Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Rules Discussion => Topic started by: exid on February 22, 2018, 01:47:03 PM
-
"when you cast or reveal a command spell"
does an command enchantment cost 1 mana less when casting and when revealing... or is it bad worded?
-
some command spells are incantations, and would get the bonus when cast. others are enchantments and would only get the bonus when revealed.
-
"when you cast or reveal a command spell"
does an command enchantment cost 1 mana less when casting and when revealing... or is it bad worded?
This is the exact same wording as Arcane Ring, Death Ring, Druid's Leaf Ring, Force Ring, Ring of Asyra, Ring of Command, Ring of Curses AND Ring of Ocean's Depths.
I know you're a smart dude, Exid, but it just seems like you're trying to find loopholes that aren't there.
-
"when you cast or reveal a command spell"
does an command enchantment cost 1 mana less when casting and when revealing... or is it bad worded?
This is the exact same wording as Arcane Ring, Death Ring, Druid's Leaf Ring, Force Ring, Ring of Asyra, Ring of Command, Ring of Curses AND Ring of Ocean's Depths.
I know you're a smart dude, Exid, but it just seems like you're trying to find loopholes that aren't there.
ring of command sais: "enchantments only recieve..." (I don't have the other cards under my eyes)
If there's no problem I'm happy, but if there is one (and it seems there is one here) I prefer to know how to play it befor I encounter it during a game.
Don't you? What would you answer if your opponent would take the discount 2 times?
-
well...
I know some players think that to many rules destroy the fun. I think that a precise and solid rule set protects the fun.
on this one, I would say enchantments would pay 1 mana less 1 time, but it's not solid.
-
the ring will function a maximum of once per round whether it is from an incantation discount or an enchantment discount. never both in the same round.
-
Alright, so after a LONG discussion and rereading ALL of the discount cards...Rules As Written seem to indicate that spells ALWAYS have subtypes and you don't have to prove those subtypes in order to be able to cast the spell (Cassiel, Gurmash, Serseiryx).
Therefore, it seems that Commander's Cape (historical precedent not being a reason for anything in this broken game) would grant the discount when casting a face down command spell. The bonus only applies ONCE per round across ALL options, however. So you cannot claim the discount on a soldier or a command incantation/battle order or command reveal if you have already claimed the bonus on a face down enchantment earlier in the round.
For the record, I would prefer that historical precedent be observed and the cape NOT provide the discount...but there are far more broken things that need errata first.
-
The bonus only applies ONCE per round across ALL options, however. So you cannot claim the discount on a soldier or a command incantation/battle order or command reveal if you have already claimed the bonus on a face down enchantment earlier in the round.
citation?
Off the cuff I cannot think of a specific rule that says that you cannot have multiple discounts applied to the same cast.
-
The bonus only applies ONCE per round across ALL options, however. So you cannot claim the discount on a soldier or a command incantation/battle order or command reveal if you have already claimed the bonus on a face down enchantment earlier in the round.
citation?
Off the cuff I cannot think of a specific rule that says that you cannot have multiple discounts applied to the same cast.
Never mind I reread that.
Yes the cape says once per round.
I thought you meant that you would not be able to apply the cape discount and the ring of command discount on the same spell. Which you can of course.
Nothing to see, move along
-
Rules As Written seem to indicate that spells ALWAYS have subtypes and you don't have to prove those subtypes in order to be able to cast the spell (Cassiel, Gurmash, Serseiryx).
I don't like this view at all.
Cards always have a subtype, true.
But the examples provided are all familiars that have no option but to cast certain subtypes of spell. When Gurmash casts a spell you know it has to be a command spell. There is no doubt about it, so nobody should expect to ask for, or show, proof of the subtype.
The Mage, on the other hand, can cast anything. You cannot assume that the spell is of any subtype, and while you could ask for proof, you cannot expect to be shown any. The whole point of face down enchantments cast by a mage is the "it could be anything!" factor, after all.
I argue that until it is revealed, a face down enchantment's subtype is an accounting matter only, useful only to delineate who can cast it.
From the rulebook about enchantments:
"When you cast this spell, it creates a magical "matrix" on the target. At this point, it is not fully formed and exists only as magical potential, with no effect on the battle. When the spell is revealed later, the caster "completes" the spell by adding additional power. It is only then that the enchantment takes form and can affect the target." (my emphasis)
This suggests strongly to me that a face down enchantment is nothing. It is not a command spell, it is not a healing spell. It becomes these things only when they are flipped face up and the word 'Command' or 'Healing' is visible to all.
Until it is revealed, an enchantment is a Schrodinger's Enchantment. It is a command spell and a healing spell and a curse (and so on) all at the same time, and yet not one of these things. Only when observed is its actual state confirmed.
To suggest that a face down enchantment can be said to be any specific subtype is unprovable until it is revealed. And if you cannot prove it you can't apply a discount to it, because unlike a familiar-cast spell, it could potentially be anything.
I say the Cape should not be able to provide a discount to a face down enchantment.
