July 17, 2019, 04:25:34 AM

Author Topic: Thorg vs. Thoughtspore  (Read 3832 times)

lettucemode

  • Sr. Mage
  • ****
  • Posts: 282
  • Banana Stickers 3
    • View Profile
Thorg vs. Thoughtspore
« on: December 02, 2013, 09:42:56 AM »
A Thoughtspore has Force Hammer bound to it. Thorg taunts it from 1 zone away. Can the Thoughtspore cast and attack with Force Hammer or does it need to move into Thorg's zone and melee attack him?

When this came up, we ruled that it had to melee attack Thorg, since Thorg's Taunt text says that a Taunted creature can only attack or move and attack, not cast spells. What do you guys think?
« Last Edit: December 02, 2013, 09:56:33 AM by lettucemode »

Zuberi

  • Rules Guru
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2497
  • Banana Stickers 57
    • View Profile
Re: Thorg vs. Thoughtspore
« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2013, 10:05:31 AM »
I believe that you played it correctly. The Thoughtspore does not have the Force Hammer attack, just the Force Hammer spell. The spell grants him the attack upon resolving, but he can't choose to cast the spell to gain the attack because his only option is to use an attack that he already has.

ringkichard

  • Flightless Funpire
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2564
  • Banana Stickers 18
  • Kich, if you prefer.
    • View Profile
Re: Thorg vs. Thoughtspore
« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2013, 10:26:10 AM »
On the other hand, the hammer from the spore would be an attack from the taunted creature, not an attack from the spell. Attack spells are attacks, right?
I can take the fun out of anything. It's true; here, look at this spreadsheet.

Zuberi

  • Rules Guru
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2497
  • Banana Stickers 57
    • View Profile
Re: Thorg vs. Thoughtspore
« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2013, 11:04:50 AM »
Attack Spells are not Attacks. They are Spells which grant Attacks. That's the main premise I am going off of. I could be mistaken about this. There are a few spots in the rules that give me pause, but that is my overall impression from the rules. With that concept though, you would not have access to the attack until after the spell resolves, but then the attack would indeed originate from the creature.

The problem is, Taunt limits your choices to only being able to attack, or move and attack. Thus, when you activate, you have to look at which attacks you have available at that moment and those are your choices to pick from. You do have the Force Hammer spell available, but you do not have the Force Hammer attack available, because it has not been granted to you by the spell yet. So when you look at what attacks you have available at the moment you activate the creature, Force Hammer is not an option.

This is easier to come to terms with I think depending on your view of Spellbinding. I view it as "permanent preparation". A prepared spell isn't actually in play or affecting anything currently. It is something that you can bring into play if you choose to. Thus, the Force Hammer attached to the Thoughtspore is not actually doing anything or giving the creature anything that it didn't have naturally unless I cast it.

Wildhorn

  • Superior artificial brain, feel free to call me Blaine.
  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 1063
  • Banana Stickers 3
    • View Profile
    • Mage Wars Quebec
Re: Thorg vs. Thoughtspore
« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2013, 11:19:13 AM »
On the other hand, the hammer from the spore would be an attack from the taunted creature, not an attack from the spell. Attack spells are attacks, right?

Attack spell are NOT attacks. They are a spell that create an attack. You have to cast the spell first. Then if it resolve, an attack occurs. So no, you can NOT use it if you are taunted.

jacksmack

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Banana Stickers 19
    • View Profile
Re: Thorg vs. Thoughtspore
« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2013, 01:55:59 PM »
If this had occured in any of my games before i'd read different views on this i would assume that the thoughtspore actually could use the attackspell.

I see that it makes sense it cannot... but i guess it depends on how you percieve "taunt".
In other games i have played "taunt" did not mean attack without brain (aka spellcasters meleeing), it just forced the taunted target to focus its offensives against the taunter.
Why taunt ususally hit harder on support class like priests / healers because they would actually stop doing what they are good at, and be forced to fight, but with their best offensive moves at their disposal.

I dont have the rulebook or the PDF's nearby so i cant check up on the wording.


