Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Rules Discussion => Topic started by: Borg on October 17, 2015, 04:56:07 PM
-
The codex has this on Extinguish
Quote
A hydro attack (or attack spell) which has the Extinguish trait, may target an object with the Hydro Immunity trait. If it does, the attack deals no damage or effects to the object, other than to remove all Burn conditions. This is an exception to the normal immunity rules. In this manner, a Hydro attack can be used to extinguish the fires of a burning plant object, even though the attack cannot actually damage or harm that plant.
End Quote
Instead of making "an exception to the normal immunity rules" why not simply allow spells to target objects that are immune to that spell ?
For example, why is it not allowed to target a [mwcard=MW1C16] Flaming Hellion[/mwcard] who has Flame Immunity with a [mwcard=MW1A04] Fireball[/mwcard] ? What would be the problem with that ?
If you define "Flame Immunity" something like :
"A Fire Attack deals no damage to this object", the object would still remain unaffected by Fire attacks but it would no longer be an illegal play and you would never end up in a situation where players have to start backtracking because of it.
( note that I'd prefer the Flaming Hellion to also have the Burnproof Trait so that Flame Immunity ( which then only affects Fire Damage ) does not overlap with Burnproof ( which affects Burn markers )
Following that same logic it would then be legal to target a Hydro Immune object with a Hydro spell, only it wouldn't take any damage from it but any other effects like Extinguish might still apply.
Just seems a cleaner rule to me.
-
Immunity isn't just about attack. It also prevents You from being target of other spells (like incantations). You can't cast [mwcard=MW1E31]Poisoned Blood[/mwcard] on Necro, for example. Same goes for conditions. You can't put weak on Necro. That's the reason why Flaming Hellion can't burn. If burn wasn't condition of flame type then it would bypass flame immunity.
-
Immunity isn't just about attack. It also prevents You from being target of other spells (like incantations). You can't cast [mwcard=MW1E31]Poisoned Blood[/mwcard] on Necro, for example. Same goes for conditions. You can't put weak on Necro. That's the reason why Flaming Hellion can't burn. If burn wasn't condition of flame type then it would bypass flame immunity.
OK, I understand that.
Let me make my Flame Immunity definition somewhat more complete.
"Fire Attacks deal no damage to this object, Fire Incantations have no effect, Fire Enchantments attached to this object are destroyed without effect when they are revealed, Conjurations attached to this object are destroyed without effect and Fire Equipment attached to this object is destroyed"
All in all the result would be that the Flame immunity object can be targeted by a Flame Attack/spell but Flame effects would be negated and non-flame effects could have their effect ( like Extinguish )
-
Your definition seems too specific to me. IMO it's better to have simple rule for broader concept (immunity) and have exceptions in special rule (attack trait) than to have specific rule for broader concept to avoid exceptions now. When newer concepts will appear they may still require exceptions or having the rule reworded again (extinguish-like incantation for example).
It may not be your intention, but You're bringing up interesting problem. With current rules You can't intercept an attack that You're immune to because You can't be targeted by it (same reason Togorah can't intercept Akiro's Hammer's attack on Mana Flower).
-
The problem is we want immunity to prevent the object from being affected by such spells, regardless of if they can be targeted, so any such spells, effects, or conditions that are meant to affect them will need an exception written. We don't just want attacks to deal no damage, we want them to have no effect at all. No burns, corrodes, pushes, slams, weaks, etc. There's no way to write a rule that prevents these things but doesn't prevent other effects without specific exceptions written.
So, if we need to write exceptions anyways for them to have an effect, I don't think we need to change the rules to allow them to be targeted without an exception.
-
It may not be your intention, but You're bringing up interesting problem. With current rules You can't intercept an attack that You're immune to because You can't be targeted by it (same reason Togorah can't intercept Akiro's Hammer's attack on Mana Flower).
that's right!
... and not good... (why would a fireimune-interceptor be unable to intercept a fireball?)
but i think there's no imune interceptor yet.
-
Your definition seems too specific to me. IMO it's better to have simple rule for broader concept (immunity) and have exceptions in special rule (attack trait) than to have specific rule for broader concept to avoid exceptions now.
The problem is we want immunity to prevent the object from being affected by such spells, regardless of if they can be targeted, so any such spells, effects, or conditions that are meant to affect them will need an exception written. We don't just want attacks to deal no damage, we want them to have no effect at all. No burns, corrodes, pushes, slams, weaks, etc. There's no way to write a rule that prevents these things but doesn't prevent other effects without specific exceptions written.
So, if we need to write exceptions anyways for them to have an effect, I don't think we need to change the rules to allow them to be targeted without an exception.
OK, good points, let's take it from there and see if we can come up with an Immunity definition that is simple enough to easily remember and which allows you to target an immune object.
So:
- You may target a "type" immune object with spells and attacks of that "type"
but :
- Attacks MAY be avoided ( during step two of the attack sequence, where "immunity" also beats "unavoidable" ) meaning no combat dice and condition dice are rolled ( = mission accomplished ) but additional non-dice rolling effects - written at the end of the attack bar - may still apply if possible
ex. Extinguish, Defrost still have an effect
ex. +2 vs non-living or pierce+1 obviously have no effect anymore
- Spells MAY be countered during the counter spell step or upon being revealed.
By giving players the choice to either avoid attacks or not and counter spells or not ( to which the object is immune of course ) you still get the same results as with the current official ruling but now you have the added ability to let the attack or spell pass if it is beneficial to you.
This way it would be possible to play a face down Poison Blood on a Necromancer - to check for a Nullify for instance - but it could be countered and destroyed upon revealing it. If not countered at that moment the spell would resolve and take effect.
It would also be possible to play a beneficial spell like [mwcard=FWE02] Circle of Fire[/mwcard] on your [mwcard=MW1C16] Flaming Hellion[/mwcard], decide to NOT counter it and let it work normally ( Thanks Jacksmack for the hint : see Jacksmack's post below ) which simply makes sense.
Other interesting note to point out :
Since an attack spell is a spell and also an attack you would have the possibility to counter that spell during the "counter spell step" of the Spell sequence but it would also be possible to let the spell resolve and then "avoid" the attack but benefit from any "non dice rolling effects".
ex. Your [mwcard=DNC20] Vine Snapper[/mwcard] has 3 Burn counters on him which you want to remove.
You Target the Snapper with [mwcard=MWSTX1CKA01] Surging Wave[/mwcard]
Since the Snapper is Immune to Hydro Spells you have the option of Countering your own spell during the "counter spell" step, which you obviously don't do.
The spell resolves and now the Snapper is attacked with a Hydro attack and since he's immune to those you now decide to "avoid" that attack during the "avoid" step of the battle sequence.
No dice and no condition dice is rolled but Extinguish still takes effect and the Burn counters are removed while your Snapper takes no damage at all.
Logical, short, not difficult to remember, mission accomplished so far imo.
What we're doing here is basically taking a situation where the game tells you that you can't do something while leaving the player no choice at all and turning it into a situation where the game tells you that you can do something and gives the players choices to make with that.
I think we will all agree that the latter situation is what gamers prefer most.
-
Flaming Hellion cannot be enchanted with Circle of Fire... But a vinesnapper can :)
-
I like the idea of being able to play Plagued on Necro or Circle of Fire on demon with flame immunity. Currently I can't do that. Also casting any spell (inc or ench) to probe for nullify sounds reasonable.
Your definition still allows for attack to damage creature or put conditions on it (untyped attacks or special abilities). Attack with Extinguish doesn't just roll 0 dice and remove burns, it reduces number of dice by number of burns on target to minimum of 1.
If we allow to cast typed spells on targets with immunity to that type we also allow for special abilities to work for them (Adramelech Warlock giving fire+1 to Necro with Poisoned Blood on him).
It's just that we need to hire rules lawyer to have better definition. ;)
It may not be your intention, but You're bringing up interesting problem. With current rules You can't intercept an attack that You're immune to because You can't be targeted by it (same reason Togorah can't intercept Akiro's Hammer's attack on Mana Flower).
that's right!
... and not good... (why would a fireimune-interceptor be unable to intercept a fireball?)
but i think there's no imune interceptor yet.
[mwcard=DNC18]Togorah, Forest Sentinel[/mwcard], besides it doesn't need to be interceptor. [mwcard=MW1C01]Adramelech, Lord of Fire[/mwcard] can't guard from [mwcard=MW1C16]Flaming Hellion[/mwcard]'s melee attack. You can't protect from an attack You can't be target of.
-
OK.
How about this:
Everything is cluttered in 1 zone. The warlock wants to use his Lord of Fire to make a sweeping attack.
The enemy Single guarding creature - the Flaming Hellion
What can the Lord of Fire do? Nothing at all?!?!?! Cant even sweeping attack?
Something is very wrong with immunity!
-
I really don't get the raging.. ???
If something like this happens you just use common sense. You attack the flaming hellion, dealing 0 damage and afterwards the rest. I know it's not "by the rules" but it's pretty clear this was what they intended.
-
OK.
How about this:
Everything is cluttered in 1 zone. The warlock wants to use his Lord of Fire to make a sweeping attack.
The enemy Single guarding creature - the Flaming Hellion
What can the Lord of Fire do? Nothing at all?!?!?! Cant even sweeping attack?
Something is very wrong with immunity!
He can attack any other creature than Flaming Hellion. This is something I mentioned earlier: You can't guard from an attack that You're immune to.
-
I really don't get the raging.. ???
If something like this happens you just use common sense. You attack the flaming hellion, dealing 0 damage and afterwards the rest. I know it's not "by the rules" but it's pretty clear this was what they intended.
And if your opponent disagrees because of RaW?
He can attack any other creature than Flaming Hellion. This is something I mentioned earlier: You can't guard from an attack that You're immune to.
Where do you have this from? (we are not talking intercept here because its very different.)
If there is a guard you may not target another non-flying object in that zone that does not have a guard marker.
The exceptions to this is if the guard has pest or is restrained or if the attacker has elusive.
There are no exceptions (that im aware of) that allows you to target another creature just because the guard is immune to your attack.
Even if your right, then its just more riddicilous that a Flaming Hellion cannot protect its zone while another creautre that is vulnerable to a fire attack can protect it from LoF.
-
When declaring an attack You have to choose a legal target. Immunity says that You can't target that object with an attack of that type. So You can't target a guard that's immune to your attack.
Then, announce what target you are attacking. You must choose a legal target for your attack
Immunity
This object is immune to all attacks, damage, conditions, and effects of the specified damage type, including critical damage and direct damage. It cannot be targeted or affected by spells or attacks of the specified type.
But then there's this:
Protect the Zone: If there is an enemy guard (a creature with a guard marker) in a zone, then you cannot melee attack any object in that zone other than enemy guards. This condition is checked when the attack is declared
If I understand it right then You can't use melee attack at all if there's guard immune to all of your melee attacks.
Quotes are from latest uploaded rulebook. I haven't found nothing in rules supplement that would expand on this.
-
It makes absolutely no sense to me that a Lord of Fire cannot attack a guarding Flaming Hellion.
How does a creature's Flame Immunity actually stop the other creature from attacking him with a fire attack ?
Flame immunity should reduce the damage of attacks or effect of spells but not prevent you from targeting an object.
Also, putting a Flaming Hellion on Guard against a LoF is what I would call a great play defensively because you force a big threat to deal with your Hellion first if he wants to attack and the Hellion wouldn't get a scratch from it.
Why is that not possible ?
And like Jacksmack already noted, it doesn't make any sense that you can't put a Circle of Fire on a Hellion ( who is a fire creature per definition ) but you can put one on a creature who's vulnerable to fire. You simply should be able to put it on EVERY corporeal creature just like its target line says.
Bottomline : immunity doesn't work logically because it is tied to something that has nothing to do with it : targetability, instead of what it is really about : being resistant to some type of damage and spells.
That's why I make those suggestions in reply nr6.
-
I think the targeting approach to immunity is trying to get to the imperviability - take a bowl half full of water, tip a glass of water in and see the impact - yes there could be splashage etc, but the water absorbs the water... actually a better example might be squirt a stream of water from a hose with a water pistol, or get a raging fire and wave a blow torch at it... its just not having any interaction, the types are so similar they just pass each other. So a flame creature can't block a flame attack, it just splashes through it. A water attack on a flame creature however neutralizes it (blocks) with a bit of pain to the creature...
making stuff up a little, but I think its defensible....
-
I think the targeting approach to immunity is trying to get to the imperviability - take a bowl half full of water, tip a glass of water in and see the impact
Yes, but the current rules say you cannot tip a glass of water into a water bowl - to use your analogy. :)
-
I think the targeting approach to immunity is trying to get to the imperviability - take a bowl half full of water, tip a glass of water in and see the impact
Yes, but the current rules say you cannot tip a glass of water into a water bowl - to use your analogy. :)
Correct. It is a design for effect rule rather than a design for mechanic rule. Since the effect has no impact on the game state we simply remove it from the players decision process and have them focus on other tactics.
-
I think the targeting approach to immunity is trying to get to the imperviability - take a bowl half full of water, tip a glass of water in and see the impact
Yes, but the current rules say you cannot tip a glass of water into a water bowl - to use your analogy. :)
Correct. It is a design for effect rule rather than a design for mechanic rule. Since the effect has no impact on the game state we simply remove it from the players decision process and have them focus on other tactics.
Yes, but this has unwanted and illogical side effects.
The game claims that one of its biggest strengths is that it is "intuitive" and that "things work as you would logically expect them to work" but that is certainly not the case here.
-
Iwasn't even aware that immunity didn't alow targetting. I thought it just ignored damage... (That way you can stack burn couters on a fire immune -but non burnproof- creature wthout it taking damage, while you still have to roll to see if they extinguish...) I supose I was using common sense here, but obviously I should read some of the rules better...
-
Iwasn't even aware that immunity didn't alow targetting. I thought it just ignored damage... (That way you can stack burn couters on a fire immune -but non burnproof- creature wthout it taking damage, while you still have to roll to see if they extinguish...) I supose I was using common sense here, but obviously I should read some of the rules better...
You couldn't do that, because burn is flame condition. Flame immunity prevents not only flame damage, but flame conditions and spells too.
-
Bottomline : immunity doesn't work logically because it is tied to something that has nothing to do with it : targetability, instead of what it is really about : being resistant to some type of damage and spells.
That's why I make those suggestions in reply nr6.
And I agree with that, but turning immunity into optional super-avoid/counterspell is not enough. As I mentioned earlier according to your suggested definition a burning Hydro immune creature would still get damaged by Hydro attack with extinguish trait.
I propose that instead of preventing targeting Immunity should allow objects to ignore things. For example:
Immunity:
Object with immunity ignores damage and conditions of a type it's immune to. It also may choose to ignore effects of attacks and spells of that type.
