text:
What can be played during an opponents turn?
What types of cards can you play on another players turn / i.e. sorcery or enchantments? Or can only instants/flash be played?
It seems foolish to us as new players that every card other then land can be sent straight to graveyard by an instant counter spell card but can you cast a sorcery based counter spell card during an opponents turn? this basically tells me that you can simply make a deck of counter spells and the opposing player can't play anything but land.....

Your question as written has definitely been answered, but it kind of sounds like there's something else that led you to ask it. Why did you think there would be counterspells that are sorceries? Why would you need to play a sorcery or enchantment on an opponent's turn to get around counterspells? There might be something else we can help clear up for you.

@Jefroni, In case you missed it below, it might because he encountered [mtg:Mystic Denial], a counterspell which has "Sorcery" printed on the card (although it's actually an Instant).

When can I cast a spell?
Basically:

You can cast instants and flash spells — and activate abilities — whenever you have priority.

You can cast other spells during your main phase, when the stack is empty (i.e. there are no other spells or ability waiting to resolve) and you have priority (see the next section).

Some cards (e.g. Unexpected Results) will allow to cast spells at other times too.

From the Comprehensive Rules:

116.1a A player may cast an instant spell any time he or she has priority. A player may cast a noninstant spell during his or her main phase any time he or she has priority and the stack is empty.
702.8a Flash is a static ability that functions in any zone from which you could play the card it’s on.
“Flash” means “You may play this card any time you could cast an instant.”

There's no such thing as a Sorcery-based counter. It wouldn't work with the rules: you can only counter something when it's on the stack, and you normally can't cast a Sorcery spell when something else is on the stack.
Priority (the short version)
Priority is Magic's system for sequencing plays so that each player has time to think about their actions, when they need it. The most important things you need to know are:

Each player must give the other the opportunity to respond.
The active player always gets the first opportunity to cast something during the phases of his or her own turn.
Once we've begun to resolve a spell or ability, we must follow all the instructions in order before we can do anything else. (For example, if you cast Duress on me, we must do these three things in sequence: I reveal my hand, you pick a card, I discard it. I can't interrupt the game to cast the Lightning Bolt you just picked.)

See page 30 in the Basic Rulebook or section 116 in the Comprehensive Rules for a more detailed definition of priority.
How do I fight a deck full of counterspells?
Counterspells really aren't all-powerful. They're an important part of the game and central to some of the best decks, but, on their own, they really can't carry the day.

Counterspells are reactive. I can't kill you with a counterspell. All I do is disrupt your plays. I need to do something else to actually capitalize on that.

You can only counter something when it's on the stack. If I draw my Cancel a turn after you cast your Ember Swallower, there's nothing I can do; whereas if I draw a Doom Blade at any time, I can use just kill the creature.

In order to counter something you play on your turn, I have to have mana available. That means not casting much stuff on my own turn. I can work around that by building a deck that has a lot of cards I can play at instant speed (like Doom Blade, Sphinx's Revelation, Restoration Angel), but there is an opportunity cost there.

Counterspells are one-for-one. You play a card, I counter it. We're both down a card. That only keeps us at parity. I'll need something else to pull ahead.

So, why do people play counterspells instead of just Doom Blades, then? Counterspells have several things going for them:

Many counterspells can answer a broad variety of cards. Putting a few counters in my deck gives me the flexible cards that can interact with creatures, enchantments, sorceries, planeswalkers, &c.

Countermagic cancel out death triggers and "enters the battlefield" abilities, and can beat cards with protective abilities like hexproof. Casting Doom Blade on a Thragtusk feels a lot like losing; countering one is much nicer.

Most of the competitive decks that play counterspells play them as part of a general suite. They rely on countermagic for flexibility against a lot of deck types (such as decks that win without using creatures), but also use cards like Supreme Verdict, Doom Blade, and Wear // Tear because of the greater efficiency and timing flexibility that they offer.
"Proactive" decks that really want to curve out efficiently are generally better off using discard spells (Duress, Thoughtseize) rather than counterspells. These allows you to you mess with an opponent's strategy — particularly a combo deck — on your own timetable rather than having to wait for them to cast their most important cards.
This answer discusses some specific tactics you can use if you're having trouble against a deck with significant counterspells.
"But my counterspell says it's a Sorcery!"

There was an old Magic set called Portal. It was an attempt to create an easier-to-use introductory product for the game. This set didn't include Instants and really didn't talk about the stack. So instead they'd do stuff like print a Sorcery with special timing rules and bend over backwards to avoid using core game terminology like "counter," "target," and "spell."
I don't recommend using Portal to learn Magic. I very, very much don't recommend it. The terminology is all messed up, the cards are terribly wordy and unclear, and you really won't learn most of what you need to learn to play actual Magic. It's easiest to learn basic Magic using recent sets and the Basic Rulebook (PDF), or playing one of the Duels of the Planeswalkers video game.
Portal cards are playable in regular Magic, but you sort of have to read between the lines and figure out how the card is "really" supposed to be worded. (In general, when you see a card that's just like, "What the heck!?" you should look it up on Gatherer. Oftentimes you can find updated wording that's clearer than the original card text, as well as rulings that help explain common questions people have about the card.)

While sorcery-speed counterspells don't really work in the rules, there's a tiny outside chance OP was confused by some Portal cards: http://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=10565

@ChadMiller Good call. Added.

You can only cast instants and cards with flash on opponent's turn.
The answer to this question has a chart showing when you can play various card types through the parts of the turn cycle:

Note flash means the card follows the timing rules for instants:

702.8a Flash is a static ability that functions in any zone from which you could play the card it’s on. "Flash" means "You may play this card
  any time you could cast an instant."

If you are facing control heavy decks, try either lands that have other abilities such as Mutavault or uncounterable cards, such as Dragonlord Dromoka or Great Sable Stag

@doppelgreener One of the reasons I made this diagram was because new players asked me this type of question frequently.

@doppelgreener I am well aware of that.  However, the question wasn't asking about the conditions under which sorceries can be cast; it was only asking about what cards you could cast on another player's turn.  I took this into consideration before contributing this as an answer.

That's true, I got distracted away from what the question is about. I still do not think "here, poke about in this diagram" is a sufficient answer, and I believe this should actually, separately, just directly tell them what they can cast when.

@doppelgreener A reasonable suggestion.  I included a leading sentence with a direct answer.  Anything else you think it needs?

To your rules question: As others have already said, instants, cards with Flash, and activated abilities of permanents that are already on the table; other cards can generally only be played on your main phase.
To your strategic question: It's a common belief among new players that you can build a deck that "just counters everything," but it doesn't work in practice. There are two main reasons it may appear to work:

Often new players have decks with a lot of low-impact cards, meaning the savvy counterspell player can only counter cards that "matter" and let everything else through.
Often new players have very inefficient decks. It's not possible to counter everything in general, but it is very possible to counter everything from a deck that takes too long to get going and never has time to cast all its cards.

The solution to both of these problems is a question of deckbuilding that mostly boils down to "build tighter decks." When it comes to counterstrategies in actual play, this and its followup is the best thing I've ever read on the topic. A summary:

Your opponent almost certainly has to tap down eventually. Try to save your absolute best spells for that moment if you can.
The rest of the time, try to cast spells that "matter" but aren't your absolute best spells. Either villain has to spend counters on it, or you get a relevant permanent that threatens to win.
Avoid getting stuff countered if you can, but sometimes the best way to avoid counters is to just throw your spells out there and hope he didn't draw it yet. He won't always have it.

Finally, you could go the route of specifically running cards to beat counters. In the extreme, you could play anti-counter cards like Cavern of Souls or Vexing Shusher. You can run discard; it's often hard for your opponent to counter Thoughtseize or Duress as well as a "real" spell in the same turn. You can run spells with flashback like Call of the Herd so they have to be countered twice. You can run cheap cards with strong continuous effects; if you throw down a Pack Rat before your opponent can counter, you can win without ever casting another spell unless your opponent can stop it, and they can't wait for your next turn or you'll get to make a copy. You can use lands that can kill your opponent without ever being countered like Mutavault.

The only spells you're normally given permission to cast on an opponent's turn are instants and spells that can be cast any time you can cast an instant (such as cards with Flash).
You are correct that one could make a deck that consists mostly or completely of counterspells. It would be in the category of "control" decks. It could mostly stop an opponent, but it would have several weaknesses that would not make it a viable deck. For example, it can only counter every spell an opponent plays if the counterspell player always has as many counterspells in their hand as the opponent has spells. Remember that counterspells don't affect permanents, so if the opponent gets a single creature on the battlefield, they will slowly grind the control player to zero life with no opposition.


text:
Do -1/-1 counters count as damage?
I am wondering if -1/-1 counters are considered damage? On creatures with the wither ability is says that the creature deals damage in the form of -1/-1 counters. As such I would like to know if a creatures wither-ability would trigger ex: Rite of Passage?

In general, -1/-1 counters do not count as damage. However, in the case where an ability (such as Wither or Infect) says that damage is dealt in the form of -1/-1 counters, it does count as damage. When a creature with one of those abilities deals damage to another creature, it still counts as dealing damage to the other creature, but instead of marking damage, you put that many -1/-1 counters on the other creature.
This means that damage dealt by a creature with Wither or Infect would trigger Rite of Passage.

Dealing damage causes many different results. The following are the most common results of the damage (but it's not exhaustive):

The loss of life (by the defending player).
The addition of poison counters counters (on the defending player).
The addition of marked damage (on the defending creature).
The addition of -1/-1 counters (on the defending creature).
The loss of loyalty counters (by the "defending" Planeswalker).
The gain of life (by the attacking creature's controller).

