May 21, 2019, 06:23:01 PM

Author Topic: Poisoned Blood and Barksin  (Read 20174 times)

Zuberi

  • Rules Guru
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2496
  • Banana Stickers 57
    • View Profile
Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
« Reply #30 on: October 03, 2015, 06:04:22 PM »
We need a hard definition for when enchantments can be revealed that is not open to any subjective opinions or interpretations. I was very satisfied with it being after a step, phase, or activation. If others are not satisfied with that and want to include other things, I'm not opposed to errata and rules changes. But we would need to clearly define what those other things are, and that currently is not the case. Currently the only clear rules are after a step, phase, or activation, and until other allowances are clearly defined I will be strongly opposed to them.

sIKE

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 4172
  • Banana Stickers 18
  • Ugh
    • View Profile
Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
« Reply #31 on: October 03, 2015, 06:23:20 PM »
It is totally amazing that after 3 or so years that there is such a large gap between groups of players and their understanding of the rules, Enchantments are really a signature of Mage Wars, and it appears that there have been two distinct groups of player playing them totally different. By the way, I do see how this could interpreted your way.

Quote from: sIKE
Does that happen at the same exact second just because we are it a single point in time? I think not.

Yes. A single point in time means at the same time.

How does the Quickcast Phases work then? I can't choose to reveal Hawkeye before my Wizard uses his Arcane Zap? But he can after the Zap is used, why?

The problem is we no longer know what qualifies as a single event or step. Before today, the Upkeep Phase was a single event, but now it can apparently be broken down into smaller chunks. What's preventing us from breaking other things down into smaller pieces as well? How small of a piece can we get? What defines it? We don't know! It's all up to the imagination! With this ruling there is no way for us to know what can be interrupted with an enchantment and what can't. Anything can be made into a valid argument, and shutting those arguments down individually is not practical.
I'm not getting it, at all! Nothing in the game or rules have indicated that everything happens at the same exact moment during any of the Phases. I do mean from a logical point of view. I.e. During the reset phase all the creatures Action markers are flipped to the active side. Yes IRL I flip them one (or two) at a time in sequence, but really that happens at the same time, it just takes me a minute to visually match reality. But there is nothing in the rules that say I cannot reveal a Harmonize on my Battleforge before I Reset happens on my Creatures, and that I can only reveal it once I am done flipping the markers and saying I am done with the Reset Phase, nor is there a rule saying I can not reveal Harmonize on my Battleforge before I Channel (obviously I have to have the Mana on hand before I do either), if I forgot and did not reveal it at the end of the Channeling Phase, then my Battleforge would not Channel the one extra mana. But as far as I understand, I am not prevented from revealing an Enchantment at the beginning of a non-Creature Actions Phase.

Here is a blast from the past on a specific Enchantment and its timing:

http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=12326.msg25662#msg25662
  • Favourite Mage: Malakai Priest

sIKE

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 4172
  • Banana Stickers 18
  • Ugh
    • View Profile
Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
« Reply #32 on: October 03, 2015, 06:27:17 PM »
Hard definition:

Anytime, unless specifically written on the card. You can not interrupt something already happening.

Very simple and straight forward.

What is most interesting on Barkskin itself, is that you can choose to Regenerate before you pay Upkeep. I have been playing that all wrong.
  • Favourite Mage: Malakai Priest

Laddinfance

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 4646
  • Banana Stickers 2
    • View Profile
Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
« Reply #33 on: October 03, 2015, 06:38:12 PM »
The problem is we no longer know what qualifies as a single event or step. Before today, the Upkeep Phase was a single event, but now it can apparently be broken down into smaller chunks. What's preventing us from breaking other things down into smaller pieces as well? How small of a piece can we get? What defines it? We don't know! It's all up to the imagination! With this ruling there is no way for us to know what can be interrupted with an enchantment and what can't. Anything can be made into a valid argument, and shutting those arguments down individually is not practical.

