Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Rules Discussion => Topic started by: echephron on January 24, 2015, 12:45:40 PM
-
TTS: [mwcard=MW1E39]Turn to Stone[/mwcard]
ET: [mwcard=MWSTX1CKE04]Enchantment Transfusion[/mwcard]
Is ET restricted in when it can move TTS? Is there a general rule of ET that it cant move revealed enchantments which could not be revealed at that moment?
An example is a creature in the declare step of attacking your mage. You ET TTS and the creature would turn to stone mid attack and the attack would be presumably cancelled.
-
TTS: [mwcard=MW1E39]Turn to Stone[/mwcard]
ET: [mwcard=MWSTX1CKE04]Enchantment Transfusion[/mwcard]
Is ET restricted in when it can move TTS? Is there a general rule of ET that it cant move revealed enchantments which could not be revealed at that moment?
An example is a creature in the declare step of attacking your mage. You ET TTS and the creature would turn to stone mid attack and the attack would be presumably cancelled.
As long as the enchantment being moved to a legal target then it can move.
As for the turn to stone example:
"Enchantments cannot affect an event that occurred before it was revealed"
Meaning that the attack action steps were already started, so you must go through them.
Different situation: Creature moves one space and you then transfusion turn to stone on it. Revealing inbetween the move and attack actions causes the creatures turn to end immediately after the move action, you cannot retroactively stop it from moving.
Same logic goes here. The attack action has already been taken and the enchantment cannot retroactively cancel that attack action. So the Incapacitated creature would finish its attack and get the full armor bonus from Turn to stone if there was a counter attack involved.
Would need Zuberi to confirm, it's kind of his defacto area of expertise. :P
-
Same logic goes here. The attack action has already been taken and the enchantment cannot retroactively cancel that attack action. So the Incapacitated creature would finish its attack and get the full armor bonus from Turn to stone if there was a counter attack involved.
It is my thought that since the counterstrike is part of the activated creature's attack action, and since Turn to Stone can not be revealed during an action, the counterstrike would not have to deal with the additional armor from Turn to Stone.
Another spell that didn't have the specific text prohibiting it from being revealed during an action could be revealed and take effect prior to the end of the activated creature's attack action, however.
-
Except that in the above example, wasn't turn to stone already revealed?
-
You can not change an event that has already occurred, but you can affect events that have not occurred yet. Thus, if you transfusion Turn to Stone after an attack has been declared, you can not change the fact that an attack was declared and started. HOWEVER, you will immediately gain the effects of Turn to Stone and that will affect all of the following steps. Meaning you will be incapacitated and have armor +6.
So the question is how does incapacitated affect an attack already in progress. The codex for incapacitate says that it prevents you from taking an attack action. This could be interpreted as meaning it can not start an attack, and thus the one already in progress is unaffected, or it could be interpreted as meaning it can not perform an attack at all and thus the current attack is affected.
I'm not sure if this question is actually addressed directly anywhere. The closest thing I can find is in relation to stun preventing an attacker from making additional attacks. They all assume the stun was gained during either step 6 or 7 of the attack though and so don't mention how it impacts the attacker for the current attack. I would call this a gray area that people could house rule either way until we hear an official response, but I will give my own reasoning on it.
Since additional attacks are a part of the same attack action, it is clear that incapacitate can affect an action in progress rather than just preventing you from starting the action. Combine this with Turn to Stone's own limitation attempting to prevent it from affecting an attack already in progress tells me that it would have an affect on an attack already in progress. I see no reason why the attack would simply be cancelled though, considering that an attacker stunned by damage barrier would still go through steps 7 and 8. Thus, I would rule that the incapacitated creature would go through the full list of combat steps but is unable to perform steps 3, 4, or 5. Those represent things that the creature is doing, and an incapacitated creature can not do anything. However, the defender can still respond to the attack that occurred with steps 2, 6, and 7, and of course the attack has to finish in step 8.
However, Kharhaz's interpretation is equally valid as far as I can see, in which the attacker gets to finish their current attack as normal (minus their defenses but plus 6 armor in the case of a counterstrike) but would be unable to make additional attacks if the attack had sweeping or battle fury or the such.
-
However, Kharhaz's interpretation is equally valid as far as I can see, in which the attacker gets to finish their current attack as normal (minus their defenses but plus 6 armor in the case of a counterstrike) but would be unable to make additional attacks if the attack had sweeping or battle fury or the such.
