June 12, 2021, 06:22:57 AM

Author Topic: Akiros Favor VS Temple of the Dawnbreaker  (Read 234877 times)

Moonglow

  • Sr. Mage
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Banana Stickers 2
    • View Profile
Re: Akiros Favor VS Temple of the Dawnbreaker
« Reply #105 on: November 30, 2015, 11:40:03 AM »
If there are likely to be more 'reroll' effect cards that benefit from this step, I'd vote for adding it.  But if AF is likely the only one - keeping in mind Dawnbreaker has to be already in play to function - I'd vote for a simple clarification or wording tweak.

I do agree that if we nerf it to have to be revealed to be used, and revealed prior to the step then it seems out of step with the decisions that can be made for nearly all other cards.  However, ...... (blah blah I think we've all written enough on the variations possible, I won't repeat it/myself/others).

Schwenkgott

  • Thunderdome
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 1430
  • Banana Stickers 2
    • View Profile
Re: Akiros Favor VS Temple of the Dawnbreaker
« Reply #106 on: November 30, 2015, 12:44:34 PM »
And because nobody would risk arguing with Conan, it is proven now! Akiro's Favor can be revealed in the Roll Dice step to reroll!
Akiro, I have never prayed to you before. No one will remember if we were good men or bad. Why we fought, or why we died. All that matters is that one stood against many. That's what's important! Valor pleases you, Akiro... so grant me strength! And if you do not listen, then to HELL with you!

exid

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 867
  • Banana Stickers 4
  • The longer the better!
    • View Profile
Re: Akiros Favor VS Temple of the Dawnbreaker
« Reply #107 on: November 30, 2015, 12:52:36 PM »
- If you roll the dice and see that the damage, you can decide to (not) reveal rhino hide. If you don't need it or the damage is all piercing you simply don't reveal it.
- In the same manner I inspect the dice as an attacker and decide to reveal if I want a better roll. If it's already decent I won't reveal it and save the mana/surprise.

For me personally I don't think either of those rules make sense. I would say you need to reveal everything during the assemble dice step. RHINO and AKIRO. The rules are clear about rhino hide so I find it strange to allow rhino hide after the roll but won't allow AF after the roll. (my view of separating between enchantments)

I hope I made myself clear.  :) Technical discussions like this are hard over the internet in a different language. :P

yes, i understand.
my point is that these enchantements make effect during two different steps (and so it's one rull to reveal one before the rolling and one after).
your point is that you will know if you are interested in there effect during the same rolling step (and so it would be two rulles to have to reveal them in two differnent moments).

my point is clearly the best... 8)... but i don't have many arguments to defend it.

ringkichard

  • Flightless Funpire
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2564
  • Banana Stickers 18
  • Kich, if you prefer.
    • View Profile
Re: Akiros Favor VS Temple of the Dawnbreaker
« Reply #108 on: November 30, 2015, 01:01:48 PM »
You mean Rhino Hide?
Ayep. That'll teach me to write on my 10min break.
I can take the fun out of anything. It's true; here, look at this spreadsheet.

Zuberi

  • Rules Guru
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2504
  • Banana Stickers 57
    • View Profile
Re: Akiros Favor VS Temple of the Dawnbreaker
« Reply #109 on: December 05, 2015, 03:21:28 AM »
Yes, you need to reveal after a phase, step, or action. Yes, some enchantments must be revealed before they can be used rather than as a surprise. This is how I had thought it had always been, and I think a lot of this thread is just about people being upset about these facts.

Well, to some degree, yes. This *is* a change, and it was written in accidentally. Version three rules specifically say that a roll is an event, and that you can reveal after any event. Now, as I pointed out, the consiquenses of this rule weren't pursued aggressively at the time, but by removing opportunities to reveal enchantments some cards just don't work the same as they used to, and this is potentially one. We didn't need a definition of re-roll that specified if it could re-roll an attack after the Roll Dice Phase, because you could just reveal Akiro's Favor after the roll while still in the Phase.

I really am thinking of going through every card in the game and making a list of every card this change affected. Or maybe I'll just take a break for a bit and calm down. Something about this really seems to have my goat.

