Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Rules Discussion => Topic started by: gos_jim on March 02, 2013, 05:26:55 PM
-
If a spell or ability says it cannot push a creature through a wall that has the Passage Attacks trait (or requires extra mana), does it count a Wall of Pikes if you're pushing in a direction that doesn't cause damage?
Imagine I'm a Forcemaster and the Warlord is on the other side of a Wall of Pikes, pointy end facing me. On my turn, can I use my Pull ability to pull them through the wall into my zone so I can attack them (but not cause damage from the wall)?
Read literally, it seems I would not be able to do that. However, I understand that the primary reason these limitations on pushes were put in place were to make walls LESS powerful because the damaging attacks were too good at the normal pushing mana cost. This limitation, if I can't pull them from behind the wall, seems to make Wall of Pikes MORE powerful rather than less.
-
In my opinion you don't have to pay the extra mana to push alongside the 'save' side of the pikes.
No attack is triggered.
-
Strictly speaking the wall of pikes has the attack passage trait, its just you only take damage from a certain direction. As such I think you still need to pay extra no matter the direct you are force pushing the person.
-
Add in a couple of Mangler Caltrops on each side of the pikes once you get into position. Push through the Pikes 5 dice + 2 dice of potential damage. Next pull back to you 2 dice of potential damage pull doulbe stike with the Force Sword. That is between 2 rounds 17 dice of damage and still have a quick cast spell remaining....
-
See I can see both sides of the argument, though I agree that it looks like the "official" interpretation would lead to you NOT being able to do it.
sIKE, I don't even know what you're responding to, because your reply had nothing to do with the question. I wasn't asking for tips on how to use Wall of Pikes more effectively, I was playing Forcemaster and trying to deal with my opponent's Wall of Pikes.
On top of that, you could instead spend 2 rounds double-striking with the Force Sword and quick attacking with Invisible Fist (or any other attack of choice) and get 24 dice of damage rather than trying to set up some precarious situation that could be almost as dangerous to you as it would be to your opponent. Just saying.
-
Hello all, we are for the confusion on this spell.
This wall is very unusual in that it only has the "Passage Attack" trait for one direction, and thus you only have to pay the extra mana for Push type spells if if wish to Push them form the direction that would attack them.
We are adding this to the Official FAQ which is being wrapped up today.
-
You are correct, that should of been made in the Tactics forum. Yes you could leave him in the same zone and dbl strike twice. But it leaves him in the same zone with you and potentially takes actions for him to respond.
I do not think that Passage Blocked Trait applies to the non-pointy end. But I have been wrong on the last couple of call though.....
-
this ruling is directly in opposition to the text of the card as it does not state that it looses the passage blocked trait, simply that the attack is not done. those are two different things.
hedge
-
That does make sense that there is no restriction/additional mana cost pulling through since there is no passage attack going that direction. You aren't going through a passage attack.
-
this ruling is directly in opposition to the text of the card as it does not state that it looses the passage blocked trait, simply that the attack is not done. those are two different things.
hedge
so what? It's in the spirit of the card, they are adding it to the FAQ and I think we can assume it was their intention as well. Get over it.
-
wiz pig- the problem is I can't search the forum for ever interaction of every card to make sure there isn't a card interaction base on intent. I am not psychic to discern intent.
-
I had to make a ruling on this this interaction at Gencon.
In that case an FM tried to pull a mage through a wall with passage attack. Based of the wording of wall of pikes vs her pull ability she could not but I knew the intent of the wall and I explained the ruling to the involved players.
-
wiz pig- the problem is I can't search the forum for ever interaction of every card to make sure there isn't a card interaction base on intent. I am not psychic to discern intent.
I can understand that, but it will be in the FAQ and it's not too hard to simply reference the FAQ.
-
wiz pig- the problem is I can't search the forum for ever interaction of every card to make sure there isn't a card interaction base on intent. I am not psychic to discern intent.
I can understand that, but it will be in the FAQ and it's not too hard to simply reference the FAQ.
That is until the FAQ is fifty pages long because we will need hundreds of entries if things continue to be ruled on intent as opposed to thier text. Only Cards that simply do not function inside of thier own text need an intent ruling, others just operate by thier text. If there is some interaction that was not intended, but it doesn't break the game it should be left alone. Could it make some things a little stronger or weaker? Perhaps, But is it really worse than the need to tell some one that is new to the game that these cards don't interact the way they should, and you need to reference this ruling encyclopedia to make sure your spell book functions the way it should.
