Arcane Wonders Forum

Mage Wars => Rules Discussion => Topic started by: sIKE on October 02, 2015, 08:57:40 PM

Title: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: sIKE on October 02, 2015, 08:57:40 PM
So a Druid has Barkskin revealed and the Forcemaster has a hidden Poisoned Blood attached to Player A. During Upkeep (the FM now has Ini) the Druid pays the Upkeep for the Barkskin and in response the FM reveals the PB.

Now the question: Did the Druid Regenerate before the Finite Life trait was applied to the Druid.

Obviously if PB was revealed before the Upkeep payment then yes. I was asked this question and how I ruled was that when the Upkeep payment was paid the Regenerate and Armor traits were then "renewed" instantly and the Druid healed the two life before the PB was effective.

Now I am not 100% sure this was correct as I am not sure if the Regenerate effects are instant (in this case) upon renewal via the Upkeep payment. Thoughts?
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Zuberi on October 02, 2015, 09:12:50 PM
You can't reveal enchantments during the upkeep phase. The Forcemaster would have to reveal it before Upkeep, which would prevent the Regeneration, or after Upkeep, which would not prevent it.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: sIKE on October 02, 2015, 09:14:15 PM
What? Where is that rule?
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: iNano78 on October 02, 2015, 09:23:07 PM
What? Where is that rule?

I think what he means is you can't reveal enchantments "during" steps, only before or after (eg between). So you either reveal before upkeep or after upkeep. Similarly, you can't reveal "in response to" something as there is no "stack" in Mage Wars.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Zuberi on October 02, 2015, 09:24:04 PM
Page 19 of version 3 of the Rules, the version available for download still. I don't have version 4 of the rules at hand currently, which does update the reveal rules to allow revealing between the steps of a Move Action, but otherwise the two rule sets are the same.

You can reveal an enchantment between Phases and Steps, or after an Activation. You can not reveal them during a phase or step, unless they specifically say so like Nullify and Block do.
Title: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Sailor Vulcan on October 02, 2015, 11:09:51 PM
It says "phase or step"? Not just step? So then most enchantments could not be revealed during an action phase even if their text doesn't specify that?

Also this means I've been playing wrong for a VERY long time. I always thought that you could reveal enchants during upkeep. Although it probably doesn't come up much except in weird corner cases.

So channeling phase ends, player 1 reveals ghoul rot, then player 2 reveals regrowth,  and player 1 reveals poisoned blood, then upkeep begins. This is a correct procedure?
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: sIKE on October 03, 2015, 12:30:10 AM
On the Revealing Enchantments on page 18 on the 3.3 rulebook:

Quote
You may choose to reveal an enchantment immediately after any action or event, even if it is your opponent’s turn!

I think that the what you are pointing to are examples of when you can reveal Enchantment not to define there limits.

Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: jacksmack on October 03, 2015, 05:30:07 AM
On the Revealing Enchantments on page 18 on the 3.3 rulebook:

Quote
You may choose to reveal an enchantment immediately after any action or event, even if it is your opponent’s turn!

I think that the what you are pointing to are examples of when you can reveal Enchantment not to define there limits.

definately not.

Those are the rules the exception being enchantments that specifically says *must be revealed DURING ....* such as nullify and block.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Kharhaz on October 03, 2015, 09:34:26 AM
So channeling phase ends, player 1 reveals ghoul rot, then player 2 reveals regrowth,  and player 1 reveals poisoned blood, then upkeep begins. This is a correct procedure?

End of the phase player one reveals any number of enchantments, one at a time, until that player is finished. Then it passes to player 2 who can then reveal any number, then back to player 1 and so on until both players pass.

That would technically be the correct procedure, although your example is not wrong
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: sIKE on October 03, 2015, 09:47:38 AM
You can reveal an Enchantment in any Phase there is not a limit to the end of the Phase or anything like that guys.

So I am in the Deploy phase and I realize that I am 2 mana short, but luckily I have a Face Down Decoy attached to a Zone. You are saying that I can not reveal it? I reveal an Enchantment  basically at any time, other than in the middle or end of any of the non-Actions Phases.

Once again I am going to go back to the very first line:
Quote
You can reveal an enchantment immediately after any action or event in the game:

So changing Phases is not an event? A creature healing is not an event?

If so, this is all ludicrous and I am going to walk away from the game.

Please I need an official ruling on this ASAP.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: iNano78 on October 03, 2015, 10:02:54 AM
You can reveal an Enchantment in any Phase there is not a limit to the end of the Phase or anything like that guys.

So I am in the Deploy phase and I realize that I am 2 mana short, but luckily I have a Face Down Decoy attached to a Zone. You are saying that I can not reveal it? I reveal an Enchantment  basically at any time, other than in the middle or end of any of the non-Actions Phases.

Once again I am going to go back to the very first line:
Quote
You can reveal an enchantment immediately after any action or event in the game:

So changing Phases is not an event? A creature healing is not an event?

If so, this is all ludicrous and I am going to walk away from the game.

Please I need an official ruling on this ASAP.

I'm not an official ruling, but the text you quoted is the one to understand. You can reveal an enchantment after any step/phase (or before, since "before Y" is the same as "after X"). Casting a spell, or making an attack, involves several steps, and you may reveal an enchantment after (or before) any of those steps. Similarly, there are channeling, upkeep, planning, deployment and reset phases, and you may reveal an enchantment after (or before) any of those phases. Basically, if the phase or step is listed on the back of the rule book, then there is an opportunity to reveal an enchantment after (or before) that phase/step.

Case in point: the non-Druid might say "After the Channeling Phase (or before the Upkeep Phase), I reveal Poisoned Blood on your Druid." This prevents the Druid from Regenerating via Barkskin.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Laddinfance on October 03, 2015, 10:03:29 AM
Quote
PG 18. (4th Printing Rulebook) "You may choose to reveal an enchantment immediately after any action, step, or phase, even if it is your opponent's turn!"

This should clearly answer sIKE's question.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: exid on October 03, 2015, 10:56:16 AM
euh... i read a lot of "4th rulles"... what is that?
how do i know if i have the 1st, 4th or 9th version?
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: exid on October 03, 2015, 11:00:18 AM
and about the topic: if the fm forgets to reveal the poison blood before the upkeep phase, can the druid reveal his barskin during the upkeep phase?
and if he does, can he regenerate before the fm reveals the poison blood?
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Laddinfance on October 03, 2015, 11:06:23 AM
I appologize for answering a couple of the questions within the bigger question and somehow avoiding the "big" question.

Ok, so to the original question about Barkskin. You can regenerate without paying Barkskin's upkeep. Those are two separate "upkeep effects" and as you control both and they affect your character you get to choose the order they go in.

Now once I say, "I'm regenerating 2 from Barkskin." There is no window for you to reveal enchantments. This is effectively a one step process and as there is no stack there is no FILO to try and cancel the healing with. Now, This is an event and should allow for enchantments to be revealed after. Basically if something just happened, you can reveal an enchantment after it. If there are steps to the process you can reveal between any of the steps of the process.

So Yes sIKE you were right, they couldn't stop the Regenerate in that fashion.

Hopefully this is more on point and what you need.
Title: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Sailor Vulcan on October 03, 2015, 11:22:28 AM
So then the problem is octgn automation. Upkeep costs automatically are put at the beginning of the phase, and since channeling is also automatic there's no space in between for revealing enchants. My opponent and I didn't realize that would be a problem. If we did, he would have regenerated before choosing whether to pay upkeep, after I had not revealed at the end of last round's final qc phase. But his wanting to not pay upkeep was because I revealed poisoned blood...

I'm starting to think that automation in online Mage Wars is like a deal with the devil. It whispers in your ear of easier games and less multitasking, but then gradually drains your ability and desire to play without it, making real life games even harder...

I think from now on I'm going to turn off all automations when I play at least for casual games.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: wtcannonjr on October 03, 2015, 11:39:25 AM
So is it possible to set automation for some phases but not all? This might be a nice feature to have in an Options menu.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: sIKE on October 03, 2015, 02:32:15 PM
I appologize for answering a couple of the questions within the bigger question and somehow avoiding the "big" question.

Ok, so to the original question about Barkskin. You can regenerate without paying Barkskin's upkeep. Those are two separate "upkeep effects" and as you control both and they affect your character you get to choose the order they go in.

Now once I say, "I'm regenerating 2 from Barkskin." There is no window for you to reveal enchantments. This is effectively a one step process and as there is no stack there is no FILO to try and cancel the healing with. Now, This is an event and should allow for enchantments to be revealed after. Basically if something just happened, you can reveal an enchantment after it. If there are steps to the process you can reveal between any of the steps of the process.

So Yes sIKE you were right, they couldn't stop the Regenerate in that fashion.

Hopefully this is more on point and what you need.
And revealing the Poison Blood was legal, even though it would not of effected the Regeneration?
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Laddinfance on October 03, 2015, 02:35:26 PM
Yes.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Zuberi on October 03, 2015, 04:09:13 PM
Okay, now I am confused and quite upset actually. Beforehand, we may have had a slightly messy issue with the use of the word "event" which is not clearly defined, but the 4th edition rules seemed to clear up their obvious intent, which is how I always read them anyways. The line is now very clear that you can only reveal after a step, phase, or action. I do not take the list given below that as just a few examples. It is an exhaustive review of the times you can reveal, which then gives an example of each of these times.

There is no place that describes upkeep effects as "steps," "actions," or "phases." They thus do not qualify for allowing enchantments to be revealed between them. You have to reveal before the Upkeep Phase or after it. You can not reveal during the upkeep phase, as there are no steps or actions occurring within it to allow a reveal, and Laddinfance stating contrary to this is very upsetting to me. There is absolutely nothing in any of the document to support this, and I really dislike it coming out of the blue.

The Upkeep Phase is supposed to be part of the "bookkeeping" of the game. It's not the part where the players go back and forth screwing each other over with enchantments. Allowing enchantments to be revealed during it will give a huge advantage to the person with Initiative because EVERYTHING that occurs during it would be a timing issue because there ARE NO STEPS to resolving these effects. They are all trying to happen simultaneously. They only get applied one at a time because the game is made to be procedural and we need to do so to figure out exactly how things play out.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Sailor Vulcan on October 03, 2015, 04:18:12 PM

Okay, now I am confused and quite upset actually. Beforehand, we may have had a slightly messy issue with the use of the word "event" which is not clearly defined, but the 4th edition rules seemed to clear up their obvious intent, which is how I always read them anyways. The line is now very clear that you can only reveal after a step, phase, or action. I do not take the list given below that as just a few examples. It is an exhaustive review of the times you can reveal, which then gives an example of each of these times.

There is no place that describes upkeep effects as "steps," "actions," or "phases." They thus do not qualify for allowing enchantments to be revealed between them. You have to reveal before the Upkeep Phase or after it. You can not reveal during the upkeep phase, as there are no steps or actions occurring within it to allow a reveal, and Laddinfance stating contrary to this is very upsetting to me. There is absolutely nothing in any of the document to support this, and I really dislike it coming out of the blue.

The Upkeep Phase is supposed to be part of the "bookkeeping" of the game. It's not the part where the players go back and forth screwing each other over with enchantments. Allowing enchantments to be revealed during it will give a huge advantage to the person with Initiative because EVERYTHING that occurs during it would be a timing issue because there ARE NO STEPS to resolving these effects. They are all trying to happen simultaneously. They only get applied one at a time because the game is made to be procedural and we need to do so to figure out exactly how things play out.

Um...yeah that's actually a REALLY good point.

...How did we not notice that?
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: sIKE on October 03, 2015, 04:24:44 PM
I understand Zuberi, as I was upset with how you described it. It has always been my understanding since I started playing back in 2012 that I could reveal an enchantment at any time during the game. Though it couldn't effect anything in the past nor interrupt something already in progress.

Yes I have played it where you can affect players during upkeep or any other point in the game. Matter of fact I have played games where I only had enough mana to bind an Enchantment during the Actions Phase and banked on the fact that I would have mana after Channeling to reveal the card during the Upkeep Phase. I know your argument would be that I could do that at the end of the Channeling Phase, but not at the beginning of the Upkeep phase, which still makes no sense to me. Why would a mage be able to finish resolving the Matrix of an Enchantment one second 3 (a place holder for any Game Phase ) but not second 4 (a place holder for any Game Phase following the previous Game Phase)?

The spell is already cast and bound what timing are you talking about? I (the player with Initiative) choose to Regenerate my Unicorn before I apply Burns. That is timing! You (the player without Initiative) choose to reveal Poisoned Blood before I say I am going to Regenerate my Unicorn. That is timing. This is how I have always played....
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Zuberi on October 03, 2015, 04:34:00 PM
The regeneration and the burning are happening at the same time. The player simply decides whether or not that may result in the creatures death by deciding the order to resolve them in. Choosing how to resolve the Upkeep Phase does not change the fact the entire Upkeep Phase is a SINGLE event with it's effects happening simultaneously, and enchantments can not interrupt something in progress.

It would be similar to wanting to reveal an enchantment after taking damage but before applying the effects of an attack roll. They both happen at the same time.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Laddinfance on October 03, 2015, 04:53:34 PM
I could go into a long story about why we originally decided when to allow enchantments to be revealed. I'm not going to. I responded the way that I did because in my work on the 4th printing rules we changed the text that to include the addition of all the steps and phases. We did not make that change as a limiter but as a clarifier about how broad the scope really was. In any complex system the efforts to make things simple and understandable often have unforeseen consequences. This is one of those times.

Right now I could only tell you how I play. But I don't think that's of much interest to anyone. Bryan is on his way to Germany right now, and so he cannot answer this question until he returns. Right now it would seem he's the one who can answer this.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: ringkichard on October 03, 2015, 04:55:34 PM
At work, away from rules. Please provide cite for upkeep being simultaneous. Thought the rules were pretty explicit: when disputed, things happen in order determined by player with initiative.

