Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Rules Discussion => Topic started by: DeckBuilder on September 16, 2013, 04:09:20 PM
-
Mage Wars is incredibly intuitive. Its best selling point is it is religiously "fantasy realistic". Whenever we have a rules issue, we usually just rule it like a GM would in a RPG. Because that is plainly the spirit of the game. So we make House Rules. Some of them are below.
"Immunity does not prevent you being targeted and benefiting from attacks that heal or remove conditions."
This first occurred when an Asryan Cleric healed Samandriel. It also occurred when dousing a burning Tanglevine with a Geyser. But a sleeping Lord of Fire still won't be woken by a Ring of Fire. Clear Mind, a promo card psychic purify (to be released with Siren probably) won't be able to remove the lightning Stun from your Psychic Immune Iron Golem. All of this makes sense.
"Enchantments are perpetually targeting the object it is attached to."
No, you cannot reveal or Shift or Transfuse a Poison enchantment onto a Poison Immune creature. So the future Plagued promo card can't be Transfused onto an Iron Golem or Malaconda (he's already got it twice). This rule is not explicit but needs to be.
"Your mage may ignore the effects of any equipment worn."
This occurred when a player wearing Eagleclaw Boots (and no other boots in his book) wanted to Force Push himself out of melee. "But of course I can choose when to use the claws and when to retract them!". "Look, the rules specifically let me use my fists and not my Lash as you are wearing Dragonscale so why not ignore my boots?" And so logic prevailed.
"You can guard a conjuration against a flyer."
Read as Written in the rules, this is not allowed. Only because the rules use "creature" when it should use "object". But when conjurations can be as small as a Flower or a Crystal, this made no thematic sense. So like every other player, we instead applied Read as Intended. But surmising intention is often subjective...
"Text effects that do not cite Line of Sight do not need it"
So Enchantment Transfusion does not need LoS but Shift Enchantment does. Teleport Trap does not need LoS but Teleport does. We decided on this because we all remembered D&D teleport traps which transported the victim(s) from one part of the dungeon to another. But did we rule right? We went with what we felt was right.
"Cards are read as printed. During Reset, only 1 of your conjurations may revert to Ready, chosen in Initiative order."
This is a House Rule I only apply when playing against the Priestess book I often give to any new player (as new players generally turtle). It means they don't need to remind themselves about the 2 changed Temples. But with Ballista coming, it may not be such a shabby idea, permanently solving the stacking ready marker free actions issue.
Feel free to criticise the above rulings. I'm sure we've applied other House Rules on the fly. And I'm sure "I'm not the only one" (Lennon). Some cards do not fully make sense currently but will in future. It took Etherian Lifetree to understand why Tanglevine is Living (as it can't be healed). Apart from highlighting the Living FAQ needs updating, I posted this thread to ask everyone to share your own House Rules. Because some House Rules may actually be good ideas that Arcane Wonders will use, to make the game even better.
So c'mon. who else has House Rules they are willing to share?
-
"Immunity does not prevent you being targeted and benefiting from attacks that heal or remove conditions."
From the v2 Codex:
Immunity
This object is immune to all attacks, damage, conditions, and effects of the specified damage type, including critical damage and direct damage.
Cannot be targeted or affected by spells of the specified type.
House rules are house rules though.....
-
Yes, of course you are right, but it doesn't make sense with benign attacks, does it?
My Asryan Cleric can heal anyone (even enemies) except for my Angel of Light?
There have been plenty of "I can't water my plants" comments in other threads.
If you want to quote rules verbatim, read what it says about flyers attacking guarded conjurations. So do you follow what's written there?
What is the game's strength? Not its mechanics. We've seen parts of them before, in Summoner Wars and 4th Edition D&D and Magic and Chess and other games, although the sum is most definitely greater than its parts. Yes, its "choose your spell" mechanic is a stroke of genius (also its biggest barrier to entry as the choice overwhelms new players, especially if they hadn't built the book). But the reason why it is so much FUN is because you can envisage yourself right there, in the arena, like in a good RPG skirmish. It's a guilty pleasure, appealing to the child in all of us. And for it to retain that charm, the game must retain its "fantasy realism".
Hey, I'm a huge fan of Mage Wars (although I don't delude myself of its weaknesses). To not constructively criticise where deserved is to do the game a big disservice. At the risk of being flamed, nothing is perfect.
In Magic, protection from your own colour is a double-edged sword. You can't target it with your benign spells. But you also can't damage it via own global effects (Protection from Red and Inferno, Protection from Black and Pestilence etc). Good builds leverage that immunity. However Magic is not "fantasy realistic". It is primarily a game of leveraging mechanics. Whilst Mage Wars is more like a simulation.
Magic is more of a Eurogame. It's a cerebral challenge. Mage Wars is shameless Ameritrash (and better off for it, carving its own niche). It is about the experience and having FUN. Nobody wins when role-playing. Yes, winning in Mage Wars is just a bonus. Awesome game.
That is why, for this game, even an anal retentive rules stickler like me has become a big fan of "playing the game in the spirit of how it's supposed to be played".
Why destroy the immersive illusion when the rules unintentionally create an anomaly? Just House Rule it! Because you can be sure that Arcane Wonders don't want to destroy the illusion either.
-
I have no issues to make rulings where things are grey and for the sake of play. However, I do like to try to stay close to the rules as possible, so if I ever do tourney play, I will be trapped into my "rules" think....
-
Mage Wars is incredibly intuitive. Its best selling point is it is religiously "fantasy realistic". Whenever we have a rules issue, we usually just rule it like a GM would in a RPG. Because that is plainly the spirit of the game. So we make House Rules. Some of them are below.
A man after my own heart. I completely agree.
"Enchantments are perpetually targeting the object it is attached to."
No, you cannot reveal or Shift or Transfuse a Poison enchantment onto a Poison Immune creature. So the future Plagued promo card can't be Transfused onto an Iron Golem or Malaconda (he's already got it twice). This rule is not explicit but needs to be.