Hedge
-
@Hegde
The problem then is strict interpretationist with items like Wall of Pikes. It is so obvious that only the pointy end has the Passage Blocked trait "however" the card states the wall has the Passage Blocked trait. If the "text" doesn't make that clear then either the issue is taken care of in the FAQ or is Errata'ed and fixed in future releases of the card.
This is why I think the Promo's being played with before official release is important so people ask questions like this and the card has clear and concise text.
-
@Hegde
The problem then is strict interpretationist with items like Wall of Pikes. It is so obvious that only the pointy end has the Passage Blocked trait "however" the card states the wall has the Passage Blocked trait. If the "text" doesn't make that clear then either the issue is taken care of in the FAQ or is Errata'ed and fixed in future releases of the card.
This is why I think the Promo's being played with before official release is important so people ask questions like this and the card has clear and concise text.
Agreed.
This sort of thing heavily supports the idea of promos as beta-testing even though the word from Patrick today is that promos are not intended for beta-testing. I think it would be foolish for the Arcane Wonders team to not take advantage of that resource as at least an incidental bonus of their release.
-
I said nothing about a beta ;)
-
@Hegde
The problem then is strict interpretationist with items like Wall of Pikes. It is so obvious that only the pointy end has the Passage Blocked trait "however" the card states the wall has the Passage Blocked trait. If the "text" doesn't make that clear then either the issue is taken care of in the FAQ or is Errata'ed and fixed in future releases of the card.
This is why I think the Promo's being played with before official release is important so people ask questions like this and the card has clear and concise text.
Your argument makes no sense.
Intent is subjective, where printed text is not. Making tournament-level rulings based on "intent" sullies the legitimacy of the game as a tournament-viable entity, because, under your interpretation of how things should be, no player can ever "truly" know what a card does or does not do under certain circumstances, since "intent" is 100%, unarguably in the eye of the beholder, whereas printed text is 100%, unarguably explained in the rulebook.
-nihil
-
Hyper-literalism is the on the other side of the same coin. It is only those who read things in such a manner that it is not seen that the card is designed for the opponent to run into and get stuck on the pointy end of things and also to be able to send his creatures out through the Wall of Pikes from his side to finish the job off.
What on the "other side" of the Wall of Pikes would block a creatures passage?
-
@Hegde
The problem then is strict interpretationist with items like Wall of Pikes. It is so obvious that only the pointy end has the Passage Blocked trait "however" the card states the wall has the Passage Blocked trait. If the "text" doesn't make that clear then either the issue is taken care of in the FAQ or is Errata'ed and fixed in future releases of the card.
This is why I think the Promo's being played with before official release is important so people ask questions like this and the card has clear and concise text.
Your argument makes no sense.
Intent is subjective, where printed text is not. Making tournament-level rulings based on "intent" sullies the legitimacy of the game as a tournament-viable entity, because, under your interpretation of how things should be, no player can ever "truly" know what a card does or does not do under certain circumstances, since "intent" is 100%, unarguably in the eye of the beholder, whereas printed text is 100%, unarguably explained in the rulebook.
-nihil
While I logically think that intent is usually fuzzier then literal readings. I realize from personal experience that intent is often relatively clear in cases where literal readings are not. It is possible for ambiguity to exist in even the most literal of interpretations such as when pronouns are used without clear reference. To create a construct such as this game and to squeeze every bit of concept and fun out of it through robotic devotion to hyper-literalism is to miss the entire point of what actually breathes life into a game.
I reject your assertion of the unarguable nature of printed text and the completely indiscernably subjective nature of intent.
-
@Hegde
The problem then is strict interpretationist with items like Wall of Pikes. It is so obvious that only the pointy end has the Passage Blocked trait "however" the card states the wall has the Passage Blocked trait. If the "text" doesn't make that clear then either the issue is taken care of in the FAQ or is Errata'ed and fixed in future releases of the card.
This is why I think the Promo's being played with before official release is important so people ask questions like this and the card has clear and concise text.
Your argument makes no sense.
Intent is subjective, where printed text is not. Making tournament-level rulings based on "intent" sullies the legitimacy of the game as a tournament-viable entity, because, under your interpretation of how things should be, no player can ever "truly" know what a card does or does not do under certain circumstances, since "intent" is 100%, unarguably in the eye of the beholder, whereas printed text is 100%, unarguably explained in the rulebook.
