Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Rules Discussion => Topic started by: aquestrion on December 05, 2013, 12:47:59 PM
-
So I want to see peoples opinions so let's put it to a vote yes or no should the wizard have to reveal its training. Please put a short description of why you think so.
I vote yes they should have to. Even though there is absolutely no difference (at the current time) in revealing or not.
-
As of right now the only cards that a wizard can use by school/mage restrictions any elemental wizard can use because there are no elemental school restricted cards.
Other mage status cards have a clearly defined training. The wizards card allows you to choose a elemental school, but it does not say you have to spread it to the world. When a judge looks at your book you have to tell them you a wizard but when or where does it say you have to tell them which one.
I don't mind telling a judge which one I am but until someone puts down a clear cut rule that says I absolutely have to reveal my training I won't. Because I have yet to see a rule clearly written that spells it out.
-
I believe a Mage's Training must be public knowledge because it can affect the game in several ways. According to page 15 in the FAQ, your training can affect what spells you are allowed to put in your spellbook, what spells you are allowed to cast, and what spells you are allowed to control. Any aspect of a card that has an impact on legal game play has to be public knowledge, otherwise players can not determine the legality of game play.
Even though there are currently no spells in the game to which this ruling applies for the elemental schools, the rule still exists and has a plethora of examples for the other schools of magic. You can't ignore that something exists just because you feel it isn't relevant.
-
I believe that you need to prove to me that you can keep your training hidden. I see it no where written in the rules that you can keep this fact a secret.
-
Now with that being said. Its true I showed you the card which shows my training as all mage cards do. It clearly says what I'm trained in ARCANE school and ONE ELEMENTAL school of my CHOOSING. What more do you want??? There is a big gaping hole here. The card itself doesn't say to reveal your choice.
The only advantage is that if I'm a named wizard you think you know what's in my book to better pick your moves. If I'm water you'll cast aside equipment, if I'm fire or wind you'll do this if earth you'll do that.
When I go to casual play we don't say let me see your book to check legality, we say man is it good to play today. When I go to a tournament I give my book to the TO and they check my book for legality. They never ask me which wizard I am, until they get halfway through my book. I will gladly tell them to make their job easier.
What I legally put in my book doesn't affect your game at all.(as there are no elemental school only cards at this time) FAQ page 15 has no meaning to an opponent except if a illegal play is made. In a tournament setting that would be weeded out before it started with registration. Casual play is a little different though we use the honor system.
Im all in agreement that a wizard should have to ,but unless there is a clearly define "you must do so" then, "prove me wrong" one way or the other is not going to solve this problem
-
After reading the rule book it says take the mage and ability card. Place your mage card in the corner. After that I didn't even see where it says reveal it at all.
-
How can they get half way through the book (unless you have very little elemental based spells) without knowing what your minor is?
Once again, I am glad on the OTCGN side this is not an issue. You select the named Wizard during deck construction. When you reveal the Wizard the game announces your class. I am still flabbergasted at the argument that you pose. I have expressed my thoughts enough on this topic and we obviously have an un-opposable force vs. immovable object situation. In reality, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other on how you play your local meta.....
-
un-opposable force vs. immovable object
Technically these are the same thing.
I would argue that the specific training (once chosen) becomes part of the card, and thus should be public knowledge.
-
What I legally put in my book doesn't affect your game at all.(as there are no elemental school only cards at this time) FAQ page 15 has no meaning to an opponent except if a illegal play is made. In a tournament setting that would be weeded out before it started with registration. Casual play is a little different though we use the honor system.
But it does affect game play. I have to be able to tell if you are cheating or not when ever you cast a spell or take control of a spell, both of which are affected by this rule and would not necessarily be weeded out by registration. If you cast Steal Equipment and take my mage wand, what happens if the spell I have bound to it is restricted by training? Your book was approved as legal by the judges, but now you have the opportunity to cast a spell that wasn't in your book and I have no way to tell if you are cheating or not because you won't give me that information.
The way I understand it, there are two arguments that you might be making. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Argument 1) Players are allowed to choose to ignore rules or mechanics that they don't find relevant.
We are all guilty of this to a degree. It often facilitates quicker game play and can occasionally just slip our mind. I know that creature has no way to avoid my attack, so I don't need to bother checking before I roll dice. Surely my opponent knows that I'm going to use the Hydra's Full Attack and not his Quick Attack, so I don't have to announce which one I am using.
Even though this is normally innocent, it is not right. A proper game requires everyone to follow all of the rules, mechanics, and procedures at all times. It doesn't matter if you agree with them or not. It doesn't matter if you believe they are relevant or not. If we allowed players to start ignoring rules on a whim, we would have anarchy. If we allowed them to ignore rules when everyone agrees its not relevant, we would have a house-variant of the game and not the official game as written.
So, you might be taking the position that, with the example of the Mage Wand given above, you do not have to reveal your training when using my Wand of of Drain Life because you can not possibly have training in the Dark School. My position however, is that it does not matter if you find that information to be relevant or not. It doesn't even matter if I agree with you. You must follow the rules at all times.
Argument 2) The rules do not require you to reveal information that affects game play.
This argument has a bit more merit. You are correct, there is no place in the rules that says you have to reveal your specific training. You know what else is not required by the rules? No place in the rules does it say I have to reveal my spell to you when I cast it.
By the rules, there is nothing stopping me from taking my face down spell that I've prepared and simply announcing "I'm going to cast Fireball on your mage" without showing you the spell. The rules only require me to announce the spell and the target, which I have done. If you feel I am cheating you could call a judge over to verify that my spell is indeed a Fireball and your mage is in range, but there's no place that says I have to show you the card or tell you anything about it or what it does. The only information you get is the name of the spell and what it is targeting. I don't even have to tell you that it is an Attack Spell, so you have no idea whether your Nullify will work against it or not.
So, while it is an assumption that any information that is needed to verify legal game play is also required to be public knowledge, I think it is an assumption that we can agree upon. Without it, the game could possibly become unplayable.
Conclusion
In the end, my findings are that any information that is needed to make legal game play is required to be public information. Page 15 of the FAQ states that your mage's training does affect legal game play. There might not currently be any cards in the game that make this relevant, but it is not up to the players to decide what is and is not relevant. If the FAQ says that a mage's training affects game play, and any information that affects game play is by necessity public information, then a mage's training is logically public information.
-
All other mages schools are public knowledge, so too should the wizards chosen elemental school.
Hedge
-
The relevance of the mage wand issues is covered in the FAQ it says I wizard controls the wand but until I rebind a legal spell I couldn't use it.
Your right there is nothing that states you have to reveal the fire ball until you discard it...then it is revealed so playing a fireball would be revealed as soon as the attack resolved and the card went to discard pile at which time I would know that you cheated... once again playing casually does require the honor system. In a tournament there are judges and such to check legality.