This way we allow for objects to be targeted by anyone and benefit from friendly spells. Unfortunately this still allows for enemy special abilities to benefit from spells You're immune to. This definition needs to be worked to precisely allow for benefiting from extinguish while ignoring other effects like push.
-
@Karin:
If an enemy guard is immune to your attack, then you are free to attack any other creature you wish. This would fall under the same thought as the mandatory action rules in the rules supplement. If you are unable to perform an action, then you can not be required to perform that action. If you can not select a specific target for an action, then you can not be required to select that specific target.
@Borg:
Now, regarding the idea of changing immunity into an optional ability to avoid attacks, counter spells, or counter enchantments, I kind of like it. It would also give us something other than [mwcard=FWE08]Mind Shield[/mwcard] to make use of the Counter Enchantment step. I didn't think of the simple solution of making immunity into an optional ability. I'm not sure how popular this idea would be with others, specifically the Arcane Wonders higher ups, but it sounds intriguing to me.
Also, if we did implement something like this, there's no reason for Hydro Immune objects to be damaged by spells with Extinguish. Currently Extinguish breaks the normal immunity rules. There's no reason it couldn't break the new immunity rules as well.
-
If an enemy guard is immune to your attack, then you are free to attack any other creature you wish. This would fall under the same thought as the mandatory action rules in the rules supplement. If you are unable to perform an action, then you can not be required to perform that action. If you can not select a specific target for an action, then you can not be required to select that specific target.
Can you please give the reason behind this ruling?
I think your mixing up forced actions such as bloodthirst / taunt with what guard does.
If your right then it makes even less sense:
Who would be the best to protect you from a creature with a firebased melee attack?? thats right... a fire immune guard.
-
@Karin:
If an enemy guard is immune to your attack, then you are free to attack any other creature you wish. This would fall under the same thought as the mandatory action rules in the rules supplement. If you are unable to perform an action, then you can not be required to perform that action. If you can not select a specific target for an action, then you can not be required to select that specific target.
That was my first thought too, but then I reread guarding rules. " then you cannot melee attack any object in that zone other than enemy guards" - this part was what made me doubt that thought (if guard is immune to your attack then You have to ignore it).
Who would be the best to protect you from a creature with a firebased melee attack?? thats right... a fire immune guard.
With current rules that's the worst guard against flame attacks. That's why targeting approach to immunity needs to be dropped. I proposed option to ignore things instead of avoiding/countering and would like to see which one is preferred.
-
You are correct that we aren't talking about mandatory actions, but it is a similar principle. It's just a general concept that if you can't do something, then you can't be required to do it. How could you be? If you can't do something then it isn't even an option. Thus, a guard can't restrict you to only attacking it if it's not even an option.
-
Would it be enough to insert a "may" clause in the Immunity trait rules?
-
Would it be enough to insert a "may" clause in the Immunity trait rules?
But where?
Immunity
This object is immune to all attacks, damage, conditions, and effects of the specified damage type, including critical damage and direct damage. It cannot be targeted or affected by spells or attacks of the specified type.
It still won't allow for attack traits to be written without including immunity exceptions.
-
I really like Borgs attempt at redefining immunity and appreciate it's simplicity. It doesn't necessarily remove the desire to write exceptions into traits, as I'd still want an exception for Extinguish that says it doesn't deal any damage to a Hydro Immune target even if the target opts not to avoid the attack (avoiding the attack would negate the extinguish bit), but it does settle a lot of the other quirks of immunity and allows us some freedom to choose whether or not a trait should break the immunity rules in the future, without HAVING to break them to do anything at all.
The trick is indeed in the "may" part of it, giving the object a choice in the matter, and there may perhaps be a better way to write it. Borg's attempt does kind of leave out effects and conditions, but I think avoiding attacks and countering spells and enchantments has some potential.
-
But where?
Immunity
This object is optionally immune to all attacks, damage, conditions, and effects of the specified damage type, including critical damage and direct damage. It may not be targeted or affected by spells or attacks of the specified type, unless its controller chooses otherwise.
This relies a little bit on the strange property of English that "may" and "may not" are very different linguistically but can be made to mean the same thing logically, much like "maybe" and "maybe not".
-
Immunity
This object is optionally immune to all attacks, damage, conditions, and effects of the specified damage type, including critical damage and direct damage. It may not be targeted or affected by spells or attacks of the specified type, unless its controller chooses otherwise.
Good suggestion but the problem I see in that definition is that it still revolves around "not being able to target" first and foremost, so the root of the problem is still there.
For example, with that definition, can I target your Necromancer with a face down Poison Blood ?
How does this work out with a guarding Hellion vs an attacking Lord of Fire ?
Does the Hellion controller have to state that he "may be targeted" so that the LoF must attack the Hellion first ?
At what point during the attack do you state that you can be attacked because the LoF may already have appointed another target to attack during step 1 of the battle sequence.
This "may not be targeted" part simply creates a lot of problems.
That's why I think the simplest and most logical solution is to switch this mechanic around and build Immunity around "being able to target" but with the option to "avoid" and "counter". That way you have no targeting problems and guarding works like normal in all situations.
-
For example, with that definition, can I target your Necromancer with a face down Poison Blood ?
No. The Necromancer cannot be targeted unless its controller chooses otherwise, and I haven't chosen to allow the Poison Blood. The fact that I couldn't know to choose--because the spell is face down--is irrelevant. The point of using "may" is that the exception to the current rules is opt-in. If I do nothing, the rules continue as they always have, changing as little as possible without my direct intervention.
How does this work out with a guarding Hellion vs an attacking Lord of Fire ?
Does the Hellion controller have to state that he "may be targeted" so that the LoF must attack the Hellion first ?
At what point during the attack do you state that you can be attacked because the LoF may already have appointed another target to attack during step 1 of the battle sequence.
I think it's important to solve problems at the source. The problem here isn't immunity, it's Guarding, which has been a troublesome rule before. There are lots of potential reasons you might not be able to target a guard: what do we do if Invisible Stalker loses Pest, for example? If the problem is with guard, fix guard.
Guard (fix in blue)
If there is an enemy Guard (a creature with a guard marker) in a zone, and you are able to attack at least one of those guards, then you cannot melee attack any object in that zone other than enemy Guards. This condition is checked when the attack is declared.
So the way that would be resolved with voluntary immunity would be that, when the attack is declared, the attacker asks, "can I target that guard?" and the guard's controller says yes or no. If yes, then the attacker must target a guard, and if no, then the attacker would be free to ignore that guard.
In your example, the guarding Hellion would still be immune to damage and conditions, though, unless the Hellion's controller waved the immunity.
That's why I think the simplest and most logical solution is to switch this mechanic around and build Immunity around "being able to target" but with the option to "avoid" and "counter". That way you have no targeting problems and guarding works like normal in all situations.
Mage Wars doesn't have a concept of "counter". It does have cancel, but that word needs to be used carefully, because it sometimes ends actions, but not immediately. Which would mean, for example, that Adremelech would be able to knock the guard marker off a Hellion but the Hellion wouldn't get a counterstrike. Avoid would be better, but you'd still have the problem of Adremelech triggering blocks and defenses.
-
What if we have a creature with an immunity and has intercept in the future? I think such a rule change is very much necessary.
Although I would say make immunity allow targeting, but cancel the attack, like forcefield tokens do, not avoid like block does.
I'm starting to wonder if there might be a lot of keywords that are worded in a certain way that are a remnant of traditional ccgs minis games and rpgs. The whole "golden rule" idea where card text overrides rules is really starting to seem completely unnecessary with clear, well-defined rules.
And perhaps there is a reason that Mage Wars even has a chance to develop such clear, well defined rules instead of piling on exceptions which confuse new players and are a pain to keep track of. As an LCG-kind of game, Mage Wars can't ban cards because that lowers the value of the sets those cards come in. This is unlike a CCG, where cards can be banned and replaced with another version of the card under a different name in a later set, and the value of those sets overall isn't an issue because they're sold in booster packs or individually rather than as sets.
So Mage Wars can't ban cards. And we want to avoid errata as much as we reasonably can. Where does that leave us?
Simply put, instead of constantly updating cards to become exceptions to the rules, the better option is to update the wording of the rules to address corner cases but without significantly changing overall gameplay.
That way less players get confused, we don't have to memorize a bunch of exceptions to the rules, and the game becomes more streamlined.
-
With so many options to get around guards I don't see a need to change the rules. If the immunity rule is preventing you from using a melee attack then why not use any of the typical tactics like push, elusive, or knockdown to bypass the guard.
I think the current immunity rule captures some of the essence of creatures that are beyond player control. For example, the Lord of Fire knows that a Flaming Hellion carries the same 'flame' essence as himself and therefore does not harm him in the battle. If we see ourselves as mages that manipulate rather than totally control the mana in this world then we accept that some things are beyond our control. :)
-
With so many options to get around guards I don't see a need to change the rules. If the immunity rule is preventing you from using a melee attack then why not use any of the typical tactics like push, elusive, or knockdown to bypass the guard.
I think you're misinterpreting here, wtcannonjr.
The issue is not about getting around a Guard, it's about the fact that immunity itself is already a way around a guard because you can ignore him. So, it's one more way around a guard, as if we needed any more.
To the contrary, you take someone's BEST defender ( in that situation ) out of the game because his Guard ability doesn't work against that creature.
In any other fantasy game, playing a defender that is immune to an attacker's attack's is considered the perfect counter play. In Mage Wars it's just the opposite. It doesn't make sense.
-
In your example, the guarding Hellion would still be immune to damage and conditions, though, unless the Hellion's controller waved the immunity.
I think that's where we go wrong again.
If the Hellion is no longer protected from Fire damage, the whole purpose is lost.
The idea is :
A- Immunity no longer prevents targeting
B- Thus, Guard works as normal
C- The Hellion takes no damage and no effects from a fire attack
D- The hellion may counterstrike ( and lose his guard marker ) but will in turn do no damage and no effects to the LoF
Mage Wars doesn't have a concept of "counter".
There is a "counter spell" step in the spell sequence and this card also mentions "counter"
[mwcard=FWE08] Mind Shield[/mwcard]
As a side note, maybe some of you are familiar with the PC game Age of Wonders 3.
A lot of creatures in there have a mix of different types of damage.
For Instance a creature may do partly fire damage and partly ice damage, or Poison+Death damage, ( you get my point )
If the target of that Fire/Cold attack has for instance 100% resistance to fire damage, the fire damage is simply reduced to 0 while the Cold damage goes through for the full 100%.
The fact that you can target an opponent that has a certain resistance to your attack makes perfect sense and everybody understands that intuitively.
-
You are correct that we aren't talking about mandatory actions, but it is a similar principle. It's just a general concept that if you can't do something, then you can't be required to do it. How could you be? If you can't do something then it isn't even an option. Thus, a guard can't restrict you to only attacking it if it's not even an option.
I think I would interpret this differently along the lines of where Kaarin was going.
If a guard cannot be targeted by a melee attack for whatever reason, then it protects the zone from other melee attacks by that creature due to the second part of the sentence. i.e. it has successfully achieved the purpose behind the guard action. Note - the wording on the rule is Protect the Zone which clarifies the intent in my mind. The guarding creature has given up its action to protect the rest of the zone. This results in a creature with a specific immunity being the best guard against a melee attack of that specific damage type. That makes sense to me. Isn't that a reasonable outcome for the RAW in this situation?
I guess I don't agree that the mandatory rule logic would apply here. The creature is free to take any other action it desires including conducting a melee attack in a zone where it can have an effect.
-
One more comment about avoid/counter immunity: it will be an exception to unavoidable attacks.
What if we have a creature with an immunity and has intercept in the future? I think such a rule change is very much necessary.
We already have such card: Togorah has both Hydro immunity and intercept.
If a guard cannot be targeted by a melee attack for whatever reason, then it protects the zone from other melee attacks by that creature due to the second part of the sentence. i.e. it has successfully achieved the purpose behind the guard action. Note - the wording on the rule is Protect the Zone which clarifies the intent in my mind. The guarding creature has given up its action to protect the rest of the zone. This results in a creature with a specific immunity being the best guard against a melee attack of that specific damage type. That makes sense to me. Isn't that a reasonable outcome for the RAW in this situation?
That would be okay if there weren't abilities allowing for more than one attack in single attack action for example (and in future there may be abilities benefiting from just attacking). Also You can't use a creature with typed attack to trigger Block on guard with immunity so your other creatures can attack it. Besides current immunity rule doesn't allow for intercepting too, so intercepting guard will no longer protect the zone against attacks he's immune to.
-
I think the current immunity rule captures some of the essence of creatures that are beyond player control. For example, the Lord of Fire knows that a Flaming Hellion carries the same 'flame' essence as himself and therefore does not harm him in the battle. If we see ourselves as mages that manipulate rather than totally control the mana in this world then we accept that some things are beyond our control. :)
If we follow this logic then shouldn't Lord of Fire just say "step away" or "perish" to puny demon? ;) Besides if Adramelech had untyped attack he could freely attack Flaming Hellion (like Malacoda can do to other creatures with poison immunity; if You strip LoF of flying then You can close him with level 1 wall).
Don't forget that mages aren't summoning exact creatures, but only their copies and in case of such powerful beings like Adramelech only fraction of their essence. At least that's the explanation why one player can summon legendary creature, resurrect it and after it will be destroyed other player can still summon it.
-
One more comment about avoid/counter immunity: it will be an exception to unavoidable attacks.
What if we have a creature with an immunity and has intercept in the future? I think such a rule change is very much necessary.
We already have such card: Togorah has both Hydro immunity and intercept.
If a guard cannot be targeted by a melee attack for whatever reason, then it protects the zone from other melee attacks by that creature due to the second part of the sentence. i.e. it has successfully achieved the purpose behind the guard action. Note - the wording on the rule is Protect the Zone which clarifies the intent in my mind. The guarding creature has given up its action to protect the rest of the zone. This results in a creature with a specific immunity being the best guard against a melee attack of that specific damage type. That makes sense to me. Isn't that a reasonable outcome for the RAW in this situation?
That would be okay if there weren't abilities allowing for more than one attack in single attack action for example (and in future there may be abilities benefiting from just attacking). Also You can't use a creature with typed attack to trigger Block on guard with immunity so your other creatures can attack it. Besides current immunity rule doesn't allow for intercepting too, so intercepting guard will no longer protect the zone against attacks he's immune to.
This seems like more the problem than immunity and guard rules. At least if we want them to be more consistent. Perhaps intercept should include the special case that allows an immune creature to cancel that specific attack. This keeps the protect the zone principle intact.
-
I still do not understand why your allowed to pass the guard when he is immune to your attack.
I understand that with the current rules your not allowed to target him. But i need a friendly soul to 'cut it out in cardboard for me' (directly translated).
