January 17, 2020, 02:00:59 PM

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Strategy and Tactics / Re: Juli's Strategy corner #1 Tar trap interactions
« Last post by zot on January 16, 2020, 02:47:48 PM »
indeed interesting. I am inclined to side with puddn on the reveal magic interaction.
Strategy and Tactics / Re: Juli's Strategy corner #1 Tar trap interactions
« Last post by Puddnhead on January 16, 2020, 01:59:08 PM »
Nice write up, Juli!

I think you are correct about Necropian Vampiress interactions with Tar Trap, but I don't think Fizzle interacts the same way.  This is, of course, my own interpretation which is often not focused on the letter of the rules, but on the intent of the rules.

I would think Fizzle works the same way as Reveal Magic when it comes to mandatory reveals. It basically delays checking for conditions for reveals until the next round. I'm likely to be wrong here because Fizzle does not explicitly say those words (I don't have the card in front of me). The other piece of this argument is that I don't believe a game effect preventing a reveal discards the spell. the rule is that if a trigger condition was forgotten or a target found to be illegal then the spell is discarded with no effect.  It would seem to me that the rules on Fizzle trump the general rules of discard when not revealed.  It's not that it wasn't attempted or triggered, but that the trigger was prevented from taking effect until the next round when the triggers are "active" again. Like I said, completely my interpretation. I'd love to hear some feedback from people who have rules and cards in front of them.
Strategy and Tactics / Juli's Strategy corner #1 Tar trap interactions
« Last post by juli on January 16, 2020, 01:33:56 PM »
Juli‘s strategy corner #1: Tar trap interactions

In this post i do want to present two interactions i found concerning tar trap. I also share some thought about the card in general and how to use it, as well as play against it. (If you are not interested in how i evaluate the card, please skip straight to the interactions noted with 1. and 2.)

What is tar trap?

Today we want to take a look at one of the most recent additions to the card pool: Tar trap.
It is introduced the elementalist (academy) set. Tar trap is an enchantment, both level one fire and earth. That means when building the spellbook, both warlocks and warlords get it the cheapest for 3 sbp each, while druid and the beastmasters pay 5 total spellbook points for this spell. All the others just pay a solid 4 sbp for including it. The reveal cost for tar trap is 4 mana.

Ok, so far these stats are nothing special at all, what does it do? what is it good for? First of all, Tar trap is one of the rather few mandatory reveal cards. It triggers when the creature activates. The text states that this creature cannot take any non-spell actions. That includes move actions, attacking and guarding. Special mention here ist hat the creature is NOT restrained, that means it can still hinder enemy creatures. On top oft hat, fire attacks will roll one extra die vs the poor creature covered in tar. Of course this effect is fairly strong, thats the reason for Tar trap having the dissipate two trait. So when casting this spell, you should expect to get 2 uses out of it in the most cases.

How to use tar trap ?

Now we have this spell, it seems to counter quite a lot oft hings that creatures want to do. But how do we use it to our highest possible benefit? One decent comparison to tar trap is tanglevine. Tanglevine is also able to hit non flying creatures only, makes them rest in place and weakens their defensive capabilities to some extent (guards no longer have to be attacked, defenses get -2 on their rolls). Tar trap on the other hand does a way better job at stopping (big) attacks. When you get the trap connected to a big creature, chances are that you will dodge 2 big swings from it, while also making sure it cannot guard, and if youre able to move the fight to different Zones the trapped creature will have to catch up. Tar trap is also a very good tool to buy yourself some time when facing a mage that is heavliy focusing on melee attacks.

Remember that the trap only stops opponents from choosing non spell actions and it gets revealed at the START oft he activation phase. In this way you are NOT able to deny a spell  being cast like you would be able to with say an enfeeble. Your opponent knows that there is a tar trap on him before he decides on what to do. Still, there is a decisive difference between getting struck by somewhat around 10 dice or not being hit at all. If your opponent planned well enough he can still get 2 solid uses out of both action markers.

How to play vs tar trap?