Once again on the basis that they should reveal training of the wizard I vote yes. I guess the part where its chosen does make since that I should yell out in an arena death match what training I have received.
I am very guilty of argument 1 , I find out all the time where I play incorrectly and am glad that I try to play correctly as I possibly can.
-
This question is framed wrong. The Wizard's player doesn't have to reveal anything, but during the setup stage of the game he or she does have to choose an elemental training before choosing a spellbook, and because that's a choice about a face up creature in play, that's public information.
Like most rules disputes, the solution is to examine the rules:
Mage Wars comes with 322 spells to start your spell library. These spells can be stored in the Mage Wars box. The spells you will play with during a game are placed in your spellbook and can be changed between games.
Setting Up the Game Place the game board on the table. Each player chooses a Mage and takes the matching Mage Card and Ability Card for that Mage (in Apprentice Mode, don’t use the Ability Cards). Each player chooses red or blue, and takes 10 action markers of that color. Additionally, each player takes 3 black status cubes, 1 red status cube, and 1 black quickcast marker.
Place your Mage Card in the corner zone closest to you (marked with a door on the board). In Apprentice Mode, you will play on just half the game board (see page 2). Place one of your action markers and your quickcast Marker on your Mage Card, with the white symbols up, as shown in the diagram to the left.
Place your Mage status board near you. Place a black status cube on your Mage’s starting Channeling, Mana Supply (all Mages start with 10 mana in their supply), and Life value. In Apprentice Mode, all Mages have the same attributes (see page 2). Place a red status cube on the “0” of your Mage’s Life track. This marks how much damage the Mage has taken. See example 1.
Choose a spellbook. If this is your first game, you will need to assemble your spellbook (see “Apprentice Mode” on page 2). Place the dice, condition markers, and other game markers in easy reach.
Both players roll the effect die. The higher roller takes the initiative marker: you will act first during the first round of the game! Your duel is now ready to begin!
So you choose your mage and put him or her on the board before you choose your spellbook. If you want the spellbook you choose during setup to be legal, you need to choose an elemental training that will accommodate your subsequent choice of elemental spells. This choice is made every game when you follow the setup rules and put a Wizard on the table and then follow the training rules on the Wizard's card.
And like all choices and actions in the game (beside enchantments, which are an explicit exception) you have to announce it so that both players know and can verify that the game state is legal. If you don't communicate your choice you might as well not have made it, which is the same as if you didn't communicate your choice to activate a creature or act on an optional triggered ability.
-
Disrobe the wizard I say.
Hyper-competitive d-baggery will kill the game for casuals/pros in the long run.
-
The question here is:
Does the Wizard's undoubted mage ability to be"versatile" include keeping his training secret? He is a "mysterious" mage (core set). Does this not make sense?
Some highly respected players on this forum (and our local meta) have been playing it that you can keep it a secret, exemplified by...
Wizard's elemental type choice only effects a 1 spell book point cost for a handful of spells, primarily attack spells. I believe it is a disadvantage to force a player to give hints as to his choices for spells he chose for his book because his selected mage's ability is versatility and flexibility.
But just like Playester Kharhaz, after listening to many enlightened contrary opinions (by Baron, sIKE, Kich etc), I've changed my stance on this and hope that, next time my local meta meets, we will announce training when we play Wizards. I just wish I had the FAQ to support my argument here, which was my point.
This is especially important now that highest roller chooses first turn initiative.
-
First, I want to acknowledge how minor of an issue this is. It does not change how you build spell books, and generally speaking, will have little - to no impact on your opening plays.
On to the topic at hand:
I understand the position that Baron made (and the best one for it), but I am going to hop back on the other side of the fence.
As a player, you are required to show a mage card and an ability card. End of discussion. I do not have to say anything else. I do not have to announce that my warlock is trained in dark and fire and the only thing I must show is the Training text on my ability card. For Wizard, "Trained in Arcane school, and an elemental school of his choice: Fire, Earth, Air, or water."
In Mage Wars, in regards to casting spells, you are not required to assist your opponent with anything. I (as the opponent) do not have to tell you the creatures spell levels for your calculations. Will I? Probably but that's my choice. I am not allowed to hide printed information, but I do not have to tell you anything other than my intent on creature activation and step choices (move, attack, reveal, etc).
In fact, it is your job to see that i have a leather gloves equipped, when you try to cast gloves of strength on me.
"A spell fails and is canceled, if either of the following occur before the Resolve Spell Step:
1. The target of the spell is no longer a legal target, or
2. The caster or target of the spell moves .... blah blah blah not relevant here........ "
Hypothetical situation:
I am playing a game as a warlock vs a beastmaster.
I prepare a ring of curses. I choose to cast a spell. I reveal the ring of curses and say I am targeting your beastmaster (a mage which satisfies the target line of the ring of curses).
"A restricted mage cannot take control of that spell during the course of that game"
And so the spell is resolved and destroyed because this spell restriction rule happens after the counter spell step.
All of that to say, No a wizard does not have to tell you anything that happens in the process of building their spell book except that it is a legal book of 120 points. I do not have to tell you if a spell is a legal target when you select spells or any other non required information.
-
I have to be able to tell if you are cheating or not when ever you cast a spell or take control of a spell, both of which are affected by this rule and would not necessarily be weeded out by registration.
Not true sir,
If I place two hidden enchantments under a creature you do not get to check and see if they are different enchantments to ensure a legal play. You do not get to know.
-
Face down spells are a special case with exceptions written in the rules to handle the fact that it's particularly difficult to verify propper play otherwise, and what to do when there is an error.
I'm trying to think of other choices in Mage Wars, and what the norms around them are. I mean, you wouldn't use hand of Bim-Shalla and then not specify which ability you're using, melee our armor. You wouldn't use Boltstorm's attack without specifying whether it had triple attack or unavoidable.
I'm usually a hyperliterist with the rules, but when the game calls on you to make a choice for a revealed object in play, what it usually means is, "tell your opponent which option you're taking." I don't know if that's explicitly spelled out anywhere, but it seems to be the sense of it, right?
Though I will caution that the first part of the rules' intro may be heavier on the introduction and lighter on the rules. Looking quickly, I didn't see any rule that explicitly said that spellbook contents were private (!!), for example. Are we going to have to argue about that one too?
-
Face down spells are a special case with exceptions written in the rules to handle the fact that it's particularly difficult to verify propper play otherwise, and what to do when there is an error.
Except for the rule that says I can not cast 2 identical copies of a hidden enchantment on the same object. But you would not know until multiple rounds later, if ever.
That example was more to disprove the argument of "you have to be able to tell if I am cheating" and "any information that is needed to make legal game play is required to be public information."
