Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Rules Discussion => Topic started by: ACG on April 17, 2015, 07:32:51 PM
-
[mwcard=MW1E17]Force Orb[/mwcard] and [mwcard=MW1E18]Force Sword[/mwcard] state that they are "not affected by conditions". However, Restrained and Incapacitated (examples on the cards) are not really conditions in the same way that Daze is, which makes the scope a little confusing. I found nothing in the rules supplement, so hopefully somebody can clarify here: are these affected by cards that give +X to defense rolls?
For instance, would these be affected by [mwcard=FWQ02]Defense Ring[/mwcard]?
-
yes Defense Ring grants its bonus
-
I think Defense Ring should work, but I can't really defend it at the moment. ACG is correct that those enchantments are very vague on what can affect them and what can't. Incapacitated is listed in the Codex as an Effect and Restrained is an Object Trait. Neither of them are Conditions. Perhaps I am missing something though. I haven't been to bed yet.
-
I assumed these two operated similarly to an autonomous spell. I.e. they were force-based spells with effects independent of the object they were attached to. The only relationship was the attachment which let the spell move with the object from zone to zone.
so effects that happen to the object don't impact these enchantments and the would still provide a defense even if the object was restrained, incapacitated, etc.
My two cents...
-
Force Orb and Force Sword are enchantments with the subtype "Defense".
And Defense Ring allows you to add +1 to any defense roll the mage makes.
That makes it all pretty clear imo. EVERY defense roll that that mage makes gets a bonus +1 to the roll.
You could reverse the question though and ask, if Force Orb and Force Sword were not helped by Defense Ring what cards would be aided by it and why ? What would be the difference ?
-
I assumed these two operated similarly to an autonomous spell. I.e. they were force-based spells with effects independent of the object they were attached to. The only relationship was the attachment which let the spell move with the object from zone to zone.
so effects that happen to the object don't impact these enchantments and the would still provide a defense even if the object was restrained, incapacitated, etc.
My two cents...
If they were Autonomous it would be a simple question, however they are not. They are clearly worded in such a way as to be giving the creature a Defense which is then a part of it as much as any Defense printed directly on the creature card. This new Defense is special because it's not affected by Conditions. It then lists Incapacitate, Restrained, and Daze as example conditions, however two of those are not actually defined as Conditions in the rules and if they don't affect the defense then it is unclear what else it may be immune to as well.
The only thing that those three things have in common is that they are persistent effects, which could be said about the Defense Ring as well. So, while Borg is correct that it is clear that Defense Ring provides a +1 to every Defense of the Mage, it is not clear whether these particular Defesnes can legally benefit from it because we're not sure if this persistent +1 is considered a "Condition" by the Enchantments. It's definitely not defined as a Condition, but the Enchantments seem to have a broader definition than the rest of the game.
I think the default assumption though is to go as strictly by the card as possible and count Incapacitate and Restrained as the only non-conditions the defense is immune to since they are specifically mentioned. Do not try to interpret them as examples of some broader immunity. While if this is the correct meaning of the card it leaves me wishing that it had been worded clearer, doing anything else would be utter guess work.
-
I think we need an official ruling on this.
-
Defense ring works.
I think defense ring shouldn't work, except writing an errata would be annoying. The reason is because it is basically autonomous if that trait had existed back then.
I still think defense ring should work with autonomous, but thats another story.
-
I bring this one up: what doesn't affect force orb and force sword?
-
Daze stun and incapacitated don't affect force sword and force orb. That's about it
-
I'm getting flashbacks to the "Does Stun prevent Block?" thread.
-
Daze stun and incapacitated don't affect force sword and force orb. That's about it
the card doesn't say that!
-
Incapacitated, restrained, and daze, it literally does say that as i only specified daze and stun (which grants incapacitated).
-
ב"ה
In the rules as written, they wouldn't be affected by a daze, by being restrained from cripple or stuck and by being incapaciated by slam, stun or sleep. They would be affected from being restrained by a tanglevine or being incapaciated from the Knockdown incantation.
That could be understood from the text on the card, however, it doesn't make sense thematically (at least not in a way I understand). So I do understand the need to ask about it.