-nihil
While I logically think that intent is usually fuzzier then literal readings. I realize from personal experience that intent is often relatively clear in cases where literal readings are not. It is possible for ambiguity to exist in even the most literal of interpretations such as when pronouns are used without clear reference. To create a construct such as this game and to squeeze every bit of concept and fun out of it through robotic devotion to hyper-literalism is to miss the entire point of what actually breathes life into a game.
I reject your assertion of the unarguable nature of printed text and the completely indiscernably subjective nature of intent.
Rejecting is stopping the conversation by taking your ball, going home, and sitting on your self-designed throne of righteousness while patting yourself on the back for being closed-minded.
Refuting is continuing the conversation.
You proposed a straw man in your statement, by referencing poor wording, when that is not the conversation. Poor wording, by its nature, breeds conversation about function, because the words are, again, by nature, ambiguous or open to interpretation. Let's argue the points at hand, shall we?
Ignoring your straw man, my assertion is correct, because, in an ideal circumstance (which is, also, by the way, hardly unattainable), the words will be clear to the function.
It's a Red Herring to detract from the value of precision in language by heralding the adoption of such as "squeez[ing]...concept and fun out of it (the game)." You have provided nothing to supplement or support that theory.
Here's a bottom line that you can, perhaps, understand:
Players should be able to be reasonably certain of the function of their cards. Without the comfort provided by knowing exactly what cards do players are flying blind. Ruling on intent, historically, and philosophically, makes no sense when you are trying to grow a game, because every person who is brought into the fold presents a new opportunity for a person who will be at odds with cards not doing what they say they do.
That is the crux of this argument. Currently, these cards DO NOT DO WHAT THEY SAY THEY DO. The end. How, in your reality, does that promote a healthy environment for the growth of a game? How does that promote an environment of passive, peaceful interaction between the players of this game in a tournament setting?
Since there is no master codex explicitly detailing the "intent" behind every card, we should, by default, lean toward accepting the printed texts OVER intent, because those things ARE beheld by a master codex, a/k/a the Rulebook.
-nihil
-
I have neither the time nor the desire to delve into semantics with you or engage in precisely worded arguments if you intention is to pick them apart as you have just done above. Suffice it to say, that I completely agree that the ideal of well-worded rules that can be literally interpreted is the goal and that I do not and have not advocated for intent to be the standard or a general substitution for clear rules. I do however realize that this is a growing game and that mistakes are made and corrections are released.
There have already been instances in the past where the people at Arcane Wonders have communicated about their intent. It is not irrelevant, and it is at least to a certain extent discernible. On the balance the literal interpretation is almost always preferred, but in some very limited circumstances I would personally choose to interpret intent over the literal interpretation and hope that others would see things the same way. I do not arbitrate tournaments, I do not claim to speak with authority.
If you choose to operate in a world that rejects intent for exact literal phrasing that is your choice. If you choose to interpret my statements as being high and mighty, that is also your choice. I disagree with your view, but more so I disagree with the combative way that you are presenting it. I am not interested in attempting to convince you I am right. In fact I don't even care if I am right.
-
I have neither the time nor the desire to delve into semantics with you or engage in precisely worded arguments if you intention is to pick them apart as you have just done above. Suffice it to say, that I completely agree that the ideal of well-worded rules that can be literally interpreted is the goal and that I do not and have not advocated for intent to be the standard or a general substitution for clear rules. I do however realize that this is a growing game and that mistakes are made and corrections are released.
There have already been instances in the past where the people at Arcane Wonders have communicated about their intent. It is not irrelevant, and it is at least to a certain extent discernible. On the balance the literal interpretation is almost always preferred, but in some very limited circumstances I would personally choose to interpret intent over the literal interpretation and hope that others would see things the same way. I do not arbitrate tournaments, I do not claim to speak with authority.
If you choose to operate in a world that rejects intent for exact literal phrasing that is your choice. If you choose to interpret my statements as being high and mighty, that is also your choice. I disagree with your view, but more so I disagree with the combative way that you are presenting it. I am not interested in attempting to convince you I am right. In fact I don't even care if I am right.
