May 07, 2021, 04:36:56 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 4 ... 122
Spells / Re: A little love for the Swamp
« on: December 13, 2018, 10:41:14 AM »
Sorry DaveW for not addressing that concern. Basically it's a question of when do you check for the slow trait ending the creature's action. I don't think it's made it into the supplement, but the decision is at the end of the move action. That way if something gains slow mid move it still affects them, as opposed to checking when they begin their move action.

Another option would be a constant check, but that doesn't feel right for cases in which it is removed mid move. For example, you start your move action, and your opponent reveals Enfeeble. Well, now you're slowed. You then reveal Cheetah Speed. That cancels it out and you're not slowed. By the time you end your movement, should you have lost your quick action due to being Slowed for just a microsecond? No. That would defeat the entire point of the counterplay.

So, bringing that in to the situation of leaving the Swamp, you lose the slow trait before ending your movement. Thus it doesn't negatively affect you.

Spells / Re: A little love for the Swamp
« on: December 12, 2018, 02:01:02 AM »
Perfect explanation from iNano78.

Rules Discussion / Re: force pull through Mind's eye
« on: November 30, 2018, 05:07:33 PM »
I don't think the fact that it "pulls" is less relevant. But it is intrinsically tied to the question of "pulling towards what?". You can't say whether it's a pull or a push without a frame of reference. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument seems to mostly be a thematic one at this point. But there are ways to imagine this to make thematic sense. Instead of some kind of lasso of force coming from the Mind's Eye and pulling the creature in that direction, think of it as a tether. The mind eye uses force energy to tether the Mage and the target creature together, and pull them closer to each other. Theme isn't my strong suit, but there are ways to explain it.

Meanwhile, I find it funny that we use a lot of the same points of contention but reach different conclusions. "The reason it costs 1 mana is because it is limited in direction..." is, to me, a good reason why the direction shouldn't be changed. "Why does the 'yoink' FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE DIRECTION when a Mind's Eye casts it?" It shouldn't. Which is why it should continue to pull the creature towards the Forcemaster. Doing otherwise would be a fundamental change in how the spell functions. That's the direction it was always designed to operate with. Giving it extra functionality and versatility without increasing it's cost seems like a poor idea to me.

Also, remember that the Mind's Eye isn't the caster. The Forcemaster is still the one casting it. So that might help your thematic disconnect. Maybe picture it as a hand of force that is magnetically/magically attracted to her that she just throws behind the target. She can use the Mind's Eye to help her plop it behind a target, but it is still drawn towards her, the caster. I think that is a better picture than my tether idea.

Rules Discussion / Re: force pull through Mind's eye
« on: November 30, 2018, 06:54:18 AM »
I feel obligated to first say that despite my reputation and some people's opinion to the contrary, I am not the arbiter of rules and am not an official response. This is merely my personal opinion.

I think the card text is not clear. The use of the pronoun and what it is referencing when the source of the spell is suddenly changed can be argued, and trying to argue it is not going to get us anywhere. I prefer Puddnhead's method in this case, looking at the intent.

Option A: Force Pull always pushes towards the Forcemaster. Nearly every situation under this option will end up working exactly how Force Pull has always worked, and was clearly intended to work. The only exceptions are if you target the Mage herself or any other creature in the same zone as her. In which case the two possible interpretations are that nothing happens, or that she may push the creature in any direction. I'm of the belief that nothing would happen. The reason for this is clearer when talking about other creatures in the zone with her, as pushing them out of the zone obviously doesn't follow the rules of the spell. They'd be moving further away, not nearer. The same is true when used on the Mage though. You are moving her away from her current location, not towards it. So basically, Option A uses the Mind's Eye to increase range but does not affect functionality.

Option B: Force Pull pushes towards the source, i.e. the Mind's Eye. This would be consistent with the rules for Pushes in general. Their direction is generally in reference to the source, not the caster. However, this grants Force Pull all sorts of new functionality, in addition to increased range. Obviously it now lets you pull things AWAY from the Forcemaster, which is the exact opposite of what it was originally supposed to do, and makes it much easier for the Mage to disengage and keep things a safe distance away. It also allows you to pull yourself, giving you increased mobility. I don't think there's any way to argue that this isn't as intended for Force Pull. But maybe it's the intent for Mind's Eye? Puddnhead references Reverse Magic and Reverse Attack, but that seems like a poor comparison to me. The effect of those spells isn't really changed. They've always targeted the source, and have had rulings on that going back to the core set and Chain Lightning. And casting them out of Mind's Eye doesn't change anything about them. The only thing happening there is the fact that Mind's Eye can trigger them.

Jet Stream is a better example. But here I think it's important to realize that this, and any other example you can come up with, aren't Mage Abilities. Any spell card you can point to as an example has the property of being a spell card, and thus designed with the idea in mind that it may be cast by a Familiar instead of by your Mage (Note, I recognize that Magecast spells exist, but I couldn't find any relevant to the discussion). That's not the case with Force Pull. It's initial design and intention was always that it would be pushing things towards the Mage.

That's why I think Option A is the right interpretation. It pushes them towards the Forcemaster, and if you target the Forcemaster herself or any other creature in her zone, it doesn't do anything. Not because it has the best argument grammatically with regards to the pronoun, but because it preserves game play and avoids unintentional uses of an ability.