In the previous rulebook and this one, all of the things you process through in the upkeep phase were referred to as events. So, previously you should have been able to reveal an enchantment during that phase as long as there was something to process.

None of this is to say that having things better defined isn't a good idea. And as I mentioned previously, I need Bryan to answer this, and he's traveling.

sIKE

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 4172
  • Banana Stickers 18
  • Ugh
    • View Profile
Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
« Reply #34 on: October 03, 2015, 06:44:08 PM »
Wow, page 7 in the Mage wars manual v3.3:

Quote
You always choose the order in which events that affect your creatures and objects occur during this phase. In the rare case that a timing issue occurs, the player with the initiative decides the order.
  • Favourite Mage: Malakai Priest

Laddinfance

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 4646
  • Banana Stickers 2
    • View Profile
Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
« Reply #35 on: October 03, 2015, 06:51:52 PM »
It's also in the 4th printing rulebook as well. The thing that I need to be able to sort this is Bryan. He's the only one who knows if the word "event" was intentionally removed to limit revealing opportunity or if it unintentionally did so.

Sailor Vulcan

  • Secret Identity: Imaginator
  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 3128
  • Banana Stickers 3
    • View Profile
Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
« Reply #36 on: October 03, 2015, 07:00:58 PM »
Quote
It is totally amazing that after 3 or so years that there is such a large gap between groups of players and their understanding of the rules, Enchantments are really a signature of Mage Wars, and it appears that there have been two distinct groups of player playing them totally different. By the way, I do see how this could interpreted your way.

Yeah. Although to be fair, the reason for that is probably that a lot of people understand the rules really well on an intuitive level but not as much from a precise technical level. Part of the problem is that it was never explicitly stated that the upkeep can't be interrupted. It is merely the only possibility that doesn't cause the rules to contradict themselves.

EDIT: Oh wow, good find sIKE. So the rules actually contradict themselves already...

Now that I think of it, I think most people know intuitively that adramelech's touch needs to be revealed BEFORE rolling blanks for burns, not after, in order to have an effect on those burns. When the burns roll blanks and adramelech's touch has not been revealed yet, the automation on octgn causes the burns to immediately disappear, and I've yet to see anyone argue that they should have been allowed to reveal touch and preserve the burns after the fact. If you ask them, "why didn't you wait until you saw the result before revealing adramelech's touch?" they probably won't know exactly why. They likely will say that they weren't thinking about it and just playing normally. And yet they will consistently play it that way every time until you point it out to them. Or at least every time I can recall someone using Adramelech's Touch, that was how they played it. I do not remember anyone waiting until they saw the result of the burn roll before revealing adramelech's touch and paying for the burns to stay.

Quote
In the previous rulebook and this one, all of the things you process through in the upkeep phase were referred to as events. So, previously you should have been able to reveal an enchantment during that phase as long as there was something to process.

None of this is to say that having things better defined isn't a good idea. And as I mentioned previously, I need Bryan to answer this, and he's traveling.

The word event isn't just poorly defined, it's not defined at all, and it isn't seen anywhere else at all. As far as I know, the word "event" is ONLY relevant to this particular case with the upkeep phase. If we play as Zuberi's saying, practically nothing about gameplay as it currently is will change. But if we play according to this ruling, all sorts of terrible corner cases will be unleashed that were never an issue before, and gameplay will likely change more significantly all around.

How long until Mr. Pope gets back from Germany then? I was hoping to play some mage wars on octgn tonight, but don't want to end up having arguments with my opponents because of a strange game-breaking ruling.

I think the best thing we can do at this point is to all agree to house rule it until he gets back.

