September 19, 2020, 07:43:47 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 - keejchen

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12
1
Creative / Re: Mage Wars Meme-day
« on: August 09, 2020, 02:30:11 PM »


2
General Discussion / Re: Creating Cards - Week 2
« on: June 30, 2020, 11:33:31 AM »
Awesome idea Knabb!

3
General Discussion / Re: Create a Card - Together!
« on: June 22, 2020, 11:47:50 PM »
That's gotta be an expensive enchantment Arkdeniz, but I like the idea of adding Immovable and making it temporary.

I also really hope we can make the angel anything other than Holy (they do not need more good creatures), I really like the idea of dark/fire school "fallen angel" to make them specifically for warlocks (I think they need the most help).

4
General Discussion / Re: Create a Card - Together!
« on: June 19, 2020, 04:36:46 AM »
The obvious answer would probably be to make them both creature spells, but I think card 1 presents an excellent opportunity to create a card that gives Intercept to a creature. This would obviously be pretty powerful, so it needs to be somewhat costly. With the introduction of Elementalist we will see an increase in attack spells thrown around, so I think it would be a good addition.

My pitch:

"Bulwark of Steel", level 2 war enchantment, 2/7 mana
target: Living, non-mage, non-pest creature
This card can only be revealed when you have Priority. While guarding, this creature gains Armor+2 and Intercept.

V2 (Credit Juli):
"Bulwark of Faith", level 2 holy enchantment, 2/7 mana
target: Living, non-mage, non-pest creature
This card can only be revealed when you have Priority. While guarding, this creature gains Aegis 1 and Intercept.

Upon further review, the Guardian Angel is just better than using the above enchantment in almost every case. I suggest the incantation below instead.

Incantation:
6 or 7 mana
This creature gains Aegis 2 and Intercept until the end of the round.

5
Creative / Re: Mage Wars Meme-day
« on: June 18, 2020, 01:37:21 AM »

6
General Discussion / Re: MW arena update 2020
« on: April 05, 2020, 10:42:17 AM »
I think we both had a lot on our minds. But it's not like an obligatory thing to watch ;)

I put some timestamps in the description, so you can jump to subjects that interest you the most.

7
General Discussion / Re: MW arena update 2020
« on: April 05, 2020, 09:39:12 AM »
In the interest of keeping the discussion going, Juli and I did a stream on MW2.0. Check it out!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K975ALpWuw

8
Creative / Re: Mage Wars Meme-day
« on: April 03, 2020, 08:54:30 AM »
New meme template that sprung from Astartes Part 5. The Emperor protects Mage Wars.


9
Rules Discussion / Re: Revealing Blur To Interrupt Conjuration Attacks
« 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.

10
Rules Discussion / Re: Revealing Blur To Interrupt Conjuration Attacks
« 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 Step, 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?

11
Rules Discussion / Revealing Blur To Interrupt Conjuration Attacks
« on: January 04, 2020, 10:48:01 AM »
Hey folks,

In the most recent Arcane Duels League, we saw a new trick used to counter a Ballista's attack. Blur was revealed after the Ballista declared its target, and the players agreed that this canceled the attack. Here is the game with time stamp: https://youtu.be/ywZ2lpGRHIQ?t=287

Initially my gut told me that this did not work, but could not recall where I had read the clarification and could not pinpoint the rule. It is, as the judges conclude, legal to reveal Blur when the attack has begun. So why should it not work?

Today I had an epiphany: The reason why the trick does not work is because you can only reveal enchantments "after a step or phase". The first thing that happens when the Ballista is about to fire is the turning of the ready marker, this is not a step. The first "step" taken in a Ballista's ranged attack is "Declare Attack". In the Declare Attack Step you declare the target and check for Line of Sight, this is the only point at which LoS is checked in an attack. After the Declare Attack Step, you may reveal Blur, but it is too late.

It is written in the base manual under "Attacks Step 1: Declare Attack", although they do not put a whole lot of weight on the ruling here. I have scoured the forum to find a clarification of this rule and I have to quote myself on this, from my Enchantment Tranfusion Clarification:

[mwcard=MWSTX1CKE04]Enchantment Transfusion[/mwcard] (ET)
Spells that interact with Line of Sight (Lesser Invisibility/Blur):
If your opponent targets a creature with a spell, you may reveal ET after the opponents ”Pay Cost” step to move an enchantment that would cause LoS to be broken, and the spell is cancelled.
Note that this does not work against standard non-spell attacks, since LoS is only checked during the first step "Declare Attack" and you cannot interrupt an initiated step. You would have to move the LoS-breaking enchant before the attack is even declared.

No one has ever told me that this was wrong, so I assume it is still true.