Looking quickly, I didn't see any rule that explicitly said that spellbook contents were private (!!), for example. Are we going to have to argue about that one too?
Yes, we will if every single detail of a detail is analyzed and a rule is called for that "you have to put cards in your spell book and not bananas." and the ever popular, "You have to show me the cards you prepared so I can know you did not prepare cards you are not able to cast. (ie beastmaster preparing a helm of fear)"
Wizard training has no rule breaking effect on the game and any targeting / control, in-game, circumstance is already clarified by the existing rules.
When it was a targeting object issue, I was behind it. Now that I know that those issues are already played out in the current rules, I can not agree with "because I want to know"
Now all of that said there may be more that I am missing on this topic and if so I would ask for clarity and reiteration. I can read something 100 times and not get the most obvious detail until the 101st time.
-
Except for the rule that says I can not cast 2 identical copies of a hidden enchantment on the same object. But you would not know until multiple rounds later, if ever.
That example was more to disprove the argument of "you have to be able to tell if I am cheating" and "any information that is needed to make legal game play is required to be public
I was thinking of the section of the rules that says "oops, so you cheated accidentally, now what happens to that nullify?" There's no section like that for the publicly available info, but because enchantments are a special case, they get special rules, that's all.
Looking quickly, I didn't see any rule that explicitly said that spellbook contents were private (!!), for example. Are we going to have to argue about that one too?
Yes, we will if every single detail of a detail is analyzed and a rule is called for that "you have to put cards in your spell book and not bananas."
That's what I meant, I think. That there's no explicit rule that you have to announce your training when you chose it, but it would be (I think) an unusual and strange exception to the way that choices usually work in the game, and that the rules don't cover this for the same reason they don't forbid bananas.
You're not told that cards in the binder are private because in Mage Wars position implies public or private. Exceptions to this rule, like prepared spells or face down enchantments, are explicitly exempted with words like hidden, secret, or "face down". Generally, the rule is that position dictates privacy, but this is a detail that isn't explicitly ruled on in this instance.
We might argue that we don't have to announce the choice we made, but then we might argue that spellbooks should be public, or that they ought to contain bananas.
Wizard training has no rule breaking effect on the game and any targeting / control, in-game, circumstance is already clarified by the existing rules.
When it was a targeting object issue, I was behind it. Now that I know that those issues are already played out in the current rules, I can not agree with "because I want to know"
Now all of that said there may be more that I am missing on this topic and if so I would ask for clarity and reiteration. I can read something 100 times and not get the most obvious detail until the 101st time.
I think you're being reasonable, it just seems like we rarely agree on contentious rules points. Don't know why, but we seem to come at the rules from very different directions.
-
Ding dong! What a contest of heavyweights!
I am going to join Fence Hopper :) and switch camps back to "Don't Declare" because Kharhaz highlighted a good point on prior page.
I would take issue that this has little tactical rrelevance.
Knowing you are a Water Wizard tells me that my equipment and armour is vulnerable and non-plant guards are more likely to be slammed. Everyone can afford a few of those spells but choosing water means you want lots of them so I expect them.
Knowing you are a Fire Wizard tells me that swarms are vulnerable to Ring of Fire and Circle of Fire, i should avoid plants and play Flame Immunity creatures. If I am a Warlock and roll higher for initiative choice, I better choose second and avoid drain power range else you may beat me to Lord of Fire, a popular choice in the current meta.
Knowing you are an Air Wizard means I better husband my precious ethereal attack sources, see greater value in Immovable and Poison Immunity and avoid heavy armour creatures, expect Circle of Lightning and Electrify against swarm.
Knowing you are an Earth Wizard, I expect Iron Golems, that face down trap is maybe Spiked Pit, don't get walled in corners, maybe Pop-Up Sniper Watchtower Wall and Turn to Stone vs. my 6 Growth Shaggoth Zora. Most importantly not to get too low on life and be mugged by double Hurl Boulder finisher.
Knowledge is advantage. Wizard haters will bemoan yet another advantage. But Kharhaz makes a very valid point and until we get a FAQ ruling, our local meta will continue to play Don't Declare.
Oh, and next time I definitely only have 1 spell to cast, I'm going to pair it with a banana (face down of course) during Planning. :)
-
The way I look at it, the Wizard stat card represents four wizard stat cards, one for each element. (Printing them as one saves on printing costs and avoids unnecessary clutter). When you chose your element, that element becomes a property of your stat card for this particular game.
The game has never been about hiding meta information like that (training, mana, channeling, life/damage, spells that are being cast, etc), so it seems out of place for this one mage's training to be the exception.
Additionally, I am of the opinion that in any rule ambiguity, more weight should always be given to the interpretation that is the most fair (deciding that the Wizard is the only mage special enough to keep normally public information secret due to an omission in the rules isn't exactly fair).
-
Remembering that this is an ARENA DEATH MATCH game. I agree the wizard shouldn't have special secret training, and making four individual wizards is a little overkill, but i like having a customizable spell book and the fact that revealing my training can really hamper my wizards ability to be broken.
-
After all this I'm about ready to make a Wizard spell book that is 120 points no matter which element is trained....
I play a Wizard quite a bit, and have argued in the past that my Wizard's training should be kept from my opponent, just because I have a rather competitive spirit. I would say that I was trained in Arcane plus one of the elements, and leave it at that; that's what the card says, so that's what the opponent knows.
While I'll have a Lightning Ring or an Iron Golem or an Armor that probably indicates my training out soon enough, I can understand the point that it perhaps would be more reasonable to have to disclose training at the start of the game for reasons mentioned earlier (knowledge of which spells the opponent needs to preserve, avoid casting, etc.) After all, isn't that what we all do when we know we're going up against any other type of Mage? When I go up against a Dark-trained Mage, I try to avoid playing small, living creatures until I see my opponent's opening moves. He should have the same kind of foreknowledge.
Does informing my opponent of my training tell him how I'm going to play? No... not really. I might have a Gate of Voltari and be passive in the opening to build up my forces, or I can play the same Wizard aggressively with a big creature or two and teleports. (Many times how I play will depend on which other Mage I am going up against.) In truth, the Wizard feels to me more flexible to play than most (any?) other Mage(s) even if training is disclosed. You know that a Warlock is probably coming to get you, that a Forcemaster won't be going all swarmy on you, and so on.
It doesn't matter to me which way becomes the standard, but I would like this to become an official rule one way or the other... and sometime soon. Please :)
-
I would take issue that this has little tactical rrelevance.
Knowing you are a Water Wizard tells me that my equipment and armour is vulnerable and non-plant guards are more likely to be slammed. Everyone can afford a few of those spells but choosing water means you want lots of them so I expect them.