I'll use another counter example to try to prove why it would be silly to give face down enchantments a subtype.
A creature has Mind Shield on it.
The opponent's Naiya casts a face down enchantment on that creature.
The owner of the Mind Shield reveals it during the Counterspell step and removes the new enchantment, on the grounds that since naiya cast the spell it is clearly a song, therefore of the psychic subtype, which is affected by the Mind Shield.
The Naiya owner points out that the spell could technically be a Healing Madrigal, and therefore not psychic and not affected by the Mind Shield. But he won't flip the card to prove it.
Now, who in this situation has the right of it? Clearly the Naiya owner has the advantage, because of the inherent uncertainty about what the spell is. 99.99999% of the time it will not be a Madrigal and instead a psychic song of some sort, but until it can demonstrably be shown to be a psychic spell the Mind Shield has to remain inert.
Like the Mind Shield, the commander's cape must remain inert until the enchantment is revealed, becasue the person wanting to use the power cannot state with certainty that the enchantment is a Command.
Sorry for the big rant about what seems a teeny tiny point, but I think it warrants the discussion.
-
I think an unrevealed enchantment is "nothing".
but, before that, an enchantment, during its casting, is a spell with subtypes.
the familiars can only cast the enchantment-spells with the right subtypes.
and the rings (cape, etc.) only give a discount for the enchantment-spells with the right subtype.
therefor the commander's cape as written give 2 mana discount on command enchantment, since it's not written that it doesn't (as on ring of command).
Was it intended?
About mind shield:
the word "respectively" indicates that the enchantments aren't canceled when casted but only when revealed.
-
During casting any spell retains its properties like target and subtypes. That's why you can't cast psychic enchantment on psychic immune creature.
Only after resolve spell step enhancements temporarily lose their properties.
-
I absolutely agree that the cape shouldn't give the discount, however there is no text anywhere claiming that it can't, so the only reason I feel that it shouldn't is because nothing else does. Therefore it's an argument from historical precedent which holds no grounds for those wishing to play "Rules As Written".
I believe it says in the rules that you can prep ANY card onto a spawnpoint or familiar, but they can only CAST certain types. So you have no idea without actually using Reveal Magic or Seeking Dispel, whether Cassiel's controller actually followed the rules. If it is discovered that someone broke the rules they lose the spell. If it is not discovered.....oh well. Current text on Commander's Cape suggests that it follows the Familiar pattern rather than the Ring pattern.
I personally feel that this is an oversight on behalf of Arcane Wonders and all of the playtesters. As a playtester myself, I'm sorry. I will endeavor to do a better job of focusing on the wording in the future.
In the meantime....enjoy your FREE Brace Yourself. (Enchanter's Ring + Commander's Cape)
-
From the rulebook about enchantments:
"When you cast this spell, it creates a magical "matrix" on the target. At this point, it is not fully formed and exists only as magical potential, with no effect on the battle. When the spell is revealed later, the caster "completes" the spell by adding additional power. It is only then that the enchantment takes form and can affect the target." (my emphasis)
First, if this bit of flavor text was taken at face value then you could not target hidden enchantments and cards like [mwcard=MWSTX2FFJ01]Harshforge Monolith[/mwcard] would not be able to function properly, since were are now giving hidden enchantments traits (wrap your mind around that) .
Now story time :D
Spells always have subtypes, names, etc.
It's why you can't legally put two hidden enchantments of the same name on a creature, but IT CAN HAPPEN.
When I cast a bear strength on your creature I dont have to ask if the current hidden enchantments are bear strengths to make sure its a legal cast. If you then reveal a prior hidden enchantment on the creature that happens to be a bear strength, I don't have to remove my hidden enchantment even though I know its not allowed to be cast on that target, the rules are very clear on when and where you check for target errors.
Now that sounds funny because if you have a revealed bear strength on a creature it's an illegal move to put a hidden bear strength on that creature, but it's 100% legal for a creature to have two enchantments of the same name unknowingly.
The only defense you have at this point is the bit of the rules where you are not able to shuffle or mix enchantments. Order that they are placed is important for opposing traits and such so when some throws a free hidden enchantment down on a creature I would make a note or place a mana token on it. If, when revealed it is not a command thenthey lost spellbook points and an action casting it.
All things considered it is a minor issue at best.
Using your Naiya example, you can totally gamble your mind shield on the Naiya card. Mind shield is not a mandatory reveal. So when she casts an enchantment on your creature that's between you and Asyra. Mind shield also has text to allow it to function as an immediate reveal when a psychic enchantment is revelaed and
work accordingly.
Then you have instances like Izimbila. Her ability text is always "active" even though she is not resolved. Much like the X value issue where the ability text explains what that cost is she has an text ability that describs what additional subtypes, if any, she has. That's why a barracks or a lair can cast her.
<More on this later>
@Puddin
If you control a Familiar during the
Planning Phase, you may select a
spell for it to cast during the round. The
Familiar may have restrictions on the
types of spells you may choose. Place the spell face
down near your Familiar, and tell your opponent that
it is the Familiar’s spell. Only your Familiar may cast
that spell during the round.