I didn't realize this was a thing that you could legally do now.
"You can guard a conjuration against a flyer."
Read as Written in the rules, this is not allowed. Only because the rules use "creature" when it should use "object". But when conjurations can be as small as a Flower or a Crystal, this made no thematic sense. So like every other player, we instead applied Read as Intended. But surmising intention is often subjective...
This is a bit of a tossup for me. Thematically it makes sense that you should be able to defend a small conjuration, but
it also thematically makes sense that you should not be able to defend a particularly larger conjuration in this situation. Not sure how a blue goblin defends a wizard's tower from a flying creature for instance.
"Cards are read as printed. During Reset, only 1 of your conjurations may revert to Ready, chosen in Initiative order."
This is a House Rule I only apply when playing against the Priestess book I often give to any new player (as new players generally turtle). It means they don't need to remind themselves about the 2 changed Temples. But with Ballista coming, it may not be such a shabby idea, permanently solving the stacking ready marker free actions issue.
This one is such a tough one. There doesn't seem to be a really good solution. Even your idea here doesn't prevent action stacking it just slows it down, and I don't think it effects the biggest strength of Ballista at all: The initial surprise double-shot.
The one house rule I use that you haven't mentioned is that Warlord only pays triple for Arcane Creatures and Spells level 2 and higher. The reason for it is completely different then your stated purpose, it's just to make the Warlord more viable.
-
The one house rule I use that you haven't mentioned is that Warlord only pays triple for Arcane Creatures and Spells level 2 and higher. The reason for it is completely different then your stated purpose, it's just to make the Warlord more viable.
Yes, I like it. Teleport still costs 6 but it alleviates his spell points disadvantage, shaving points from spells like Dispel, Nullify, Harmonize, Transfusion, Elemental Cloak, Mage Staff (with Horn) etc. It certainly makes him more playable. Any House Rule which encourages him being played more, that promotes variety rather than the usual tier 1 builds, is surely a good thing for the game?
However, to ensure commands are used instead of persistent enchantments, I think I would have designed him "Triple Cost for non-War enchantments" instead of Triple Arcane as it mirrors Forcemaster in format. It's such a shame because he is such an interesting mage that plays like a miniatures wargame general, and with some really interesting unique toys.
I wouldn't be surprised if Arcane Wonders have inserted a strong Warlord or War Mage Only card in this coming expansion to make him competitive. I was shocked at the radical rewording of Temple of Light (which my House Rule tries to undo). I doubt they will adjust cards like that in future, changing the meta instead to subtly and indirectly balance. Hence my bet is a Warlord exclusive present in this next set.
Great idea on Warlord. Anyone else going to confess their House Rules? C'mon, confession is good for the soul...
-
"Enchantments are perpetually targeting the object it is attached to."
"No, you cannot reveal or Shift or Transfuse a Poison enchantment onto a Poison Immune creature. So the future Plagued promo card can't be Transfused onto an Iron Golem or Malaconda (he's already got it twice). This rule is not explicit but needs to be."
I am sure you cant do that- Shift enchantment/ enchantment transfusion, both say that you have to move the enchantments on a legal target. Which, a poison immune creature is not a legal target for a poison enchantment.
The same way you cant "Steal equipment" a warlock only spell when you are a Forcemaster-or Mind Control a Wizard only creature
And very nice rules! A Judge is always a good idea- and if your not a rules lawyer, then having a judge that acts like a DM is a great idea for any game!
The LoS on teleport threw me off SO bad when I first started playing! It doesn't bother me.....but I liked that you said something about it since I would think I could do it EVERY game for like the first 10 games.
"That is why, for this game, even an anal retentive rules stickler like me has become a big fan of "playing the game in the spirit of how it's supposed to be played".
This is really cool- I like that. and really- unless you are training for tournaments- it is often better to just have fun. (Not in my group though......no fun there....just rules....cold hard rules. :) )
-
The same way you cant "Steal equipment" a warlock only spell when you are a Forcemaster-or Mind Control a Wizard only creature
You can cast "steal equipment" on a mage only specific item. It's just that it is destroyed if you can not equip it. But I get the spirit of what you are going for......
See what I did there ;)
-
This thread clarified that the Flyers guarding ambiguity was a misprint and should probably have been object to capture the statement in the rules:
Use Guard:
Guarding allows you to protect important creatures or conjurations.
(emphasis mine)
http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=12738.msg18464#msg18464
-
The same way you cant "Steal equipment" a warlock only spell when you are a Forcemaster-or Mind Control a Wizard only creature
You can cast "steal equipment" on a mage only specific item. It's just that it is destroyed if you can not equip it. But I get the spirit of what you are going for......
See what I did there ;)
I see what you did there! :P good point- You win this round Karhaz!!
-
To clarify: Even under the rules as written, Samandriel can still be Healed by the Asyran Cleric. This is because Samandriel has LIGHT immunity, and the Asyran Cleric's heal ability is not a Light attack and does not do Light damage. (The "hand with light coming out of it" icon just says it is a healing ability, it is not the symbol for the Light damage type. The symbol for the Light damage type is an orb of light with no hand, as appears on the card "Pillar of Light".)
-
To clarify: Even under the rules as written, Samandriel can still be Healed by the Asyran Cleric. This is because Samandriel has LIGHT immunity, and the Asyran Cleric's heal ability is not a Light attack and does not do Light damage. (The "hand with light coming out of it" icon just says it is a healing ability, it is not the symbol for the Light damage type. The symbol for the Light damage type is an orb of light with no hand, as appears on the card "Pillar of Light".)
So yeah:
-
Good spot, Sirs! How could we miss that? Doh!