"An incapacitated creature cannot take any actions, including, moving, attack, guarding, or casting spells. It cannot make a counterstrike........"
My thought process here is that step 3 4 and 5 are not actions. They are steps of the previous action. Rolling dice is not an action in mage wars and so.
Because of the wording on battle fury it would not, however additional attacks are part of the same action and would still get to make those. Incapacitated prevents are creature from taking any action, but the combat steps are part of the same action.
The question is can turn to stone stop an action in progress? Which I am 99% sure it cannot.
Could be wrong however, that is further explaining where I was going with all that
-
However, Kharhaz's interpretation is equally valid as far as I can see, in which the attacker gets to finish their current attack as normal (minus their defenses but plus 6 armor in the case of a counterstrike) but would be unable to make additional attacks if the attack had sweeping or battle fury or the such.
"An incapacitated creature cannot take any actions, including, moving, attack, guarding, or casting spells. It cannot make a counterstrike........"
My thought process here is that step 3 4 and 5 are not actions. They are steps of the previous action. Rolling dice is not an action in mage wars and so.
Because of the wording on battle fury it would not, however additional attacks are part of the same action and would still get to make those. Incapacitated prevents are creature from taking any action, but the combat steps are part of the same action.
The question is can turn to stone stop an action in progress? Which I am 99% sure it cannot.
Could be wrong however, that is further explaining where I was going with all that
Actions being defined on page 11.
Full - quick - Nothing and all the options that fall into those three categories
-
Battle Fury is not a separate action though, and incapacitate does prevent Battle Fury attacks according to the Rules Supplement, demonstrating that incapacitate will affect an action already in progress.
You are correct that steps 3, 4, and 5 are not themselves actions. Neither is step 1. They are all results of an action and a part of carrying out that action. It is clear that incapacitate will prevent step 1 in an additional attack like Battle Fury, and thus the entirety of the additional attack for without a legal target the attack is cancelled out right. However, my hypothesis that it affects the other steps is conjecture. Saying that they can not be affected though because they are not actions does not have merit because the same would apply to Battle Fury, Sweeping, etc where we know they are affected.
Whether Turn to Stone stops an action in progress also seems clear that it does not, as incapacitate does not prevent steps 7 and 8 from occurring if you become stunned during step 6. So, it is clear that you continue the action and it is also clear that some steps are affected while others are not. We know for certain that steps 6, 7, and 8 are not affected and that step 1 is, but we are in the dark about all of the other steps.
The reason that I hypothesize that steps 3, 4, and 5 are affected is that it seems to me that more than step 1 needs to be affected for there to be a reason to restrict Turn to Stone from being revealed after step 1. If it's only effect would be to prevent additional attacks from occurring (and mess with your defenses and armor in the case of a counterstrike), I do not think there would be much reason to prevent it's reveal during an attack. It seems to me that the designers intended it to have more of an effect, even though there's no written rule stating such explicitly. The only rule implying it is an ambiguous interpretation of what it means to take an action which has been shown to include having an effect on actions in progress. As steps 3, 4, and 5 represent the primary functions of the attack, representing what you are actually doing, it seemed logical to me that they would be the ones affected by incapacitation. The steps unaffected would then be the ones primarily carried out by the defender rather than the attacker.
So, it all boils down to our interpretation of taking an action. A strict interpretation of simply meaning the initiation of an action has been shown to be false, as it has been clearly stated that it prevents certain steps from occurring during an action already in progress. One could take a strict rules as written approach and say that it only affects steps clearly mentioned, and thus only step 1, but I believe there is evidence that indicate the rules as intended is for it to affect more than that and such an interpretation does not contradict anything within the rules. In the end though, we need an official response. Until then, anything else is merely a house rule.
-
One more thing and thing I want to run by you
Step 1 seems to be where commitment to the action happens. Before step 1 finishes you can decided not to attack and do a separate action in certain examples.
This leads me to believe that reason battle fury would not get a second attack, would be because the action can not be completed in step 1 as the target is no longer a valid target of the quick melee action, as per incap condition. (aside from the clear as day rule written that says so)
Step 1 seems to be the lynch pin here and boy it would be nice to get something all official. Not because I really care one way or the other, but so I can stop thinking about it :P
-
You are correct that you are not fully committed to the action until you complete step 1, but step 1 is still merely a part of the process of completing the action no different than steps 2 through 8 are. All we're saying is once you've already done part of the action, you can't change your mind about doing the whole action.
With the battle fury example, you have already completed step 1 for the initial attack before you get stunned and are thus committed to the action of attacking. The action of attacking, however, includes a battle fury attack. They are not separate things. So, the fact that battle fury is prevented from performing step 1 again, tells us that incapacitation keeps an action that you've already committed to from carrying out certain steps. Incapacitation does not prevent step 1 from occurring because you're unable to select a legal target either. No place in it's definition does it mention being unable to target or having restricted targeting. The only reason you'd be unable to perform step 1 is because it is considered part of taking an action.
So, could anything else be considered part of taking an action? Well, every step could potentially be considered part of the action, but we also know that steps 6, 7, and 8 are not affected. Thus, I think all of the steps of an action in which the incapacitated creature could be said to be acting or doing something are part of the action, ie steps 1, 3, 4, and 5. Steps 2, 6, and 7 are being performed by the defender rather than the attacker, and step 8 is a mandatory status check to see if the attack has ended or has other parts that still need performed, so none of them are affected. Of course, if you are unable to complete step 1, then you do not have a legal target and the whole attack is cancelled. That is my thinking on the matter. Like you said, I would really like to hear an official answer to this, but I'm also waiting on an official answer to some other interesting rules abnormalities that have been pending for a few months now. Perhaps I should revive my old unanswered questions thread that I kept going a good portion of last year.
-
Battle Fury is not a separate action though, and incapacitate does prevent Battle Fury attacks according to the Rules Supplement, demonstrating that incapacitate will affect an action already in progress.
I am having trouble finding this ^
All I see is " If the attacking creature becomes affected by a condition acquired from the counterstrike or damage barrier (such as being stunned or dazed), its extra attack will be affected, and the condition marker will remain on the creature until end of the next round (if it has an “end of action phase” effect, as per rules for conditions acquired from a damage barrier or counterstrike). "
Don't get me wrong if a daze can cause the second swing to miss then obviously an Incap should end the attack sequence then and there (which I think we can both agree on would be the intent in such a situation)
However, I am having difficulty finding any rule that would do that. At best an incap would be placed and that creature "cannot take any actions" but since were still in mid action that it already took............
-
Hmm, perhaps the Rules Supplement is not as explicit as I remembered. I recall a conversation awhile back with Laddinfance about this topic and I could have gotten a more specific interpretation of it mixed up with what was in the supplement. I'm not sure how else you could interpret stun affecting the extra attack, however. How do you propose the extra attack is affected by it?
I will see if I can find my previous conversation to point towards, but until then another example on the issue of incapacitate affecting an action in progress would be page 13 and 16 of the rules supplement where it mentions a stun applied by a passage attack will halt a move action that was currently in progress. This would occur during step 3 of a move action and prevent steps 4 and 5 from happening.
-
Another example is when that the imp familiar cast a fireball. before the fireball attack is declared(during the fireball casting), you can move a TTS onto him, which prevents him from declaring an attack, so i assume the fireball mana is lost
-
Another example is when that the imp familiar cast a fireball. before the fireball attack is declared(during the fireball casting), you can move a TTS onto him, which prevents him from declaring an attack, so i assume the fireball mana is lost
This is one is much easier because during step 1 of casting the spell it clearly states that "As soon as you pay the costs required, your spell has been cast. Until you pay the costs, you may change your mind and choose not to cast the spell. If you do, you are not required to pay any costs. But once the costs have been paid, you must resolve the spell, unless your opponent counters it."
So, If it is before step 1 when you transfusion TTS, then you stop him before casting the spell. If you wait till in between step 1 and 2 , fireball resolves as per normal.
-
Another example is when that the imp familiar cast a fireball. before the fireball attack is declared(during the fireball casting), you can move a TTS onto him, which prevents him from declaring an attack, so i assume the fireball mana is lost
This is one is much easier because during step 1 of casting the spell it clearly states that "As soon as you pay the costs required, your spell has been cast. Until you pay the costs, you may change your mind and choose not to cast the spell. If you do, you are not required to pay any costs. But once the costs have been paid, you must resolve the spell, unless your opponent counters it."
So, If it is before step 1 when you transfusion TTS, then you stop him before casting the spell. If you wait till in between step 1 and 2 , fireball resolves as per normal.
Does this mean that either the TTS is moved and takes effect (before step 1, in which case no mana has yet been spent), or the mana is spent in step 1 and the spell is cast... and is unable to be affected by the transfused TTS? This is saying that there is no chance to lose/spend the mana without the spell being cast successfully. Is that right?