So far for using the Tar trap on your own, but how does one play against it? The obvious first: if your mage does not ever plan on melee attacking you should not be afraid of a tar trap hitting on your main character. In that case it limits your movement, but thats about it, there are other spells that can do it aswell, like force hold, tanglevine or stumble. Sure, being stuck i soften an unconfortable situation, but since its only for two turns. So try and use your cards the best way, knowing you will be stuck in place there for 2 turns. Dispelling it in „turn 2“ with only one dissipate left is only worth it in very very rare cases.

Different reasoning applies once your mage is intended to deliver strong melee hits. Chances are rather high that once you are able to throw around 8 dice, a tar trap will appear. One way to deal with that is of course to prepare 2 cards that are able to be used efficiently, even though your main plan is to hit melee and do something else. Another possible preparation would be seeking dispel + main plan. This route takes advantage of tar trap being a mandatory reveal card with a decisive trigger, your action marker being flipped. So there is no way for your opponent to revealing it earlier, what means you are definitely able to seeking it 100% oft he time. If there is tar trap, you seeking it and proceed going melee. If there is no tar trap you can just execute your main plan instead (while going melee with main action ofc). Once you are out of seekings you are pretty much back at option 1. Keep in mind that Tar trap only stops melee ACTIONS, not melee spells. So your buff still applies to all the available melee spells. In that sense, if your opponents mage or another good target is for some reason still in your zone, the mage in tar trap can still hit for a ton of dice when using two flying side kicks for example.

How to react when tar trap is on your buddies?

Ok, so this is what happens when your mage gets hit. But what if tar trap lands on one of your big critters? (with big i usually mean lvl 4+ creatures with at least one ench on them). The earlier the game, the more valuable are the actions of your first big creatures on the board, and the more painful it is to skip even two of them. In my expierience though, it is rarely worth it to spend a dispel on „turn 2“ oft he tar trap, with only one dissipate remaining, since that would be trading one action and 6 mana for one „good“ hit, usually you should be better off just throwing an attack spell in that case if you need the dice. Although i might consider a dispel one my biggie is approaching or surpassing the 10 dice benchmark. Most of the time you try to not lose the creature hit by TT while also trying to keep the fight close so it doesnt need to „catch up“ to the battlefield and even lose a third (or fourth) action in the meantime. So you basically just let the tar trap dissipate away.
So far in my expierience, tar trap is a very good spell at keeping big offensive creatures at bay, as it also is useful to delay the power turns of melee mages by 2-4 turns (double tar trap) when played by a control deck, so that the investments (= mana/action generators/spawnpoint) can pay off and the control player is better prepared for taking hits. It is probably used 95% of the time for its mobility and attacking power controlling abilities, only in very rare cases fire spells will benefit from its secondary effect. Right now there is pretty much the mindset, predict it with seeking or let it wear out, thats one of the reasons it is used that frequently.

Tar Trap interactions:

Now that i shared my thoughts on the tar trap itself i would like to present two interactions with tar trap that i recently stumbled upon. I wonder wether i am the first one to notice this (please correct me if im wrong and it does not even work like this!) or if these interaction are already known and been already played. Im interested to hear your thoughts!

1.   Tar trap vs necropian vampiress

Both cards share the exact same phrase, for when their extra ability does trigger.  WHEN THIS CREATURE ACTIVATES… In other cases of two effects happening at the same time, there is usually initiative involved in determining the order. But if im seeing this correctly, the owner of a creature should be able to decide on the order of effects taking place, am i right? At least i always played it like that. Following that logic, if i suspect a tar trap being cast on my vampiress, i can activate her, pay one extra for flying, the mandatory reveal triggers, checks (as discussed a few days ago) another time if the target is still valid, which in this case ist not, and tar trap is discarded. Like that i am able to „counter“ a potential Tar trap by activating the ability on vamp similarly to gremlins being able to teleport out of tanglevines and quicksands right?

