text:
Munchkin with 7-12 players
I am wondering on what modifications could we make to Munchkin for a better overall gameplay when adapting it to be played with 7-12 players.
I am currently worried with the following issues:

Number of cards (the quantity of cards available is limited, and more players means more consumption)
Cards turnover (it will probably result in a more frequent used cards pile recycling, leveraging repeated cards usage)
Time (it will last more to finish a full round, and consequently a full game)
Balancing interferences (when it's in my turn it might have from 6 up to 11 allies or enemies, very likely to leverage the number of interferences, which could lead to be almost impossible to win a game - almost always there will be someone that can disturb you from winning, turning it into an endless game)

But feel free to also address any additional aspect I haven't covered.

Adding additional versions of Munchkin to the base set should take care of limited cards and frequency of recycling. However, I agree on your points about the time extension and potential endless game.

I have played such a large game.  Time to complete each round was the biggest issue.  Not an experience I expect to repeat.  Just break out a 2nd game & split the crowd, or better yet find a game that scales better.

12 player Munchkin??  I think there is a quote from War Games that might be applicable here...

My experience with multi player munchkin, is that you have to time your winning move. With 12 players there should be enough power to stop 2 to 3 persons from making the winning move. So it is wise to be the 3rd or 4th. So you can make your move if all defenses are depleted.

Oh my god, this sounds miserable! The amount of time between each player doing anything, and the discrepancy between getting lucky and unlucky draws... As others say, better to split the group!

In addition to getting more cards for the deck, have more people go at the same time.
This concept works for games of 8, 9, 10, and 12 players. Games of 7 and 11 present a prime problem.
Plan. Have two or three players kick open the door at the same time. Each takes a card off the top of the Door pile, but keeps it face down in front of them. Then, they kick it open simultaneously, and commence the fighting.
The active players should be equally separated around the table. In their seating positions, 1 through X, the bolded seats are active. As an example, consider 8 and 9:
8: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 divisible by 2
9: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  divisible by 3
A game of 10 players would be similar to one by 8, while 12 could follow either.
An additional level of complexity could be added by limiting the range a player has. For a game with 2 active players, an active player and those sitting right next to him can't hamper or aid the other active player. In a game with 3 active players, the non-active players can only target the active player immediately to their left and right, but not the far player.

Interesting variation - I think this might address the "Balancing interferences" issue.

+1 I might just institute the limited range of influence option in all of my Munchkin games from now on.

@SocioMatt I'd caution against that. Munchkin is balanced-ish for up to 6 players. If the intent is to prevent the cascading delay of game, because of the number of people trying to stop a player from winning, consider only limiting the range of those trying to Hamper.

@DrunkCynic That's a good point. My issue with the game has always been that annoying period where everyone is around level 9 and the person that wins is the one that happens to get lucky and survive everyone else's onslaught.

First advice: get more cards.
Fortunately, there are many expansions of Munchkin. I find it easier to combine 2 or more decks when playing with more than 4 players.
Also, the "Cheat with both hands" expansion addresses the fact, that many sets have different added rules and classes/races are not compatible.
In large playgroup, inadvertently factions arise, and play tends to get longer.
As with many multiplayer games, there is no easy solution for that. It's more fun with more people, until you reach certain number of players, when it isn't fun anymore.
In my experience, it gets better with time, when the group gets to know each other better.

I worked as a board game master in a gaming Cafe for some time, and I have ran Munchkin for quite... different amounts of players, ranging from 2 to... well, I can't remember exactly, but it was around 10 probably, or a bit more.
What you can do...

Get more cards. With experience you will know how much is enough for which amount of players, but getting too many is better than having too few. As it was in a cafe, we had all the expansions that were translated into Russian (I live in Russia).
If you can't get enough cards, don't forget to mix the cards well when you turn the deck over, so you don't have similar sequences of cards as they were played before. Enforce the rule about the amount of cards in your hand very strictly.
Make sure everyone understands the rules, so turns take less time. Appoint someone who will help anyone who is unfamiliar with rules -- I was appointed by the cafe and it was my job, but if you are playing with friends, still do appoint someone.
Use the optional rules that everyone gets a free door card each turn in their hand, so they have more possibilities to act during someone's turn, makes the delay between average person's actions way less.
Don't change too many stats, or you make the game even more broken than it's supposed to be.
Though, feel free to play with the winning level!
If you have limited time, also...

Try to give more door cards (those that you get face down), makes the game waaay faster.
Try to use the rule that when the deck is turned over a second time, you finish your turns for that round normally and the one with the highest level wins (effectively sets an approximate limit on the turns that can be played).
If you are OK with that, get a time limit on your turns.
Try playing another game. Maybe Munchkin just isn't the fit for your group, as it's not famous for being played quickly.

Good luck!

There's not much you can do about the time. It's Munchkin. it's a 30 minute game that extends to two hours with the regular number of players. More players means more piling on. Munchkin takes so long because you win not by defeating enemies but by out lasting the counter blows from your other players. More people mean you have to be even stronger to break through. The best you can do to address that is to start the pile-ons sooner.

Suggestions
1. Change the goal from 10 levels to 5.
Muchkin is a 2 hour game with four people. More people means more time. With level 10 as the goal people wait till you hit level 8 or so before attacking you. With 10 players that's going to take forever so set the goal to five. The beginning will be odd but people will push those attacks faster and you can begin the end game war of attrition a lot sooner.
2. Reduce monster values
Because the goal is level 10, monsters can be worth 2-3 levels because it generates a fun swing when you gain a few levels and then lose a few levels. With this many people. that swing is what makes the game so long. Instead make every monster count. Each monster is worth 1 level for every say 3 levels out there. If you would normally gain 3 levels.. too bad it's just 1. If you would normally gain 4 levels. Gain two.
3. Buy expansions
Honestly even with 12 people hoarding items card limitations is a very easy problem to fix. First off remind people they can sell items for levels. There's a lot to be gained from selling levels instead of jumping into the firing squad.  But if all else fails there are a TON of munchkin expansions that are cheap.
4. Limit Bags
In the rules your bag is unlimited. You can carry whatever you want and are only limited in what you can equip. Instead set a firm rule. Maybe you can carry everything you can wear, one alternative. (so for instance, One head, one arm, one arm, one food, one body, and for an alt a two handed OR an extra foot). And then in terms of everything else no more than say 5 items. This could also encourage people to sell stuff rather than hold on to it. To use those attack rather than to wait for someone to get to level 4.

These limits should get people more invested in attacking, more willing to attack, make attacks more serious, and make them more manageable as people won't be able to hoard 20 levels of monsters until you get to level 9 causing you to lose 4 levels or die. It makes the game harder to keep going. Thus ending it sooner. Card turnover isn't really an issue in my opinion. Cards aren't so powerful that seeing them again and again is really something to be concerned with. With the exception of removing every "Gain a Level" card from my deck (because I DID see those a lot and they're not fun/interesting) I've played many games and never seen a card I would not like to see again. The best I can do to address the balance is to limit the weapons people can have. If everyone blows their wad on you the next guy won't have anyone doing anything. Now people won't have the gear to attack everyone every turn. So hopefully this means that some of them are always gaining gear and some of them are always using it and not everyone at the same time is using it. Ideally on any given turn you won't have 7-10 enemies because there wont' be 7-10 people with that much gear because they'll be using it on people before you.

Honestly @falsarella playing a single game of Munchkin with 12 people is a bit questionable. It's a four player game. Heck it'd be a long game splitting into two games of six. I urge you to just buy some more cards split the deck and play two games side by side if possible.

You obviously need to get more cards for one, but one solution I have used is to make it so that players have a limited number of lives. the limit is arbitrary, so long as there is a set number. For example: say I am in a game of 12 players and we all get 3 lives. After a while people will start dying and there will be (a lot of) looting going on. After you die 3 times, you lose and anything that was not looted (as can happen once the number of players starts to drop)gets set aside or discarded. You would want to keep items to the side if you want them to still be involved as an undead. This last rule is just to make the losing players feel included, but basically one losing player at a time can mess with a player that is still alive until they are slain. Then that player can loot that player instead of taking treasure. You could apply this rule to all games, but it is most useful in large player games when you want to make sure everyone feels involved. If everyone happens to die, but some are still "undead players" they can come back in to the game. Slain players are still out though because they weren't munchkinly enough. This is just my personal preference for large player games, but you might find it useful.


text:
7 wonders Alexandria side A special ability
I don't understand the special ability a player gains after building the second stage of Alexandria side A. Can someone explain it? Thanks!

Could you add more detail about what exactly you do not understand?

Yes. So the person can get an extra element. How?

Do I physically get it, or just use it to buy a structure....

As Adama already explained, it's the same as if you obtained a card with those symbols.

I assume you inquire about stage #2 of side A. According to the Rules, p. 8:

the player gains a resource of their choice from the 4 Raw material types
  [Stone, Clay, Wood, Ore] every turn.
  Clarification : this resource cannot be sold through commerce.

In other words, each turn you have a wild, exclusive raw material at your disposal, for free, just like if you had bought the Caravansary Age II yellow card. Other players may not buy this resource.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
When do you check if you lose
If someone casts Prosperity with X being 100 and one player has 50 cards and the other has 60, does the one with 50 cards lose first since he runs out first or do you wait until the spell resolves and it ends up to be a tie?

This question does not show any research effort. The first Google result for "prosperity mtg" has a ruling that says "10/4/2004 If both players run out of cards during this effect, the game is a draw."

I realize that now, but thanks for pointing out my stupidity and yours or lack there of, SENPAI

We have a lot of questions here that are answered by Gatherer rulings. I don't think "no research effort" is a great way to respond - sure, it's pretty easy to find the answer if you realize Gatherer rulings exist, but a lot of people don't know to look there, and the rulings don't include full explanations. Seems better to just give a complete answer and link to gatherer so the OP learns to look there.

@Jefromi Suggesting that the author Google the card name with "mtg" tacked on is a useful suggestion, and would have led the author to the Gatherer (without prior knowledge that the Gatherer exists). Perhaps I could have phrased my suggestion a bit "nicer", but I don't think it warranted the response that I got.

@Rainbolt I'm not saying it's not useful to suggest google (or gatherer). I'm just saying that it doesn't necessarily make the question bad (gatherer doesn't explain) and yes, that it's good to be nice to the OP.

Possible duplicate of Not enough cards for both players when casting Wheel of Fortune

It will be a draw, both players lose at the same time.
MtG uses a system of state-based actions This is a sort of clean-up system that checks the game state almost continuously.

State-Based Actions

704.1. State-based actions are game actions that happen automatically whenever certain conditions (listed below) are met. State-based actions don’t use the stack.
704.3. Whenever a player would get priority (see rule 116, “Timing and Priority”), the game checks for any of the listed conditions for state-based actions, then performs all applicable state-based actions simultaneously as a single event.

Priority is the game's term for who has the right to take actions. Generally, whenever something happens such as a spell is cast or resolves, or steps/phases change, the active player (the player whose turn it is) gets priority. Only the player with priority may cast spells, activate abilities, etc. The player with priority may also pass priority, giving it to the next player in turn order. This continues until all players have passed priority in succession and the stack is empty, then the current step or phase ends. This is how the game progresses.
Before a player gets priority, however, state-based actions are checked.

116.3b The active player receives priority after a spell or ability (other than a mana ability) resolves.

State-based actions are not checked while a spell resolves, only immediately after it has resolved:

704.4. Unlike triggered abilities, state-based actions pay no attention to what happens during the resolution of a spell or ability.

Therefore in your case it is not important which player had more cards in his library. Both players lose at the same time because they attempted to draw a card from an empty library:

704.5. The state-based actions are as follows:
704.5b If a player attempted to draw a card from a library with no cards in it since the last time state-based actions were checked, he or she loses the game.

It should also note that the card in question has a ruling on it that clearly stated that the game is a draw in the situation described. While you may consider it redundant I think it is a helpful point to make it easier to understand. 10/4/2004 If both players run out of cards during this effect, the game is a draw.

I don't only consider it redundant, it objectively is, because I wrote the same thing already: "Both players lose at the same time because they attempted to draw a card from an empty library". Both players lose at the same time means it's a draw, they attempted to draw a card from an empty library means they ran out of library cards while drawing. There's no additional value to adding the ruling.

I understand that but the rules can get confusing which is why they issue rulings on cards and there is no reason not to include the ruling on a card when it was the card asked about in the question.

@JoeW Yes, there is a reason not to add the ruling. I structure most of my answers in the "Bold TL;DR as the first line, followed by rules and/or other references for why and how" schema. The ruling in question would clearly belong to the TL;DR section because it's nothing but a conclusion, but my TL;DR already says the same thing. Making an answer and  especially the TL;DR section longer than necessary makes the answer worse overall.

The ruling would add two lines onto the answer.

@JoeW Exactly this.

Two lines that would perfectly answer the question without having to read and understand all the rules you posted is bad?

@JoeW My own bold TL;DR already perfectly answers the question without having to understand the rules. The ruling explains exactly as much or as little as my TL;DR, which I already have given as the first line of my answer. I thought I explained how I strutcture my answers, I don't know how else to explain it.

Sorry I just don't see what is so bad or hard about including a couple of lines from gatherer that give the cards ruling and also help others by showing that answers to ruling questions can be found on the gatherer site rather then having to ask the question here. Sure your answer is a great breakdown of it but it could do a lot more to answer the question directly.

The question is answered directly, in the bold first sentence. Is it really useful to write the answer, then write it again phrased differently in a blockquote? The ruling contains the same information as the answer.

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


text:
Why is "LGS" the standard term for a game store?
Why is LGS the term of choice for gaming stores?  Is it to specifically refer to local gaming stores, as opposed to distant or non-local gaming stores?  I have never seen DGS or NLGS, so I don't know why it is necessary to specify local in the acronym, instead of just using GS.
If LGS is intended to convey a physical store as opposed to an online retailer, why not Brick & Mortar or B&M?  Most other retail industries I've read about (electronics and cigars come to mind) regularly use B&M when talking about physical establishments instead of online retailers.
But strangely, I've never seen B&M used in the Magic/TCG/gaming vernacular.

Some posts in this old thread from 2005 indicate that the "local" aspect of "LGS" was one of pride in supporting a local store. This may be a cultural thing, but at least where I am from (the US) we pride ourselves on supporting local businesses.

The phrase "local game store" spiked in popularity between 2001 and 2008 (and probably has continued to do so, but Google's ngram Viewer doesn't currently go past 2008), so those folks from 2005 probably have some authority on the subject matter.

"Local" implies familiarity, and some connection specifically to you. It's a store near you, it's convenient for you, it's something from your area that you can be proud of, it's part of your community, it's a place you might see people you know. It also implies that it's not a chain. All of this adds up to a more warm and fuzzy emotional connection.
Brick and mortar, on the other hand, is really just about offline vs online. A brick and mortar store could still be a giant national big box chain store. The only important thing is that it's physical, so it still sounds pretty impersonal.
Note that this isn't just a gaming thing; for example LBS (local bike store/shop) is pretty common too.
You can also see a lot of other common "local * store" terms in the Google ngram viewer. "Local grocery store" is the most common, tying into the local food movement.

Local Game Store is supposed to be a counter to Big Box store that sells games. So instead of the generic large Wal-Mart chain. FLGS (Friendly Local Game Store) refers to your distinct, independent and local (usually not chain store) independent game store. (Also sometimes referred to as Mom-n-Pop Stores)
In a more contemporary context it's also used to counter the online store more than chain retail locations. While easier to access in some ways is in no way local to you as an individual.
But terms can and do change and adapt. Lately I've seen others use the term FLGS to refer to stores such as Barnes and Nobles when they have game nights. My own FLGS has four locations. But the term is essentially about a collective term for "Whever it is you choose to play" as opposed to "This store that we're telling you to play at"

I do believe that lgs is a mtg term. I have never heard other card games talk of it. It stand in contrast to the mega stores like wallmart that also sell the product but do not engage the community in any other meaningful way.
The local store is much more than just a store it is a hub for all the related nerd culture activities. Without the lgs a lot of the activities would simply not be possible. It is a great vehicle for like minded hobby enthusiasts to come together and enjoy there favourite past time.
Brick and mortar is a specific term that designates a real life store. Because mtg is so dependant on the hobby store to not just sell the product but engage with the community, they receive special privileges.
I know that in the us at least to register with suppliers you have to prove you have a physical store front. Also if you want to host fnm you need a store.

The terms LGS and the one I hear more often, FLGS (Friendly Local Game Store) both come from the game manufacturers and distributors. As the owner of a tea & game store, I'm much happier selling a game when the manufacturer/distributor encourages people to come to their FLGS to buy it. They send me business, I make them money.
There's an oft-unstated implication to the term FLGS as well: support. You don't expect to walk into a supermarket or WalMart and find someone that can intelligently compare two games, give you a demo, or point you to games that meet certain criteria.
At my store, we commonly get questions like, "My brother's a poor loser. What game could we play together without getting in a fight?" We can point them to cooperative games like Pandemic or Forbidden Desert and invite them to game night to try out a demo copy and learn how to play it. A megastore probably can't. Hence the "F" for friendly and the "L" for local.

This does not appear to add anything to the question that was not in a previous answer.

Most of the things I mentioned in my answer were also mentioned in others, Joe, but not all. I wrote an answer because the presence of demo copies of games (and staff that can demonstrate how a game is played) is a critical part of what an FLGS has to offer. Additionally, Neil said that it was a MtG term, and I was pointing out that many game manufacturers and distributors use it.

Because promotional material encourages players to go to them. The idea is that players will form playgroups around their local gaming store. In that sense, "Your" LGS would be the (hopefully) nearby store that you would to to to play games/purchase materials.
This is in contrast to other brick and mortar shops that you may go to for a particular event, but is not local, or convenient.
As to why we use the particular phrase LGS, that's a little harder to pin down. Most likely, that's just the wording that TSR decided to use for Dungeons and Dragons. Since Magic the Gathering (the first of the wave of trading card games) hails from the same distributor, it makes sense to use the same terminology. Other TCGs follow suit, and here we are.
Additionally, the D&D and MTG communities formed before online retailers became mainstream. There would have been no need to differentiate between a physical and online retailer. This would explain why the E-Cigarette community uses said phrase: Because E-Cig supplies have been widely available online from the beginning of the Craze (Or, at least, since it became mainstream).
Either way, Communities such as those around E-Cigs and Electronics do not share roots with the D&D/TCG communities (though there is definitely overlap), and so developed their own jargon. Plus, of course, you don't expect to play games at a store that sells Vaping Fluid.

