one step.
Round three, the turn order is Steve, Betty, Jim.

How do I show the turn order in a way that allows this behavior naturally?

A few games that have a similar sort of thing: Citadels (players choose roles at the start of each round, and roles have a fixed turn order), El Grande (each round starts with bidding, where bids determine turn order), Mice and Mystics (turn order is randomized and laid out as a queue. Some abilities/monsters can modify the queue)

"Lifeboat" feature changing turn order midround, only difference from what you describe is that you switch places with someone else, so this allows jumping multiple spaces. It has one line of characer cards to show turn order, and that's it - we never had troubles remembering who already went this turn, but if you want to be sure you can add tokens to mark those who already had their turn.

After reading other answers I found out that for propper answer more input is needed on how "pushing down" and "pushing up" actually work. Let's say we have 4 players, Alice goes first for this round, Bob goes second, Charlie goes third and Diana goes fourth. Consider these examples:

Alice does "push down" action, Bob does "push down", Charlie does "push down" also and Diana does normal action. What is resulting turn order for second round?

Alice does normal action, Bob, Charlie and Diana all do "push up" actions. What is resulting turn order?

Two sets of numbered markers.  Players have one marker from each set in front of them, denoting their play order for this turn and next.

No matter what method you decide on, you will need to keep track of two things, the current turn order and the next turn order. I have a few options you could try:
Two Tracks
You can simply have two tracks that will show current and next turn orders. This is a simple solution, players can all stay in their seats and the turn will just jump around the table, this is good for certain games where the "player to your left" or "player to your right" kind of abilities do not exist.
Musical Chairs and Chips
This is good for games where "player to your left" or "player to your right" kind of abilities do exist. You have the players sit clockwise in turn order. And they will start each round holding a chip with their number on it. When switching turn orders throughout the game, players just switch these chips. At the start of each round, players will reseat themselves according to turn order.
Infinite Stacking Track
This is a bit complex, but the idea is that each player has a token with his color/team on it. And there is an "infinite" track, (this could just be a very long track) Initial turn order is decided and tokens are placed in that order on the track, whenever a player modifies a turn order, you simply move the token up or down the track, if a token already exists on that you place yours below that token.
This way, when a new turn is started, going from the first tile in the track towards the end and working from the top-most token down. You get an extra little mechanic where some tiles are blank, which means players after those tiles would need to work extra-hard to get ahead of those that are already passed them. The difference a regular track is that in a regular track you would just replace the tokens instead of stack them.
Double Secret Cards
This is a good method if at some point the turn order might be randomized, or you want to keep the turn order secret, similar to the Two Tracks suggestion you would have 2 sets of cards, one for the current turn, one for the next turn (maybe a different color on the back?) Players would start the game where both cards are the same number (turn order) and only when it's that players turn, he would reveal that he is the player with that number, (revealing the current card color) in this way, players can manipulate the turn order in secret (which adds an interesting element to the game).
The only pitfall is that players need to remember who they gave the next turn cards to, so they can also give them the current turn cards at the end of the turn.

Those are way too convoluted solutions. I've played "Lifeboat", a game where changing turn order mid-round is common, and it only has a single line of chatacter cards to keep track of it.

Each player can have a double sided token, with one side grayed out indicating that their turn has been taken.
These tokens can be placed on a track that indicates turn order. Once they start their turn, they flip the token to the grayed out side. If they take any actions that change their next turn order, simply move the token up or down the track as appropriate. Play then moves to the next unflipped token.
At the beginning of a new round, all tokens are flipped back to their coloured side.

This is what I was coming here to suggest.  (That or dual tracks, but this seems more elegant to me.)  I feel like I've seen this mechanic but I cannot remember in what game.

This. Game "Lifeboat" has similar system with line of character cards determining turn order, and they do switch midround. We used tokens to mark characters that have already taken a turn, but later dropped them because we never had trouble remembering who already went that round.

