March 22, 2018, 08:18:36 PM

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 ... 119
General Discussion / Re: Online screen names
« on: March 07, 2018, 04:09:33 PM »
Zuberi, but you'd be surprised how often that's already taken. So I do use a few variations on different sites, including Zub3ri and Zuberii.

I do have a few other screen names, but those tend to be for secondary accounts when I have multiple. Zuberi is always my primary.

Also my real name is Ivan Kidd. I'm not shy.

Rules Discussion / Re: Dragon's Breath target options
« on: March 02, 2018, 09:22:21 AM »
First off, iNano78 is correct in all of their answers to the original questions. But then this:

you check LoS to the second target befor begining the second attack.

It seems logical that if a wall is on a border of A2, a target in A1 or on a border of A1 is "1 zone farther away".
in this case could both attacks target the same wall between A1 and A2?

is a very interesting question. I want to say the answer is no, and I have a few different reasons for why, but I'll admit to being unsure without further research which I don't have the time for right now. First, when it says second target, that could be interpreted as meaning it has to be a different target from the first. I know of some games that would interpret it that way and some that wouldn't, and I can't really recall which way Mage Wars does off the top of my head right now. But I'm pretty sure it has to be different.

But then another possible issue is when it says the second target must be IN an adjacent zone. Since walls are not actually in a zone, that would preclude them from EVER being the secondary target (though they could be the first target). Looking at the card, I am 95% sure that RAW this is the case, but that has some pretty significant implications for how the spell can be used so I don't want to say 100% that this is the correct interpretation. But just because you use the zones for determining range (because that's the only way to measure range in the game) does not mean the walls are actually in those zones.

You check mandatory actions any time you are able to take an action. So when you activate the creature, before you do anything else, you must check. In this case, you have a mandatory action to move "at least one zone closer" during your action phase. Can you do that? If so, you MUST move closer.

After moving closer, you still may take a quick action. So you check again for mandatory actions. You still have the Siren's Call and still have the mandatory action that you must move "at least one zone closer" during your action phase. Can you do that? YOU ALREADY HAVE! Mandate fulfilled, you can now do whatever you want with your action. Congratulations.

@DaveW the order matters in that you're not freed from the mandatory action until it has been fulfilled.

Rules Discussion / Re: Push Errata?
« on: February 27, 2018, 08:50:31 AM »
What extra wall damage cost are you talking about? I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'll make an attempt to answer anyways.

The Push effect does not have any inherent cost nor does its non-existent inherent cost ever get modified by what the creature encounters during its travels. I think you may be confusing the Push effect with the Push incantation. Things like Jetstream can definitely push a creature into or through a wall (depending on whether the wall has the Passage Blocked trait or not).

Rules Discussion / Re: commander's cape
« on: February 25, 2018, 05:16:24 AM »
The problem is that the game uses the same text box for three different purposes and doesn't really have a way to delineate which is which. It can be used to:

1. Describe spell effects. This is the most common and intuitive use, describing what the spell actually does, and these effects don't apply until the spell resolves. Before then, this text basically doesn't exist.

2. Describes special rules on how to cast the spell. This text usually modifies the cost or targeting in some way, and applies during the steps prior to spell resolution.

3. Describes details that are always in effect, even when sitting in your spellbook or in the discard pile. This is apparently the category of Izimbila's ability.

Rules Discussion / Re: zone enchantments
« on: February 21, 2018, 11:36:03 AM »
The other doesn't immediately get destroyed. You may leave it face down if you wish.

Quote from: Rules Supplement
When an enchantment is revealed, if it is attached to an object or zone which already has a revealed enchantment with the same name attached to that same object or zone, the newly revealed enchantment is immediately discarded without effect.

Players cannot cast an enchantment which targets a zone or object if there is either (a) a friendly hidden enchantment with the same name attached to that zone or object, or (b) a revealed enchantment with the same name (friendly or enemy) attached to that zone or object.

Note that it is possible to attach a duplicate enchantment to the same zone or object as an opponent’s hidden enchantment. This would be unintentional or accidental, because you will not know that the duplication exists. Later, if the enemy hidden enchantment is revealed, you will realize that you have attached a duplicate enchantment to the same object. When this occurs, you may leave the duplicate enchantment in play as a hidden enchantment. If you later reveal that enchantment while the duplicate is still attached, you will have to destroy and discard the newer copy which you just revealed without it having any effect.