-
That is correct according to how I understand Kharhaz's interpretation. You would become incapacitated immediately but still be able to attack while incapacitated as long as the incapacitation occurred after the Cast Spell Step.
It is not correct according to my interpretation of the rules however. Instead, I would say that you are unable to perform the Declare Attack Step, and thus could not pick a target. Without a target, the entire attack would be cancelled.
We do not have an official ruling on this. It all depends on how you interpret being unable to "take" an action.
-
It is not correct according to my interpretation of the rules however. Instead, I would say that you are unable to perform the Declare Attack Step, and thus could not pick a target. Without a target, the entire attack would be cancelled.
I am away from my materials but in step 1 of casting a spell target has already been selected and approved. The fireball spell must resolve unless it is specifically countered in step 2 and resolves in step 3. Then the attack sequence is initiated. The spell is canceled if the original target is not longer legal or moves. The caster is not spending actions and so on after this. Different example: let's say a familiar cast an incantation and you transfusion turn to stone after step 1. The spell will still resolve because the spell was not canceled. So the heal or teleport goes into strep 3 regardless of what happens to te caster at this point (unless the caster or target act in a way which cancels the spell)
Would be nice if an official rules person would speak up. Until then I will continue to post here regularly until we get someone's attention :P
-
Just because you have my attention, does not mean I can offer a quick answer.
To confirm an earlier question, if you get Incapacitated during a multi-strike attack, then you do not get to make the remaining attacks.
Now, I know that an attack spell brings up an interesting point.
-
Just because you have my attention, does not mean I can offer a quick answer.
To confirm an earlier question, if you get Incapacitated during a multi-strike attack, then you do not get to make the remaining attacks.
Now, I know that an attack spell brings up an interesting point.
I know you're always watching, it is reassuring to see it :P
Corazin makes a double attack. After step 4 I transfusion turn to stone, that would stop step 5 from completing? Do you proceed to step 6, 7, then 8? Makes sense to but that would mean the attack sequence was not canceled but just a single step?
Interesting
-
Corazin makes a double attack. After step 4 I transfusion turn to stone, that would stop step 5 from completing? Do you proceed to step 6, 7, then 8? Makes sense to but that would mean the attack sequence was not canceled but just a single step?
Interestin
This would line up with my interpretation of the rules. Incapacitation prevents certain steps from being performed, namely steps 1, 3, 4, and 5. I think we have strong evidence now that this is correct for steps 1 and 5 at least. In the case that step 1 is prevented, the entire attack would be cancelled due to lack of a legal target. However, preventing other steps would not cancel the attack and you would still go through steps 2, 6, 7, and 8.
With regard to a spell, I had not given it proper thought I believe. Following the same logic I've used on attacks, I would think that incapacitation would also prevent steps 1 and 3 of casting a spell from occurring. Thus preventing an incantation from resolving as well as an attack spell (and actually ending the attack spell sooner than I previously suggested). After all, the spell has NOT been cast as soon as step 1 is finished. It is in the process of it. So, basically you get stunned and stop chanting your spell in the middle of it before it can resolve.
We still need more detail from an official source exactly which steps are affected by incapacitation, however. It seems pretty clear that some are, we just don't know for sure which.
-
So, basically you get stunned and stop chanting your spell in the middle of it before it can resolve.
????
From page 13
"As soon as you pay the costs required, your spell has been
cast. Until you pay the costs, you may change your mind and
choose not to cast the spell. If you do, you are not required
to pay any costs. But once the costs have been paid, you
must resolve the spell, unless your opponent counters it."
Incapacitate does not counter a spell, it must resolve. If step 1 of casting a spell is completed.
-
I think we have strong evidence now that this is correct for steps 1 and 5 at least. In the case that step 1 is prevented, the entire attack would be cancelled due to lack of a legal target. However, preventing other steps would not cancel the attack and you would still go through steps 2, 6, 7, and 8.
Yes it appears that if you are incapacitated before step 1 or step 5 (step 5 is essentially steps 1 - 4 repeated), then the attack sequence is canceled there and we move on to 7 since since damage barriers only trigger on successful attacks. Just waiting the official word there :P
So that was fun. Any new questions we should probably start a thread about? Aside from the obvious does Incapacitate stop damage from effecting the target? Say Incapacitated after step 2 before step 3 or after 3 and before 4 :P
-
Using the same logic that allows spells like Nullify to work. How can you prevent a spell from resolving if it is already finished? You can't. But since it has not finished yet, you can still affect it with things like counterspells and incapacitate to interrupt it. I believe the wording in the rules is to indicate that you are now committed to the action, just like with the declare attack step, and that's all. You've begun casting and are past the point of no return, but you aren't finished with the spell until step 3 ends.
Granted, there's nothing that says incapacitate works this way, but it is not an illogical interpretation like you seem to think. We know that it does affect the steps of combat, which work similar to the steps of casting a spell, and we know that there is time to still stop a spell from being cast after step 1 because spells like nullify are able to.
In the end, I think we are in agreement about steps 1 and 5 of combat, and step 1 of spell casting all being affected. I could certainly see things ending there. But, I still think it's possible that steps 3 and 4 of combat, and step 3 of spellcasting could be affected as well.
-
And then there is the phrase "unless your opponent counters it." -- Is the spell countered by the transfused Turn to Stone?
-
And then there is the phrase "unless your opponent counters it." -- Is the spell countered by the transfused Turn to Stone?
I would argue not by the codex entry of counter and that abilities / cards, such as [mwcard=MW1E29]Nullify[/mwcard], specificialy say that they actually counter a spell.
Counter is not a concept in Mage Wars it is a keyword, and as such, has special meaning outside of the logical use for "countering". Cancel is the filler word for stopping a spell in progress, such as the target moving.
As per the rules sup:
A spell fails and is canceled, if either of the following occur before the Resolve Spell Step:
1. The target of the spell is no longer a legal target, or
2. The caster or target of the spell moves (e.g. by being Pushed or Teleported away), even if the move was
to a location where the spell was still in range. (In the case of a Teleport, this applies even if the teleport
was into the same zone).
Similarly, an attack fails and is canceled, if either of the following occur before the Apply Damage and Effects
step of an attack :
1. The target of the attack is no longer a legal target, or
2. The source or target of the attack moves (e.g. by being Pushed or Teleported away), even if the move
was to a location where the spell was still in range. (In the case of a Teleport, this applies even if the
teleport was into the same zone).
The most common way these can happen is through the spell Divine Intervention.
A canceled spell or attack ends immediately. All costs that have already been paid, remain paid, and are not
refunded. If a spell was being cast, the spell card is discarded (exception: see Spellbind).
-
In the end, I think we are in agreement about steps 1 and 5 of combat, and step 1 of spell casting all being affected. I could certainly see things ending there. But, I still think it's possible that steps 3 and 4 of combat, and step 3 of spellcasting could be affected as well.
I am thinking, after my last post, we will get a rule along the lines of:
"Incapacitate prevents you from taking the step 1 of an action and makes your target now illegal and you follow the Changing the Range or Target of a Spell or Attack as per the rules supplement."
Which means that the spell or attack would be canceled if the enchantment transfusion is revealed before step 3: Resolve Spell during a spell or step 4: Apply Damage and Effects during an attack.
It is not how I would have gone with the rules, but it is the most logical and linear course of action.
-
I didn't find a clear answer to this one: when an attacker becomes incapacitate between two attack steps (for example by a transfused turn to stone)... how does the attack continue?
(I think it's clear that additional attacks are cancelled)
-
How does the attack work if the attacker becomes incapacitated after the first steps of the attack?
-
If the attack is not cancelled then something is wrong.
Just like if the target is moved with divine intervention the attack will miss...
If the attacker freezes in place the attack is cancelled.
Just saying... dont have rules to back this up.
-
Every body thinks it would be logical that you can't apply damages if you become incapacitate... but the rules don't say that (neither the range nor the target changes!).
official rulling? ;D
-
Sorry for bringing this thread back, but has this ever been fully answered?
I have had a related question come up recently: If Chant of Rage is moved with Enchantment Transfusion, what is the latest point in time for it to move in order to affect the creature's current action (during/after creature movement, before/after declaring an attack, or perhaps even right before the Roll Dice step)?
-
in order to make it move you must change befor it declares the movement and to make it attack befor it declares attack (or befor it moves away if it is in the same zone at the begining of its action!)
-
in order to make it move you must change befor it declares the movement and to make it attack befor it declares attack (or befor it moves away if it is in the same zone at the begining of its action!)
Incorrect. In order to use Chant of Rage you must reveal it and have it attached to the target before it activates since you are affecting its entire action phase.