Didn't think mage wars *did* simultaneous, just no legal opportunity to reveal.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Zuberi on October 03, 2015, 05:22:40 PM
Things are always resolved one at a time, but that doesn't mean they aren't representing simultaneous occurrences. If you step into a zone with multiple Enter Zone Effects, they all occur the moment you enter that zone even though you have to resolve them one at a time. When an attack is made against you, the Damage and Effects are occurring at the same time, even though you may have to resolve them one at a time (see Corrode). The same is true for Upkeep. They are all happening at the same time, you just have to resolve them one at a time to make sense out of it within the rules. However, these simultaneous events do not allow a chance to reveal enchantments despite them being resolved one at a time, unless they have substeps to them. That's a big reason for grouping them into phases and steps to begin with. A phase or step tells you "this stuff is all happening right now." They tell you what is happening simultaneously and what isn't by telling you what can be interrupted and what can't.

Now, if the different effects during upkeep count as steps, then that would change matters, but there is no place that they are ever referred to as steps. Up until this point, steps seemed to be a very clearly defined term with very specific meaning. Everything that was a step was clearly labeled as such. Now it seems like we can call anything we want to a step. We no longer have any clear rule for what can be interrupted by enchantments and what can't, because we get to arbitrarily decide what counts as a step. Does rolling the burn die and applying the burn damage count as two different steps? Does rolling each individual die during an attack count as different steps?

Before we had very clear rules for what could happen when, and now it is all subjective and open to argument. It would be a rules nightmare to try and clarify each and every possibility if we destroy the framework outlined in the rules and open "step" up to subjective interpretation.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Zuberi on October 03, 2015, 05:28:37 PM
On the plus side, if we can break things down arbitrarily, it will open up a lot of things in Academy that some of us have lamented. It doesn't matter that rolling dice and applying damage has been condensed into a single step if you can still reveal enchantments between the two.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: sIKE on October 03, 2015, 05:41:35 PM
Clearly you see issues where I don't. I do not believe that everything happens simultaneously and we just order them to make logical sense to us.

For example Burns. During the Upkeep phase you have to roll the Effect die to see if the "Fire goes out". You can also Regenerate (you have to you don't have choice it has to happen). You can choose  to Regenerate before or after the Burn roll. How could this be if everything happened "simultaneously"? My creature with Regeneration and a Burn but no Damage, I decide that the Burn happens first, then Regenerate if needed. My second Creature with Regeneration and a Burn with 1 Life left, I decided to go with the Regeneration first, then the Burns. You process things sequentially just like you do in any phase, and while Creature A runs around the Arena screaming while on Fire (2 damage from Burns), and Creature B drops and rolls (Burn Removed). Does that happen at the same exact second just because we are it a single point in time? I think not.

All the while you opponent is watching your creature running around the Arena screaming whist on fire and decides to reveal a Poisoned Blood Enchantment attached to him before your decide to check if the Fire is going to go out. That check is an event. There are dice rolled and potential damage is applied. As long as he choose to do that before you Regenerate that is the event, then the Finite Life trait would prevent that from happening.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: sIKE on October 03, 2015, 05:45:37 PM
On the plus side, if we can break things down arbitrarily, it will open up a lot of things in Academy that some of us have lamented. It doesn't matter that rolling dice and applying damage has been condensed into a single step if you can still reveal enchantments between the two.
If it is a single event or step then you can not interrupt it after it has happened. In Academy once the dice are rolled you cannot reveal an Enchantment before you apply the damage and have it effect the roll or the application of damage.

I wish that these rules were written as such:
Quote
You may choose to reveal an enchantment immediately after any action, step, or phase, even if it is your opponent's turn!" Enchantments may be revealed at any point during a Phase, though it cannot affect an event that occurred before it was revealed.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Zuberi on October 03, 2015, 05:58:46 PM
Quote from: sIKE
Does that happen at the same exact second just because we are it a single point in time? I think not.

Yes. A single point in time means at the same time.

Quote from: sIKE
f it is a single event or step then you can not interrupt it after it has happened.

The problem is we no longer know what qualifies as a single event or step. Before today, the Upkeep Phase was a single event, but now it can apparently be broken down into smaller chunks. What's preventing us from breaking other things down into smaller pieces as well? How small of a piece can we get? What defines it? We don't know! It's all up to the imagination! With this ruling there is no way for us to know what can be interrupted with an enchantment and what can't. Anything can be made into a valid argument, and shutting those arguments down individually is not practical.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Zuberi on October 03, 2015, 06:04:22 PM
We need a hard definition for when enchantments can be revealed that is not open to any subjective opinions or interpretations. I was very satisfied with it being after a step, phase, or activation. If others are not satisfied with that and want to include other things, I'm not opposed to errata and rules changes. But we would need to clearly define what those other things are, and that currently is not the case. Currently the only clear rules are after a step, phase, or activation, and until other allowances are clearly defined I will be strongly opposed to them.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: sIKE on October 03, 2015, 06:23:20 PM
It is totally amazing that after 3 or so years that there is such a large gap between groups of players and their understanding of the rules, Enchantments are really a signature of Mage Wars, and it appears that there have been two distinct groups of player playing them totally different. By the way, I do see how this could interpreted your way.

Quote from: sIKE
Does that happen at the same exact second just because we are it a single point in time? I think not.

Yes. A single point in time means at the same time.

How does the Quickcast Phases work then? I can't choose to reveal Hawkeye before my Wizard uses his Arcane Zap? But he can after the Zap is used, why?

The problem is we no longer know what qualifies as a single event or step. Before today, the Upkeep Phase was a single event, but now it can apparently be broken down into smaller chunks. What's preventing us from breaking other things down into smaller pieces as well? How small of a piece can we get? What defines it? We don't know! It's all up to the imagination! With this ruling there is no way for us to know what can be interrupted with an enchantment and what can't. Anything can be made into a valid argument, and shutting those arguments down individually is not practical.
I'm not getting it, at all! Nothing in the game or rules have indicated that everything happens at the same exact moment during any of the Phases. I do mean from a logical point of view. I.e. During the reset phase all the creatures Action markers are flipped to the active side. Yes IRL I flip them one (or two) at a time in sequence, but really that happens at the same time, it just takes me a minute to visually match reality. But there is nothing in the rules that say I cannot reveal a Harmonize on my Battleforge before I Reset happens on my Creatures, and that I can only reveal it once I am done flipping the markers and saying I am done with the Reset Phase, nor is there a rule saying I can not reveal Harmonize on my Battleforge before I Channel (obviously I have to have the Mana on hand before I do either), if I forgot and did not reveal it at the end of the Channeling Phase, then my Battleforge would not Channel the one extra mana. But as far as I understand, I am not prevented from revealing an Enchantment at the beginning of a non-Creature Actions Phase.

Here is a blast from the past on a specific Enchantment and its timing:

http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=12326.msg25662#msg25662
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: sIKE on October 03, 2015, 06:27:17 PM
Hard definition:

Anytime, unless specifically written on the card. You can not interrupt something already happening.

Very simple and straight forward.

What is most interesting on Barkskin itself, is that you can choose to Regenerate before you pay Upkeep. I have been playing that all wrong.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Laddinfance on October 03, 2015, 06:38:12 PM
The problem is we no longer know what qualifies as a single event or step. Before today, the Upkeep Phase was a single event, but now it can apparently be broken down into smaller chunks. What's preventing us from breaking other things down into smaller pieces as well? How small of a piece can we get? What defines it? We don't know! It's all up to the imagination! With this ruling there is no way for us to know what can be interrupted with an enchantment and what can't. Anything can be made into a valid argument, and shutting those arguments down individually is not practical.

In the previous rulebook and this one, all of the things you process through in the upkeep phase were referred to as events. So, previously you should have been able to reveal an enchantment during that phase as long as there was something to process.

None of this is to say that having things better defined isn't a good idea. And as I mentioned previously, I need Bryan to answer this, and he's traveling.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: sIKE on October 03, 2015, 06:44:08 PM
Wow, page 7 in the Mage wars manual v3.3:

Quote
You always choose the order in which events that affect your creatures and objects occur during this phase. In the rare case that a timing issue occurs, the player with the initiative decides the order.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Laddinfance on October 03, 2015, 06:51:52 PM
It's also in the 4th printing rulebook as well. The thing that I need to be able to sort this is Bryan. He's the only one who knows if the word "event" was intentionally removed to limit revealing opportunity or if it unintentionally did so.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Sailor Vulcan on October 03, 2015, 07:00:58 PM
Quote
It is totally amazing that after 3 or so years that there is such a large gap between groups of players and their understanding of the rules, Enchantments are really a signature of Mage Wars, and it appears that there have been two distinct groups of player playing them totally different. By the way, I do see how this could interpreted your way.

Yeah. Although to be fair, the reason for that is probably that a lot of people understand the rules really well on an intuitive level but not as much from a precise technical level. Part of the problem is that it was never explicitly stated that the upkeep can't be interrupted. It is merely the only possibility that doesn't cause the rules to contradict themselves.

EDIT: Oh wow, good find sIKE. So the rules actually contradict themselves already...

Now that I think of it, I think most people know intuitively that adramelech's touch needs to be revealed BEFORE rolling blanks for burns, not after, in order to have an effect on those burns. When the burns roll blanks and adramelech's touch has not been revealed yet, the automation on octgn causes the burns to immediately disappear, and I've yet to see anyone argue that they should have been allowed to reveal touch and preserve the burns after the fact. If you ask them, "why didn't you wait until you saw the result before revealing adramelech's touch?" they probably won't know exactly why. They likely will say that they weren't thinking about it and just playing normally. And yet they will consistently play it that way every time until you point it out to them. Or at least every time I can recall someone using Adramelech's Touch, that was how they played it. I do not remember anyone waiting until they saw the result of the burn roll before revealing adramelech's touch and paying for the burns to stay.

Quote
In the previous rulebook and this one, all of the things you process through in the upkeep phase were referred to as events. So, previously you should have been able to reveal an enchantment during that phase as long as there was something to process.

None of this is to say that having things better defined isn't a good idea. And as I mentioned previously, I need Bryan to answer this, and he's traveling.

The word event isn't just poorly defined, it's not defined at all, and it isn't seen anywhere else at all. As far as I know, the word "event" is ONLY relevant to this particular case with the upkeep phase. If we play as Zuberi's saying, practically nothing about gameplay as it currently is will change. But if we play according to this ruling, all sorts of terrible corner cases will be unleashed that were never an issue before, and gameplay will likely change more significantly all around.

How long until Mr. Pope gets back from Germany then? I was hoping to play some mage wars on octgn tonight, but don't want to end up having arguments with my opponents because of a strange game-breaking ruling.

I think the best thing we can do at this point is to all agree to house rule it until he gets back.

The house rule I most recommend is that we follow the RAW and all rulings except this one and the one sIKE found until Mr. Pope has the chance to either rectify or clarify both Laddinfance's ruling and the ruling that sIKE found. To be clear, that would most likely mean that we would play as Zuberi said, with enchantments being revealable directly before or after the upkeep phase, since all upkeep effects occur simultaneously and enchantments can't interrupt anything that's already in progress. This house rule wouldn't change much of anything from how everyone already plays the game in real life anyways, and I do think that this interpretation is more fair. If a creature has an enemy death link and a friendly regrowth on them, I don't think they should die just because it's the opponent's initiative, since if it were a ghoul rot and not a death link the creature's controller would still get to choose the order and the creature wouldn't die!

All in favor, unless anyone has any better ideas?
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Zuberi on October 03, 2015, 07:21:46 PM
Hard definition:

Anytime, unless specifically written on the card. You can not interrupt something already happening.

Very simple and straight forward.

What is most interesting on Barkskin itself, is that you can choose to Regenerate before you pay Upkeep. I have been playing that all wrong.

The problem is, if we don't have an exact definition for an "event" then a person can always make an argument to break something down into multiple events, allowing them to interrupt the effect without breaking the rules. Because, by their argument, they are revealing between events rather than interrupting one. In practice, this would mean everything is interruptible unless specifically stated otherwise, which would cause chaos.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Laddinfance on October 03, 2015, 07:28:42 PM
EDIT: Oh wow, good find sIKE. So the rules actually contradict themselves already...

That part has been in the rules since at least the second version of the rulebook. (Sadly I don't have the right software to look at the original rulebook). So this is not a ruling. It did not come out of the blue. It's been sitting there staring at us. Though looking at the second version of the rulebook was pretty interesting as it has a different phrasing of when enchantments can be revealed. At the point you were simply told you couldn't reveal enchantments during an action or event, all other times were valid.

In the process to try and clear up exactly when enchantments could be revealed, I feel we've entered this quagmire that we're in right now. And frankly the best solution is one that is very very time consuming. But from seeing this, it seems that we need it.

For now, ignore my ruling. That's fine, I've said as much thus far. However there is no need ignore that passage in the rulebook. The text I quoted from the fourth printing rulebook should keep that clean as well. Since it does not reference "events" then you can just ignore those. The rules are not contradicting themselves right now, the only issue is one of intent. That being said it also seems very clear to me that you use to be able to reveal enchantments in the upkeep phase. Now we're in a muddy area.

So, for the sake of playing Mage Wars, I don't think there are really any issues for you Sailor Vulcan, at least not with this. However, there is still something important to resolve.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: sIKE on October 03, 2015, 07:56:27 PM
The house rule I most recommend is that we follow the RAW and all rulings except this one and the one sIKE found until Mr. Pope has the chance to either rectify or clarify both Laddinfance's ruling and the ruling that sIKE found. To be clear, that would most likely mean that we would play as Zuberi said, with enchantments being revealable directly before or after the upkeep phase, since all upkeep effects occur simultaneously and enchantments can't interrupt anything that's already in progress. This house rule wouldn't change much of anything from how everyone already plays the game in real life anyways, and I do think that this interpretation is more fair. If a creature has an enemy death link and a friendly regrowth on them, I don't think they should die just because it's the opponent's initiative, since if it were a ghoul rot and not a death link the creature's controller would still get to choose the order and the creature wouldn't die!