If its a no, is Arcane Zap then the same?
« Last Edit: December 02, 2013, 01:59:00 PM by jacksmack »

ringkichard

  • Flightless Funpire
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2564
  • Banana Stickers 18
  • Kich, if you prefer.
    • View Profile
Re: Thorg vs. Thoughtspore
« Reply #6 on: December 02, 2013, 02:34:55 PM »

Attack spell are NOT attacks. They are a spell that create an attack. You have to cast the spell first. Then if it resolve, an attack occurs. So no, you can NOT use it if you are taunted.

You sure about that?

Page 14:
"Attack spells allow your spell caster to attack a target in the arena. When the spell resolves, you make the attack on the target. Attack spells have an “attack bar” (just like an attack bar on a creature card) that has the information you need to resolve the attack, including the number of attack dice rolled, additional effects table, traits, etc. Once the attack is resolved, place the attack spell on your discard pile. Attack spells are always ranged attacks. See “Attacks” on page 22"

Page 23
" ATTACk SPEllS When you cast an attack spell, it is both a spell and an attack. First, you must follow all steps for casting, just like any spell. Then, if the spell is not countered, you must resolve the attack, following the steps for attacking. The target of the attack is always the same as the target you chose when you cast the spell. Attack spells will not show a “quick” or “full” action icon on the attack bar, because the quick or full action required to make the attack occurs when the spell is cast. Also, the range of the attack is determined by the range of the spell, so no range is shown on the attack bar. They also do not have an “attack name” on the bar, because the name of the attack is the same as the spell"
I can take the fun out of anything. It's true; here, look at this spreadsheet.

sIKE

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 4172
  • Banana Stickers 18
  • Ugh
    • View Profile
Re: Thorg vs. Thoughtspore
« Reply #7 on: December 02, 2013, 04:28:15 PM »
I have always considered an "Attack Spell" to be an attack. My reasoning has been that it can be countered with Defenses and Intercept (unless unavoidable) and therefore has to be an attack.....
  • Favourite Mage: Malakai Priest

baronzaltor

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 1765
  • Banana Stickers 19
    • View Profile
Re: Thorg vs. Thoughtspore
« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2013, 04:41:45 PM »
I "think" a taunted familiar can use a bound attack spell on Thorg.

It'd still be best for someone to clarify, but Im reasonably certain that an Attack Spell can be cast as a ranged attack to meet the criteria of Thorgs taunt.

baronzaltor

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 1765
  • Banana Stickers 19
    • View Profile
Re: Thorg vs. Thoughtspore
« Reply #9 on: December 02, 2013, 04:43:50 PM »

If its a no, is Arcane Zap then the same?

Thorg cannot taunt Mages, so the Wizard should be free to use Arcane Zap or whatever he likes.

Zuberi

  • Rules Guru
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2497
  • Banana Stickers 57
    • View Profile
Re: Thorg vs. Thoughtspore
« Reply #10 on: December 02, 2013, 07:30:36 PM »
Quote from: ringkichard
You sure about that?

I'm actually not 100% as there are a few lines in the rules that give me pause. None of them actually contradict my interpretation though, so I am fairly confident I have made the right judgement. The line that you highlighted was one of the bigger things that caused me hesitation, that is until I stopped focusing on the last half of the sentence and began focusing on the first half.

When you cast an attack spell, it is both a spell and an attack.

This qualifying statement means the sentence is not in disagreement with the interpretation that attack spells are not inherently an attack themselves. Before they are cast, they are simply spells. It is only when you cast them that they become attacks.

I have read through the rules sections that I feel would be relevant a few times now, and while there are a few statements that are not crystal clear and allow for some confusion (like the one Ringkichard pointed out) none of them actually contradict my conclusion. Meanwhile, throughout the rules it seems clear that the spell and the attack are treated as two separate entities with the attack only occurring after the spell has resolved.

Quote from: jacksmack
If its a no, is Arcane Zap then the same?

As baronzaltor clarified, Thorg can not taunt Mages. If he was able to though, then by my reading of the rules you would not be able to use Arcane Zap.

Quote from: sIKE
I have always considered an "Attack Spell" to be an attack. My reasoning has been that it can be countered with Defenses and Intercept (unless unavoidable) and therefore has to be an attack.....

