January 18, 2018, 06:12:06 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Zuberi

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 118
Rules Discussion / Re: Daze and attack spells.
« on: Today at 05:35:24 AM »
Follow the steps.

1. Declare Spell
2. Pay Costs (here is where you pay for the spell)
3. Counter Spell
4. Resolve Spell (here is where an attack is generated leading to the attack steps)

1. Declare Attack
2. Pay Costs (you've already paid for the spell, but if something makes you pay for the attack, such as a Suppression Cloak, then you must pay that cost now).
3. Roll to Miss (here is where you resolve the Daze condition)

Remember that a crucial key rule in Mage Wars is that nothing is ever retroactive. You can not ever affect the past. Thus, if you simply follow the steps, it will help you figure out questions like this. Since the Daze is resolved after costs have been paid, it is incapable of affecting the cost. You've already paid by that point and that's that.

General Questions / Re: Blind Enchantment and Daze makers
« on: January 17, 2018, 11:21:47 AM »
Actually, you resolve the Daze effects during the Roll to Miss step, not the Declare Attack Step. This was changed in the 4th edition of the game. Prior to that, there was no Roll to Miss step, so you back then you would resolve Daze during the Declare Attack Step, but now Roll to Miss exists. This is actually very important, as the 4th edition also created a new step for Paying Costs. Thus, if you resolved Daze during the Declare Attack Step and you missed, you would avoid having to pay any costs required by the attack (cause you'd then skip that step). That's just not allowed. You HAVE to pay for your attack, even if it ends up missing.

You would indeed still have to succeed on both rolls though.

General Questions / Re: Cassiel, Shield of Bim-Shella and Eye for an Eye
« on: January 17, 2018, 11:16:00 AM »
So, this might muck things up a bit, but for the sake of complete and accurate information, the "Holy Mage Only" restriction does prevent a few things other than just including it in your spellbook. Per the Supplement, this restriction prevents a non-Holy Mage from including the spell in their spellbook, casting the spell during the game, or controlling the spell during the game.

That said, Arkdeniz's answer is still correct. Familiars essentially check back with their Mage regarding Mage restrictions. Think of them as an extension of the Mage, casting the spell on behalf of their Mage. So, Holy Mage Only is not a problem for Cassiel. But the subtypes of Eye for an Eye are. She can't cast it because it's neither Healing or Protection.

Rules Discussion / Re: rise again
« on: January 16, 2018, 05:36:18 AM »
Drmambo23's answers are all 100% correct. If you read closely, you'll notice they don't say that it has to be revealed in response to any trigger, just that it has to be revealed before the creature is destroyed, e.g. before the damage and effects step, in order to actually function.

You certainly could reveal sooner than that if you wanted. But between the roll dice step and the damage and effects step is the absolute latest possible, because as soon as the damage is applied, the creature and the unrevealed enchantment both get destroyed, and an unrevealed enchantment has no effects.

On its own, you probably want to wait as long as possible before revealing. But you are absolutely right that other effects, like the Adramelech Warlock's Flame +1 ability, might give you a good reason for revealing sooner.

Rules Discussion / Re: Joseph Trublood - Healing
« on: January 15, 2018, 07:38:23 AM »
Just here to confirm that Exid is correct. It is a special ability, not an attack, and does NOT benefit from the Ranged +X trait.

Rules Discussion / Re: Glancing Blow reveal condition
« on: January 14, 2018, 06:23:23 PM »
Exactly. Those donít actually have a Roll Dice step, but it could still confuse people who arenít super familiar with the rules. Afterall, you ARE tolling dice. So specifying the attack requirement is unnecessary but helpful.

Rules Discussion / Re: Glancing Blow reveal condition
« on: January 13, 2018, 09:36:11 AM »
The requirement includes revealing it during the Roll Dice step. If that step doesn't occur, then the requirement hasn't occurred and you won't be forced to reveal.

It might be clearer if you skip ahead to after the comma. "You must reveal Glancing Blow at the beginning of the Roll Dice step." Well, that sounds crystal clear to me. If there's no Roll Dice step, then there's no reveal. The specification of "when this creature is attacked" may seem a bit unnecessary since there is no such thing as a Roll Dice step anyplace other than attacks, but I still think it helps. It tells us what action we should be looking out for. I might have moved it to the end of the sentence though: "You must reveal Glancing Blow at the beginning of the Roll Dice step, when this creature is attacked."