No matter the result of damage, it's still damage being dealt, so Rite of Passage's ability will trigger for a creature with Wither dealing damage to another creature.
Note that while dealing damage can place -1/-1 counters on a creature, putting -1/-1 counters on a creature isn't damage in of itself. Choking Fumes's effect does not trigger Rite of Passage's ability.

@Brian S, "In the form of" simply means "causes". Edited to used more formal language.

No, -1/-1 counters do not themselves count as damage. You can think of them as an effect of damage, when the source dealing the damage has wither (or infect).
In general, damage dealt to something in the game has an effect that depends on what it is being dealt to. These are the normal effects:

Damage dealt to a creature normally causes the amount of damage to be added to an invisible "damage counter" which is reset at the end of each turn (during the cleanup step).
Damage dealt to a player normally causes the player to lose that much life.
Damage dealt to a planeswalker normally causes that many loyalty counters to be removed from the planeswalker.

Some abilities modify or replace the normal effect with another effect:

For creatures: If a source dealing damage to a creature has wither or infect, the damage causes that many -1/-1 counters to be placed on the creature instead of adding to the damage counter.
For creatures: If a source dealing damage to a creature has deathtouch, the damage marks the creature as having received damage from a source with deathtouch.
For players: If a source dealing damage to a player has infect, the damage causes the player to gain that many poison counters instead of them losing life.

and so on.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can Crypt Rats be used from Graveyard
Can Crypt Rats be activated while in the graveyard?  There is no tap, which is why it seems possible.
If not, then why can cards like Rot Farm Skeleton have activated abilities that are usable only while they are in the graveyard, yet do not explicitly say that "use this ability only when XXX is in your graveyard"?

You can only activate Crypt Rats on the battlefield. You can activate Rot Farm Skeleton from your graveyard because its ability specifies "from your graveyard."
As a rule of thumb, you can only activate an ability from the battlefield unless its text would only make sense in another zone.
From the comp rules:

112.6. Abilities of an instant or sorcery spell usually function only while that object is on the stack. Abilities of all other objects usually function only while that object is on the battlefield. The exceptions are as follows:[...]
112.6b An ability that states which zones it functions in functions only from those zones.[...]
112.6k An ability whose cost or effect specifies that it moves the object it’s on out of a particular zone functions only in that zone, unless that ability’s trigger condition, or a previous part of that ability’s cost or effect, specifies that the object is put into that zone.
Example: Reassembling Skeleton says “{1}{B}: Return Reassembling Skeleton from your graveyard to the battlefield tapped.” A player may activate this ability only if Reassembling Skeleton is in his or her graveyard.

You can't use it from your graveyard. Abilities usually only work when the card is on the battlefield. Cards that do work from the graveyard are exceptions. See following rules:
112.6. Abilities of an instant or sorcery spell usually function only while that object is on the stack. Abilities of all other objects usually function only while that object is on the battlefield. The exceptions are as follows:
112.6b An ability that states which zones it functions in functions only from those zones.

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


text:
Why is "slow play" a thing in Magic?
I keep getting warnings for "slow play" in Magic. Yet being an avid chess player I consider fast playing a crime.
Why does the Magic community have a problem with "slow play"? Looking back at chess, slower play with more thinking ahead is also good for spectators; long games typically have much more interesting plays.
So what is the reason to have such short games in Magic by default? Why not play fewer games but in more depth at things like Friday Night Magic?
And why does the game typically award "faster plays" by giving points per game instead of a true Elo?

This reads very much like a rant. I would recommend rewording your question to focus more on understanding the slow play rule/norm, and less on "this is dumb because chess does it differently".

I would recommend taking your own advice to heart and think before you post rants disguised as a question.

Regarding the close votes: I believe this question should stay open, with some edits. Even though it is a rant, it is also a valid question about the importance of a specific tournament rule.

@murgatroid99 It may be able to be a valid question with some edits but I think it should be edited first to remove the rant nature before it is reopened.

Magic is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike chess.  Trying to compare their timing mechanisms is like asking why soccer isn't played in innings.

@murgatroid99 If there is a valid question in there, then it should not be a problem to phrase it as one. We should not reward questions that are 80% rant by leaving them open.

I have tried to edit to make it less of a rant while still maintaining the spirit of the question.

The prohibition on "slow play" is more than just a community norm, it is a tournament rule described in section 5.5 of the tournament rulebook, and it says this:

Players must take their turns in a timely fashion regardless of the complexity of the play situation and adhere to time limits specified for the tournament. Players must maintain a pace to allow the match to be finished in the announced time limit. Stalling is not acceptable. Players may ask a judge to watch their game for slow play; such a request will be granted if feasible.

In other words, it is considered "slow play" if a player takes an unreasonable amount of time to take individual game actions or make individual game decisions. In most cases, the rule is only enforced if a player exhibits a pattern of playing like that. Stalling is the extreme limit of this, when a player clearly does not intend to do anything, but also does not allow their opponent to act, simply to run down the match clock.
Why is the "reasonable pace" so fast?
In Magic, most decisions should not require much time. You are working with a relatively limited set of information, and most of that information does not change much from turn to turn. In addition, any attempt to plan more than a turn or so ahead would be limited by the unknown information about the cards in your opponent's hand and both libraries.
Why is slow play a problem in tournaments?
In Magic tournament play, the match as a whole has a limited amount of time. This means that players using match time is essentially a zero-sum game: the more time one player uses to think while not acting and also not allowing the opponent to act, the less time the other player has to act when they get the opportunity. This means that a player gains an advantage by thinking through their moves during their own turn, instead of while their opponent is acting.
An unscrupulous player could abuse this fact by winning the first game, and then slowing down their pace of play in the second game enough to prevent their opponent from having an opportunity to make a comeback.
Why not play fewer games for longer?
The standard best-of-three structure is very important to Magic tournaments because it allows for "sideboarding", which is the ability to swap out cards with a pre-chosen sideboard in games after the first in order to counter your opponent's deck. Sideboarding is commonly considered to be integral to the depth of tournament-level Magic strategy, because it requires a deep understanding of the current metagame.
Why not play fewer matches for longer?
Generally, the goal of a Magic tournament is to find a winner among a large number of people, and to more generally rank the players by their performance in the tournament. In order to correctly determine a single winner based on match win rate alone, a tournament needs to contain at least log2(number of players) matches. Most tournaments do run approximately that many matches.
Why not make the whole tournament longer?
Magic exists in a larger context, and people have other things to do. If I go to play Magic at a Friday Night Magic event, I will likely not have the energy or inclination to stay for several hours and leave well after midnight.
Why does chess not have this problem?
The most important difference between chess and Magic that makes this problem virtually nonexistent in chess is the game clock. In chess, each player is timed separately, and a player loses if they spend too long on their own moves. In Magic tournaments, a game clock would be entirely infeasible, because control over the flow of the game switches between players much more frequently, and often in ways that are informal and shortcut in order to play at a reasonable pace.
In contrast, Magic: the Gathering Online does play with a real game clock, where each player's clock runs as long as they have priority or a decision to make, and in that game slow play is generally not considered a problem, entirely because in that case the player who plays slowly is the one who is disadvantaged by doing so.

While I do understand the limitation of not being able to utilize a game clock - what I do not understand is why there is such aversion agianst games that take 2+ hours, with matches happening over the course of days/weeks. Even there some "guide" has to be employed for making sure one person doesn't take too much time. Yet we don't see this happening at all, and if I suggest it people just state "this is bad".

The fundamental reason that people don't want to play multi hour games and week-long matches is that people have other shit to do. And honestly, one-on-one Magic games would rarely ever benefit from being that long. Almost all decisions in games are relatively simple, and you can't plan ahead much because of the large amount of hidden and random information. Also, what is this "guide" you are suggesting and how would it be different from the existing prohibition on slow play?

In tournaments, everybody gets paired-up at the start of each round, after the previous round is concluded.  When one match takes too long, it prevents everybody else in the building from starting their next match.  This is especially a problem for larger tournaments with hundreds of participants when one slow player could theoretically delay hundreds of other people from playing.  Many people travel to these events, and it would be very disruptive if they had to stay extra days and purchase another day's stay at a hotel.  If you want to play a multi-day casual game with a friend, go ahead.

Anecdote on "reasonable speed:" every time I've been paired up with someone and thought, "this is starting to feel like a slow-play situation" (it's a casual setting, I don't call the judge on them), it's been the result of players who were still working on developing some of the skillset for evaluating and managing information in play. E.g. they'll repeatedly agonize over a board state that's barely changing because they're rethinking a bunch of decisions from scratch instead of just quickly modifying their previous mental model. Speedy decision-making in Magic is a lot like poker or bridge.

"Why not play fewer matches for longer? [..]  A certain minimum number of matches is needed to accurately construct such a ranking." You didn't really give a solid reason for why more games are better. The core reason is that chess is close to 100% skill-based, and few matches are required to establish who the better player is. MtG has a much larger RNG component compared to chess, so to smooth out the inevitable strokes of good/bad luck of the draw, more games are necessary to lay bare the difference in individual skill at constructing and piloting a good deck.

@Hackworth That being said, in most magic tournaments I've been to (which is to say prereleases), the number of matches / rounds has been the minimum mathematically required to guarantee that at most one player has won all his / her matches and is therefore "indisputably" the best (which is log base 2 of the number of players, rounded up).

@paul23 Let's say that we do two hours games, with matches spanning an entire week, and no slow play rules. I win the first game. Every subsequent game, I do nothing for two hours. At the end of the week, I win the match. Wouldn't that be frustrating? I'm not saying your suggestion for longer games is bad. I just think that longer games would also need slow play rules in order to be fair.