Knowing you are a Fire Wizard tells me that swarms are vulnerable to Ring of Fire and Circle of Fire, i should avoid plants and play Flame Immunity creatures. If I am a Warlock and roll higher for initiative choice, I better choose second and avoid drain power range else you may beat me to Lord of Fire, a popular choice in the current meta.
Knowing you are an Air Wizard means I better husband my precious ethereal attack sources, see greater value in Immovable and Poison Immunity and avoid heavy armour creatures, expect Circle of Lightning and Electrify against swarm.
Knowing you are an Earth Wizard, I expect Iron Golems, that face down trap is maybe Spiked Pit, don't get walled in corners, maybe Pop-Up Sniper Watchtower Wall and Turn to Stone vs. my 6 Growth Shaggoth Zora. Most importantly not to get too low on life and be mugged by double Hurl Boulder finisher.
Knowledge is advantage. Wizard haters will bemoan yet another advantage. But Kharhaz makes a very valid point and until we get a FAQ ruling, our local meta will continue to play Don't Declare.
Oh, and next time I definitely only have 1 spell to cast, I'm going to pair it with a banana (face down of course) during Planning. :)
You see that is my point exactly on the minuscule nature of this topic! All of those statements are true regardless of the element the wizard has chosen.
Your equipment and armor is always vulnerable to a any wizard! His book is always flexible enough to run 4 dissolves regardless of elements.
Iron Golems? Expect arguably the best creature from any wizard :P
I could go on but I think you get the point.
-
I have to be able to tell if you are cheating or not when ever you cast a spell or take control of a spell, both of which are affected by this rule and would not necessarily be weeded out by registration.
Not true sir,
If I place two hidden enchantments under a creature you do not get to check and see if they are different enchantments to ensure a legal play. You do not get to know.
So, you are going to take the position that your opponent doesn't need to know if you are cheating or not? Why have rules at all if you can't tell when people are following them? Even with enchantments, you find out if it was a legal move or not at the time it tries to actually cause an effect in the game.
-
So, you are going to take the position that your opponent doesn't need to know if you are cheating or not? Why have rules at all if you can't tell when people are following them? Even with enchantments, you find out if it was a legal move or not at the time it tries to actually cause an effect in the game.
My position is that there are instances where I, as the player, do not and can not know if my opponent is making legal plays, intentionally or otherwise.
That is just how the game is played.
-
The mechanical oddities of facedown enchantments aside, a mage's training is fundamental to the legality of his spellbook. This is not even a function of the play mechanics.
It is absolutely necessary that your opponent can at least be sure your spellbook is legal. Without the Wizard announcing his training it is impossible to do this.
-
My position is that there are instances where I, as the player, do not and can not know if my opponent is making legal plays, intentionally or otherwise.
That is just how the game is played.
I would appreciate some examples, because I can't think of any time you are allowed to outright deny your opponent such information. Enchantments come close. They delay information until they are revealed, but they don't actually have any effect until they are revealed either. Once they are revealed, you do get to verify their legality.
There's no situation in the game where you are allowed to simply deny your opponent information that impacts the game. You could make a case that there is precedent that allows you to delay such information until it impacts the game, though, by citing enchantments.
I shall concede that such is the case, but I contend that such is the exception rather than the rule. For enchantments you have very specific wording in the rules outlining when you can keep such information secret and when it becomes public. For magical training, you do not have any such guidelines and so I maintain that it instead falls under the norm that it becomes public as soon as it enters play.
-
Im still not sure that Id say actively concealing it is acceptable game behavior regardless of if you're made to reveal it at the beginning. You aren't "assisting" the opponent by doing so, you are specifying an unknown variable that has to be specified. If I ask your health total, you don't get to say "my starting total minus damage dealt so far, plus healing". So if asked what type of mage you are, "Arcane and an element of my choice" isn't a satisfactory answer."
Saying that "because I want to know" isn't a good enough reason to divulge it seems like projecting a personality onto the rules which should have an otherwise neutral voice. My motivations for any choice have nothing to do with the rules or why global game information should be presented to me. (unless talking about face down enchantments or things that the rules protect the anominity of.)
Lets say its an official game setting. I ask to clarify your mages trainings… this could be for whatever reason, but there is currently a grey area/undefined aspect on the board that Id like more info on or am uncomfortable with. Then you say no.
Unsatisfied, I then have an official come over to clarify the variable. I don't see any reason that said neutral party would have any basis to say "Thats his secret, you have to just guess." rather than to clarify the state of the game. To me I just don't see any grounds for it to be secret other than a player trying to be shifty.
So, if called in, would a judge be required to clarify in an official situation?
If yes, then yes you have to reveal your training if called upon to do so if only to skip the middle man.
If he wouldn't, then no having secret training is supported not only for the Wizard, but any "this or that" trained mage that may come out in the future.
I think its important to remember that while there are no "element only" spells and only one "this or that" mage, its only a matter of time before there are more of both.
Siren can very likely bring "water mage only" cards, alternate Warlock could bring Fire mage only or even alternate Wizard could be elemental only… its all possible.
So, regardless of which way the decision ultimately falls, I think its a good thing to hash out for global purposes. All it takes is a variable trained mage to come out who gets to choose one of the existing mage only cards to crack this whole discussion open again.
-
There's no situation in the game where you are allowed to simply deny your opponent information that impacts the game. You could make a case that there is precedent that allows you to delay such information until it impacts the game, though, by citing enchantments.
You are not allowed to cover up or hide printed information. I do not have to tell you my mana total or current life score. You would have to get up and look for yourself.
If we are playing and you ask, "what enchant is revealed on that creature? " I do not have to tell you. It is your responsibility to look at the board and read the cards.
This topic has never been about denying information; It is about my responsibility (as a player) to interpret the pregame book construction rules for you.
Do I have to tell you that my Warlord is trained in War? No. Do I have to tell you what my wizard is trained in? No.
As for enchantments. If I slide a hidden bear strength under my zombie brute, that is an illegal play. However if I shift enchantment that bear strength to my necromancer and reveal it was an illegal spell cast?
Same situation but you cast a seeking dispel on that zombie brutes bear strength...
So you see there are some examples that go beyond the identical enchantment stacks argument for hidden enchantments.
As for examples of information you do not have to tell your opponent. I do not have to tell my opponent any prepared spell information, the number of spell book points my book is, if any illegal cards are in my book, my spawnpoints prepared spell, what any hidden enchantment is, and my wizard training :P
I can not hide any printed or revealed card on the table. You can not cover up and hide any marker, or card, on the board or mage status board.
You may not shuffle the order enchantments are placed, but I do not have to tell you what enchantments are placed in what order. It is your job to keep up with that information yourself.