All in favor, unless anyone has any better ideas?
Huh, what I said and Laddin pointed out, is the opposite of what Zuberi has been saying.

And I don't get where rules contradict themselves. I see that people have differing interpretations of the same rule set, but nothing that is contradictory.

As discussed last night on your Poisoned Blood / Barkskin ruling I made, is how I think things should of been ruled and how I will continue to rule unless Bryan says otherwise (and I that point I walk away).
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: ringkichard on October 03, 2015, 08:27:34 PM
I'm pretty sure I've quoted the "event" language before, and it's what I've relied on. I'm firmly on the "yes, you can reveal after anything happens" faction.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: sIKE on October 03, 2015, 08:41:36 PM
I'm pretty sure I've quoted the "event" language before, and it's what I've relied on. I'm firmly on the "yes, you can reveal after anything happens" faction.
What about before?
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Coshade on October 03, 2015, 08:57:33 PM
For playing on OCTGN with Poisoned blood and Regenerate.

I would suggest declaring before you say your are done with your Final Quickcast phase to just state that during channeling you will be reveal a poisoned blood to prevent the regeneration during upkeep. Since you can regenerate before paying upkeep for Barkskin it makes sense to reveal it before upkeep phase anyway. So while automation does do things nicely and cleanly, you can always just use words to communicate what isn't automated (yet).

Also to go with with how OCTGN mirrors a lot of things in real life. People tend to rush through the phases really quick. Often I say at the end of the Quickcast round what my intent is with poisoned blood (or any other enchantment) just to make upkeep phases that much easier. I actually find playing in real life a lot harder to keep up with enchantment reveals then in OCTGN.

As always it's best to ask your opponent if they have an enchantment to reveal if you suspect it could affect the game play.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: sIKE on October 03, 2015, 09:11:06 PM
For the upcoming release 2.x release of the Mage Wars module on OCTGN, I am planning (it is already in progress) to completely rework the Phase Management in the game and was planning on adding each Phase including the 4 that are currently consolidated and automated together. Further I was planning on making it so that you could either automatically advance through Reset/Initiative Phases and land in the Channeling Phase or Manually advance through all of them. This work will also fix several of the disconnect/reconnect issues that currently exist in the module.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: ringkichard on October 03, 2015, 09:37:07 PM
What about before?

Quote from: rules 3-3
Important: Hidden Enchantments have no effect as long as they are hidden! You may choose to reveal an enchantment immediately after any action or event, even if it is your opponent’s turn! This is a “free action” that does not require you to activate a creature or flip an action marker (See sidebar “When Can You Reveal?”).

So, no. Right? If you want to do something before a specific event, you have to do it after the prior event. Which is why you have to reveal Rhino Hide "after the Roll Dice Step" instead of "before the Apply Damage and Effects step."

I'm only going by the 3-3 version of the rules, because that's what's online (and--I think-- that's also my physical copy). I'd love to have a copy of v.4 and a change-log, if such a thing exists.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: sIKE on October 03, 2015, 10:03:48 PM
I think we both are saying yes, before or after an event...
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: exid on October 04, 2015, 12:41:46 AM
I'm only going by the 3-3 version of the rules, because that's what's online (and--I think-- that's also my physical copy). I'd love to have a copy of v.4 and a change-log, if such a thing exists.
that's my problem: i don't know witch copy i have and where to find the 4th version you talk about!

about the enchantment revealing during upkeep,
1) i think i never thought about this... but a lot of problems are minor because it's ok to reveal the enchantment at the end of the channel.

2) if i understand well, if i have 1 damage + 1 burn + 1 regenerate 2 + 1 hidden enchantement from my opponent
- i can regenerate only one damage and burn later,
- or burn first, giving my opponent the opportunity to reveal a poison blood and get no regeneration

3) i see a contradiction in the rulles: when my opponent reveals a poison blood on me, it afects my creatures, so i should decide when it occures... on my point 2) i could decide to burn, regenerate and make my opponent reveal his poison blood later!
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Zuberi on October 04, 2015, 12:47:19 AM
Here is an example (http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=16014.msg57776#msg57776) of the chaos this ruling has wrought. Can you reveal an enchantment after Purify removes a condition or an enchantment? An "event" has occurred within the Resolve Spell Step, so despite the step not being completed there has been an opportunity created for enchantment reveal. There is no rule that prevents revealing during a step that couldn't also be applied to the Upkeep Phase, so saying one can be broken down further also allows the other to be. Allows ANYTHING to be actually, since we don't know what in the world an event is.

Being able to reveal after an "event" with no clear definition of what the heck that means is going to allow people to reveal at ANY time because almost anything can be broken down into smaller events. The rule for not interrupting something in progress will become virtually meaningless, because I'll just argue that your something is in fact two somethings and that I'm revealing between them.

This ruling would cause so much confusion, I can't believe people are advocating for it.

For example, with Regeneration there is no place that says that all of the healing happens at once. It just happens during the Upkeep Phase. Thus, even if you choose to Regenerate before paying the Upkeep cost of Barkskin, I would argue you only get to heal 1 point of damage, and then that creates an event for me to reveal Poison Blood and prevent the second point of healing.

Any spell with multiple effects can easily be argued to have multiple events during the resolve spell step. Any attack that has effects will have multiple events occur during the damage and effects step. Leaving a zone or entering a zone can involve multiple events. Individual effects can be broken down into multiple events. With enough creativity, the whole tower crumbles and there is no way for us to squash each of these abuses individually. We need a general rule that prevents them and gives us clear directions on when enchantments can be revealed.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: sIKE on October 04, 2015, 01:20:00 AM
Your mixing results and events up here. Regeneration is the event, the healing is the result. A move from one zone to the other is an event the result is the creature finishes in another zone. You cannot interrupt the movement (result) after the event has started. Otherwise as you have stated, chaos.

For casting/attacks there are very specific additional rules defined for when you can reveal: in between each step, even though the casting of the spell is the actual event.

Events really need to be defined explicitly for you, not an insult, just an observation. Events are something that you do Move/Cast a Spell/Attack/Quick Actions (like Guarding), and during Upkeep you process objects that have Upkeep based effects which results in an event and the results of the event. Example: I am going to Regenerate and remove 2 Damage from my Highland Unicorn. That is an event, the result is 2 points of damage are removed from my Unicorn. Once I state I am going to Regenerate, my opponent can no longer reveal a hidden Enchantment that would change the results of the Regenerate effect. However if I said "I am going to" and my opponent interrupts me and says I am going to reveal Poisoned Blood on your Unicorn. Then that is legal and the Finite Life trait is applied to the Unicorn overriding the Regenerate trait.

Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: exid on October 04, 2015, 01:54:01 AM
Example: I am going to Regenerate and remove 2 Damage from my Highland Unicorn. That is an event, the result is 2 points of damage are removed from my Unicorn. Once I state I am going to Regenerate, my opponent can no longer reveal a hidden Enchantment that would change the results of the Regenerate effect. However if I said "I am going to" and my opponent interrupts me and says I am going to reveal Poisoned Blood on your Unicorn. Then that is legal and the Finite Life trait is applied to the Unicorn overriding the Regenerate trait.

as i said higher, the poison blood afects one of your creature, so you can decide to make it be revealed later!
that's a strange way to play, but it avoids a horrible "interupt"!
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Zuberi on October 04, 2015, 06:20:16 AM
FYI, you can interrupt moves now by revealing in between the steps of a move action. But your arguments against revealing during a step are confusing. Before, my interpretation was that you can not interrupt a phase except after an activation or step because they are explicitly mentioned. But now you say we are also allowed after an "event." If we are, then shouldn't we always be allowed to after an event? And steps may contain multiple events just as easily as phases may. It is logically consistent that if you can interrupt one thing because it contains sub-opportunities for revealing, that you can interrupt other things that also contain those opportunities, and there is no rule that contradicts this. Then following that path of thought and the fact that we don't have a hard definition of event, we end up with the weird abuses mentioned.

Your suggested definition of an event as the combination of initiating and resolving an effect is not a bad one, but still leaves a lot of things open. Such as, I would argue that nothing is initiated during the upkeep phase. You merely resolve effects already in place. Also, this definition does not solve interrupting steps or effects that contain multiple effects within themselves. If you initiate something that involves doing multiple things, such as applying both damage and various effects during combat, can you reveal between these multiple effects or do you have to wait until the entire initiated event is complete? If it's the latter, then wouldn't that apply to initiating the upkeep phase and resolving all of its constituent effects as well?
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: jacksmack on October 04, 2015, 07:13:23 AM
In all the games i have played no one has ever revealed an enchantment during the upkeep phase, any one who attempted to do so agreed that it was wrong, and could only be done before.
So while on OCTGN it appears like a regrowth is being revealed DURING the upkeep due to the automation im a firm believer that everyone i have played with considered it revealed after the channeling phase, BEFORE the upkeep.

Whats next? is it possible to split channeling into steps so you reveal that harmonize you couldnt afford the round before and benefit from it in that same phase?
And if not on yourself because somebody will argue that you get your entire channeling in one go, can you then do it on your familiar / spawnpoint?


Edit:
We can now also ET essence drain around during the upkeep phase to give more than 1 creature an upkeep.

How do you roll for multi burns with a hidden healing charm? Can you roll 1 burn at a time to so you avoid a chance of killing the creature while granting healing charm to benefit fully from a high roll. Same with multiple rot's - add rots down to 1 HP, heal, then add remaing rots.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: wtcannonjr on October 04, 2015, 09:21:26 AM
Here is a comparison of the rule changes on this topic between version 3.3 (online) and the version 4.0 (printed in new MWA Core Set). The red underlined text are the key changes we have been discussing.

Version 3.3 p 18.
"You may choose to reveal an enchantment immediately after any action or event, even if it is your opponent's turn!"

Version 4.0 p 18.
"You may choose to reveal an enchantment immediately after any action, step, or phase, even it is your opponent's turn!"

The respective wording is repeated in the side bar titled WHEN CAN YOU REVEAL? on p. 19 of each version of the rule set.

It seems this would support Zuberi's rationale that revealing enchantments after an "event" is no longer supported in the new rules.

This is further supported by the wording changes in the bullet points of the new side bar on p. 19. I always played that the first 5 bullet points represent the only times you can reveal an enchantment. The final bullet point which states "You cannot interrupt an event to reveal an enchantment." is more to clarify the timing of revealing enchantments during an eligible point in the round. i.e. If the initiative player is revealing an enchantment at the end of a Step, then the opponent cannot interrupt this event and the effect of the revealed enchantment will happen before any new enchantment is revealed.

Just my two cents ...
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: sIKE on October 04, 2015, 09:52:25 AM
Now I am frustrated, there steps when cast a spell (which as I have explained clearly is the event in question), there are no sub-events within a spell being cast. Trying real hard not to express my severe frustration about all of the sudden events are everywhere and being a part of everything. It is quite clear though not a codex entry is something that you do, not the sub-actions of the event. Rolling 5 attack dice and the event die is a step (period the end), if you wish to roll one at time that is not an event, that is the result of the step.

This is very simple and thematic, what you describe is totally not. Once again what about Quick Cast? Any finally why would magic work this way?
 
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: wtcannonjr on October 04, 2015, 08:39:54 PM
This is very simple and thematic, what you describe is totally not. Once again what about Quick Cast? Any finally why would magic work this way?

Here is my take on Quickcast -

Quickcast is a term used by the rules to describe both a Phase and an Action. I use the back of the rulebook summary to remind myself of this. The term appears as a Phase at the beginning and end of the Action Stage. It is also listed under the Actions section on that page with two bullet points describing when the action can be used. Once you use the Quickcast Action it moves the player to the Cast Spell Action which is defined by 4 Steps as shown in the upper right portion of the rules back page.

I use this page as a visual reminder for when an enchantment can be revealed since it identifies the Phases, Actions, and Steps that make up a single Game Round with one noted exception that I can think of - Special Actions. Some spells add special actions as effects or abilities which then become other points in the Game Round where an Enchantment can be revealed.

Note - this page was also updated in the version 4.0 rules to reflect the clarification and definitions of Actions and Steps.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: exid on October 04, 2015, 11:59:55 PM
i understand that the 4th rulles version is in a box i didn't bought but not yet on the website.
will it be soon?
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Laddinfance on October 05, 2015, 08:13:18 AM
i understand that the 4th rulles version is in a box i didn't bought but not yet on the website.
will it be soon?

As soon as I can. I'm talking to scott about it today.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: exid on October 05, 2015, 09:39:28 AM
i understand that the 4th rulles version is in a box i didn't bought but not yet on the website.
will it be soon?

As soon as I can. I'm talking to scott about it today.

thanks!
all these rulle problems are very interesting, but if we don't read the same rulles version its harder.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Kelanen on October 09, 2015, 01:23:04 PM
Okay... I don't often post over here, but I'm a good MW tournament player (dropped one game in the last three tournaments frex) I'm good on rules, I've played various CCG's to national and ProTour level (and money finishes), and have had Judge and Rules Guru levels for some. None of that means anything for Mage Wars directly, I'm just pointing out that I'm not just a casual player, and I am quite used to picking apart rules and wordings, and reversing a whole card's effect based on the position of where the colon or comma is...

Now that I think of it, I think most people know intuitively that adramelech's touch needs to be revealed BEFORE rolling blanks for burns, not after, in order to have an effect on those burns. When the burns roll blanks and adramelech's touch has not been revealed yet, the automation on octgn causes the burns to immediately disappear, and I've yet to see anyone argue that they should have been allowed to reveal touch and preserve the burns after the fact. If you ask them, "why didn't you wait until you saw the result before revealing adramelech's touch?" they probably won't know exactly why. They likely will say that they weren't thinking about it and just playing normally. And yet they will consistently play it that way every time until you point it out to them. Or at least every time I can recall someone using Adramelech's Touch, that was how they played it. I do not remember anyone waiting until they saw the result of the burn roll before revealing adramelech's touch and paying for the burns to stay.