Another reason for "best of 3" might be that it reduces the odds of winning through pure luck. If you have terrible draws for the entire first game, at least you get another try.

@Rainbolt you don't do nothing, you make your calculations during those two hours. There's, exactly  due to the limited information, a lot of fun non trivial equations about chance one has to solve before playing a card. I always find it annoying that halfway such a calculation a "judge" comes over and tells me I can't do that.

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


text:
New Bridge Partner and Etiquette
I joined a duplicate bridge group and was matched with a partner;  we are doing pretty well when it comes to points.  Question:  My partner sometimes criticizes not only me but also opponents, sometimes offers unsolicited advice, and is sometimes catty about other people playing in the room.  What is correct way to address this?  It is not constant an often subtle.  Am I being overly sensitive or is this something that should be addressed by me or by the director?

It's tough for the Type A personalities so often attracted to competitive games like Bridge, but all criticisms of partner should be reserved until after the match. I suggest noting to your partner "Make a note of that hand, and we'll discuss it after the game." One or two violations per game, that accept such a comment with a positive attitude, can be tolerated in a partner - any more than two you should be looking for a new partner, as the problem will get worse not better.
All criticisms of anybody else in the room are out of bounds - give your partner one warning and then have a word with the director. If you partner persists in this behaviour during the game look for another partner, and report offenses to the director as they happen by calling him/her to the table. Otherwise you are liable to get branded by other club members as a cohort of like mind.

This behaviour isn't acceptable, but it's not really your responsibility, particularly if you're relatively new to the club.  If you're feeling brave, you could mention it directly (and privately) to your partner, perhaps over a cup of coffee. It may be that he or she has gradually fallen into bad habits, and genuinely doesn't see anything unusual, in which case a newcomer's viewpoint would be welcome. It may be that simply saying "that makes me feel uncomfortable, so I can't concentrate on the cards" offers a way for both of you to save face.
If you don't feel like doing that (and I reiterate that as a newcomer you should not appear to tell others what to do) speak to the director, or a committee member, privately. Again, a cup of coffee before or after the session is the best time. It may be (though unlikely) that this sort of behaviour is tolerated, in which case you either adjust or find another club; but at least you will know. More likely, a quiet word from somebody your partner respects (old friend or doyen of the club) will be in order.  Even if it doesn't work, you have made it clear that you object to bad behaviour, and won't be tarred with the same brush if you wish to find a new partner.
For what it's worth, this has come up at my club more than once. One person was grateful for a warning: one was too set in his ways to change, and now only plays with an understanding partner and is restrained by the director from criticising those who will take it badly: and one decided that (for that among other reasons) she would give up playing duplicate. Make of that what you will.

It's basically "out of bounds" to criticize anyone in public at bridge. This applies particularly to your opponents. Nor would anyone reasonably want to do so (other than for ego purposes) because it helps the opponents play better.
Any criticism is best reserved for "in private." A partner has the right to express "reservations" about your play (or vice-versa) when the two of you are alone. That helps the two of you play better.
There is one situation where you need to "call out" your opponents, that is not "criticism." If you honestly believe that they are improperly "signaling" each other with voice intonations, body language, etc., or otherwise cheating, the person to bring it up with is the tournament director (the host in an informal "home" game), and let the "authority" warn or discipline the opponents.
As about what to do about a partner that criticizes people in public, give partner one or two warnings (in private), and then speak with the tournament director if this doesn't work. Basically you want to stop, or disassociate yourself from this behavior.


text:
How do I have to arrange the remaining meeples after using the Ultra Bright Smile ability?
The Super Secret ability Ultra Bright smile lets you eat escaped meeples then you can rearrange the remaining escaped meeples. My question regards rearranging the remaining meeples.
The first level of the escape board has 3 slots and the second has 5 slots. Lets say that after I eat, there are 6 meeples left. Do I have to fill the first row and put the remaining 3 meeples in the second row? Or could I put 2 meeples on the first row and 4 on the second?

Here is a link to the rules for peoples' reference: Rampage* Rules
*Now Terror in Meeple City

From the rulebook:

Ultra-Bright(TM) Smile
Instead of eating the Meeples in your Neighborhood, you can eat the Meeples currently
on the Runaway board. Then reorganize the Meeples on the Runaway board without
triggering any effects.

For Side A:
It isn't particularly clear but I think the key phrase  is "Then reorganize the Meeples on the Runaway board without triggering any effects." That heavily implies that you should follow the normal placement rules (and are safe from re-triggering previously triggered negative effects). The normal placement rules are:

Place the Meeples on the Runaway board, starting with the top
line.

So I would say that yes, you should "fill the first row and put the remaining 3 meeples in the second row".
For Side B:
It shouldn't matter as they are organised by colour and so the only consequence is a completed track may now be open to be re-triggered in future turns.
For reference:
Manuals in French, English and German are available at the manufacturer's site.


text:
Spells are not exiled by Jace, Telepath Unbound's second ability in MTG Duels
I used Jace, Telepath Unbound's second ability, which is casting a spell from the graveyard. It says the spell will be exiled.
However, it didn't. For example, Adverse Conditions was in the graveyard when I activated the Jace's second ability. And Adverse Conditions was cast, but didn't get exiled and instead went into the graveyard again.
Why so?

Possible duplicate of Jace, Telepath Unbound and Casting a Spell from the Graveyard

@MarcDingena Not a duplicate, involves the same cards but is asking different things.

@Hackworth I stand corrected. The difference in both question is so tiny I actually missed that. How can I retract my flag?

@MarcDingena Don't worry about it, it will expire after a few days.

@MarcDingena If you click on the "close" again, there will be an option to retract your vote.

@tsuma534 that's nice, but I don't actually have the rep to close. I used a flag "Duplicate". I can't retract the flag.

There's no flag-retraction to do. The flag put this question into the Close review queue. It'll go through there and either be closed or voted upon to be left open.

Should it have been exiled? Yup.  You cast it from your graveyard, it went on the stack, resolved then returned to your graveyard.  Going to your graveyard should have been replaced with exiling the card.
Why didn't it?  No idea.  It's probably a bug.  With a game and rules as complex as Magic's, it wouldn't surprise me that something doesn't work like it is supposed to.

There was an update to Magic Duels just under a week ago. There seems to have a lot of bugs that got introduced. This may be the case but I can't access the bug list at the moment because I'm at work (Although it may be unreported, may just be a bug with just this card combination). There is no date set where a patch is to be released at the time of writing.

Jace, Telepath Unbound's second ability states that "If the card (the spell cast from the graveyard) would be put into the graveyard this turn, exile it instead." This means whatever spell you pull from the graveyard, if it were to return to the graveyard by any means (casting, countered, etc,.) then the card gets exiled instead of going to the graveyard. In short, when you use Jace's second ability, any card you cast from the graveyard will most likely be exiled.
There are ways to prevent this with other spells or abilities. For example, if you cast a spell with Buyback (e.g., Walk the Aeons), it never goes to the graveyard, and Jace's ability will not exile it. Likewise, if you cast a spell from your graveyard and then Remand your own spell, it returns to your hand.

The nature of the question is that yes, it ought to get exiled, but it wasn't.

@doppelgreener This answers the first half of the question, "Should the card be exiled?". The second half of the question, "Why was it not exiled?", is speculation because we don't know the entire board state (and I don't trust the OP to recall it perfectly anyway, because he doesn't necessarily know what to look for). Ultimately the OP is either leaving out some important details, or there is a bug in the game.

The spells mentioned in the second half of this answer aren't in the Magic Duels game. As far as I know, there are no spells or abilities in the game that will take a spell from the stack to anywhere other either the graveyard or exile. I may be mistaken as I've not seen all the new cards added but the cards are mainly from Origins onward (Not every card gets into the game either).

@ProgenitorMimic Should I roll back my edit then? I was trying to provide examples of cards that would make it work that way - not necessarily examples from the game itself - so that the OP knows what kinds of abilities to look for. I definitely don't want to add irrelevant fluff to an answer that I didn't write.

I don't know. Looks like we have never had questions about the duels games before today. I don't know if these sort of questions should be directed to http://gaming.stackexchange.com/ as they have a tag for the game and more people might have played it over there.


text:
Jace, Telepath Unbound and Casting a Spell from the Graveyard
I was playing MTG Duels.
I had Jace, Telepath Unbound on the battlefield and activated its second ability:

You may cast target instant or sorcery card from your graveyard this
  turn. If that card would be put into your graveyard this turn, exile
  it instead.

The target was Adverse Conditions in the graveyard. However, there was no effect and it wasn't exiled either.
Why was there no effect?

Why did you include "Hidden zone" in your question title?

That was my guess from reading the rullings :  If, at any time, the card goes to a hidden zone (such as your hand or your library), the effect loses track of the card. It won’t be exiled, even if that card is put into your graveyard later that turn.

I don't know how MTG Duels exactly works but my guess is this, the card says

You may cast target instant or sorcery card from your graveyard this turn

Which means that you are able to target a card in your graveyard but decide to not cast it. After this ability resolves you still have to manually cast it from your graveyard. You have the entire turn for that. It doesn't automatically get cast when the ability resolves.

I can confirm this is how Jace works. Once his loyalty ability has resolved, you have to zoom into your graveyard, then zoom into the selected card (will be highlighted red). You will see an ability at the bottom of the card saying "Cast this card" (May have to scroll the card text if there is a lot of text on the card). Once you click this ability, it will begin casting the card.


text:
Shadows over Innistrad Starter Box
I completed the story mode for Shadows over Innistrad (Magic Duels on iOS), but never received the Starter Box. I raised the issue and they responded by giving me 300 coins, which would give me two boosters. Is that adequate? What exactly do you get in a Starter Box?