Lets say its an official game setting. I ask to clarify your mages trainings… this could be for whatever reason, but there is currently a grey area/undefined aspect on the board that Id like more info on or am uncomfortable with. Then you say no.
Unsatisfied, I then have an official come over to clarify the variable. I don't see any reason that said neutral party would have any basis to say "Thats his secret, you have to just guess." rather than to clarify the state of the game. To me I just don't see any grounds for it to be secret other than a player trying to be shifty.
I'm sorry, but, I think you need valid reasons to have a judge stop a timed game to satisfy your none game-mechanic impacting, personal issue. If you called him over I assume he would count my wizards spellbook and tell you that it is a legal 120 point spell book. After that he can not tell you what cards are in it or if it favors one school or the other.
When such elemental only spells are introduced into the game they will be handled like any other restricted spell in the game. When my water wizard casts a water only equipment or spell it will resolve accordingly. If I later cast a fire mage only spell then a flag goes up and you say,"I think we have an issue." Just like with any other mage in the game right now.
Mage Wars assumes you are making legal plays until an illegal play is made, and handled accordingly for all instances. It never once makes you prove that you are legal target for a spell, it either is or is not. If you attempt to cast a spell on an illegal target it fails either before or after the counter spell step (as described in the FAQ) and plays out as per the existing rules.
If you try to cast a sleep on my zombie, it is not my responsibility to say, "Do not pay the mana for that my zombie is immune!" In mage wars information gathering is the responsibility of each player, not the responsibility of the player to give that information and assist you in casting / preparing spells.
-
This topic has never been about denying information;
I can't speak for everyone, but this is exactly what the topic has been about to me. Are you allowed to deny information that clearly affects game play from your opponent?
As for enchantments. If I slide a hidden bear strength under my zombie brute, that is an illegal play. However if I shift enchantment that bear strength to my necromancer and reveal it was an illegal spell cast?
Same situation but you cast a seeking dispel on that zombie brutes bear strength...
So you see there are some examples that go beyond the identical enchantment stacks argument for hidden enchantments.
In each of these examples though, it would be revealed that an illegal play had been made. It is something that can be verified. As soon as the enchantment is flipped up, I see that you cheated and I can get a judge involved.
However, by refusing to tell me what your mage is trained in, I can not tell if you are cheating or not when you cast a restricted spell or otherwise take control of a restricted spell. You say I should just assume you're being honest, but that doesn't work for me. There should be some way for me to tell you are playing fairly.
As for examples of information you do not have to tell your opponent. I do not have to tell my opponent any prepared spell information, the number of spell book points my book is, if any illegal cards are in my book, my spawnpoints prepared spell, what any hidden enchantment is, and my wizard training
With spell preparation I am allowed to see if you are making legal plays. I can tell how many spells you are preparing, and when you cast the spell I can verify that it is something you are legally able to cast. What impact are they having that I am not able to verify it's legality? The spellbook is also verified before the game begins by the judges with registration, so that when you come to the table I am told that your spellbook is completely legal just by you participating. Information on enchantments becomes known as soon as they are revealed. None of your examples represent information denied to your opponent except for your attempt at denying training.
I do not have to tell you what enchantments are placed in what order. It is your job to keep up with that information yourself.
Actually, you do have to tell me. Newly cast enchantments are always placed on top of older ones so that I can tell the order in which they were placed.
If you try to cast a sleep on my zombie, it is not my responsibility to say, "Do not pay the mana for that my zombie is immune!" In mage wars information gathering is the responsibility of each player, not the responsibility of the player to give that information and assist you in casting / preparing spells.
I agree that it is the responsibility of each player to gather the information they desire themselves, but I maintain that they have to be ABLE to gather that information as well. If a player wants to check if your zombie is non-living, they are allowed to gather that information. It can not be denied to them.
In situations where a trait is variable, I do not believe that overrides the pretext that such information is public. For example, take the Vigilant trait. This is a variable trait that gives you the option to maybe put your creature on guard after each of its actions, if you should so desire. When you make this choice, you have to declare it. You can't just wait for me to attack and then say "Oh, he's vigilant, so he was on guard."
Same thing with mage training. It is a choice that you make. You must declare this choice. It is public information that impacts game play. There are no situations in which you are allowed to keep such information secret.
-
Same thing with mage training. It is a choice that you make. You must declare this choice. It is public information that impacts game play. There are no situations in which you are allowed to keep such information secret.
I was typing my post while you posted this :P
Okay so I am an idiot. The issue here is not about information gathering, stratagem, or leveling playing fields. It's about making choices while playing mage wars.
The question here is, "Do I have to announce my choices (as per the text on cards that state you make a choice or choose)?"
I will list all the choices I can think of at (spells with the word choice / choose)
Wizard must choose an element at the beginning of the each game.
All mages must choose a spellbook during setup.
Helm of fear allows the attacker to make a choice.
Dissolve and Explode require you to choose in addition to targeting.
Resurrection requires you to choose a destroyed living creature in addition to targeting.
Gate To Voltari requires you to choose a mage to link it's ability to.
Mana Siphon requires you to choose a mage to link it's ability to.
Temple of the Dawn Breaker requires you to choose one ability or the other.
Force Push and teleport trap require you to make a choice.
As the word choice has direct effect on the mechanical workings on the game I am jumping to the other side of the fence and siding with the "must announce choices made during the game" crowd.
-
Actually, you do have to tell me. Newly cast enchantments are always placed on top of older ones so that I can tell the order in which they were placed.
The point I was making was that I am not required by the game to tell you. I cannot alter the order they were played but if you choose not to look at them I do not have to tell you.
Also note that while I am "switching sides" I want to take a second and insure you that you are not allowed to look at my prepared spells to insure I'm making legal plays or peak at my hidden enchantments to check for legality. You can make those interpretations when they are cast and revealed, not prepared or or placed(as with hidden enchantments)
If you suspect an illegal play is made you can get a judge to investigate, but there is nothing in the rules that gives you the authority to insure your opponent is making legal plays. That's just the nature of secretive plays.
As for the variable trait vigilance. The guard marker has to be applied at the end of it's action. I am still not 100% sure that choices have to be declared (although for the sake of the game they probably should). That is a rule that has to be made by Mr. Pope
However I completely understand if they are not required. A vigilant creature would not need to announce it is guarding as per vigilance, it only needs to have a guard marker placed on it at the end of its activation. Gate to Voltari only needs the controller to know whom it is tied to and keep track of it's ability as per the card (although like I said that information should probably be public).
This topic is on the thin line of personal responsibility of a mage wars player. If I am to trust your hidden enchantment is legal and mandatory enchantments are revealed when appropriate, I also assume you are conducting choices in a fair and proper manner.
-
Well done, Kharhaz! Give the man a prize for taking on all-comers here. Bravo!