Protect the Zone: If there is an enemy guard (a creature
with a guard marker) in a zone, then you cannot melee
attack any object in that zone other than enemy guards.
This condition is checked when the attack is declared.
-
I still do not understand why your allowed to pass the guard when he is immune to your attack.
I understand that with the current rules your not allowed to target him. But i need a friendly soul to 'cut it out in cardboard for me' (directly translated).
Protect the Zone: If there is an enemy guard (a creature
with a guard marker) in a zone, then you cannot melee
attack any object in that zone other than enemy guards.
This condition is checked when the attack is declared.
I don't think there's an official ruling on this, actually. I haven't sat down with the 4th printing rules yet, or searched the rules forums, but this may be an unresolved corner case with unclear rules-as-intended.
-
I still do not understand why your allowed to pass the guard when he is immune to your attack.
I understand that with the current rules your not allowed to target him. But i need a friendly soul to 'cut it out in cardboard for me' (directly translated).
Protect the Zone: If there is an enemy guard (a creature
with a guard marker) in a zone, then you cannot melee
attack any object in that zone other than enemy guards.
This condition is checked when the attack is declared.
I don't think there's an official ruling on this, actually. I haven't sat down with the 4th printing rules yet, or searched the rules forums, but this may be an unresolved corner case with unclear rules-as-intended.
Agreed. I've looked over the rules and don't think it's completely clear and would like an official answer. My interpretation is that illegal actions can be ignored, as that is what seems to be the case throughout the rest of the rules, but I can't really find anything directly relating to guards.
-
It's tricky. If you're allowed to ignore guards you can't legally attack, then you can deliberately de-buff your own creatures targeting ability to ignore the guards. E.g. giving your Knight that Flame Strike promo incantation against a guarding fireproof demon so that you can ignore it. That doesn't seem right?
But if you rule it the other way, you risk creating perfect guards, like if Invisible Stalker lost Pest. You can't attack it, and you can't attack anything else, so you can't attack.
-
Agreed. I've looked over the rules and don't think it's completely clear and would like an official answer. My interpretation is that illegal actions can be ignored, as that is what seems to be the case throughout the rest of the rules, but I can't really find anything directly relating to guards.
I know the general precident is that if you *must* do something, and it's impossible, then it's not imperative anymore and you can instead do something else, e.g. Taunting from behind a guard, or Bloodthirsty attackers and uninjured guards.
But this seems more like a situation where you have one card that says, "you may not attack Flying creatures" and a second card that says, "you may not attack non-flying creatures." You don't get to ignore them both; you just don't get to attack a creature. But you could attack a conjuration, e.g.
We can word things a little more confusingly by saying, "you may only attack flying creatures" and "you may only attack non-flying creatures." The general effect is the same: you don't get to attack any creatures, but the exception is different: now instead of being able to attack conjurations, you can attack any creature that is both flying and non-flying. :P
If the cards instead said, "you must attack flying creatures," and, "you must attack non-flying creatures" you have your choice of competing imperatives, so you can chose which to obey, but you do have to obey one and attack a creature if possible.
If the cards said, "You must not attack flying creatures" and, "You must attack flying creatures," again, competing imperatives and your choice. I don't think Mage Wars has "must not," instead prefering "may not," and for good reason.
Legalism has a funny way of distorting natural language. All these rules are *very* similar in English, but as rules they produce dramatic differences.
-
But how tricky would that be as a conjuration? "All creatures must not attack, unless [bla bla bla]. Everyone else would have to pay the cost, but Bloodthirsty creatures could ignore it for free. Even "better", they could chose not to obey Bloodthirsty any time they wanted!
I think AW's policy of being super careful with "must" is a good one.
-
But this seems more like a situation where you have one card that says, "you may not attack Flying creatures" and a second card that says, "you may not attack non-flying creatures." You don't get to ignore them both; you just don't get to attack a creature. But you could attack a conjuration, e.g.
The rules for guarding on page 29 definitely make it sound similar to this. However, the rules for declaring an attack on page 22 sounds more like "If you're declaring a melee attack and there is a guard, you must target the guard." In which case if you are unable to target a guard, based on rulings elsewhere, you should be free to target something else. These two sections of rules are a bit in conflict and do need an official answer.
-
But this seems more like a situation where you have one card that says, "you may not attack Flying creatures" and a second card that says, "you may not attack non-flying creatures." You don't get to ignore them both; you just don't get to attack a creature. But you could attack a conjuration, e.g.
The rules for guarding on page 29 definitely make it sound similar to this. However, the rules for declaring an attack on page 22 sounds more like "If you're declaring a melee attack and there is a guard, you must target the guard." In which case if you are unable to target a guard, based on rulings elsewhere, you should be free to target something else. These two sections of rules are a bit in conflict and do need an official answer.
Thus :
Putting a creature on guard forces the opponent to target that guard first with a melee attack before they can target any other non-guarding objects.
This part is logical, intuitive and creates no problems imo.
The problems start however whenever a situation comes up that prevents you from targeting the object that you must target before anything else.
Solution : get rid of these rules that prevent you from targeting that guard as they are illogical and unintuitive and rework the mechanism.
-
wow! how do so much rulles problem appear these days?
official rulling?
-
But this seems more like a situation where you have one card that says, "you may not attack Flying creatures" and a second card that says, "you may not attack non-flying creatures." You don't get to ignore them both; you just don't get to attack a creature. But you could attack a conjuration, e.g.
The rules for guarding on page 29 definitely make it sound similar to this. However, the rules for declaring an attack on page 22 sounds more like "If you're declaring a melee attack and there is a guard, you must target the guard." In which case if you are unable to target a guard, based on rulings elsewhere, you should be free to target something else. These two sections of rules are a bit in conflict and do need an official answer.
I think you are breaking down 'attacking' the wrong way.
Its not like you are going into attack mode and then afterwards choosing what to attack. Oh im already attacking and since im not allowed to attack the Hellion then ill just go for something else.
Rather, you spend your action marker and then you select a legal action. I could be a legal action to guard or attack yourself or moving or whatever.... choosing to attack a non-guarding non-flying object is not allowed if the enemy has a guard in the zone no matter if the guard is immune to your attack or not.
If LoF has bloodthirsty and the enemy guarding hellion is damaged then the trigger from bloodthirsty would be obsolete because of the targetting rules for immunity. The result would be that (unless there is another NON-immune guard) the LoF could take a guard action, or move out but not skip the guard and go for another possibly wounded -or not - target.
-
wow! how do so much rulles problem appear these days?
official rulling?
I'm reviewing the situation. I'll post immediately when there is an answer.
-
wow! how do so much rulles problem appear these days?
official rulling?
I'm reviewing the situation. I'll post immediately when there is an answer.
thank you!
but i still don't understand. Usuelly, when somebody posts a question here, a few hours later somebody els abswers: "it goes this way, read on page x", and then everybody adds "right! banana sticker for the guy!". We had recently the purify's casting cost problem (finally solved: the card is not well written), the reveal enchantement timing problem (not solved yet: what is an event?) and now the imunity problem (not solved yet: could the imune trait be sometimes a disadvantage, making the creature ignorable by an attack of the element it's protected form?).
-
after reading the new rulles, that's my understanding... for what it's worth:
1) if a creature guards, another creature can't be attacked AND an imune creature isn't legal. so: no attack when an imune creature guards (including multi-strike).
my opinion: bad (imunity shouldn't be as powerfull).
2) an interceptor must be legal target AND an imune creature isn't legal. so: no intercept for an imune creature.
my opinion: bad (imunity shouldn't be a disadvantage)... but there's no imune interceptor yet.
-
but there's no imune interceptor yet.
[mwcard=DNC18] Togorah, Forest Sentinel[/mwcard]
Togorah can't intercept [mwcard=MWSTX1CKA01] Surging Wave[/mwcard] and [mwcard=MW1A08] Geyser[/mwcard].
Makes no sense, right ? He should be the ideal Interceptor vs Surging Wave.
-
but there's no imune interceptor yet.
[mwcard=DNC18] Togorah, Forest Sentinel[/mwcard]
Togorah can't intercept [mwcard=MWSTX1CKA01] Surging Wave[/mwcard] and [mwcard=MW1A08] Geyser[/mwcard].
Makes no sense, right ? He should be the ideal Interceptor vs Surging Wave.
i forgot my old tree friend!
no sense.
-
The extinguish trait allows water spells to target hydro immune thing.
-
The extinguish trait allows water spells to target hydro immune thing.
but geiser doesn't have the trait!
-
The extinguish trait allows water spells to target hydro immune thing.
haha :D
This is the exception fixing the problem.
Geysey does not have the traid because it did not exist yet when they made the card. Just as [mwcard=MW1I15]Knockdown[/mwcard] and the slam condition are clearly related.
-
The extinguish trait allows water spells to target hydro immune thing.
haha :D
This is the exception fixing the problem.
That is indeed the funny thing.
They made an exception to the rules to allow something that should basically be allowed all the time.
And it can be fixed so easily *relatively speaking*
Why make it so difficult and complicated when it can be simple ....
-
cause it changes something, can i use ghoul rot to target the necro, it just depends, I'd prefere targeting is possible in general but nothing delt, but that would be drastic change, though solve all the issues, be able to target but immune gets no dmg, no effects...
-
And what about Idol of Pestilence? During the Upkeep Phase each living creature receives 1 point of direct poison damage. Is that poisoning targeting all living creatures in the arena (not working on banished - I see the wording of banish is making that exception though) or just applying them directly? If it is targeting all living creatures (regardless of LoS for it is affecting the whole arena) it would never be playable as long as a necromancer is on the board. If immunity is making him an illegal target, the spell is illegal. Completely logical and intuitiv is that he is targeted and just ignores that damage because he is immune.
Sorry of I am totally wrong on how i think direct damage works.
Anyway I would also say ig there is a flame immune creature standing in front of you as a guard, thematically you are as safe a you can hide againt a melee fire attack. The guard is attacked because of guarding and lauges at it. Then he is normally allowed to hit back.
Let me compare it to a security guard with kevlar-vest standing in front of a superstar. As an attacker you cannot shoot that star. Sure you can shoot at his security agent. That will not affect him for he is immune (by his vest) against bullets. If he gets shot he is then definitely able to shoot back with his own weapon using the sand kind of bullets.
Playing that way as also Borg has mentioned is incredibly thematically perfect.
Please note that I don't want to shoot any superstar, neither should you do :D
-
And what about Idol of Pestilence? During the Upkeep Phase each living creature receives 1 point of direct poison damage. Is that poisoning targeting all living creatures in the arena (not working on banished - I see the wording of banish is making that exception though) or just applying them directly? If it is targeting all living creatures (regardless of LoS for it is affecting the whole arena) it would never be playable as long as a necromancer is on the board. If immunity is making him an illegal target, the spell is illegal. Completely logical and intuitiv is that he is targeted and just ignores that damage because he is immune.
Sorry of I am totally wrong on how i think direct damage works.
Anyway I would also say ig there is a flame immune creature standing in front of you as a guard, thematically you are as safe a you can hide againt a melee fire attack. The guard is attacked because of guarding and lauges at it. Then he is normally allowed to hit back.
Let me compare it to a security guard with kevlar-vest standing in front of a superstar. As an attacker you cannot shoot that star. Sure you can shoot at his security agent. That will not affect him for he is immune (by his vest) against bullets. If he gets shot he is then definitely able to shoot back with his own weapon using the sand kind of bullets.
Playing that way as also Borg has mentioned is incredibly thematically perfect.
Please note that I don't want to shoot any superstar, neither should you do :D
Idol of Pestilence doesn't targets Necromancer, so there's nothing that prevents it from casting it. Necro simply ignores damage from its ability thanks to immunity.
If I have weapon with rapid fire option I should be able to "target" agent first and then shoot other people (even if agent won't be wounded there's still some force applied to him and he can't react fast enough etc). Also if You have a gun that heals You every time You fire it then You should be able to fire at the agent. Current rules say that You can't fire at agent in bulletproof vest.
cause it changes something, can i use ghoul rot to target the necro, it just depends, I'd prefere targeting is possible in general but nothing delt, but that would be drastic change, though solve all the issues, be able to target but immune gets no dmg, no effects...
In current rules You can't target Necro with Ghoul Rot. Same goes for beneficial X-type effects on object with X immunity (circle of fire on some demons or plagued on Necro or zombie).
The extinguish trait allows water spells to target hydro immune thing.
Don't You have to burn first to benefit from Extinguish?
-
Is there any chance the rules makers will review the current immunity rules and make corrections ?
-
We reviewed the immunity rules in depth when we were working on DVN. So, at the moment I would say it's unlikely that we're going to change it now. That being said, I do review these threads and we try to keep these things in mind.
Long story short, right now I'd say, unlikely, but in the future it could be quite possible.
-
We reviewed the immunity rules in depth when we were working on DVN. So, at the moment I would say it's unlikely that we're going to change it now. That being said, I do review these threads and we try to keep these things in mind.
Long story short, right now I'd say, unlikely, but in the future it could be quite possible.
Except if the rule doesn't change, doesn't that mean that a flame-type melee attack can ignore a flame-immune guard?
-
Pretty sure it's the other thing: flame type attacker can't attack in the presence of a flame immune guard.
-
Pretty sure it's the other thing: flame type attacker can't attack in the presence of a flame immune guard.
Now people will start bringing wand of Flame Strike with them. :P
-
Joke's on them when the guard gets restrained :)
-
We reviewed the immunity rules in depth when we were working on DVN. So, at the moment I would say it's unlikely that we're going to change it now. That being said, I do review these threads and we try to keep these things in mind.
Long story short, right now I'd say, unlikely, but in the future it could be quite possible.
But, does an Immune guard prevent an attack (which I think is the logical thing) or as Zuberi seem to imply, the attacker just ignore it (which just sound stupid)?
-
In the text for Immunity it says you cannot be targeted by an attack you're immune to. So, no you cannot attack a guard that is immune to your attack.
Also, this does not fall under the rules for mandatory actions as you are not forced to make an attack.
I hope this helps make things very clear.
-
In the text for Immunity it says you cannot be targeted by an attack you're immune to. So, no you cannot attack a guard that is immune to your attack.
Also, this does not fall under the rules for mandatory actions as you are not forced to make an attack.
I hope this helps make things very clear.
So then if a creature with flame immunity guards, flame melee attacks cannot be used against any creature in the zone? Unless the attacker has elusive or the guard has pest, anyway.
-
Unless you have some way around that guard, you'd have to find something else to do with that creature's action.
-
This is a much needed change because right now we get an exception for Extinguish, but soon we will need another one for Defrost and so on.
Current text:
Immunity
This object is immune to all attacks, damage, conditions, and effects of the specified damage type, including critical damage and direct damage. It cannot be targeted or affected by spells or attacks of the specified type.