The rules are very clear that the attack occurs after the spell has resolved. At that point the attack can be countered with Defenses and Intercept, but the spell itself can not. It has already finished casting. With the current attack spells available to us, this is a matter of semantics as it amounts to the same thing (the card has no effect). However, if we had some type of attack spell that had an effect independent of the attack, then successfully avoiding the attack would not negate the effect.

For example, imagine an attack spell that in addition to making its attack also gave the caster Flame -2 until the end of the round. Upon resolving the spell, they gain the Flame -2, then they make their attack which their opponent stops with a Block spell. They will still retain the Flame -2 however.

Quote from: baronzaltor
It'd still be best for someone to clarify,

I will add it to the list needing clarified.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2013, 07:33:22 PM by Zuberi »

sIKE

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 4172
  • Banana Stickers 18
  • Ugh
    • View Profile
Re: Thorg vs. Thoughtspore
« Reply #11 on: December 02, 2013, 09:08:05 PM »
I think that some how we have gotten down into the minutia of things trying to divine intent.  That is left for others to determine.

With that said, I am putting on my pointy hat on :). It is a Spell and an Attack. What if the word order in the rules manual were reversed such as: an Attack and a Spell, would the results change for you? It seems that weight has been given on order here. I shall disagree and stick with an Attack is an Attack from a sword, a staff, a bow and arrow, someone spitting at you, or an Attack that is the result of a spell being cast. I think that the damage from a Fireball would count as attack damage on Thorg and satisfy the attack requirements of his taunt.
  • Favourite Mage: Malakai Priest

Zuberi

  • Rules Guru
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2497
  • Banana Stickers 57
    • View Profile
Re: Thorg vs. Thoughtspore
« Reply #12 on: December 02, 2013, 09:35:43 PM »
Quote from: sIKE
It seems that weight has been given on order here.

There seems to be a little confusion here. I have quoted an order of procedure, because it is very clear in the rules that such exists. First you resolve the spell, and then you perform the attack. You can't argue that. However, that's not really the point I wish to focus on relevant to my argument.

The primary point is that the Attack Spell is NOT IN PLAY. It is a spell that the familiar has prepared and is thus able to cast, but it is not an object and is not currently in play. Something that is not even in play does not have an effect on the game.

Therefore, the Thoughtspore does not have access to the attack because there is nothing in play granting it the attack. It is only after it is cast that it has an effect and causes an attack to occur.

Zuberi

  • Rules Guru
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2497
  • Banana Stickers 57
    • View Profile
Re: Thorg vs. Thoughtspore
« Reply #13 on: December 02, 2013, 09:38:59 PM »
Quote from: sIKE
an Attack is an Attack from a sword, a staff, a bow and arrow, someone spitting at you, or an Attack that is the result of a spell being cast.

Under that definition, Explode  would also be considered an attack.

ringkichard

  • Flightless Funpire
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2564
  • Banana Stickers 18
  • Kich, if you prefer.
    • View Profile
Re: Thorg vs. Thoughtspore
« Reply #14 on: December 02, 2013, 10:48:42 PM »
About a year ago, in a different thread:
Hello NovemberAdam,

Yes, Attack Spells are considered attacks too, and will trigger a Block enchantment.

Attack spells are both a spell and an attack.  When you cast them, they are cast just like any spell, with a Casting Step, and a Counter Spell Step.  Then, during the Resolve Spell Step, they are resolved just like an attack, following all of the normal Attack Steps. For the Declare Attack Step, most of these choices and checks have already been accomplished during the Cast Spell Step (choose target, checking range and LoS, pay mana costs, etc.). Then, you move right on to the Avoid Attack Step.

Hope this helps!

Which to me, indicates that this is not a  single happenstance turn-of-phrase, but that attack spells are attacks. I've always played (for example) that if my mage killed a creature with an attack spell, that would trigger my opponent's Valshalla because my mage is a creature and an attack spell is an attack.

It's important to contrast this with incantations that make attacks, like Explode. These are not attacks, they are spells that make attacks.
I can take the fun out of anything. It's true; here, look at this spreadsheet.