Zuberi has a similar post for spells, that can be used to support the ruling:
Addendum regarding Option 2: Mana Siphon doesn't choose a target mage until the Resolve Spell Step (the spell itself is targeting a zone, it is the effect of the spell that targets a mage), which is why the Divine Intervention trick works. Similarly, sweeping doesn't choose it's secondary target until after it finishes attacking the first target (luckily the second target is now optional). In order to force someone to choose a different target, possibly making them target themselves, you have to make their desired target illegal before they've actually had a chance to officially target it. For most spells, this means you must make the thing an illegal target before Step 1: Cast Spell, which will probably result in them not casting the spell at all rather than casting it on an undesirable target. Once they've officially selected a target, it is impossible to change it, much less force them to change it.

In conclusion, Blur cannot be revealed to break a Ballista shot or any other attack, you have to reveal it before the attack is declared.

If you want to write it in a more logical, less rules lawyery way: You can reveal Blur after the attack is declared, but the Ballista bolt is already fired and on intercept course with the creature, it does not care that your creature turns blurry/invisible at this stage.

Feel free to discuss and tell me if I am wrong. :D

12
General Discussion / Re: Pillar of Righteous Flame - Discussion
« on: November 16, 2019, 01:16:06 AM »
Shoopufff you're using Enti's argument incorrectly.  :)

So the first major difference of course is that Lay Hands cannot target the mage, which is a reasonable downside because that is the most important creature there is and the one you'd likely want to heal most. However, quoting you in from your post:

Quote
But highly situational cards are not judged by their worst case, but by their best case.

Lets ignore that bit and focus on what it's good at, healing other creatures.

Lay Hands not being able to target Mage is not a "worst case use" of Lay Hands. It is a limitation printed on the card. Neither the best nor the worst case use of the card will be able to affect a mage. This is what makes Lay Hands a balanced card, along with the Holy Only limitation. If any school could use Lay Hands and it affected mages, it would be in almost every book.

If Pillar had Holy Only and did not affect mages, it would be a different story.

13
Alternative Play / Re: Game redesign: modular board and paper miniatures
« on: October 10, 2019, 10:11:26 PM »
Wow, this is an amazing conversion. Well done!

14
Of course I am biased, this whole thread is a collection subjective opinions about recent shifts in the meta.

I agree that there has been a drift towards longer games, I just do not agree that the game is worse off because of it. Nor am I suggesting that this trend should be pushed further, but the title of this post suggest that errata/bans are necessary to combat the recent changes and I disagree with that. I wanted to give voice to other side of the debate. I think the game is in the best balance it has ever been (even despite the Pillar! ::)), which is, again, an entirely subjective opinion.

Eventually you will have to engage to win, in a game of two economy books you should see skirmishes across the middle zones and larger, more important spells to swing the game like conjurations and zone attacks. Sounds fun and epic?
Never happened... never will happen... Zone attacks are not solution also they are expensive and often out of school. include 2 of them... there goes your spb's.
Happens to me all the time. Both the semi-final and the final in the league were won by zone attacks. Maybe you should try them some time. ;)

15
I have a few thoughts/questions on this.

Intangible from Arcane Duels talked about this way back, rushes have a lower ceiling and will not win as consistently. You are right that this is a trend that is becoming more pronounced. But is that a bad thing? The game is moving towards longer, more complex games, distancing itself from fast-paced mainstream card games.

Would you really prefer the opposite? That rushes were the main strategy in the game? Run forward, throw boulders, games are over in 30 minutes, all books are the same because opposed schools doesn't mean anything when only a small percentage of your SBP ever sees play. Obviously a middle ground is best, but at least long games are the lesser of two evils.

The big downside of Ritual of Kallek is that it burns your SBP for a short term gain. If SBP is worthless, then the Ritual is amazing. If SBP is worth something, then the Ritual is not worth as much. Same could be said about Wispwillow, Mana Lotus and Remove curse.

Everyone is limited by SBP, when building a book you need to balance it so you can win the game after your economy has paid off, both against rushes (which you claim is easy) but also other economy books (which should then provide you with some challenge).

How does your multiple spawnpoint Necromancer do against a multiple spawnpoint opponent? More importantly, do you consider those games boring?

Theoretically it is possible for a game of Mage Wars to last indefinitely, if both mages resolve to just sit in their corner and do nothing every turn. But how often does that happen? I think this has happened once in my MW career, no one wanted to engage so we agreed to a draw and played the next game. Does it often happen to anyone else? What happens in those situations?

Eventually you will have to engage to win, in a game of two economy books you should see skirmishes across the middle zones and larger, more important spells to swing the game like conjurations and zone attacks. Sounds fun and epic?

The biggest issue is probably real life time constraints? I like to think that quality games take time, and Mage Wars Arena at its slowest is still faster than most grand strategy games. Although it would really help if OCTGN had a save function.

Finally, the take from this is that more people should play Domination, it's a really fun game mode!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12