2.   Tar trap vs Fizzle

In that same discussion i am reffering to for example 1, we were discussion what happens if the mandatory reveal contition for a card is met, but it cant be revealed that turn. I was mentioning Reveal magic, That one does have a specific line of text on how it interacts with mandatory reveals. It states: Once Reveal magic has been cast, the enchantment cannot be revealed this round. If it is a mandatory enchantment, then it is not destroyed i fit would be forced to be revealed this round.
Different case holds true for fizzle: in that case the enchantment gets turned face down, and CANNOT BE REVEALED this round. So, in my mind, this presents a possible „counter“ to tar trap once it is in „turn 2“, like it has prevented one action and there is one dissipate left. I cast fizzle to turn the tar trap face down for 4 mana, opponent loses 2 mana, afterwards i am allowed to activate the creature with hidden tar trap, it has to be revealed, but cannot due to fizzle and has to be discarded.
In that case i used 1 spellbook point and 4 mana, while my opponent lost 2 for destroying the second turn of tar trap, with possible ruining my opponents turn since he calculated down to 0 mana and cant perform both of his actions anymore.

So that were my thoughts about tar trap and two interactions that im not 100% sure of if they work like i imagine them to do. Feel free to add your own thoughts and correct me if im wrong of course!

Events / Re: Winter War 47 (Jan 24-26, 2020)
« Last post by zot on January 15, 2020, 11:03:08 PM »
awesome news. thanks victore. see you all soon. stanyer you are going down dude.
Events / Re: Winter War 47 (Jan 24-26, 2020)
« Last post by VictorE on January 15, 2020, 10:52:51 PM »
Great. We're looking forward to everyone who can make it. Unfortunately, I live in a small apartment and Farkas is not in town on Friday, so we can't offer any lodging. I'm hoping we can find a place to get together before. We have an 8 hour slot now, and if no one is after us, we can basically play until they close the doors at night. We just have to stop this year during the auction. They got mad at me last year for us playing during the auction.

We begin at 9 a.m. on Saturday the 25th at the Holiday Inn Champaign Suits at 101 Trade Center Drive in Champaign. That is the time that I want to begin games if possible. It would be very helpful if you have your spellbook written out before hand. I'll have sheets on hand with spell name / spellbook pts / # cards / total cost.

Reminder, we are using the rules posted before, which were basically ADMW variants but without the channeling changes from last season and with a change to Pillar of Righteous Flame whereby only a move into the zone by the owner of the card will trigger. If you teleport your own creature into the zone then it triggers. If you move into the zone due to a spell such as siren's call, then it triggers. If you push your own creature into the zone then it triggers. If your opponent pushes you or teleports you into the zone, it does NOT trigger. It's a conscious choice by the owner change. Summoning into the zone still does not count as moving into the zone, so that also does NOT trigger the Pillar.

Opponents will be chosen at random in the first round, but the plan is to adjust so that you don't play anyone from your geographic area in the first two rounds at least. Second and subsequent round opponents will be organized by wins/losses. We'll make adjustments once we know how many people we have. I will do my best to make it fair. I know of at least one beginner who says he's going to play.

I have a 1st and 2nd place trophy (with the correct year on them this time).
I have a few smaller prizes too. I've been getting rid of games, and rather than auction it off, the winner will also get my copy of Thunderstone Advance with Ruins of Corruption add-on.

Looking forward to seeing everyone that can make it to central Illinois, USA.
General Discussion / Re: MW arena update 2020
« Last post by JarrodR on January 08, 2020, 07:36:56 AM »
How technically difficult would backward compatibility be exactly?
Rules Discussion / Re: Revealing Blur To Interrupt Conjuration Attacks
« Last post by Zuberi on January 08, 2020, 06:37:14 AM »
You make a good argument. Despite my reputation, I'm not the official answer on rules and I admit that I'm a bit rusty having only played a handful of games with my family in the past year. It all comes down to how you want to interpret obscured and I think your interpretation is a valid one. I'm not sure what the official stance would be here.
Rules Discussion / Re: Revealing Blur To Interrupt Conjuration Attacks
« Last post by keejchen on January 08, 2020, 12:11:49 AM »
Okay, but I am not sure how you get that from the obscured trait:

"This object is difficult to see. It cannot be targeted from more than one zone away..."

The word illegal is not used, it does not mention the subjects ability to be hit by attacks from beyond range 1 nor does it make a creature immune to attacks at range 2+.