You could do this with a board that has two columns, one for the current turn and one for the next turn. Place coloured counters on the board to show the turn order, move the counters when the turn order changes.
For your example if Jim is Red, Steve is Green and Betty is Blue, then start with this:
   Current      Next
1    Red        Red
2    Green      Green
3    Blue       Blue

During round 1 Jim falls back, so swap the Red and Green counters in the Next column:
   Current      Next
1    Red        Green
2    Green      Red
3    Blue       Blue

At the end of round one, remove all the counters from the Current column, move all the counters from the Next column into the Current column and place counters in the Next column to match the new Current column.
   Current      Next
1    Green      Green
2    Red        Red
3    Blue       Blue

If you have player tokens/counters already in the game you could track turns with a single set and the dual track method mentioned above (trying to introduce fewer new components).
Basically track one is 'current turn' order, track two is 'next turn' order.  The first player is the one with their token in the highest position of the 'current turn' track.  When their turn is complete they move their token to the first open space in the 'next turn' track.  An exception would occur if the first player did a 'push down' maneuver (they would then place their token in slot two).  The player with the next highest token on the 'current turn' track then plays.  When they are done they move their token to the 'next turn' track, on the first open spot - in this case slot 1 since player one did a 'push down'.  If player two also did a 'push down' it would essentially negate player ones' 'push down' since they would be moving to slot 2 and player one would be moved back up to slot 1.  When the last player has finished the only thing left to do is slide the tokens back to the turn track.
If your game is played only with cards then I would suggest two (or more) turn order sets.
Similar to what we have above, each player has a turn card from set one.  When player ones' turn is over they draw the top card from set two (unless they played a 'push down' in which case they take the second) and turn in their set one turn card.  The turn sets may need to be different colors to more easily keep track.  Also, when drawing a set two card you may need to place it sideways (or something) to show that it's not in play yet.  At the end of the last players turn, all of the set one cards have been turned in.  Put them in order to draw from next.  Set two cards should be placed upright and play proceeds with player one.
There have been a bunch of good comments.  I hope you are able to find something helpful among these posts.

I also thought about this solution. Let's look again at your example of both player 1 and 2 doing "heavy" action, non-cards version. The way you resolve it let's them both keep turn order and it's perfectly fine. But in case it's not what game designer wants, here is an altered set of rules: when player takes normal action, they take leftmost vacant space on "next turn order" track; when player takes "heavy" action, they skip leftmost open space. This way if p1 and p2 both take heavy action but p3 does normal action, p3 jumps both p1 and p2.

It seems like you would want a track showing the current turn order. The game boards for Kingsburg, Macao, and Powergrid all use a track like this. While Kingsburg and Powergrid determine turn order at the start of each round, Macao is more similar to what you describe; players can change their turn order during their turn.
Just have the action that players take allow them to move either up or down the turn track. You can either do exactly like Macao, and allow a player to stack on top of another player on the turn track (and whoever is on top goes first), or make it so that when you move up on the turn track, you swap positions with the person above you, so you never have 2 people on the same spot.
In terms of knowing whose turn it is next right after your turn, as long as you don't have the ability to change 2 other players' orders relative to each other, there shouldn't be an issue. At the end of your turn, you see who is the highest person on the turn track that hasn't already had a turn this round. Even if you moved up or down; that won't change; the next person who should go is whoever is highest on the track.
If turns are really long or complex, such that you are concerned with players knowing for sure who has or hasn't had a turn this round yet, you could have players flip their marker over at the end of their turn (and the other side of the market is different). Usually when we play Power Grid, after a player has obtained a plant during the auction, we'll move their marker up off the turn track to note that they are now out of the auction phase.

Another game with this property is Caylus.

But if the turn markers are moving along the track during the round, how can you tell who should take their turn next?

I've updated the answer to address that.

Changing players' turn orders relative to each other is the whole point, actually (see the example I gave with Jim, Steve, and Betty).

But a player can only change his own turn order relative to other players, right? Jim can't do anything on his turn to cause Betty and Steve to swap positions next turn, can he?

@GendoIkari, that's correct.  On your turn, you can only swap your marker with the adjacent player's marker, either ahead of or behind you.

@Joe, That's what I thought. In which case you don't need to worry about changing the track during the turn; you can still know whose turn is next based on who is highest on the track (that hasn't already had their turn).

One solution would be to create a "track of tracks". To speak somewhat more formally, one could utilize an analogy to a permutation matrix.
Two kinds of objects are necessary for this:

A "ruler" marked "1st, 2nd, 3rd," etc. for each player, with sliding markers on them, which can be slid along the length of the ruler to indicate in which position that player is.
A square board, at least long enough to accommodate the number of players; it should be labeled with a grid, with cells labeled "1st, 2nd, 3rd," etc. sequentially as one descends a column, and identical through the rows.