But this leads to another more disturbing "we've been playing it all wrong!" issue. So the Codex on Heal (where the hand emitting light symbol appears) says "Living creature or conjuration". So does the Removing Damage rules section. But the Asyran Cleric and all the Heal spells say "Living creature". Is this another oversight like guarding a conjuration from flyers when "conjuration" has been omitted? We've always wondered whether Tanglevine's Living trait had any relevance.
If so, do we have a new House Rule here to prevent an errata on so many cards? "Living conjurations are treated like Living creatures"
This would mean Idol of Pestilence would hurt them (makes sense). But then why does Deathlock specifically cite "Living creatures and conjurations"? Also this would mean giving Rhino Hide and Bull Endurance benefits to plants which is stretching Fantasy Realism.
No, maybe the solution House Rule should be...
"Living conjurations are considered Living creatures for mechanics that inflict or heal damage"
This would allow plants to interact with Asryan cleric, Heal spells and Idol of Pestilence, all interactions which follow our House Rules guiding principle: retaining Fantasy Realism is of paramount importance where balance does not unduly suffer.
-
seems like you got bitten by something with the "house-ruling-disease-syndrome".
Nothing you have mentioned so far neither requires, need, would benefit or could use house ruling.
-
Really? So where we see rules ambiguity, contradictions and breaks with fantasy tropes, you see absolutely none?
So why does Codex Heal (with that hand symbol) mention living conjurations yet there is actually no way to heal them? (Goblin Builder is not healing and is limited to Corporeal, so yes he can mend Tanglevine with his tools).
We have no dousing of burning plants with Geyser or extingush with Surge Wave.
We have, in the rulebook, no ability to guard conjurations against flyers, something that some people find intuitive (see above) yet it was house ruled by us as different and this seems to be the norm.
We lack clarity about complex cards like Enchantment Transfusion (not just LoS between you, donor and destination but also if it targets, can it then be Nullified?) that requires a GM-like decision during play.
We have anti-intuitive issues like voluntary Force Push when wearing Eagleclaw Boots - allowed? You're Unmovable. Yet you are allowed to attack (holding a Lash and a Wand) without the Lash but you can never ignore the Boots effect that you can never take off? A bit harsh!
What is the solution for ready marker action stacking? The reason for Hand of Bim-Shalla becoming Unique, an issue which will never go away with other cards like Ballista where we will eventually be able to stack Uniques every turn. Instead of inelegantly changing individual card text, maybe the solution is to amend the rules to try to permanently solve it? I'm not saying our House Rule is the solution but it does try to address the problem in a more generic fashion. Anyway, I only House Rule that when playing Priestess with newbies as I don't want them put off by the inelegant Errata.
Even the recently spoiled Graveyard is ambiguous.
I applaud your support of the game but there is no point in pretending these grey areas don't exist. People are actually helping the game by pointing these out so a regularly updated Living FAQ can resolve them.
All Unique Card-Interaction Games have this (you should see the FAQ for Magic and A Game of Thrones LCG). It is not a criticism of the game. It is a resource that players need for greater clarity.
In fact, dissecting the game like this is good for it. The most active fan base (we forum regulars are the minority evangelists) can help the game - for free! For example, the discussion on why promo Altar of the Iron Guard is Legendary and the issues this causes.
It's great that you can see the rules in black and white with no grey areas. Our local meta however don't see some minor areas of rules and card interactions as clearly as you.
-
I wouldn't beat yourself up over it deckbuilder- I can easily see how and what your thought process was.
And I would say it very beneficial- first off, different strokes for different folks, second- I can see much good out of this thread.
-
I just find it kinda weird that you are house ruling stuff like Samandriel which you played wrong, and then end up house ruling it into the original rules.
Also alot of the stuff is not about house ruling but a request of clear rules... Different subject maybe?
-
He made a mistake- we all helped. Staying on the subject of house rules would be preferable. :)
One house rule we have )And its a common D&D one) is that the dice have to land on the table! (Those dice have a mind of their own....and boy do they love that floor!)
-
If this turns into a flame war I will lock it.
Now lets talk about this in a clear and rational manner.
-
Let me see if I can help you here
So why does Codex Heal (with that hand symbol) mention living conjurations yet there is actually no way to heal them? (Goblin Builder is not healing and is limited to Corporeal, so yes he can mend Tanglevine with his tools).
Most living conjurations have REGENERATION X, which is a heal effect.
And I am on the other side of the fence as you here:
We have, in the rulebook, no ability to guard conjurations against flyers, something that some people find intuitive (see above) yet it was house ruled by us as different and this seems to be the norm.
Conjurations, like a temple, can not be guarded from flyers and rightfully so because the inverse is more absurd. Sure you get some "wonky" intances where my goblin can not protect a flower but that is better than my goblin protecting a poison gas cloud and adds benefits to flying to make it a more desirable trait.
Also how is graveyard ambiguous?
"Your mage may ignore the effects of any equipment worn."
I am confused here, when you also say this:
In Magic, protection from your own colour is a double-edged sword. You can't target it with your benign spells. But you also can't damage it via own global effects (Protection from Red and Inferno, Protection from Black and Pestilence etc). Good builds leverage that immunity. However Magic is not "fantasy realistic". It is primarily a game of leveraging mechanics. Whilst Mage Wars is more like a simulation.
Magic is more of a Eurogame. It's a cerebral challenge. Mage Wars is shameless Ameritrash (and better off for it, carving its own niche).
I do not think it is fair for you to simultaneously call one game "a cerebral challenge" when the same thought process / leverage has to go into this "Ameritrash". Equipment and enchantments must be used properly, just like in Magic.
You are also claiming that a living FAQ is the answer yet only one of the issues you have just recently came to light, (which is when they get added to a FAQ ;) )
-
I have a few thoughts here.
I am happy for the clarification, and it is correct.....but the man is welcome to his opinions.
Ameritrash is not the dirty word it use to be.
I see the spirit in what this thread is trying to accomplish- I like the thought of being able to "ignore" your own equipment if you want to, and at the very least, it is a good discussion. I think we are still moving away from where we want to be.