Since this question can only be answered by someone familiar with the computer game, I feel like you'd be more likely to get an answer on Arqade.

That being said, I would like to clarify that we do explicitly allow questions about computer implementations of board and card games.

Yeah, that's why I asked here because I saw what looked like Magic Duels questions here.. happy to move or delete the question if this isn't an appropriate venue. I did find my answer already though, which I will post.

From my Reddit post, I just had to spend those 300 coins on getting two Shadows Over Innistrad boosters, and the cards from the Starter Box were added to the collection automatically.


text:
Elesh Norn and 2/2 Creature + Aura Entering at the same time
We have a Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite in play and another player casts Triumphant Reckoning bringing back a 2/2 creature and an aura giving +1/+1. Can the creature now enter as a 3/3 and will it therefore survive? I couldn't find an answer to this anywhere else.

Although Triumphant Reckoning explicitly forbids this interaction, Rise to Glory does allow a player to return a creature then an aura, so the aura could be attached to the creature.
In that case, the 2/2 with an aura giving it +1/+1 would survive. The reason is that creatures with 0 toughness only die when state based actions are checked, which happens after the card has finished resolving. So even though there was a 0/0 on the battlefield, it's still valid for the aura to enchant it.
You could also produce the same interaction with Rise to Glory reanimating a Hangarback Walker and an All That Glitters.

exactly what i needed to know! thank you so much

No, the aura cannot be attached to that creature, so the creature cannot enter as a 3/3.
Triumphant Reckoning has this ruling on its Gatherer page:

An Aura returning to the battlefield this way can't be attached to anything else entering the battlefield at the same time. If it enchants a permanent, you have to choose one already on the battlefield.

Thank you so much! But i read controversial stuff un other sites about this rule. I marked the other question as correct answer because it also answers questions arousing since elesh norn is in play

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


text:
What mechanics have coloured mana in their reminder texts?
Extort is the best known example of a Magic: the Gathering mechanic which has coloured mana in its reminder text:

702.101a Extort is a triggered ability. “Extort” means “Whenever you cast a spell, you may pay {W/B}. If you do, each opponent loses 1 life and you gain life equal to the total life lost this way.”

As the coloured mana is only in the reminder text, this does not affect the colour identity of the card, meaning cards with extort can be used in Commander decks where the Commander does not have a colour identity including black and white.
What other mechanics (if any) have coloured mana symbols in their reminder texts?

There are not very many of them.
First, let's clear some negative cases out of the way:

Many mechanics restate a cost in their reminder text that appears before the reminder text: cycling (Thornado) and eternalize (Dreamstealer) for example. We're not counting these.
Phyrexian mana and hybrid mana come with reminder text about how to pay that cost. Like these mechanics, it's just explaining a cost that already exists on the card. Also not counted.

Mechanics
The following mechanical features come with reminder text that uses a colored symbol that doesn't just correspond to a cost already expressed:

Extort as noted always includes the symbol {W/B} in its reminder text.
Devotion has reminder text that often includes a mana symbol, but is (so far) exclusively used this way on cards that already featured that mana symbol.
Cards with land types come with reminder text about their intrinsic mana abilities: for example Steam Vents and Molten Tributary.

... and that's it.
One-off cards
There's also a couple of one-off cards that do this, giving the colored symbol as an example:

Charmed Pendant
Trinisphere

Sourcing
How do we find this stuff, confirm it, or find out if it's changed?
Searching through Scryfall
We can search Scryfall pretty helpfully with regex:

We can search for cards with mana symbols in their reminder text like this: fulloracle:/\(.*\sm.*\)/

We can build on that to search specifically for colored mana symbols in reminder text like this: fulloracle:/\(.*\{.*[wubrg].*\}.*\)/
We can further eliminate reminder text that is preceded by “Words {X}” or “Words N—{X}”, eliminating things like Embalm and Suspend, using a negative lookbehind: fulloracle:/(?<![\w ]+([X\d]—)?\sm+ )\(.*\{.*[wubrg].*\}.*\)/

This helps us find the above cases.
Searching through comprehensive rules
If we search through the comp rules, e.g. at Yawgatog's reference, we could look for all the occurrences of the text pay {, which would be the start of a cost. Some of those are going to be in the keyword abilities/actions section.
There's only 12 occurrences for that on the page, and there's only one mechanic that has a colored symbol in its definition: Extort.

It may be worth noting that lands with basic land types still affect what commander decks they are legal in, even though the mana symbols are only in reminder text (if at all).

The mana symbols on basic lands are not relevant to the reason that color identity rules apply to them. There is a separate rule, 903.5d, that specifically applies color identity restrictions to basic land types.


text:
When can you take commodities out of the warehouse?
In Mundus Novus, the rulebook says the warehouse allows you to store products in it at the end of the progress phase. The problem is it is not clear when you can take products out of it.

Can you take a commodity out of it in the trade step, or only in the progress step?
Can you swap the commodity found in a warehouse, replacing it with somewhing else in your hand? On what step?

I got pointed to a thread at BGG with the author's answer to this question. Cards stored in a warehouse are taken into its owner's hand in the beginning of his turn, at the same time he gets his 5 cards.

So I guess even in case of the pirate ship event, the player can chose to discard a card taken from a warehouse (that now is in his hand)?

Yes. You get the warehouse cards in the start of the supply phase. The Pirates event happen just after the supply phase.

Play as if the cards are in your hand (besides the obvious new rule: you don't need to discard them).
So when can you use them? When you like. Replacing? Assume all the cards are you in your hand, so this question is now irrelevant. When? In the progress step.
Justifications:

At the end of this phase, the players must discard all unused cards
  (unless they are placed in a warehouse).

Note it does not say the cards are put on top of the warehouse cards.

Warehouses are valuable because they can
  store unused goods at the end of a round.

That's all warehouses do - there are no further clarifications on timing or anything else because there doesn't need to be any.
Practical:
In play, I tend to put the cards that can fit into my warehouses, on top of the warehouse cards - just because it permits me to play quicker, knowing that I've set aside the cards that I believe are important to keep and thus calculating the rest of my purchases can continue unencumbered. Understand that this convention is not in the rules, nowhere does it say you need to put your cards "on top" of the warehouse.

Thank you. Could you please point me to the reference that you used to write your answer?

As soon as I get home and look up the relevant rule(s).


text:
Why do some decks run only one of a card?
This Death and Taxes deck, for example, has 1x Cavern of Souls, 1x Horizon Canopy, and 1x Ancient Den. Since it's a 60 card deck the odds of drawing any one of them is 1/60. ie. quite slim. So why do they include cards they likely won't be drawing? Why not run 4x of each card? Gives you less versatility, I suppose, but what good is versatility if you don't draw the cards you need?

Note that the odds of drawing any one of them is NOT 1/60... there's a 7/60 chance that the card will be in your opening hand alone, and then after 5 turns, there's a 12/60 chance that you'll have drawn the card by then, on average.

@gendo, the opening hand is slightly higher than 7/60 (but lower than 8/60), since the deck size goes down with each card drawn.

@BrianS, if you draw 7 random cards from 60, you have a 7/60 chance of having a specific card (that you only have 1 of) in your hand... (and a 53/60 chance that it's still in the deck). It doesn't matter here that the deck size goes down with each card drawn; that only matters if determining the odds of drawing a card at a specific time, not the odds of having the card in your hand at all.

@gendo, Oops! I made a mistake in my math. You are correct :p

The lands that that deck only has one of are generally nice to have if you can get it, but not clearly better than the alternatives.
The deck is entirely white, so Cavern of Souls' second ability is only useful to generate white mana, and that mana can only be used to cast creature spells of a predetermined type (probably Human, given the makeup of the deck). It can be nice to be able to cast uncounterable creatures, but the drawbacks mean that you don't want to have too many, and you probably don't need to cast two uncounterable creatures on the same turn in most cases.
Similarly, the deck color makes Horizon Canopy's mana generating ability significantly worse. It can be very nice to have a difficult-to-counter instant speed draw for one mana, but you can only use it once per land, so it's not worth having too many of them.
In this deck Ancient Den is basically a Plains. However, if you side in Enlightened Tutor, you can tutor for it. It barely hurts the deck, and it's not worth using a slot in the sideboard for it, but non-basic lands are more susceptible to land destruction, so you don't want too many.
The other cards that the deck only has one of are the equipments, but that makes sense because Stoneforge Mystic can tutor for them and put them into play from your hand, so all you need is one somewhere in your deck.
It's also worth noting that this is a control deck; it's designed to slow down the game. Longer games make it more likely that you'll get any particular card eventually, and it's not as important to get some cards quickly.

First, a recommended article about singletons in general:
http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/15002-Sullivan-Library-One.html
In this specific case, the cards you mention are all cards such that the deck never desperately needs to draw them; the player might think "I want a land that taps for white mana" but probably not "I want Ancient Den." They may, however, think "I sure wish I could get a land with this Enlightened Tutor."
Furthermore, while playing multiples of a card increases the chance you draw one, it also increases the chance that you draw more than one, which can be bad. All three of these lands have drawbacks such that you may not want to draw a bunch of them. The Horizon Canopy makes you lose life when you tap it for mana, and cycling it takes time. Having the one might be a hedge against mana screw or mana flood but drawing them all at once can either eat a game-losing amount of your life total or force you to waste time cycling them. Similarly, you may not want all your lands to be artifacts depending on what you're up against, and Cavern of Souls can only be set to a single creature type.
The rest of the singletons are all tutorable (with Enlightened Tutor and possibly Stoneforge Mystic), so the builder will be able to tutor for or topdeck them. The only exception is the Sunlance which probably isn't so much "Sunlance #1" as "kill spell #5" (in cases where Sunlance is useful, Swords to Plowshares is probably also useful).


text:
How does Double Strike work with Trample?
Player A has a Wrecking Ogre (4/4 double strike) and decides to use the Bloodrush ability of Ghor-Clan Rampager, so now the Wrecking Ogre is a 7/7 with Double Strike + Trample.
If Player B decides to block it with 3 2/2 creatures, on the first combat, Wrecking Ogre's power will be down to 1/1,and that 1/1 will go to the player because it has trample.
My concern is about the second strike of wrecking ogre. Since there are no more blockers, will it deal 7/7 damage or 1/1 damage?
And if wrecking ogre is blocked by 2 5/5 creatures? Will it be dead before it can attack again? Will the Trample and Double Strike will be useless?

http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/5950/how-does-the-double-strike-mechanic-interact-with-other-mechanics-like-lifelink?rq=1

Given that you seem to have a bit of confusion about what power, toughness, and damage are, you may want to go back and read the basic rulebook (pdf), since there could be other basic things you've overlooked.