The first sentence is completely useless. Immune is not defined, so saying the object is immune is useless... We are into the immunity description. It is like if the dictionary was describing an apple by saying: "An apple is an apple".
What it need to be to keep the same effect, but to allow to target the object to prevent all this kind of non-sense is that:
Immunity
This object can't get damaged, can't gain condition and can't be affected by effects of the specified type.
If this would be written like this, this would solve 99% of the problems and non-sense situations. The remaining 1% are these spells:
Charm, Mind Control, Pacify, Rust, Dissolve and Explode.
Dissolve and Explode, for the moment are not problematic, but if they ever make a Mage Immune to Acid (holyshit it would be OP) or Flame (would be OP as hell too), this would cause problem. But on the other end, this would actually be a good thing, because I don't think a Mage Immunity should prevent its equipment to be affected by this kind of spell.
Charm, Mind Control, Pacify are problematic because they would require an errata stating they can't target psychic immune creatures.
Rust might or might not be a problem, it all depend if future Acid Immune creature would all be Resilient or not. If not, it would require an errata to specify that it can't target acid immune creature.
The other spell with a type that something can be Immune to are not problematic because they either deal damage or add condition markers, which the description already deal with.
What do you think about it?
I know Arcane Wonders are not fond of errata, but we are playing a competitive game and all competitive game have errata and rule updates (Magic, X-Wing, etc). It is a part of these kind of game. It is a game that evolve and players need to keep up with these kind of changes for the better of the game balance and consistency.
-
Immunity
This object can't get damaged, can't gain condition and can't be affected by effects of the specified type.
So, this way we would be able to
1- play a Circle of Fire on a Flaming Hellion
2- play Plagued on a Necromancer
3- play a FD Ghoul Rot on a Necromancer ( to check for Nullify ) - turning it face up would be useless and a mana waste
4- Attack a guarding creature with immunity to that type of attack
If all "yes" , I'm all for it :)
-
You can add Plagued to your list of issues. That card is not meant to be attached to anything with poison immunity.
-
You can add Plagued to your list of issues. That card is not meant to be attached to anything with poison immunity.
Yeah, and I don't understand why. I find this very logic that a zombie is carrying plague around it, there is even a Plague Zombie.
Is it for balance issue?
-
Balance issues, they want it to damage whatever creature it is attached to, so that it is a double edged sword.
-
Immunity
This object can't get damaged, can't gain condition and can't be affected by effects of the specified type.
So, this way we would be able to
1- play a Circle of Fire on a Flaming Hellion
2- play Plagued on a Necromancer
3- play a FD Ghoul Rot on a Necromancer ( to check for Nullify ) - turning it face up would be useless and a mana waste
4- Attack a guarding creature with immunity to that type of attack
If all "yes" , I'm all for it :)
Yep. Would also allow Geyser to remove burns on plants and Extinguish would not need to have an exception in the rules.
-
Mostly a balance issue. It's mana cost assumes that you have to deal with the enchantment as well.
-
Mostly a balance issue. It's mana cost assumes that you have to deal with the enchantment as well.
Well, then Plagued would need an errata too. Which could be to not allow poison immune target or make it cost more mana if it is the case.
-
Immunity
This object can't get damaged, can't gain condition and can't be affected by effects of the specified type.
So, this way we would be able to
1- play a Circle of Fire on a Flaming Hellion
2- play Plagued on a Necromancer
3- play a FD Ghoul Rot on a Necromancer ( to check for Nullify ) - turning it face up would be useless and a mana waste
4- Attack a guarding creature with immunity to that type of attack
If all "yes" , I'm all for it :)
This definition won't allow for 1 to happen (or rather it will happen, but FH won't benefit from CoF).
I propose that instead of preventing targeting Immunity should allow objects to ignore things. For example:
Immunity:
Object with immunity ignores damage and conditions of a type it's immune to. It also may choose to ignore effects of attacks and spells of that type.
This way we allow for objects to be targeted by anyone and benefit from friendly spells. Unfortunately this still allows for enemy special abilities to benefit from spells You're immune to. This definition needs to be worked to precisely allow for benefiting from extinguish while ignoring other effects like push.
-
Immunity
This object can't get damaged, can't gain condition and can't be affected by effects of the specified type.
So, this way we would be able to
1- play a Circle of Fire on a Flaming Hellion
2- play Plagued on a Necromancer
3- play a FD Ghoul Rot on a Necromancer ( to check for Nullify ) - turning it face up would be useless and a mana waste
4- Attack a guarding creature with immunity to that type of attack
If all "yes" , I'm all for it :)
This definition won't allow for 1 to happen (or rather it will happen, but FH won't benefit from CoF).
I propose that instead of preventing targeting Immunity should allow objects to ignore things. For example:
Immunity:
Object with immunity ignores damage and conditions of a type it's immune to. It also may choose to ignore effects of attacks and spells of that type.
This way we allow for objects to be targeted by anyone and benefit from friendly spells. Unfortunately this still allows for enemy special abilities to benefit from spells You're immune to. This definition needs to be worked to precisely allow for benefiting from extinguish while ignoring other effects like push.
Yes it will allow FH to benefit from COF.
You would be able to target the FH with the enchantment so the FH would benefit the COF when the enchantment is revealed.
Why the FH will not gain the damage barrier from the COF? tell us.
-
can't be affected by effects of the specified type.
This only allows for targeting with spells. CoF's effect is giving a creature Damage Barrier. Since immune creature wouldn't be affected it won't benefit from the spell. Besides it would the other way too. Since You would be able to target Necro with Ghoul Rot what would prevent him from being affected if not this part of proposed definition?
-
can't be affected by effects of the specified type.
This only allows for targeting with spells. CoF's effect is giving a creature Damage Barrier. Since immune creature wouldn't be affected it won't benefit from the spell. Besides it would the other way too. Since You would be able to target Necro with Ghoul Rot what would prevent him from being affected if not this part of proposed definition?
A vampire Attack a FH with COF. The Vampire will suffer the damage barrier attack.
Ps A damage barrier is not an effect. Effect are apply by the yellow die. And yes you could target a necromancer with ghoul rot, but it will do nothing when relvealed.
There would be an errata on Ghoul Rot to do poison damage, so it would not affect the necromancer and poison immunity creature.
-
can't be affected by effects of the specified type.
This only allows for targeting with spells. CoF's effect is giving a creature Damage Barrier. Since immune creature wouldn't be affected it won't benefit from the spell. Besides it would the other way too. Since You would be able to target Necro with Ghoul Rot what would prevent him from being affected if not this part of proposed definition?
A vampire Attack a FH with COF. The Vampire will suffer the damage barrier attack.
Ps A damage barrier is not an effect. Effect are apply by the yellow die. And yes you could target a necromancer with ghoul rot, but it will do nothing when relvealed.
Effect of the spell [mwcard=FWE02]Circle of Fire[/mwcard] is "creature gains damage barrier". Since immune creature isn't affected by the spell it can't gain damage barrier. Effect die is there only to determine random effects. Fixed effects like "creature gains..." are still effects.
-
can't be affected by effects of the specified type.
This only allows for targeting with spells. CoF's effect is giving a creature Damage Barrier. Since immune creature wouldn't be affected it won't benefit from the spell. Besides it would the other way too. Since You would be able to target Necro with Ghoul Rot what would prevent him from being affected if not this part of proposed definition?
A vampire Attack a FH with COF. The Vampire will suffer the damage barrier attack.
Ps A damage barrier is not an effect. Effect are apply by the yellow die. And yes you could target a necromancer with ghoul rot, but it will do nothing when relvealed.
Effect of the spell [mwcard=FWE02]Circle of Fire[/mwcard] is "creature gains damage barrier". Since immune creature isn't affected by the spell it can't gain damage barrier. Effect die is there only to determine random effects. Fixed effects like "creature gains..." are still effects.
can't be affected by effects: the object is not affected by his own effect. Its on him and the effect is working... The guys who attack will be affected by the COF.
-
Immunity
This object can't get damaged, can't gain condition and can't be affected by effects of the specified type.
So, this way we would be able to
1- play a Circle of Fire on a Flaming Hellion
2- play Plagued on a Necromancer
3- play a FD Ghoul Rot on a Necromancer ( to check for Nullify ) - turning it face up would be useless and a mana waste
4- Attack a guarding creature with immunity to that type of attack
If all "yes" , I'm all for it :)
This definition won't allow for 1 to happen (or rather it will happen, but FH won't benefit from CoF).
I wrote it that way because I thought "effect" was a reference to the Effect Die. But now browsing the rules, I notice it is use wildly for very different thing (Push effect, Teleport effect, Bloodthirsty seem also to be an effect according to Taunt).
So first, "effect" need to be clarified. Could you ask Brian, Laddinfance?
-
can't be affected by effects of the specified type.
This only allows for targeting with spells. CoF's effect is giving a creature Damage Barrier. Since immune creature wouldn't be affected it won't benefit from the spell. Besides it would the other way too. Since You would be able to target Necro with Ghoul Rot what would prevent him from being affected if not this part of proposed definition?
A vampire Attack a FH with COF. The Vampire will suffer the damage barrier attack.
Ps A damage barrier is not an effect. Effect are apply by the yellow die. And yes you could target a necromancer with ghoul rot, but it will do nothing when relvealed.
There would be an errata on Ghoul Rot to do poison damage, so it would not affect the necromancer and poison immunity creature.
[mwcard=MW1E19]Ghoul Rot[/mwcard] is already poison damage.
-
You can add Plagued to your list of issues. That card is not meant to be attached to anything with poison immunity.
I can see why, it'd be instantly awesome with minimal effort - I'll just walk around spreading death and taking no damage! :)
-
You can add Plagued to your list of issues. That card is not meant to be attached to anything with poison immunity.
I can see why, it'd be instantly awesome with minimal effort - I'll just walk around spreading death and taking no damage! :)
So when it will be released all that's needed is a change to its target bar: poison susceptible creature. ;)
Just kidding, targeting restriction is needed in its description. Something like 'this spell can't target creatures with poison immunity'.
-
You can add Plagued to your list of issues. That card is not meant to be attached to anything with poison immunity.
I can see why, it'd be instantly awesome with minimal effort - I'll just walk around spreading death and taking no damage! :)
So when it will be released all that's needed is a change to its target bar: poison susceptible creature. ;)
Just kidding, targeting restriction is needed in its description. Something like 'this spell can't target creatures with poison immunity'.
And there is where things go off of the rails. No way will the needed dozen cards that would need to be errated ever happen. We have one card that is in desperate need to be changed and it hasn't happened yet.
-
You can add Plagued to your list of issues. That card is not meant to be attached to anything with poison immunity.
I can see why, it'd be instantly awesome with minimal effort - I'll just walk around spreading death and taking no damage! :)
So when it will be released all that's needed is a change to its target bar: poison susceptible creature. ;)
Just kidding, targeting restriction is needed in its description. Something like 'this spell can't target creatures with poison immunity'.
And there is where things go off of the rails. No way will the needed dozen cards that would need to be errated ever happen. We have one card that is in desperate need to be changed and it hasn't happened yet.
You mean wizard tower? That's overpowered, yes, but there are at least several ways to depower it without errata which have already been revealed without anyone even noticing.
Hidden tunnels makes conquer much easier to use. You can keep your walls around longer with reinforce, and you can protect reinforce with arcane ward. Blur can be revealed to cancel a conjuration's attack. Then force hold or enfeeble on that wizard, and protect the enchant with an arcane ward.
I'm really exited about arcane ward tbh. Enchantment mind games will be much more viable once it's released, and removal won't be so powerful.
-
You can add Plagued to your list of issues. That card is not meant to be attached to anything with poison immunity.
Just kidding, targeting restriction is needed in its description. Something like 'this spell can't target creatures with poison immunity'.
With that line it might still be possible to use Enchantment Transfusion and Shift Enchantment ?
Maybe the wording should be similar to the restriction on [mwcard=MWSTX2FFE05] Fumble[/mwcard]
like "Plagued doesn't work when attached to a Poison Immune creature".
-
You can add Plagued to your list of issues. That card is not meant to be attached to anything with poison immunity.
I can see why, it'd be instantly awesome with minimal effort - I'll just walk around spreading death and taking no damage! :)
So when it will be released all that's needed is a change to its target bar: poison susceptible creature. ;)
Just kidding, targeting restriction is needed in its description. Something like 'this spell can't target creatures with poison immunity'.
And there is where things go off of the rails. No way will the needed dozen cards that would need to be errated ever happen. We have one card that is in desperate need to be changed and it hasn't happened yet.
You mean wizard tower? That's overpowered, yes, but there are at least several ways to depower it without errata which have already been revealed without anyone even noticing.
Hidden tunnels makes conquer much easier to use. You can keep your walls around longer with reinforce, and you can protect reinforce with arcane ward. Blur can be revealed to cancel a conjuration's attack. Then force hold or enfeeble on that wizard, and protect the enchant with an arcane ward.
I'm really exited about arcane ward tbh. Enchantment mind games will be much more viable once it's released, and removal won't be so powerful.
I'm afraid that releasing more cards to deal with WT changes nothing about the problem itself.
You just create more " staple cards" and reduce originality even further.
Whatever cards are released down the line, Wizards are still going to us WT's because they are still overpowered and thus can't be left out of a spellbook.
AW has to cure the illness, not the symptoms.
WT needs Epic and Zone Exclusive
Back to immunity ;)
-
You can add Plagued to your list of issues. That card is not meant to be attached to anything with poison immunity.
Just kidding, targeting restriction is needed in its description. Something like 'this spell can't target creatures with poison immunity'.
With that line it might still be possible to use Enchantment Transfusion and Shift Enchantment ?
Maybe the wording should be similar to the restriction on [mwcard=MWSTX2FFE05] Fumble[/mwcard]
like "Plagued doesn't work when attached to a Poison Immune creature".
No, SE and ET require that You move the enchantment to new legal target.
-
You can add Plagued to your list of issues. That card is not meant to be attached to anything with poison immunity.
I can see why, it'd be instantly awesome with minimal effort - I'll just walk around spreading death and taking no damage! :)
So when it will be released all that's needed is a change to its target bar: poison susceptible creature. ;)
Just kidding, targeting restriction is needed in its description. Something like 'this spell can't target creatures with poison immunity'.
And there is where things go off of the rails. No way will the needed dozen cards that would need to be errated ever happen. We have one card that is in desperate need to be changed and it hasn't happened yet.
And this need to change. MW is an evolutive game and if an errata has to happen, it has to.
It is better to change Immunity wording now and errata 4 cards than to keep it that way and it gives more problems, more non-intuitive situations, more rule exceptions to remember in future (Defrost), etc.