I have been playing this that the reveal will almost always be after a blank is rolled, but before it's applied. In just the same way as I will wait until after non-critical damage is rolled, before revealing Brace Yourself/Rhino-Hide.

Intuitively, that makes complete sense to me, and is in keeping with everything else I know (or knew, until the world just blew up!).

I'm pretty sure I've quoted the "event" language before, and it's what I've relied on. I'm firmly on the "yes, you can reveal after anything happens" faction.

Indeed.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Beldin on October 09, 2015, 06:02:18 PM
Hi guys, I am a CCG game player of a number of years and have been a combo expert that relies on the wordings of cards to be precise and changing entire combos and overturning my opponents game by reading text and spotting things that normally would get overlooked.

I have put together how I see an event to work, and it as follows:

Quote
EVENT

An event is a free action that can only happen between the following:

1) The phases of a turn, (Eg. between Channeling and Upkeep).
2) The 8 phases of combat. (Eg. between roll damage and resolve damage).
3) The 3 major phases of spell casting. (Eg. between Cast Magic and Counter Spell Step).
4) Before or after an activation of an action counter.
5) Before or after the use of a ready marker.

An event cannot interrupt something that has already started to resolve, eg a movement action, dice rolls, etc.

Once an event is in progress it is counted as a resolving action and thus cannot be interrupted.

Each event follows the following resolution:

1) Reveal Event.
2) Pay cost.
3) Resolve any modification caused by the event.

Please feel free to modify and rip apart. It is just how I personally saw this working, as this needs to be sorted out as this can win and lose matches.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: DaveW on October 09, 2015, 07:41:41 PM
Now that I think of it, I think most people know intuitively that adramelech's touch needs to be revealed BEFORE rolling blanks for burns, not after, in order to have an effect on those burns. When the burns roll blanks and adramelech's touch has not been revealed yet, the automation on octgn causes the burns to immediately disappear, and I've yet to see anyone argue that they should have been allowed to reveal touch and preserve the burns after the fact. If you ask them, "why didn't you wait until you saw the result before revealing adramelech's touch?" they probably won't know exactly why. They likely will say that they weren't thinking about it and just playing normally. And yet they will consistently play it that way every time until you point it out to them. Or at least every time I can recall someone using Adramelech's Touch, that was how they played it. I do not remember anyone waiting until they saw the result of the burn roll before revealing adramelech's touch and paying for the burns to stay.

I have been playing this that the reveal will almost always be after a blank is rolled, but before it's applied. In just the same way as I will wait until after non-critical damage is rolled, before revealing Brace Yourself/Rhino-Hide.

Intuitively, that makes complete sense to me, and is in keeping with everything else I know (or knew, until the world just blew up!).

The text says that you pay one mana to keep the burn on the creature... but only applies if the enchantment is already revealed. Rolling a die (outside the casting of a spell / attack sequence) does not provide an opportunity to reveal enchantments, so you can not reveal Addy's Touch (and make use of it) after rolling dice for the burns. If you roll a blank... the burn goes away.

You can reveal Rhino Hide, etc., during a normal attack sequence because there are specific steps in that sequence for roll dice, separate from the step for taking damage. There is no such step (or whatever you want to call it) during the die roll for a burn.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Zuberi on October 10, 2015, 08:41:54 AM
@Beldin:
You have basically described how I believe enchantments to work. If this was your intention, then we wouldn't really need to define "event". We'd have a solid rule as to when enchantments can and can not be revealed. Immediately after a phase, step, or activation, which are all well defined terms.

The one part I disagree with is after a ready marker is used, as that implies that players can respond between flipping the marker and actually resolving the effect that the marker indicates, which I do not believe is the case. Ready markers also aren't really a type of occurrence unto themselves. They are used to remind you of any limited use effect that you may have.

It is important also to note that with 4th edition, all enchantments can now be revealed between the steps of a Movement Action. There is also the possibility for some enchantments to be revealed between the steps of Revealing an Enchantment (currently only Mind Shield) but only when they specifically indicate so.

@DaveW:
This just goes to show the type of confusion this ruling has wrought and why we should ignore it. If we allowed enchantments to be revealed after an "event" then there is nothing in the rules to say that Kelanen's method is incorrect. Who is to say that rolling the die and applying the damage aren't two separate events? Indeed, there seems to be support for that kind of judgement based on them being two separate steps during combat. Since we don't know what an event is, it is all up to interpretation and using what we know about how the game works in other cases. The fact that we are seeing differing opinions on these things, which most of us take for granted, just stresses how bad a call this is. We need to forget about "events" and just go with the rule that enchantments can only be revealed immediately after a phase, step, or activation.

Anything else just seems like a major rules headache to me.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: ringkichard on October 10, 2015, 10:53:20 AM
I'm suspicious that there are common interactions that require the event language, but I can't actually think of any at the moment, so that may be pure blind prejudice on my part.

Are we sure there aren't any official examples of e.g. enchantments being revealed during the upkeep?

I think things might be clarified by having a rules definition of event.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: sIKE on October 10, 2015, 12:34:19 PM
The ruling for Mind Control was anytime not during a creatures action, including any point during the Ready Stage. I linked to it a while back. With that said, both approaches, the one I defined or Zuberi's would still work in that case.

I still do not get the difference "magically" between the end of one phase and beginning of the next from a revealing an Enchantment perspective.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: ringkichard on October 10, 2015, 01:33:54 PM
I still do not get the difference "magically" between the end of one phase and beginning of the next from a revealing an Enchantment perspective.

I will consider this.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Sailor Vulcan on October 10, 2015, 05:53:14 PM

The ruling for Mind Control was anytime not during a creatures action, including any point during the Ready Stage. I linked to it a while back. With that said, both approaches, the one I defined or Zuberi's would still work in that case.

I still do not get the difference "magically" between the end of one phase and beginning of the next from a revealing an Enchantment perspective.

The difference is that Mage Wars is turn based rather than in real time. If it were real life, there would be no turns.

The reason might have something to do with conjurations and their activated abilities. Dancing scimitar's attack can only be used at the end of its controlling mage's action phase, but not the beginning of the next. If you could attack with dancing scimitar after your opponent used ballista but before they activate their mage, that would be ridiculous.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: wtcannonjr on October 10, 2015, 10:18:48 PM
The ruling for Mind Control was anytime not during a creatures action, including any point during the Ready Stage. I linked to it a while back. With that said, both approaches, the one I defined or Zuberi's would still work in that case.

I still do not get the difference "magically" between the end of one phase and beginning of the next from a revealing an Enchantment perspective.

For me I always go back to reality - "MW Arena is foremost a boardgame" and not a comprehensive simulation of a magical world. I think if we define "event" at a lower hierarchy than step as an element in the game round that allows player interruptions, then it slows down play. A player could consider whether to reveal after each individual event happens within a given step. By keeping the opponents reaction at the end of step level it ensures that the player executing any step can resolve all the game activities required to complete the step without waiting for the opponents decision. The result is simpler mechanics that lead to faster play.

Consider the extreme case where a mage might only be allowed to reveal an Enchantment at the end of a Phase. This would allow even fewer opportunities for interrupts to happen. A design limit has to be set to keep the game moving so that it is not always in a pause mode while the opponent decides whether to reveal an Enchantment or not.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: sIKE on October 10, 2015, 11:08:08 PM
The ruling for Mind Control was anytime not during a creatures action, including any point during the Ready Stage. I linked to it a while back. With that said, both approaches, the one I defined or Zuberi's would still work in that case.

I still do not get the difference "magically" between the end of one phase and beginning of the next from a revealing an Enchantment perspective.

For me I always go back to reality - "MW Arena is foremost a boardgame" and not a comprehensive simulation of a magical world. I think if we define "event" at a lower hierarchy than step as an element in the game round that allows player interruptions, then it slows down play. A player could consider whether to reveal after each individual event happens within a given step. By keeping the opponents reaction at the end of step level it ensures that the player executing any step can resolve all the game activities required to complete the step without waiting for the opponents decision. The result is simpler mechanics that lead to faster play.

Consider the extreme case where a mage might only be allowed to reveal an Enchantment at the end of a Phase. This would allow even fewer opportunities for interrupts to happen. A design limit has to be set to keep the game moving so that it is not always in a pause mode while the opponent decides whether to reveal an Enchantment or not.
Literally the first paragraph from the rulebook:
Quote
Mage Wars was designed to be as intuitive as possible, and play as if magic were real. Spells work the way you think they should, and affect the battle in a way that makes sense. As a result, you will find that you can learn the rules very quickly.

I honestly could not say this better. No it is not a simulation, but trying to argue that everything in an "phase" happens all at once simultaneously and that you can not reveal until the "end" of the phase, as there is not one, does not make any sense to me.

The reaction seems to me to be, what is an event? There is not a definition and as such, I can define it however I want, and therefore it is a bad idea. Like I find an event in the middle of step. Really? I hate Seth Meyers, but really?  An event is something that you do as a part of game play. If an event can be legally subdivided they are called steps. Done. You can reveal an Enchantment before/after an event, during a phase, or as ruled on the card. You can not interrupt an event in progress, such as a move.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: exid on October 11, 2015, 12:58:34 AM
after 5 pages of this (and some more in parallel topics), i'm a little lost...

do we have a clear official rule about revealing enchantment?
(the "intuitive MW rules" doesn't count, i don't believe in one human intuition that will resolve every situation)
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Beldin on October 11, 2015, 05:01:37 AM
@Beldin:

The one part I disagree with is after a ready marker is used, as that implies that players can respond between flipping the marker and actually resolving the effect that the marker indicates, which I do not believe is the case. Ready markers also aren't really a type of occurrence unto themselves. They are used to remind you of any limited use effect that you may have.


@ Zuberi Yes that's fine. I was trying to think of instances where an action can happen and got carried away.  ;D Also yes that was my intention to flesh out a set of workable rules. I realsied that it was possible that this was the way people were playing and if the case then we have a set of rules to work with, with well defined terms. It is how I prefer my rules.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: wtcannonjr on October 11, 2015, 08:53:05 AM
Literally the first paragraph from the rulebook:
Quote
Mage Wars was designed to be as intuitive as possible, and play as if magic were real. Spells work the way you think they should, and affect the battle in a way that makes sense. As a result, you will find that you can learn the rules very quickly.

I honestly could not say this better.

Well I read this as a design philosophy that describes the intent of the rules. However, by itself it leaves unclear situations open to individual definitions. Each of us will have different perspectives on how we think spells should work. This is where more specific rules take over and guide us (eventually) to a shared understanding to resolve our different views.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: sIKE on October 11, 2015, 08:59:12 AM
Literally the first paragraph from the rulebook:
Quote
Mage Wars was designed to be as intuitive as possible, and play as if magic were real. Spells work the way you think they should, and affect the battle in a way that makes sense. As a result, you will find that you can learn the rules very quickly.

I honestly could not say this better.

Well I read this as a design philosophy that describes the intent of the rules. However, by itself it leaves unclear situations open to individual definitions. Each of us will have different perspectives on how we think spells should work. This is where more specific rules take over and guide us (eventually) to a shared understanding to resolve our different views.
I totally agree! I think what we are really waiting on is designers intent with an update to wording for revealing Enchantments, that matches the intent.

Quote
I think if we define "event" at a lower hierarchy than step as an element in the game round that allows player interruptions, then it slows down play.

I totally agree here, I think I misread this last night.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: wtcannonjr on October 11, 2015, 09:29:06 AM
Literally the first paragraph from the rulebook:
Quote
Mage Wars was designed to be as intuitive as possible, and play as if magic were real. Spells work the way you think they should, and affect the battle in a way that makes sense. As a result, you will find that you can learn the rules very quickly.

I honestly could not say this better.

Well I read this as a design philosophy that describes the intent of the rules. However, by itself it leaves unclear situations open to individual definitions. Each of us will have different perspectives on how we think spells should work. This is where more specific rules take over and guide us (eventually) to a shared understanding to resolve our different views.
I totally agree! I think what we are really waiting on is designers intent with an update to wording for revealing Enchantments, that matches the intent.

Quote
I think if we define "event" at a lower hierarchy than step as an element in the game round that allows player interruptions, then it slows down play.

I totally agree here, I think I misread this last night.

I agree to agree with your agreement. :)

Let's see what we get back from the designer.

I just taught 4 new players the game yesterday using the latest version of the rules and didn't want to add this discussion to their learning curve. They all seemed to enjoy it and as X-Wing players they picked up the game quickly and liked the customization aspects. They had two players each playing a mage with the apprentice Beastmaster defeating the apprentice Warlock.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Kelanen on October 15, 2015, 04:30:30 PM
I have been playing this that the reveal will almost always be after a blank is rolled, but before it's applied. In just the same way as I will wait until after non-critical damage is rolled, before revealing Brace Yourself/Rhino-Hide.

Intuitively, that makes complete sense to me, and is in keeping with everything else I know (or knew, until the world just blew up!).

The text says that you pay one mana to keep the burn on the creature... but only applies if the enchantment is already revealed. Rolling a die (outside the casting of a spell / attack sequence) does not provide an opportunity to reveal enchantments, so you can not reveal Addy's Touch (and make use of it) after rolling dice for the burns. If you roll a blank... the burn goes away.

You cannot divine that as the only interpretation from the rules using event language. Event is undefined currently, and in that state this is as good an example of an event as anything, and in fact better than many given parallels elsewhere.

The enchantment needs to be revealed before the burn is resolved, not before it is triggered (I think we would all agree that). The question is whether there is a 'something' that gives me an opportunity to reveal. There isn't a step, phase or action, but I'd argue there is an event, if an event means anything at all outside of the others.

@DaveW:
This just goes to show the type of confusion this ruling has wrought and why we should ignore it. If we allowed enchantments to be revealed after an "event" then there is nothing in the rules to say that Kelanen's method is incorrect. Who is to say that rolling the die and applying the damage aren't two separate events? Indeed, there seems to be support for that kind of judgement based on them being two separate steps during combat. Since we don't know what an event is, it is all up to interpretation and using what we know about how the game works in other cases.

Precisely so.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: sIKE on October 15, 2015, 07:07:26 PM
@DaveW:
This just goes to show the type of confusion this ruling has wrought and why we should ignore it. If we allowed enchantments to be revealed after an "event" then there is nothing in the rules to say that Kelanen's method is incorrect. Who is to say that rolling the die and applying the damage aren't two separate events? Indeed, there seems to be support for that kind of judgement based on them being two separate steps during combat. Since we don't know what an event is, it is all up to interpretation and using what we know about how the game works in other cases.

Precisely so.

No no no no, this is problem created by looking for a problem. A step is a division of an event, so can not find an event inside of a step. Still awaiting the ruling on this though.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Sailor Vulcan on October 15, 2015, 08:28:34 PM
@DaveW:
This just goes to show the type of confusion this ruling has wrought and why we should ignore it. If we allowed enchantments to be revealed after an "event" then there is nothing in the rules to say that Kelanen's method is incorrect. Who is to say that rolling the die and applying the damage aren't two separate events? Indeed, there seems to be support for that kind of judgement based on them being two separate steps during combat. Since we don't know what an event is, it is all up to interpretation and using what we know about how the game works in other cases.

Precisely so.

No no no no, this is problem created by looking for a problem. A step is a division of an event, so can not find an event inside of a step. Still awaiting the ruling on this though.

A step is a division of a phase. If a step is also a division of an event, then either an event is a division of a phase, or both steps and phases are divisions of an event.

If an event is a division of a phase, then an event would include one or more steps, plus the time between them. But we already have terminology and rules for what happens between steps and none of it uses the word "event". Given that, if a single event only includes a single step than the word "event" doesn't mean anything, it's just a step. It's like putting parentheses around a 1 and writing a x1 next to it. It's redundant.

If a phase is a division of an event, then an event must include one or more phases, plus the time between them. But we already have terminology and rules for what happens between phases, and none of it uses the word "event". Given that, if a single event only includes a single phase then the word "event" doesn't mean anything, it's just a phase. Like I said, it's just like putting parentheses around a 1 and writing x1 next to it. This is also redundant. (I'm assuming that a stage isn't a division of an event, anyways.)

Based on the information we have available, it doesn't seem any more likely that events are made of steps than that steps are made of events.

Either events are divisions of steps, in which case it breaks the game even IF you can define precisely how big a unit an "event" is, OR steps are divisions of events, in which case the word "event" is entirely meaningless.

If you are sitting in a box, and the box you are sitting in is in a house, then you are sitting in a house. Even if you are uncertain whether the box is in the house or the house is in the box, that does not change the fact that it has to be one or the other, not both. It's that simple. That is probably part of why Zuberi is so shocked that people are actually defending Laddinfance's catastrophic ruling.

I suspect that it's mainly because it was Laddinfance who made the ruling in the first place, and then Sike supported it. Laddinfance is supposed to be an authority on these matters, so people are predisposed to trust what he says about them. And then Sike, the person who does the OCTGN module for Mage Wars, was one of the first and most vocal to express agreement with it, which gave the ruling further validation. Maybe the others who supported the ruling simply trusted them to know what they were talking about, only this was a rare exception where they totally didn't.

It seems to me that Laddinfance made an honest mistake, and that triggered a chain reaction of honest mistakes. This kinda reminds me a bit of the game Telephone...

Laddinfance's ruling makes no sense, and the arguments people have made supporting it make no sense. There's no need to get defensive about that. It was an honest mistake that a lot of people made, and I am confident that Arcane Wonders will give us another ruling to rectify the first one.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Zuberi on October 15, 2015, 08:35:00 PM
@DaveW:
This just goes to show the type of confusion this ruling has wrought and why we should ignore it. If we allowed enchantments to be revealed after an "event" then there is nothing in the rules to say that Kelanen's method is incorrect. Who is to say that rolling the die and applying the damage aren't two separate events? Indeed, there seems to be support for that kind of judgement based on them being two separate steps during combat. Since we don't know what an event is, it is all up to interpretation and using what we know about how the game works in other cases.

Precisely so.

No no no no, this is problem created by looking for a problem. A step is a division of an event, so can not find an event inside of a step. Still awaiting the ruling on this though.

Says who? There's nothing in the rules to support this. Even if we did accept this, it doesn't clear up how many events are present in any given situation. It would only prevent you from having events during steps, which would clear up some issues, but it still doesn't solve the fundamental issue of one person interpreting something as a single event and another interpreting it as several, such as applying Burn damage.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: sIKE on October 16, 2015, 12:50:27 AM
Quote
A step is a division of a phase.
Where in the rulebook is this stated? I have looked through several different versions of the rulebook and I can not find it.

The only steps I find are subdivisions of something else: Move Action: 6 Steps, Casting Spells 4 steps, Making an Attack 10 steps.

Once again, I keep going back to this from the rulebook:

Quote
You may choose to reveal an enchantment immediately after any action, step, or phase, even if it is your opponent’s turn!

And from the game Round section of the manual:

Quote
The player with the initiative acts first during the Action Stage, and goes first whenever you must determine the order of events.

and from the phase 4: Upkeep Section:

Quote
You always choose the order in which events that affect your creatures and objects occur during this phase. In the rare case that a timing issue occurs, the player with the initiative decides the order.

During the "Ready Stage" both players play simultaneously during each of its Phases, i.e. play during these phases is not: I go you go I go, but we perform the events at the same time and when a timing issue occurs the player with initiative decides what happens "when". With that said, each of the Phases in the Ready Stage are not "instantaneous" and events do happen during them. This results in Players being able to reveal their Hidden Enchantments as per the rule stated above, and remember "before" happens "after" something else.

Events are something you do during the match as a part of game play, a Move Action, Cast a Spell, Roll for Burns, and are "what you are doing" during a step, such as the actual rolling of the dice or placing damage  markers onto the creature or conjuration card. (Yes a slight modification of my position, primarily due to a through re-reading of the updated rule set, v4.0, and from the examples provided that explain the implementation of the rules.

Quote
Enchantments cannot affect an event that occurred before it was revealed. For example, you cannot reveal a Rhino Hide enchantment after the enchanted creature takes damage from an attack, to reduce the amount of damage it received.

Here the "event" is clearly applying the damage during the "Apply Damage Step" and you have already placed the "3 Damage" marker on your Emerald Tegu as an example.

Quote
You cannot interrupt an event to reveal an enchantment. Example: You cannot reveal an enchantment on a creature in the middle of rolling dice during an attack. You would have to wait until that step or action has finished.

Here it is clarified that my opponent can not reveal "Divine Protection", after I have picked up the dice and have shaken them in my hand and I am in the process of releasing the dice to roll them (the event). However if I am in the process of picking up the proper number of dice to roll, my opponent can choose to reveal that hidden Divine Protection. The result is that during the Roll Dice Step the dice I will roll would be reduced by 1. Rolling the dice on to the table is the event.

I hope, I have laid this out much more clearly than I have done before, and my mind still boggles at this whole thread. I think clear and concise rulings on what an "Event" is and the interplay with Enchantments in the Ready Stage Phases are clarified. I hope whatever the ruling are, that they make sense game play, game mechanics, and game theme wise, and uses phraseology such as (before and/or after) or (only at the end of a Phase during the Ready Stage).
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Zuberi on October 16, 2015, 04:48:59 AM
Quote from: sIKE
I think clear and concise rulings on what an "Event" is and the interplay with Enchantments in the Ready Stage Phases are clarified.

If so, then give us these clear and concise rulings. Right now, event basically means "anything."

"The player with the initiative acts first during the Action Stage, and goes first whenever you must determine the order of anything."

"You always choose the order in which everything that affects your creatures and objects occurs during this phase. In the rare case that a timing issue occurs, the player with the initiative decides the order."

"Enchantments cannot affect anything that occurred before it was revealed. For example, you cannot reveal a Rhino Hide enchantment after the enchanted creature takes damage from an attack, to reduce the amount of damage it received."

"You cannot interrupt anything to reveal an enchantment. Example: You cannot reveal an enchantment on a creature in the middle of rolling dice during an attack. You would have to wait until that step or action has finished."

Defining a term as "anything" is not at all clear or concise. It is very open to interpretation and will result in different interpretations for different people. We can't have everyone essentially playing a different version of the game based upon their own interpretations, and I would hope that by now you realize that what seems clear and intuitive to you isn't necessarily the same for other people.

Quote from: ringkichard
I'm suspicious that there are common interactions that require the event language, but I can't actually think of any at the moment, so that may be pure blind prejudice on my part.

I think this may be the most important part of this discussion. There is absolutely no need for the event language. Not only is it not currently defined, but it's not used in any examples or needed to play the game. The game works fine without it, so why complicate matters? Everything can be defined in terms of phases, steps, and actions, with just a few notable exceptions:

1. Enchantment reveals. These occur between phases and steps. When both players want to resolve at the same time, initiative goes first.
2. "Before/after" effects. These also occur between phases and steps. This means they can also cause timing issues, which again results in initiative going first.
3. Activations. This is essentially just a "step" that one must take when taking a Creature Action Phase, but isn't described in such terms. Enchantment reveals are allowed after Activations as well as after Phases and Steps.

You currently cant reveal an Enchantment during a before/after effect for two reasons. First, it doesn't provide an opportunity because it lacks phases, steps, or activations. If it does involve steps, such as with an attack, then Enchantments could be revealed. Second, the rules specifically state that you can't interrupt something in progress with an enchantment reveal unless it gives said opportunity. This is a rare place in the rules where the word event could be used, because a general interpretation of "anything that happens is an event" can be used when we're basically saying Enchantments can't ever be revealed except for the very specific times mentioned elsewhere. This is the opposite of sIKE's suggestion, which would allow Enchantments to always be revealed without any restrictions unless we provide a much more specific definition of event.

If we wanted to allow Enchantments to be revealed during Upkeep, it could work similar to resolving them in conjunction with "before/after" effects. The entire phase would essentially be a big timing issue with each player wanting to resolve a host of effects at the same time and Initiative getting to resolve theirs first. Unfortunately, this timing issue would be much more difficult to resolve, because it includes mandatory effects that must be resolved before the Phase can end. This means that we can't just pass priority, starting with Initiative, until both players pass, because they may refuse to resolve an effect before their opponent resolves an effect, resulting in a stale mate. We would need brand new rules to prevent such a stale mate.

The easiest solution is to just not allow players the chance to respond to things during Upkeep. I decide my effects, you decide yours, and if there is an issue Initiative decides how it works is subtly different from the Initiative goes first model of other timing issues, like with Enchantment reveals. It requires you to lay all of your cards on the table, so to speak, which is anathema to Enchantments.

So,again I ask "why complicate matters?" Why should we bother defining "event," so that it isn't open to interpretation, and go through the trouble of coming up with rules to allow enchantment reveals to go smoothly during Upkeep when the game works perfectly fine without these things?
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: wtcannonjr on October 16, 2015, 06:08:51 AM
Quote from: sIKE
I think clear and concise rulings on what an "Event" is and the interplay with Enchantments in the Ready Stage Phases are clarified.

If so, then give us these clear and concise rulings. Right now, event basically means "anything."

"The player with the initiative acts first during the Action Stage, and goes first whenever you must determine the order of anything."

"You always choose the order in which everything that affects your creatures and objects occurs during this phase. In the rare case that a timing issue occurs, the player with the initiative decides the order."

"Enchantments cannot affect anything that occurred before it was revealed. For example, you cannot reveal a Rhino Hide enchantment after the enchanted creature takes damage from an attack, to reduce the amount of damage it received."

"You cannot interrupt anything to reveal an enchantment. Example: You cannot reveal an enchantment on a creature in the middle of rolling dice during an attack. You would have to wait until that step or action has finished."

Defining a term as "anything" is not at all clear or concise. It is very open to interpretation and will result in different interpretations for different people. We can't have everyone essentially playing a different version of the game based upon their own interpretations, and I would hope that by now you realize that what seems clear and intuitive to you isn't necessarily the same for other people.

Quote from: ringkichard
I'm suspicious that there are common interactions that require the event language, but I can't actually think of any at the moment, so that may be pure blind prejudice on my part.

I think this may be the most important part of this discussion. There is absolutely no need for the event language. Not only is it not currently defined, but it's not used in any examples or needed to play the game. The game works fine without it, so why complicate matters? Everything can be defined in terms of phases, steps, and actions, with just a few notable exceptions:

1. Enchantment reveals. These occur between phases and steps. When both players want to resolve at the same time, initiative goes first.
2. "Before/after" effects. These also occur between phases and steps. This means they can also cause timing issues, which again results in initiative going first.
3. Activations. This is essentially just a "step" that one must take when taking a Creature Action Phase, but isn't described in such terms. Enchantment reveals are allowed after Activations as well as after Phases and Steps.

You currently cant reveal an Enchantment during a before/after effect for two reasons. First, it doesn't provide an opportunity because it lacks phases, steps, or activations. If it does involve steps, such as with an attack, then Enchantments could be revealed. Second, the rules specifically state that you can't interrupt something in progress with an enchantment reveal unless it gives said opportunity. This is a rare place in the rules where the word event could be used, because a general interpretation of "anything that happens is an event" can be used when we're basically saying Enchantments can't ever be revealed except for the very specific times mentioned elsewhere. This is the opposite of sIKE's suggestion, which would allow Enchantments to always be revealed without any restrictions unless we provide a much more specific definition of event.