-
Force Sword/Orb undoubtedly would have been Autonomous if it had existed then. As it is, they are similar, but not the same as Autonomous, which gives rise to some peculiarities such as this.
I'm pretty sure Defense Ring does work with them, although thematically it shouldn't (as it doesn't with Dancing Scimitar). I don't think it's worth an errata to tidy up though (and if one were to errata, I'd favour errating Defense Ring to include Autonomous defences...)
-
the card sais: no condition, including incapacitate, restrained and daze.
but incapacitated and restraiend are no conditions
and a lot of people would think other effects than conditions doesn't affect it (for exemple the ring)
or should we read "autonomous"
... we definitively need an official ruling and/or errata!
-
ב"ה
Force Sword/Orb undoubtedly would have been Autonomous if it had existed then. As it is, they are similar, but not the same as Autonomous, which gives rise to some peculiarities such as this.
I hope to see an official ruling that agree with you. It will make more sense to me.
-
ב"ה
Force Sword/Orb undoubtedly would have been Autonomous if it had existed then. As it is, they are similar, but not the same as Autonomous, which gives rise to some peculiarities such as this.
I hope to see an official ruling that agree with you. It will make more sense to me.
just don't interpret such things, it is not autonomous and therefore it works with the ring. There is nothing strange about it.
Any condition doesnt alter it, anything else that does give incapacitated or restrained doesnt alter it either. A grappler that has force orb can still apply.
Long story short the defense can always be used even if restrained (no - effect or incapactitaed)
and there is no reason it gets no bonus from the ring.
The card doesnt say condition MARKER, but condition, so everything that will give the creature the condition of incapacitated, restrained and likewise will not alter the defense
-
The card doesnt say condition MARKER, but condition, so everything that will give the creature the condition of incapacitated, restrained and likewise will not alter the defense
Why do you think Restrained is a condition? It's a trait, like Flying.
-
The card doesnt say condition MARKER, but condition
from the rules: "conditions [...] are indicate with markers"
-
The card doesnt say condition MARKER, but condition, so everything that will give the creature the condition of incapacitated, restrained and likewise will not alter the defense
Why do you think Restrained is a condition? It's a trait, like Flying.
is it so unclear how the card is ment?
Of course it isnt worded right cause there is no condtion named restrained or incapactitated there are condtions that grant those traits, like stun, slam, and so on.
Defense ring works on orb and sword and orb and sword are uneffected by incap or restrain or daze -2s.
-
is it so unclear how the card is ment?
What AW have ment doesn't help me, I play with what they have written!
I don't play these cards because I'm affraid of all the situations where we wouldn't know how to play it... It would be cool to have an official statment to translate the meanig in a rule.
-
is it so unclear how the card is ment?
What AW have ment doesn't help me, I play with what they have written!
I don't play these cards because I'm affraid of all the situations where we wouldn't know how to play it... It would be cool to have an official statment to translate the meanig in a rule.
Then play them how they are written. They aren't affected by restrained, incapacitated, or conditions. Don't add stuff to the card that isn't there. Yes, it's poorly worded in a way that makes incapacitated and restrained sound like conditions when they're not, but that doesn't give you a free pass to imagine the card however you want.
On a side note, if they were autonomous, defense ring would still work for them. It only doesn't work for autonomous equipment and these are not equipment.
-
So let me get this right...
If the creature is stunned force orb works just fine....
But if the creature is entangled then Force Orb subtracts 2?
Edit: entangled = tanglevined (sry)
-
why?
So let me get this right...
If the creature is stunned force orb works just fine....
But if the creature is entangled then Force Orb subtracts 2?
it is restrained from a tanglevine and restrained doesnt effect it
-
They aren't affected by restrained, incapacitated, or conditions.
would be perfect for me... but if my oponent thinks the text means "autonomous", how to decide?
-
Entangled? If you mean restrained, then no it does not subtract 2 because the card specifically mentions not being affected by restrained. Basically this entire controversy seems to revolve around some poor wording, and I agree it is somewhat poor wording, but let's take it at face value and apply the magic rule where card text overrides normal rules. In that case, this card is counting restrained and incapacitated as conditions, despite them not being such in the normal rules, for the purposes of the cards defense being immune to it. But otherwise, it's only immune to conditions and does not redefine that term any further. So, it ignores restrained, incapacitated, and conditions, and nothing else per the card text.