It's not crystal clear but I would say no. It has to prepare what it is allowed to cast.
-
From the rulebook about enchantments:
"When you cast this spell, it creates a magical "matrix" on the target. At this point, it is not fully formed and exists only as magical potential, with no effect on the battle. When the spell is revealed later, the caster "completes" the spell by adding additional power. It is only then that the enchantment takes form and can affect the target." (my emphasis)
First, if this bit of flavor text was taken at face value then you could not target hidden enchantments and cards like [mwcard=MWSTX2FFJ01]Harshforge Monolith[/mwcard] would not be able to function properly, since were are now giving hidden enchantments traits (wrap your mind around that) .
I disagree.
The flavour text, as you put it, goes to intent of the rules (pax, RAW folk!) and certainly does not interfere with the gameplay in the ways you suggest. If you picture the face down enchantment as a blob of magical energy without much form it can still be dispelled and still affected by the magic-dampening power of harshforge (hence the need for the mage to expend more power to maintain it. It is not as if it has no existence at all.
I am not sure what you mean by giving hidden enchantments traits, though. Clearly haven't managed to get my head around that bit.
And as far as Izimbila goes, her subtype text only matters during spellbook creation. Once the game starts and the mage is on the board, the seeming option provided by the card's subtype text is moot. See here: http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=18390.msg87528#msg87528
-
I am not sure what you mean by giving hidden enchantments traits, though. Clearly haven't managed to get my head around that bit.
And as far as Izimbila goes, her subtype text only matters during spellbook creation. Once the game starts and the mage is on the board, the seeming option provided by the card's subtype text is moot. See here: http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=18390.msg87528#msg87528
Monolith gives all enchantments (hidden and revealed) the upkeep +1 trait.
You cannot say in the one hand that the hidden enchantment "with no effect on the battle" and have a situation where it costs a mana each round via the upkeep trait in the other.
Izzy is weird becuase , there is nothing RAW that actually says that Izzy would maintain her soldier status if I animate dead her for example. That is the intent but it's just not there becuase instead of saying, "the owner (a keyword)...." Mage Wars uses the terms "this mage, your mage, the controller, and so on interchangably". Those types of interactions are what I was reffering to with her and we all know intent but there is technically no RAW to 100% clarify it.
-
Izzy would have the subtype as long as you controlled it... from spellbook building on. If another Mage took control of Izzy somehow, then it would lose the subtype (and potentially gain a different one, depending on who the new controller is).
At no time does training ever cease to exists.
-
Izzy would have the subtype as long as you controlled it... from spellbook building on. If another Mage took control of Izzy somehow, then it would lose the subtype (and potentially gain a different one, depending on who the new controller is).
At no time does training ever cease to exists.
It's not a training issue, its an ability issue.
Step 4: Resolve Spell
At this point, the spell takes effect. The spell type (e.g.,
conjuration) and the text on the spell card determine the
effects of the spell. If you have cast an attack spell, you must
now resolve the attack.
RAW? I would say she absolutely does not gain additional trainings until she is resolved.
Her ability text is never RAW applied to her until after she is cast. It's not something like X = where the X is the actual casting cost and is explained later in the card. This is an ability, that technically should not exist until after she resolves. However, since she can be cast from lair / barracks we have to assume that this ability is special and works via the owner and additional schools, if applicable based on mage training, is always taken into account from an "owner" perspective.
Because, even though the control has changed, via reanimate, mind controller, or whatever, ownership does not.
All that could be cleared up if an X was in the subtype and then an ability text like, " If Izzy's owner is trained in.<insert school here>. X = <insert subtype here> " Owner is described in the codex and there is no issue since there is at least some precedent with the X = scenario.
It doesn't say that however and when I explained that to players, there is nothing in the rules to say she should work like that. There is no X in her subtype and there are no rules to support her being able to be cast from the lair / barracks aside from intent.
End of the day card abilities should trigger in the resolve spell set and not in the spellbook creation stage.
The simplest solution is to give her both subtypes and have her ability read "If the mage is not trained in war she loses the soldier subtype" and so on.
Either way,
These are not the droids we're looking for; Move along.
#endRant
-
The problem is that the game uses the same text box for three different purposes and doesn't really have a way to delineate which is which. It can be used to:
1. Describe spell effects. This is the most common and intuitive use, describing what the spell actually does, and these effects don't apply until the spell resolves. Before then, this text basically doesn't exist.
2. Describes special rules on how to cast the spell. This text usually modifies the cost or targeting in some way, and applies during the steps prior to spell resolution.
3. Describes details that are always in effect, even when sitting in your spellbook or in the discard pile. This is apparently the category of Izimbila's ability.
-
isn't "you" the controler?
in this case Izi should change subtype when changing controller and have no subtype when uncontrolled (spellbook, discard,...)
-
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't they originally have traits that affect Spellbook building like epic and novice a different color than other traits? Gray instead of black? Why not do the same thing here with Izimbilla's subtype effect?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk