July 19, 2019, 08:13:43 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 - Kaarin

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26
346
Rules Discussion / Re: About Immunity
« on: October 21, 2015, 01:59:09 PM »
I think the current immunity rule captures some of the essence of creatures that are beyond player control. For example, the Lord of Fire knows that a Flaming Hellion carries the same 'flame' essence as himself and therefore does not harm him in the battle. If we see ourselves as mages that manipulate rather than totally control the mana in this world then we accept that some things are beyond our control. :)
If we follow this logic then shouldn't Lord of Fire just say "step away" or "perish" to puny demon? ;) Besides if Adramelech had untyped attack he could freely attack Flaming Hellion (like Malacoda can do to other creatures with poison immunity; if You strip LoF of flying then You can close him with level 1 wall).
Don't forget that mages aren't summoning exact creatures, but only their copies and in case of such powerful beings like Adramelech only fraction of their essence. At least that's the explanation why one player can summon legendary creature, resurrect it and after it will be destroyed other player can still summon it.

347
Rules Discussion / Re: About Immunity
« on: October 21, 2015, 01:44:27 PM »
One more comment about avoid/counter immunity: it will be an exception to unavoidable attacks.
What if we have a creature with an immunity and has intercept in the future? I think such a rule change is very much necessary.
We already have such card: Togorah has both Hydro immunity and intercept.

If a guard cannot be targeted by a melee attack for whatever reason, then it protects the zone from other melee attacks by that creature due to the second part of the sentence. i.e. it has successfully achieved the purpose behind the guard action. Note - the wording on the rule is Protect the Zone which clarifies the intent in my mind. The guarding creature has given up its action to protect the rest of the zone. This results in a creature with a specific immunity being the best guard against a melee attack of that specific damage type. That makes sense to me. Isn't that a reasonable outcome for the RAW in this situation?
That would be okay if there weren't abilities allowing for more than one attack in single attack action for example (and in future there may be abilities benefiting from just attacking). Also You can't use a creature with typed attack to trigger Block on guard with immunity so your other creatures can attack it. Besides current immunity rule doesn't allow for intercepting too, so intercepting guard will no longer protect the zone against attacks he's immune to.

348
Rules Discussion / Re: About Immunity
« on: October 20, 2015, 05:57:20 PM »
Would it be enough to insert a "may" clause in the Immunity trait rules?
But where?
Quote
Immunity
This object is immune to all attacks, damage, conditions, and effects of the specified damage type, including critical damage and direct damage. It cannot be targeted or affected by spells or attacks of the specified type.
It still won't allow for attack traits to be written without including immunity exceptions.

349
Rules Discussion / Re: About Immunity
« on: October 20, 2015, 04:09:06 PM »
@Karin:
If an enemy guard is immune to your attack, then you are free to attack any other creature you wish. This would fall under the same thought as the mandatory action rules in the rules supplement. If you are unable to perform an action, then you can not be required to perform that action. If you can not select a specific target for an action, then you can not be required to select that specific target.
That was my first thought too, but then I reread guarding rules. " then you cannot melee attack any object in that zone other than enemy guards" - this part was what made me doubt that thought (if guard is immune to your attack then You have to ignore it).

Who would be the best to protect you from a creature with a firebased melee attack?? thats right... a fire immune guard.
With current rules that's the worst guard against flame attacks. That's why targeting approach to immunity needs to be dropped. I proposed option to ignore things instead of avoiding/countering and would like to see which one is preferred.

350
Rules Discussion / Re: About Immunity
« on: October 20, 2015, 08:55:24 AM »
Bottomline : immunity doesn't work logically because it is tied to something that has nothing to do with it : targetability, instead of what it is really about : being resistant to some type of damage and spells.
That's why I make those suggestions in reply nr6.
And I agree with that, but turning immunity into optional super-avoid/counterspell is not enough. As I mentioned earlier according to your suggested definition a burning Hydro immune creature would still get damaged by Hydro attack with extinguish trait.
I propose that instead of preventing targeting Immunity should allow objects to ignore things. For example:
Quote
Immunity:
Object with immunity ignores damage and conditions of a type it's immune to. It also may choose to ignore effects of attacks and spells of that type.
This way we allow for objects to be targeted by anyone and benefit from friendly spells. Unfortunately this still allows for enemy special abilities to benefit from spells You're immune to. This definition needs to be worked to precisely allow for benefiting from extinguish while ignoring other effects like push.

351
Rules Discussion / Re: About Immunity
« on: October 20, 2015, 08:32:51 AM »
Iwasn't even aware that immunity didn't alow targetting. I thought it just ignored damage... (That way you can stack burn couters on a fire immune -but non burnproof- creature wthout it taking damage, while you still have to roll to see if they extinguish...) I supose I was using common sense here, but obviously I should read some of the rules better...
You couldn't do that, because burn is flame condition. Flame immunity prevents not only flame damage, but flame conditions and spells too.