I simply don't see the logic of why you need to declare anything beyond what's already printed on a mage card at a beginning of the game (which is what this topic originated from as it is related to the tactical importance of choosing who has first initiative).
When I join a tournament, I hand the judge my book list with training and spells. Everybody's book list is secret.
(To not do this would allow me to scout my opponents and change my book according to the tournament meta.)
At the end of any game, be it casual or tournament, a player has every right to look at the opponent's book and count his spell points. This is when any Wizard player will have to reveal his training to the opponent, to satisfy the opponent that he has spent within his spell points budget. This also applies to any face down enchantments when a game ends so as to ensure a player does not have his own duplicate enchantments (hidden or revealed) on an object. This is simply integrity checking and whilst I'd bristle (at the the sore loser's implication that I have cheated), you must accede to such requests. Just like in major Magic tournaments, after a match, a player is allowed to ask a judge to check the opponent's deck to ensure it reconciles with his deck list handed in at the start.
At the start of the game, when I reveal I am a Wizard, there is no need for me to declare my elemental training, just as there is no need to for any player to reveal any spell in their book. Your book and how you made up your spell points budget remains a secret. You've broken no rules in keeping anything that is not already on your mage card a secret.
When I play an Epic spell, I am assuring the opponent that I only have 1 copy of that spell in my book. You don't get to look at my book to check this until the game is over.
Below are the reasons given so far for why "a Wizard must declare Elemental Training at the start of a game":
(1) Nobody else has this ability. Well, nobody else currently has training in Arcane, a Voltaric shield or an in-built ranged attack either!
(2) This will invalidate future Element X Mage Only spells. Firstly none exist and may never exist in "minor schools" so this is hypothetical and secondly no, you simply play it and thereby indirectly declare you are trained in that element, else you are playing an illegal spell. As for the desperate "what if I want to target you with my Fire Mage Only equipment?", why would you ever give an opponent this hypothetical beneficial item? Even if you want to and I am forced to reveal I am not one, oh dear, I am an illegal target, you must target yourself instead. Basing an argument on equipment that does not exist and there is no reason to ever cast on an opponent to his benefit is embarrassing.
(3) This is a Duel between Renown Mages. Well, if I am so renown, how come nobody knows my spells? Am I the Fire Wizard who plays Lord of Fire and Angel of Light? Or the Fire Wizard who plays 4 Hydra that I buff with enchants? Or the Fire Wizard who plays 4 Devouring Jelly? C'mon, if I'm so renown, how come nobody knows what my "signature spells" are? Whilst as a role-player I applaud this role-play argument (I am all for "retaining fantasy realism"), this renown argument makes no sense when you don't know the spells that I can cast.
(4) Because OCTGN ensures your opponent knows your training. Well, I contend that this is an error on the part of OCTGN programming.
(5) "Because it is not fair!" Now here I have the greatest sympathy. The wizard is probably the strongest mage. Those playing other mages must hate facing Wizards. To find out this mysterious versatile mage doesn't need to even declare his unspecified elemental training (just like it says on the tin) must be the final straw. This is understandable and explains the passionate denial of even a possibility that Wizards don't need to declare their elemental training at the start of a game. However "it's not fair!" is simply not an argument, let alone a valid one.
Not declaring training may not be good for play balance (Kharhaz contends it has little relevance, I disagree and no doubt others from the passion in this thread). "Not good for the game because it strengthens the strongest mage" would be a very valid argument. Nobody has yet said it, rather relying on other spurious justifications. So let's be honest. We simply don't want to give the Wizard any further advantage.
Our local meta (all of us once very competitive Magic players) have always played that Wizards don't need to declare elemental training. This was made clear in the first post of the Golem Pit thread...
Turn 2: forge Arcane Ring for other adjacent Mana Crystal and an Iron Golem in your starting corner kill zone
Ok, so you have very early on revealed your elemental specialty but you often need a guard on turn 3, especially if you started with initiative.
One of the disadvantages of that Turn 2 Golem was you were telegraphing your training but that early guard is often essential.
Knowledge is advantage. To me it's interesting that we have a mage that has an unknown Trained Element at game start. This is a game about uniqueness, with cards breaking rules. We should rejoice in mechanics that make things different instead of trying to homogenise the game.
By all means argue Wizard needs to be nerfed (I've constantly argued Teleport shouldn't be able to target enemy mages as this shortcuts so many better ideas so that Teleport becomes a "spell points tax" in every book). But please don't dress up the reason why Wizards have to declare something not on their card with arguments that just don't hold water (or fire or earth or air).
-
If training wasn't used as part of deckbuilding I'd be more sympathetic. While to a certain extent you must assume that your opponent's deck is legal, there is a limit. This isn't Magic, the deckbuilding rules are far more flexable and training is an important part of that.
Beyond that, fairness is a valid argument. Every other mage has their training as a known quality. Having the Wizard not announce their training is a notable advantage. Honestly as any pre-match procedure both Mages should announce class and training.
-
If training wasn't used as part of deckbuilding I'd be more sympathetic. While to a certain extent you must assume that your opponent's deck is legal, there is a limit. This isn't Magic, the deckbuilding rules are far more flexable and training is an important part of that.
Beyond that, fairness is a valid argument. Every other mage has their training as a known quality. Having the Wizard not announce their training is a notable advantage. Honestly as any pre-match procedure both Mages should announce class and training.
How does knowing my Elemental Training at the start of the game tell you that my book is legal? It doesn't help you at all.
Every mage is unique with unique advantages. This is one of the Wizard's advantages.
It is absolutely necessary that your opponent can at least be sure your spellbook is legal. Without the Wizard announcing his training it is impossible to do this.
You are saying that knowing my training is necessary to validate my spellbook's legality. Sure it does, but only when you are checking for its legality, which is at the end of the game.
At game start, look at what it says on the tin. I am trained in an element. You don't get to know which until later because it's not on the tin.
-
(1) Nobody else has this ability. Well, nobody else currently has training in Arcane, a Voltaric shield or an in-built ranged attack either!
It's not simply a matter of no other mage having the ability. It's a matter of the mechanic does not exist anyplace else in the game at all. Nowhere are you allowed to deny your opponent the information he needs to determine if you're making legal plays. Enchantments are the only thing that comes close, but they simply delay the information until revealed, they don't deny the information all together.
(2) This will invalidate future Element X Mage Only spells. Firstly none exist and may never exist in "minor schools" so this is hypothetical and secondly no, you simply play it and thereby indirectly declare you are trained in that element, else you are playing an illegal spell. As for the desperate "what if I want to target you with my Fire Mage Only equipment?", why would you ever give an opponent this hypothetical beneficial item? Even if you want to and I am forced to reveal I am not one, oh dear, I am an illegal target, you must target yourself instead. Basing an argument on equipment that does not exist and there is no reason to ever cast on an opponent to his benefit is embarrassing.
