October 27, 2020, 07:31:12 AM

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 ... 122
Rules Discussion / Re: Revealing Blur To Interrupt Conjuration Attacks
« 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
« 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
« on: January 07, 2020, 01:33:23 PM »
I don't think that the quote from me is relevant here, as I was talking about forcing someone to choose a different target rather than simply canceling the action in progress. Meaning in this case if he had revealed before the Ballista attacked, the Ballista could have chosen a different target. But the question is what happens if he reveals after the Ballista attacked.

For this, we first should look at the Rules Supplement regarding Changing the Range or Target of a Spell or Attack. Here it says the attack is cancelled if:

1) The target is no longer a legal target
2) Either the attacker or the target moves.

Neither moved, so then the only question is does Naiya still count as a legal target. Which is not the same thing as being able to target them. Here we look at the Targeting rules in the rules supplement. To target something, the target has to (in summary):
1. Be in line of sight.
2. Be in Range.
3. Be a legal target.

So you are correct that line of sight and range no longer matter. Those were checked during the Declare Attack step and it doesn't matter whether or not those have changed. But that's not the question, as being a legal target is separate from those two. So, does Obscure change the range of the attack, or does it change the legality of Naiya being a target of that attack?

I think I agree with the Judges on this one. What's happening is that Blur makes Naiya an illegal target for attacks further than 1 zone away. And if we agree that that's the case, rather than it changing the range of the attack, then the attack would be canceled just like they ruled.

I hope that makes sense. I feel a bit rusty dusting off the rules lawyer hat and had to look up everything to refresh myself

Rules Discussion / Re: Goblin bomber and Scepter of Undeath
« on: September 18, 2019, 10:28:45 AM »
Farkas1 is correct. It would only modify a single dice roll, one attack out of the entire attack action.

RAW all effects happen at the same time, so both Freezes applied at the same time.

The issue is entirely with the wording and how that affects the timing. Extinguish specifically says that it happens during the roll dice step, before damage and effects are applied. Freeze says that it happens after an object has both Freeze and Burn conditions on it.

Regarding intent, I wish I could give more insight here. Feels like I should be able to since I was part of the team to design the condition, lol. But between there being so much time since the condition was discussed, and the fact that final design is still the sole discretion of Arcane Wonders (so I can't just say how I think it should work and confuse you guys thinking that's for sure how it should), I'm not certain what the final intent was.

If we did want it to behave like you guys are suggesting, it would need to say something along the lines of "If (this condition) would ever be applied to an object with (other condition) on it, remove that many of (other condition) instead of applying (this condition)." The point being that it needs to say the removal happens before / instead of the application of the new condition.

I agree with Puddnhead regarding rules as written. It seems clear with the current wording that the Freeze conditions do get applied. Removal doesn't happen until after both conditions are on the object, and as soon as the Freeze conditions are added to the creature, it dies.

Rules Discussion / Re: Wall(s) and Steep Hill
« on: June 23, 2019, 03:04:23 PM »
Yucky, its still ruled that way. My group does steep hill with house rules. Most of our players find it weird that there is a 1 pixel opening in every corner that none of the adjacent boundaries actually touch. Some would say crossing through an intersection of 4 lines is to cross through the 4 lines.

See, though, this ruling would mean that a diagonal zone could not see into the zone containing the steep hill itself. Because crossing the corner would be crossing two sides of the steep hill. But if we count it as not crossing any sides, we end up with the previous absurdity mentioned. But if we count it as crossing some of the sides, then which side is it crossing? That question could impact the way we treat walls if we want to remain consistent. Perhaps corners should themselves be counted as a "side" of the zone independent of the other sides? I think that last is my favorite solution.

General Discussion / Re: Mage Wars: Misc Stuff
« on: April 28, 2019, 02:30:29 PM »
Interesting thoughts.

I strongly disagree with letting players change their prepared cards. For me, planning is the greatest display of skill in the game. Letting people swap their cards destroys this.

I agree. I think the game would work fine without the planning phase, and it may even speed the game up a bit as people with AP wouldn't have to agonize over the decision. But, it also removes a key part of the skill inherent in the game.

