Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Rules Discussion => Topic started by: Kaarin on May 25, 2016, 09:54:32 AM
-
X Full Action 0-2 Friendly object Metamagic, Protection
Destroy as many revealed curse enchantments from the target as you wish, paying the total mana cost (casting and reveal) for each one. Then, gain 2 mana.
1. Is its casting cost the same case as Purify? (Purify casting cost discussion (http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=16014.0))
1a. How does it interact with Arcane Ring?
2. Can I destroy 0 curses and gain mana?
-
1: id have to see the printed card but if it carries a zero in the cost slot id say yes its the same.
1.a: it receives a one mana discount from the arcane ring if its the first such spell cast that particular round.
2: the way its printed you can indeed destroy 0 curses and gain 2 mana (it says as you wish).
-
1: id have to see the printed card but if it carries a zero in the cost slot id say yes its the same.
I quoted the card's top bar. Its casting cost is X.
-
First destroy, then gain mana. If you don't destroy, then you do not gain mana.
-
Good catch schwen. It looks like the mana gain is tied to the curse removal option. So though you CAN cast this spell for zero mana and choose not to remove curses with it (perhaps seeking down a nullify), but if you do opt out of curse destruction you also forgo the mana gain. I stand corrected lol
-
as far as i remember AW has said to write a clear ruling on the casting cost of cost X spells in particular purify with the next LG
-
First destroy, then gain mana. If you don't destroy, then you do not gain mana.
I wouldn't be so sure. In my opinion intent of such wording was to prevent removing curses with mana gained from Remove Curse. If it would say something like "if You destroyed then gain mana" then I wouldn't have any doubts.
-
First destroy, then gain mana. If you don't destroy, then you do not gain mana.
I wouldn't be so sure. In my opinion intent of such wording was to prevent removing curses with mana gained from Remove Curse. If it would say something like "if You destroyed then gain mana" then I wouldn't have any doubts.
Agreed... it appears that you can choose to destroy as many as you wish (even zero), and then gain two mana. This is likely exactly why it is worded this way.
-
First destroy, then gain mana. If you don't destroy, then you do not gain mana.
If this was the Call of Cthulhu LCG, I'd agree (because the FAQ defines how to interpret 'then'). With Mage Wars, I wouldn't be so sure...
-
You can destroy 0 curse and then gain 2 mana. But this is a poor use of a full action imo and means you are about to lose :P
-
I agree with wildhorn.
However, if you are using a temple of asyra to spawn creatures and waiting for the opponent to approach you it might be an ok move... Very situational though. Kinda like a one time use meditation amulet without an initial investment cost.
Edit: in academy, combined with the priestess ability, this card is a variation of [mwcard=MWSTX2FFI06]Defend[/mwcard].
Edit 2: In the same spirit as above, the arena priestess can use it to gain 2 mana and get 1 life. This is not that bad of a move if you have nothing better to do.
-
Edit 2: In the same spirit as above, the arena priestess can use it to gain 2 mana and get 1 life. This is not that bad of a move if you have nothing better to do.
Remove Curse is a "protection" spell, so Cassiel (http://www.arcanewonders.com/arcane-wonders/paladin-vs-siren-spoilier-temple-high-guard)can cast it. Then when you reveal it, your Priestess gains 1 life and 2 mana (since she gains 1 life when she "reveals a Holy enchantment spell that she controls" regardless of who cast it). This frees up the Priestess's own actions. Again, probably only worth doing when Cassiel has nothing better to do... but it's a good card to plan. If there is a valid curse to remove, then [mwcard=MW1Q24] Ring of Asyra[/mwcard] gives a discount on the reveal; if not, you get 2 mana anyway... so it's a win-win when there isn't something better to plan for Cassiel.
-
you wont get a life when cassiel casts it, cause the priestess doesnt cast it
-
you wont get a life when cassiel casts it, cause the priestess doesnt cast it
But you do when you reveal a Holy enchantment that you control, regardless of who cast it.
*edit* Just realized this is an Incantation, not an Enchantment. Never mind.
-
If there is a valid curse to remove, then [mwcard=MW1Q24] Ring of Asyra[/mwcard] gives a discount on the reveal; if not, you get 2 mana anyway
If it's casting cost is the same as Purify (0) then it can't benefit from Ring of Asyra or Arcane Ring. Nowhere in the card's text is X defined.
-
If there is a valid curse to remove, then [mwcard=MW1Q24] Ring of Asyra[/mwcard] gives a discount on the reveal; if not, you get 2 mana anyway
If it's casting cost is the same as Purify (0) then it can't benefit from Ring of Asyra or Arcane Ring. Nowhere in the card's text is X defined.
X implies it is variable, since no where is X defined as 0 either. Has a ruling been made that Purify's casting cost is actually 0 and not equal to the amount described in the card text?
I recall something about how a casting cost cannot be reduced below 0; e.g. if X = 0, you cannot have Ring of Asyra bring it to -1 and actually gain mana when casting Purify. But I don't recall a ruling that said that X is always 0 for Purify, and thus that Asyra's Ring cannot reduce the casting cost to X-1 for X > 0.
Is the argument that a card's text only applies when the spell is resolved, which is after the costs for the spell are paid, and thus X cannot depend on the card text? If so, this would bring up questions regarding any spell with casting cost X (or 2X, etc). Or is it that X is simply not defined explicitly on either Purify or Remove Curse? In that case, wouldn't it be simpler to errata the card text to explicitly state "X = sum of the mana costs of spells and removal costs of tokens removed this way" or something like that?
-
In Purify casting cost topic I linked in first post it's stated that Purify's cost should be 0, not X.
Purify calculates it's cost when it resolves. In this case the X is just there to remind you that the spell could have a variable cost. In this way it also interacts correctly with Enchantment transfusion.
The important thing here, Mystery, is you don't choose what you remove until the resolve spell step AND you don't have to pay anything until the resolve spell step. You pay for the effect of removing the poison, not for Purify itself. The casting cost of purify is essentially 0.
Thus, if they move things around before the Resolve Spell step, you don't have to pay any mana at all. You're still out the spell and the action, but you don't ever lose mana unnecessarily. If they let you get to the point where you're spending mana, the Resolve Spell step, then they are too late to stop it from having the intended effect and you will remove things exactly as you planned.
-
Has a ruling been made that Purify's casting cost is actually 0 and not equal to the amount described in the card text?
Yep.
Purify (and most cards with an X - see Stranglevine) don't mean remotely what is written on them.
As per Aaron's ruling, Purify does not have a cost of X, it costs zero, with X additional mana paid on resolution.
I can't imagine Remove Curse is intended to work differently, but if so, it's galling that they wrote X again, not 0.