You missed the point. I'll grant that I did not specifically identify this point as the cornerstone of my debate, so my apologies on that note are due; sorry. Here it is, in full, broken down, for your perusal:
In a TOURNAMENT SETTING, where there is NO PRECEDENT for a discussion, then "intent" should not be a factor in arbitrating rules questions or disputes; players should expect that their cards do exactly what the printed text on their cards say that they do.
Intent is subjective to the person interpreting the intent; unless the designers and playtesters all gather around the table to weigh in every time there is a rules dispute or clarification made in a tournament, then, yes, intent IS subjective. You agreeing or disagreeing with that point is notwithstanding, since, you know, it's a literal fact.
Printed text, ignoring the possibility for error, is not subjective. In a situation where a card is misprinted or unclear (not the situation that led to this conversation), then a rules arbiter must do as best he or she can, but ruling based on what that particular arbiter in that particular tournament GUESSES MIGHT be the "intent" of the design and playtest teams is total, utter, nonsensical FOLLY, and destroys the credibility of this game as a tournament-viable entity. It's not the arbiters' job to say "well, the card says 'X', but I'm pretty sure that it was intended to do 'Y', so I'm going to rule in contrast to what is specifically in the rulebook and printed on the card."
Also, to address your other remarks:
I, also, have no desire to delve into semantics or engage in precisely-worded arguments. I pointed out that you were not speaking to the points that were being made; that you were committing logical fallacies. That isn't about semantics or being precise; it's about knowing how to participate in a debate.
-nihil
-
Gentlepersons, less heat, more light. (You can't fight in here, this is the war room!)
My position on this is that Rules as Intended are of greatest importance, and that the standard method of determining intent is Rules as Written. This helps to standardize rules understanding, and promotes agreement. But it is because writing informs us of intent that the Written Rules matter at all. (Games are modernist like that.)
But because rules writing is in English, and English is ambiguous, and all systems of rules are inevitably incomplete, sometimes it is necessary to consult other sources. Wonderfully, there is a rules forum where designers and playtesters answer expert level questions. And if there are frequent questions or it is found that the Rules as Written diverge significantly from the Rules as Intended, a ruling is made in the FAQ.
Now, yes, theoretically this strategy could cause the FAQ to balloon to enormous proportions and could sink the game under the weight of a million special cases. In practice this has not happened and is not happening. Tactically speaking, the FAQ is manageable and it's rulings are as well designed as the rest of the game.
There's no reason to borrow trouble decrying the death of competitive play. The game is in good hands, and the rules are clearer and easier to remember than they would be without the FAQ.
-
In a TOURNAMENT SETTING, where there is NO PRECEDENT for a discussion, then "intent" should not be a factor in arbitrating rules questions or disputes; players should expect that their cards do exactly what the printed text on their cards say that they do.
Intent is subjective to the person interpreting the intent; unless the designers and playtesters all gather around the table to weigh in every time there is a rules dispute or clarification made in a tournament, then, yes, intent IS subjective. You agreeing or disagreeing with that point is notwithstanding, since, you know, it's a literal fact.
Printed text, ignoring the possibility for error, is not subjective. In a situation where a card is misprinted or unclear (not the situation that led to this conversation), then a rules arbiter must do as best he or she can, but ruling based on what that particular arbiter in that particular tournament GUESSES MIGHT be the "intent" of the design and playtest teams is total, utter, nonsensical FOLLY, and destroys the credibility of this game as a tournament-viable entity. It's not the arbiters' job to say "well, the card says 'X', but I'm pretty sure that it was intended to do 'Y', so I'm going to rule in contrast to what is specifically in the rulebook and printed on the card."
I'm in about 99% agreement with you here. There is the possibility, if very small, for a literal interpretation of the rules that very clearly breaks with precedent and cuts counter to the established continuity of expressed intent of the designers in other similar situations to actually be disruptive to the game. In such circumstances, it may be appropriate to rule against the literal interpretation of a card's text. If that "ruins the game" for you I am truly sorry. I don't think however, that this sort of thing spells instant doom for the game as a tournament viable entity. I feel like you are being a little hyperbole in your rhetoric.
Also, I would appreciate it if you would soften your comments a bit. I don't come to these forums to engage in a structured and aggressive debate scene and I don't think many others do either. The rigor of my arguments is somewhat lax not because I am incapable of constructing arguments that are rigorously structured, but because I am not generally interested in engaging in such verbal warfare over the finer points of a game. I mean you have to admit the stakes are pretty low.