The word target and targeted are important keywords that we use all the time in MW, they have specific uses, like when you are declaring spells and attacks. Obscured does not affect the Ballista's range, but rather the obscured creature's ability to be targeted. Targets beyond an attacks range are always illegal, and it is illegal to target an obscured creature at range 2+. But we have already agreed that we only check target in step one and at that point the target is not obscured. This is rules as written.

You keep mentioning the section "changing the range or target of a spell or attack", i.e. "changing the range of an attack" or "changing the target of an attack".

The range of the attack is not changed, if something made the Ballista range 1 it would qualify, the Ballista bolt would fall short.

The target of the spell is not changed by obscured, it's ability to be targeted is. Let's say the Ballista fired a flaming missile at the creature, you reveal a spell that gives it fire immunity, then the target has changed and this would affect the ongoing attack.
Rules Discussion / Re: Revealing Blur To Interrupt Conjuration Attacks
« Last post by Zuberi on January 07, 2020, 09:35:17 PM »
I agree with you about intent and think it would be best ruled that way. My thinking though, with rules as written, really comes down to an interpretation of the wording on obscured. As I'm not saying the attack constantly checks targeting or range.

If you interpret obscured as changing the range of the attack, and thus putting the creature out of range, then you are entirely correct. Range has already been checked. It's not a constant check. The attack would still happen.

However, if you interpret obscured as making the object an illegal target for range 2+ attacks, then that can cancel an attack. As that's one of the conditions for canceling an attack under the rules of "changing the range or target of a spell or attack". If that happens at any point during the attack, the attack is canceled.

I believe the second is how obscured works. It's not affecting the ballista. It doesn't change how far the ballista can target. It's affecting the creature and saying what can legally target the creature. Making the creature an illegal target, i.e. no longer a legal target.

The creature's not out of range of the Ballista. It's an illegal target for an attack at that range.
Rules Discussion / Re: Revealing Blur To Interrupt Conjuration Attacks
« Last post by keejchen on January 07, 2020, 02:58:43 PM »
Thanks for the reply Zuberi.

I disagree about the quote, it follows similar logic: You cannot make a thing untargetable after it has been targeted (or, you can, but at that point it does not matter).

I went through the same train of thought as you did, i.e. does being out of range equal illegal target?

I disagree with your conclusion: Out of range does not make an attack illegal, it makes targeting illegal and, as we agree, targeting is only checked once during the Declare Attack step. Following that train of thought, why would the sentence "targeting is only checked once during the Declare Attack step" ever be written, if targeting is constantly checked throughout the attack? I am sure I did not just pull that out of a hat, but maybe I did? Though I am not sure where I first picked it up. Reading the Declare Attack Step in the rulebook, it reads similarly, I won't quote it here. Why would they not write that into the avoid attack spell if that is where it matters? The logic fails me.

Searching for "Declare Attack step" gave me a thread with this quote:
Likewise, Divine Intervention was specifically designed for just such a purpose.  Wait for the attack dice to roll, see the result, if it's horrible call upon Asyra to whisk you away before the Apply Damage and Effects Step!  Watch your opponents face turn from elation (after rolling 8 crits and a Stun!) to surprise and defeat!

Even an attacker might use Divine Intervention after making an attack, just before the Counterstrike Step, to avoid a nasty Counterstrike.

Using spells in such a manner adds some great tactics and surprises to the game.

However, you can't change prior events.  For example, revealing Divine Intervention after the Apply Damage and effects Step might whisk you away, but you still took the damage and effects.

If an enchantment reveal cannot change a prior event, it would not be able to change the targeting event.

This is a matter of semantics, but I was honestly sure you would agree with me on this one. I hesitate to mention intent, I know we are not supposed to make rulings based on assumed intent. But I am sure the intent of Blur was to make it impossible for it to break spells or attacks, and in my opinion it still is.

Regardless, you would of course have the final say in this. If what you say is true, then I need to change my Enchantment Transfusion thread. It would mean that you can transfuse Blur and Lesser Invisibility to a creature up and until the end of the Avoid Attack step to break an attack. I am pondering if there are other implications of this ruling?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10