General Discussion / Re: trying something else...
« on: November 14, 2018, 08:08:15 PM »
Currently Codex is my go-to dueling game. It's not as grand or deep as Mage Wars, and definitely doesn't take as long, but it is more compact and offers a lot of good tactical choices. The deckbuilding is mostly done in-game as you play rather than between games, which I think is a good thing.

Moving away from attacking each other, if you like coop games I strongly recommend Spirit Island. It hits a lot of your wants. You don't deckbuild, but you do build a hand of cards and customize what you can do during the game. It doesn't take up any more table space than Mage Wars, plays in 2 to 3 hours. And offers a lot of strategic choices in a very rich and thematic universe. Everyone plays as nature spirits trying to get the colonizers off their island. It's a lot of fun.

Rules Discussion / Re: Freeze Conditions
« on: October 17, 2018, 12:02:39 AM »
I haven't seen the final tokens, but the text on them is just supposed to remind you of what's in the rulebook. If it seems to contradict the rulebook, then just ignore it. It's not like a card where the card text takes precedence. The text from the rulebook has everything you need to know about the condition.

For reference, I was part of the design team. You should be able to find my name (Ivan Kidd) on the back of the rules that came with it.

Rules Discussion / Re: Intercept and pest
« on: October 15, 2018, 10:05:33 PM »
Your interpretation is correct. A pest with intercept could still intercept a ranged attack without any issues. Pest does not interact with the Intercept trait.

Rules Discussion / Re: Ranged Attack vs Wall bordering same zone
« on: September 09, 2018, 08:48:39 PM »
Luminous Blast can absolutely be used to attack walls bordering your zone. While walls are NOT in your zone, they also are not 1 zone away. The situation is exactly the same as it has been described earlier in the thread, that walls exist in a nebulous in-between state where counting them as range 0 is equally as valid as range 1, which is to say neither is actually correct but we don't have another way of measuring range. So you still pick one of the zones bordering the wall, even if the one you choose happens to be the one you're standing in. That's fine.

General Discussion / Re: The Killer Bees
« on: August 29, 2018, 04:07:36 PM »
Conjurations, Creatures, Enchantments, and Equipment are all spells that turn into objects after they are cast. As spells, they absolutely cannot target or affect Swarms, so you can't cast Tanglevine on a Swarm, for example. However, after they've been cast and they turn into objects, it's a little different. They kind of have to be able to affect swarms, because otherwise creatures couldn't target swarms or affect them, making them immune to virtually everything except attack spells. That would be seriously problematic.

Rules Discussion / Re: obscure and vines
« on: August 24, 2018, 11:05:25 AM »
The problem here, as Kharhaz stated, is that the rules for using a Vine as the source prevents you from targeting anything outside of the vine's zone (or a wall bordering it). It doesn't matter what the range on the spell is, when you use a vine as the source you are limited to within that vine's zone (or a wall bordering it).

Now, if it's just the Necromancer who has obscured and not the whole zone, you could target a vine in the zone with the Necromancer to attack them.

Rules Discussion / Re: Flying and no flying and logic
« on: August 24, 2018, 10:57:15 AM »
I agree with wtcannonjr. There's already ways to deal with flyers. They're not too powerful, you just need more games and experience. In fact, they have pretty significantly reduced stats for their cost compared to non-flying creatures. The trait isn't free.

In addition to ranged attacks and using you're own flyers, you can simply remove their ability to fly. Obviously you have things that say they remove flying, like Gravikor and Maim Wings, but you're not limited to that. Any ability that incapacitates or restrains also removes flying. Attack spells that slam are a very popular way of dealing with them.

Or you could just ignore them. Since they have lower stats than a non-flyer, if you just make non-flyers you'll have more powerful creatures for the same cost. And the flyers can't get in your way unless they lose flying. So just focus on the enemy mage. If they try to guard, throw a Tanglevine or Force Hold on them. Now they can't effectively guard AND they are grounded if you want to focus on them.

My guess is that it's guardian angles that are really giving you trouble, and restraining them not only counters their flying AND their guarding, it also negates their defense. So that's a really good strategy against them.

Rules Discussion / Re: order in damage and effect die
« on: August 23, 2018, 02:07:24 AM »
This is answered in the Rules Supplement. Damage is always applied first, before effects.

General Discussion / Re: Gen Con Academy pre releases
« on: August 06, 2018, 06:13:33 AM »
Interesting that you don't have to pay 2 extra mana for 3+ level shields (since the target line only refer to minor weapons and any level shild) with Freeze Weapond.

You have misread. The minor applies to the shield part as well. In English it is grammatically correct to apply an adjective to both nouns linked by a conjunction. I agree it can be confusing, is not how I would choose to do it, but it is correct English and Arcane Wonders has used this convention on lots and lots of cards in the past.

I think this is a good idea. Compiling all of the rules into a single document would be very useful, and it will be easy enough to indicate any rulings that are still pending official clarification.

I'm having trouble thinking of a situation in which this would matter and am curious what you're thinking about to give this more context. As is, I think the most complete answer would be to point you towards the steps for revealing an enchantment in the Supplement. They rarely matter, to the point that they're not even mentioned in the core rules, but they do exist. They are:

1. Show the enchantment
2. Counter the enchantment (only usable by effects that specifically say they can counter reveals)
3. Pay Costs
4. Resolve the effect

When you are unable to pay the cost in step 3, the reveal is canceled and the card is discarded. I believe this would prevent any effects contingent on the reveal occurring.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 122