Getting back to the originating issue of the Wall of Pikes. I think you misinterpreted Hedges initial comment. I believe the primary point of what he was saying was to underline the issues created by a literal interpretation of the Wall of Pikes within the context of a game that has always strived to make sense on a thematic level and to point out the value of a wider testing pool such as that afford by the community through the release of promo cards. He did not make an argument that a ruling should be made in this case against the literal interpretation of the card within a tournament setting. He merely stated that it was a problem that the text so clearly disagreed with the intent. I would assume, though he would have to confirm this, that that means that he thinks it's a problem because it has the propensity to cause many people to misinterpret the function of the card in error of the rules as printed.
On my own end I was engaging in a philosophical discussion over the ideas of extreme literalism vs. a slightly more tempered approach that at least acknowledges the wider context in which rules are interpreted. I was not making a pitched argument specifically about how Wall of Pikes should be interpreted within a tournament setting, but rather how it should be interpreted more broadly and how I would prefer it was officially interpreted (I would assume that they would need to release errata for clarity to support this interpretation).
As a final note: I really don't think that most of this intense back and forth was in any way necessary. I would urge you to ask for clarification from other posters when their meaning is unclear or to more accurately determine where they are coming from rather than making potentially insulting statements about their ability to argue, aggressive assertion like: "You missed the point", or one's that seemingly question intelligence like: "that you, perhaps, can understand"
-
In a TOURNAMENT SETTING, where there is NO PRECEDENT for a discussion, then "intent" should not be a factor in arbitrating rules questions or disputes; players should expect that their cards do exactly what the printed text on their cards say that they do.
Intent is subjective to the person interpreting the intent; unless the designers and playtesters all gather around the table to weigh in every time there is a rules dispute or clarification made in a tournament, then, yes, intent IS subjective. You agreeing or disagreeing with that point is notwithstanding, since, you know, it's a literal fact.
Printed text, ignoring the possibility for error, is not subjective. In a situation where a card is misprinted or unclear (not the situation that led to this conversation), then a rules arbiter must do as best he or she can, but ruling based on what that particular arbiter in that particular tournament GUESSES MIGHT be the "intent" of the design and playtest teams is total, utter, nonsensical FOLLY, and destroys the credibility of this game as a tournament-viable entity. It's not the arbiters' job to say "well, the card says 'X', but I'm pretty sure that it was intended to do 'Y', so I'm going to rule in contrast to what is specifically in the rulebook and printed on the card."
I'm in about 99% agreement with you here. There is the possibility, if very small, for a literal interpretation of the rules that very clearly breaks with precedent and cuts counter to the established continuity of expressed intent of the designers in other similar situations to actually be disruptive to the game. In such circumstances, it may be appropriate to rule against the literal interpretation of a card's text. If that "ruins the game" for you I am truly sorry. I don't think however, that this sort of thing spells instant doom for the game as a tournament viable entity. I feel like you are being a little hyperbole in your rhetoric.
Also, I would appreciate it if you would soften your comments a bit. I don't come to these forums to engage in a structured and aggressive debate scene and I don't think many others do either. The rigor of my arguments is somewhat lax not because I am incapable of constructing arguments that are rigorously structured, but because I am not generally interested in engaging in such verbal warfare over the finer points of a game. I mean you have to admit the stakes are pretty low.
Getting back to the originating issue of the Wall of Pikes. I think you misinterpreted Hedges initial comment. I believe the primary point of what he was saying was to underline the issues created by a literal interpretation of the Wall of Pikes within the context of a game that has always strived to make sense on a thematic level and to point out the value of a wider testing pool such as that afford by the community through the release of promo cards. He did not make an argument that a ruling should be made in this case against the literal interpretation of the card within a tournament setting. He merely stated that it was a problem that the text so clearly disagreed with the intent. I would assume, though he would have to confirm this, that that means that he thinks it's a problem because it has the propensity to cause many people to misinterpret the function of the card in error of the rules as printed.
On my own end I was engaging in a philosophical discussion over the ideas of extreme literalism vs. a slightly more tempered approach that at least acknowledges the wider context in which rules are interpreted. I was not making a pitched argument specifically about how Wall of Pikes should be interpreted within a tournament setting, but rather how it should be interpreted more broadly and how I would prefer it was officially interpreted (I would assume that they would need to release errata for clarity to support this interpretation).