352
Rules Discussion / Re: About Immunity
« on: October 18, 2015, 02:37:47 PM »
When declaring an attack You have to choose a legal target. Immunity says that You can't target that object with an attack of that type. So You can't target a guard that's immune to your attack.
Quote
Then, announce what target you are attacking. You must choose a legal target for your attack
Quote
Immunity
This object is immune to all attacks, damage, conditions, and effects of the specified damage type, including critical damage and direct damage. It cannot be targeted or affected by spells or attacks of the specified type.
But then there's this:
Quote
Protect the Zone: If there is an enemy guard (a creature with a guard marker) in a zone, then you cannot melee attack any object in that zone other than enemy guards. This condition is checked when the attack is declared
If I understand it right then You can't use melee attack at all if there's guard immune to all of your melee attacks.
Quotes are from latest uploaded rulebook. I haven't found nothing in rules supplement that would expand on this.

353
Rules Discussion / Re: About Immunity
« on: October 18, 2015, 11:22:51 AM »
OK.

How about this:

Everything is cluttered in 1 zone. The warlock wants to use his Lord of Fire to make a sweeping attack.

The enemy Single guarding creature -  the Flaming Hellion

What can the Lord of Fire do? Nothing at all?!?!?! Cant even sweeping attack?

Something is very wrong with immunity!
He can attack any other creature than Flaming Hellion. This is something I mentioned earlier: You can't guard from an attack that You're immune to.

354
Rules Discussion / Re: About Immunity
« on: October 18, 2015, 10:25:53 AM »
I like the idea of being able to play Plagued on Necro or Circle of Fire on demon with flame immunity. Currently I can't do that. Also casting any spell (inc or ench) to probe for nullify sounds reasonable.
Your definition still allows for attack to damage creature or put conditions on it (untyped attacks or special abilities). Attack with Extinguish doesn't just roll 0 dice and remove burns, it reduces number of dice by number of burns on target to minimum of 1.
If we allow to cast typed spells on targets with immunity to that type we also allow for special abilities to work for them (Adramelech Warlock giving fire+1 to Necro with Poisoned Blood on him).

It's just that we need to hire rules lawyer to have better definition. ;)

It may not be your intention, but You're bringing up interesting problem. With current rules You can't intercept an attack that You're immune to because You can't be targeted by it (same reason Togorah can't intercept Akiro's Hammer's attack on Mana Flower).

that's right!
... and not good... (why would a fireimune-interceptor be unable to intercept a fireball?)
but i think there's no imune interceptor yet.
Togorah, Forest Sentinel, besides it doesn't need to be interceptor. Adramelech, Lord of Fire can't guard from Flaming Hellion's melee attack. You can't protect from an attack You can't be target of.

355
Now when it is set to be a level 4 creature, wouldn't it be nice to make one with low mana cost and low health?  It would go well with a incorporeal nightmare.

Mana: 8
Health: 3

Cantrip, Incorporeal, Flying, nice attacks.
One Zap (or any other ethereal attack) and it's gone. You'll be down on actions and mana.

356
Rules Discussion / Re: About Immunity
« on: October 17, 2015, 07:51:25 PM »
Your definition seems too specific to me. IMO it's better to have simple rule for broader concept (immunity) and have exceptions in special rule (attack trait) than to have specific rule for broader concept to avoid exceptions now. When newer concepts will appear they may still require exceptions or having the rule reworded again (extinguish-like incantation for example).

It may not be your intention, but You're bringing up interesting problem. With current rules You can't intercept an attack that You're immune to because You can't be targeted by it (same reason Togorah can't intercept Akiro's Hammer's attack on Mana Flower).

357
Mages / Re: Top-Tier viable mages?
« on: October 17, 2015, 07:38:16 PM »
It's better than Elemental Wand, because You don't pay for changing spells and it doesn't block any slot (item/zone exclusive). Also since it's conjuration there's only one spell that can undo it and it's level 4 mage exclusive - Conquer.
I would compare Wizard's Tower to Battleforge. Excluding spellbind and working in different phase WT works like any Spawnpoint.

358
Rules Discussion / Re: About Immunity
« on: October 17, 2015, 05:17:53 PM »
Immunity isn't just about attack. It also prevents You from being target of other spells (like incantations). You can't cast Poisoned Blood on Necro, for example. Same goes for conditions. You can't put weak on Necro. That's the reason why Flaming Hellion can't burn. If burn wasn't condition of flame type then it would bypass flame immunity.

359
General Discussion / Re: Ok lets talk Domination.
« on: October 16, 2015, 01:57:26 PM »
Both Beastmasters have a bit of advantage here. Bloodwave Warlord also seem to be in better situation than in Arena mode. He's bound to get some veteran markers without depending on his opponent.

As a quick rules question, because I don't have the Battlegrounds rules in front of me...does Mordok's Obelisk basically destroy all the NPC Orb Guardians?
I don't think so. It's controller who pays upkeep and Orb Guardians don't have controllers.
EDIT:
What about Divine Intervention on Sir Corazin, Blademaster?

360
Player Feedback and Suggestions / Re: About Holy Attack Spells...
« on: October 15, 2015, 04:06:25 PM »
Burns
That's why I mentioned active attacks. Besides it takes at least two burns to destroy resilient creature.

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26