If we wanted to allow Enchantments to be revealed during Upkeep, it could work similar to resolving them in conjunction with "before/after" effects. The entire phase would essentially be a big timing issue with each player wanting to resolve a host of effects at the same time and Initiative getting to resolve theirs first. Unfortunately, this timing issue would be much more difficult to resolve, because it includes mandatory effects that must be resolved before the Phase can end. This means that we can't just pass priority, starting with Initiative, until both players pass, because they may refuse to resolve an effect before their opponent resolves an effect, resulting in a stale mate. We would need brand new rules to prevent such a stale mate.

The easiest solution is to just not allow players the chance to respond to things during Upkeep. I decide my effects, you decide yours, and if there is an issue Initiative decides how it works is subtly different from the Initiative goes first model of other timing issues, like with Enchantment reveals. It requires you to lay all of your cards on the table, so to speak, which is anathema to Enchantments.

So,again I ask "why complicate matters?" Why should we bother defining "event," so that it isn't open to interpretation, and go through the trouble of coming up with rules to allow enchantment reveals to go smoothly during Upkeep when the game works perfectly fine without these things?

+1 to this interpretation.

The rulebook changes over time seem to me to have removed (or reduced to be more precise) the term "event" in favor of more specific and consistent language. However, the term still lingers in some parts of the rules as Sike points out. I think the term "event" is intended to describe the mechanical game-required activities that take place to carry out any action or step. Whenever there is a timing issue between players we need some rules to resolve. As zuberi points out we have this with the rule that the initiative player responds first. The term "event" is not needed to define this rule. To me the action/step are the basic levels of game flow that make the game move in time.

 However, I don't know the intent of the designer. Just my two cents ...
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Boocheck on October 16, 2015, 06:15:43 AM
Sometimes those Rule Discussions became another great episode of "Law & Order" :)
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: DaveW on October 16, 2015, 06:40:33 AM
Sometimes those Rule Discussions became another great episode of "Law & Order" :)

Not really... I enjoy "Law and Order." Some of these discussions just hurt my head.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Sailor Vulcan on October 16, 2015, 07:27:44 AM

Quote
A step is a division of a phase.
Where in the rulebook is this stated? I have looked through several different versions of the rulebook and I can not find it.

The only steps I find are subdivisions of something else: Move Action: 6 Steps, Casting Spells 4 steps, Making an Attack 10 steps.

Once again, I keep going back to this from the rulebook:

Quote
You may choose to reveal an enchantment immediately after any action, step, or phase, even if it is your opponent’s turn!

And from the game Round section of the manual:

Quote
The player with the initiative acts first during the Action Stage, and goes first whenever you must determine the order of events.

and from the phase 4: Upkeep Section:

Quote
You always choose the order in which events that affect your creatures and objects occur during this phase. In the rare case that a timing issue occurs, the player with the initiative decides the order.

During the "Ready Stage" both players play simultaneously during each of its Phases, i.e. play during these phases is not: I go you go I go, but we perform the events at the same time and when a timing issue occurs the player with initiative decides what happens "when". With that said, each of the Phases in the Ready Stage are not "instantaneous" and events do happen during them. This results in Players being able to reveal their Hidden Enchantments as per the rule stated above, and remember "before" happens "after" something else.

Events are something you do during the match as a part of game play, a Move Action, Cast a Spell, Roll for Burns, and are "what you are doing" during a step, such as the actual rolling of the dice or placing damage  markers onto the creature or conjuration card. (Yes a slight modification of my position, primarily due to a through re-reading of the updated rule set, v4.0, and from the examples provided that explain the implementation of the rules.

Quote
Enchantments cannot affect an event that occurred before it was revealed. For example, you cannot reveal a Rhino Hide enchantment after the enchanted creature takes damage from an attack, to reduce the amount of damage it received.

Here the "event" is clearly applying the damage during the "Apply Damage Step" and you have already placed the "3 Damage" marker on your Emerald Tegu as an example.

Quote
You cannot interrupt an event to reveal an enchantment. Example: You cannot reveal an enchantment on a creature in the middle of rolling dice during an attack. You would have to wait until that step or action has finished.

Here it is clarified that my opponent can not reveal "Divine Protection", after I have picked up the dice and have shaken them in my hand and I am in the process of releasing the dice to roll them (the event). However if I am in the process of picking up the proper number of dice to roll, my opponent can choose to reveal that hidden Divine Protection. The result is that during the Roll Dice Step the dice I will roll would be reduced by 1. Rolling the dice on to the table is the event.

I hope, I have laid this out much more clearly than I have done before, and my mind still boggles at this whole thread. I think clear and concise rulings on what an "Event" is and the interplay with Enchantments in the Ready Stage Phases are clarified. I hope whatever the ruling are, that they make sense game play, game mechanics, and game theme wise, and uses phraseology such as (before and/or after) or (only at the end of a Phase during the Ready Stage).

Oh yeah, there are steps to revealing an enchantment and steps to attacks made outside of any action phase. Thanks for reminding me of that. Again, how does that change anything else that I said?

The definition you gave for event applies to everything that happens in the game, including revealing enchantments!

If an event is merely defined as "something you do during the match as a part of game play" and includes specific physical behaviors that are not clarified in the rules, such as picking up and counting dice in your hands, and if enchantments can be revealed directly before or after any "event", then there is absolutely no reason that you can't reveal an enchantment while they're rolling, before the dice land on the table or before the result is seen. That's a blatant contradiction of your definition of event.

The event wording in the 3.3 rule book is vague enough that your definition of event could fit, if it wasn't contradictory and if it wouldn't break the game.

Furthermore, your definition of event is nowhere stated nor implied in the rules. You just came up with that definition yourself.

You are clutching at imaginary straws and pulling them out of thin air to support this position. Why are you going to so much effort? Why is it so important to you that the "event" wording is kept in the rules?
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: ajbloomie on October 16, 2015, 11:47:47 AM
Quote
Enchantments cannot affect an event that occurred before it was revealed. For example, you cannot reveal a Rhino Hide enchantment after the enchanted creature takes damage from an attack, to reduce the amount of damage it received.

Hold on, here. Regardless of defining "event", Enchantments most certainly can be revealed after a step. "Roll Dice" and "Damage and Effects" are separate steps. You should be able to reveal a Rhino Hide after rolling, but before applying damage, which is functionally the same as trying to reveal a Rhino Hide during the Damage and Affects step (and what this example is expressly trying to prohibit). Where did this example come from? It seems, while technically correct in ruling (can't interrupt a step), it's made completely irrelevant by a clear allowance in the rules to reveal Rhino Hide after damage has been determined, but before it has been applied. Unless the ruling is simply to clarify that if you forgot to reveal after rolling,  it's too late? Kind of a ridiculous example to choose if that's the whole point of saying it.

More importantly, is there a reason we are ignoring the definition of "event" (albeit a bit ad hoc) in the sidebar of page 19 (Feb 2015 ed.)?

Quote
Example: you cannot reveal an enchantment on a creature in the middle of its Move Action, or in the middle of rolling dice during an attack. You would have to wait until that "event" (step or action) has finished.

Clearly see "event" being defined as a step or action.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: wtcannonjr on October 16, 2015, 04:46:16 PM
Quote
Enchantments cannot affect an event that occurred before it was revealed. For example, you cannot reveal a Rhino Hide enchantment after the enchanted creature takes damage from an attack, to reduce the amount of damage it received.

Hold on, here. Regardless of defining "event", Enchantments most certainly can be revealed after a step. "Roll Dice" and "Damage and Effects" are separate steps. You should be able to reveal a Rhino Hide after rolling, but before applying damage, which is functionally the same as trying to reveal a Rhino Hide during the Damage and Affects step (and what this example is expressly trying to prohibit). Where did this example come from? It seems, while technically correct in ruling (can't interrupt a step), it's made completely irrelevant by a clear allowance in the rules to reveal Rhino Hide after damage has been determined, but before it has been applied. Unless the ruling is simply to clarify that if you forgot to reveal after rolling,  it's too late? Kind of a ridiculous example to choose if that's the whole point of saying it.

More importantly, is there a reason we are ignoring the definition of "event" (albeit a bit ad hoc) in the sidebar of page 19 (Feb 2015 ed.)?

Quote
Example: you cannot reveal an enchantment on a creature in the middle of its Move Action, or in the middle of rolling dice during an attack. You would have to wait until that "event" (step or action) has finished.

Clearly see "event" being defined as a step or action.
Nice find!

First, let's remember that not everyone has the Feb 2015 ed. of the rules. As Sike notes above he is working from the version 3.3 online rules so this adds some to our confusion using written messages.

Second, the first quote you reference doesn't contradict anything in the rules. It just clarifies the timing limits associated with the steps in an action. Note the first part of that paragraph which you did not include in your quote above.

"Enchantments cannot affect an event that occurred before it was revealed."

The example assumes that the damage & effects step has taken place and reminds us that we cannot change past events in the game by revealing enchantments after they take effect. To clarify this further we could replace the term "event" using your sidebar reference below and the main point would now read:

"Enchantments cannot affect an action or step that occurred before it was revealed." Something like this is needed in the rules to clarify that we don't go back in time as the game state changes due to player decisions.

Third, your last quote your provided from the rulebook sidebar is the wording from the 3.3 version of the rules. The Feb 2015 ed. published in the new Core Set is not yet available online. It was changed slightly in the new version, but I would agree that this example along with the wording of the bullet point it corresponds to gives us the best answer to the intent behind the word "event" in the rules. A strict interpretation using this clarification as guidance would be that you can reveal enchantments immediately after an Action or Step.

In the Feb 2015 rulebook the options to reveal were further clarified to include immediately after any Phase.

I think this leaves open the possibility to have reveal opportunities during the Upkeep Phase, but only if a spell effect triggers one of the defined Actions in the game, which would then require players to resolve each Step in that Action. For example, there are opportunities to reveal enchantments during the Deployment Phase since Spawnpoints must follow a Cast Spell Action which triggers 4 steps.

Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: wtcannonjr on October 16, 2015, 04:59:19 PM
Update - I just discovered that the Arena version 4 rulebook is now available in the Downloads section of the website.

Thanks for posting!
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Laddinfance on October 16, 2015, 05:07:41 PM
I do try to take care of you guys ;-).
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: exid on October 17, 2015, 12:55:16 AM
thanks!
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: ajbloomie on October 17, 2015, 01:00:43 PM
First, let's remember that not everyone has the Feb 2015 ed. of the rules. As Sike notes above he is working from the version 3.3 online rules so this adds some to our confusion using written messages.

It's moot now, because the 4th edition rules are up. But for what it's worth, "Feb 2015 ed." referred to the date in which I downloaded it, because for whatever reason, I have no idea what editions I'm looking at with my own rulebooks when you guys talk about 3.3, 4, etc. There isn't anything in the actual rulebooks to denote edition that I could find. Anyway, if you want to go back, you can see that I was referring to 3.3. A definition of event was there all along. Regardless, I think we have our answer at this point.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Zuberi on October 17, 2015, 01:07:12 PM
Quote from: ajbloomie
Clearly see "event" being defined as a step or action.

I did indeed miss this. This aligns nicely with the v4 Rulebook which says enchantments can be revealed after a step, phase, or action. I personally think action is a bit unnecessary since all actions either have steps or immediately precede the Creature Action Phase ending. I think it would be better surmised as after a step, phase, or activation since revealing after an activation is clearly allowed by the bullet points on when you can reveal, and is neither a step, phase, or action itself.

This definition of event though does preclude revealing during the Upkeep Phase which lacks steps and actions.

P.S. thanks Laddinfance for uploading the v4 Rulebook.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: wtcannonjr on October 17, 2015, 09:20:45 PM
I personally think action is a bit unnecessary since all actions either have steps or immediately precede the Creature Action Phase ending. I think it would be better surmised as after a step, phase, or activation since revealing after an activation is clearly allowed by the bullet points on when you can reveal, and is neither a step, phase, or action itself.


An observation - I think that bullet point is referencing page 11. This page describes the sequence of an Action Phase without calling each increment a step.

Keeping action in the definition might be needed for future rules. For example, some actions do not involve steps like the Guard action. It may be possible that future actions or special actions without steps will be sequenced together. The current wording would then fit this potential sequence and allow a reveal between the two actions. All hypothetical at this point but fun to consider as a possibility.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Zuberi on October 17, 2015, 10:08:12 PM
An observation - I think that bullet point is referencing page 11. This page describes the sequence of an Action Phase without calling each increment a step.

Keeping action in the definition might be needed for future rules. For example, some actions do not involve steps like the Guard action. It may be possible that future actions or special actions without steps will be sequenced together. The current wording would then fit this potential sequence and allow a reveal between the two actions. All hypothetical at this point but fun to consider as a possibility.

Truth.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Kelanen on October 23, 2015, 04:14:22 PM
So.. the new ruling is clear, and makes it explicit you can't use Adramelechs Touch as we have been because Events are no longer relevant.

The fact you can't reveal and use Adramalech's Touch in response to a dice roll, but can reveal and use Akiro's Favour in response to a dice roll is unintuitive. I understand why, but I definitely understand people ruling them both the same.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Zuberi on October 24, 2015, 05:51:14 AM
I haven't changed my position on things, and so maybe should keep quiet because this ended on a positive note for what I believe is correct, but I feel obligated to mention that this hasn't really been resolved. Yes, we found a section of rules that seems to define an event as a step or action, which I jumped on because it suits my purposes. However, in the upkeep section of the rules it also mentions that the upkeep phase does involve events. Even though that phase does not contain steps or actions, and that's what it seems like an event is. It is about as clear as mud.