-
You can add Plagued to your list of issues. That card is not meant to be attached to anything with poison immunity.
I can see why, it'd be instantly awesome with minimal effort - I'll just walk around spreading death and taking no damage! :)
So when it will be released all that's needed is a change to its target bar: poison susceptible creature. ;)
Just kidding, targeting restriction is needed in its description. Something like 'this spell can't target creatures with poison immunity'.
And there is where things go off of the rails. No way will the needed dozen cards that would need to be errated ever happen. We have one card that is in desperate need to be changed and it hasn't happened yet.
You mean wizard tower? That's overpowered, yes, but there are at least several ways to depower it without errata which have already been revealed without anyone even noticing.
Hidden tunnels makes conquer much easier to use. You can keep your walls around longer with reinforce, and you can protect reinforce with arcane ward. Blur can be revealed to cancel a conjuration's attack. Then force hold or enfeeble on that wizard, and protect the enchant with an arcane ward.
I'm really exited about arcane ward tbh. Enchantment mind games will be much more viable once it's released, and removal won't be so powerful.
I'm afraid that releasing more cards to deal with WT changes nothing about the problem itself.
You just create more " staple cards" and reduce originality even further.
Whatever cards are released down the line, Wizards are still going to us WT's because they are still overpowered and thus can't be left out of a spellbook.
AW has to cure the illness, not the symptoms.
WT needs Epic and Zone Exclusive
Back to immunity ;)
Maybe, but I'm not so sure of that. Wizard tower is not the first overpowered card we've gotten. Teleport also had the same problem. In the beginning, only nullify jinx, divine intervention or another teleport could counter a teleport. This was of course only so much of a problem when FvW came out and golem pit builds became possible. But now we have astral anchor and blur is on its way, and there will probably be more to come.
As for making more staple cards, I'm also a bit worried about that. The question is whether it's possible to stop overpowered cards from being overpowered without auto including certain cards in your spellbook.
As I see it the current staple spells are:
Acid ball (for armor)
Force hammer (for conjurations)
Geyser (for burns, not as necessary for holy mages)
Dispel (for enchantments, the only Mage atm who doesn't necessarily need it is the warlord)
Dissolve (the only one who doesn't necessarily need it is the Druid, but it's cheaper equipment removal than corrosive orchid so she has no reason not to include it.)
Teleport (Still necessary for buddy or solo rushes trying to get out of tanglevines sometimes, and astral anchor isn't as good if you don't want to stay still. Even so, this has resulted in several of my spellbooks reducing their teleport count to 1.
I'm not sure it's possible to construct a meta game with no staple cards. The number of staple cards does seem to have increased over time, but that doesn't necessarily mean the number of staple cards is going to increase whenever overpowered cards get counters instead of errata. However, don't forget that the power level of each card is relative to other cards. It isn't powerful in a vacuum. What I'm slightly worried about is that wizard tower only costs one quick action while putting up a reinforced wall costs two quick actions, and a third quick action to arcane ward a reinforce. You would need a way to decrease the wizard's action advantage, and I don't think enfeeble alone is going to cut it. Then again, using arcane ward on enfeeble night do a good job. If the wizard is turtling and doesn't want to move, then that might not work so well.
Hidden tunnels and Conquer should also be successful for the bloodwave warlord, though, since it lets you replace the destroyed conjuration with one of your own, and the zone control requirement goes well with the ability to give creatures veteran markers. The anvil throne warlord on the other hand is more likely to do other things. The anvil throne warlord has access to pretty powerful defenses. Cast wall of earth in front of the tower, beef him up with equipment for a while, give him a way to counter unavoidable attacks at close range, and reinforce his battle forge and he probably will be able to overcome the tower just fine. Alternatively, you could have your familiar cast power strike on you while your wielding a heart of gravikor. Suddenly you have 8 dice basic melee attack against corporeal conjurations, and with better value for your mana than using force hammer.
Anyways, the ruling on immunity really doesn't make sense. I should be able to attack a flame immune creature with a flame attack for no effect except for maybe removing a guard marker. Prohibiting that is unintuitive and unthematic and just doesn't make sense. Is immunity forcing mages to not even try to use flame attacks on a flame immune creature? Seems like a violation of "free will", don't think the gods of Etheria would like that.
-
Yes you can do things as you have described here, cast Walls, blah blah blah, all the while I have dealing with an overpowered card and its action/mana advantage that I am trying to kill, you know what the Wizard is doing? Killing my mage, and if I manage to kill one there is typically at least 2 more behind it.
The card is broken, and cannot be fixed with other cards to make the repair. ZE + Epic would not change how it works at a basic level. It would make it much more valuable and harder to place. Meaning that it would probably not be placed at the top of the mountain, i.e. FC, and the Wizard would want to defend it now, unlike today who's thought process goes like:
Pfft, go ahead kill my WT, I will not prepare a spell on it this round during the planning phase, but I will prepare its replacement and stick it in the same spot it was in and cast a spell from it this round all the same. Win/Win for me.
Just saying....
-
Yes you can do things as you have described here, cast Walls, blah blah blah, all the while I have dealing with an overpowered card and its action/mana advantage that I am trying to kill, you know what the Wizard is doing? Killing my mage, and if I manage to kill one there is typically at least 2 more behind it.
The card is broken, and cannot be fixed with other cards to make the repair. ZE + Epic would not change how it works at a basic level. It would make it much more valuable and harder to place. Meaning that it would probably not be placed at the top of the mountain, i.e. FC, and the Wizard would want to defend it now, unlike today who's thought process goes like:
Pfft, go ahead kill my WT, I will not prepare a spell on it this round during the planning phase, but I will prepare its replacement and stick it in the same spot it was in and cast a spell from it this round all the same. Win/Win for me.
Just saying....
That's why I said that there should be some way of countering the action advantage. Conquer can bank an action off of destroying the tower, and it's a quick action to cast. Walls can be extended, which means you get two walls for only one quick action.
While you do need to quick cast hidden tunnels for conquer to be a viable counter to the tower, the zone control clause in conquer combos well with the bloodwave warlord's vet tokens.
Same kind of thing for reinforce on walls, except that you need two reinforces, one for each wall. But that's ok since the enemy wizard is probably going to try to destroy only one wall at a time, and you already banked an action by extending the wall. You just needed to get those walls to last a little longer to take advantage of the extra action advantage your wall extension gave you.
Of course I could be wrong, this is just how it seems to me now. If I'm wrong and wizard tower cannot be properly fixed without errata, then that probably applies to all broken cards that Mage wars ever gets.
Something to keep in mind is that in the standard arena format players build spellbooks for the current metagame, not past metagames. So if people start including good ways to counter the tower, it will not only be less OP, it won't be auto include because it won't be as powerful in whatever the present metagame is at that point in time.
I also think that some block formats are going to need a ban list. Blocks that include CoK but not BG-Dom would probably be better off with the tower banned. But for the full card pool, metagame I suspect this won't be necessary.
I'm starting to wonder if the advantage of buying more expansions is going to increase over time. It's not too big of an advantage right now except against a wizard using the tower. I suspect that as the game goes on we won't necessarily need more expansions at minimum to play competitively, but it might be a matter of having the right expansions for the current metagame. For instance, right now I would say the sets that you need most for the current metagame is the core set, battlegrounds: domination, and maybe also academy for arcane ward (official release in 6 days). And the last two you only need because of the tower. Of course, you might not need academy. The enchanter's wardstones in CoK might be enough to protect your reinforce enchantments on your walls.
Anyways, how long do you think it will be before we get a better ruling on immunity, if ever?
-
So if people start including good ways to counter the tower, it will not only be less OP, it won't be auto include because it won't be as powerful in whatever the present metagame is at that point in time.
See, that is what I seriously doubt.
Even if you have good counters, WT will just be as OP as before because the card hasn't changed.
And the worst part in this is that now "some must have counter to WT" is eating away at your sbp's while you may not want that card in your book in the first place but you have no choice if you want to match up well should you face a Wizard. That would be a terrible situation.
-
So if people start including good ways to counter the tower, it will not only be less OP, it won't be auto include because it won't be as powerful in whatever the present metagame is at that point in time.
See, that is what I seriously doubt.
Even if you have good counters, WT will just be as OP as before because the card hasn't changed.
And the worst part in this is that now "some must have counter to WT" is eating away at your sbp's while you may not want that card in your book in the first place but you have no choice if you want to match up well should you face a Wizard. That would be a terrible situation.
Okay then, replace the words "power" and "powerful" with "effective at increasing your chances of winning games". Cards that counter the tower could make the tower less effective at increasing the wizard's chances of winning. A card's power doesn't exist in a vacuum. It ONLY exists in relation to other cards. While the number of autoincludes does seem to have increased over time, that could just be because there are simply more cards in existence now, and it doesn't necessarily mean that the number of autoincludes will permanently increase every time an overpowered card is depowered without errata. And even if the number of autoincludes does increase, there might eventually be so many ways to deal with the tower that none of them are autoincludes.
And if you didn't bring up the the maybe potential risk of increasing the number of autoincludes (at least in the short term), your reasoning would basically boil down to "You can't depower the wizard tower without an errata because it didn't get an errata."
Of course, I might be wrong. All of this is just theorycrafting. However, it seems to make a lot of sense, and it makes it at least thinkable that it might be possible to fix the tower without errata. Actually, not just thinkable, but probable. I would be surprised if the wizard tower remained autoinclude forever even without an errata.
That being said, I think that this problem needs to be rectified quickly. If Academy and Domination don't fix the wizard tower, then I would say that if they don't find a way to fix it without errata within the next few months, they should just errata it, since the wizard's original trickstery playstyle has been subverted long enough.
Anyways, back to my last question? Might we get something to rectify this weird unintuitive immunity ruling sometime in the near future?
-
Ok, so I've re-read the thread and right now the parts that are about changing immunity seem unnecessary.
1. You can't attack someone immune to flame with a flame attack. This means that if they're guarding, you can't attack anything else in the zone either. Nothing here needs to change. Nor would you want it to, the alternative baffles the imagination.
2. You can't intercept an attack you're immune to. Currently, the only creature this would apply to would be Togorah, except that hydro immunity has an exception, so everything works fine right now.
The future of this issue is just that, the future. There are lots of rules that *could* be problems in the future. I've got a long list of them, in fact. But this isn't a problem now, and so figuring out a solution isn't going to change anything. And rule team attention is a limited resource. How long are you willing to delay PvS to solve a problem that can't currently be triggered in play?
3. You can't cast a Flame school buff on Adremelech. This doesn't break anything or unbalance the game. If you need a rationalization, he's immune to fire at a magical and integral level, so the spell doesn't work. Other than, "But I want to" is there any reason to change the rule? It doesn't cause any contradictions, and it's a restriction that has been used deliberately to balance cards like Plagued.
Finally, all the proposed changes I'm hearing are *really complicated*. As I have learned time and time again, simple is better than perfect.
-
Ok, so I've re-read the thread and right now the parts that are about changing immunity seem unnecessary.
1. You can't attack someone immune to flame with a flame attack. This means that if they're guarding, you can't attack anything else in the zone either. Nothing here needs to change. Nor would you want it to, the alternative baffles the imagination.
2. You can't intercept an attack you're immune to. Currently, the only creature this would apply to would be Togorah, except that hydro immunity has an exception, so everything works fine right now.
The future of this issue is just that, the future. There are lots of rules that *could* be problems in the future. I've got a long list of them, in fact. But this isn't a problem now, and so figuring out a solution isn't going to change anything. And rule team attention is a limited resource. How long are you willing to delay PvS to solve a problem that can't currently be triggered in play?
3. You can't cast a Flame school buff on Adremelech. This doesn't break anything or unbalance the game. If you need a rationalization, he's immune to fire at a magical and integral level, so the spell doesn't work. Other than, "But I want to" is there any reason to change the rule? It doesn't cause any contradictions, and it's a restriction that has been used deliberately to balance cards like Plagued.
Finally, all the proposed changes I'm hearing are *really complicated*. As I have learned time and time again, simple is better than perfect.
1. The problem arise with Sweeping. The Sweeping should be able to attack both the immune guard and the other thing you want to attack.
2. Togorah can't intercept a Geyser. So not everything is working fine. And in future, when we get a creature immune to fire or acid and it has Intercept (or if an enchantment/incantation gives Intercept), we are still having a problem.
3. Why would he not be able to get a Circle Fire on him? Gives more fire to the firelord. Also, Plagued use the rule to be balanced, but it could still have been balanced with simple wording if the immunity rule was not spelled that way.
Finally, as I learned, the earlier you fix something, the better it is.
-
1. The problem arise with Sweeping. The Sweeping should be able to attack both the immune guard and the other thing you want to attack.
Why?
Melee Sweeping represents an attack with a wide arc. If you can't make the attack against the first guy, you don't get to make the attack against the 2nd.
From a rules perspective, to change this, it's not enough to permitting targeting. You'd also have to say that a Flame attack against a Flame immune target removes the guard marker. If it didn't, the Sweeping attack would still have to attack a guard, and since the immune creature is the only guard in the zone (or you'd have attacked the other guard) you still wouldn't be able to attack again.
If I'm totally immune to your attack, why should I lose my guard marker?
2. Togorah can't intercept a Geyser. So not everything is working fine. And in future, when we get a creature immune to fire or acid and it has Intercept (or if an enchantment/incantation gives Intercept), we are still having a problem.
Togorah can intercept Geyser.
Geyser
The ability to cancel the attack to remove Burn conditions is not optional. If the target has any Burn conditions, the effect must occur.
The Geyser attack spell may target an object with the Hydro Immunity trait. If it does, the attack deals no damage or effects to the object, other than to remove all Burn conditions. In this manner, a Geyser attack can be used to extinguish the fires of a burning plant object.
And since any such future flame or acid immune creature with intercept would have to go through play-testing, I assure you that when and if that happens, it'll be dealt with.
3. Why would he not be able to get a Circle Fire on him? Gives more fire to the firelord. Also, Plagued use the rule to be balanced, but it could still have been balanced with simple wording if the immunity rule was not spelled that way.
Why would he not be able to get a Circle of Fire? Because he's immune to fire; you can't cast fire spells on him. Immunity isn't "Takes no damage from fire and burns" it's more than that. Those are different abilities; why should they be the same?
You might argue that Adremelech shouldn't have Fire Immunity, and instead should have Immunity to Flame Damage like Magma Golem has, but that's not a reason to change the entire immunity rule.
Finally, as I learned, the earlier you fix something, the better it is.
This is true. But if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
-
I have to agree with Wildhorn here. I don't think this problem is urgent but still, maybe these rules should be on the list "fixing when we've got a calm week"
1) Because if you use a sweeping attack and you roll zero damage on the creature, you are still allowed to attack the second one. You should be able to target the first creature (0 damage) and move on.