Voting to NOT close. I would not consider the answer to the linked question adequate for this question.

@ikegami Yeah, the answer there isn't as good as it could be - could probably use another answer, with some examples.

Regardless of what the existing answer to the other question says, I think someone who reads and understands an adequate answer to that question would then be able to figure out this one, so I do think it's a duplicate.

@David Z, I don't see it. Where does it explain that dealing damage does not lower power?

That's not what this question is about, though. It's an unrelated misconception that user6555 has.

Maybe you should read again. That's exactly his question. even if you're right, it's very important to address his unrelated misconception. The questions are far from identical.

It's power and toughness never change. It's never 1/1 or 1/7 or 7/1. It's 7/7 throughout. It merely gains marked damage.
In the first Combat Damage Step, the Ogre assigns 7 damage. It will assign and deal 2 damage two each of the 2/2[1] (and kills them) and 1 to the player.
In the second Combat Damage Step, the Ogre assigns 7 damage. It will assign and deal 7 damage the player.
If the damage it did the second step was reduced by the damage it did in the first step, it would never deal any in the second as a creature always deals its power in damage.

and if wrecking ogre is blocked by 2 5/5 creature?

Only creatures with First Strike or Double Strike participate in the First Strike combat damage step.
Assuming these 5/5 have neither,

First strike combat damage step: Ogre deals 5 to one 5/5 (and kills it) and 2 to the other (which survives with 2 damage).
Normal strike combat damage step: Ogre deals 3 to the remaining 5/5 (and kills it) and 4 to the defender. The 5/5 deals 5 to the Ogre (which survives with 5 damage).

It's possible to assign more, but there's rarely a reason to assign more than the minimum.

Initially overlooked your second question. Added answer.

Your opening clarification is good, but might not go far enough: the question says "...power will be down to 1/1...", suggesting that the OP may be thinking of toughness as part of power.

I assumed he just spoke loosely and that he know the number of on the left of the / is its power and the number of the right of the / is its toughness. If he didn't, he knows now.

It's been a while but unless the blockers have banding can't you just assign all the damage to one creature which would cause more trample damage to the player? So in this case instead of doing 1 + 7 damage you could do 5 + 5 damage and only kill 2 creatures instead of 3?

@JoeW Nope. CR702.19b The controller of an attacking creature with trample first assigns damage to the creature(s) blocking it. Once all those blocking creatures are assigned lethal damage, any remaining damage is assigned as its controller chooses among those blocking creatures and the player or planeswalker the creature is attacking. […edit out for brevity ignore effects that change amount of damage…] The attacking creature's controller need not assign lethal damage to all those blocking creatures but in that case can't assign any damage to the player or planeswalker it's attacking.

@ghoppe Thanks for the clarification, that makes a lot of sense

@JoeW The advantage banding gives when blocking is that  the defender can divide the damage as he or she chooses, and assign all the damage to one creature and none to himself. As per CR702.19b, Trample damage doesn't have to be assigned to a player, so banding on defenders, in practice, usually nullifies Trample.

To clarify, by "usually" I mean if the defender chooses. There may be a situation where the defender wants to take some Trample damage. ;)

I think it is important to note, because it was a point of confusion when I first started playing, that if the Ogre did not have Trample he would not assign ANY damage to the player in the second combat phase. Even if he killed all the blockers in the first he is still considered blocked.

When a creature in combat has first strike or double strike, there are two combat damage phases. In the first phase, only creatures with first strike and double strike deal damage, and in the second, only creatures without first strike deal damage.
When a creature in combat has trample, all damage past what is necessary to deal lethal damage to all blockers is dealt directly to the defending player.
What this means specifically for your question is:
In the first example, a 7/7 ogre with double strike and trample is blocked by 3 2/2 creatures. In the first combat damage phase, the ogre distributes 2 damage to each blocker and 1 damage to the defending player. Then, in the second combat damage phase, there are no surviving blockers, so the ogre deals all 7 damage to the defending player.
In the second example, the same ogre is blocked by 2 5/5 creatures. In the first combat damage phase, the ogre distributes 5 damage to one of its blockers and 2 to the other, destroying the first one. Then in the second combat damage phase, the ogre distributes 3 damage to the remaining blocker and 4 damage to the defending player, killing the other blocker. The blocker also deals 5 damage to the ogre, which is not enough to destroy it.

what if one or two of the 5/5 creature has first strike on it,will it kill the ogre before it deal damage to creatures/player?

One: No, because 5 damage is not enough to kill a 7/7 with no damage. Two: One 5/5 will take 5 damage and die, one 5/5 will take two damage and survive, the Ogre will take 10 damage and die.


text:
Does Bontu's Monument's discount apply to Costly Plunder?
If you have a Bontu's Monument in play and you want to sacrifice it to Costly Plunder, does Costly Plunder cost 2 mana or 1?

I can write an answer here, but I'm honestly struggling to see why you think "Black creature spells you cast cost 1 less to cast." might apply to Costly Plunder, which is definitely not a creature spell. Could you explain why you think it might apply?

Reading the card does indeed explain it.

I have made an edit to ask the actual question I wanted answering.

Don't change your question after it's answered in a way that makes the answer invalid. You got an answer to the question you asked. If you wanted to ask a different question, ask another question.

No, the discount does not apply...
But only because Bontu's Monument never applies to Costly Plunder. Bontu's Monument applies to black creature spells, and Costly Plunder is an instant.
But, if it could apply, it would.
Consider Stormscape Familiar, which reads:

White spells and black spells you cast cost 1 less to cast.

If you cast Costly Plunder and sacrificed Stormscape Familiar to pay for it, you would only need to pay B, not 1B. This is because the total cost you need to pay for a spell (in this case, B and sacrificing a creature or artifact) is "locked in" before you begin the process of actually paying for it.

I have made an edit to ask the actual question.


text:
Can mana generated by Rosheen Meanderer be used to pay for non-X components of costs that contain X?
The mana from the giant Rosheen Meanderer can only be used for spells with X, but it does not have to only pay the X cost. So, for instance, you can tap an island and the giant and cast Stroke of Genius for X = 2.
I'm pretty sure it works like that, just need confirmation.

It's often helpful, as @PhilipKendall noticed, to check the rulings under the card in Gatherer:

You can spend mana generated by Rosheen on any part of a cost that contains {X}. You're not limited to spending it only on the {X} part.

So yes, you can cast a Stroke of Genius (mana cost X2U) for X = 2.


text:
How does capturing work in gipf?
I'm unclear as to when pieces are captured vs. when they're moved to the repository in Basic Gipf
If I understand it correctly, the 4+ in a row pieces are moved to the repository of the player with their color. Any pieces that extend this line are dealt with as follows:

if they're the same color as the current player, they're moved back to the repository
if they're the other player's color, they're captured.

Is this correct?

That is mostly correct. However, the player who picks up the pieces is not the current player, but the player who owns the 4+ pieces in a row.

E. Taking Pieces

As soon as 4 pieces of the same color are lined up next to each other, they must be taken from the board by the one playing with that color. Moreover, not only must these 4 pieces be removed, but also all of the pieces that form a direct extension of them. The pieces of one's own color are returned to the reserve, the pieces of the other color are captured, thus lost for the opponent.

As soon as 4 pieces of the same color are lined up, it is compulsory to remove them from the board (included the pieces extending the row), no matter who created the row. The color of the pieces in a row determines which player must take them. One's own pieces are returned to the reserve, the opponent's pieces are captured.

A copy of the rules can be found here.

I've read the rules, but the difference between the 4 in a row and the other stones wasn't completely clear. Now it is, thank you.


text:
Does Doubling Cube's ability affect the mana used to activate it?
Rules Question: When Doubling Cube doubles mana, does that include the mana used to activate the ability?

Very good card, but only really works after 6+ lands tbh

@NathanTaylor I would expect to see it used in a degenerate combo with dark ritual, high tide, and friends.

No, Doubling Cube does not copy the mana used to activate it.
When you activate an ability you pay costs before the ability takes effect. Specifically, rule 602.2 describes the steps for activating an ability:

602.2a The player announces that he or she is activating the ability. [...]
602.2b The remainder of the process for activating an ability is identical to the process for casting a spell listed in rules 601.2b–i. Those rules apply to activating an ability just as they apply to casting a spell. An activated ability’s analog to a spell’s mana cost (as referenced in rule 601.2f) is its activation cost.
...
601.2h The player pays the total cost in any order. Partial payments are not allowed. Unpayable costs can’t be paid.
601.2i Once the steps described in 601.2a–h are completed, the [ability becomes activated]. 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.

Normally, players would get a chance to respond before the ability resolves, but Doubling Cube's ability is a mana ability, so 605.3b says

An activated mana ability doesn’t go on the stack, so it can’t be targeted, countered, or otherwise responded to. Rather, it resolves immediately after it is activated. (See rule 405.6c.)