When you reveal an enchantment, you only discard it without effect if there is another revealed enchantment of the same name attached to that zone or object. A hidden enchantment of the same name does not cause you to discard the newly revealed enchantment.

Rules Discussion / Re: reanimate and summoning circle
« on: February 07, 2018, 04:11:52 AM »
I'm not convinced by your arguments:

the circle says you can summon the creature in it's zone, and the reanimated creature is summoned (whatever spell you use).
the only problem is that when you reanimate (whatever spell you use) it's not clearly YOU who summon (the creature "is summoned").

Quote from: Complete Codex entry for Reanimate
Note that, unless it says otherwise, the Mage who controls the effect which grants Reanimation is the object summoning the creature into play.

There's a lot here that seems unclear to people, but this shouldn't be. The mage is definitely the object doing the summoning when they reanimate a creature. I also recommend reading the Supplement regarding Reanimate as it has a little more detail on the whole process.

To the initial question, RAW I agree with Puddinhead. Precise wording matters. Summoning Circle says explicitly that your Mage may choose to summon the creature to Summoning Circle's zone INSTEAD OF their own zone. The card only says it's able to redirect from the Mage's zone, not from elsewhere, and we can't give it powers it doesn't have.

That does mean it has some weird wiggle room though, which I'm not really a fan of. Technically it then CAN work with Reanimate effects, so long as the zone that the creature is getting reanimated into is also where the controlling mage is at. I don't really understand why that should matter, but as written that is how it would work. It then fulfills all of the requirements of Summoning Circle. Your mage is summoning it. Check. It is a friendly creature. Check. It is being redirected from your mages zone to the Summoning Circle. Check. Summoning circle doesn't care about the restrictions that other spells have, or the fact that they could have been outside of the Mage's own zone. What matters is where they were actually going to be summoned to. I'm not sure why that matters, but RAW it does. We can argue RAI till we're blue in the face.

Hopefully this answer equally disappoints/upsets everyone, lol.

That was my point. If they use am arcane ward to try and clear off your arcane ward, and it was a decoy instead, then they have now protected your enchant from whatever they were trying to follow up their AW with.

Sort of.  On a mandatory reveal you are always allowed to choose not to pay the cost and discard the spell without effect.  So your opponent could choose not to pay the 0 mana and discard the ward in order to play a different spell on the non-mage object.

This is correct.

Rules Discussion / Re: Mind control and chant of rage
« on: January 30, 2018, 09:14:28 AM »
Your mage, your spellbook, your discard pile, your opponent, and your mana supply are all irrelevant in this discussion as they never change control, so specifying whether "your" refers to things you own or things you control would not have been necessary.  Same for your choice.

Your zone is interesting, as you CAN'T own a zone, but you can control it. However, that doesn't seem to be what it is referring to here. Instead, it just seems to be referring to where you happen to be. Similar thing with your challenged enemy. You definitely don't control a challenged enemy creature, because if you did they'd be friendly rather than an enemy, and normally you don't own it either. This again seems to be using the term in a different way to simply mean the creature that you have challenged.

It seems that they tend to just use "your" as plain English and have always made it clear in the past what it is referring to. I think Chant of Rage really might be the first time its meaning has been ambiguous.

Quote from: Arkdeniz
There is a wide inconsistency in usage between "your mage" and just "your".
"Your Mage" has started falling a little out of favor, as it has been firmly established that your mage and you the player are synonymous. Therefore there's no difference between saying "your mage" and just saying "you". And the latter takes up less space. I think "your mage" is still the more common phrasing, but there definitely are more and more spells that just refer to "you" directly. There's no wacky connotations because the mage IS the player.

Rules Discussion / Re: Mind control and chant of rage
« on: January 29, 2018, 04:55:29 PM »
This is an interesting idea. I agree with Santar and Coshade that it depends on our interpretation of "one of your creatures". If we take that to mean a creature that you control, then you could put it on a Mind Controlled creature. This could have the weird affect though that if the creature gets free of the Mind Control before the Chant of Rage is destroyed, then the Hate token would end up on an enemy creature and thus not be destroyed when Chant of Rage is.

I'm pretty sure that that interaction is not intended. But then there's also the weird interaction where if we interpret it as a creature you own, you could put it on a creature your enemy has stolen from you with Mind Control. That isn't really desired either. You could also argue that it should be limited to a creature you both own AND control.

