June 20, 2018, 02:11:41 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 - Arkdeniz

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11
3) if you have multiple multiple attacks (BF and sweeping)... but i think we don't have the cards to make that happen...
What’s wrong with casting sweeping strike and battle fury on deptonne berserker when there is something bleeding in the zone?
right... ok... my vision of the situation:
the shark has double strike
the attack gains sweeping if full action
there's one more quick attack
-> the shark can use a full action to make double strike on a first creature and double strike on a second creature, after that he can make a double strike on any creature -> TOTAL = 6 strikes

I have been trying my hardest to show how this is wrong, since it does not make intuitive sense to me.

However, If we accept that traits cannot be lost, I cannot find a hole in this thinking.

The casting of Sweeping Attack on the Berserker means that the quick action doublestrike attack is converted to a full action sweeping doublestrike attack. 

So this means that the Berserker makes two successive doublestrike attacks against two targets, changing between them at Step 7, additional strikes.

Once that is done, we proceed to Step 10, Attack Ends, where the Battle Fury kicks in, allowing the Berserker to make a final quick attack. As the Berserker’s only quick attack can be a doublestrike, this could allow the Berserker to hit one target an additional two times.

Now, I am not sure if this is rules as intended, but since it needs such a deliberate set up by the Berserker’s player in order to trigger, I would be willing to let it go if an opponent launched the sequence.

(To get 6 x 3 dice attacks, it is so much easier to simply cast Overextend on Ludwig Boltstorm...)

Spellbook Design and Construction / Re: Old Time Wizard
« on: June 07, 2018, 07:12:10 PM »
If you want to play the pushing game I would suggest dropping a couple of Fog Banks in favour of another Poison wall, and maybe add another wand of each type. The two you have are prime dissolve targets. Perhaps a gorgon can go to fit them in.

Strategy and Tactics / Re: Who do you suck against?
« on: May 30, 2018, 08:17:56 PM »
Well, I think we can all agree that we don’t want to use every card in our books, but nor do we want to have the game end with most of the book untouched.

Unless we win, of course :)

But I am with you, DevilsVendetta. While the occasional quick win is fun, I like to see plans come together and win ‘by the book’.

no counter strike if you're dead.
(but a damage barier would do it!)


You are dead at the end of the creature activation, aka action phase, and have to proceed through all the steps are per normal.

You would indeed get a counterstrike even though you were "dead".

Can you cite a particular reference for all that, Kharhaz?

All I can see is, from the main rule book, combat Step 6 ("mark the damage on the defender") interacting with the rule on page 14 that states "if the object suffers damage equal to or greater than its Life value, it is destroyed" (where "destroyed" means "removed from play").

And also, from the supplement, pg 4: "if an attack destroys a creature, the destroyed creature cannot make a counterattack. Its damage barrier will still be able to make an attack."   

perhaps try sort the spells into 3 piles:
In school + novice, out of school and opposite school.

Then you can just add up the numbers in each pile individually and multiply each pile with 1, 2 or  3 - then add them together.
(Keep multiple school in a 4th pile, bridge troll I’m looking at you.)

This is what I do.

Keep a running tab of the value of each pile. Add and subtract cards as necessary.

And one final count before I put them in the book.

Strategy and Tactics / Re: Any way to protect a flying creature?
« on: May 12, 2018, 10:40:16 PM »

1. Declare spell
2. Pay cost
3. Counter Spell
4. Resolve Spell

1. Declare attack
2. Pay cost
3. Roll to miss
4. Avoid attack
5. Roll Dice
6. Damage & Effects
7. Additional Strikes
8. Damage Barrier
9. Counterstrike
10. Attack Ends

If i reveal Maim Wings in the cast spell action between step 1 and 2 or 2 and 3 or 3 and 4 that would before the spell resolves and becomes an attack action.

That makes a certain gamey sense. However, on reading more closely, allow me to counter with this:

Codex: "An attack action is a creature's action (quick or full) used to make an attack"
Rules (pg 23): When you cast an attack spell, it is both a spell and an attack."