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


text:
In a single-avatar game, what do the other main characters do?
Before I try a group play of Legendary: Encounters (the Firefly version), I've started the first three missions as a solo, single-avatar run. I just completed episode 1-A solo, and it was challenging but not terribly so. I'm worried that I'm not playing the game right, though.
It's not explicitly stated, but as a single-avatar player, I just use my Avatar's character deck every turn, plus the Bridge cards, and thats it. My other main characters don't seem to have a function other than determining which other characters fill the Supporting Characters (and thus the big crew deck that rotates into the Bridge).
I used Mal as my avatar in the last episode, and every turn was just the introduction of an episode card into the 'Verse, then my hand of six Mal cards (attack/scan/recruit), then cleanup. A few cards moved a square or two in the 'Verse, but no cards ever entered the combat zone, and I completed the goals just as an Inevitable card showed up.
Does that sound right for single-avatar play? Should I be doing something with my Main Characters (besides my Avatar) each turn, or are they just there to have passive effects on episode cards and soak up crew strikes?

From your description, you used the Avatars correctly.
At the outset of your solo game, the Avatars really only determining what crew member you are playing and what crew members will be available on the bridge. Those four crew members will define what strategies you'll use throughout the game.
As far as the other four main character Avatars that aren't you, their purpose is really only to take crew member specific strikes (defined on page 14 of the rulebook). Other than that, once you've set up the game, their impact on gameplay is very minimal.


text:
What does "reveal" mean in this context?
I just got the Legendary: Big Trouble in Little China deck-building game. They recommend using this Mastermind, Six-Shooter, for your first play through, but I cant figure out what "reveal" means in this situation...
For the Master Strike text on this Mastermind card:

Does that text mean I need to "reveal" one of those two types of Heroes from my hand, my discard pile, the Hero Deck, or somewhere else? I'm relatively new to the Legendary series, so maybe this is spelled out somewhere else, but not in the BTLC instructions. I just want to know I'm playing correctly.
I'd guess it meant to "reveal but not use" one of those Heroes from your hand, then discard it for later; this seems to make the only sense, as you'd be wasting a character for a few turns, or taking a Strike. Any other way, and it sounds like you're adding a Hero to your hand/deck, and that doesn't sound very much like a Master Strike effect.

From the Legendary: Marvel core rule book on page 17 (emphasis mine):

“Reveal a card” just means show the other players that you have it. You don’t play or discard the card you revealed. When you have the opportunity to “reveal a card”, you can reveal a card from your hand or you can reveal a card in front of you that you have already played this turn.

Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be explicitly stated in the rules for Big Trouble in Little China, but they same rules likely apply.

In the context of this card, you will (almost always) end up revealing a card from your hand. The reveal happens as part of the Master Strike for Six Shooter, which most likely happens at the beginning of a player's turn when the top card of the villain deck is revealed. In some other Legendary versions it's possible to reveal the top card of the villain deck in the middle of a player's turn, but I haven't played this enough to know whether that's possible in the Big Trouble in Little China version.


text:
Can a sub attack a lone sub in axis and allies and the attacked sub submerge?
If an English sub attacks a German sub (by itself in a sea zone), can the German sub submerge? From my understanding subs can only conduct a surprise strike or submerge if there are other sea units (besides subs) in the sea zone with it, and only if the attacking and defending players both have submarines.

Yes. Submarines that are not under threat from an enemy destroyer can use their special ability to choose to make a surprise strike (either on attack or defense) or choose to submerge. This occurs before any dice are rolled by either side.
From Axis 1942 Second Ed. Rules, P14, General Combat, Step 2:

Before the general sea battle takes place (steps 3–5), both
  attacking and defending submarines can choose to either make a Surprise Strike die roll or submerge.

If an English sub attacks a German sub, as there are no destoryers present on either side, both will have the option to make a surprise strike or submerge.
I am not sure where you get your understanding that a) other sea units (besides subs) need to be present, and b) only if attacker and defender both have submarines, these are both incorrect.
Two things to note about submarines:
As there are no other enemy (surface) warships present, any 'surprise' strike would effectively not be 'surprising'.. both submarines would get a suprise strike at the same time. The attacker rolls a surprise strike, and then the defender rolls the surprise strike on defense. Any hits are then removed.
The whole process starts over again once casualties are removed, so the choice to submerge or surprise strike (remaining in combat) is made before the attacker rolls attack dice.
Typically, the defending sub would choose to submerge, as it defends on a 1.

Welcome to Board Games Stack Exchange! Your answer is pretty good, and I suspect correct, but it would be even better if you added a quote from the rulebook to back up your answer.

It is actually a different mechanic. If a submarine survives the first round of combat there is a specifc step in the combat sequence that allows for submarines to withdraw. Incidently, both combatants have this option. This is more often seen in actions involving fleets using subs as support units, but can be interesting in the case of a lone sub picking off a transport and then using that step in the sequence to position a sub either out of range of enemy response, or to project force in a different direction to influence enemy fleet movements. Always remember, an unused weapon is a useless weapon.

Mahan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Thayer_Mahan#Impact_on_naval_thought) would strongly disagree with that last sentence -


text:
How would cooperative and foraging chain work?
Imagine a Long Neck + Foraging + Cooperative combo.
It gains 2 foods from the food bank and feed the species at its right.
If the species at the right has foraging + cooperative, how many does it gain?
And how many gains the third species?
It seems like the first would gain 2, the next 2 and the next 1, but I am not sure. Someone said the first should gain 2 and the next 4 and the third should have 2.

I've retagged this to the North Star Games version of the game, rather than "Evolution: the Origin of Species," based on the cards you are referencing in your question.

As clarified in the Climate rules, and as the system does it in the digital version, the food distributed would be 2 - 2 - 1.
-Creature A gets one food from long neck, it gets an additional from foraging.  Because it ate, the species to the right gets one plant food.
-Creature B gets one food and then an additional food from foraging. Because it ate, the species to the right gets one plant food.
-Creature C gets one food.  If it also had foraging it would get an additional food.
The designer (Dominic Crapuchettes) also clarified it in this thread here:  https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1419292/foraging-cooperation-and-order-eating
They also plan to post an official FAQ after the digital version is released.

As long as no species would exceed its Population, the three species would get 2, 4, and 4 Plant Food. However, if at any time a food could not be taken as a result of Population limits, the numbers would be lower.
To work this out, let's say you have species {A}, {B} and {C}.

{A} has the traits Long Neck, Foraging, and Cooperative.
{B} has Foraging and Cooperative.
{C} has neither.

After each trait triggers, I'll note the amount of cumulative food like this: ({A}:0; {B}:0; {C}:0).
When the Food Cards are revealed,

{A} is going to take 1 Plant Food from the Food Bank because of Long Neck ({A}:1; {B}:0; {C}:0).
{B} takes 1 Plant Food from the Food Bank because of {A}'s Cooperation ({A}:1; {B}:1; {C}:0).
{C} takes 1 Plant Food from the Food Bank because of {B}'s Cooperation ({A}:1; {B}:1; {C}:1).
{B} takes another 1 Plant Food from the Food Bank because of its Foraging trait ({A}:1; {B}:2; {C}:1).
{C} takes another 1 Plant Food from the Food Bank because of {B}'s Cooperation ({A}:1; {B}:2; {C}:2).

So far, the only thing {A} has used is the Long Neck trait. Continuing on:

{A} takes an additional 1 Plant Food from the Food Bank because of Foraging, which is triggered from the Long Neck ({A}:2; {B}:2; {C}:2).
{B} takes 1 Plant Food from the Food Bank because of {A}'s Cooperation ({A}:2; {B}:3; {C}:2).
{C} takes 1 Plant Food from the Food Bank because of {B}'s Cooperation ({A}:2; {B}:3; {C}:3).
{B} takes another 1 Plant Food from the Food Bank because of its Foraging trait ({A}:2; {B}:4; {C}:3).
{C} takes another 1 Plant Food from the Food Bank because of {B}'s Cooperation ({A}:2; {B}:4; {C}:4).

Final tally: {A} gets 2 Plant Food, {B} gets 4 Plant Food, and {C} gets 4 Plant Food.
This assumes that Population limits are not met. If, for example, {A} met it's limit after just the Long Neck trait, steps 6-10 would be skipped because {A} didn't take a second Plant Food from its Foraging trait.

Rules can be found here.

This is wrong - this is clarified in the Climate printed rules, and by how it works in the digital version.

Added my own answer, with a link to the game designer's feedback.


text:
Why do mana abilities not go on the stack?
Why this special treatment for mana-abilities? What are the design implications if they didn't go on the stack?

I can think of three reasons:

It would force arbitrary actions to be reversed.
It would allow spells that haven't been fully cast to be countered.
There are already plenty of opportunities to react.

It would force arbitrary actions to be reversed
Consider this rule:

601.2 [...] If, at any point during the casting of a spell, a player is unable to comply with any of the steps listed below, the casting of the spell is illegal; the game returns to the moment before that spell started to be cast.

Players can obtain mana in the middle of casting a spell[1][2]. If mana abilities used the stack, that means players would be able to cast spells in response. If the spell were to become unable to be cast, one would have to rewind all direct and indirect effects of those spells. Someone could have revealed private information, shuffled their library or lost the game as a result. How do you undo those?
Not only that, it would also make it far more likely for a spell to become unable to be cast, something that should never happen.
For example, consider this scenario where responding to mana abilities would be allowed.

Alice only has a single creature on the 'field.
Starts casting Altar's Reap.
She activates a Swamp's ability.
In response, Nancy casts Beacon of Destruction
Nancy kills Alice's creature and shuffles her Beacon of Destruction into her library.
Alice can no longer complete the casting of her spell (because she can't pay the additional cost), so the game rewinds to the start of the casting of the spell. Nancy needs to unshuffle her library to match the game state.

It would allow spells that haven't been fully cast to be countered
Players can obtain mana in the middle of casting a spell[1]. This happens after placing the spell on the stack[2]. A spell is a card on the stack (or a copy of spell), so it could be the legitimate target of a Cancel cast in response to activating mana abilities. That means one could counter a spell that han't been (fully) cast yet. That's just too complicated and messy to allow.

There are already plenty of opportunities to react
Activating mana abilities is not something someone one normally does for its own sake. It's done as part of something else, such as casting a spell. Allowing this to be interrupted would be detrimental to the game flow and would add confusion. There are plenty of other points at which players can respond.
The earlier problems only surface when activating mana abilities when one would not have priority under the current rules. Could the game allow players to respond to the activation of mana abilities performed when a player has priority? Yes, but it would often be hard to distinguish whether an activation occurred before or during casting. It's far simpler to have mana abilities never use the stack rather that having the player try to figure out whether one can respond to a particular activation or not.

Notes

Or activating an ability. I'm only mentioning spells to keep it simple.
The steps to casting a spell[1] are:

601.2a) Place card on stack.
601.2b-d) Make choices, including targets.
601.2e) Determine total cost.
601.2f) Activate mana abilities.
601.2g) Pay the previously determined cost.

How do you interrupt paying a cost to make it unable to be paid? I was under the impression that this could not be done.

@Pow-Ian, It's hard under current rules. I don't remember an example at the moment. Would probably have to involve continuous effects of cards sacrificed as an additional cost.

I think you are wrong about one statement: "The first step of casting a spell is to place it on the stack." according to 601.2 the first step is to put it on the stack and pay it's cost. that being true, you would never have a chance to use a mana ability while casting a spell if it had to be put on the stack because that would be taking another action before the first was complete. Also while paying a cost, no one can take any actions, so you can't make a cost unable to be paid while some one is paying it.

@Pow-Ian, When 601.2 says "To cast a spell is to take it from where it is (usually the hand), put it on the stack, and pay its costs", it's summarizing the entirety of casting a spell ("To cast a spell is") rather than describing the first the first step. The steps are explicitly stated to follow ("Casting a spell follows the steps listed below, in order"). Paying its cost is the 7th and last step of casting a spell. The steps are: 601.2a) Place card on stack. b-d) Choices are made including targets e) Determine total cost. f) Activate mana abilities g) Pay the previously determined cost.

Bob should probably be named "Norman", or "Neil", or "Nancy", to go with standard wizards rules scenarios labelling Active player with "A" names (Alice works fine) and Non-Active players with N names. Cryptography scenario naming is less relevant, and the naming allows you to convey extra clarification for free to more knowledgeable players.

@ikegami, In step 6, you stated "so the game rewinds to the start of the casting of the spell", but why does the game need to rewind? If Alice no longer has her creature, that's just too bad isn't it? That's exactly how interrupts work, you try to +3/+3 buff your creature, but before that buff I destroy it with a simple 2-dmg Shock, then it's just too bad for your buff which no longer has a target.

@Pacerier, The sacrifice is part of the cost, and it's illegal to cast a spell without paying its cost. It's not illegal for a target to become invalid (though the spell is countered if all targets become illegal).

@ikegami Since you brought up the distinction between using mana abuties when you have priority instead of as part of casting a spell; it does seem that the rules regarding mana abilities and casting spells could have been simplified to say that you can't use mana abilities as part of casting a spell; instead you would have to tap the lands you need before you start casting the spell. Then mana abilities could also use the stack like normal.

Your answer seems to insist on operating under current rules where mana is immediately available, even when evaluating a rule-change where mana sources would go on the stack before adding the mana to your mana pool. Under your interpretation it would also be possible to start casting a spell that you have no hope of paying the mana cost for, since that is dealt with later in the sequence of casting a spell under your sequential interpretation.

@hkBst, Re "Under your interpretation it would also be possible to start casting a spell that you have no hope of paying the mana cost for", It's not only possible, it's the common way to cast a spell. Mana is rarely available when you start casting a spell since the standard practice is to produce it after starting to cast the spell.

If you meant it's possible to start casting a spell without having the means to produce the necessary mana to cast the spell, that is indeed correct. In fact, since you can't be compelled to create mana [CR 117.3c], you could even have insufficient mana to cast your spell even if you have the lands to produce it. But pull that off in a tournament and you'll get docked for Slow Play. If you have any questions about this, Ask a Question.

Under rules where it is impossible to interrupt between cost preparation and actual cost paying, it does not matter whether you pay first and then cast or cast first and then pay, since nothing can prevent the one from following the other anyway. But if you consider a change of rules as in the question asked, where something CAN come in between those two it does not make much sense anymore to treat these two events as interchangeable.

@hkBst, What's your point? I never treated them as interchangeable.

Right, you only consider the illogical order of casting first, then allowing interruptions and then paying. And you seem to have completely failed to consider the logical order, perhaps because the problems from the illogical order are so overwhelming. So at best your answer can be construed as an explanation for why you should not cast first and then pay.

@hkBst, Actually, I did cover that. "Plenty of other opportunities to react".

Am I right in thinking, - in addition to this answer - that if mana abilities used the stack, it would mean that tapping a land card would use the stack? thus meaning tapping for mana could be countered/ responded to?

@ThunderToes, Yes, if mana abilities used the stack, activating a land's mana ability would use the stack, and yes, they one could respond to such abilities being activated and counter them. The question asks why this isn't allowed.

There is some history behind the decision. Back in the dark ages of MtG rules, before sixth edition, there were a lot of rules that were unintuitive and confusing. With the release of Fifth Edition, a new type of ability was introduced,

Mana Sources: "Mana sources" are a new category of abilities. They include the ability of lands to be tapped for mana and all abilities that provide mana as interrupts. For example, Llanowar Elves's ability is now considered a mana source, but the ability of Ice Cauldron is not. Mana sources may be used whenever desired and may not be interrupted; there is no gap between playing the ability and resolving it. For example, you can't Rust a Mox; only continuous effects can stop a mana source from producing mana.

So, a Mana Source is anything that generated mana. Spells like Dark Ritual from earlier editions can be found with the card type Mana Source. Fifth Edition rules clarified that they may not be interrupted. This was necessary, because before the stack, Interrupts (depreciated, and later reclassified as Instants) were handled in batches

In the beginning, there was the batch. You played a spell, a flurry of "fast effects" were played in response, and then everything (well, everything except interrupts) resolved using the "last in, first out rule," with no chance of playing more spells in the middle. [...]

The timing issues presented by Red Elemental Blast and Blue Elemental Blast (and later, Hydroblast and Pyroblast) were particularly troublesome. Interrupts made sense when they targeted spells, but what happened when they began targeting permanents? Remember, removing the source of a fast effect does not remove the fast effect itself, but what about stopping the fast effect in response to it being played? [...]

Under the current rules, Mark taps his Prodigal Sorcerer in an attempt to deal 1 damage to Randy. In response, Randy plays Red Elemental Blast, targeting the Prodigal Sorcerer. This destroys the Sorcerer, but not before its "ping" effect goes onto the stack. That 1 damage is still dealt to Randy. Now, under the earliest Magic rules, Mark would announce the tapping of his Sorcerer, but Randy could say, "Hold on a minute! I want to interrupt your effect." This would stop the game, target the Sorcerer with Randy's Red Elemental Blast, and prevent the damage from ever being dealt. This created huge amounts of confusion over timing: The active player was supposed to have priority each turn, but interrupts being used this way seemed to contradict the rule. This problem, however, was corrected before interrupts were done away with entirely. The ruling said that if you targeted a permanent with an interrupt, the interrupt was played "as an instant."

So, under the pre-fifth edition rules, you could kill a Llanowar Elves or Interdict a land tapping for mana to prevent a player from generating enough mana to play a spell, and the game would have to backup to the point of the illegal action of casting a spell you couldn't pay the cost for. Sixth Edition rules and the stack did away with all this confusion. There are no longer batches and special timing rules for Interrupts/Instants, they all go on the Stack. Abilities that generate mana don't go on the stack, amd therefore cannot be responded to, removing the necessity to specify on the cards that they cannot target mana abilities.

I think the simplest answer is that mana abilities are generally used while casting a spell to pay a cost. If they had to be put on the stack, then they could never be used while casting a spell because you would be taking another action before a previous action is complete.

601.2. To cast a spell is to take it from where it is (usually the hand), put it on the stack, and pay its costs, so that it will
  eventually resolve and have its effect. Casting a spell follows the
  steps listed below, in order. If, at any point during the casting of a
  spell, a player is unable to comply with any of the steps listed
  below, the casting of the spell is illegal; the game returns to the
  moment before that spell started to be cast (see rule 717, "Handling
  Illegal Actions"). Announcements and payments can't be altered after
  they've been made.
...
601.2h Once the steps described in 601.2a-g are completed, the spell becomes cast. Any abilities that trigger when a spell is cast or put
  onto the stack trigger at this time. If the spell's controller had
  priority before casting it, he or she gets priority.

If you follow 601.2 to it's conculsion you see that you could not activate the mana ability if it was not treated differently because you don't have priority while you are 'casting' a spell.
Yes you had priority when you started to cast the spell and you will have it again when you are done casting the spell, but while you are 'casting' it, (Paying its cost, choosing its targets etc) there is no passing of priority so no abilities or other spells can be used/cast.
So if it was treated like a normal ability, which you also can not activate while casting a spell, then you could never use them to pay a cost while casting a spell. they would always have to be used before you started paying the cost.

It's silly to assume the game would allow you to activate mana abilities without allowing them to resolve (give you priority)! This is a perfectly correct yet perfectly useless answer. If you argument that we can't have X because we don't have necessary dependency Y, it just shifts the question to "Why can't we have Y?". But you left that unanswered.

Mana sources could go on the stack the same way as other effects.  The main difference would be that you could be interrupted in between preparing the costs to be payed and actually paying the costs for casting a spell.  For instance you could use all your mana sources in preparation for casting a spell, but your opponent reacts by using their own mana sources which will resolve before your own, then after the mana hits the opponent's mana pool using it to cast a spell that discards your entire hand.  Since your own mana still has not hit your mana pool you are basically inable to do anything.  After you have discarded your hand, you will not be able to use the mana that finally enters your mana pool for the spell that is no longer in your hand.
A workaround for this problem would be to collect your mana in small steps instead of all at once.  Thus you would be using a single mana source and asking your opponent whether they want to react or not.  Then use the second mana source and again ask your opponent, until you have collected enough mana in your mana pool to cast your spell.  Asking your opponent for permission for every single mana source gets very tedious, so instead the ability to respond to mana sources was removed.

I think the premise of your answer needs to be made clearer. "Mana sources could go on the stack" if what? If the rules changed? Also, this answer goes into great detail about the history of mana abilities (how they used to work, how they evolved, and how they work now). I think it covers most of what is said here already.

The premise is exactly the original question. I assume the premise and explore its consequences. Those consequences are found to not be an improvement to the game, giving the reason why the rules are not like in the premise. The answer you linked to fails to assume the premise and subsequently fails to explore its consequences, and thus fails to answer the posed question.

Do you have a reference for:  "... so instead the ability to respond to mana sources was removed."   This is inconsistent with the other answers that attribute sources to their claims.

@John, I've written this mostly from a what-if (counterfactual) perspective as I think that best answers the question. However, mana sources DID use to be classified as interrupts. Other non-mana spells, most notably counter-spells, were also classified as interrupts. Interrupts were faster than instants, but other interrupts could still respond to them. So in fact in earlier versions of MtG a strict interpretation of the rules would lead to the situation I've described in my post. Given that clarification, what exactly would you like a reference to? The removal of interrupts from the rules?

@John, how about Rules, Interrupted?

You assert a reason why the rules were changed.  That reason is not described in the article you link to.  That said, the article is fascinating for an old player like me used to the batch mechanic.

@John, see my previous comment about the counterfactual nature of my answer. On the other hand if mana goes at interrupt speed, then you have the problems described in my answer at the interrupt level I would think...

Read this first to get some ideas. Then read MTG Rules on this.
Assuming that a change like this would also imply you have to pay costs from your mana pool, rather than being able to pay costs after putting a card on the stack (Otherwise, you get @Pow-Ian's problem), and have to do it before or during putting a card on the stack, it circumvents the problems with creating situations for illegal spells.
But it gets a little more involved when complicated sequences are investigated. Namely, players would have to hold priority a lot of the time in order to be able to pay costs during sequences when the stack is involved. That would require this (usually rare thing) to be said a lot, as it isn't implied (for good reasons, typically of game flow).
The main problems are these:

How unfriendly it would be to newer players, how many "gotchas" it will create.
How everyone needs to be holding priority all the time.
Needing everyone to learn the habit of tapping lands before casting spells, also causing many game losses for trivial matters (casting an illegal spell).
Sorcery speed spells become very hard to use in fast(er) formats. The culprits are bounce and discard effects, that can respond to mana abilities and either bounce lands or discard permanents. Vendillion Clique deserves a shout-out as a popular and already powerful card that can really abuse this by discarding the thing you're about to cast. Many cards would likely need bans as they turn into virtual Time Walks..
Cards such as Mana Leak, which requires an opponent to pay mana while you are casting a spell. Mana leak is hard to anticipate, so now you can't leave 3 mana open to deal with it, you actually have to over-fill your mana pool by 3 to prevent the counter.

A clique example
Player A Sacrifices Mishra's bauble, naming Black. They tap Forest, Plains, and  Forest. Then, they pass priority with these abilities on the stack. Player B casts Vendillion Clique, removing one of A's two Siege Rhinos, and drawing them a card. The abilities resolve, and A is left with GGW and holding the other Siege Rhino. They have no swamps in hand, and can no longer cast Siege Rhino, and have missed an entire turn, while B gets a strong creature.
A second example
Player A has a 6/6 creature and a Silence. Player B has a pair of lightning bolts.
A attacks. During declare blockers, A passes priority. B casts a lightning bolt, says they hold priority. Then B taps a mountain to cast a second lightning bolt. A says "hold on" and casts Silence. A judge is called, and the other lightning bolt is returned to B's hand.
Why did this happen? Because player B only said they hold priority once, which meant it was used up by tapping the mountain.
Here's another one
At competitive REL:
Player B: Island, Go.
Player A: Mountain. Tap mountain, Cast Lightning Bolt.
Player B: Wait, hold on! Stifle. Judge, A cast Lightning Bolt without having the mana. shows stifle. They didn't say they were holding priority.
This thread has some more examples
Tedious, slow, and full of feel-bad moments
Will become of the reputation of this rule change. There's all sorts of additional gotchas suddenly where timing and priority is concerned, making gameplay far trickier, as you have to think about holding priority all the time now, instead of this being quite a rare thing, you now typically want to say you're doing so with each land you tap.
Basically the situation now becomes that it's a good habit to say you're holding priority every time you're using any mana ability. And mana abilities are the most common abilities in the game. This easily quadruples the number of priority passes in a game. Say you curve out over 4 turns, attacking on the 4th. There's usually some 3 passes each turn (after casting each creature, the draw step, and saying "go" to end your turn). But now you also get two priority passes with each land tapped, adding an extra 20 explicit steps. It slows the game down massively for very little benefit: 99% of the time, you get the mana anyway.
Conclusion
So while the rules might be more elegant in the sense of being more brief with having mana abilities on the stack, and it can easily work by only allowing payment from the mana pool, they're certainly not more practical or more friendly. And those two things trump elegance.


text:
Brushfire Side Mission - Counting Distance through walls
In this mission, the Rebel characters are tasked with disarming explosives that are around the map. The Mission Briefing has a special rule: "If the character is Fenn Signis or within 3 squares of Fenn," they can disarm the explosives and use them to help destroy an AT-ST that is also in this mission.
My question is that should we take in to account walls (black lines on the tiles) when calculating whether or not we are 3 squares away?

Yes, you should take into account walls when calculating distance to Fenn.
In the rulebook under movement on page 8 (emphasis mine):

Walls: Indicated by a black line that most often appears on the edge of map tiles.  Two spaces separated by a wall are not adjacent. Figures cannot move through or trace line of sight through walls.

There are two pieces of information in this section that show walls impact distance. First, characters can't move through walls, and any line of sight (LOS) actions can't be taken through a wall. This is pretty important because it indicates how actions can be taken in regard to walls. I would consider the special rule for this mission ("If the hero is Fenn or is within 3 spaces of Fenn, the figure disarms and retrieves the explosive instead") to be a LOS ability.
Second, two spaces separated by a wall are not adjacent. You cannot travel between the two with one movement point. The "distance" between these spaces is more than one because of the wall. This means that if a wall is between two squares that are three spaces apart on the map, you cannot use three movement points to move between them; you need more movement to get around the wall. This would indicate that the "distance" between the two squares is greater than three.


text:
In MTG, can you counter a spell that requires cards to be revealed after they are revealed?
My friend and I had a very long (and incredibly close) Commander duel last night which I barely won, and one of many crucial moments hinged on a counterspell I used.
My friend and I both are basically out of creatures.  They cast Jarad's Orders, and search their library for two creatures.  They decide on Sheoldred, Whispering One and another creature, and want Sheoldred to enter the battlefield, so they can retrieve the other later.  I have plenty of swamps, so obviously I am displeased with this.  In response, I cast Countersquall after they have chosen the creatures, revealed them, and decided where they were going.
Was this incorrect?  Was it too late at that point for me to do something about it?  Because honestly, were it not for that counter, I might very well have lost.  I got wrecked in the previous two matches we had so I don't feel too bad, but I want to be upfront with them.
Thank you for any help.

Related: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/11021/at-what-point-does-a-spell-target-its-target

Note that Sheoldred goes to their hand and not directly to the battlefield, so if you have a counter that can target creatures you can use that when they cast Sheoldred.

I have to ask: how did the number of swamps you controlled affect your decision to counter the spell?

@murgatroid99 I imagine Sheoldred's Swampwalk would have been unpleasant for them.

I always treat Sheoldred basically as an enchantment with the last two abilities, so I honestly just forgot it had Swampwalk.

@SocioMatt Jarad's Orders doesn't have targets, so it might be a bit misleading to link to that here. Or were you trying to say something about when Countersquall has to chose its targets?

@Jefromi Within the answers to that question is the answer to this question. It just isn't strictly a dupe.

@ChrisHayes is right.  My wording was a little flowery but basically, I was not too excited about the prospect of a 6/6 unblockable (on top of all her other nonsense)!  And to diego, I had considered countering Sheoldred herself, but unfortunately my counterspell options were very limited.  Thank you everyone for all the helpful replies and insight!

Also, for anyone curious, I told my friend that I accidentally "cheated"... and they were quite understanding.  Apparently they felt an earlier play (which was definitely legit!) was more responsible for their loss than this slip-up.

@Violet If you are interested, try looking up some Vintage Super League replays on Twitch. The players are mostly current or ex-pros. There are a lot of cards that "tutor" or "wish" in their games where they can go get a card from their sideboard or deck respectively. You'll often see a long pause from one of the players in these situations while they consider whether or not to counter that spell because they're thinking about what their opponent might be going to get if they let it resolve.