-credit to sIKE for pointing this out to me in conversation.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: exid on October 24, 2015, 06:34:09 AM
So.. the new ruling is clear
new rulling? i didn't see any here...
and in the new rulles i read this morning, it's written: "after any step, phase or action", what is clear (nothing during upkeep phase), but then there is an example that adds  another moment: "after a creature is activated" (it's no step, no phase, no action!), so... not so clear...

The fact you can't reveal and use Adramalech's Touch in response to a dice roll, but can reveal and use Akiro's Favour in response to a dice roll is unintuitive. I understand why, but I definitely understand people ruling them both the same.
it's not unintuitive, it's unplayable unless one is the rulle an the other is specificiate on the card!
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Kharhaz on October 24, 2015, 01:58:48 PM
I haven't changed my position on things, and so maybe should keep quiet because this ended on a positive note for what I believe is correct, but I feel obligated to mention that this hasn't really been resolved. Yes, we found a section of rules that seems to define an event as a step or action, which I jumped on because it suits my purposes. However, in the upkeep section of the rules it also mentions that the upkeep phase does involve events. Even though that phase does not contain steps or actions, and that's what it seems like an event is. It is about as clear as mud.


-credit to sIKE for pointing this out to me in conversation.

I'm with you 100% on this one
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: exid on November 08, 2015, 11:55:45 PM
I'm not satisfied with this topic yet...
have we got a unique interpretation of the 4th rules about revealing enchantments?
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Laddinfance on November 09, 2015, 08:03:45 AM
I'm going to be in Dallas next week, and get to speak to Bryan in person. I'm planning to bring this up. But in the meantime the 4th printing rules are completely playable.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: ringkichard on November 09, 2015, 08:30:52 AM
Right now the best case I can make for revealing enchantments in the upkeep involves a hypothetical: if there were a mandatory reveal (red) enchantment that said, "When you take any damage, reveal CARDNAME, and DO EFFECT," that card would surely be triggered during Upkeep by the effect of Ghoul Rot. And if you can reveal triggered mandatory enchantments I would expect you to be able to reveal all triggered enchantments, and if that, then all enchantments in general, since there are no special steps that allow mandatory reveals but not others.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: ringkichard on November 09, 2015, 10:30:14 PM
I'm unsure about this one, but...
Per Shad0w in this rules thread mega question (http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=12308.msg13020#msg13020) when the last Banish marker comes off a creature, it will trigger traps as it returns to the zone.

This is only possible if Enchantments can be revealed during Upkeep.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Zuberi on November 09, 2015, 11:34:35 PM
I will assist you further, kich. Block is a Mandatory that gets revealed during the Avoid Attack Step, and Nullify is a Mandatory that gets revealed during the Counter Spell Step.

I believe that these are examples of the Magic Rule where specific text overrides general rules and a person still can not voluntarily reveal during a Step or Phase. Otherwise, if we went with your opinion that this possibility allows for ANY enchantment to be revealed during a step or phase, we run back into the problem of how to subdivide steps and phases to prevent people from declaring ANYTHING as an event and completely negating having limitations on when you can reveal. People would be able to call anything an event and reveal at any time.

Even sIKE was against allowing reveals during a step, stating that "A step is a division of an event, so can not find an event inside of a step." (http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=16048.msg58262#msg58262)

Meanwhile, with Banish, the traps triggering during upkeep aren't really a special occasion. A teleport follows the steps of a Move Action with the exception of skipping the Walls step. This allows for traps to be triggered during the Entering Zone Effects Step when dealing with Banish. Thus, regardless of what phase it is, all traps get revealed during the same step following very specific rules which trump any general rules we may have.

I'm also not certain if a creature returning from banishment would indeed trigger traps. It's not specifically stated that the return trip isn't a Teleport, but page 9 of the Domination rules do say that Astral Anchor can not stop the return trip which creates doubt as to whether or not it meets the requirements for triggering entering zone effects, as detailed on page 9 of the Rules Supplement. Basically "return" does not necessarily mean "teleport". This is something that deserves an official statement.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: exid on November 09, 2015, 11:50:19 PM
I will assist you further, kich. Block is a Mandatory that gets revealed during the Avoid Attack Step, and Nullify is a Mandatory that gets revealed during the Counter Spell Step.

I believe that these are examples of the Magic Rule where specific text overrides general rules and a person still can not voluntarily reveal during a Step or Phase. Otherwise, if we went with your opinion that this possibility allows for ANY enchantment to be revealed during a step or phase, we run back into the problem of how to subdivide steps and phases to prevent people from declaring ANYTHING as an event and completely negating having limitations on when you can reveal. People would be able to call anything an event and reveal at any time.

Even sIKE was against allowing reveals during a step, stating that "A step is a division of an event, so can not find an event inside of a step." (http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=16048.msg58262#msg58262)

Meanwhile, with Banish, the traps triggering during upkeep aren't really a special occasion. A teleport follows the steps of a Move Action with the exception of skipping the Walls step. This allows for traps to be triggered during the Entering Zone Effects Step when dealing with Banish. Thus, regardless of what phase it is, all traps get revealed during the same step following very specific rules which trump any general rules we may have.

I'm also not certain if a creature returning from banishment would indeed trigger traps. It's not specifically stated that the return trip isn't a Teleport, but page 9 of the Domination rules do say that Astral Anchor can not stop the return trip which creates doubt as to whether or not it meets the requirements for triggering entering zone effects, as detailed on page 9 of the Rules Supplement. Basically "return" does not necessarily mean "teleport". This is something that deserves an official statement.

if the return from banish triggers a trap that attacks the creature, there's steps during this attack, alowing every body to reveal enchantements on any object, playing a totally different upkeep phase???
this rule problem is hudge!!!
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: ringkichard on November 10, 2015, 05:48:20 AM
Banish's return is not a teleport. We are not told what steps it follows. If pressed, I would probably resort to the movement steps that apply to it, skipping the walls and leaving zone steps, but that's just a guess. Shad0w's ruling potentially predates the formal codification of movement steps, and may or may not be superseded.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: ringkichard on November 10, 2015, 05:53:24 AM
Quote from: Exid
if the return from banish triggers a trap that attacks the creature, there's steps during this attack, alowing every body to reveal enchantements on any object, playing a totally different upkeep phase???
this rule problem is hudge!!!

Not huge: there's precident from the movement steps with passage attacks, and there's a plan for normalizing those rules.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: exid on November 10, 2015, 06:11:05 AM
Quote from: Exid
if the return from banish triggers a trap that attacks the creature, there's steps during this attack, alowing every body to reveal enchantements on any object, playing a totally different upkeep phase???
this rule problem is hudge!!!

Not huge: there's precident from the movement steps with passage attacks, and there's a plan for normalizing those rules.

i say it's huge because there's a lot of situations (rare but a lot) i never think of, in which to reveal an enchantment is problematic. in the middle of a good game, such a situation could ruin it.
i hope laddinfance comes back from dallas with a sollution!
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: ringkichard on November 10, 2015, 06:43:35 AM
Event is undefined, but it's not undefinable. We don't have to allow anarchy.

My position is that because there's basicly no restriction on what interactions can occur in Upkeep, pretty much any triggered enchantment could need to be revealed. Traps aren't specially exempted enchantments that explicitly trigger when otherwise not allowed (like Mind Shield is) they're just normal enchantments that are written under the assumption that they'll be revealed when the trigger condition is met. The Enchantment rules should not put up obstacles to the normal function of Traps and other triggered Enchantments. There has never before been a categorical difference between when triggered enchantments are revealable and the opportunities for all the rest.

Moreover, if it was intended that no enchantments could be revealed during Upkeep, we'd know about it because it'd be explicitly stated, rather than being a consequence of finely parsed rules language. The rules are not a trick, and the general appearance of the enchantment rules is overwhelmingly that enchantments can be revealed without regard to the specific phase, as no specific phase isn't mentioned. It would be my expectation that if Enchantments could not be revealed during upkeep -- as many players no doubt would want to do to save Burning or Rotting creatures with healing or lifegain -- we'd have a rule explicitly  stating that. It's too major a restriction on gameplay to be an undeclared emergent property of several other rules.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: sIKE on November 10, 2015, 08:55:36 AM
There really is no debate that you can reveal an Enchantment in each Ready Stage phases of the game, the question is really about timing of when you can reveal that Enchantment.

I guess the real question now that things have been mushed and distilled down, is processing Upkeep for a Player a single event or is it an "event" when you process Upkeep with each creature/object.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Zuberi on November 10, 2015, 10:39:18 PM
Quote from: ringkichard
Event is undefined, but it's not undefinable. We don't have to allow anarchy.

Truth, but we can't put the cart before the horse. Until "event" is defined, we can't allow enchantments to be revealed in response to them or it will be anarchy.

Quote from: ringkichard
Not huge: there's precident from the movement steps with passage attacks, and there's a plan for normalizing those rules.

Exactly. Until "event" is given a definition, the rule should be that Enchantments can be revealed after a Phase, Step, or Activation. It is entirely possible for something to occur during a Phase that has Steps, in which case Enchantments can be revealed after any of those Steps even though it is during a Phase. It doesn't matter whether the Phase is Upkeep, Deployment, Quickcast, or an Action Phase. They're all the same for these purposes. If they contain steps, then you can reveal after any of those steps. If they don't contain steps (or an activation), then you can't reveal anything during the Phase.

I would certainly be willing to switch position once "event" had an acceptable definition, but until that time I firmly believe that any ruling relying on "events" would break the game.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: exid on November 11, 2015, 06:22:13 AM
i totally agree with Zuberi!

but the "banish-attack trap-apearance of steps in the upkeep phase" problem make me think the situation isn't very confortable.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Zuberi on November 11, 2015, 02:35:50 PM
If Banish's return trip is not a teleport, which it seems likely that it is not, then it would not trigger any traps. Traps only trigger when a creature "Enters a Zone" which happens during a move action, push, or teleport. All of which basically follow the same steps. The return trip from Banish is definitely not a move action or a push, so if we also rule out a teleport then it would not trigger traps, just like being summoned by a spawnpoint doesn't trigger a trap.

Page 9 of the Rules Supplement.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: ringkichard on November 11, 2015, 05:09:54 PM
That is my suspicion also, but I merely report Shad0w's statement. And lacking a firm definition of Return, I can but shrug.

Though I'm quite sure that Banish's return is not a teleport. That was brought up at least twice during the design of Astral Anchor.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Laddinfance on November 11, 2015, 08:16:26 PM
Banish's return is not a teleport. If it was the Anchor would stop it. I'll have to look into shadow's previous comments.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: sIKE on November 11, 2015, 08:20:50 PM
Somewhere it is written down that the returning to a zone is not a teleport action and does not count as entering a zone.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: exid on November 11, 2015, 11:56:15 PM
If Banish's return trip is not a teleport, which it seems likely that it is not, then it would not trigger any traps. Traps only trigger when a creature "Enters a Zone" which happens during a move action, push, or teleport. All of which basically follow the same steps. The return trip from Banish is definitely not a move action or a push, so if we also rule out a teleport then it would not trigger traps, just like being summoned by a spawnpoint doesn't trigger a trap.

Page 9 of the Rules Supplement.

my savior!
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: exid on November 16, 2015, 12:47:26 AM
I'm going to be in Dallas next week, and get to speak to Bryan in person. I'm planning to bring this up. But in the meantime the 4th printing rules are completely playable.
Something about the reveal enchantements time?
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: exid on November 23, 2015, 03:25:18 AM
I'm going to be in Dallas next week, and get to speak to Bryan in person. I'm planning to bring this up. But in the meantime the 4th printing rules are completely playable.
Something about the reveal enchantements time?
Is there a clarificaton yet?
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Laddinfance on November 23, 2015, 09:50:56 AM
TL;DR - Follow the 4th printing rules. They are correct.

I just got home. ;-)

At BGG Con sIKE and I asked Bryan directly about revealing enchantments. We had a pretty good discussion about his answers to the two of us previously (also at BGG Cons). Throughout my time with the company Bryan has always said to reveal enchantments whenever you opponent isn't doing something. However, as noted over time we've tried to make his intention something cleaner and clearer in the rules. So, when we brought up this question to him, he was a bit torn. However, in the end he had said that we should stick with the 4th printing rules.

Basically, no you cannot reveal an enchantment in the Upkeep Phase, unless you are responding to something that legally allows the reveal of enchantments.

I hope this helps. sIKE feel free to correct me if I missed something.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: exid on November 23, 2015, 10:11:20 AM
TL;DR - Follow the 4th printing rules. They are correct.

I just got home. ;-)

At BGG Con sIKE and I asked Bryan directly about revealing enchantments. We had a pretty good discussion about his answers to the two of us previously (also at BGG Cons). Throughout my time with the company Bryan has always said to reveal enchantments whenever you opponent isn't doing something. However, as noted over time we've tried to make his intention something cleaner and clearer in the rules. So, when we brought up this question to him, he was a bit torn. However, in the end he had said that we should stick with the 4th printing rules.

Basically, no you cannot reveal an enchantment in the Upkeep Phase, unless you are responding to something that legally allows the reveal of enchantments.

I hope this helps. sIKE feel free to correct me if I missed something.

This helps a lot!
It's the 4th edition rules. No approximation.
Thanks!
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: DaveW on November 23, 2015, 10:26:55 PM
... in the end he had said that we should stick with the 4th printing rules.

Basically, no you cannot reveal an enchantment in the Upkeep Phase, unless you are responding to something that legally allows the reveal of enchantments.

Please confirm: It is allowable to reveal an enchantment after the Upkeep Phase at the start of the Action Phase, correct? I am think that there may be some that I would want to reveal before my opponent gets in the first quick cast.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: sIKE on November 23, 2015, 10:38:16 PM
This ruling covers The Ready Stage. Revealing Enchantments in the Action Stage remains the same. So before and after any Creatures Action.

As Laddin said, we did talk with Brian and this did change with the v4 rules to clean up many issues such as the one posed in the OP.