-
Conjurations, like a temple, can not be guarded from flyers and rightfully so because the inverse is more absurd. Sure you get some "wonky" intances where my goblin can not protect a flower but that is better than my goblin protecting a poison gas cloud and adds benefits to flying to make it a more desirable trait.
Er, I am confused. Is this your statement of what you, as a playtester, believe the Rules as Written are?
Or are you saying that you have a house rule (or sympathize with such) that lets a flyer ignore guards if it's attacking a conjuration?
-
I agree with Kharhaz re: healing. None of the Codex entries deal with specific cards, but instead with the effects and traits that those cards represent or describe. Additionally, the text on Minor Heal, Heal, etc. says something like "Heal target thing the amount rolled on X dice." So we can conclude that the codex is describing what the healing effect does and is not intended to describe legal targets for the various healing spells. As Kharhaz mentioned, Regeneration is a healing effect, and according to the Codex living objects are legal targets for healing effects, and there are Living conjurations, so there you go. The wording leaves open the possibility of a healing spell that can target living conjurations, but so far none exist.
"Enchantments are perpetually targeting the object it is attached to."
Didn't realize this was even an issue.
"Text effects that do not cite Line of Sight do not need it"
As a Heroscape player I very strongly agree! :D
"You can guard a conjuration against a flyer."
This is a tricky one. I think a decent house rule would be that guards can only guard creatures and non-temple, corporeal conjurations. But even this causes problems because it means you can guard a wall of stone, but not a wall of fire.
EDIT: removed some stuff
"Your mage may ignore the effects of any equipment worn."
I very strongly disagree with this one. There are plenty of cards that say "you may do such and such a thing". Even the rules for choosing different attacks spend words to make it clear that you can choose any available one you want. The provision is there, yes - but only for attacks. Nowhere in the rules does it state you can ignore certain effects because it's convenient for you. The Eagleclaw Boots text does not say "You may gain the Unmovable trait" or "You put on boots with retractable claws, how cool!" You can't ignore enchantments this way - if you enchant a creature with Melee +X and then need to attack one of your own creatures to wake it from Sleep you have to roll all the dice - so why would you get to ignore equipment effects?
I would argue that ignoring such effects is actually illogical. When Link puts on the big heavy boots in that Zelda game, he doesn't get to just will the effects away - he has to take them off before he can move normally again. And currently the only way to remove equipment in Mage Wars is to replace it with something else or Dissolve it.
Having said all that, I think a house rule that says "a mage may return a piece of equipment to his spellbook as a free action" would be a fine, still-friendly alternative to what you're ruling now.
-
This is replying to Kharhaz's post above...
You picked and chose a few of my points that you feel you can refute. I, on the other hand, will deal with all of the subset that you chose.
I don't have the rulebook here at work but I would guess "Regeneration" is the keyword that allows healing, the mechanic which is the removal of damage from living creatures and conjurations. I am referring instead to the Heal symbol that was gleefully pointed out (hey, none of us spotted the subtle difference). I assume that refers to Asryan Cleric (and Healing Wand)? Which can't target living conjurations (less sure about the Wand). I think we are mixing the keyword Heal and the mechanic of healing which is the removal of damage.
On flyers and conjurations, I believe your Read As Written interpretation is contradictory to what was voiced when I first brought this up in a separate thread in this Rules section (when I took your position and everyone told me I was wrong) and which Moonglow has also said in this thread earlier. If anything, this is clear evidence that there is far too much ambiguity for a game of this quality.
You imply that Boots are a double-edged sword. That would be fine and consistent if Lash was a double-edged sword. But the rules state you can ignore it (e.g. against Dragonscale) and use your melee basic attack instead. My friend was arguing he should be able to ignore the Boots similarly. Do I become a rules lawyer and say "no" or rule what I felt was in the spirit of the game, demonstrated by the leniency with a weapon and wand in your hands? I chose to do the latter. It just felt friendlier. It seems you have officially ruled that I chose wrong?
Please read the Graveyard Preview thread to show that experienced players like Koz and SIKE were confused by the ambiguous wording.
I note that you picked those points and no others that I made. Well, here is my rebuttal. I am not trying to be confrontational or antagonistic here. But the very fact that people are confused, about guarding conjurations vs. flyers and watering their plants and Graveyard, you can't refute some of your biggest fans, the customers who spend time on this forum because they absolutely love this game, need clarity here.
I think your anger is sourced from my use of "Ameritrash". I never think of it as derogatory, it is just a category that is used in BGG. I think I have referenced some other games I like elsewhere (Teaching Variant thread): Twilight Imperium 3, Rune Wars, Mage Knight. I confess I even used to play Summoner Wars (not now). I GM 4th Edition, a miniatures skirmish game masquerading as a RPG. I like Descent and Runebound. And now I absolutely love the fun yet deep cross-genre game Mage Wars and try to convert others to it (incorrectly it seems). All these games place theme and flavour over gimmicky abstract mechanics, the difference between Ameritrash and Eurogames. Some of these Ameritrash games are very complex, far more than any Eurogame (try Mage Knight or Twilight Imperium 3 with all expansions). Being classed as Ameritrash is no longer derogatory, it's simply a game category that even the American site Board Game Geek uses.
Maybe you took umbrage that I called Magic cerebral. And by implication Mage Wars was not. My apologies here as that was not exactly what I meant.
Magic deck building is more cerebrally challenging than Mage Wars book building. But that is just a function of card pool (and balancing the casting cost constraints). Once Mage Wars has the same pool as a Magic Standard rotation, the 2 games will become more on par
To play however, it's entirely reversed in my opinion. Magic is like Poker, you improvise with what you get, whilst Mage Wars is like Chess, you can choose what you get (if prepared) and you need to tactically maneouvre. Add to that the lifetime value mechanic giving cumulative benefit, the balancing of action quantity and quality, spell actions, mana, life and board position that gives you "opportunity windows" and I actually insist that playing it is far more skillful than playing Magic. My Magic friends disagree (though they like it). I have written repeatedly that Mage Wars is a deceptively deep game. Attack rolls have low variance, only the d12 adds luck really. Sure, Poker has lots of play skill - but Chess is considered more skillful.