As a final note: I really don't think that most of this intense back and forth was in any way necessary. I would urge you to ask for clarification from other posters when their meaning is unclear or to more accurately determine where they are coming from rather than making potentially insulting statements about their ability to argue, aggressive assertion like: "You missed the point", or one's that seemingly question intelligence like: "that you, perhaps, can understand"
A few things:
If you were to go back and read some of my earlier posts (like...11 months old or something, since I haven't really been around in a good long while) you would get to know that I am simply a passionate writer. It's one of the things I do for a living. Another thing I do in a professional capacity is debate, so that's another hat I bring to the table of discussion within a forum. I don't see myself as aggressive, but I realize others might. If you took offense at something I wrote, that was not my intent. I do demand a certain level of precision in debate through an online medium, because without precision no one really understands what anyone else is talking about. Different strokes apply, but, for my part, I would rather have a formal debate with clearly-defined points of topic than a generalized melee of ideas; the former can actually accomplish something to the point of the conversation, where the latter, in my humble opinion, often just leads to chaotic posturing, red herrings, straw men, and meandering ideas. Apologies for any offense given.
I'm pleased that my point finally made it through the ruckus. That you say you agree 99% shows that you understood the point, mired by backlash-prejudices against the writer as it may have been by that point in the conversation. Thank you for that. I also appreciate the counter, since counters are the life of any conversation; why "cool story, bro" is the ultimate insult to a debate-minded individual (<- partly what I took from your original rebuttal where you stated a "rejection" of my position, rather than refuting it).
In your example where there is a very small possibility for ruling to the word leading to an "obvious" break against intention I would say this:
It is entirely possible, granting that it is also improbable. To say that something is possible, and then to create a contingency that directly counters the existing premise (ruling to the word, in this example), is, in my opinion, not a very good idea. The letter of the law should be applied to all situations, because the very moment you begin saying "well, the rule is 'X', but if we don't like how that plays out, we will force 'Y' upon you" then, yes, you destroy credibility. Not utterly, I suppose, but let us say that you do, indeed, weaken the proposed credibility of the game as a tournament-viable entity.
To that I say this:
If such a situation were to arise, then it would be unfortunate. The individuals at the tournament where the situation arose might be worse for the situation. However, if I were such an individual I would respect the game, and the rules arbiters, more for ruling to the word. Conversely, I would lose respect for the game and the rules arbiters if the arbiters ruled to the ever-so-subjective "intent."
This boils down, again, to the philosophical belief that players should expect their cards to do exactly what the printed text on their cards say they do. The Master Codex of intent must be the rulebook, and the words printed on the cards. It must be assumed that cards are printed to do what they were intended to do, because there is no other baseline from which to draw a conclusion of intent.
So, in such a situation, I feel that the cards should be ruled to the word by the arbiters, and then after the event, if the design and playtest teams concur that the intent was mangled in production through ambiguous language or misprinted text or a typo, an erratum be issued to the card(s) that led to the question during the tournament, so as to bring them in-line with the now-confirmed "intent."
Let's review the situation, again:
The wall in question, undeniably, has the "Passage Attack" trait, as denoted by the symbol at the top of the card, which, reviewing the rule book, we find that it is the symbol, itself, that grants the trait; it represents the trait. Therefore, the card has the "Passage Attack" trait.
The text of the wall in question states either that it only activates the trait or only makes the attack against characters passing from a particular direction (forgive me, since AW still (1 year later?!?!?!?) doesn't have an online card database). What the card does not say, however, is that it loses the trait unless a character passes from a particular direction. Nor does the card not have the symbol, and instead have text stating that it gains the trait if it is passed through from a certain direction.
Is this semantics? Not in my opinion. The wall has the trait, but the trait only activates under certain circumstances. The activation or non-activation is notwithstanding to whether or not the wall has the trait, and therefore we have an answer...
...right?
Not according to the rules arbiters at Gencon, apparently. Because they ruled on intent, not to the word, a player got the short end of the stick; a player who was doing nothing more than assuming that his cards did exactly what the printed text on them says they do. That player's opponent got a lucky break in being handed the gift of a ruling that allowed him to "break" the rules, and have his cards do something that the printed text on them doesn't allow them to do.
So, in that scenario, what is right? Punishing the player who read and understood the cards as they were printed, or ruling to the word and earmarking the cards in question for review by design/playtest after the tournament and convention are over?