There are cards that allow one to steal equipment which may be training restricted. Or to steal a wand with a training restricted spell bound to it. Or to steal a training restricted enchantment. Both casting illegal spells and gaining control of illegal spells could occur during a game and your opponent needs to have a way to tell if such has occurred. Sure, if you take control of my Fire Only equipment I can assume you are a Fire Wizard, but I have no way to be sure.
Any choice you make that affects game play has to be declared. Anything that affects legal game play is public information. If there is no way for you to tell if someone is breaking the rules, then there is no reason to have those rules. If someone can point out an issue besides the Wizards training where a person could permanently deny their opponent from ever knowing if they were cheating or not, then you might have a case. Honestly, I still would not be convinced and simply argue that it was something else that needed fixed, but at least you would have a precedent to support your claim.
-
If a choice in Mage Wars is not visually apparent through the resolution of said choice. The Choice must be verbally announced.
Zuberi, Kharhaz does this adequately represent your current stance?
I also agree with said stance.
Hedge
-
ehhh I could go either way on this one.
Most choices in the game are obvious and go hand in hand with the spells effect.
I cast a dissolve targeting the mage, it resolves, and I choose an equipment to destroy.
You get into some gray areas like the unstable zombie. When it activates I make a choice. Do I have to tell you that choice? I am not sure and could easily see Bryan ruling that you do not have to reveal choices you make.
If that is the case then the wizard does not have to reveal his choice at the beginning of the game.
As I pointed out earlier the game mechanic rule has little to do with the wizard and the trivial choice of his minor school. When I use Tataree's ability do I have to tell you what I am doing, or is the act of removing the damage / adding mana enough of an acknowledgement that I do not have to tell you if you were not paying attention?
-
ehhh I could go either way on this one.
Most choices in the game are obvious and go hand in hand with the spells effect.
I cast a dissolve targeting the mage, it resolves, and I choose an equipment to destroy.
You get into some gray areas like the unstable zombie. When it activates I make a choice. Do I have to tell you that choice? I am not sure and could easily see Bryan ruling that you do not have to reveal choices you make.
If that is the case then the wizard does not have to reveal his choice at the beginning of the game.
As I pointed out earlier the game mechanic rule has little to do with the wizard and the trivial choice of his minor school. When I use Tataree's ability do I have to tell you what I am doing, or is the act of removing the damage / adding mana enough of an acknowledgement that I do not have to tell you if you were not paying attention?
Normally I state the action I take as I do it.
"I activate Tataree and have it heal my Kralathor for 1 damage"
"I activate my Unstable Zombie, having it heal 2 damage as it does, then have it attack your Warlock"
"I activate my Priest and make a melee attack against your Wizard using my Staff of Asyra"
With kids, pets, other people around, etc. (basically any non-tournament setting) it is unreasonable to expect my opponent to be able to constantly pay attention to a board game. If asked what was my last action, I have no problem telling my opponent what it was. In return I get the same courtesy if I missed something. Just because the game is about defeating your opponent doesn't mean the players can't be courteous to each other.
-
ehhh I could go either way on this one.
Most choices in the game are obvious and go hand in hand with the spells effect.
I cast a dissolve targeting the mage, it resolves, and I choose an equipment to destroy.
You get into some gray areas like the unstable zombie. When it activates I make a choice. Do I have to tell you that choice? I am not sure and could easily see Bryan ruling that you do not have to reveal choices you make.
If that is the case then the wizard does not have to reveal his choice at the beginning of the game.
I believe that you should annouce which you do for the zombie, because it is information that I should know what choice you made so I can react properly. IE reveal an agony if you chose to lose the lumbering trait.
As I pointed out earlier the game mechanic rule has little to do with the wizard and the trivial choice of his minor school. When I use Tataree's ability do I have to tell you what I am doing, or is the act of removing the damage / adding mana enough of an acknowledgement that I do not have to tell you if you were not paying attention?
Which is clearly dictated in the stance above. However, from the Rules on Pg 13.
Some spells require you to make additional choices. Your
spell may have a variable casting cost (indicated by an “X”
in the mana cost), or it may have multiple effects for you
to choose from. You must announce which choices you are
making when you cast the spell.
Granted this is only when casting spells, but could easily be extended to anytime a choice has to be made.
-
Oh my goodness. What an incredibly nerdy rules lawyering argument.
Just announce what kind of wizard you are and be done with it.
-
There are cards that allow one to steal equipment which may be training restricted. Or to steal a wand with a training restricted spell bound to it. Or to steal a training restricted enchantment. Both casting illegal spells and gaining control of illegal spells could occur during a game and your opponent needs to have a way to tell if such has occurred. Sure, if you take control of my Fire Only equipment I can assume you are a Fire Wizard, but I have no way to be sure.
Strongly agree.
-
The rules team is currently in talks about this once we have made the final choice we let you know. I would want to see each sides reason for or against this.
-
Fair point, Zuberi (as always). Except no such object exists. And may never exist as Elemental schools are minor.
If I steal that hypothetical Fire Mage Only object, at game end, I have to prove I've built legally (and in-line with my book list in a tourney).
If I am not a Fire Mage, I forfeit the game. Simple as it is blatant cheating by me.
There are many such hypothetical holes in the rules - if such a card ever exists.
I appreciate Future Proofing but "what if" is a shaky argument. If wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets.
A Playtester who I respect immensely PM'd me and berated me for taking this ridiculous stance.
I assured him that I am not trolling (I confess to a few mischievous provocative comments in the past...).
Maybe I just have a different midset because to me, this knowledge denial seemed like a Wizard advantage.
I actually thought it was clever design by AW (like some of ACG's excellent ground-breaking Custom Card ideas).
To not leverage information as a resource would sadly reduce the dimensions hence depth of the game to me.
I think it's a shame as many assymetric games use information (or denying opponents information) as an ability.
Prophetess (Talisman), Oracle (Cosmic Encounter), Illusionist (Magic Realm), Atriedes (Dune), Runewitch (Rune Wars) etc
Netrunner is based on the value of information (in HQ, R&D, Archives) - and the deterence of not knowing (ICE).
Magic values looking at opponent's hand or library as a benefit, as well as morph creatures and Illusionary Mask.
I think it a shame if Mage Wars refused to acknowledge this mechanic and stayed Total Knowledge like Chess.
The total lack of Blue AW Posts on this subject seems to suggest that AW are undecided and canvassing views.
It would be nice if a ruling was made.
Edit as Ninja'd:
The rules team is currently in talks about this once we have made the final choice we let you know. I would want to see each sides reason for or against this.
Thanks, Shadow!