This was incorrect. When a player casts a spell, it goes on the stack, and then each player has a chance to respond to it by casting other things, such as Countersquall, before the spell resolves.
When both players pass, then the top spell of the stack resolves, which is when you follow the instructions on the card*. So by the time your opponent was searching for cards, you would have had to already passed and chosen not to respond to or counter Jarad's Orders.
*To add some details for full accuracy: There are some instructions on cards that come into play before a card resolves. Especially:

Additional or alternate costs - Some cards have additional costs for casting;  in the case of Draconic Roar, your opponent would reveal the card as part of casting the spell, before it resolves. This is because it's part of the cost.
Targets - You choose all targets for a spell as part of the casting process. So if your opponent casts a Lightning Bolt, you will know what he is trying to do damage to before you decide if you want to counter it or not. But note that the cards found with Jarad's Orders were not targets, because the card doesn't use the word "target".
Modes - For cards that have multiple options of how they can be used, this choice is made while casting the spell. See Healing Salve.

It might also be worth pointing out that between the spell's resolution, nobody gets priority, which is why if you let it begin to act, you can't do anything until the whole spell's done.

One other thing to note is that there are cases where it is 'reveal, then counter'. This is specific to the case that the text on the card says "as an additional cost to play this card, reveal X". This happens before the card goes on the stack. The specific instance of Jarad's Orders does not say this, so the above answer is correct.

I would like to note that Jarad's Orders instructs you to "search your library" for the cards, and there are no cards ever that have costs that involve searching a library.

GendoIkari, thank you for your succinct response.  I must choose your answer only because I found it most helpful; specifically, your wording helped me understand most easily how a spell transitions from the stack to resolution.  My understanding of it previously was a little backwards!

@NateDiamond I added details to be more accurate about which instructions you wait to follow.

@DenisS Countersquall was actually correct; that's what the OP said they used. But Counterspell can be accurate also, since it's cards "such as".

@DenisS Countersquall is a {U}{B} instant from Conflux that reads "Counter target noncreature spell. Its controller loses 2 life." It is the card mentioned in the question and thus the correct one for the response (which is why Gendo didn't have a card link, since the link was included in the question)

You cannot cast spell or activate abilities during the resolution of a spell or ability unless the spell or ability tells you to cast a spell or it requires you to pay mana (and then you can only activate mana abilities).
Magic has a system called priority that determines if you can cast a spell, and no player gains priority during the resolution of another spell. (Rule 116.3 explains how a player gets priority)

608.2f If an effect gives a player the option to pay mana, he or she may activate mana abilities before taking that action. If an effect specifically instructs or allows a player to cast a spell during resolution, he or she does so by following the steps in rules 601.2a–i, except no player receives priority after it’s cast. That spell becomes the topmost object on the stack, and the currently resolving spell or ability continues to resolve, which may include casting other spells this way. No other spells can normally be cast and no other abilities can normally be activated during resolution.
116.1. Unless a spell or ability is instructing a player to take an action, which player can take actions at any given time is determined by a system of priority. The player with priority may cast spells, activate abilities, and take special actions.

diego, thank you for your response.  I appreciate your citing the rules, as well!  I am aware of priority but it still boggles me a little bit.  And clearly I misunderstood when exactly a spell resolved.  This was very helpful.

Once your opponent announces their intention to cast the spell, they would have to pass priority, and then you would have to pass priority, before the spell resolves. Often players don't explicitly say that they are passing priority, and other actions such as saying "okay" are taken as passing priority. If we accept that you implicitly or explicitly passed priority, then you do not have any further chances before the spell resolves to counter it, so your opponent would get their creatures into their hand and graveyard.
Now, if your opponent simply declared that they were casting the spell, and then proceeded to search their library, without you taking any action that can be considered passing priority, then they are performing an illegal action. If you were in a tournament and this happened and you immediately told them to stop and called a judge over, the judge would rule in your favor. On the other hand, if you wait until after they reveal the cards before asserting that you didn't pass priority, a judge might find that you acted in bad faith. Much would depend on whether you had enough time while your opponent was searching their library to react, and whether it appears that your intent was to trick them into revealing the creatures.

I originally made false assumptions... since I believe such mistakes may be easily made, I'm going to update my original response with strikethroughs  and add comments in bold to show where I\others may go wrong...

As I see it in the current comprehensive rulebook...
601.2 is the casting process.  The keys:

601.2c The player announces his or her choice of an appropriate player, object, or zone for each target the spell requires.
601.2h The player pays the total cost in any order.

So indeed, if you couldn't wait until after targets were selected, you'd have to counter the spell BEFORE mana was paid!?!  Not how I've ever seen it done.  Technically true, but there's a key word that explains why this doesn't work as I expected when writing this...
But the clarity continues further:

701.4a To cast a spell is to take it from the zone it’s in (usually the hand), put it on the stack, and pay its costs, so that it will
  eventually resolve and have its effect. A player may cast a spell if
  he or she has priority. See rule 601, “Casting Spells.”

As diego's answers seems to allude to,  no one has priority to act after the spell is initially cast into the stack... indeed the opponent could add other instants first if they wanted to.  But you have the right to cast your counterspell onto the stack as you wish before it does resolve.  **Rule 601.2i shows the caster has priority first after the initial cast.  If they do not add anything to the stack, then the other player has the option to do so (see passing priority in 116.3d).  I don't imagine this affects things a lot, but not knowing what cards there are now, could be entirely wrong!  Still not sure what priority would have to do with this scenario, but I was wrong in my explanation.*
Perhaps confusingly, casting is just the initial act, and the stack goes on from there, allowing additional spells, including counterspells:

701.5a To counter a spell or ability means to cancel it, removing it from the stack. It doesn’t resolve and none of its effects occur. A
  countered spell is put into its owner’s graveyard.

Note that if it removes it from the stack, it must already be in the stack, which means it must already be "cast", which means all of 601.2 took place first, including selecting targets.  It thus appears based upon how WOC has defined cast (as just the initial declaration process) that it is impossible to prevent casting, which, at least for an old player like me, that seems would cause unexpected effects, as many cards might activate even if the spell is countered (or perhaps they've cleaned up the rules\writings since the era I played in... which indeed even included a separate category called interrupts for counterspells.  So perhaps my concerns on card language have been taken care of.).  Again, appears all this is true... but there's an additional term which I faltered at in my understanding throughout...
But further evidence of the process:

701.5b The player who cast a countered spell or activated a countered ability doesn’t get a “refund” of any costs that were paid.

Since targeting takes place BEFORE paying cost, indeed you counter later.  Again true.  But need to properly understand those terms
I see nothing odd in the wording of Jarad's Orders, the cards appear to be the target.
If that's so, then it's clear.  Just as DavidZ and Hackworth suggested in the linked similar question given (At what point does a spell 'target' its target?).  Targeting is one of the initial actions of just commencing casting (before mana is even paid), and so countering not only can be done later... but MUST properly wait until after targeting.  And you were entirely correct in doing what you did.

Resolution:
What I'd failed to understand was the term target.  I had assumed that whatever a card was directed towards was the target.
But that is entirely NOT true.

114.9a Just because an object or player is being affected by a spell or ability doesn’t make that object or player a target of that spell
  or ability. Unless that object or player is identified by the word
  “target” in the text of that spell or ability, or the rule for that
  keyword ability, it’s not a target.

And

114.9. Spells and abilities can affect objects and players they don’t target. In general, those objects and players aren’t chosen until the
  spell or ability resolves. See rule 608, “Resolving Spells and
  Abilities.”

So MTG has a specific meaning of the word target, and only cards explicitly using the word TARGET must choose the intentions of the spell before the counterspell opportunity.
Because Jarad's Orders doesn't say target, you cannot wait until after he chooses (after resolution) to counter.  Your play was not allowed.
Word meaning has gotten so complex these days!

Yes, a spell must be completely cast and on the stack before it can be put on the stack, including choosing targets. But the OP isn't asking about choosing targets. They're asking about cards which are revealed in the process of the spell resolving, nothing to do with targets.

I made a dangerous assumption in jumping through the wording, which I was already looking into before your comment... apparently targets are only the things specifically indicated by the word TARGET? So this card doesn't target the card, and indeed is in the resolution step instead? I'm working at editing my answer to account for this, and will indicate such. The fact words like cast and target are so different from what one would typically expect them to mean... and they need a rulebook (not even counting decisions) the length of a small tome might be one of the reasons I don't play anymore!!

"no one has priority to act after the spell is initially cast into the stack". This is incorrect; the player who cast the spell gains priority, and all players have priority before the spell resolves.

If you want to fix your answer, that's awesome, but it's generally best to just edit into a form that directly answers the question. The previous versions will be retained in the revision history if you want to point people at them. When you leave everything in the answer like this, it takes a lot of reading to understand what your actual point is, and can be a bit confusing even after all that reading.

@murgatroid99: indeed, hadn't seen that.  Still not sure what it would have to do with the situation in question, but you are absolutely right, and appreciate you pointing it out.

@Jefromi indeed that's the typical way, and I would have done that until we added the comments (which can be slow\pain to get removed?)... and given that I believe it could be a common mistake in peculiar wording and the heavy majority of the answer was still correct, chose to edit instead.  If you still believe that's the wrong choice, certainly feel free to change it.

@JeopardyTempest If you want to explain that Jarad's Orders doesn't target, go for it. I'm not saying not to explain that, I'm saying make sure you answer the question in a way that's easy to understand for future readers - directness, clarity and brevity are more important than explaining the entire thought process by which you wrote your answer. (And the reason I'm not editing is that I'm essentially suggesting rewriting the whole answer, a bit much for me to do to someone else's answer.)

@JeopardyTempest In response to your edit regarding priority: Priority is the opportunity to act. If you say nobody has priority, that means that nobody can respond to a spell, which is clearly incorrect, and also inconsistent with the following statements.