2) Better to fix the rules a bit than to make an exception for everything in the future.
3) no offence, but that's kinda a stupid argument... You should be able to cast a circle of fire around your flaming Hellion because I'd want my opponent to be afraid of attacking him. Circle of fire is also less sbp than Circle of lightning AND you can get extra burns out of it which the adramelech warlock loves.
-
The card is broken, and cannot be fixed with other cards to make the repair. ZE + Epic would not change how it works at a basic level. It would make it much more valuable and harder to place. Meaning that it would probably not be placed at the top of the mountain, i.e. FC, and the Wizard would want to defend it now...,
I agree, but don't you think that limiting its placement options would already go a long way towards reducing its effectiveness ?
Now the Wizard can put his Tower anywhere, even in zones where you have a ZE, meaning he's in no rush to bring his tower out in his preferred spot. He can take all his time and bring it out when he's ready for it ... in the perfect spot.
If the tower would be ZE the Wizard would have to compete for a good spot.
Take a Beastmaster for example, playing his Lair and a Totem in FC & NC within the first two/three turns.
Now the centre spots are taken and the Wizard will have to remove one of them first if he wants to have his tower in their place.
Also, making it Epic means indeed he'll have to use actions and mana to defend it because he can't do as you describe below anymore.
... unlike today who's thought process goes like: Pfft, go ahead kill my WT, I will not prepare a spell on it this round during the planning phase, but I will prepare its replacement and stick it in the same spot it was in and cast a spell from it this round all the same. Win/Win for me.
Although I have to say, I'm not sure you can do that.
iirc you have to select and attach a new spell to the tower before removing the previous spell, so you can't have a situation where there's no spell on it. Correct me if wrong, please.
-
I have to agree with Wildhorn here. I don't think this problem is urgent but still, maybe these rules should be on the list "fixing when we've got a calm week"
Oh sure, I've already put one interaction inspired by this thread up for potential inclusion on the someday list, and I'll probably do another (related to a card that got cut from its set) when I'm done with this comment.
1) Because if you use a sweeping attack and you roll zero damage on the creature, you are still allowed to attack the second one. You should be able to target the first creature (0 damage) and move on.
Sure, same thing as if you used a defense successfully. You can keep sweeping through Sir Corazin.
But Immunity represents being so unaffected by an attack that it's just stopped cold, unable to proceed.
Again, from a rules perspective, if you make your attack and roll 0 damage, you still remove guard, get Damage Barrier'd, get a counterstrike, etc.
Immunity prevents all that, and it's supposed to. Otherwise you could use Adremelech to remove two guard markers from two guarding Hellions.
But more importantly, this isn't a rules debate anymore; the rule is clear. We don't agree about how well the rule represents the effects of swinging a scythe of flame at a magically and intrinsically fireproof Demon, but that's because we have different mental images of what Immunity is. But the rule is still completely *playable*.
My mental image, is that if the Imp is immune to the attack, it shouldn't be hurt or affected in any way. It should be as if the attack never happened. In the case of sweeping, that means the Imp stood there like Superman and said, "Not Today Satan!" That Imp was so unmoved that the swinging Scythe wasn't even an attack. That Imp didn't shift from its guard posture, and Adremelech did not get to continue his strike because that would mean getting his scythe past this still guarding, still immune Imp. And that would be impossible.
We're dealing with something called Procedural Representation: the act of playing the game, rule by rule, movement by movement, to represent something. Checkers would procedurally represent frog combat very well, with all the jumping, for example.
And Sweeping is already a little iffy here. Why does the Sweeping attacker get to chose the second target? What if they're not lined up right? Why does Sweeping still work if the attack is absorbed by a Forcefield, or a Dwarf's Shield? For that matter, why do we use the same mechanic for blocking with a shield as we do for dodging out of the way or parrying with a sword? All of those could potentially interact with Sweeping differently.
If the complaint is that the rules interaction between Immunity and Sweeping isn't a perfect representation, well, you're right. Sweeping is like that. It's abstracted, just like every other rule in the game, but maybe Sweeping is a little more abstract than some others. (How large is a zone?) Sweeping could possibly include rules about the size of the creatures swept through, so that Adremelech could sweep through 6 Falcons but only 2 Knights of Westlock. And there could be positioning rules to determine which creatures are standing such that an arcing attack can hit them both. And maybe sweeping should interact with Piercing in some way. And there could be another rule about Immune Guards not losing their guard marker but not preventing the next attack, etc etc.
But this isn't a rules problem the same way that e.g. a literal reading of Hindering was. It used to be that Hindered was a condition that happened to you after you moved, and Hindered creatures could not move. But Zombies have Lumbering, which means they're always hindered. A literal reading of the rules meant that Zombies could never move. That's a rules problem!
This is just a difference of opinion on how two rules should interact, but neither option breaks the game. It's a *design* argument.
2) Better to fix the rules a bit than to make an exception for everything in the future.
Yep. If I had to guess, I'd say that all guard mechanics will eventually get a slight tweak. But figuring that out means sitting down with designers and playtesters and looking at known corner cases, unprinted cards, future plans, design concerns, unintended consiquences, etc. It's a process, and it isn't free.
3) no offence, but that's kinda a stupid argument... You should be able to cast a circle of fire around your flaming Hellion because I'd want my opponent to be afraid of attacking him. Circle of fire is also less sbp than Circle of lightning AND you can get extra burns out of it which the adramelech warlock loves.
I find that when I'm making an argument that starts with, "No offense but that's dumb," I'm better off just skipping the insult and going right to the part where I explain why that's dumb. People get less offended that way.
In this case, I totally get that you *want* to be able to do those things. But that's not a reason you can or should have that ability. I *want* Teleport to fail on Rooted creatures and Devouring Jelly's corrode damage against an unarmored creature to trigger the Jelly's reconstruction ability. Heck, putting a Circle of Fire on Adremelech would be pretty hot! But that isn't a reason for allowing it.
Right now, Immunity is a double edged sword. It would be more powerful and flexible if it didn't prevent buffs. So?
-
I have to agree with Wildhorn here. I don't think this problem is urgent but still, maybe these rules should be on the list "fixing when we've got a calm week"
Oh sure, I've already put one interaction inspired by this thread up for potential inclusion on the someday list, and I'll probably do another (related to a card that got cut from its set) when I'm done with this comment.
1) Because if you use a sweeping attack and you roll zero damage on the creature, you are still allowed to attack the second one. You should be able to target the first creature (0 damage) and move on.
Sure, same thing as if you used a defense successfully. You can keep sweeping through Sir Corazin.
But Immunity represents being so unaffected by an attack that it's just stopped cold, unable to proceed.
Again, from a rules perspective, if you make your attack and roll 0 damage, you still remove guard, get Damage Barrier'd, get a counterstrike, etc.
Immunity prevents all that, and it's supposed to. Otherwise you could use Adremelech to remove two guard markers from two guarding Hellions.
But more importantly, this isn't a rules debate anymore; the rule is clear. We don't agree about how well the rule represents the effects of swinging a scythe of flame at a magically and intrinsically fireproof Demon, but that's because we have different mental images of what Immunity is. But the rule is still completely *playable*.
My mental image, is that if the Imp is immune to the attack, it shouldn't be hurt or affected in any way. It should be as if the attack never happened. In the case of sweeping, that means the Imp stood there like Superman and said, "Not Today Satan!" That Imp was so unmoved that the swinging Scythe wasn't even an attack. That Imp didn't shift from its guard posture, and Adremelech did not get to continue his strike because that would mean getting his scythe past this still guarding, still immune Imp. And that would be impossible.
We're dealing with something called Procedural Representation: the act of playing the game, rule by rule, movement by movement, to represent something. Checkers would procedurally represent frog combat very well, with all the jumping, for example.
And Sweeping is already a little iffy here. Why does the Sweeping attacker get to chose the second target? What if they're not lined up right? Why does Sweeping still work if the attack is absorbed by a Forcefield, or a Dwarf's Shield? For that matter, why do we use the same mechanic for blocking with a shield as we do for dodging out of the way or parrying with a sword? All of those could potentially interact with Sweeping differently.
If the complaint is that the rules interaction between Immunity and Sweeping isn't a perfect representation, well, you're right. Sweeping is like that. It's abstracted, just like every other rule in the game, but maybe Sweeping is a little more abstract than some others. (How large is a zone?) Sweeping could possibly include rules about the size of the creatures swept through, so that Adremelech could sweep through 6 Falcons but only 2 Knights of Westlock. And there could be positioning rules to determine which creatures are standing such that an arcing attack can hit them both. And maybe sweeping should interact with Piercing in some way. And there could be another rule about Immune Guards not losing their guard marker but not preventing the next attack, etc etc.
But this isn't a rules problem the same way that e.g. a literal reading of Hindering was. It used to be that Hindered was a condition that happened to you after you moved, and Hindered creatures could not move. But Zombies have Lumbering, which means they're always hindered. A literal reading of the rules meant that Zombies could never move. That's a rules problem!
This is just a difference of opinion on how two rules should interact, but neither option breaks the game. It's a *design* argument.
2) Better to fix the rules a bit than to make an exception for everything in the future.
Yep. If I had to guess, I'd say that all guard mechanics will eventually get a slight tweak. But figuring that out means sitting down with designers and playtesters and looking at known corner cases, unprinted cards, future plans, design concerns, unintended consiquences, etc. It's a process, and it isn't free.
3) no offence, but that's kinda a stupid argument... You should be able to cast a circle of fire around your flaming Hellion because I'd want my opponent to be afraid of attacking him. Circle of fire is also less sbp than Circle of lightning AND you can get extra burns out of it which the adramelech warlock loves.
I find that when I'm making an argument that starts with, "No offense but that's dumb," I'm better off just skipping the insult and going right to the part where I explain why that's dumb. People get less offended that way.
In this case, I totally get that you *want* to be able to do those things. But that's not a reason you can or should have that ability. I *want* Teleport to fail on Rooted creatures and Devouring Jelly's corrode damage against an unarmored creature to trigger the Jelly's reconstruction ability. Heck, putting a Circle of Fire on Adremelech would be pretty hot! But that isn't a reason for allowing it.
Right now, Immunity is a double edged sword. It would be more powerful and flexible if it didn't prevent buffs. So?
Hmm. So if it did not prevent buffs then immunity would be more powerful, but the fact that it does prevent them seems to make no sense at all thematically.
Now, how to resolve this discrepancy in the simplest and most balanced way possible without breaking anything...? Wow that sure is a conundrum.
The immunity rules have had this problem for a long time, unnoticed.
Hmm maybe we could have it be thematically similar to how you can't have more than one copy of the same object attached to the same object or zone? But it might be difficult to make that kind of explanation work without feeling forced in this case.
Okay, need to keep this simple.
You can't enchant Lord of Fire with Circle of Fire because...
*He's already as fiery as can be, and adding more fire cannot make him any more fiery than he already is?
*adding flame to flame does not make more flame without more fuel? Adramelech already has fire, and enchanting him with circle of fire is like trying to light a fire on fire instead of adding more firewood.
Any other ideas?
-
To me the whole "cannot target" rule is so counterintuitive and ridiculous, I will just ignore it...
This is how we have always undrstood immunity:
Immunity = ignores damage.
How simple is that?? We have NEVER run into problems or balancing issues using this interpretation.
Never!
NEVER EVER!
The way we play, you can set the lord of fire on fire and stack a hundred fire tokens on him. During upkeep, you roll to see if they go away, but the lord of fire takes no damage if the burns roll damage.
You can move these burns to anther creature with your warlock or use them to teleport your[mwcard=MWSTX2FFC13]Wildfire Imp[/mwcard]s, but firelord doesnt even notice the burns.
Never had balancing issues! Ever! (Wouldn't that be the simplest solution?? ;-D Just saying...)
-
I'm curious whether this was a conscious decision by Arcane Wonders to make it so that you can't buff an immune thing with the thing it's immune to, or whether it was simply an oversight that has just been with us too long to easily fix. It seems like it should be possible to balance circle of fire on LoF, but right now it seems like it might be a little too much. I might be wrong though.
@gogolski
This sounds more like a fact about your local metagame than about the game in general.
-
You own the cards; you can play with your toys however you want. But future set releases will be designed according to the official rules, and may not be compatible with changes you choose to make. Then again, if you've gotten this far without playing Plagued on the Necro and wondering if maybe this isn't a little too good, I wouldn't worry about it too much. You do you.
--
I'm guessing that the people who object to this rule never played Magic the Gathering? It has a very similar rule: Protection. "Protection from White" e.g. means you can't damage, enchant, block, or target the protected creature with a white card. This, hilariously, became a problem early on when there was a white enchantment that granted protection from white (there was one for each color, if I remember correctly). They had to issue an exception errata so that the spell didn't destroy itself.
I'm not sure why people are so insistent that Immunity shouldn't prevent buffs. It says right in the Codex what Immunity does. Is it the name? Would it have been better to call it Warded from Fire?
-
@ ringkichard
Maybe it would have. Now that I think of it, this means that Lord of Fire can't attack himself So if he uses his sweeping attack and the second target is DI'ds out of the zone, he can't make the second strike at ALL, not even against himself. Does he just decide not to try to hit himself because he knows it won't work? But if the only reason it doesn't work is because he's not able to even try to hit himself...
This is totally counterintuitive and doesn't make sense. Even if you called it "warded against fire", the fact remains that immunity doesn't just make a creature immune to an attack, it prevents the attacker from even attempting to initiate the attack in the first place. So enemy creatures with a flame attack will just mysteriously decide to leave him alone for no apparent reason. Maybe he has an oppressive fiery aura or something that makes them afraid to attack him? But this seems to go more into mental manipulation or fear effects, and that's something totally different from fire.
Short of the rule being enforced artificially by laws and judges in Etheria, (like "Diplomatic immunity" or something) there is absolutely no sufficient thematic explanation. It is a gaping hole in the story of the game.
-
Two important points.
1). This is a discussion of immunity. If you wish to have a discussion about the Wizard's Tower or any other card or issue, then please do so in a different thread.
2). We delved into issues of immunity when Druid Vs. Necro was being made, and we brought up all of these very arguments. Now, I say this just so you're aware that none of these decisions were made lightly, and all of them had fervent debate. None of this is meant to squelch the conversation here.
-
You own the cards; you can play with your toys however you want. But future set releases will be designed according to the official rules, and may not be compatible with changes you choose to make. Then again, if you've gotten this far without playing Plagued on the Necro and wondering if maybe this isn't a little too good, I wouldn't worry about it too much. You do you.
--
I'm guessing that the people who object to this rule never played Magic the Gathering? It has a very similar rule: Protection. "Protection from White" e.g. means you can't damage, enchant, block, or target the protected creature with a white card. This, hilariously, became a problem early on when there was a white enchantment that granted protection from white (there was one for each color, if I remember correctly). They had to issue an exception errata so that the spell didn't destroy itself.