I contend Magic is really a Eurogame because its theme actually means nothing. Somebody (ringkichard?) cited equiping your Loxodon Warhammer onto your Bird of Paradise (often a good play). No Magic player thinks anything wrong with this (after years of going to Grand Prixes around Europe as a journeyman, making day 2 sometimes, I certainly don't). Because good Magic players view the cards as just mechanics, clever card synergies to leverage. No picture and no flavour text? That's fine. All we care about is +2 Power Trample Lifelink.
The Dude brought up an old chestnut, Dungeon Twister. Now this is 80% Ameritrash and 20% Eurogame. Sure, the characters, items, abilities and setting is pure joyous Ameritrash, But then there is the Twisting, a spatial element like in a recent good Eurogame Tzolkin. They dress it up with fake chrome but that mechanic (also its Unique Selling Point like Spellbook choice is Mage War's USP) makes it slightly Eurogame. Maybe I am biased as I lack spatial intelligence, I get lost in my garden. But it's a fun game due to it and The Dude's transference of the bluffing element is certainly true for the Planning phase - another dimension to Mage Wars that I hadn't considered.
So abject apologies if you felt I "dissed" your game, Kharhaz, as that was never my intention. Please accept my grovelling apology on that count. But I am unrepentant for highlighting the ambiguity and issues with the current rules as I see them. For that, I honestly do think you should encourage your minority activists to voice concerns instead of trying to quell them as they are doing the game a free service, from the love that they bear for the game.
-
@Ringkichard
As a playtester, I am required to play the rules as written. I feel that a goblin guarding all sides of a barracks from a flying creature is more out of place than not being able to guard a flower. It's not perfect but I do agree with the existing rules on guarding in regards to flying creatures & conjurations.
@ Deckbuilder
These are your house rules, not mine! Nothing I post here can really make you change them, I was only offering criticism, as you requested. Could I have been less of an ass? Sure but that could probably said about most of my posts. I do apologize if I was being coarse and was not trying to "quell" anyone. That was not my intent, the team appreciates all feedback, even the little stuff. There was no anger on my part I assure you. I have no substantial attachment to this topic as house rules are a luxury I am not allowed when I play this game.
@ equipment ignoring.
Ignoring the trait immoveable is like a pop n'lock (warlock) playing a deathlock and trying to make the argument that his regeneration belt should ignore the finite life trait. One of Shadow's first recommended uses of Eagle Claw Boots was to put them on an enemy mage and repulse the zone to clear all the creatures except the mage, but I digress.
@watering their plants
There is nothing ambiguous about extinguish and hydro immunity. There is a targeting immunity which is clearly stated in the rules. It may not be the most intuitive design but in no way is it ambiguous or new; Geyser has never been able to extinguish the burn markers on a mana flower. Nevertheless, I completely understand why you choose to house rule around it and if that is what is best for your group then more power to ya!
-
I feel like I'm talking to myself! Re Guarding against flyers.
This thread clarified that the Flyers guarding ambiguity was a misprint and should probably have been object to capture the statement in the rules:
Use Guard:
Guarding allows you to protect important creatures or conjurations.
(emphasis mine)
http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=12738.msg18464#msg18464
-
Right, it now sounds like everyone agrees that the Rule as Written is that guards protect conjurations from flyers. Just checking, because it seemed like there was some confusion about that.
-
Right, it now sounds like everyone agrees that the Rule as Written is that guards protect conjurations from flyers. Just checking, because it seemed like there was some confusion about that.
I'm still confused about it.
Page 15 of the rulebook says "A Flying creature is affected by guards when it makes a melee attack, but only if it is attacking a non-Flying creature in the guard’s zone." This implies that you can't guard conjurations against flying creatures.
Page 23 of the rulebook says "Remember: If a Flying creature attacks a non-Flying object, it loses Flying until the end of the attack." This implies that you can guard a conjuration against a flying creature, since the attacking, flying creature would lose flying during the attack and thus be subject to non-flying guarding rules. However this appears to contradict the rule on page 15.
Page 29 of the rulebook has the updated wording mentioned in that thread: "If a creature is in a zone with one or more enemies with guard markers (except for guards he can ignore; see sidebar), that creature cannot make a melee attack against any object without a guard marker" and in the sidebar, it says "Guards affect a flying creature when it makes a melee attack, but only if it is attacking a non-Flying creature in the guard’s zone." So flying creatures attacking non-non-Flying-creatures are an exception to the "Protect the Zone" text. This appears to support the rule on page 15 and contradict the rule on page 23.
So which is it?
It seems like the rules as written state that when a flying creature attacks a conjuration, it loses flying for the duration of the attack, and it gets to ignore any guards. So it's both.
-
Found this in the official FAQ/Errata.
Guarding
While a creature has a Guard marker it loses, and cannot gain, the Flying trait.
A Guard cannot prevent a creature from attacking itself or an object attached to itself.
Under “Protect the Zone”, on page 33 of the original rulebook, replace the current description with: “If a creature is in a zone with one or more enemies with guard markers (except for guards he can ignore; see sidebar), that creature cannot make a melee attack against any object without a guard marker.” This has the same meaning as before, but may be slightly more clear. Note that similar text is already inserted in the second printing rulebook.
-
Er, Shad0w. This was my OP from July when I explained that RAW (using latest rules), a guard did not stop a flyer attacking a conjuration. This is because the sidebar is the exception mentioned in "Protect the Zone" and only creatures can be guarded from flyers. I have added the undeline myself, not in the rules.
Guarding (p29)
"Protect the Zone: If a creature is in a zone with one or more enemies with guard markers (except for guards he can ignore; see sidebar), that creature cannot make a melee attack against any object without a guard marker."