Then, rule 608 describes how spells and abilities resolve. Specifically, rule 608.2g says

If an effect requires information from the game (such as the number of creatures on the battlefield), the answer is determined only once, when the effect is applied. [...]

This means that the Doubling Cube checks the mana to be doubled when the effect resolves, which is after you spent the 3 mana on the ability's cost.

I guess we both answered at the exact same second o.O

It looks like we did. That's impressive.

No.
In order to activate an ability (or cast a spell), you first have to pay all costs. By the time it resolves, the mana costs in particular have already been deducted from your mana pool, so the mana you spent to activate Doubling Cube cannot be doubled by its ability.


text:
When does an opponent make the decision to pay extra mana in response to a spell?
I have a rules question.  Let's say I have 2 Judge's Familiar's in play and an opponent casts
Lightning Bolt on another one of my creatures.  In response, I sac one of the Judges to counter the spell.  Here are the questions:

When does my opponent make the decision to pay the extra mana?  Is it when the spell is cast, or do I have to pass priority first and let it resolve before they make the decision?
Would I get priority after they make the decision to pay the mana (so if they did pay the mana, I could sac the other Judge and they couldn't insert anything into the stack beforehand)?

Is it your turn?

The opponent has to decide whether to pay if and when the Familiar's ability resolves. If it does resolve, the Familiar's ability will always resolve before the spell it tries to counter, because the stack works on the LIFO principle - Last In, First Out.

Starting with the active player, each player in turn order gets priority whenever a spell or ability resolves, so if the first Familiar's ability resolves and your opponent decides to pay, then you still have the opportunity to sacrifice the other Familiar. The second Familiar's ability then becomes the top-most object on the stack and that too will resolve before the spell you want to counter.

Here are the rules on who gets priority when:

116.3. Which player has priority is determined by the following rules:
116.3a The active player receives priority at the beginning of most steps and phases, after any turn-based actions (such as drawing a card during the draw step; see rule 703) have been dealt with and abilities that trigger at the beginning of that phase or step have been put on the stack. No player receives priority during the untap step. Players usually don’t get priority during the cleanup step (see rule 514.3).
116.3b The active player receives priority after a spell or ability (other than a mana ability) resolves.
116.3c If a player has priority when he or she casts a spell, activates an ability, or takes a special action, that player receives priority afterward.
116.3d If a player has priority and chooses not to take any actions, that player passes. If any mana is in that player’s mana pool, he or she announces what mana is there. Then the next player in turn order receives priority.


text:
Can I double Furnace Scamp's triggered ability damage with a 3-counter Quest for Pure Flame?
Assuming I have a Quest for Pure Flame with 3 quest counters on them and my Furnace Scamp deals combat damage to an opponent, can I then sacrifice my Quest in time to double the Scamp's triggered ability damage?

For future reference, you can use the syntax [mtg:Card Name] to automatically link to cards on Gatherer.

Yes, you can use the Quest for Pure Flame's ability to double the damage from the Furnace Scamp's triggered ability.
When the Furnace Scamp deals combat damage, both its triggered ability and the Quest's triggered ability go on the stack. For this to work, you have to put the Quest's triggered ability on top of the Scamp's ability. Then, do the following:

Let the Quest's ability resolve. The Quest now has four counters.
With the Scamp's ability still on the stack, activate the Quest's second ability and let that ability resolve. Now, for the rest of the turn, damage dealt by sources you control is doubled.
Now let the Scamp's ability resolve. Since the Quest's ability has already resolved, the damage is doubled.


text:
Can I Redirect a Retract to affect my opponent?
Can I Redirect my own Retract to my opponent with a redirect? I'm just wanting to know before I try it and look dumb. I know you have to have a valid target for a Redirect but Retract targets me, a player, so I don't see why I can't Redirect to another player.

Redirect only allows you to change a spell's targets. Retract does not target; it just affects you. Rule 114.1a says

An instant or sorcery spell is targeted if its spell ability identifies something it will affect by using the phrase "target [something]," where the "something" is a phrase that describes an object, player, or zone. The target(s) are chosen as the spell is cast; see rule 601.2c. (If an activated or triggered ability of an instant or sorcery uses the word target, that ability is targeted, but the spell is not.)

Retract doesn't use the phrase "target [something]" so it does not target and cannot be affected by Redirect. If you did cast Redirect targeting Retract, it would give you the chance to choose new targets, but since Retract has no targets, it wouldn't do anything.


text:
I am really confused on how corpseweft works?
So I'm relatively new to magic and recently went to a local draft. In one of my matches, my opponent played Corpseweft and activated its ability to exile 3 creatures from their graveyard and summoned a 2/2, 4/4, and 6/6 black Zombie Horror creature token. Which means he has 3 zombie horrors summoned all at one time. My first question is that shouldn't it actually just be a single 6/6 black Zombie Horror creature token? I kept reading over the card and didn't think it was played correctly, but they insisted me that's how it works. Again, I'm new so I didn't want to further doubt a player more experienced than me.
I have searched around the internet for discussions on this card but there was little information I found. From the little information I did stumble upon though, it seemed like a back and forth argument in which I wasn't sure which side was right. Could someone please clarify all this?

For future reference, when you want to talk about a specific card in your question (or answer), you can link to its gatherer page with [mtg:card name]. I already edited that into your question in this case.

You were correct. When your opponent activated Corpseweft's ability and exiled 3 creature cards from their graveyard, they should have put a single 6/6 black Zombie Horror creature token into play. There is nothing in the text of the ability about putting multiple tokens into play.
In the future, if you have a disagreement like this over how a card or rule works, you should always call a judge. Resolving disputes like this is their primary function.

Unfortunately, many local gaming store events won't actually have a judge at them.

You are correct that there should only be one 6/6 Zombie Horror.  Exiling the cards is part of the cost to activate Corpseweft.  So it goes like this:

You pay the mana cost and exile the 3 cards.
You put a token into play that's power and toughness are equal to 2x the number of exiled cards (3 cards => 6/6).

For it to do what your opponent suggested it would have to be worded something like "1B: Exile any number of creature cards from your graveyard.  For each card exiled this way, put an X/X Zombie Horror creature token into play where X is twice the number of creature cards exiled before the card this turn plus one."
Also note that the ability only says to put a single token into play.  If you wanted multiple tokens, you would have to activate the ability multiple times, including paying the mana cost and exiling cards each time.

I'm not even sure if that suggested wording works, because I think exiling multiple cards from a graveyard happens simultaneously. Though I'm not sure, so don't quote me on that. The larger point, that the card doesn't work like that and it would take some rather convoluted wording to make it do so, is absolutely valid.


text:
Do I have to pay commander tax when casting my commander using Geode Golem's ability?
Hey guys I have a question regarding Geode Golem. Its text says "Whenever Geode Golem deals combat damage to a player, you may cast your commander from the command zone without paying its mana cost. (You still pay any additional costs.)". Does this means that when I deal combat damage with this creature to an opponent and my commander has commander tax, I have to pay the commander tax also?

Yes.
One of the rulings for this card on The Gatherer:

If you cast a card “without paying its mana cost,” you can’t choose to cast it for any alternative costs, such as bestow costs. You can, however, pay additional costs. If the card has any mandatory additional costs, such as the commander tax, those must be paid to cast the card.

Yes, you have to pay the tax whenever you cast your commander from the command zone, whether through Geode Golem or otherwise.
As Geode Golem says, you still have to pay any additional costs. The "commander tax" is an additional cost:

903.8. A player may cast a commander they own from the command zone. A commander cast from the command zone costs an additional {2} for each previous time the player casting it has cast it from the command zone that game. This additional cost is informally known as the “commander tax.”

The total cost to cast a spell is determined so:

601.2f The player determines the total cost of the spell. Usually this is just the mana cost. Some spells have additional or alternative costs. [..] The total cost is the mana cost or alternative cost (as determined in rule 601.2b), plus all additional costs and cost increases, and minus all cost reductions.

Geode Golem merely removes the mana cost of your commander. Additional costs are not affected.

202.1. A card’s mana cost is indicated by mana symbols near the top of the card.


text:
Stacking Sensei's Divining Top Abilities
I believe it is possible, but I am asking for confirmation:
Can you activate Sensei's Divining Top's first ability, and then, in response, activate the second ability, allowing you to draw a card, put SDT on top of your library, and then look at the top three cards on your library and put them back in any order?

Yes, you can do exactly what you describe. You can activate Top's first ability, then, while that ability is on the stack, activate its second ability. Then the second ability will resolve, and you will draw a card, then put Top on top of your library. Finally, the first ability will resolve, and you will look at and reorder the top three cards of your library, including the Top you just put there.


text:
Combat Damage Steps (Double Strike) and Sacrificing a Creature
I am attacking with my only creature, Dragon-Style Twins, a creature with 3 power and Double Strike.
My opponent is blocking with two Griffin Sentinel, which have 3 toughness.
After he declares both Sentinels as blockers, he flashes in Dictate of Erebos, which says

Whenever a creature you control dies, each opponent sacrifices a creature.

How does Dragon-Style Twins's double strike work against the Sentinels?  Is Dictate of Erebos triggered after the first combat damage phase, which would require me to sacrifice my Twins before I can deal damage to the second one?

I removed the images in your question to make it easier to follow the situation in question, and because the automatic Gatherer links (created with [mtg:Card Name]) serve the same purpose well enough.

@murgatroid99 It doesn't really serve the same purpose.  Someone not familiar with what cards do now needs to click multiple times to see the cards, as well as perhaps again to get more familiar with them.  If the links were hovers like other mtg sites, then it would be the most suitable.  But okay.