.
+---+---+---+
|1st|1st|1st|
+---+---+---+
|2nd|2nd|2nd|
+---+---+---+
|3rd|3rd|3rd|
+---+---+---+

Then let me work through its mechanism as through the example. At the beginning of the game, the initial order would be set by setting each player's ruler to their order, and then placing it (vertically) over the column of that order.
+| |+| |+| |+
|JIM|| ||| ||
+| |+| |+| |+
|| ||STE|| ||
+| |+| |+| |+
|| ||| ||BET|
+| |+| |+| |+

During the game, the names in the columns (in sequence) will correspond to the current turn's order, and the  rows will correspond to the next turn's order. Thus, when Jim falls back one step, he indicates this by sliding his marker down one place on his ruler, and Steve's marker on his ruler up one:
+| |+| |+| |+
|| ||STE|| ||
+| |+| |+| |+
|JIM|| ||| ||
+| |+| |+| |+
|| ||| ||BET|
+| |+| |+| |+

At the beginning of the next round, the rulers are rearranged such that the "1st" row player is in the 1st column, the 2nd row in the 2nd column, etc.:
+| |+| |+| |+
|STE|| ||| ||
+| |+| |+| |+
|| ||JIM|| ||
+| |+| |+| |+
|| ||| ||BET|
+| |+| |+| |+

And the order is Steve, Jim, Betty, etc. and so continues the example; each player takes their turns in order from left to right, tracks order changes by sliding the markers on the rulers accordingly, and at the end of each round, the rulers are rearranged back into a diagonalized order across the grid.

It seems to me that your goal is to have flexible turn order system, but having to also deal with rounds is what makes it problematic.
Rounds are not necessary for a game to function, and if you don't have rounds, there is no problem of keeping track of different turn orders for different rounds.
Tokaido, Patchwork and Red November are examples of a game systems without rounds, but with "timetrack" instead. When player takes an action, they move their pawn on time track forward various amount of spaces, depending on how "costly" this action is. Player with pawn furthest back on track moves next, so if you jump far ahead it will be a while till it comes back to you, and if you do small moves you can have several turns in a row before you jump somebody else.

Many games with such systems have plates/tiles with marked turn orders that are passed out to players each turn and sit next to them on the table.  It's much like the concept of a Dealer Button in poker, except that there's one for every position in the ordering.  This can be seen in games such as Risk 2210 and Scepter of Zavandor.  As a benefit, special rules relating to turn order can also be conveniently placed on the tiles - for example, in Zavandor, players in certain positions get higher or lower prices as a form of anti-feedback loop, and the order plates serve as a friendly reminder.

Citadels uses a system where, at the start of a round, each player gets to pick their place in that round. Specfically, you draw a card that has a certain ability, and that card also has a fixed place in the turn order. Each round, you can pick another card (if another player hasn't already snatched it).
There is a certain interaction between those characters, namely the wizard and the assassin can greatly hinder the turns of people coming after them. Also, before the first player gets to pick their character for that round, a number of cards (depending on the number of players) is put aside closed.


text:
Does sacrificing a permanent cancel its effects, or do they still resolve?
I read here that tapped permanents can be sacrificed, but if a permanent creates an effect before it is sacrificed, does the effect still resolve or is it cancelled?
The reason I want to know is that I use Orcish Lumberjack to sacrifice a Forest that I also tap for {G}.
Is a sacrifice equivalent to bury or destroy in that all three put the permanent in its owner's graveyard? Does sacrifice have any special side effects on the sacrificed permanent and any effects it has created?

Two notes: bury is now an obsolete term that depending on context has been replaced in the Oracle reference with either Destroy [a permanent]. It can't be regenerated or Sacrifice [a permanent]. Second, sacrifice isn't equivalent to destroy so regeneration or other effects that replace destruction can't affect that action.

If a permanent does an effect before it is sacrified (ie a land tapped for mana or a creature tapped for a special ability), does this effect is canceled by the sacrifice?