I'm not sure why people are so insistent that Immunity shouldn't prevent buffs. It says right in the Codex what Immunity does. Is it the name? Would it have been better to call it Warded from Fire?
Problem still remains with intercept and immunty... currently the only immune intercept creatue is togorath and since hydro is changed because of extinguish he is still able to grab that surging wave.
But if there ever is a way to grant intercept trait to a creature, then the hellion will not be able to soak up that fireball despite he should be the best candidate to do it.
And while rulewise the fireball is targetting the interceptor, thematically its not. Rather the interceptor is getting in the way taking a bullet for its master.
So can no more immune interceptors be released because of this problem?
Then i rather see this fixed.
-
Short of the rule being enforced artificially by laws and judges in Etheria, (like "Diplomatic immunity" or something) there is absolutely no sufficient thematic explanation. It is a gaping hole in the story of the game.
This gets even more abstract when You remember that fights in the arena are happening in real time. If You have one firebrand imp guarding yourself and I've two of them then I should be able to lock your guard with one of my imps while other runs at You. Current rules prevent such thing even if I'd have 6 firebrand imps and Adramalech.
-
depends: Imagine there is this imp standing in front of you any fire passing is absorbed by him so nothing happening, that fire immunity is protecting you. It can only be resolved with a push or others, i doesn't find it so unlogical.
-
@ringkichard: In another thread I once did the calculation of a zone dimension based on the different range attack weapons. If I remember it was something around 250 meters.
And for Adry's Sweeping, his scythe is made of fire, so yeah it doesnt affect the imp, but it still go throu it and keep swinging to the other creature. But yeah, Sweeping is very abstract.
-
depends: Imagine there is this imp standing in front of you any fire passing is absorbed by him so nothing happening, that fire immunity is protecting you. It can only be resolved with a push or others, i doesn't find it so unlogical.
But it still can't be resolved by sheer numbers, which is illogical.
-
And for Adry's Sweeping, his scythe is made of fire, so yeah it doesnt affect the imp, but it still go throu it and keep swinging to the other creature. But yeah, Sweeping is very abstract.
the sweeping is stopped and extincted by the imp, the second creatures only feels a slight smell of smoke.
-
I like Ringkichards point around the rules being clear but needing a conceptual understanding of why it is like it is.
I don't quite understand the angst myself, I can see some of the points, but I can also see some explanations for how the rules as written make sense. In my head I was thinking of some of the cartoon/movies where someone is so advanced/immune to an attack that they're just oblivious to it - they aren't dodging or evading, they're totally oblivious, doing their own thing, nothing changes for them as a result of being attacked - in essence they're immune. On the other hand the attacker furiously throws everything at them to the point they're stumbling and tripping up on themselves and can't understand why they're being ineffectual. Its a little of a social constructionist argument, but a table is only a table with our socially agreed cultural reference, to a cat or dog, its a perfectly good shelter or hunting platform. A road is only a convenient transport path if you know it goes where you want it to (the seldom look direct even if you could see them from the air).
Anyway, the point I was trying to make it that from an immune perspective, your attack or spell doesnt have the magical relevance to work at all, to the point you can't target me. Implementing or starting and action that comes up against immunity contains an element of surprise that negates the attack or momentum for the other creature.
-
depends: Imagine there is this imp standing in front of you any fire passing is absorbed by him so nothing happening, that fire immunity is protecting you. It can only be resolved with a push or others, i doesn't find it so unlogical.
But wouldn't you say that this makes Immunity rather overpowered as just 1 Fire Immune Imp can Guard you against 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 other creatures with a fire attack.
As Kaarin also pointed out, numbers should mean something, you can't stop an army with one man ( except in Hollywood of course :) ) don't you think there's a mechanics issue here ?
-
I would not call it a mechanics issue. It's rather a strategic issue. If your whole strategy is hard countered by just one fire immune imp, there is nothing wrong with mechanics. Mechanics allow you to lose T1 with 4 Hurl Boulders on your Mage.
I'm not saying you should ignore corner cares because they are rare or anything, not at all. But I don't Zink it is too strong to counter multiple Flame creatures with one fire immune guard. If something can't be set on fire, it doesn't matter if you try 1, 2 or a quadrillion ligthers, it just won't burn. You may not be able to stop an army with one man, but in Mage Wars they come at you one after another and you are immune to every single one of them. I honestly don't see a problem here.
-
Those are fire attacks so do nothing to the imp, the lash of hellfire is not a lash which burns but just out of fire so it is only fire not a lash itself. So there is no physical contact. How does the army get it away?
The point is if a weapon has a damage type it means it is that type of attack. A gorgon archer for example has no poison type attack, it just has a poison effect. In a way it is a "physical" arrow which is impoisoned, so the arrow itself will still deal damage. While other attacks are the type itself (hard to understand if you think to physical) so lets take the fire elemental before the firebrand imp.
So this is an incorporeal fire thing, if it wants to attack the mage (behind the fire immune guard) the flames are "absorbed" by the fire immune creature and it can't pass to attack, and it does deal no damage to the imp either due to the immunity. The same counts for even more creatures. You talk about many creatures ok, if you are next to a wall you are definitly save as there are no other directions you could be attacked from apart from there where the imp protects you. Creatures have no direction of sight, so we could all imagine walking around.
No comes the more tricky part, you have a firebrand imp (we now only consider melee attack) which aparently also has a fire damage typ but his claws apear to be "physical" but its not different than the elemental it is also just a manifestation of mana and mage energy. The same as a suppresion cloak wizard which is guarding against 0-1mana oposing mage can protect everything in its zone. "It lacks the converted "vtar (magic)" to be able to achieve anything" In the imp case "its vtar (magic) has the wrong manifestations, a simple tanglevine or force push could solve the issue"
This is mage wars, magic is extremly logic ;)
Conserning the trageting: The magic is universal, all taken from the v'tar pool whatsoever, so if you would target the imp with a circle of fire. That type of magic is "repulsed as it is does not enter this eternity where flames can't be", same counts for all these other target restrictions
coming back to balance here: This "feel of repulsion happens before counter spell, as this is an say it in jedi words disturbance in the force there which does not allow it (so no ghoul rot to trigger nullify on a necro). The targeting restrictions have to arise due to the fakt that enchantments are hidden, so you can't control if it would be an illegal move
-
And for Adry's Sweeping, his scythe is made of fire, so yeah it doesnt affect the imp, but it still go throu it and keep swinging to the other creature. But yeah, Sweeping is very abstract.
the sweeping is stopped and extincted by the imp, the second creatures only feels a slight smell of smoke.
my explanation was false!
Adramalech sees the imp and is blocked by his "unburningity"... he doesn't attack and the imp keeps his guard marker...
that seems too powerfull to me.
-
And for Adry's Sweeping, his scythe is made of fire, so yeah it doesnt affect the imp, but it still go throu it and keep swinging to the other creature. But yeah, Sweeping is very abstract.
the sweeping is stopped and extincted by the imp, the second creatures only feels a slight smell of smoke.
my explanation was false!
Adramalech sees the imp and is blocked by his "unburningity"... he doesn't attack and the imp keeps his guard marker...
that seems too powerfull to me.
do people run firebrand imps as counter to adramalech? so it can't be the too powerfull.
You could imagine it (without the restiction) if adramalech wants to attack he feels this "wall" of fire immunity and is repulsed and can't do it. Creature are spells, where is there immunity beginning? Skin/orb around/cube/whatever
-
And for Adry's Sweeping, his scythe is made of fire, so yeah it doesnt affect the imp, but it still go throu it and keep swinging to the other creature. But yeah, Sweeping is very abstract.
the sweeping is stopped and extincted by the imp, the second creatures only feels a slight smell of smoke.
my explanation was false!
Adramalech sees the imp and is blocked by his "unburningity"... he doesn't attack and the imp keeps his guard marker...
that seems too powerfull to me.
do people run firebrand imps as counter to adramalech? so it can't be the too powerfull.
You could imagine it (without the restiction) if adramalech wants to attack he feels this "wall" of fire immunity and is repulsed and can't do it. Creature are spells, where is there immunity beginning? Skin/orb around/cube/whatever
i can imagine that there's an aura around an imune creature that blocs the attacker... but when the imp isn't guarding, Adramalech can attack ignoring the aura!
-
yeah but not the imp, he still can't attack the imp
-
yeah but not the imp, he still can't attack the imp
right, but why would the aura have effect around the imp only when he is guarding?
-
when he is guarding he is standing in front of the mage protecting it. so to get to the mage adramalech has to get through the aura. If he is not guarding he is not constantly "in front" of the mage. The aura is always effecting as the imp himself is always immun. But only on guard the mage gets "in the influence range" of the aura
-
when he is guarding he is standing in front of the mage protecting it. so to get to the mage adramalech has to get through the aura. If he is not guarding he is not constantly "in front" of the mage. The aura is always effecting as the imp himself is always immun. But only on guard the mage gets "in the influence range" of the aura
;D
i can do with that!
-
I think that all seems very artificial, if you can say so in a game of magic...
Immunity = just taking no damage is much more intuitiv. As Borg also said, I don't get it why not taking the easy way.
-
I think that all seems very artificial, if you can say so in a game of magic...
Immunity = just taking no damage is much more intuitiv. As Borg also said, I don't get it why not taking the easy way.
Because if I have a fire spell that says, "Destroy target creature" or whatever, you have to find a way to keep me from using it on the Imp. It's not enough that it takes no damage.
Or if there's an ability on an Arcane creature that says, "When you attack a non-mage creature, Banish it," it shouldn't be able to work on creatures with Arcane Immunity. And the surest way to prevent a corner case from wiggling around Immunity is to make it so strong that it prevents attacks and targeting and pretty much everything else.
-
I think that all seems very artificial, if you can say so in a game of magic...
Immunity = just taking no damage is much more intuitiv. As Borg also said, I don't get it why not taking the easy way.
Because if I have a fire spell that says, "Destroy target creature" or whatever, you have to find a way to keep me from using it on the Imp. It's not enough that it takes no damage.
Or if there's an ability on an Arcane creature that says, "When you attack a non-mage creature, Banish it," it shouldn't be able to work on creatures with Arcane Immunity. And the surest way to prevent a corner case from wiggling around Immunity is to make it so strong that it prevents attacks and targeting and pretty much everything else.
To further illustrate kick's point:
weak on an iron golem
poison blood on a skeleton
poison gas cloud hindering ravenous ghoul
and sleep on a zombie brute
There is a lot of situations where immunity is needed for more than just damage
-
I think that all seems very artificial, if you can say so in a game of magic...
Immunity = just taking no damage is much more intuitiv. As Borg also said, I don't get it why not taking the easy way.
Because if I have a fire spell that says, "Destroy target creature" or whatever, you have to find a way to keep me from using it on the Imp. It's not enough that it takes no damage.
Or if there's an ability on an Arcane creature that says, "When you attack a non-mage creature, Banish it," it shouldn't be able to work on creatures with Arcane Immunity. And the surest way to prevent a corner case from wiggling around Immunity is to make it so strong that it prevents attacks and targeting and pretty much everything else.
To further illustrate kick's point:
weak on an iron golem
poison blood on a skeleton
poison gas cloud hindering ravenous ghoul
and sleep on a zombie brute
There is a lot of situations where immunity is needed for more than just damage
Poison Blood on a skeleton does nothing. It is already Non-Living so they already have Finite Life trait.
Poison Gas doesn't hinder undead because they are Non-Living and Poison Gas Cloud state it only affect Living creatures.
BUt yeah, for the rest, Immunity need to be more than just for damage, but it should not prevent to target.
Not allowing to target is just the easy way to avoid problems, but cause silly situations that are not instinctive.
-
You are right. Effects sometimes also need to be avoided. Things like sleep.
Also yes, the way to just prohibit targeting may be the easiest way to achieve this, but causes some silly situations.
On the other hand it stops some nice tricks. For example enchantment transfusion from “forbidden“ friendly targets to enemies (used as secret was of transportation), or moving burns from fire immune creatures to enemies (adramelech). I like those possibilities and would be a little sad if they wouldn't work. I can live with that, but it is just cooler with these strategies, if you know what i mean.
-
I can live with that, but it is just cooler with these strategies, if you know what i mean.
Yeah, a lot of small fun things die to help make a much larger fun thing. My forum sig is only half a joke.
-
when he is guarding he is standing in front of the mage protecting it. so to get to the mage adramalech has to get through the aura. If he is not guarding he is not constantly "in front" of the mage. The aura is always effecting as the imp himself is always immun. But only on guard the mage gets "in the influence range" of the aura
I'd rather introduce the idea that an immune creature can't guard against attacks its immune to. If the attack is essentially invisible to the creature with immunity, they're so immune they can't even be targeted, then how could they guard against the attack. They've basically unaware of it as for them it can't happen.
Some wording like 'guard tokens on immune creatures are considered removed during an attack of that type and returned once the attack is resolved'.
-
when he is guarding he is standing in front of the mage protecting it. so to get to the mage adramalech has to get through the aura. If he is not guarding he is not constantly "in front" of the mage. The aura is always effecting as the imp himself is always immun. But only on guard the mage gets "in the influence range" of the aura
I'd rather introduce the idea that an immune creature can't guard against attacks its immune to. If the attack is essentially invisible to the creature with immunity, they're so immune they can't even be targeted, then how could they guard against the attack. They've basically unaware of it as for them it can't happen.
Some wording like 'guard tokens on immune creatures are considered removed during an attack of that type and returned once the attack is resolved'.
it is not guarding: it keeps the creature from attacking (it keeps its guard marker)
-
I get that, I know how to play...that's the condunrum of this whole post - the attacker must attack the immune creature that's guarding (because it guarding) but can't target it because its immune.
Its the idea that because its immune AND guarding that it prevents an attack to anything else in the zone that seems a poor thematic fit and a little OP.
My suggestion was to mediate this. It didn't change the effect on the immune creature, its still immune and can't be targetted. It does, however, allow other creatures/targets in the zone to be attacked. This seems a better (to my mind) solution than having a level 1 creature negating a level 4 creature with regard the whole zone.
when he is guarding he is standing in front of the mage protecting it. so to get to the mage adramalech has to get through the aura. If he is not guarding he is not constantly "in front" of the mage. The aura is always effecting as the imp himself is always immun. But only on guard the mage gets "in the influence range" of the aura
I'd rather introduce the idea that an immune creature can't guard against attacks its immune to. If the attack is essentially invisible to the creature with immunity, they're so immune they can't even be targeted, then how could they guard against the attack. They've basically unaware of it as for them it can't happen.