Rules Discussion / Re: Summon a creature in pillar of righteous flame
« on: January 06, 2019, 09:22:22 AM »
Arkdeniz is 100% correct.

Rules Discussion / Re: Is Gate to Hell a Zone Attack?
« on: January 06, 2019, 09:20:58 AM »
There are significant differences between Academy and Arena. They are separate games. When using Academy cards in Arena, the actual Arena rules always take precedence. Such as the difference in the Pest trait. However, if there are no Arena specific rules for a given trait or ability, it is because they are supposed to work the same in both games. Differences should be detailed in updates to the rules supplement if they aren't detailed in the released Academy rules. Should be.

Rules Discussion / Re: Slumber affecting creature traits
« on: January 03, 2019, 07:02:05 PM »
Card effects don't do anything except what they explicitly say they do. Slumber does not remove or suppress traits. Drakas Imp Overlord would still have those abilities in effect.

Similarly, if he was removed from the Arena, such as by Banish, that also does not remove or suppress any of his traits. However, since his traits only affect demons in his zone, and he wouldn't be in any zone, they would in practice be useless, but they're still technically active.

Rules Discussion / Re: Dragon's Breath target options
« on: December 22, 2018, 07:01:41 PM »
So, it is slightly pertinent to DaveW's question, though his question doesn't hinge on it, but I do want to answer the debate regarding LOS really quick. wtcannonjr is correct that you only have to check LOS when targeting something. Not necessarily when checking range. If Kharhaz will reread the quote from page 17, it says "When you count range to your target you must also check to see if you have clear LOS." I'm not thinking of anything off the top of my head that cares about range and doesn't target something though. Every spell has a target, guaranteed. So this might really be a moot point.

Now, regarding DaveW's question, the important thing here is actually regarding the source of the second attack. The source is still the caster. Unlike Chain Lightning, it is not bouncing from the first target to the second. Instead, like the card says, it is more like a sweeping attack, wherein both attacks come from the caster who is just catching multiple targets in this jet of flame. Be it because the flame is so wide/long, or because the caster pivots and redirects, that's up to your thematic imagination.

But mechanically, you basically are making two attacks coming from the caster, one after the other. A wall between those two targets doesn't matter. However, if there was a wall between the caster and one of the targets, that may stop it because LOS from the caster does matter. Because you have to target them.

I hope that makes sense. I'm a little sicky atm.

Rules Discussion / Re: Regarding replacement of equipment
« on: December 22, 2018, 01:01:41 AM »
It mostly repeats what has already been said, but there is a small amount of additional information on page 9 of the Rules supplement. Specifically, it gives the procedure for replacing equipment. That procedure is as follows:

1.First, unattach and remove the original equipment object, with a duplicate name or location. This item is then placed back into its owner’s spellbook.
2.If this Mage has any Corrode markers on himself (see “Corrode”), remove any excess markers so that his armor value is not less than zero.
3.Next, attach the new equipment item onto the Mage.

The two previous replies though did a marvelous job answering the question. I think the most important thing here that was causing confusion is that OP seems to have not realized that their own Mage counts as friendly to themself. According to the codex section for Friendly, it includes any object which is controlled by the player or another player on their team. You control your own Mage, thus your Mage is friendly. Just like Arkdeniz said.

Spells / Re: A little love for the Swamp
« on: December 15, 2018, 01:01:03 AM »
The decision was as I described it. You check at the end of the move action and thus you can leave the swamp unaffected. Kharhaz just didn't get the memo, which I'm sure a lot of people didn't. It was just handled in private chats and hasn't made it into print yet.

I also want to recognize that Kharhaz's logic is sound. That is probably how I would have interpreted the codex definition also. The key thing here is that that definition was written before this was a problem, before movement had steps. Back then, you just moved and it was instantaneous. Which had its own problems (there's reasons we don't do it that way anymore) but did mean that this wasn't a concern. You couldn't lose slow mid move. You either had it or your didn't.

The decision wasn't based on that previous definition so much as what was best for the game. Basically, the arguments I talked about regarding if we checked at the beginning, end, or constantly were all discussed and it was decided that checking at the end worked best.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 122