-
Incorrect. In order to use Chant of Rage you must reveal it and have it attached to the target before it activates since you are affecting its entire action phase.
This does not make sense.
(it's already revealed on another creature) I would assume that if it's enchantment transfused before its choosing an action then it would have to follow the rules for this card. IE attack and if not possible the move closer.
-
in order to make it move you must change befor it declares the movement and to make it attack befor it declares attack (or befor it moves away if it is in the same zone at the begining of its action!)
Incorrect. In order to use Chant of Rage you must reveal it and have it attached to the target before it activates since you are affecting its entire action phase.
I believe the complication here is the fact that CoR is already revealed on another creature. I looked through similar cards which usually cannot be revealed during an action, that might cause some strange effects when used with Enchantment Transfusion:
Turn to Stone
Chant of Rage
Blur (what happens if it is transferred after an attack is declared against a target at range 2?)
Charm
Mind Control -> The card specifically says "cannot be moved to a new target"
Slumber
Song of Love
Perhaps we do need a general rule as suggested by echephron in this thread's opening post along the lines of "Enchantment Transfusion cannot move revealed enchantments which could not be revealed at that moment" ?
-
What we really need to do is burn all copies of Enchantment Transfusion and wipe the memory of it off the face of the earth.
Barring that, I do believe it is important to keep in mind the intention of the cards being transfused. I agree that if you cannot reveal something at the time when you are transfusing it will have no effect on whatever it is you are transfusing it to. Chant of Rage cannot be revealed after a creature has flipped its marker therefore even if you do transfuse at that point it has no effect on the current activation of that creature.
Therefore, I say if you want the rage to affect another creature (which makes you a huge jerk :P) you must transfuse it before that creature activates.
-
Puddin... the situation arises when the CoR is flipped up on another creature. So there is no reveal restrictions for CoR as its already face up.
ET does not have any restrictions besides the regular rules for when enchantments can be revealed.
This mean it can transferred at any given time (between steps), and then it will be in effect of the new creature.
This means you could let the enemy walk 1 zone, and then reveal ET -> CoR on active creature so you force his quick action to do as CoR commands.
-
I think Chant of Rage is a lot less problematic, as it doesn't affect actions in progress. Puddnhead has a good point with Rules as Intended. Clearly the spell isn't intended to affect a creature at all after it has been activated. However, rules as written, this is how it would work:
Mandatory Actions are checked for each time you declare an action. So the latest you could transfuse Chant of Rage and have an effect would be before they've stated what they plan on doing. Once they say they're moving, attacking, guarding, or whatever, then Chant of Rage can not affect that action that is in progress at all. So, basically you'd want to transfuse it immediately after they activate, OR (if their first action is to move) immediately after they move and before they've declared another quick action. In the latter situation, you wouldn't affect their initial move, but you would affect their quick action, forcing them to abide by the chant.
-
in order to make it move you must change befor it declares the movement and to make it attack befor it declares attack (or befor it moves away if it is in the same zone at the begining of its action!)
I think Chant of Rage is a lot less problematic, as it doesn't affect actions in progress. Puddnhead has a good point with Rules as Intended. Clearly the spell isn't intended to affect a creature at all after it has been activated. However, rules as written, this is how it would work:
Mandatory Actions are checked for each time you declare an action. So the latest you could transfuse Chant of Rage and have an effect would be before they've stated what they plan on doing. Once they say they're moving, attacking, guarding, or whatever, then Chant of Rage can not affect that action that is in progress at all. So, basically you'd want to transfuse it immediately after they activate, OR (if their first action is to move) immediately after they move and before they've declared another quick action. In the latter situation, you wouldn't affect their initial move, but you would affect their quick action, forcing them to abide by the chant.
is it not the same?
-
I think Chant of Rage is a lot less problematic, as it doesn't affect actions in progress. Puddnhead has a good point with Rules as Intended. Clearly the spell isn't intended to affect a creature at all after it has been activated. However, rules as written, this is how it would work:
Mandatory Actions are checked for each time you declare an action. So the latest you could transfuse Chant of Rage and have an effect would be before they've stated what they plan on doing. Once they say they're moving, attacking, guarding, or whatever, then Chant of Rage can not affect that action that is in progress at all. So, basically you'd want to transfuse it immediately after they activate, OR (if their first action is to move) immediately after they move and before they've declared another quick action. In the latter situation, you wouldn't affect their initial move, but you would affect their quick action, forcing them to abide by the chant.