They aren't affected by restrained, incapacitated, or conditions.
would be perfect for me... but if my oponent thinks the text means "autonomous", how to decide?
Look to see if autonomous is printed on the card anywhere. It's not. Thus it's not autonomous.
-
A bad wording problem can't be solved by presenting arguments... only by the writer correcting it.
-
Don't confuse agreeing with the fact the card could have been worded better with agreeing there is a problem. You said yourself that you play by how things are written. If you play this card by how it's written, then there is no problem.
-
They aren't affected by restrained, incapacitated, or conditions.
would be perfect for me... but if my oponent thinks the text means "autonomous", how to decide?
It's only Autonomous if it says it is, which is clearly isn't.
Lots of Academy cards have text that is the same as <foo> Trait in Arena, but they don't have <foo> for anything that cares, they just have a text with identical ability. This is a long way from a unique situation.
As was posted above, if you read the (latest card version) wording exactly as it is, without interpreting or assuming anything else, then you will be right 99% of the time. There are exceptions (like Purify and Stranglevine that have been ruled, but need to make it into an official document), but 99% of the time you are golden, and this is such an example.
-
I really don't mean to be rude or mean and hope I'm not offending. I agree that the card could have been written better so that it didn't refer to restrained and incapacitated as conditions. I also agree that it is the precursor to autonomous. But it is not autonomous. You can submit the suggestion to errata it, and I think that's just fine, but where we disagree is that it's not clear as written. Perhaps this is a case of me being too familiar with the rules to see the problem, but it seems to me to be an issue of people trying too hard to read between the lines and put things in that aren't there. Just do what the card says.
-
Hey! no problem! I like the discussions here!
It's just I think that a card shoudn't present restrained and incapacitated as conditions, it's confusing. MW is complex enough, let's make simple what is.
I just wanted Laddinfance to tell us what they meant, and if it is "neither conditions nor restrained nor incapacitated", that would be a necessary wording errata for me.
-
The word "including" is the problem here... and perhaps it's linked to my poor english...
in french, "incuding" means that what follows is part of what came first (here restraiend would be a condition).
I found another card that uses "including" in the same strange way for me: mana prism.
a loss of mana caused by a spell, "including upkeep costs"... but the spell would cause the upkeep cost, not the loss!
-
You are correct that such things are not normally categorized in such a way. However, you seem to be forgetting the Magic Rule where the card can override the normal rules of the game. Including isn't a problem, because the card takes precedence. Meaning that if it says they're included then they are included.
So, basically what's happening here is the card is redefining the term Condition to include Restrained and Incapacitated for the express purposes of ignoring them when using its Defense. People are then wondering what all this new non-standard definition of Condition might include in addition to these, completely missing the fact that it has already been 100% defined for you. It adds Restrained and Incapacitated to the normal list of conditions, for the purposes of ignoring them when using its Defense. That's all the card says, and so that's all it does. This may not be the way you or I would have chosen to write the card, but it does function just fine. There's no room for interpretation or confusion anywhere other than people trying to imagine that it says stuff that it doesn't.
Since it works just fine, I disagree that any errata is necessary. Errata might make you and I happier about the word choice, but AW doesn't tend to put out unnecessary errata just to satisfy aesthetic requests. As you point out, these aren't the only spells to be written like this either.
-
You are correct that such things are not normally categorized in such a way. However, you seem to be forgetting the Magic Rule where the card can override the normal rules of the game. Including isn't a problem, because the card takes precedence. Meaning that if it says they're included then they are included.
With respect, that is smoke and mirrors - the magic rule is about a card rule breaking a general rule, not malformed sentence construction.
"General case, including specific example" requires the 'specific example(s)' be a subset of the 'general case'. It's not a case of abnormal usage, it's syntactically incorrect. There's nothing wrong with Exid's comprehension of English, just that of whoever templated that card, as well as all those proofreading and editing it. Clearly no professional editors involved...
I don't think it needs errata, because whilst the sentences in question can't possibly mean what they say, there is also little doubt as to what they are trying to say (as long as AW don't create conditions sharing these names!). Both examples warrant a clarification entry in the FAQ document though.