Ignoring Guards (sidebar p29)
"In some cases, guards can be ignored. If an attacking creature can ignore a guard, it may choose to melee attack a different target in the zone, and does not have to attack the ignored guard.
Flying Creatures and Guards: Guards affect a flying creature when it makes a melee attack, but only if it is attacking a non-Flying creature in the guard's zone."
I contend that the rules as they stand allow Flyers to ignore guards when melee attacking conjurations in that zone. The rules specifically only allow guards to interpose against flyers when they melee-attack non-Flying creatures.
The logical and grammatical syntax of the above is follows:
(a) There are exceptions to the Guard rule
(b) Flyers is one of these exceptions
(c) However Flyers attacking non-Flying creatures is an exception to exception (b)
However, this interpretation (RAW as the game uses precise terminology) has caused some disagreement.
Can someone please clear this up? Many thanks!
Initially I had the same opinion as Kharhaz who said guards cannot stop flyers attacking conjurations is the way playtesters play as they have to follow the Rules As Written. I even said what Kharhaz said, that this upgrade of flyers (and downgrade of powerful conjurations) was probably good for balance.
However, the consensus of wiser players than me (including you, Shad0w) seemed to agree the underlined "creature" should be "object". Since then, our local meta have ignored the written rule and played it that way as our House Rule. This is all saved for prosperity in the link that Moonglow has posted (twice) in this thread.
I did read the FAQ on Guarding that you quoted but I think most of it at least is a red herring here.
While a creature has a Guard marker it loses, and cannot gain, the Flying trait
This clarifies the +2 attack bonus does not apply if you use Tarok to attack a Guardian Angel on guard (or if she Intercepts a Jet Stream). She can also be targeted by Surge Wave, a very common use to Slam remove her marker. The "cannot gain" clarifies that casting Eagle Wings will not suddenly give any guard flying until it loses its guard marker. The "while" clarifies that, after you remove the angel's guard marker, she no longer hinders your ground forces.
This brings up the issue of attachments perpetually targeting what it is attached to which people say is obvious but not explicit, Guardian Angel is on guard. I cast Tanglevine on her, she is Restrained so cannot guard others but can Counterstrike. In her action, she loses her guard marker and regains flying. Do you check Tanglevine's condition requirement again so that it slips off as an illegal target? The rules as they stand are easy to read but need more all encompassing rules (like static effects rules in other games) as well as clarity in places.
I want to add the rulebook is very good, mostly very clear. The Codex is brilliant (need a downloadable single reference please). It knocks spots off FFG rulebooks. Just that the game is complex and in keeping it very easy to understand, subtleties of triggered, activated, static etc have been ignored. But games like this will bring up these issues until resolved in a complicated FAQ for serious competitive players.
A Guard cannot prevent a creature from attacking itself or an object attached to itself
This clarifies that a guard does not prevent you attacking the Tanglevine on you. Also that the Forcemaster can order a Mind Controlled Grizzly on low life to try to kill itself with a full action attack on itself, despite an enemy Guard in its zone. (We'll assume your Obelisk has been destroyed!) I am sure there are other edge cases for this FAQ clarification that I haven't considered.
So, to answer ringkichard's question:
Rules As Written = cannot guard conjurations from flyers
Rules As Intended = can guard conjurations from flyers
However, back in 11 July when I posted that question, I did not own Conquest of Kumanjaro. In that expansion, Intercept was introduced which correctly uses "object". So a Panzergarde guarding a conjuration can intercept a ranged attack by a Royal Archer with Eagle Wings but, RAW, it cannot guard against it if it moves forward 1 and melee attacks the conjuration. This confirmed to me RAW was an oversight and RAI (house rule) was right.
As a postscript, we did toy with "flyers ignore guards when attacking level 2+ conjurations" as the role-players in our group are really into realism and wanted to differentiate between small and larger conjurations. But this would be plainly "making up your own rules" (like our Ready marker solution) instead of making a decision where there is ambiguity. Also, for game balance, being able to guard conjurations from flyers is good for the game as this protects spawn points. So that is why we stuck with RAI consensus of that July post. But nothing official on this was ever announced (like a FAQ addition on this and many other points).
-
This brings up the issue of attachments perpetually targeting what it is attached to which people say is obvious but not explicit, Guardian Angel is on guard. I cast Tanglevine on her, she is Restrained so cannot guard others but can Counterstrike. In her action, she loses her guard marker and regains flying. Do you check Tanglevine's condition requirement again so that it slips off as an illegal target? The rules as they stand are easy to read but need more all encompassing rules (like static effects rules in other games) as well as clarity in places.
You are over thinking it.
Restrained targets lose and can not gain flying. As per rulebook pg 43.
-
I would comment further but I have been asked at this point to only base rulings off the v2 book and the FAQ with the faq taking priority.
-
You are over thinking it.
Restrained targets lose and can not gain flying. As per rulebook pg 43.
Oh yeah. See, the rules do cover most eventualities. Like I said. (blush)
Of course. This was what happened when I experimented with Giant Wolf Spider (shame not an animal!) on a guarding Guardian Angel when that set first came out. She was stuck for ages. Hilarious.
[Wipes more egg off my face.] Meh, you scatter shot and you're bound to miss a few.
-
I would comment further but I have been asked at this point to only base rulings off the v2 book and the FAQ with the faq taking priority.
Is the v2 rulebook the one with Guarding on p29 and the Ignoring Guards sidebar beside it? That's what I based my original logic on.
So what is the ruling here? Cos even if the FAQ takes preference, it doesn't seem to shed any more light. Though it's really late over here so I may be just brain dead. I've been making silly errors all night (work deadline) so this would be par for the course.