Here's an alternative solution. I added the relevant information to the question without filling unreasonable amounts of space with images.

@murgatroid99 you didn't have to do that! thank you haha

Yes, you are correct. Double Strike, like First Strike, causes 2 separate combat damage steps. In each of these, players get priority, which means that state based actions happen and triggered abilities go on the stack.

702.7b If at least one attacking or blocking creature has first strike or double strike (see rule 702.4) as the combat damage step begins, the only creatures that assign combat damage in that step are those with first strike or double strike. After that step, instead of proceeding to the end of combat step, the phase gets a second combat damage step.

And:

510 Combat Damage Step

510.3a Any abilities that triggered on damage being dealt or while state-based actions are performed afterward are put onto the stack before the active player gets priority; the order in which they triggered doesn’t matter. (See rule 603, “Handling Triggered Abilities.”)


text:
Commit a Crime and spell copies
I wonder if copies of spells (like the ones created by Storm) trigger the "Commit a Crime" ability. The rule on the MTG wiki is as follows:

Rules

From the glossary of the Comprehensive Rules (July 30, 2024—Bloomburrow)
Crime
Targeting an opponent, anything that opponent controls, and/or any cards in an opponent’s graveyard is a crime. See rule 700.13.

From the Comprehensive Rules (July 30, 2024—Bloomburrow)
700.13. Some cards refer to committing a crime. A player commits a crime as that player casts a spell, activates an ability, or puts a triggered ability on the stack and that spell or ability targets at least one opponent; at least one permanent, spell, or ability an opponent controls; and/or at least one card in an opponent’s graveyard.

From the first paragraph I understand that the spell copies would be crimes. But from the second paragraph I understand that they shouldn't be because the copies are not cast.

No, creating a copy of a spell does not commit a crime, no matter what the copy targets.
In that quotation from the wiki, the first paragraph is the glossary definition, while the second is the actual rule that defines committing a crime. The rule is what has actual weight in determining how the game works, and the rule does not include copying a spell in the list of things that count as committing a crime.

Your bolded answer is a little ambiguous. The act of copying a spell can be a crime, since some spell-copying abilities do target the spell. It might be better to say something like "You cannot commit a crime with a copied spell".

Still a little ambiguous, perhaps something explicit that the act of copying an opponents spell itself will be a crime, but the copied spell itself won't be. Narset's Reversal for example is one crime, not two or zero.

The act of copying an opponent's spell is not itself a crime. Casting a spell that targets a spell an opponent controls is a crime, but that's a separate issue.

@murgatroid99 This brings us to the same place we were with your vexing bauble answer, you addressing the letter of the question but not the issues around it which are likely to be the source of confusion among less expert players, the kind who misunderstand what they saw happen and then come to ask questions about it, saying that's a different thing or a separate issue when it's possible that it's the entire underlying issue they didn't understand causing them to ask a tangential question.

I actually don't know what would be a better way to express this. I have tried to address the confusion expressed in the question directly and concisely. I think that saying that copying a spell can sometimes commit a crime will increase ambiguity if anything because the most literal reading of that statement is factually untrue. If you need the precise details of the rule, the text of it is in the question.

For what it's worth, I think this is a fine answer. MtG is such a broad game that trying to guess what underlying issue the poster has is as likely to add more confusion than reduce it; the poster has the ability to refine their question and/or comment on this answer if they want to.

@PhilipKendall and stack exchange is meant to be a knowledge base where people can look up their questions that someone else already asked to find an answer, thus being more comprehensive about the possible misunderstandings is a good thing, rather than just addressing the letter of the question.

I think this answer is correct because I made a specific question about spell copies no spell copying.

Copying a spell and choosing new targets for the copy isn't a crime, so that in and of itself won't cause any crime triggers, however there are two areas around copying spells that might:

You may cast the copy - While this doesn't really happen for spells on the stack, there still are many cards that deal with imprinting spells, exiling them from graveyard or selecting them from the hand and copying them, these copies then get cast, often without paying their mana cost and since they are cast, if they target an opponent or anything belonging to them, then that is a crime.
Copying opponent spells - More likely is there is a crime cast when you go to copy your opponent's spell. Cards like Narsets' Reversal, Twincast or Fork all let you copy a spell, but you aren't casting that copy. However because you are targeting an opponent's spell on the stack, that part of the process is a crime, just as it would be if you were targeting it with a spell like Counterspell.


text:
Is there any way to turn a token into a nontoken?
Is there anything in Magic that can turn a token permanent into a nontoken permanent?

In general, this is not the right way to handle updating information in existing posts. You should either comment on the answer asking whether it is up to date, or put a bounty on the question to ask for updated information. I am not closing this question because it does not directly match any existing question, but I have edited it to make it stand alone without referring to the other answer, and to remove references to the specific timeframe.

Within the actual rules definition for "Token", such a thing really isn't possible.

Tokens

111.1. Some effects put tokens onto the battlefield. A token is a marker used to represent any permanent that isn't represented by a card.

With this definition, something becoming a nontoken really means that the thing becomes a card. And to become a card, you need a physical real-world card to have a card in general.
So as long as something is a permanent, and it isn't represented by a card, then it is a token. The closest thing you could do is replace a token with a different non-token that does the same thing... i.e. you could have an ability that says "sacrifice target Forest token. Choose a Forest card you own from outside the game and put it on the battlefield."
But if an ability said something like "target token becomes a non-token", it would just be confusing... Even though effects on cards can override any rules in the rulebook; an effect like this would basically be just redefining the word "token" as it is in the rules. Assuming that you aren't talking about it actually becoming a card; then it becomes an entirely new thing that is a concept never thought of in the rules... a permanent that is neither a token nor a card. You would need to alter a ton of other rules to make it work... what happens when this non-token, non-card enters a graveyard? You would likely need to replace the rules that make tokens in graveyards cease to exist with a rule that applies to all non-cards in graveyards instead.

Oh, I see what you mean, I'm looking for ways to expand my card count in-game, like having a graveyard with more creatures / cards than are in my+my opponents' decks

Graveyard Busybody is a silver bordered card that would make all graveyards your graveyard instead of whatever player they normally belong to. There are spells like the Wishes that bring in cards from outside the game (IE in your sideboard) but other than that your card count will always be based on what you started with in deck.

@Malady, if your real objective is to "expand my card count in-game" that makes a reasonable question in and of itself, as there are lots of ways to do that, particularly in casual/non-tournament settings.  They aren't necessarily obvious however...

@John - I'm looking for ways to infinitely expand the number of "things that will graveyard when killed / used". Since that seems to be cards, and only tokens can be created infinitely, it appears the answer to my question is "Not possible right now"?

@Malady, I think you need to reread my comment.

@John - Well, at your advice, here's my question: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/54310/how-to-get-the-most-cards-possible-getting-more-cards-mid-game

@Malady tokens do go to graveyard when killed, once in the graveyard they stop existing - If you're looking for things to trigger when they die, then that may already be happening (depends on the wording of the trigger)

GendoIkari's answer is technically correct... A token by definition is not a card, but misses one new corner case to have emerged from Ikoria: Mutate
Mutate can take a card (non-token) and combine it with an existing permanent (non-human creatures only, but tokens are a valid target) to modify the existing permanent, using one of the two as the template... You can therefore have a creature card be technically a token (The token's stats are used as the 'top' or default state) or have a token become a non-token (the mutate card goes on top and changes the default state), the second of which results in a permanent that has changed from being a token to not being token.
But honestly, most people just use a card like Skullclamp or Foster to get non-token cards from a token :-p

There exists now an acorn card that almost does what you are asking, although they will still be tokens; Claire D'Loon, Joy Sculptor can turn tokens into cards.

When Claire D'Loon, Joy Sculptor enters the battlefield, for the rest of the game, tokens you own become cards that are still tokens.

not exactly, though it seems to function the way OP wants, Claire does still say they are tokens

Whoops, I somehow missed that... I guess, strictly speaking, this doesn't answer the question (as they will not be 'nontoken'), but could still be useful.


text:
Alaundo the Seer removing multiple last time counters at the same time
Suppose that I have 2 or more spells in exile with exactly 1 time counter on each of them.  I activate Alaundo the Seer's ability to "remove a time counter from each other card you own in exile".  When the last time counter is removed from each of these cards I may cast them. How exactly does this ability and the spells I can cast from it enter the stack?
With normal suspend cards, as I understand it, the time counters are removed one by one during upkeep while nothing else is on the stack.  This makes it easy to see that as I remove each counter (and I can do it in the order of my choice) I get a chance to cast that spell without paying its mana cost.  Each spell individually could be countered and/or be the start of its own stack.
The wording on Alaundo implies, however, that the time counters are removed at the same time. Also my ability to cast the spell is explicitly "When the last time counter is removed". The more I think about that, the more that seems to complicate things.  I see four possibilities:

I can cast one, wait until it is resolved, and then cast the other.
My casting the first spell prevents me from casting the second because the timing has passed.  There is no way to cast both.
I declare I'm casting both at the same time and they both end up on the same stack. Of course, I would get to declare which order they resolve in.
Activating his ability is the bottom of the stack and until that is fully resolved I can cast all of those relevant spells in any order I wish regardless of type.

One reason I really want to understand what is happening here (and I think the details matter) is that I want to have spells that trigger off his ability that untap him and allow him to activate again. I think this could make some very crazy stacks very quickly (especially if he can activate again while his first activation is still on the stack).

Your first possibility is the most correct. Each card has its own triggered ability that allows you to cast the spell as it resolves. All of those abilities trigger as the counters are removed, they are put on the stack after Alaundo's ability resolves, and they resolve one at a time.
The ability Alaundo grants to the cards it exiles is a triggered ability, so each instance goes on the stack separately. Specifically, your example plays out as follows:

You activate Alaundo's ability.