No. In general, once an ability has been activated or triggered, it does not get "canceled" for any reason. There are two exceptions:

It is explicitly countered (for example, by the card Cancel, pun intended)
If the ability has targets, and if all the targets are gone or invalid when the ability resolves, then it is implicitly countered. Remember that the thing that caused the ability to happen is not a target. Targets are only the things that you explicitly choose because the ability's text includes the word "target."

Ultimately, is a sacrifice equivalent to burry or destroy, or has it special side effects on the sacrified target and its effects?

Nope. The only thing involved in sacrificing a permanent is that you put it in the graveyard. However, keep in mind that regeneration does not prevent this from happening - in other words, if you regenerate a permanent, and then sacrifice it, it still goes to the graveyard. This differs from being destroyed: if you regenerate a permanent, and then it gets destroyed, the regeneration replaces the destruction so that the permanent doesn't go to the graveyard after all.

+1 : Good to know, I used to get {G} from a forest and then sacrify it with an Orcist Lumberjack to get {G} + 3{G/R}.

It could possibly target itself and since the target won't be around so the effect will be countered. "T: Return ~this~to owners hand" will not do anything. "T: Return ~this~to owners hand. Draw a card" will not do anything either.

Neither of those examples are targeted abilities, so IIRC the ability wouldn't get countered, it would just fail to return the creature.

A side note : I assume "T: Return ~this~to owners hand. Draw a card" never will be printed on a card because it can easily be abused by untapping the permanent in response to the activation. The wording would probably be "T, Return ~this~to owners hand : Draw a card" with the return being part of the cost. Though it has happened in the past with similar abilities (most notably Mangara's ability).

If a permanent does an effect before it is sacrificed (ie a land tapped for mana or a creature tapped for a special ability), does this effect is canceled by the sacrifice?
No. Sacrifice doesn't care about the state of a permanent being sacrificed. Sacrifice cannot cancel anything, it can only move a permanent you control from the battlefield to its owner's graveyard.
Land being tapped for mana is a mana ability, as is Orcish Lumberjack's activated ability. These mana abilities don't go on the stack, and resolve immediately so it cannot be countered or cancelled in any way (with one exception noted below).

605.1a An activated ability is a mana ability if it meets three criteria: it doesn’t have a target, it could put mana into a player’s mana pool when it resolves, and it’s not a loyalty ability. (See rule 606, “Loyalty Abilities.”)
605.3b An activated mana ability doesn’t go on the stack, so it can’t be targeted, countered, or otherwise responded to. Rather, it resolves immediately after it is activated. (See rule 405.6c.)

A creature tapped (or other cost) for an activated ability that isn't a mana ability, gets placed on the stack. It can be responded to (countered, replaced, etc.), but the ability exist independently of its source (the creature). Sacrificing the creature that generated the activated ability will have no effect on the ability.

112.7a Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. Destruction or removal of the source after that time won’t affect the ability. Note that some abilities cause a source to do something (for example, “Prodigal Pyromancer deals 1 damage to target creature or player”) rather than the ability doing anything directly. In these cases, any activated or triggered ability that references information about the source because the effect needs to be divided checks that information when the ability is put onto the stack. Otherwise, it will check that information when it resolves. In both instances, if the source is no longer in the zone it’s expected to be in at that time, its last known information is used. The source can still perform the action even though it no longer exists.

Ultimately, is a sacrifice equivalent to bury or destroy, or does sacrifice have any special side effects on the sacrificed permanent and its effects?
Neither. Sacrifice is certainly not the same as destroy, since you cannot sacrifice a permanent that you don't control, but you can destroy permanents that you don't control. You can replace destruction with regeneration, but you cannot replace sacrifice with regeneration. Bury is an old term that is currently obsolete, and some but not all cards have received errata so that they now say "sacrifice [a permanent]". This isn't an equivalence relationship, because not all "bury" cards are "sacrifice" cards. Other cards have received errata so that they now say "destroy [a permanent], it cannot be regenerated."

701.14a 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.
701.6a To destroy a permanent, move it from the battlefield to its owner’s graveyard.
701.6b The only ways a permanent can be destroyed are as a result of an effect that uses the word “destroy” or as a result of the state-based actions that check for lethal damage (see rule 704.5g) or damage from a source with deathtouch (see rule 704.5h). If a permanent is put into its owner’s graveyard for any other reason, it hasn’t been “destroyed.”
701.6c A regeneration effect replaces a destruction event. See rule 701.12, “Regenerate.”
Bury (Obsolete) - A term that meant “put [a permanent] into its owner’s graveyard.” In general, cards that were printed with the term “bury” have received errata in the Oracle card reference to read, “Destroy [a permanent]. It can’t be regenerated,” or “Sacrifice [a permanent].”