Ok, thank you, Zuberi, but what about the other cases that have nothing to do with mandatory actions?
- Turn to Stone
- Blur (what happens if it is transferred after an attack is declared against a target at range 2?)
- Charm / Song of Love (no effect if transferred after the attack has been declared?)
- Slumber
What effect would these cards have if transferred during a creature's activation?
-
Personally I have looked outside the game for what could be an official ruling in this game. I looked to M:TG to see if it had a rule that could shine some logic to Mage Wars. I found the following:
506.4a Once a creature has been declared as an attacking or blocking creature, spells or abilities that would have kept that creature from attacking or blocking don’t remove the creature from combat.
We can lend this to Mage Wars as once a creature is declared as an attacker it is within the combat rules and thus follows the steps of combat. Incapacitating it should have no effect until it is out of combat again. The last time that Turn to Stone can stop a creature attacking this turn is holding priority before it activates or holding priority after it moves and still has a quick action to use.
This is the same as revealing Enfeeble after the Pay Costs phase of casting a spell. You are closing the barn door once the horse has bolted.
-
Completely different and incompatible systems there, Beldin. Actions in Mage Wars most definitely can be affected and even stopped mid process. There's no question about whether or not the action CAN be interrupted. The question is specifically whether or not Incapacitate interrupts it.
Edit: More generally, the question is whether or not the wording of "can not take x action" will affect an action in progress. Which does put charm/song of love into question as well.
-
Ok I am always ready to be wrong, and be corrected. It is how we learn. I have come in half way through this thread. I do have a side question, but lets get this sorted first. :)
My point is if a "can not take x action" effect is on a creature, no matter how it appeared there, at the beginning of an action then it negates said action. If it is placed then it negates actions past the step it interrupts, referencing the negation of additional strikes in combat for an incapacitate gained due to an effect dice effect. Not effects the card generates due to previous steps within the action, before "can not take x action" effect was applied.
-
I don't remember any thread about this so I will ask this here as it's related and can help with ruling this.
If creature uses sweeping attack and first target stuns the attacker with counterstrike can the attacker make another attack? If not then it's clear that incapacitated can break an action.
-
Completely different and incompatible systems there, Beldin. Actions in Mage Wars most definitely can be affected and even stopped mid process. There's no question about whether or not the action CAN be interrupted. The question is specifically whether or not Incapacitate interrupts it.
Edit: More generally, the question is whether or not the wording of "can not take x action" will affect an action in progress. Which does put charm/song of love into question as well.
This discussion seems related to the ruling that the Flying trait cannot be gained during an Attack action. This was a specific ruling for a specific case and a similar clarification may be needed for Incapacitated.
However, in the case of Incapacitated (either by Stun or Turn to Stone or something else) this effect can be gained by a creature during an Attack action. The rules clearly allow this since a Stun effect is possible in the Damage & Effects step and the Damage & Effects step of a Damage Barrier or Counterstrike step. All of which occur within a single attack action of the Active creature.
Revealing enchantments at the end of other steps in an action results in the effects happening at different steps in the attack action, but doesn't change the current rules which allow the effect to occur DURING the action. The general rule is that the history cannot be changed by revealing an enchantment so in the Attack action example the attack took place and if the Roll Dice step took place, then the Damage and Effects step and following steps would still occur. The creature would apply the Incapacitated effects to any future steps in that action. So a target that becomes Incapacitated from Turn to Stone at the end of the Roll Dice step would receive Armor +6, but the active creature would not be effected until the Additional Strikes step or possibly the Damage & Effects step of the target's Damage Barrier attack.
The wording "can not take x action" I would assume applies at the activation point of a creature when the action choice must be declared. Receiving this effect after that point in the current activation would not effect the remaining steps in the action unless there was a further repeat of that action as in the case of Additional Strikes during an Attack action. However, an official ruling for this interaction would be nice to either validate or modify our assumption of how it works.
-
I don't remember any thread about this so I will ask this here as it's related and can help with ruling this.
If creature uses sweeping attack and first target stuns the attacker with counterstrike can the attacker make another attack? If not then it's clear that incapacitated can break an action.
It's not the same situation: the sweeping makes 2 attacks: if you are stun after the first, you can't make the second.
I think we really need a rulling for this situation: if you get a stun (or other state that doesn't allow you to attack) after the attack is declared, do you finish the attack or not?
It seems realistic that you can't, but one could say that you are allready in motion and that your attack will normally hit befor it's stop (stun) or befor you can stop it (song of love)...