The house rule I most recommend is that we follow the RAW and all rulings except this one and the one sIKE found until Mr. Pope has the chance to either rectify or clarify both Laddinfance's ruling and the ruling that sIKE found. To be clear, that would most likely mean that we would play as Zuberi said, with enchantments being revealable directly before or after the upkeep phase, since all upkeep effects occur simultaneously and enchantments can't interrupt anything that's already in progress. This house rule wouldn't change much of anything from how everyone already plays the game in real life anyways, and I do think that this interpretation is more fair. If a creature has an enemy death link and a friendly regrowth on them, I don't think they should die just because it's the opponent's initiative, since if it were a ghoul rot and not a death link the creature's controller would still get to choose the order and the creature wouldn't die!

All in favor, unless anyone has any better ideas?
« Last Edit: October 03, 2015, 07:03:52 PM by Sailor Vulcan »
  • Favourite Mage: Salenia Forcemaster
I am Sailor Vulcan! Champion of justice and reason! And yes, I am already aware my uniform is considered flashy, unprofessional, and borderline sexually provocative for my species by most intelligent lifeforms. I did not choose this outfit. Shut up.

Zuberi

  • Rules Guru
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2496
  • Banana Stickers 57
    • View Profile
Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
« Reply #37 on: October 03, 2015, 07:21:46 PM »
Hard definition:

Anytime, unless specifically written on the card. You can not interrupt something already happening.

Very simple and straight forward.

What is most interesting on Barkskin itself, is that you can choose to Regenerate before you pay Upkeep. I have been playing that all wrong.

The problem is, if we don't have an exact definition for an "event" then a person can always make an argument to break something down into multiple events, allowing them to interrupt the effect without breaking the rules. Because, by their argument, they are revealing between events rather than interrupting one. In practice, this would mean everything is interruptible unless specifically stated otherwise, which would cause chaos.

Laddinfance

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 4646
  • Banana Stickers 2
    • View Profile
Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
« Reply #38 on: October 03, 2015, 07:28:42 PM »
EDIT: Oh wow, good find sIKE. So the rules actually contradict themselves already...

That part has been in the rules since at least the second version of the rulebook. (Sadly I don't have the right software to look at the original rulebook). So this is not a ruling. It did not come out of the blue. It's been sitting there staring at us. Though looking at the second version of the rulebook was pretty interesting as it has a different phrasing of when enchantments can be revealed. At the point you were simply told you couldn't reveal enchantments during an action or event, all other times were valid.

In the process to try and clear up exactly when enchantments could be revealed, I feel we've entered this quagmire that we're in right now. And frankly the best solution is one that is very very time consuming. But from seeing this, it seems that we need it.

For now, ignore my ruling. That's fine, I've said as much thus far. However there is no need ignore that passage in the rulebook. The text I quoted from the fourth printing rulebook should keep that clean as well. Since it does not reference "events" then you can just ignore those. The rules are not contradicting themselves right now, the only issue is one of intent. That being said it also seems very clear to me that you use to be able to reveal enchantments in the upkeep phase. Now we're in a muddy area.

So, for the sake of playing Mage Wars, I don't think there are really any issues for you Sailor Vulcan, at least not with this. However, there is still something important to resolve.

sIKE

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 4172
  • Banana Stickers 18
  • Ugh
    • View Profile
Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
« Reply #39 on: October 03, 2015, 07:56:27 PM »
The house rule I most recommend is that we follow the RAW and all rulings except this one and the one sIKE found until Mr. Pope has the chance to either rectify or clarify both Laddinfance's ruling and the ruling that sIKE found. To be clear, that would most likely mean that we would play as Zuberi said, with enchantments being revealable directly before or after the upkeep phase, since all upkeep effects occur simultaneously and enchantments can't interrupt anything that's already in progress. This house rule wouldn't change much of anything from how everyone already plays the game in real life anyways, and I do think that this interpretation is more fair. If a creature has an enemy death link and a friendly regrowth on them, I don't think they should die just because it's the opponent's initiative, since if it were a ghoul rot and not a death link the creature's controller would still get to choose the order and the creature wouldn't die!