Stack (top to bottom): Alaundo's ability

Alaundo's ability resolves. You draw a card, and choose a card to exile, and then remove counters from other cards in exile. The abilities of the two cards that now have 0 counters trigger. After this, Alaundo's ability has finished resolving, and is no longer on the stack.

Stack: empty

You put the two abilities on the stack, in an order that you choose. For simplicity, I will refer to the card with the ability on top of the stack as card 1, and the other as card 2.

Stack: card 1's triggered ability, card 2's triggered ability

Card 1's triggered ability resolves. You cast card 1.

Stack: card 1, card 2's triggered ability

Card 1 resolves.

Stack: card 2's triggered ability

Card 2's triggered ability resolves. You cast card 2.

Stack: card 2

Card 2 resolves.

Stack: empty

I also want to address some things you said about Suspend.

With normal suspend cards, as I understand it, the time counters are removed one by one during upkeep while nothing else is on the stack. This makes it easy to see that as I remove each counter (and I can do it in the order of my choice) I get a chance to cast that spell without paying its mana cost.

It's not the case that "nothing else is on the stack", because the abilities that remove the counters are triggered abilities and use the stack themselves. The specific functionality of the Suspend ability is defined in rule 702.62a (I have highlighted the two relevant abilities):

Suspend is a keyword that represents three abilities. The first is a static ability that functions while the card with suspend is in a player’s hand. The second and third are triggered abilities that function in the exile zone. “Suspend N—[cost]” means “If you could begin to cast this card by putting it onto the stack from your hand, you may pay [cost] and exile it with N time counters on it. This action doesn’t use the stack,” and “At the beginning of your upkeep, if this card is suspended, remove a time counter from it,” and “When the last time counter is removed from this card, if it’s exiled, play it without paying its mana cost if able. If you can’t, it remains exiled. If you cast a creature spell this way, it gains haste until you lose control of the spell or the permanent it becomes.”

Both of those abilities are triggered abilities, as stated in rule 603.1. Triggered abilities use the stack, just like spells and activated abilities. So, a similar situation where you start your turn with two suspended cards with one time counter each would play out as follows:

The upkeep begins and each of the two cards' counter removal abilities triggers and is put on the stack. You choose the order they have on the stack.
Card 1's counter removal ability resolves, the counter is removed from card 1, and card 1's casting ability triggers
Card 1's casting ability is put on the stack.
Card 1's casting ability resolves. You cast card 1, putting it on the stack.
Card 1 resolves.
Card 2's counter removal ability resolves, the counter is removed from card 2, and card 2's casting ability triggers
Card 2's casting ability is put on the stack.
Card 2's casting ability resolves. You cast card 2, putting it on the stack.
Card 2 resolves.

You also said

Each spell individually could be countered and/or be the start of its own stack.

There is no "its own stack". There is only one stack, and all spells, activated abilities, and triggered abilities use it.


text:
Are there any fan-created campaigns for Shadows of Brimstone?
I'd like to get into Shadows of Brimstone, but I've heard that there's a part during setup where you configure how hard the adventure is going to be.  I'm a little bit put off by that.  I worry that, when/if I win, it'll feel like I only won because I made the game too easy.
One thing I liked about Pathfinder Adventure Card Game is that it comes with a little campaign: it tells you to play these scenarios, in this order, with these special rules attached to each one.
Is there anything like that (perhaps fan-created) for Shadows of Brimstone?

Both City of the Ancients and Swamps of Death (the two base game sets available) include an adventure book.
Each adventure book features 12 missions, the first six of which are the same in both books, and then the last six are specific to the setting. They can be played through as a campaign or as individual missions, supposedly getting harder as they progress (I have only played the first three so far so can't really comment on the difficulty of later missions).
Regarding the setup phase where you determine the "difficulty" of the game, it is not a choice of easy/medium/hard etc. It is a scale based on the number of heroes, which defines the general number/difficulty of monsters and the number of revives you can use when heroes are knocked out. This scale is more about balance for the number of players than a way to actually increase/decrease the difficulty.
You can of course choose to make things harder or easier by changing the number of revive tokens or the Threat deck you draw from, but so far I have found the suggested difficulty to be reasonably well balanced and have lost just as often as I have won, although I have so far only played with 1, 4 or 5 players so can't really speak about the balance of 2, 3 or 6 player games, but the progression seems reasonable.

In fact, I'm not sure that the missions in the Quests Book are designed to get harder. A suggested way of choosing the quest to play is drawing a world card then rolling for a quest in the given world (that's how I've played so far) which means that you could start with the last quest... The initiation quest is indeed the 1st one from the Mine world with adaptations to avoid the advanced rules in the first game. In fact, the Campaign feel comes more IMHO from the leveling up system: that's what determines from which decks you draw the monsters and if they have special abilities.

There's a fan-made campaign (7 scenarios) which has been posted on BGG and has good reviews... I didn't tried it myself (yet) as I enjoy the randomness of picking a quest from the game at random and just going there for now.
It was designed by Eric Laurent and is called One Way Ticket
It requires Swamp of Death as the party ends up in Jargono.
You can find the presentation by the designer and a link to all the files here:
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1341036/sob-complete-campaign-7-missions-new-tiles-new-car/page/1

HexCrawl (by Sid Rain) looks more like an alternative way to play the game than a Campaign. It introduces a map where the party travels from mines to towns and back with various events taking place during travels.
It includes a campaign system:

A campaign system that takes your Heroes from start to finish and provides an actual end-goal for your posse to strive for. The plan is that a full campaign will encompass all 8 levels of a Hero and their development.

This probably requires more investment and a regularly meeting group but might fill the bill.
Here's a link to the BGG forum post where the designer hosts the project:
http://boardgamegeek.com/article/16952329


text:
"Would draw" with "Can't draw"
Folks, I would like to know if an effect like "players can't draw cards" prevents/cancel effects like "if you would draw a card, instead do X".
Because I wouldn't draw a card anyway, the effect does not takes place?
For a concrete example, think on Maralen of the Mornsong with Forbidden Crypt.

I'm almost sure nothing happens (the effect does not takes place), I just want to confirm.

The ruling on Maralen seems to support your conclusion that nothing happens:

4/1/2008: While Maralen is on the battlefield, replacement effects that instruct a player to do something instead of drawing a card won't work.

Can't beats can. So when something tells you to draw a card (say the beginning of your draw step), and Maralen telling you that you can't draw cards you do not get to draw a card. Since you are not drawing a card the Crypt's replacement effect doesn't have a chance to apply.

101.2. When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can’t happen, the “can’t” effect takes precedence.
614.7. If a replacement effect would replace an event, but that event never happens, the replacement effect simply doesn’t do anything.


text:
In King of Tokyo, which turns does Monster Batteries' effect happen on?
Monster Batteries states the following:

When you purchase this put as many [Energy] as you want on it from your reserve. Match this from the bank. At the start of each turn take 2[Energy] off and add them to your reserve. When there are no [Energy] left discard this card.

Does this mean at the start of only your own turns or at the start of every player's turn?

When you have multiple questions and there's not really a common thread between them, you should post them as separate questions, so that people who know the answer to just one can still post answers for you.

Please edit this into multiple questions.

It's at the start of each turn, including opponent turns (assuming the designers are consistent in their wording).
We can use the text on some other cards to work this out. First, we can look at cards that specify an action on the player's turn, which are very specific. This includes cards such as Herbivore and Metamorph (emphasis mine):

Herbivore: Gain 1[Star] on your turn if you don't damage anyone.
Metamorph: At the end of your turn you can discard any keep cards you have to receive the [Energy] they were purchased for.

We can then look at other cards that use the terminology of "each", which are abilities you would only use on an opponent's turn. Two such cards are Super Jump and Psychic Probe (emphasis mine):

Super Jump: Once each turn you may spend 1[Energy] to negate 1 damage you are receiving.
Psychic Probe: You can reroll a die of each other monster once each turn. If the reroll is [Heart] discard this card.

In the first case, you'd negate damage during an opponent's turn, and in the second you would choose to reroll a die on an opponent's turn. So the phrasing "each turn" in Monster Batteries indicates that it occurs at the beginning of each turn around the table, whether it is yours or not.

You know what? I think you might be right actually. I've deleted my post!


text:
When is someone the controller of a permanent?
My dad and I have an issue since we play with cards with Ascend. We both play with auras with Enchant Creature. When is an aura under who’s control? I think when he plays an aura on a creature I control, the aura is also under my control. I tried to find the rulings, but I can't find it.

Is the city's blessing related to your question?

Yes because when i got ten cards under my controle i get citys blessing, when one creature of me got an aura does it count as an permanent for citys blessing. As example, i got 5 lands, 4 creatures and a aura my opponent put on my creature.

OK, I understand. I am going to make some edits to your question to try to make it easier for future readers to understand.

In most cases, the player who controls a permanent is the player who played it. In the situation you describe, if an opponent plays an aura with "Enchant Creature" attached to a creature you control, then your opponent still controls the aura.

So when i play a card destroy target.... opponent control i can destroy that card?

Yes, if you have an effect that only destroys things that your opponents control, and the aura is one of the things that it can destroy, then yes, you can destroy it even if it is attached to one of your creatures.

Can u explain rule 303.4e for me? I cant paste it tomy comment

The short answer is that that rule basically says what I already said in the answer. What specifically are you still confused about?

I thought in the ruling it said it is in no ones control

That's not what it says. It's just saying that who controls the aura is separate from who controls the thing it's attached to.

@Hans, A permanent is always under someone's control