Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Rules Discussion => Topic started by: somaddict on December 21, 2013, 03:58:21 PM
-
If Invisible Stalker and Mordok's Obelisk are in play, does Stalker have upkeep +2?
-
Yes, you must pay upkeep for both, Invisible Stalke and Mordok's Obelisk. If you don't pay Invisible Stalke will be send to discard pile.
-
Sometimes it is cumulative but in this case no. You choose to pay for each upkeep seperately but if you do not pay for botth the upkeeps you will have to get rid of the IS. This is the same reason if I can Mind Control a creature with a Mordok's out and then during the upkeep choose not to pay Mordok upkeep I can get rid of the creature and not worry about the MC. If for some reason you wanted to pay the MC upkeep you could and then choose not to pay for or to pay for the Mordok's
-
This is the same reason if I can Mind Control a creature with a Mordok's out and then during the upkeep choose not to pay Mordok upkeep I can get rid of the creature and not worry about the MC.
Well...not anymore:
During the Upkeep Phase, the upkeep cost for Mind Control must always be paid first, before any and all of the enchanted creature's upkeep costs. If you cannot pay, or choose not to pay, the upkeep cost for Mind Control, then Mind Control is immediately destroyed and the enchanted creature's control reverts to its owner, and any upkeep costs for that creature (if any) can be paid by the new controller.
-
This ruling makes no sense. There is nothing in the rules or the text of mind control that would make it go first.
-
This ruling makes no sense. There is nothing in the rules or the text of mind control that would make it go first.
It's likely that Mind Control + Mordok's was something not intended by the dev team, so they've fixed it. Even more reason not to use that combination I suppose.
-
That is not enough reason to change the way the rules work for a single card. This follows the same problem I posted in another thread. Casrds should work the way they are written inside the frame work of the rules. I shouldn't have to reference a 50+ page FAQ for interactions that are already defined clearly by the rules. If a card interacts in some manner that is OP it should be errated. Not clarified with a Ruling that is at its simplest "It doesn't work thay way because we say so."
Now for any card that has an upkeep cost I must search the FAQ to make sure that they have not changed the way it works. When subsequent sets are released any cards that have upkeep costs must be clarified if they follow the normal rules or are special cases like this one. Because I cannot know until a ruling is made if the cards will perform as thier text dictates.
Hedge
-
Its is a clarification. And a lot of cards have been clarified and three have errata. Magic did the same thing with older cards.
-
Its is a clarification.
No it isn't. it is a complete circumvention of the rules. Why should this one object's upkeep be paid before any one other? I have five object's in play which must i pay first. the standard rule is I get to choose. Why is this one different?
That is one of the problems with the ruling. There is no reason why given.
Also Arcanus ruled on this very question in March of this year and contradicts this ruling.
http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=8757.msg8759#msg8759 (http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=8757.msg8759#msg8759)
Hedge
-
Probably because of it uniquely being a creature that doesn't belong to you. First you either choose to continue controlling the creature or not. Then choose any other upkeep effects in any order. If you choose not to control the creature any longer then the player gets it back and they get to choose any additional upkeep effects... making it unfair to the mind controller is the only way to make it fair for any future controling cards (which of course should have this timing specified).
Why do plants trigger bloodthirsty but they cannot have the bleed condition???
-
Probably because of it uniquely being a creature that doesn't belong to you. First you either choose to continue controlling the creature or not. Then choose any other upkeep effects in any order. If you choose not to control the creature any longer then the player gets it back and they get to choose any additional upkeep effects... making it unfair to the mind controller is the only way to make it fair for any future controling cards (which of course should have this timing specified).
Then Mind Control needs an Erratum to make it function the way they want within the rules.
Why do plants trigger bloodthirsty but they cannot have the bleed condition???
Bleed condition is not needed to trigger Bloodthirsty. They just need to be a wounded living creature, Which they are as defined by the RULES.
Hedge
-
Just a point that they did erratum it in the FAQ. And that not all rules make sense...example of how plants DONT bleed but trigger BLOODthirsty. Which is why the rules don't always make sense.
-
Just a point that they did erratum it in the FAQ. And that not all rules make sense...example of how plants DONT bleed but trigger BLOODthirsty. Which is why the rules don't always make sense.
The entry for Mind control does not have an erratum. No where in the FAQ does it change the text of the card. That is what an erratum is. Improper Rulings don't make sense because they don't follow the rules. Rules don't have to make sense. They are the physics that define how the text of the cards interact. You seem to be utterly confused on the definitions of Rules, Rulings/Clarification, and erratum as they pertain to a customizable card game.
Since Arcanus made a contrary Ruling in March of this year I would like to hear his thoughts on the subject.
Hedge
-
Ouch that hurts.
-
Since Arcanus made a contrary Ruling in March of this year I would like to hear his thoughts on the subject.
I'm actually talking to him about this today. We have not missed this discussion. As soon as I get to speak to Bryan I'll post for you guys.