We did talk about Events and getting that all cleaned up along with the possibility of adding "Beginning" to the possibilities. But that is for the future.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: exid on November 23, 2015, 11:17:32 PM
... in the end he had said that we should stick with the 4th printing rules.

Basically, no you cannot reveal an enchantment in the Upkeep Phase, unless you are responding to something that legally allows the reveal of enchantments.

Please confirm: It is allowable to reveal an enchantment after the Upkeep Phase at the start of the Action Phase, correct? I am think that there may be some that I would want to reveal before my opponent gets in the first quick cast.

yes.
after a phase is in the 4th rules.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: ringkichard on November 24, 2015, 05:47:00 AM
Basically, no you cannot reveal an enchantment in the Upkeep Phase, unless you are responding to something that legally allows the reveal of enchantments.

What happens to mandatory reveal enchantments that trigger from events without steps if that event happens to occur in Upkeep?
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: jacksmack on November 24, 2015, 05:54:40 AM
Basically, no you cannot reveal an enchantment in the Upkeep Phase, unless you are responding to something that legally allows the reveal of enchantments.

What happens to mandatory reveal enchantments that trigger from events without steps if that event happens to occur in Upkeep?

then the text on the card overrides the standard rules just like its the case with block and nullify.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: exid on November 24, 2015, 06:19:30 AM
Basically, no you cannot reveal an enchantment in the Upkeep Phase, unless you are responding to something that legally allows the reveal of enchantments.

What happens to mandatory reveal enchantments that trigger from events without steps if that event happens to occur in Upkeep?

then the text on the card overrides the standard rules just like its the case with block and nullify.

i agree with jacksmack's answer.

are there such enchantments?
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Laddinfance on November 24, 2015, 08:37:25 AM
If you had a mandatory enchantment "trigger" then you would be allowed to reveal it. This would be a case of a card allowing (or in this case requiring) something that the rules do not.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: DaveW on November 24, 2015, 07:47:02 PM
This ruling covers The Ready Stage. Revealing Enchantments in the Action Stage remains the same. So before and after any Creatures Action.

As Laddin said, we did talk with Brian and this did change with the v4 rules to clean up many issues such as the one posed in the OP.

We did talk about Events and getting that all cleaned up along with the possibility of adding "Beginning" to the possibilities. But that is for the future.

OK, so I don't have the 4th edition rules. Only before and after a Creature's action phase? Not after deployment... not after quickcast... only related to Creature actions. Do I get this right?

I have to ask as this will drastically change the way we play. Thanks.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: sIKE on November 24, 2015, 07:54:27 PM
During the Ready Stage (Initiative, Reset, Channel, Upkeep, Planning, Deployment Phases) you may only reveal an Enchantment at the end of one of these Phases. During the Action Stage things stay the same: Before or After an Action or between Steps of an "what do we call it? an event" Attack/Move/Casting sequence.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Zuberi on November 24, 2015, 08:46:14 PM
Sike is making an unnecessary distinction. Both  stages are the same. The fourth edition rule is that you may reveal after a phase, step, or action, as well as activations (which may be what is meant by action because it otherwise seems superfluous). You can download the fourth edition rules from the websites resource section.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: ringkichard on November 24, 2015, 08:47:20 PM
are there such enchantments?


No such card has yet been included in a set, as far as I know, with the possible exception of Teleport Trap.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: sIKE on November 24, 2015, 09:32:34 PM
Sike is making an unnecessary distinction. Both  stages are the same. The fourth edition rule is that you may reveal after a phase, step, or action, as well as activations (which may be what is meant by action because it otherwise seems superfluous). You can download the fourth edition rules from the websites resource section.
What? This is crazy! You can not reveal an Enchantment at the beginning of any of the Ready Stage Phases only at the end, you pointed this out early in this thread. During the Actions Stage you can reveal before or after and Actions Phase. This is a fine distinction, none the less there is one. I can reveal an Enchantment on a creature before the first Creatures Action is taken in the Action Phases.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: exid on November 24, 2015, 11:17:03 PM
are there such enchantments?


No such card has yet been included in a set, as far as I know, with the possible exception of Teleport Trap.

there's no movement during upkeep so no trap trigger!
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: exid on November 24, 2015, 11:21:11 PM
Sike is making an unnecessary distinction. Both  stages are the same. The fourth edition rule is that you may reveal after a phase, step, or action, as well as activations (which may be what is meant by action because it otherwise seems superfluous). You can download the fourth edition rules from the websites resource section.
What? This is crazy! You can not reveal an Enchantment at the beginning of any of the Ready Stage Phases only at the end, you pointed this out early in this thread. During the Actions Stage you can reveal before or after and Actions Phase. This is a fine distinction, none the less there is one. I can reveal an Enchantment on a creature before the first Creatures Action is taken in the Action Phases.

4th rules are clear: AFTER step, phase, action
and, in the example, it adds: AFTER activation

you can reveal before the first action is taken:
after the quickcast phase
or
after the first activation
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Zuberi on November 25, 2015, 01:52:58 AM
What? This is crazy! You can not reveal an Enchantment at the beginning of any of the Ready Stage Phases only at the end, you pointed this out early in this thread. During the Actions Stage you can reveal before or after and Actions Phase. This is a fine distinction, none the less there is one. I can reveal an Enchantment on a creature before the first Creatures Action is taken in the Action Phases.

This fine distinction prevents you from revealing any enchantments before the Initiative Phase of the very first round of the game, when no enchantments exist. After that point, every "before a phase" is also an "after a phase". Before the first Action Phase of a round is the same as after the first Quick Cast Phase, so the distinction is moot. Before the Upkeep Phase is the same as after the Channeling Phase, before the Initiative Phase is the same as after the Final Quickcast Phase, and so forth.

You can't reveal during a Phase, unless you're revealing after a step or activation. Which may be what is causing the confusion. The part about revealing after an activation allows you to reveal after initiating an Action Phase, and no other Phase has this same opportunity, which is probably what you're referring to I'm guessing. Regardless, "before" and "beginning" are too different words and we need to make a distinction.

I personally believe after consideration that the whole "after an action" part is in reference to revealing after activating a creature, which is often referred to as taking an action with that creature even if you end up doing nothing with the creature. Otherwise, it is a superfluous rule as all actions currently either have steps or signal the end of the Action Phase, and thus already allow reveals afterwards without any special mention. Granted, this could change if new actions are introduced in the future, but that seems doubtful. Also, I just like the tidyness of summing things up as "after a phase, step, or activation" since it gets rid of both a superfluous word and includes an opportunity that we all agree exists, without having to reference examples, so I just like to think that such is what they meant.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: ringkichard on November 25, 2015, 05:43:00 AM
there's no movement during upkeep so no trap trigger!

Unless returning from a Banish triggers traps. This is somewhat doubtful, but has been ruled proper play by Shad0w.

More importantly, it's an example of why you should never assume something can't happen. There are no attacks during movement (except when there are). There is no opportunity to reveal an enchantment during the reveal of another enchantment (except when there is). There's nothing you can do with an incapacitated creature (except that there was), etc.

Murphy's Law says, "If something can go wrong it will go wrong." This is often taken as a pithy expression of pessimism and the perversity of fate, but it's also a very useful design principle: the example I always think of is that if there's two ways to connect a plug to a socket, and one of those ways is wrong (upside down), eventually someone will do it. So, to combat this is, we use polarized plugs that can only fit one way. By making the failure mode impossible we prevent the failure. Conversely, we have to assume that everything that we haven't directly made impossible will happen, sooner or later.

So, for example, if a curse were printed that caused a creature to teleport randomly in the Upkeep, that would count as movement, and so would trigger traps. Moving isn't forbidden in the Upkeep, so it's sensible to assume that can happen, even if you don't immediately see how.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: ringkichard on November 25, 2015, 05:45:03 AM
If you had a mandatory enchantment "trigger" then you would be allowed to reveal it. This would be a case of a card allowing (or in this case requiring) something that the rules do not.

Works for me!
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: ringkichard on November 25, 2015, 07:02:43 AM
If you had a mandatory enchantment "trigger" then you would be allowed to reveal it. This would be a case of a card allowing (or in this case requiring) something that the rules do not.

If I have a non-mandatory single-use enchantment that can be revealed to influence a relevant effect ("triggered") during the upkeep, may I reveal it?
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: exid on November 25, 2015, 07:12:12 AM
there's no movement during upkeep so no trap trigger!

Unless returning from a Banish triggers traps. This is somewhat doubtful, but has been ruled proper play by Shad0w.

More importantly, it's an example of why you should never assume something can't happen. There are no attacks during movement (except when there are). There is no opportunity to reveal an enchantment during the reveal of another enchantment (except when there is). There's nothing you can do with an incapacitated creature (except that there was), etc.

Murphy's Law says, "If something can go wrong it will go wrong." This is often taken as a pithy expression of pessimism and the perversity of fate, but it's also a very useful design principle: the example I always think of is that if there's two ways to connect a plug to a socket, and one of those ways is wrong (upside down), eventually someone will do it. So, to combat this is, we use polarized plugs that can only fit one way. By making the failure mode impossible we prevent the failure. Conversely, we have to assume that everything that we haven't directly made impossible will happen, sooner or later.

So, for example, if a curse were printed that caused a creature to teleport randomly in the Upkeep, that would count as movement, and so would trigger traps. Moving isn't forbidden in the Upkeep, so it's sensible to assume that can happen, even if you don't immediately see how.

i agree!
but if there'is no such cards for now, we have time to solve this problem!
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Halewijn on November 25, 2015, 07:14:12 AM
I'm not really following this tread, but from now on you cannot reveal enchantments during upkeep anymore?  :o That's a big deal!

Ghoul Rot, Arcane Corruption, Plagued, Death Link, Adramelech's Touch, Regrowth, Poisoned Blood.

All these spells typically get revealed after channeling during the upkeep. (or after the burn roll)

Is it possible for someone to just summarize this 10 page long tread?  :) I feel like there are some pretty important things in it.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: exid on November 25, 2015, 07:17:29 AM
I'm not really following this tread, but from now on you cannot reveal enchantments during upkeep anymore?  :o That's a big deal!

Ghoul Rot, Arcane Corruption, Plagued, Death Link, Adramelech's Touch, Regrowth, Poisoned Blood.

All these spells typically get revealed after channeling during the upkeep. (or after the burn roll)

Is it possible for someone to just summarize this 10 page long tread?  :) I feel like there are some pretty important things in it.

you can reveal after chaneling: AFTER the chanel phase.
but not during the upkeep.

... and it's not new for me!
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Halewijn on November 25, 2015, 07:57:27 AM
aha I get it. thanks Exid.

So the only enchantment in my list that will really be affected is Adra. touch? You can't reveal after rolling the burn?
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: exid on November 25, 2015, 08:17:43 AM
So the only enchantment in my list that will really be affected is Adra. touch? You can't reveal after rolling the burn?
right.

...and (wasn't it the true subject of this topic?) the regeneration: you can't reveal it after having taken to many burn damages.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: FrostByte on November 25, 2015, 08:18:25 AM
aha I get it. thanks Exid.

So the only enchantment in my list that will really be affected is Adra. touch? You can't reveal after rolling the burn?

As Exid recently pointed out in another thread.  Enchantments can not affect an event that occured before it was revealed.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: sIKE on November 25, 2015, 09:36:56 AM
Quote
Before the first Action Phase of a round is the same as after the first Quick Cast Phase, so the distinction is moot. Before the Upkeep Phase is the same as after the Channeling Phase, before the Initiative Phase is the same as after the Final Quickcast Phase, and so forth.
But once you say you are in the Upkeep Phase, it is done and over with not a chance to reveal any Enchantments. In casual games this is all really not that important, but in official matches with strict rules enforcement, the fine points all matter. 

Of course (in the game) something "Before" is "After" something else. I explained this multiple times this past weekend at BGGCon. However once you move from one phase to the next, the ruling as it is applies. If you do not choose to reveal Poison Blood before the start of the Upkeep phase, your next chance to do so, is at the end of the Upkeep phase, once everything else has been processed.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: ringkichard on November 25, 2015, 02:13:31 PM
It's going to mean an additional phase stop in tournament Octgn. Right now the first chance to reveal an enchantment is in the upkeep phase.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Kaarin on November 25, 2015, 02:21:39 PM
I'm not really following this tread, but from now on you cannot reveal enchantments during upkeep anymore?  :o That's a big deal!

Ghoul Rot, Arcane Corruption, Plagued, Death Link, Adramelech's Touch, Regrowth, Poisoned Blood.

All these spells typically get revealed after channeling during the upkeep. (or after the burn roll)

Is it possible for someone to just summarize this 10 page long tread?  :) I feel like there are some pretty important things in it.
In 4th ed You can't reveal those during upkeep phase, only between channeling and upkeep phases.
As opposed to earlier editions You can't reveal Adra's touch in response to failing burn rolls to save the last burn. You can't reveal healing charm after burns on You were rolled high, but You could do this before. Now You have to decide what risk You're willing to take before upkeep phase.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: sIKE on November 25, 2015, 06:15:12 PM
It's going to mean an additional phase stop in tournament Octgn. Right now the first chance to reveal an enchantment is in the upkeep phase.
This was in the works already, the V2 release will have all of the game Phases implemented with the associated automations implemented in each phase. I am planning to add the ability to turn off automation for each phase.
Title: Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
Post by: Moonglow on January 03, 2016, 07:43:05 PM
If you mean this one, http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=14424.135

I don't think its been resolved yet has it?  Just coming back from  holidays and trying to catch up on the great mage wars debates of 2015 :)

aha I get it. thanks Exid.

So the only enchantment in my list that will really be affected is Adra. touch? You can't reveal after rolling the burn?

As Exid recently pointed out in another thread.  Enchantments can not affect an event that occured before it was revealed.