@JeopardyTempest, while your answer did not help me as much with determining a solution, I actually still did find it very informative, and mildly entertaining.  Thank you!


text:
Does first strike damage occur before normal damage?
When I attack with a first strike creature, does it deal combat damage before normal combat damage is dealt?
Specifically, if I attack with Drana, Liberator of Malakir (has first strike and "Whenever Drana, Liberator of Malakir deals combat damage to a player, put a +1/+1 counter on each attacking creature you control.") and 5 other creatures with no counters on them, do I deal damage equal to the creatures' total power or damage equal to the creatures' total power + 5?

Yup, that's one of the reasons Drana's powerful - she can pump up your other attackers in time to help them deal more damage. The point of first strike is that it happens first!
Here's how combat plays out, assuming you attack with Drana, your opponent doesn't block her, and nothing weird happens:

First Combat Damage Step

Drana and all other creatures with First Strike or Double Strike deal damage. Drana will deal 2 damage to your opponent, unless you've pumped her up somehow.
Drana's ability triggers, then presumably resolves, placing a +1/+1 counter on each of your attacking creatures, including Drana.

Second ("regular") Combat Damage Step

All of your creatures without First Strike (including those with Double Strike) deal damage equal to their power, including the +1 from the counters they just got.

There are rulings on the Gatherer page for Drana to this effect:

Drana’s last ability triggers after combat damage has been dealt, so only attacking creatures that survive the combat damage step in which Drana deals combat damage will have +1/+1 counters put on them.
The +1/+1 counter won’t change how much damage Drana or any other attacking creature with first strike or double strike deals during that combat damage step. However, the +1/+1 counters that are put on attacking creatures without first strike will affect the damage those creatures deal during the regular combat damage step.

It's worth noting that in a tournament setting, it's a good idea to explicitly declare the 'first damage combat step' and the relevant Drana trigger.

Also technically the regular combat step is 'creatures that didn't deal damage in the first strike step', not 'creatures without first strike'. So you can't use granting FS after the FS step as a pseudo-fog, and removing it after the FS step as pseudo-double strike

@diego Okay, that might be a bit beyond the scope of the question, but I avoided being technically wrong in that corner case too.

@Cronax I mean... I guess? I don't really know how necessary it is to add "be sure to declare your triggers" to every question involving a triggered ability, or "be sure to do the two damage steps separately" to every question involving first strike.

@Jefromi hence why I made it a comment rather than an edit.

@Cronax My point wasn't about comment vs edit, but just whether it needs to be noted. There are hundreds of questions involving triggered abilities here, so commenting on each of them (or one or more answers to each) seems a bit much.

I think the comment has value in this case because it concerns an unusual situation which many opponents won't immediately grasp. Explicitly declaring all the steps and triggers will help your opponent to understand exactly what's happening and why things work as they do. If you shortcut things in this case, many people will need a lot more time to grasp that the trigger occurs before the other creatures attack, so I feel it's in everyone's interest. You always have to announce triggers, but there's a bigger return than usual here.

@Jefromi  "Drana (and all other creatures with First Strike or Double Strike) deal damage to your opponent."  I am not sure I understand why all other creatures with FS or DS will deal damage to the opponent. What if, unlike Drana, they are blocked?

@uncoder Yes, of course if they're blocked they'll deal damage to the creatures that blocked them. Edited to avoid implying otherwise.

@diego The result is correct, but rather than "having dealt damage" it's about whether they had first strike at the time of the first strike combat step. My 0/5 first strike won't get a counter from Drana and then hit during the regular combat step just because it didn't deal damage.

Okay, I just added "assuming nothing weird happens." The point here is to describe a normal combat phase with Drama and some other creatures, not to cover every corner case.

@Jefromi You could use this wording from the comprehensive rules, as it covers all of those corner cases: "Creatures that had neither first strike nor double strike as the first combat damage step began [...]"

@Rainbolt In order to make that actually correct for double strike you need the next clause too: "...neither first strike nor double strike as the first combat damage step began, as well as the remaining attackers and blockers that currently have double strike ..." which seems awfully wordy for this answer. I'm generally okay with "nothing weird happens" as an assumption, especially when it allows more simply addressing the actual question.

@Cronax There's a balance between always being explicit and step by step in Magic and not making a game drag on, short cutting is a big part of that. At a tournament setting (above regular REL at least) you should expect your opponent to be able to follow short cuts, or if they disagree to raise the issue, particularly when it comes to mandatory triggers.

@Andrew You don't have to spend minutes in each step, but by shortcutting too much you can deprive the opponent of the ability to respond. Additionally, I'd say that before you start shortcutting, you should explicitly walk through all the steps in the process once. After that, you can announce that you're going to shortcut that process in future iterations.


text:
7 Wonders: Why do resources on the board have colored background?
I'm wondering why the resources on the City boards have colored backgrounds? It is quite confusing when you play cards such as Vineyard, Bazaar or Chamber of Commerce since the starting resources do not count in those cases. Is there any reason for it besides it can be considered more aesthetic this way?

From the rulebook:

The resources a player can buy from their neighboring cities are:
• the resources initially produced by the city (as indicated on the board)
• the resources from its brown cards (raw materials)
• the resources from its gray cards (manufactured goods)
However, it is impossible to buy the resources produced by some commercial
structures (yellow cards) or by some Wonders: these resources are
reserved to their owner.

Since resources initially produced by cities behave identically to resources produced by brown/gray cards, it is good enough reason to color them same way, to distinquish them from non-buyable resources.

I can’t think of a gameplay-related reason, i.e., there is no game function that would make use of the top-left color on the wonder boards.
Using the color associated with the effect (brown for raw materials, grey for manufactures goods, yellow for commerce stuff, white for leader stuff) seems to make sense. It can help in various cases, e.g., when scanning the boards of your neighbours, you immediately see the effect’s category and if it’s relevant to your need.
I don’t think it’s confusing. The effects on cards like Bazar, Vineyard, and Chamber of Commerce show colored cards, not colors. In my experience (after several hundreds of games) new players grasp this quickly: don’t count in the brown/grey wonder effect when you have to count brown/grey cards.


text:
Pictionary rules clarification
We played Pictionary the other day, and there were a couple of points of play that were unclear from the rules, and which I also can't find answers to online (though can find other people asking the same questions), so I was hoping someone could clarify.
Firstly, after you correctly guess a clue, you roll the dice, move, and draw another card. Do you re-set the time at this point, or do you continue your go in the unused time?
Secondly, in an "all-play" situation, if another team guesses the answer, they then take control of the dice. Once they then fail to guess an answer correctly, does play continue to the team to their left, or to the left of the team whose go it originally was?

In the rules on Hasbro's website, there is an explicit rule stating that players get 60 seconds per word (bottom of the first page):

The timer is turned for another 60 seconds for each new word.

The rules also specify what happens when a team fails to guess their word (emphasis mine):

If a word is not identified within the time limit, play continues to the left.

There aren't any special rules addressing the order of play after an All Play, so this rule would dictate that the next team to play would be the one to the left of the team that won the All Play round. Since Pictionary is a party game, there's nothing stopping your play group from using a house rule like this:

After the team that won the All Play fails, play would continue with the team to the left of the team that drew the All Play.

Those rules make it much clearer than the ones included with our edition of the game, which only mention turning the timer at the start of a turn.

For reference, our edition was published by Mattel, and the version of the rules included is very similar to that on their website: http://service.mattel.com/instruction_sheets/BJM16-ENG.pdf


text:
Adding dice to checks in Pathfinder: Rise of the Runelord
In the FAQ, a point says

Choices Matter. Your choices have consequences. (...) If you roll too low on a Combat check, it’s too late to play a Strength spell to improve your result.

Does that mean I have to play all the 'discard this card to add a die to a check' cards before attempting the check? E.g, I'm doing some combat check, I need 8 to beat it. I roll my hand-to-hand combat strength check, and get a 6. Can I now discard a BotG to add another die to the result, and try to beat the test?

Or would I have to specify before the check that I would discard the BotG to get an extra die?

You must play all cards that will modify the check before making the check.
According to the rules (starting on page 11), each check is broken into a number of steps. In order (emphasis mine):

Determine Which Die You're Using.
Determine the Difficulty.
Play Cards and Use Powers That Affect the Check (Optional).
Assemble Your Dice.
Attempt the Roll.
Take Damage, If Necessary.

Step three is where you would discard your Blessing of the Gods in order to add the die. If you make it to step five, where you make the roll, it is now too late to play any cards or powers to modify have the check is made.


text:
Sacrifice creature question (Magic the gathering)
Let's say my opponent plays Diabolic Edict and I have to choose to sacrifice a creature.
I have Insolent Neonate on the board, so can I choose to sacrifice it, and then play it's ability at the same time?
I know that if the opponents card had him choose a target, and that target had an sacrifice ability, I could use it and it would resolve first. But since here I have to choose the target myself, how does the stack work here?
The spell is already on the stack once my opponent plays it, so does me choosing a target to sacrifice resolve the spell, meaning I can't play any abilities in between, or does it stay on the stack still and let me play abilities in between?
Edit: Similarly, if an opponent would play an ability that said f.ex: "Opponent discards 2 cards from his hand" and I had a card in my hand that said something like "Discard this card, draw a card" and a card in play that said "Discard a card, this creature gains +1-+1". Could I choose to discard the draw card to trigger the effect and another card to trigger the creature effect at the same time the opponents spell resolves?