-
I do not have time to pull all the passages into one post and make a ruling. I have some fam stuff to take care of this weekend. If somebody would be kind enough I will read it all and make a ruling this weekend
-
Thanks for your post, Deckbuilder. I don't own CoK yet so I didn't know about the wording on Intercept. I like your explanation of RAW vs. RAI.
If somebody would be kind enough I will read it all and make a ruling this weekend
If you mean the words from the rulebooks, I listed all three relevant passages from the v2 rulebook in an earlier post of mine in this thread. Linky: http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=13050.msg23372#msg23372 (http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=13050.msg23372#msg23372)
-
Cor, you can link straight to a message, not just a thread URL! That's really neat! Another thing learnt...
-
I do not have time to pull all the passages into one post and make a ruling. I have some fam stuff to take care of this weekend. If somebody would be kind enough I will read it all and make a ruling this weekend
A creature may spend a quick action to guard. Place a guard marker on the creature. A guard will try to protect its zone from enemy attacks.
Guarding has 2 benefits:
• Counterstrike: As long as the creature is guarding, all of its quick melee attacks gain the Counterstrike trait.
• Protect the Zone: If a creature is in a zone with one or more enemies with guard markers (except for guards
he can ignore; see sidebar), that creature cannot make a melee attack against any object without a guard marker.
Important: Spells and other ranged attacks always ignore guards! Also, a creature may always attack itself, or an object attached to itself, ignoring all guards.
Only melee attacks are affected. If a guard is not melee attacked, it may retain its guard marker until the start of its next Action Phase. Guard markers are always removed at the beginning of a creature’s Action Phase.
Note: Attacking a guard has no effect on the guard’s action marker. If an active creature is on guard, it will still be active after the attack. This may allow a creature to attack twice in the same round: once with the guard counterstrike, then later during its own Action Phase.
-
@sike is from this the rule book v2?
-
Yes you said only from V2 and the FAQ:
Here is the bit from the side bar:
Flying Creatures and Guards: Guards affect a flying creature when it makes a melee attack, but only if it is attacking a non-Flying creature in the guard’s zone. Attacks against other Flying creatures always ignore guards. If a Flying creature guards, it loses, and cannot gain, the Flying trait for as long as it has the guard marker.
and the bit from the FAQ:
Guarding
While a creature has a Guard marker it loses, and cannot gain, the Flying trait.
A Guard cannot prevent a creature from attacking itself or an object attached to itself.
Under “Protect the Zone”, on page 33 of the original rulebook, replace the current description with: “If a creature is in a zone with one or more enemies with guard markers (except for guards he can ignore; see sidebar), that creature cannot make a melee attack against any object without a guard marker.” This has the same meaning as before, but may be slightly more clear. Note that similar text is already inserted in the second printing rulebook.
-
(except for guards he can ignore; see sidebar)
Sidebar on same page 29 lists the exceptions, including a section on flying creatures.
Where it states that guards only protect against melee attacks of flyers on non-flying CREATURES.
Ergo, Rules As Written, guards do not protect against melee attacks of flyers on conjurations.
Not that I am arguing we should follow Rules As Written as the intention from Intercept is clear.
-
@ Sike thanks
I do not have time to pull all the passages into one post and make a ruling. I have some fam stuff to take care of this weekend. If somebody would be kind enough I will read it all and make a ruling this weekend
A creature may spend a quick action to guard. Place a guard marker on the creature. A guard will try to protect its zone from enemy attacks.
Guarding has 2 benefits:
• Counterstrike: As long as the creature is guarding, all of its quick melee attacks gain the Counterstrike trait.
• Protect the Zone: If a creature is in a zone with one or more enemies with guard markers (except for guards
he can ignore; see sidebar), that creature cannot make a melee attack against any object without a guard marker.
Important: Spells and other ranged attacks always ignore guards! Also, a creature may always attack itself, or an object attached to itself, ignoring all guards.
Only melee attacks are affected. If a guard is not melee attacked, it may retain its guard marker until the start of its next Action Phase. Guard markers are always removed at the beginning of a creature’s Action Phase.
Note: Attacking a guard has no effect on the guard’s action marker. If an active creature is on guard, it will still be active after the attack. This may allow a creature to attack twice in the same round: once with the guard counterstrike, then later during its own Action Phase.
“If a creature is in a zone with one or more enemies with guard markers (except for guards he can ignore; see sidebar), that creature cannot make a melee attack against any object without a guard marker.”
This passage implies that the attacker chooses a legal target from among all targets with gaurd markers that can legaly guard against the attack.
Flying Creatures and Guards:
Guards affect a flying creature when it makes a melee attack, but only if it is attacking a non-Flying creature in the guard’s zone. Attacks against other Flying creatures always ignore guards. If a Flying creature guards, it loses, and cannot gain, the Flying trait for as long as it has the guard marker.
Taking the previous passage into account
A Flying creature may attack another flying creature, a ground creature, or a conjuration. If the flyer chooses to attack a grounded target it must choose from any of the creatures that can legaly guard against this attack if it has a guard marker.
The big problem that was making this unclear was the use of the word creature instead of object. From reading over the previous post I think we can agree that the intent of the flyer wording was when a flyer attacks an object, but at this time we currently do not have any flying conjurations so instead the word creature was used to try to avoid any confusion.
-
but at this time we currently do not have any flying conjurations
Currently!!!! Flying conjurations, Oh Yeah!
-
And this turned into a rules clarification thread real quick- <.<
-
I might be a little drunk and a little ummm something else that gives me an excuse outside of normal politeness, but has anything been advanced over the previous discussions on this topic? Which sort of implies no one bothered to read the previous posts anyway?
And this turned into a rules clarification thread real quick- <.<
-
And this turned into a rules clarification thread real quick- <.<
I try to stick with what I am good at. :-)
In all seriousness, the thread was getting kinda contentious, and it seemed like a good idea to find some common ground. People were arguing a point, but it wasn't even clear anyone actually disagreed.