Meantime, I will try to convince my local meta of uber-competitors that we are wrong to read it as per spell card.
I seem to have zero allies here - et tu, Fence Hopper? :)
So just like when I first brought up Flying vs. Guarded Conjurations, I will fold to peer pressure like a wuss.
-
all other mages have known school at the beginning of the game, why Wizard would be different? not fair. if you playing against Warlock you will rather prepare Dragonscale Hauberk, if you play agianst Wizard you should have same information.
and of course case connected with school exclusive spell's which maybe will be in the future. yesterday i played against beastmaster and my friend put Divine Intervention into his spellbook and try to used it during the game. he had prepared 2 spellbooks (second one with Priestess) and made mistake which i could immediately see. if similar situation would happen with some elemental spell and Wizard i wouldn't know is it is mistake or no. We never check our spellbooks after the game so that mistake could be unnoticeable.
-
So just like when I first brought up Flying vs. Guarded Conjurations, I will fold to peer pressure like a wuss.
I think you may be handing in the towel a bit prematurely. Given what Shadow says, they do not have a hard rule on this as of yet, so it could go either way. I might not always admit it when arguing my own point of view (afterall I want to appear confident in what I'm saying) but the opposition has made valid arguments. I'm not sure if there's any new information we can provide to Shad0w's call for reasoning, but perhaps it would be a good idea to rehash the arguments.
Below I have listed various positions that I can recall being taken. This is kind of a refinement of one of DeckBuilder's posts. I have tried to fairly present both sides in an unbiased manner. If you feel I have not adequately represented one of the following arguments, please chime in. If you feel there is a position that has been left out, please add that as well. In the arguments below, the Pro position is in favor of revealing your training, while the Con position is against it.
Argument One
Pro) Training can affect training restricted spells and it needs to be made clear when such spells are affected. Without this information it is too easy for a player to cheat. There is no other instance in which you are able to keep the legality of something permanently secret throughout the game.
Con) There are currently no spells in the game that are affected by Elemental Training. Even if they were, you wouldn't necessarily have to announce your training until you tried to cast or take control of spell affected by your training. You are able to keep the legality of some things a secret such as the play of hidden enchantments. If your opponent suspects you of cheating, this can be verified with a judge when it occurs.
Argument Two
Pro) You must announce your choices in the game. If something gives you a variety of options to choose from at a specific point in time, so that you are unable to change your decision later, you can not keep that information to yourself. Otherwise, how are we to distinguish you making that decision when you were supposed to as opposed to changing it to fit your needs later.
Con) You only have to announce your choices in so far as is required to carry them out. Since your training has no immediate effect, it does not have to be announced up front.
Argument Three
Pro) It makes sense thematically. When two powerful mages enter the arena, an announcer would introduce them along with their credentials and accomplishments.
Con) First off, theme does not always directly correlate to rules. Secondly, an announcer would not necessarily reveal everything about your mage. Announcer's in sporting events often listen to the participant for how they want to be introduced.
Argument Four
Pro) My group currently reveals the Wizard's training (this includes play on OCTGN) and it works fine. We prefer it this way.
Con) My group currently keeps the training a secret and it works fine. We prefer it this way.
Argument Five
Pro) No other mage gets to conceal their training, and it is unfair for the wizard to get to. It provides them with a significant strategic advantage. If this is intended, then it needs to be taken into consideration with the relative power levels of the mages.
Con) Mages are meant to have different abilities and play styles. The mysterious training is part of the Wizard's. There is nothing unfair about it, although it does indeed need to be considered as a factor when judging the relative power of each mage.
-
Well, we've been discussing it a lot, and finally come to a conclusion.
The Wizard is required to reveal his elemental training at the start of the game.
Thank you all for your debate on here. It has been very very beneficial to us in this decision.
-
Thank you guys for the resolution.
-
Thank you for the official answer.
-
(Polishes gracious loser speech...)
Thank you, Laddin, for giving my alternative view consideration and I hope it wasn't wasted in helping to crystalise the game's direction.
I half suspect play balance may have played a part (fair enough) but at least we now have a definitive ruling for all to play by.
(Zuberi: after Mind Control and now this, remind me never ever to argue rules interpretation with you again! :) )
-
(Zuberi: after Mind Control and now this, remind me never ever to argue rules interpretation with you again! :) )
lol, you better not clam up on me. I greatly enjoy our discussions ;-)
-
I think they made the right decision. Delaying your opponent from getting information is still using information as a resource against them, and I can imagine a lot of ways that can be implemented fairly and effectively. There's generally no reason to hide information for the entire game indefinitely, unless you have wasted mana on an enchantment that your not going to ever reveal, or maybe a nullify on a creature that never gets targeted by an opposing enchant/incant. In which case, the nullify isn't useful anyway.
In theory anything can be responded to. Stuck? Teleport. Too much damage? Heal yourself. Nullify? Seeking dispel. Hindered? Mongoose agility. The list goes on and on. When everything has at least one potential response provided you have enough of the right resources to make that response, there are no true hard counters, or at least not in the very beginning of the game when both players are generally equal in resources (not counting all the spells in your spellbook that you haven't used yet).
I think similar logic goes for hiding information. In a game like mage wars, hiding information from your opponent s a great and valid strategy, but it can and should be possible to respond to it with another strategy. That's why we have things like Hugginn and dispel wand and brains capable of thinking and using the information that we do have to figure out what the opponent is trying to do before it's too late.
However, the mage ability card is not actually a spell or object in the game, and training is a trait that cannot be removed or altered midgame under any circumstances. Hiding training would happen completely for free at the very beginning of the game when it would be the ONLY resource advantage other than good spellbook design. In other words, there is no decent response to the concealment of training.
Sure, you could plan and cast a school-only spell on your opponent and see if it's legal or not, but in doing so you're actually putting yourself at a greater disadvantage than you were before. You just lost a quick cast and one of your two prepared spells and all you did was find out that it didn't work. AND depending on your luck and how poorly you're willing to design your spellbook, you might need to need to do that as many times as the number of variable schools your opponent could be trained in minus the schools they're actually trained in—until you find by process of elimination which one works. So against the wizard, you would have to cast at most three of these four on him: a fire only spell, a water only spell, an earth only spell, an air only spell. You might get lucky and cast the one that actually does work on him right away, but that's a one in four chance of working.
Even if training could be changed midgame I don't think training should be hidden; it would probably require some balancing work to make a shape shifting mage ability possible and not broken. I think they'd have to choose a form with defined training to start the game in, so that spellbook points can be calculated properly. But even the form that isn't active should have its training be public knowledge from the get go.
I strongly suggest that you apply the wizard ruling to all other mages with variable training in the future. The only exception to this should be in a variant format specifically designed with hiding training as a key mechanic.