I'm honestly not sure which of these three positions I would promote, nor am I positive if there's ever been a ruling on what "your" means in the past. I want to say it means something you control, so it would work exactly how Kaarin suspected, but I honestly don't know for sure. The safest answer, I think, is the third option requiring both owning and controlling. Does anyone have previous examples of similar wording?

Rules Discussion / Re: Avoid attack from Reverse Attack
« on: January 29, 2018, 04:31:43 PM »
No, you can not use a defense against it as, like you said, you're not the target for the Avoid Attack step. You're only the target during the Roll Dice step and the Damage and Effects step.

Rules Discussion / Re: Chant of Rage movement
« on: January 28, 2018, 12:39:04 PM »
What you are missing is that mandatory actions are checked for each time you are able to do an action. So when you activate the creature, you check the mandatory actions before taking your first action. Then after your first action, you have to check them again before taking your second action. Mandatory actions always take precedent.

Rules Discussion / Re: Chant of Rage movement
« on: January 27, 2018, 09:16:46 PM »
A wall actually CAN prevent Chant of Rage from working. If you are one zone away from the hate token, and there is a wall (with the passage blocked trait) between you, then it is not possible for you to move towards the target. Moving to the side of the wall would mean you are now 2 zones from the target, meaning you've just moved away from it instead of towards it. I think we can all agree that moving AWAY does not satisfy the requirement of the spell to move TOWARDS the hate token.

Since you can't go through the wall, and every other direction would be moving away from the target, you therefore don't have to move at all and can choose whatever action you want. So yeah, you're correct Jeffman. If the wall's directly between you, you're free.

Regarding Drmambo23's statement, in addition to being wrong about necessarily having to move around the wall, it also seems to be under the impression that you must always choose the shortest path to the hate token. This is also wrong. If there are multiple paths towards the target, you can always choose which one to take regardless of which one is shorter. The only requirement is that each and every move you make must bring you closer towards the token. Because of this requirement though, if one path is longer than another, that kinda means that such a path eventually leads to a dead end that frees you from your requirement.

This is because the token is at a set distance away from you. Say, it's 4 zones from you. That means the required move must bring you within 3 zones from the target. Other moves don't satisfy its requirements. Then the move after that must bring you to within 2 zones. And then 1. And then the same zone. If any path was longer than this, the enchant could not force you to move along it. You can use this to your advantage by choosing such paths.

For example, if the hate token is 2 zones to the left of my enchanted creature and 1 zone above, then my first move could be either left or up. The zone above me though has a wall on it's left border. My opponent may have a problem with me choosing to move upwards then, as "going around the wall takes longer" but really what happens is that now I CAN'T move closer, because of the wall, and I'm freed of the obligation.

I think a lot of people don't realize all the ways there are to manipulate chant of rage and mitigate it's power, which is partly why it's so popular. That's why I felt compelled to mention some of the options here, even though it wasn't really part of the question.

Arkdeniz is correct though that if you can move through a wall, even if it has a passage attack, then you MUST move through it (assuming there aren't other paths towards the token).

Rules Discussion / Re: Chant of Rage movement
« on: January 27, 2018, 12:38:46 PM »
Two things that will help you manipulate Chant of Rage though.

1. Hinderance and other movement impairing effects. If your creature CAN'T perform the mandatory requirement, then it is free to do whatever action it wishes.

2. Other Mandatory effects. If the creature has two competing mandatory action requirements, then its owner gets to choose which one to obey. So things like Blood Lust and Siren's Call can be useful here.

General Discussion / Re: What you think are the schools from this Mage?
« on: January 24, 2018, 08:05:24 PM »
i would rule out the mind school.

The Image is from her.

Has it been confirmed that she is a Mage? That parent image has art from a bunch of different arcane wonders products. Maybe she's from a different game. Still, I like the speculation about what schools she'd have. Kinda wanna do similar speculation for the other characters in that image, even the ones we know aren't Mages, lol. Like what schools would the Sheriff of Nottingham have? lmao.

But that's off topic. I like the idea that she's a dragon knight and agree with Pritoos that she may have alternate training like the Siren does. So maybe she's trained in Fire and Dragons? Maybe Fire + Level 3 War + Dragons.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 119