All in favor, unless anyone has any better ideas?
Huh, what I said and Laddin pointed out, is the opposite of what Zuberi has been saying.

And I don't get where rules contradict themselves. I see that people have differing interpretations of the same rule set, but nothing that is contradictory.

As discussed last night on your Poisoned Blood / Barkskin ruling I made, is how I think things should of been ruled and how I will continue to rule unless Bryan says otherwise (and I that point I walk away).
  • Favourite Mage: Malakai Priest

ringkichard

  • Flightless Funpire
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2564
  • Banana Stickers 18
  • Kich, if you prefer.
    • View Profile
Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
« Reply #40 on: October 03, 2015, 08:27:34 PM »
I'm pretty sure I've quoted the "event" language before, and it's what I've relied on. I'm firmly on the "yes, you can reveal after anything happens" faction.
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: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
« Reply #41 on: October 03, 2015, 08:41:36 PM »
I'm pretty sure I've quoted the "event" language before, and it's what I've relied on. I'm firmly on the "yes, you can reveal after anything happens" faction.
What about before?
  • Favourite Mage: Malakai Priest

Coshade

  • Arcane Duels Host
  • Global Moderator
  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 1862
  • Banana Stickers 6
    • View Profile
    • Arcane Duels!
Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
« Reply #42 on: October 03, 2015, 08:57:33 PM »
For playing on OCTGN with Poisoned blood and Regenerate.

I would suggest declaring before you say your are done with your Final Quickcast phase to just state that during channeling you will be reveal a poisoned blood to prevent the regeneration during upkeep. Since you can regenerate before paying upkeep for Barkskin it makes sense to reveal it before upkeep phase anyway. So while automation does do things nicely and cleanly, you can always just use words to communicate what isn't automated (yet).

Also to go with with how OCTGN mirrors a lot of things in real life. People tend to rush through the phases really quick. Often I say at the end of the Quickcast round what my intent is with poisoned blood (or any other enchantment) just to make upkeep phases that much easier. I actually find playing in real life a lot harder to keep up with enchantment reveals then in OCTGN.

As always it's best to ask your opponent if they have an enchantment to reveal if you suspect it could affect the game play.
  • Favourite Mage: Malakai Priest

sIKE

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 4172
  • Banana Stickers 18
  • Ugh
    • View Profile
Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
« Reply #43 on: October 03, 2015, 09:11:06 PM »
For the upcoming release 2.x release of the Mage Wars module on OCTGN, I am planning (it is already in progress) to completely rework the Phase Management in the game and was planning on adding each Phase including the 4 that are currently consolidated and automated together. Further I was planning on making it so that you could either automatically advance through Reset/Initiative Phases and land in the Channeling Phase or Manually advance through all of them. This work will also fix several of the disconnect/reconnect issues that currently exist in the module.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2015, 09:14:56 PM by sIKE »
  • Favourite Mage: Malakai Priest

ringkichard

  • Flightless Funpire
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2564
  • Banana Stickers 18
  • Kich, if you prefer.
    • View Profile
Re: Poisoned Blood and Barksin
« Reply #44 on: October 03, 2015, 09:37:07 PM »
What about before?

Quote from: rules 3-3
Important: Hidden Enchantments have no effect as long as they are hidden! You may choose to reveal an enchantment immediately after any action or event, even if it is your opponent’s turn! This is a “free action” that does not require you to activate a creature or flip an action marker (See sidebar “When Can You Reveal?”).

So, no. Right? If you want to do something before a specific event, you have to do it after the prior event. Which is why you have to reveal Rhino Hide "after the Roll Dice Step" instead of "before the Apply Damage and Effects step."

I'm only going by the 3-3 version of the rules, because that's what's online (and--I think-- that's also my physical copy). I'd love to have a copy of v.4 and a change-log, if such a thing exists.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2015, 10:03:26 PM by ringkichard »
I can take the fun out of anything. It's true; here, look at this spreadsheet.