And maybe it's my competitive streak, but as much as I've complained about Plants' water immunity, I'd never implement a nonstandard and isolating house rule to fix it (though I might avoid playing plants in friendly matches). Petitioning for official rules eratta is about as far as I'll go in mucking with the game.
-
I might be a little drunk and a little ummm something else that gives me an excuse outside of normal politeness, but has anything been advanced over the previous discussions on this topic? Which sort of implies no one bothered to read the previous posts anyway?
And this turned into a rules clarification thread real quick- <.<
I am dealing with some funeral arrangements and did not want to thread to wander too much but I guess it will be faster to edit the topic.
-
Sorry to hear that Shadow - wasn't expecting you to be the one who has to answer everything though. Mostly just felt that the flying/guarding ambiguity seemed well dealt with on another thread.
This thread clarified that the Flyers guarding ambiguity was a misprint and should probably have been object to capture the statement in the rules:
Use Guard:
Guarding allows you to protect important creatures or conjurations.
(emphasis mine)
http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=12738.msg18464#msg18464
-
I guess it will be faster to edit the topic.
Hi Shad0w
I was sorry to read of your personal circumstances and I hope things have resolved themselves now. I trust I have waited an appropriate length of time before resurrecting this thread that had devolved into an opportunity to make a Single Source of Clarifications (in a separate new thread) for players to easily find and reference, at least until the FAQ is updated.
Some of these points are simply perceived ambiguity. It may be obvious to experienced players but new players will "argue the toss" that their interpretation is different and it is very hard to dispute without unambiguous clarity (I usually end up accepting their view so as to not colour their game experience). I suggest you copy these points onto a separate new LOCKED "Clarifications" thread, a single uncluttered point of reference only you can add to, so these issues can be resolved with a quick view of a device. Here are points from this thread...
So, for each of these clarifications, a TRUE or FALSE (clarifying what is True instead) would really help out.
1. Flyers cannot ignore Guards when attacking Conjurations (unless they qualify to ignore Guards via another exception)
Kharhaz has been playtesting Flyers can ignore Guards when attacking Conjurations because it is actually Rules As Written. Some have also voiced they find it logical due to the size of most conjurations. But many experienced posters also don't play this and I was convinced by them to play it as above = Rules As Intended
2. You must comply with all Equipment Traits where possible, choosing when a contradictory choice exists
The Weapon exception exists because a choice exists between Weapon, your melee basic attack and Attack spells, otherwise equiping a Weapon prevents Attack spells; if you wear Eagleclaw Boots with no other Boots, you cannot Force Push yourself unless you Dissolve it
3. Line of Sight to target is only needed for casting a spell on it or making an attack on it or if the effect text stipulates it
For all other purposes (e.g Teleport move actions, Enchantment Transfusion, Teleport Trap), Line of Sight is not needed as the text does not stipulate it
4. Any change of zone, including via Push, Teleport or Teleport move actions, triggers entry into a zone Trap enchantment and Orb of Suppression does include Teleport move actions
I added this as it came up in a recent game and I found it hard to rule; with Wraiths arriving soon, this may become more commonplace
5. A reveal effect does not target but legality must be checked after attaching an enchantment indirectly
Hence Enchantment Transfusion does not trigger the opponent's Nullify on destination but enchantments moved must be able to legally target that creature
6. Seeking Dispel only prevents the revealing of the target enchantment
Hence Enchantment Transfusion could move that enchantment and, as per the FAQ version 4th March page 3, this moving of the target (even to itself) counters the targeting; the same Transfusion as a counter capability applies to a Dispel cast on a revealed enchantment
7. With the current pool, the only way you can "heal" living conjurations is via innate regeneration
For example Tanglevine cannot be healed even though the Heal symbol ability (as per Asryan Cleric) allows for healing living creatures or living conjurations; Goblin Builder can remove damage from corporeal living conjurations (all of them so far) but this is not healing per se; this Rules As Written interpretation inversely means some area Poison effects like Idol of Pestilence will not harm living conjurations (whilst Deathlock specifically includes living conjurations), a huge impact on the impending expansion
8. Graveyard grants its bonus mana only for the first creature killed each round, irrespective of its controller, thus attack sequence is relevant in the case of multi-target attacks; in the case of simultaneous Upkeep death, the player with Initiative chooses between the first to die on each side as decided by their controller
Hence the bonus cannot be deferred for a larger creature killed later in that round, zone attacks sequence is relevant and Upkeep direct damage deaths on both sides is chosen by Initiative holder after each player chooses their first to die in Upkeep
9. You cannot remove Burn counters on objects with Hydro Immunity using Geyser or Surging Wave as they cannot be targeted
Obviously other spell effects (e.g. global conjuration played against fire mages) may over-rule this as card text always takes precedence, again a huge impact on the impending expansion
I think that covers most of the points covered in this thread so far, in some way or another. I have worded it in a way so that I'm anticipating as many "True" responses as possible from you. I know some of these may seem blatantly obvious but you try to argue them with newer players. So an unambiguous clarification would really help here. As I said, a separate locked (thus uncluttered) stickied thread where you (and other Moderators) collate these and other issues would be a great resource.
I am really sorry to have inconvenienced you with this request and I thank you in advance.
-
Nice clear list Deckbuilder. Looking forward to the responses!
-
I guess it will be faster to edit the topic.
Hi Shad0w
So, for each of these clarifications, a TRUE or FALSE (clarifying what is True instead) would really help out.
1. Flyers cannot ignore Guards when attacking Conjurations (unless they qualify to ignore Guards via another exception)
Kharhaz has been playtesting Flyers can ignore Guards when attacking Conjurations because it is actually Rules As Written. Some have also voiced they find it logical due to the size of most conjurations. But many experienced posters also don't play this and I was convinced by them to play it as above = Rules As Intended
True - Shadow read and responded to this topic in this thread http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=12738.msg18464#msg18464
Didn't he?
-
Group is busy making the DvN FAQ. I can add this to the to do list.