As it stands, the FAQ is not, in my opinion, what is needed, here, for the correction of the card in question. The card is printed very clearly, to my eye; it has the passage attack trait at all times, but it only activates at certain times. Cards that look for the trait for interaction should see the trait, and interact as if it is there...because...it's there. If the intent was for the card to only have the trait under certain circumstances, then the card should receive an erratum and be reprinted to reflect that intent. The FAQ should exist for clarifications, and a list of Errata should exist for errata. This card should be errata'd, not shuffled through the growing FAQ.
-nihil
-
It's called the faq, but it's full name is the Mage Wars® Official FAQ/Errata, and every tournament player should read it. This particular ruling has been available since March, and while it's a shame that it came up the way it did, it's hardly the most obscure point of the rules. I don't think that making the eratta a separate document would have helped anything here. Nor would have more specific eratta restructuring the card, instead of the interaction ruling we got.
I can appreciate the aesthetic concern for pristine rules that could be given to a computer and adjudicated procedurally, but in a game this complex there will always be corner cases. Even much vaunted MtG has places where the rules don't work right (e.g. licids) where the rules are just a list of cases. If the argument is that the Rules must always stand on their own I must point out that has never been and will never be.
-
Hello Nihil is see your back figures it comes on the week i step away from the forum to get in some heavy play testing.
So to the topic at hand even thought about 97% of the teams working with AW are volunteers. Yes we do have a bunch of work to do but the hardest part is that some people including myself are on a bunch of different teams so we are pulling double and triple duty some days.
-
Hello Nihil is see your back figures it comes on the week i step away from the forum to get in some heavy play testing.
So to the topic at hand even thought about 97% of the teams working with AW are volunteers. Yes we do have a bunch of work to do but the hardest part is that some people including myself are on a bunch of different teams so we are pulling double and triple duty some days.
Hello, Shadow.
I don't understand?
-nihil
-
Hello Nihil is see your back figures it comes on the week i step away from the forum to get in some heavy play testing.
So to the topic at hand even thought about 97% of the teams working with AW are volunteers. Yes we do have a bunch of work to do but the hardest part is that some people including myself are on a bunch of different teams so we are pulling double and triple duty some days.
Hello, Shadow.
I don't understand?
-nihil
I think the point he is making is that they are doing their best to get these rule issues sorted out in clearer and more permanent ways, but that the AW team is largely volunteer and very busy so you should cut them some slack.
-
Hello Nihil is see your back figures it comes on the week i step away from the forum to get in some heavy play testing.
So to the topic at hand even thought about 97% of the teams working with AW are volunteers. Yes we do have a bunch of work to do but the hardest part is that some people including myself are on a bunch of different teams so we are pulling double and triple duty some days.
Hello, Shadow.
I don't understand?
-nihil
I think the point he is making is that they are doing their best to get these rule issues sorted out in clearer and more permanent ways, but that the AW team is largely volunteer and very busy so you should cut them some slack.
Ah. I was really confused because I didn't follow the thread of the sentence...I think "ever" was meant in place of the typed "even" and I lost track of the thought.
At any rate, to speak to that point:
If I wrote anything that was interpreted to slight the teams that manage this game, then I sincerely apologize, as I have served many years as a volunteer, myself, for other games, and am keenly aware of the general thanklessness of the title.
To the other point:
My primary concern at this point is that this is not something I view in any possible way as a rules "clarification." As far as I can see, by what is written on the cards and in the rulebook, this interaction, as ruled, stands in contrast to the rulebook, and therefore demands an official erratum for the wall in question, in my opinion. I would recommend such for some future printing where this wall may be reprinted.
-nihil
-
So i understand that this will somehow be FAQ, or added to the rules.
Please consider the following scenarios when doing this.
Wall of Thorns doesnt attack lvl 1 creatures.
Forcewave / forcepush 1 or more lvl 1 creatures through a Wall of Thorns.
Will extra payment apply?
I assume no, due to how Wall of Pikes is ruled. No extra Energi (mana) is required because the wall doesnt affect lvl 1 creatures.
Lord of Fire is immune to fire.
In case he loses flying (maim wings, or Gravikor).
If i forcepush him (friend or foe) through a Fire Wall with a forcepush - will it cost 3? or 3+3?
I assume 3+3. The wall will still do the attack but it wont do damage or apply burn - so in practice the dice roll can be skipped.
KR