(Note: The only way to cancel a mana ability is due to a player making an illegal action (i.e. Casting a spell, but realizing that they don't have the mana (or other additional costs) necessary to pay for the spell. In this situation, the game is backed up to a previous state just before the illegal action. Mana abilities used to pay for the spell are reversed.)
Handling Illegal Actions

717.1. If a player realizes that he or she can’t legally take an action after starting to do so, the entire action is reversed and any payments already made are canceled. No abilities trigger and no effects apply as a result of an undone action. If the action was casting a spell, the spell returns to the zone it came from. The player may also reverse any legal mana abilities activated while making the illegal play, unless mana from them or from any triggered mana abilities they triggered was spent on another mana ability that wasn’t reversed. Players may not reverse actions that moved cards to a library, moved cards from a library to any zone other than the stack, or caused a library to be shuffled.


text:
When and where do Theros Gods become creatures or stop being creatures?
Let's take Thassa, God of the Sea as my god. When does it count as a creature?

Is it a creature spell?

If I cast Thassa and my oponent has Kambal, Consul of Allocation, does it trigger Kambal ability?
Can Essence Scatter counter Thassa?

Is it a creature when it enters/leaves the battlefield?

If I cast Thassa and my oponent has Authority of the Consuls, does it trigger?

Is it a creature card (in my library / hand / graveyard)?

Can I put Thassa into play discarding it with Æther Rift

The devotion ability on the Theros gods are Static Abilities, covered by rule 604.2.
[emphasis mine]

604.2. Static abilities create continuous effects, some of which are prevention effects or replacement effects. These effects are active as long as the permanent with the ability remains on the battlefield and has the ability, or as long as the object with the ability remains in the appropriate zone, as described in rule 112.6.

Static abilities, like the one on the Theros gods, only function while on the battlefield unless otherwise stated as part of the ability, they define costs or special ways to counter the spell on the stack, they are characteristic defining, or the object type only exists in zones other than the battlefield (command zone usually, like emblems).
Of these special conditions, the only one close for the theros gods creature type is Characteristic Defining. The test for characteristic defining is laid out in rule 604.3a. The Theros gods fail that due to condition 5 of that rule, as devotion is a condition.

604.3a A static ability is a characteristic-defining ability if it meets the following criteria: [...] (5) it does not set the values of such characteristics only if certain conditions are met.

As for your specific questions:

Yes your (Theros) gods are creatures on the stack, so Kambal will see her as a creature, and she can be countered as a creature.
Only if you meet devotion, as she enters the battlefield, devotion is checked, if you have less than 4 other blue mana symbols, Thassa will enter as a non creature. Both or neither effects of Authority of the Consuls will depend on devotion.
Yes your gods are creatures in all zones other than the battlefield at all times, so Æther Rift will work.

These are all covered by the Gatherer rulings (also repeated on magiccards.info where you linked to).
Thassa is always a creature when not on the battlefield, so casting her doesn't trigger Kambal, Essence Scatter can counter her, and Aether Rift can put her into play:

9/15/2013: The type-changing ability that can make the God not be a creature functions only on the battlefield. It's always a creature card in other zones, regardless of your devotion to its color.

She's only a creature when she enters the battlefield if you have the devotion, so she may or may not trigger Authority of the Consuls (and it may or may not cause her to enter tapped):

9/15/2013: If a God enters the battlefield, your devotion to its color (including the mana symbols in the mana cost of the God itself) will determine if a creature entered the battlefield or not, for abilities that trigger whenever a creature enters the battlefield.

This is because the devotion-checking ability is a static ability, so it only functions while Thassa is on the battlefield. When she's not, the ability does nothing, so she's just a creature as printed.

112.3d Static abilities are written as statements. They’re simply true. Static abilities create continuous effects which are active while the permanent with the ability is on the battlefield and has the ability, or while the object with the ability is in the appropriate zone. See rule 604, “Handling Static Abilities.”