-
I got word from Laddin this weekend that - Bryan did post on this earlier but that he was going to talk to him and I will not speak any further here till I get final word
-
I normally don't like doing the errata thing to cards, but in this case I have to agree with Hedge. If a card is going to break the normal rules of the game, it should have such clearly listed in the card text. Thus, if they want to keep the current ruling on Mind Control, they should errata the card.
-
They should erratta all the cards then. malacoda and moonglow amulet need to be errated all cards should be errated.
-
They should erratta all the cards then. malacoda and moonglow amulet need to be errated all cards should be errated.
I want to say they released new version which would make them fall under an MRP(most recent printing) rule. I don't know if they have that rule anywhere though.
-
Well in the current cycle of new releases they should be able to have a pack out by Feb or march
-
I think if Arcane W. would include the errata cards with the new text in Forged in Flames, with all the copies are necessary to play, players will be very happy and these problems would get a wonderful solution.
Syrio, from Spain.
We, Spanish, are expecting of a translated version of Mage Wars.
Enviado desde mi GT-I9300 usando Tapatalk 2
-
I think if Arcane W. would include the errata cards with the new text in Forged in Flames, with all the copies are necessary to play, players will be very happy and these problems would get a wonderful solution.
Syrio, from Spain.
We, Spanish, are expecting of a translated version of Mage Wars.
Enviado desde mi GT-I9300 usando Tapatalk 2
Remember when things like this are proposed, that this will reduce the number of new cards that come out with the set and with the duplicates everyone would want would basically make everyone call it a "weak" set. I am not sure why people do not use the online resource as the final source as card references.
[mwcard=MW1C23]Malacoda[/mwcard].
Great resource, up to date, and free....
-
[mwcard=MW1C23]Malacoda[/mwcard].
Great resource, up to date, and free....
...and not lying on the table while playing the game.
Personally, I'd pay for an "errata pack" that only contains all cards that were errata'd / changed / extended since the game's original release.
-
I hope Arcane are clever, so they should not reduce the number of cards of a new pack in order to include the errata ones because they are only their responsability. I am sure it would not suppose a very special cost to them. This is my opinion.
Enviado desde mi GT-I9300 usando Tapatalk 2
-
[mwcard=MW1C23]Malacoda[/mwcard].
Great resource, up to date, and free....
...and not lying on the table while playing the game.
Personally, I'd pay for an "errata pack" that only contains all cards that were errata'd / changed / extended since the game's original release.
Throw in a few extra die, markers, and tokens and you got something everyone would buy ;)
-
[mwcard=MW1C23]Malacoda[/mwcard].
Great resource, up to date, and free....
...and not lying on the table while playing the game.
Personally, I'd pay for an "errata pack" that only contains all cards that were errata'd / changed / extended since the game's original release.
Throw in a few extra die, markers, and tokens and you got something everyone would buy ;)
Now that is something I would pay for. But as we both know, someone will complain the other way. That is the problem with all of this. It is damned if you damned if you don't....
-
Is upkeep plus x cumulative???
-
Is upkeep plus x cumulative???
If you want an object of yours with multiple instances of Upkeep +X on it to survive the Upkeep phase, you will have to pay each one.
-
Is upkeep plus x cumulative???
Yes, I believe the general rule is that +X is cumulative while X without the + sign is not.
Compare Regenerate X and Aegis X with Melee +X and Upkeep +X.
-
OK but for essence drain does it make a new upkeep on the creature or does it only work on creatures with upkeep already
-
OK but for essence drain does it make a new upkeep on the creature or does it only work on creatures with upkeep already
It works on both creatures that have and do not have Upkeep already.
-
"Upkeep +X" is a trait that stacks just like any other "+X" trait, no different than Melee +X or Bloodthirsty +X.
Multiple sources of Upkeep +X stack to form the total sum, which is the amount of mana you must pay during the upkeep phase or destroy the permanent.
Creatures with no upkeep can still gain the Upkeep +X trait, or it adds to the existing Upkeep Trait if there is already one present.
-
"Upkeep +X" is a trait that stacks just like any other "+X" trait, no different than Melee +X or Bloodthirsty +X.
Multiple sources of Upkeep +X stack to form the total sum, which is the amount of mana you must pay during the upkeep phase or destroy the permanent.
Creatures with no upkeep can still gain the Upkeep +X trait, or it adds to the existing Upkeep Trait if there is already one present.
They do stack in the context as described. But are processed individually. So say you have an Invisible Stalker and a Dancing Sword. Your Upkeep is (+1)+(+1)=+2 Upkeep total. However what if you only had one mana left? You could choose to keep one or the other or neither. This is just an example, you get to channel before paying upkeep and unless you are running a large swarm and Mordok's Obelisk is out you should have the 2 mana available to pay for both, but I am using it to clarify the answer, which I hope I have.