I don't see what's changed. Whether you reveal within the step, after the roll, or you reveal after the step, either way you are revealing after the roll. Meaning both ways we would have the same problem and I'd be making the same arguments. Can it affect a roll that has already occurred? If it was yes, it is still yes. If it was no, it is still no. You say it was yes, but I can find no support for that answer. I would be perfectly fine with that answer if we had an official source on it, but we don't seem to and saying no to it seems easier and cleaner to me.

I really don't see what the steps have to do with it at all. It's merely a question of what a reroll is and is it changing the past? If a reroll is changing the roll, then it has to happen when the roll happens because the game doesn't allow you to change the past. If it's not changing the past, and rather is a brand new occurrence, then it doesn't matter when it happens or when the enchantment is revealed as long as you can still make use of the dice somehow.

sIKE

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 4172
  • Banana Stickers 18
  • Ugh
    • View Profile
Re: Akiros Favor VS Temple of the Dawnbreaker
« Reply #110 on: December 05, 2015, 11:01:02 AM »
I repeat there is no changing the past, it has been stated clearly multiple there is no going back. The way I see it, is the re-roll "supersedes" the previous roll. Thus can happen outside of a step at any period in a round.
  • Favourite Mage: Malakai Priest

wtcannonjr

  • Ambassador of Wychwood
  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 812
  • Banana Stickers 3
    • View Profile
    • WBC Mage Wars Tournament
Re: Akiros Favor VS Temple of the Dawnbreaker
« Reply #111 on: December 05, 2015, 11:55:26 AM »
I repeat there is no changing the past, it has been stated clearly multiple there is no going back. The way I see it, is the re-roll "supersedes" the previous roll. Thus can happen outside of a step at any period in a round.

First, I think adding a separate re-roll step is not necessary.

Second, here is why and it relates to the "any period in a round" comment.

The RAW clearly identifies when dice are rolled. For example, in the Upkeep Phase for Burn markers or attack dice are rolled during the Roll Dice step of an Attack Action, etc. I think we all agree that if no other spells and effects are in play we would not say that a creature can roll their attack dice outside of a step at any period of the round. However, if we disagree about this than perhaps we need to discuss our interpretations of what is meant by a Sequence of Play.

So now we have a spell, Akiro's Favor that ADDS an effect into the game that allows a player to Re-roll Attack Dice. So the wording on the card only specifies attack dice or special effect die can be re-rolled for THAT attack. Without further wording on the card we use the standard sequence of play rules to determine when the effect on the card can be applied. We see the term on the card "for that attack" as key to deciding that the re-roll must happen during the current attack's Roll Dice Step. The spell effect would need expanded wording to circumvent the Sequence of Play rules and provide an ability to re-roll attack dice at any period of the round.

As I see it each spell effect on a card needs specific wording in order to change the sequence of play. Case in point was an example given earlier around Reverse Magic. This is why the Magic Rule exists. It allows cards to alter the standard sequence of play, but only based on specific wording on the card itself. If Akiro's Favor replaced the clause "for that attack" with "for that attack at any period of the round", then I would agree with your interpretation.

My two cents ...
  • Favourite Mage: Wychwood Druid
"Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced." - James Baldwin

Zuberi

  • Rules Guru
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2504
  • Banana Stickers 57
    • View Profile
Re: Akiros Favor VS Temple of the Dawnbreaker
« Reply #112 on: December 05, 2015, 12:19:10 PM »
I repeat there is no changing the past, it has been stated clearly multiple there is no going back. The way I see it, is the re-roll "supersedes" the previous roll. Thus can happen outside of a step at any period in a round.

That is a valid answer, and is not at all influenced by when enchantments can be revealed. It's merely a matter of whether the reroll changes the previous roll, or is it a new roll that supersedes the previous roll. That is what's at question here, and as soon as we have an official answer it can be laid to rest.

sIKE

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 4172
  • Banana Stickers 18
  • Ugh
    • View Profile
Re: Akiros Favor VS Temple of the Dawnbreaker
« Reply #113 on: December 05, 2015, 12:23:53 PM »
I repeat there is no changing the past, it has been stated clearly multiple there is no going back. The way I see it, is the re-roll "supersedes" the previous roll. Thus can happen outside of a step at any period in a round.

First, I think adding a separate re-roll step is not necessary.

Second, here is why and it relates to the "any period in a round" comment.

The RAW clearly identifies when dice are rolled. For example, in the Upkeep Phase for Burn markers or attack dice are rolled during the Roll Dice step of an Attack Action, etc. I think we all agree that if no other spells and effects are in play we would not say that a creature can roll their attack dice outside of a step at any period of the round. However, if we disagree about this than perhaps we need to discuss our interpretations of what is meant by a Sequence of Play.

So now we have a spell, Akiro's Favor that ADDS an effect into the game that allows a player to Re-roll Attack Dice. So the wording on the card only specifies attack dice or special effect die can be re-rolled for THAT attack. Without further wording on the card we use the standard sequence of play rules to determine when the effect on the card can be applied. We see the term on the card "for that attack" as key to deciding that the re-roll must happen during the current attack's Roll Dice Step. The spell effect would need expanded wording to circumvent the Sequence of Play rules and provide an ability to re-roll attack dice at any period of the round.

As I see it each spell effect on a card needs specific wording in order to change the sequence of play. Case in point was an example given earlier around Reverse Magic. This is why the Magic Rule exists. It allows cards to alter the standard sequence of play, but only based on specific wording on the card itself. If Akiro's Favor replaced the clause "for that attack" with "for that attack at any period of the round", then I would agree with your interpretation.

My two cents ...
One more and final time and I will stop:

Page 2 v4 Manual:
Quote
The Magic Rule
Mage Wars is a game of magic and magic spells. Often, these spells will violate the normal rules in some way. In all cases, if there is a conflict between the text on a spell card and these rules, the spell card always takes precedence.

The card: [mwcard=MWSTX2FFE02]Akiro's Favor[/mwcard]

The whole card text from OCTGN:
Quote
Akiro's Favor   
Promo
Enchantment
2+1   
Quick   
0-2
Living Creature
War
1
Magebind +2

Once per round, if this creature makes a melee or ranged attack, you may re-roll all of the attack dice, or the effect die, for that attack. Or, if the attack has to roll to hit (such as with a Daze condition), you may re-roll that die roll instead. Use a ready marker to keep track of this ability.
[ReadyMarker]

MWPROMO1
         

The very first three words of this card state: "Once per round"

Magic Rule kicks in.

I do not like being a contrarian in my arguments, but:

The RAW for the Dice Roll Step only allow for the Dice to be rolled (not re-rolled). You "roll the Dice" you now have the "event" completed and the results of the dice roll are the "effect" and the step now ends, next you reveal Akiro's Favor's and it's effect is defined as "Once per round" and therefore it allows for a re-roll, i.e. replace the "effect" of the "event" in the Dice Roll Step with a new roll of the Dice, all of this is done before the Apply Damage Step.

No time travel, all within the rules, and "magic" just happens.
  • Favourite Mage: Malakai Priest

Zuberi

  • Rules Guru
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2504
  • Banana Stickers 57
    • View Profile
Re: Akiros Favor VS Temple of the Dawnbreaker
« Reply #114 on: December 05, 2015, 01:12:35 PM »
Thank you sIKE. Again, I agree that you have a valid interpretation there, assuming that a reroll is a new roll that supersedes the previous one. However, it is an equally valid interpretation to consider a reroll to be a way to change a roll, which means it has to be done while the roll is in progress since you can't change the past. The "once per round" statement is very likely a limiting statement preventing you from using it multiple times per round and doesn't really answer our question regarding the nature of rerolling dice. This requires an official ruling.

sIKE

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 4172
  • Banana Stickers 18
  • Ugh
    • View Profile
Re: Akiros Favor VS Temple of the Dawnbreaker
« Reply #115 on: December 05, 2015, 01:42:12 PM »
Agreed it needs a ruling. And agreed "Once per round" is also a limiter.
  • Favourite Mage: Malakai Priest

wtcannonjr

  • Ambassador of Wychwood
  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 812
  • Banana Stickers 3
    • View Profile
    • WBC Mage Wars Tournament
Re: Akiros Favor VS Temple of the Dawnbreaker
« Reply #116 on: December 05, 2015, 02:18:40 PM »
Agreed it needs a ruling. And agreed "Once per round" is also a limiter.

I see what you are saying now. Thanks for clarifying further.

I have always interpreted the wording "Once per round" to be a frequency limit. The effect wording itself defines what point in the Sequence of Play it can take place. i.e. if this statement was not included, then a creature with a Doublestrike or Triplestrike attack could re-roll each of them. This wording prevents continued re-rolls that might otherwise have been possible in situations like multiple counterstrikes in a round due to the Vigilant trait or Defend spell.

If the wording "Once per round" actually means any point in the round, then we have many other cards that might need clarification.

Let's see where the ruling comes down on this one.

It kind of feels like we are waiting for the Supreme Court of Mage Wars to weigh in on this debate. :)
  • Favourite Mage: Wychwood Druid
"Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced." - James Baldwin

ringkichard

  • Flightless Funpire
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2564
  • Banana Stickers 18
  • Kich, if you prefer.
    • View Profile
Re: Akiros Favor VS Temple of the Dawnbreaker
« Reply #117 on: December 05, 2015, 08:49:29 PM »
I don't see what's changed. Whether you reveal within the step, after the roll, or you reveal after the step, either way you are revealing after the roll. Meaning both ways we would have the same problem and I'd be making the same arguments. Can it affect a roll that has already occurred? If it was yes, it is still yes. If it was no, it is still no. You say it was yes, but I can find no support for that answer. I would be perfectly fine with that answer if we had an official source on it, but we don't seem to and saying no to it seems easier and cleaner to me.

Ok, I'm back to my home, and a full sized keyboard:
Here's every instance of the word event in the v3-3 rules.

Quote from: 6
The player with the initiative acts first during the Action Stage, and goes first whenever you must determine the order of events.

This tells us that we may need to determine the order of events. In this context, it seems that events are just whatever things need to be put into order.

Quote from: 7, about the upkeep phase
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.

Example: You control a Highland Unicorn with the Regenerate 2 trait that has a Burn marker on it. Since the creature has a lot of damage on it, the Burn effect could destroy it. You can choose to resolve the Regenerate trait first or the Burn condition first.

This tells us that Regenerate and Burn are events, and by extension pretty much everything else that normally happens in the Upkeep Phase that you'd want to order.

Quote from: 18
Revealing Enchantments
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?”).

This is the source of the event language that was the grease that allowed many cards to function in ways they perhaps cannot under a strict reading of the 4th printing rules.

Quote from: 18 again
Enchantments cannot affect an event that occurred before it was revealed. For example, you cannot reveal a Rhino Hide enchantment after the enchanted creature takes damage from an attack, to reduce the amount of damage it received.

Somewhat ironically, this is the "no going back in time" rule. It only applies to events. What's an event? Well, taking damage, in this example. The 4th printing rule is very similar.

Quote
When Can You Reveal?
You can reveal an enchantment immediately after any action or event in the game:
• At the end of any Phase of the game round. Example: An Essence Drain can be revealed at the end of the Reset Phase, so that it will take effect during the Upkeep Phase.
• Immediately after a creature is activated, before it chooses its actions for the turn.
Example: You could reveal Chains of Agony when your opponent activates his creature. If the creature moves that turn, it will take damage.
• Immediately after a creature completes its move action, but before it takes a quick action.
Example: After a creature moves into a zone, but before it can make an attack, you could reveal Sacred Ground.
• At the end of any of the eight steps of an attack or three steps of casting a spell.
Example: After the Avoid Attack Step of an attack, you could reveal the Rhino Hide enchantment on
your creature to reduce the amount of damage it will take from that attack.
• You can reveal an enchantment immediately after it is cast, right after the Resolve Spell Step.
When an enchantment is “resolved” it is placed face down as a hidden enchantment. Then, immediately after it has resolved, you may choose to reveal it at the end of that Step.
• You cannot interrupt an event to reveal an enchantment.
Example: You cannot reveal an enchantment on a creature in the middle of its Move Action, or in the middle of rolling dice during an attack. You would have to wait until that “event” (step or action) has finished.

In this portion, we learn that events are steps and actions, and by implication, also phases. We learn that rolling dice is an event.

Quote
If a mandatory or single use enchantment is revealed at any time other than the event for which it is supposed to trigger, it has no effect and is immediately destroyed and discarded. You cannot hold the revealed spell, to use its effect at a later time. For example, if a Block spell is revealed when there is no attack, it has no effect and is destroyed and discarded instead.

Here we learn that events are anything for which an enchantment triggers. Which makes sense, because it allows all enchantments to be revealed after they trigger.

--
Quote
I really don't see what the steps have to do with it at all. It's merely a question of what a reroll is and is it changing the past? If a reroll is changing the roll, then it has to happen when the roll happens because the game doesn't allow you to change the past. If it's not changing the past, and rather is a brand new occurrence, then it doesn't matter when it happens or when the enchantment is revealed as long as you can still make use of the dice somehow.

Let me put it as a question: would we have any reason to believe that the following card breaks the rules?
Re-roller. Mandatory Enchantment: Whenever this creature rolls an effect die for an attack and gets a result below 7, you must reveal Re-roller. Re-roll the attack and effect dice, then destroy Re-roller.

If we can do that, we have to be revealing the enchantment after the roll, because there's no way to reveal it during the roll. There's no reason to suspect that the roll procedure continues after the dice have stopped moving, is there? I propose that the only time the rules would allow a re-roll (if the above enchantment is legal, and it seems to me like it would be) is after the roll.

Under the version 3 rules, you could always reveal any enchantment after the roll, which would also be the soonest a mandatory enchantment could be revealed. This was because rolling dice is an event, and you could reveal after any event. If we believe the mandatory enchantment has an opportunity to function within the rules, all hidden re-roll enchantments could have done the same.

Under the version 4 rules, since you can't reveal after the roll unless the enchantment specifically tells you to, you have to wait till after the roll step to reveal Akiro's Favor. It's possible that once the step is passed, you're outside the window of opportunity for re-rolls, so you can't reveal in time to have any effect.

That's why steps come into it. Previously, you didn't have to wait till the end of a step to reveal, but now you do, and that may cause you to have to wait longer than is permissible.

--

I like your supreme court of Mage Wars analogy. We don't know the outcome, just the existing law such as it is. The decision makes new law. 
I can take the fun out of anything. It's true; here, look at this spreadsheet.

wtcannonjr

  • Ambassador of Wychwood
  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 812
  • Banana Stickers 3
    • View Profile
    • WBC Mage Wars Tournament
Re: Akiros Favor VS Temple of the Dawnbreaker
« Reply #118 on: December 05, 2015, 10:07:23 PM »
Hmmmm...pondering this further.

What if the wording on Akiro's Favor said "... you may roll all of the attack dice again,..." instead of the current wording "... you may re-roll all of the attack dice,..."?
  • Favourite Mage: Wychwood Druid
"Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced." - James Baldwin

Moonglow

  • Sr. Mage
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Banana Stickers 2
    • View Profile
Re: Akiros Favor VS Temple of the Dawnbreaker
« Reply #119 on: December 05, 2015, 10:49:31 PM »
The idea of steps in this form of linear flow implies one is complete before the next starts.  The dice roll step needs to be complete before the damage can be applied. 

For that reason, to me, and  yes I get the other rationale, but I prefer that the dice rolling re-rolling and anything else that can be done to change the value of the dice is done in the dice roll step.  That makes it nice and clear to trigger the apply damage step... and anything that is going to moderate that step, needs to be in play prior....

I get and feel that other interpretation is fairer (pr better) for AF as a card.  But creates more potential for confusion in the rules overall.... at least I think I think that, I'm not reading through the 8 pages to check ;)