(There are more details, but that's all that really matters here. Notably it's not a characteristic-defining ability, which would function in all zones, because it's conditional.)

It's not explicitly asked, it might be worth mentioning how Thassa interacts with Authority of the Consuls' other ability.

It might also be worth mentioning why it's not a characteristic-defining ability, since it's very similar to one, and they work in all zones. (It's because it's conditional.)

Ok, but if it's creature at casting time, it should not trigger Kambal.


text:
Would Brink of Disaster destroy an already tapped permanent?
I'm aware this is very much like this question, but that question's answer does not answer my question.
Brink of Disaster reads:

Enchant creature or land.
  When enchanted permanent becomes tapped, destroy it.

What happens if the enchanted creature is already tapped when Brink of Disaster is played? Is it immediately destroyed?
Also, what if the enchanted creature was an untapped Steel Overseer? If I tap the Steel Overseer to put a +1+1 counter on my artifact creatures, does the ability work before the Overseer is destroyed?

It's all in the rulings:

3/1/2010  Brink of Disaster may target and may enchant a permanent
  that's already tapped. It won't do anything until the enchanted
  permanent changes from being untapped to being tapped.
3/1/2010  When the enchanted permanent becomes tapped, Brink of
  Disaster's ability triggers. That permanent will be destroyed when the
  ability resolves, even if Brink of Disaster has left the battlefield
  or is somehow enchanting a different permanent by then.
3/1/2010  If the enchanted permanent is tapped as a cost to activate a
  mana ability, the mana ability resolves immediately, then Brink of
  Disaster's ability goes on the stack.
3/1/2010  If the enchanted permanent is tapped as a cost to activate
  an ability that's not a mana ability, Brink of Disaster's ability will
  go on the stack on top of that activated ability. Brink of Disaster's
  ability resolves first (destroying that permanent), then the
  permanent's activated ability resolves.

These rulings are all clarifications that follow from the card's own rules text:

"When X, do Y" is a triggered ability, meaning that the action will go on the stack after the triggering event occurs. If you tapped something to use its non-mana activated ability (like Steel Overseer's), then the effect is still on the stack when Brink's trigger goes on the stack -- on top of it.
The trigger text is "becomes tapped". It doesn't care about the current state of the permanent, only when a specific action occurs.

I love when rulings are nice and concise - you don't really need comp rules here!

For your first question (what happens if Brink of Disaster is played on a tapped permanent) - nothing happens to the permanent enchanted by Brink of Disaster until it goes from untapped to tapped (via activating an ability, attacking, or something like Twitch). The game event of it becoming tapped is what triggers the ability.

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

As for your second (what happens if a permanent's activated ability cost requires tapping, and you use it), events occur in the following order:

The activated ability is put on the stack.
The active player would receive priority - before this, the triggered effect is put on the stack on top of the activated ability.

603.3. Once an ability has triggered, its controller puts it on the stack as an object that's not a card the next time a player would receive priority. See rule 116, "Timing and Priority." The ability becomes the topmost object on the stack. It has the text of the ability that created it, and no other characteristics. It remains on the stack until it's countered, it resolves, a rule causes it to be removed from the stack, or an effect moves it elsewhere.
People respond normally (active player now has priority, can pass, lets things on the stack resolve normally).
Unless something else is put on the stack causing Brink of Disaster, it resolves, destroying the permanent (unless it's indestructible).
People respond normally.
Unless the original activated ability was somehow removed from the stack, it resolve.

  In the case of step 6, the activated ability will still resolve, putting a +1/+1 counter on each artifact creature you control.


text:
When playing the Mine, which Treasure do you upgrade first?

Possible Duplicate:
Should I trash copper or silver with Mine?

In Dominion, when playing the Mine card, you can "Trash a Treasure card from your hand. Gain a Treasure card costing up to 3 Coins more; put it into your hand.". If you have only Copper or Silver in your hand, then the choice is obvious which to upgrade. If you have both Copper and Silver in your hand, what are the pros and cons to upgrading one over the other?

Welcome to the site!  This question has been asked already and I've linked you to it.  If there is some aspect not covered by the earlier question, feel free to clarify here, or ask in another question.  Thanks!

I definitely agree. It's a duplicate. Thanks for pointing me to the previous question. There is a lot of good discussion there.