Either way, the result is the same. Yes, being attacked is part of the trigger, but so is processing the Roll Dice step. You can't fulfill the instructions without both happening.

Rules Discussion / Re: from accademy
« on: January 13, 2018, 04:30:58 AM »
Repulsion Field would trigger. But luckily, Fumble is optional so you can just choose not to reveal it.

Rules Discussion / Re: daze condtition
« on: January 10, 2018, 06:49:48 PM »
Yeah, the terminology can be a bit tricky. After you activate your creature, it has been activated and remains so until it's done acting. This whole time period in which it is active is called both its activation and its action phase.

Exid is completely correct that the condition falls off at the end of the creature's activation, i.e. the end of its action phase. Which is NOT immediately after it has been activated. This will happen regardless of what actions the creature actually takes. A common tactic is to just guard with the creature, because then you will still get to use its attack in the form of a counterstrike. If we're talking about a Mage, you will want to wait until after your action phase before quickcasting any attack spells, so that the Daze doesn't affect the attack spell.

If it helps, the terms can be loosely described as thus:
Activate = (verb) Describes flipping the creature's action marker. This is the first part of a creature's action phase.
Activated = (verb/adjective) Describes a creature whose action marker has been flipped and is now in their action phase.
Activation = (noun) Describes the entire process of flipping the action marker AND acting with the creature, making it synonymous with the creature's Action Phase (and less confusing if you just say Action Phase).

I agree that theme is just handwaving fluff to make people feel more comfortable with the rules. I do like to use it though to get rulings to stick in people's heads when possible, but you are right that sometimes it causes more problems than it does benefit.

Rules Discussion / Re: BattleFury VS Counterstrike = bad idea?
« on: January 04, 2018, 03:10:39 PM »
Thanks Kaarin for looking into this further. I was confident that was the right answer, but felt like being generous towards other interpretations and giving them the benefit of the doubt. The supplement clears it up though.

Rules Discussion / Re: Eye for an Eye situation
« on: January 02, 2018, 04:20:52 PM »
Both creatures would only suffer 1 damage. The enchantment doesnít copy the attack or the dice rolls. It copies the damage and effects that actually were applied. In this case the knight recieved 1 damage so thatís what gets copied.

The source of the snatch is the same, because again itís an exact copy. So they both get pulled into space B. Meaning the harpooner doesnít move.

The coral barrier and bed of urchins are unrelated. They simply apply as normal to anything that triggers them, in this case just the onight.

Rules Discussion / Re: BattleFury VS Counterstrike = bad idea?
« on: January 01, 2018, 06:53:58 PM »
Page 28 of the rulebook:
"A creature may make one counterstrike against each creature that attacks it with a melee attack (even if the attacker attacks it with more than one strike during the attack). Multiple Counterstrike traits on the same creature do not allow it to make additional counterstrikes."

This line is a little vague. It could be interpreted as one counterstrike per attacker per attack, allowing you to counterstrike the battle fury. Technically additional strikes are additional attacks though, so this interpretation would lean itself to allowing you to counterstrike those as well, but we can clearly see in the example that such is not allowed. Therefore I think the correct interpretation is one counterstrike per attacker per attack action. There is room for disagreement, you may feel that the exclusion of additional strikes is a specific ruling rather than just an example, but I feel fairly confident that per attack action is correct.

So I'd say no, you can not counterstrike a second time with the Hydra.

If they are attacking a nonflying creature, then yes. They roll one less die for exactly the reason you mentioned. Shallow sea is a really good terrain and a big reason why the Siren has such low health. People see her as very fragile, and she is without her terrain. But she basically gains aegis 1 and regenerate 1 just by standing in the water.

Rules Discussion / Re: Wreck of Viridian Lace
« on: December 28, 2017, 02:13:33 AM »
I wish that we had more cards that used an Initiative mechanism.  I would not mind cards that gave a bonus if their users did not have Initiative.  I think that it would be awesome if the Druid could have a tree conjuration that gives all of her vines +1 Armor and +1 Piercing when she does not have Initiative or if the Priestess could have a temple conjuration that gives all of her angels +1 Armor and +1 Charge when she does not have Initiative.

Make Initiative Great Again

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 118