Some wording like 'guard tokens on immune creatures are considered removed during an attack of that type and returned once the attack is resolved'.
it is not guarding: it keeps the creature from attacking (it keeps its guard marker)
-
This seems a better (to my mind) solution than having a level 1 creature negating a level 4 creature with regard the whole zone.
You can trap LoF and even the Ada Warlock behind a couple of Walls of Earth and if she doesn't have any non-Flame Attack Spells or Equipment with non-Flame Attacks she is hosed and so is the LoF. It been like this for a long time, and it is just a big pile of dirt and Level 1.
-
Yeah but that's just clever play and seems thematically sound. You'd also need to negate flying, so it's possible but also foreseeable, and negotiable.
The analogy someone gave of the imp being burn proof no matter how many times you try and burn it doesn't work with the guard scenario as it's not just immune itself, its effectively making everyone else in the zone immune (they can't be targeted either). Maybe this is the same as your wall of earth example, but it feels much more gamey than clever. If someone dropped the wall of earth on my lord of fire after throwing a maim wings I'd be like sweet move. If they protected their whole zone against all my fire attacks by guarding with an imp I'd think it was dumb and annoying. But perhaps that's just me.
This seems a better (to my mind) solution than having a level 1 creature negating a level 4 creature with regard the whole zone.
You can trap LoF and even the Ada Warlock behind a couple of Walls of Earth and if she doesn't have any non-Flame Attack Spells or Equipment with non-Flame Attacks she is hosed and so is the LoF. It been like this for a long time, and it is just a big pile of dirt and Level 1.
-
one of my points was that the Wall is lvl 1 too.
-
I imagine you even picked it as an example because I referred to a level 1 creature negating a level 4 creature....
I think my reply covered this, but my point was that I don't see a problem with a low level spell negating an attack or move from a more powerful creature or spell, but it should be part of clever, well timed, or positioned play.
You can't actually use a wall of earth to negate Adramelech on its own. You'd need to remove its flying. You'd also need to have it positioned in a way that you can cast two wall of earth at once in a manner that blocks it. Not particularly easy.
Blocking any fire creature from attacking anything in a zone just needs a fire creature to guard as a result of the mechanics of immunity.
one of my points was that the Wall is lvl 1 too.
-
I am not trying to be snarky, but I could say the same about this Guard, you can push him, teleport him, Surging Wave (with a roll push him), sounds very much like the same thing you are advising me here.
-
I did say above that I could see how the point is similar, but the immune guard seems more like gaming the rules than a clever play. My question isn't really about the ability of a low level spell to be powerful it's the mechanism it uses to do it.
I am not trying to be snarky, but I could say the same about this Guard, you can push him, teleport him, Surging Wave (with a roll push him), sounds very much like the same thing you are advising me here.
-
I have to say, I actively prefer it how it is...
-
Well, it seems that i am immune to this problem :-) i like it as it is. It did not break the game and smart play caan overcome this :-)
-
Well, it seems that i am immune to this problem :-) i like it as it is. It did not break the game and smart play caan overcome this :-)
I don't even understand how it is currently... so I can't like it or not at this point.
-
1) creatures immune to an attack can't be targetted by attacks of that type
2) guarding creatures in a zone must be attacked before any other creature
3) if you can't target the guard, you are not allowed to attack any other creature in the zone
Well, it seems that i am immune to this problem :-) i like it as it is. It did not break the game and smart play caan overcome this :-)
I don't even understand how it is currently... so I can't like it or not at this point.
-
1) creatures immune to an attack can't be targetted by attacks of that type
2) guarding creatures in a zone must be attacked before any other creature
3) if you can't target the guard, you are not allowed to attack any other creature in the zone
I suppose I shouldn't pick attacks the creature's immune against, then.
I didn't follow the discussion, but why don't we simply change the rule, that targeting a creature is allowed, but the attack simply fizzles, doing nothing at all?
-
1) creatures immune to an attack can't be targetted by attacks of that type
2) guarding creatures in a zone must be attacked before any other creature
3) if you can't target the guard, you are not allowed to attack any other creature in the zone
I suppose I shouldn't pick attacks the creature's immune against, then.
I didn't follow the discussion, but why don't we simply change the rule, that targeting a creature is allowed, but the attack simply fizzles, doing nothing at all?
because changing 1 rull in such a chaotic system can have bad consequences.
-
1) creatures immune to an attack can't be targetted by attacks of that type
2) guarding creatures in a zone must be attacked before any other creature
3) if you can't target the guard, you are not allowed to attack any other creature in the zone
I suppose I shouldn't pick attacks the creature's immune against, then.
I didn't follow the discussion, but why don't we simply change the rule, that targeting a creature is allowed, but the attack simply fizzles, doing nothing at all?
That would be awesome! But for now it is as Moonglow summoned up and yes it is idiotic.
-
I never said it was idiotic. There are ummm 'features' to the immunity vs guard interaction that some people find less than intuitive and that others value for their simplicity.
I still like a tweak to guarding that you can't guard against an attack you're immune to, but don't think I'd introduce it over the rules as written. There is a lot of hidden complexity in mage wars that mostly appears as elegant simplicity.... Until you break it.
I mean despite some of the issues identified on these forums (probably some of the most detailed mage wars discussions around I'd imagine) most of a huge number of spells, creatures and effects can be played easily, as they appear/you'd think they should and without argument. That's pretty amazing.
-
Just think for how long this wasn't an issue considering that it was present since the Core Set. I wonder if people will start casting Flame Strike on their enemies after this thread.
-
I didn't follow the discussion, but why don't we simply change the rule, that targeting a creature is allowed, but the attack simply fizzles, doing nothing at all?
Because of the way the system works, right now you can not declare an attack, if you could target them, then you could declare an attack, it would fizzle, and the guard marker would come off. As all it takes for a "successful attack" is to target somebody.
-
Just think for how long this wasn't an issue considering that it was present since the Core Set. I wonder if people will start casting Flame Strike on their enemies after this thread.
They probably will, at least if Arcane Wonders doesn't decide to change it.
Over time we are probably going to see more and more issues like this pop up, and the answer every time will either be to update the rules or errata a card, some combination thereof or to do nothing. And the more times this occurs, the more specific card interactions newer players will have to memorize and the less intuitive the game will become.
One of the biggest differences between customizable strategy games and other kinds of games is that they are far more complex and always growing and changing. They have many more moving parts to them, and it is an endless balancing act to keep it all working right. Mistakes are not just more likely in this genre, they are inevitable.
Other customizable strategy games deal with this problem by hiding from it, by pretending that all mistakes could have been avoided if they only paid attention and play tested better, and when they make a particularly harmful mistake, they choose to either ban it, restrict it or release more cards to balance it.
Since Mage Wars is an LCG-like game, banning cards is not a viable option because that reduces the value of the sets they come in. For mistakes having to do with balance alone, releasing more cards is probably the best option at least most of the time. But when it comes to faulty and ambiguous not-as-intended rules interactions, releasing more cards usually won't help, and doing nothing but saying that card text trump rules as written is not a good permanent solution (at least on its own) because it causes exceptional edge cases to accumulate without end as the game ages, and all of these exceptions must be memorized. This means that older players will have an advantage not just in skill, experience or card access, but in knowledge of obscure and unintuitive rules exceptions, and that knowledge advantage will grow over time without limit. I suspect that the only truly feasible long-term solution to faulty and ambiguous not-as-intended rules interactions will have to involve errata. For an LCG-like game, correcting cards isn't a sign of weakness, it's a sign of a generally healthy meta with a good immune system. This truth is unfortunately lost on most gamers, perhaps in part because most games won't even admit to it.
Maybe when it comes to faulty and ambiguous not-as-intended rules interactions we should just admit to it and fix it, instead of accumulating a bunch of rules exceptions that we have to memorize. It's probably not even necessary to fix all of them. Just enough that the number of rules exceptions that people have to memorize is relatively constant instead of increasing over time.
-
Just think for how long this wasn't an issue considering that it was present since the Core Set. I wonder if people will start casting Flame Strike on their enemies after this thread.
They probably will, at least if Arcane Wonders doesn't decide to change it.
Over time we are probably going to see more and more issues like this pop up, and the answer every time will either be to update the rules or errata a card, some combination thereof or to do nothing. And the more times this occurs, the more specific card interactions newer players will have to memorize and the less intuitive the game will become.
One of the biggest differences between customizable strategy games and other kinds of games is that they are far more complex and always growing and changing. They have many more moving parts to them, and it is an endless balancing act to keep it all working right. Mistakes are not just more likely in this genre, they are inevitable.
Other customizable strategy games deal with this problem by hiding from it, by pretending that all mistakes could have been avoided if they only paid attention and play tested better, and when they make a particularly harmful mistake, they choose to either ban it, restrict it or release more cards to balance it.
Since Mage Wars is an LCG-like game, banning cards is not a viable option because that reduces the value of the sets they come in. For mistakes having to do with balance alone, releasing more cards is probably the best option at least most of the time. But when it comes to faulty and ambiguous not-as-intended rules interactions, releasing more cards usually won't help, and doing nothing but saying that card text trump rules as written is not a good permanent solution (at least on its own) because it causes exceptional edge cases to accumulate without end as the game ages, and all of these exceptions must be memorized. This means that older players will have an advantage not just in skill, experience or card access, but in knowledge of obscure and unintuitive rules exceptions, and that knowledge advantage will grow over time without limit. I suspect that the only truly feasible long-term solution to faulty and ambiguous not-as-intended rules interactions will have to involve errata. For an LCG-like game, correcting cards isn't a sign of weakness, it's a sign of a generally healthy meta with a good immune system. This truth is unfortunately lost on most gamers, perhaps in part because most games won't even admit to it.
Maybe when it comes to faulty and ambiguous not-as-intended rules interactions we should just admit to it and fix it, instead of accumulating a bunch of rules exceptions that we have to memorize. It's probably not even necessary to fix all of them. Just enough that the number of rules exceptions that people have to memorize is relatively constant instead of increasing over time.
If you consider it as an issue and that it is severely broken. Looking over the thread, it look to me (IMHO) like most see it a minor issue that really is not that big of a deal. Its not that hard to work around and there has to be an exactingly small game setup for it to even matter, once again, like you can do with any guard, you can Push them out of the zone or pull the guarded target away from the guard, or use elusive just to ignore it all together.
-
Just think for how long this wasn't an issue considering that it was present since the Core Set. I wonder if people will start casting Flame Strike on their enemies after this thread.
They probably will, at least if Arcane Wonders doesn't decide to change it.
Over time we are probably going to see more and more issues like this pop up, and the answer every time will either be to update the rules or errata a card, some combination thereof or to do nothing. And the more times this occurs, the more specific card interactions newer players will have to memorize and the less intuitive the game will become.
One of the biggest differences between customizable strategy games and other kinds of games is that they are far more complex and always growing and changing. They have many more moving parts to them, and it is an endless balancing act to keep it all working right. Mistakes are not just more likely in this genre, they are inevitable.
Other customizable strategy games deal with this problem by hiding from it, by pretending that all mistakes could have been avoided if they only paid attention and play tested better, and when they make a particularly harmful mistake, they choose to either ban it, restrict it or release more cards to balance it.
Since Mage Wars is an LCG-like game, banning cards is not a viable option because that reduces the value of the sets they come in. For mistakes having to do with balance alone, releasing more cards is probably the best option at least most of the time. But when it comes to faulty and ambiguous not-as-intended rules interactions, releasing more cards usually won't help, and doing nothing but saying that card text trump rules as written is not a good permanent solution (at least on its own) because it causes exceptional edge cases to accumulate without end as the game ages, and all of these exceptions must be memorized. This means that older players will have an advantage not just in skill, experience or card access, but in knowledge of obscure and unintuitive rules exceptions, and that knowledge advantage will grow over time without limit. I suspect that the only truly feasible long-term solution to faulty and ambiguous not-as-intended rules interactions will have to involve errata. For an LCG-like game, correcting cards isn't a sign of weakness, it's a sign of a generally healthy meta with a good immune system. This truth is unfortunately lost on most gamers, perhaps in part because most games won't even admit to it.
Maybe when it comes to faulty and ambiguous not-as-intended rules interactions we should just admit to it and fix it, instead of accumulating a bunch of rules exceptions that we have to memorize. It's probably not even necessary to fix all of them. Just enough that the number of rules exceptions that people have to memorize is relatively constant instead of increasing over time.
If you consider it as an issue and that it is severely broken. Looking over the thread, it look to me (IMHO) like most see it a minor issue that really is not that big of a deal. Its not that hard to work around and there has to be an exactingly small game setup for it to even matter, once again, like you can do with any guard, you can Push them out of the zone or pull the guarded target away from the guard, or use elusive just to ignore it all together.
Sorry, it took me a while to write that post and halfway through I forgot whether I was in the immunity thread or the akiro's thread... :/
-
Its ok, I think both are now just battling for world record longest rule discussion thread titles...
-
Its ok, I think both are now just battling for world record longest rule discussion thread titles...
and i love it!
-
I didn't follow the discussion, but why don't we simply change the rule, that targeting a creature is allowed, but the attack simply fizzles, doing nothing at all?
Because of the way the system works, right now you can not declare an attack, if you could target them, then you could declare an attack, it would fizzle, and the guard marker would come off. As all it takes for a "successful attack" is to target somebody.
So? Let the initial attack fail and let the guard get in his counterstrike. Problem solved. Yes, the guard marker comes off, but the guard made a successful attack and the other creature didn't.
-
How about leave it as it is, and the problem is better solved?
-
So? Let the initial attack fail and let the guard get in his counterstrike. Problem solved. Yes, the guard marker comes off, but the guard made a successful attack and the other creature didn't.
But that would not reflect immunity properly....
-
So? Let the initial attack fail and let the guard get in his counterstrike. Problem solved. Yes, the guard marker comes off, but the guard made a successful attack and the other creature didn't.
But that would not reflect immunity properly....
that would reflect "an immunity" but not "the immunity" that is refected in all the other rulles... consistency problem.
-
The issue isn't really the counterstrike, its that the attacker can't target anything else in the zone.
Just made me think that with some clever play you could use Altar of the Iron Guard quite strategically to guard whole zones from particular attacks.
I didn't follow the discussion, but why don't we simply change the rule, that targeting a creature is allowed, but the attack simply fizzles, doing nothing at all?
Because of the way the system works, right now you can not declare an attack, if you could target them, then you could declare an attack, it would fizzle, and the guard marker would come off. As all it takes for a "successful attack" is to target somebody.
So? Let the initial attack fail and let the guard get in his counterstrike. Problem solved. Yes, the guard marker comes off, but the guard made a successful attack and the other creature didn't.
-
The Flame Immune creature on Guard deflects all of the flames front of the Dragons breath and absolutely nothing else happens.....is what I am saying.