Related: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/23986/can-i-pay-two-different-costs-with-the-same-payment

You can't sacrifice the creature to pay for the ability and then because of D.Edict. If you are left with no creatures on board though, that means you can't sacrifice any. It's the only way that play would work out, if Insolent N. was the last creature you controlled.
It goes like this:

Player 1 puts Diabolic Edict on stack and pays for it.
Player 2 can respond with an instant or ability, chooses to sacrifice  Insolent Neonate to draw a card it goes on the stack. The ability "price" is payed at this moment (discard and sacrifice)
Stack is resolved, "draw card" ability resolves first, as the stack is FILO (First In, Last Out, that means the first thing on the stack, is the last to be resolved, and the last thing is the first to be resolved)
Target player sacrifices a creature is resolved in 2nd. Player 2 is target player, and he needs to choose the creature when the ability is resolved. If there are no other creatures to sacrifice, player 2 sacrifices none.

EDIT: Likewise the discards are 2 separate things. The discard in your cards is a "cost", and you have to pay it. The discard on your enemy card, is an action you have to do, so you'd just end up discarding twice. Again this would only be useful if you were left with no cards in hand (so he couldn't force you to discard).

Thanks for the quick reply, I kinda had a feeling it would work this way, but wanted to make sure! I also edited another question of a similar type. I assume it works in a similar way that I can't use the opponents spell to benefit my own ability triggers, but I want to make sure I have these right!

Yeah it works the same. You have to pay the discard price, and then, discard cards because of his ability/spell. You end up discarding twice once for you, and once for him.


text:
Enchantments vs Instants in Combat Phase
Say I had a Raid Bombardment. And I swung with a 1/1 creature, say Goblin Bushwhacker.
Say I wait for the defender to declare blockers, and then use a pump spell, say Brute Force? Would Raid Bombardment still trigger? Or would Goblin Bushwhacker no longer fulfil the requirement for a less than 2 creature?

This are a lot of different questions, most (all?) which already have an answer.
Briefly: 1) You declare you want to attack. 2) You declare attackers. 3) Defender declares defenders. (which can be no defenders at all). 4) At this stage you can still pump your creatures. 5) Combat occurs. This works even if no defenders are declared.

That was one question answered. As for the others please edit your question. Make then three separate questions. And check the site if they have been answered before.

Related: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/31891/do-instants-active-before-combat-damage-is-dealt

As long as your creature had a power 2 or less when it attacked it doesn't matter what happens to it after that.
From the Gatherer Rulings for Raid Bombardment:

The power of the attacking creature is checked only when the ability triggers. Once it triggers, Raid Bombardment will deal 1 damage to the defending player even if the creature’s power changes before the ability resolves.

Also, Raid Bombardment triggers during the Declare Attackers step, and will resolve before your opponent gets a chance to declare blockers.


text:
What cards transfer mana from colorless to any color?
So all I need to know is if there are any known MTG cards that say "pay one colorless mana: produce one mana of any color."

Welcome to B&CG.SE! I've updated your title so that it better reflects your question. Hopefully this will clarify for users on the home page.

Do you really mean specifically colorless mana, or just generic?

This is basically asking for a subset of what this question asked for.

Also might be worth mentioning something like [mtg:Manalith] or [mtg:Opaline Unicorn] which tap for any color

For once per turn effects, something like Mana Prism or Prophetic Prism do that. For permanent "spend mana as if it were any kind", something like Mycosynth Lattice might be your only option.

Yes. Using Wizards Gatherer, you can search for permanents that will filter mana for you. Via Advanced Search, use the following in the Rules Text Box.
", {T}: Add one mana"
Add it in its entirety, including the quotations.

This search doesn't quite correspond to what the question is asking. Did you mean it just as an example?

@DavidZ, no. The question hasn't been clarified on whether it is specifically looking for a card that turns "Colorless" mana into Colored Mana. There isn't an effect that acts as a infinite filter for colored mana. Short the Mycosynth Lattice, these are the closest cards that provide the desired effect.

"There isn't an effect that acts as a infinite filter for colored mana" isn't exactly true. Bog Initiate filters an arbitrary amount of mana into black mana. Farrelite Priest does the same with white (with caveats). And Orochi Leafcaller filters an arbitrary amount of green mana into mana of any color.

@murgatroid99, Neither of those support the transforms colorless mana into "mana of any color."


text:
Dungeon Petz strategy
What would be the key strategy points in dungeon petz which may improve the chance of winning? Which kind of pets are more beneficial to have? Having one pet seems like it is mostly not enough for winning.
What I know is choosing a pet with one or more similar color needs may help, however I'm not sure which colors are wise to pair or choose. Pets' food needs are sometimes really hard to fulfill. Mostly, it is really costly to be the first to the right food market or catch a potion card.

Hello and welcome to B&CG!  This question is attracting some close votes, I'm not sure why as your question is asking for specific experienced advice which are indicators of a good subjective question.

I voted to close as Too Broad, since the question is just asking for strategies for the game as a whole, as opposed to how to handle a particular situation.  See http://meta.boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/655/considering-the-number-of-strategy-questions-should-we-write-specific-scope-lim and http://meta.boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/1323/how-can-i-structure-questions-appropriately-to-learn-more-about-strategy-for-the

I think that there are a few things you can focus on that will improve your chances of winning. In no particular order:

Take cages that allow you to use imps for other purposes. These are the cages that feed/play with/clean up after your pets without needing imps. If you need to hold back imps in order to deal with your pets, you aren't using them to gain additional resources. This can also be accomplished with add-ons, but don't rely on them.
Take additional imps when possible (but don't pay too much for them). This is especially handy in round three and four where you get a high rate of return. I wouldn't ever take this action using more imps than the number you will get back. This is especially true in later rounds
Take pets that are omnivores. This allows you to take either meat or vegetables, making it less likely you'll be fighting over resources with other players.
Try to get two pets in the first three rounds. This will help with both exhibitions and business.
Decide on one of two strategies for your need cards early on. (1) Keep as many of one type of need card as possible (e.g.: hunger needs; anger needs). This is a high risk/high reward strategy, where if a customer wants a trait you have a lot of, you can get a good sale. In this case, you also need to allow for the possibility you aren't going to be selling pets to certain customers. (2) Diversify your need cards as much as possible so your pets can be acceptable to a larger number of customers. The reward here is lower, but more consistent over the course of the game.
Ignore the hospital unless you have imps that need healing. The potions generally are not worth the imps. You could instead be setting up for the market by adding an imp to the platform, or taking artifacts that have a higher likelihood to be helpful over the course of the game.

You'll notice that the first three things have something in common: they allow you to maximize your imp usage. The more free imps you have, the more actions you can take, so the more resources and options you're going to have.
If you're noticing a player that consistently places a bunch of imps on the first burrow so they can take the first action, let them. They are taking fewer actions over the course of the game and paying a premium for those actions. You may want to overpay in rounds one or two so that you can get the cage that saves you more imps down the line, but don't do this for the whole game. If you set up well at the beginning, you shouldn't have to overpay in rounds three, four, or five.
Try not to worry about the color combinations of your pets. You're going to be drawing a need card for each of their colors anyway, and in general, this is going to be an aspect of the game that's hard to control. Focusing on other parts is probably more important.


text:
Token creator gets countered?
When a creature that produces tokens is countered, does it still produce tokens?  I.e. if Wurmcoil Engine is countered before it hits the battlefield, does it still produce tokens when it goes into the graveyard?

It depends on the trigger condition.
Wurmcoil Engine triggers when it dies. Dies means something very specific in Magic: the Gathering:

700.4. The term dies means “is put into a graveyard from the battlefield.”

If Wurmcoil Engine is countered, it goes straight from the stack to the graveyard, bypassing the battlefield entirely.

701.5a To counter a spell or ability means to cancel it, removing it from the stack. It doesn’t resolve and none of its effects occur. A countered spell is put into its owner’s graveyard.

If the trigger condition were different, like "Whenever Wurmcoil Engine gets countered, [...]" or "Whenever Wurmcoil Engine is put into the graveyard, [...]" then it would trigger.
A commentor helped me find a creature that would still give you a token even if it were countered. Desolation Twin triggers when you cast the spell. Once triggered, the trigger exists independently of the actual spell. Even if Desolation Twin gets countered, the trigger will still resolve, and you will still get a token.

There are certainly creatures that trigger when entering the graveyard, even if they don't make tokens - the template is "...put into a graveyard from anywhere...", like on Kozilek, Butcher of Truth. So that's a decent example - you'll shuffle him into your library, whether he dies or is countered.

Sorry, that's shuffle your graveyard into your library, not just Kozilek.

There is Desolation Twin which makes a token when cast, so you still get the token even if it is countered. There may be other recent eldrazis in this case.

The key word here is "dies":

When Wurmcoil Engine dies, ...

That word has a very specific meaning:

700.4. The term dies means “is put into a graveyard from the battlefield.”

If Wurmcoil Engine is countered, it never enters the battlefield, so it can't possibly die, so you don't get tokens. You also wouldn't get tokens if it were exiled, returned to your hand, put on top of your library, or anything else besides going from battlefield to graveyard.
Contrast this with something like Desolation Twin:

When you cast Desolation Twin, put a 10/10 colorless Eldrazi creature token onto the battlefield.

Since that ability triggers when it's cast, you'll get the token even if the Desolation Twin itself is countered.

This depends on how the creature creates tokens. In Wurmcoil Engine's case, it creates the tokens when it dies. "Dies" is defined as "goes from the battlefield to the graveyard", so no, it will not create the tokens, as it was never on the battlefield.
If instead it were a card that said "when [creature name] is put into the graveyard", then yes, it would.

A creature card that is countered does not enter the battlefield. Instead it goes from the stack to the graveyard. By that definition, it doesn't die, so it doesn't create the tokens.