-
Here are some relevant rulings we have:
1. If you are stunned during a move action, such as by a wall attack, you will be unable to complete the move.
2. If you are stunned during an attack action, such as by a damage barrier or counterstrike, you will be unable to perform a battle fury attack or sweeping attack.
Those are both specific examples and not really sufficient to draw a generalized conclusion from. I don't believe there are any other official rulings really pertinent to such a condition/effect being applied mid-action, but I could be wrong. It is obvious from these that incapacitate will affect an action in progress, but we're just not sure exactly how it affects it. When is the latest it could be applied to have an effect?
For example, we may know that applying it before the "Move Step" will prevent you from changing zones with a move action, but if you applied it between the "Move Step" and the "Enter Zone Step" then it doesn't really make sense for it to have any effect. Traps and stuff should still go off, because you DID change zones. But the wording we have could be interpreted that way. Rules Quote: "If a creature becomes unable to move during the move action, it stops the move sequence at that point, and the rest of the move action is canceled." So we know that being unable to "take a move action" counts as being unable to move and will stop a move mid-action. We know that it can't affect steps that have already occurred, so can't stop you from moving if you've already moved, but WILL cancel any steps still remaining. So, if the move action is still in progress...and it is able to stop it in progress...then that means it could be used to stop the Enter Zone Step and therefore stop traps from going off even though you have moved? That CAN'T be right and I don't think anyone would play it that way.
That was kind of a ridiculous example, meant to show how hard it is to draw conclusions from the tidbits of information we have. We know it can and DOES affect actions mid-process. But we don't know how. It will stop sweeping and battle fury attacks. Is that because they have a separate declare attack step? We don't know. Will it stop doublestrike or triplestrike attacks? We don't know. Will it stop a single attack currently in process? We don't know. When's the latest it could be applied to stop any of these? Even with Sweeping and Battle Fury, we don't know because the specific ruling was only regarding damage barriers and counterstrikes applying it. What if it got applied outside of those steps? Not covered. I think most of us would agree they'd be stopped as long as it was applied before their declare step, at least, but even that is making assumptions and drawing conclusions off of very limited information, which I hope I demonstrated with my movement example can be kind of a rocky road to travel.
I personally like the answer that someone suggested that it work similar to the rules for changing range/target. If it happens before the Resolve Spell Step, or before the Damage and Effects Step, then it cancels the action. Add into that if it happens before the Move Step of a Move Action. But I can't really give the supporting evidence needed to back this up. It's just what I like, and is no more or less valid than other interpretations. I think those saying it should only stop actions that haven't yet been declared run into a problem with the pre-establishment of it stopping Move Actions mid-move, and I don't like that such a ruling would leave additional strikes from Doublestrike and Triplestrike unaffected, as those don't have a declare step. But, I admit that their opinion is valid and is a sensible interpretation of the wording "can't take x action." In the end, we just still need an official ruling.
It is 4 in the morning here. I apologize for rambling and any potential errors I may have made while sleep deprived. I've been kind of avoiding diving into this topic because it irks me, as it does all of you, that we don't really have an answer. Hopefully this rant helps everyone to understand where things are coming from and where we're at, but the answer is still a very unsatisfactory "waiting on an answer."
-
I've been kind of avoiding diving into this topic because it irks me, as it does all of you, that we don't really have an answer. Hopefully this rant helps everyone to understand where things are coming from and where we're at, but the answer is still a very unsatisfactory "waiting on an answer."
Do we understand the official process to "get an answer"?
Are these posts in this forum sufficient to start that process or is there another communication someone needs to take?
-
These forums are the best place to ask questions and voice thoughts. Arcane Wonders is definitely aware of things.
-
So just to chuck more spanners in the works. Am I right in assuming if a guard with a defence would not act in steps 2 or 7, but the guard marker would be removed. Would the guard still be valid or could this void that in the same way making it a pest with shrink?
-
I don't understand the situation...
-
So just to chuck more spanners in the works. Am I right in assuming if a guard with a defence would not act in steps 2 or 7, but the guard marker would be removed. Would the guard still be valid or could this void that in the same way making it a pest with shrink?
If a guard is attacked, then it would lose the Guard marker even if the guard did not act in step 2 or 7.
When a creature is Incapacitated such as from the spell Turn to Stone, it would lose the Guard marker.
However, it wasn't clear if this was what you were asking about in your last statement.