So, by way of example, a wizard uses his quick action to cast a lightning bolt attack spell.
Since the attack spell is both a spell and an attack (as per rulebook), he is therefore using his quick action to make an attack (as per the Codex). So as soon as he casts the Lightning Bolt, we are in an Attack Action.
As you cannot gain or lose flying during an Attack Action, revealing Maim Wings during the Cast Spell Action steps of the Lightning Bolt's resolution will not avail - the attack action has started

I think this makes more sense in terms of consistency and faireness ("What do you mean I can drop Felella behind a wall to avoid a fireball, but not to avoid a catapult stone? How does that work?" and so on.)

However, this game being what it is, there is quite a high likelihood that the writers have inadvertently used "Attack Action" in two or more different ways.

Does the key rule about flying (pg15) refer to "Attack Action" as per the Codex' definition (as I think) or to the formal set of steps listed under "Attack Action" on the back of the rulebook (as you think)? It is for better minds than mine to decide.

(Interestingly, I note that the Attack Action table on the back of the rulebook is not replicated inside the rulebook. While the same table appears on page 23, it has a different title ("Making an Attack"). Make of that what you will.)     

Strategy and Tactics / Re: Any way to protect a flying creature?
« on: May 12, 2018, 04:56:53 PM »
Seems pretty clear to me that casting an attack spell creates an attack action after the spell resolves.

From the codex (and also the rules supplement): "An attack action is a creature action used to make an attack."
From the rule book (pg 23): "When you cast an attack spell, it is both a spell and an attack. First, follow all steps for casting. Then, if the spell is not countered, you must resolve the attack, following the steps for attacking."

So no, couldn't reveal maim wings during the cast spell action - as the attack spell is still an attack (merely with some additional preliminary steps)

General Discussion / Re: Questions about OCTGN meta
« on: May 03, 2018, 12:36:19 PM »
I think the one issue with the Temple of Light ruling is that Ballista and Akiro's Hammer don't require mana, just can only be used every other round. Ballista is 5 every other round with piercing 3 and doesn't need any buffs. Temple could be 1 die every round for free or youd have to buff it with multiple zone exclusives to get more dice. I think paying mana in addition to that was a bit much if Ballista/Hammer are free actions.

Side note: I have thought for a long time that the Ballista and the Hammer should not get an automatic load token, but instead require a Soldier to spend an action to place a load token on it. Up to two soldiers per round. In the same way that the Temple of A can employ Clerics prayers. It wouldbe nicely thematic, too: kill the crew, nullify the artillery.
/side note

Rules Discussion / Re: Are Vine Markers ‘Objects’?
« on: April 27, 2018, 11:26:31 PM »
Thanks for the answer. I thought this was the case, but had sudden doubts.

What text in the Codex is bugging you? I suspect that there may have been a supposition that only spells could be conjurations when the entry was written.

“Enchantments, equipment, creatures and conjurations are SPELLS which become objects in the game...”

Vines are not spells. Hence my confusion.

Rules Discussion / Are Vine Markers ‘Objects’?
« on: April 27, 2018, 10:32:01 PM »
As it says in the title.

They are certainly living conjurations, but do they count as ‘objects’ for the purpose of calculating who benefits from Meredia’s Blessing?

The Codex entry for Object is not clear to me. It says conjurations are objects, but also suggests that only spells can be objects.


General Discussion / Re: forum name
« on: April 20, 2018, 11:05:59 PM »
Mine is the surname I used for a family of wizards I played in a long-span D&D campaign back in my teenage years.

Redrew the map of Greyhawk, that game did. :)

Rules Discussion / Re: use Spawnpoint mana for casting any spells
« on: April 12, 2018, 04:22:38 PM »
What exid and zot said.

Welcome to the forums!

Righto. Thanks Zuberi. I was not aware that your involvement had been as close as that.

Any insight on why Academy didn’t run with the same terminology as Arena for the Avoid Attack/Defense step? I seen o practical difference between them.

Spells / Re: Second Chance vs Rise Again question
« on: April 08, 2018, 06:52:33 AM »
I'll just give this thread a small bump to ask if anyone has had any thoughts on how werner and I have managed to end up with cards from apparently a different printing of a set that is said to have had a single print run?

I'll accept the will of the council on this one.


Does anyone closer to AW than I am have any thoughts on why during the design of Academy it was decided that there would be no guidance on any of the cards about which steps the cards' effects would happen, when this is/was standard practice on Arena cards. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11