1
Rules Discussion / Re: Wall(s) and Steep Hill
« on: June 19, 2019, 08:17:35 PM »
I thought the mathematician would say they would touch, and the philosopher would ponder the space between.
May 04, 2024, 07:37:18 AM
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Rules Discussion / Re: Wall(s) and Steep Hill
« on: June 18, 2019, 07:08:44 PM »
Yucky, its still ruled that way. My group does steep hill with house rules. Most of our players find it weird that there is a 1 pixel opening in every corner that none of the adjacent boundaries actually touch. Some would say crossing through an intersection of 4 lines is to cross through the 4 lines.
3
Rules Discussion / Wall(s) and Steep Hill
« on: June 17, 2019, 10:00:40 PM »
1 2 3 1 2 3
4 5 6 4 5 6
7 8 9 7 8 9
I remember this game has some Tom-foolery with corners/intersections and LOS. In the 2 examples above, each number represents a zone in the arena, 5 is the zone containing the hill, and the underlines below 4 and 5 represent walls that block LOS.
Can a non-flying object target another non-flying object in zone 4, from 7,8, or 9 in either example?
In the first example( left side, 1 wall); can a non-flying object target another non-flying object in zone 6, from zone 7 or 8?
4 5 6 4 5 6
7 8 9 7 8 9
I remember this game has some Tom-foolery with corners/intersections and LOS. In the 2 examples above, each number represents a zone in the arena, 5 is the zone containing the hill, and the underlines below 4 and 5 represent walls that block LOS.
Can a non-flying object target another non-flying object in zone 4, from 7,8, or 9 in either example?
In the first example( left side, 1 wall); can a non-flying object target another non-flying object in zone 6, from zone 7 or 8?
4
Rules Discussion / Re: Flying and no flying and logic
« on: June 17, 2019, 09:19:57 PM »
For the record I think flying is pretty well balanced, but game-play can vary based on local meta. I feel DaveW has a very good point about small flyers. I would ask you to consider amending your house-rule to bash falling flyers for an amount of dice equal to their level. I feel it keeps the spirit of your rule alive, without changing the game too much, and inhabiting certain Book builds
5
General Discussion / Re: Creature's activated
« on: March 26, 2017, 02:00:03 PM »
even if can be worn legally, are you your own controlling mage?
6
Rules Discussion / Re: Divine Intervention against biggies getting summoned
« on: January 24, 2017, 11:44:26 PM »
is the water elemental lost too? Or does it go back into spellbook?
8
Rules Discussion / climb+wall+steepHill
« on: January 22, 2017, 09:15:14 PM »
Climbing wall into a zone with steep hill.... doesn't work, right?
Need the full round to climb, and the full round to enter, you can spend it both.... can you?
Need the full round to climb, and the full round to enter, you can spend it both.... can you?
10
Custom Cards / Re: Ants...
« on: January 22, 2017, 06:02:12 AM »
ant warrior should be both war and nature schools, could have some digger ants that are earth and nature, flying ants air and nature, mix up all their schools so no one mage gets them all, except for AntMage/Gi-AntMage, who can change size and isn 't trained in a primary school like the siren. Antmage could be Earth mage also trained in Ants and ???Terrain??? .
Or trained in level 2 Earth/War/Nature, with all ant spells being a combination of those schools.
I just don't think nature needs any more creature subtypes, splitting up the ants among differant schools seems cool. FIRE ANTS!!!!!!Dark/nature for poision ants that eat and recycle dead ants
Giant Ants, ant scouts, larva conjurations. This could totally work
Or trained in level 2 Earth/War/Nature, with all ant spells being a combination of those schools.
I just don't think nature needs any more creature subtypes, splitting up the ants among differant schools seems cool. FIRE ANTS!!!!!!Dark/nature for poision ants that eat and recycle dead ants
Giant Ants, ant scouts, larva conjurations. This could totally work
11
Rules Discussion / Re: Magma Golem
« on: January 10, 2017, 03:59:04 PM »
I would still agree damaging the Magma Golem with his own burn condition is a violation of his special rules. Magma Golem does say not "all creatures", "also damages", or "in addition".
"All other creatures" feels pretty clear to me.
But what if 2 Magma Golems are in the same zone?
"All other creatures" feels pretty clear to me.
But what if 2 Magma Golems are in the same zone?
12
Rules Discussion / Re: Magma Golem
« on: January 08, 2017, 04:17:57 PM »"Magma Golem's Burn conditions damage all other creatures in its zone.".
Even if flame conditions do in fact still deal non-typed direct damage, this quote says "all other" not all. If Magma Golem takes damage for his/her burn conditions, you are failing to follow the instructions on his card.
13
Rules Discussion / Re: Dorsius
« on: January 08, 2017, 04:09:54 PM »
if dorsius gives regenerate 2, the answer is NO. Regenerate X and Regenerate X does not equal Regenerate 2X. Traits that have "+X" will stack. For example melee +2 and melee +1 does equal Melee +3.
If Dorsius says heal 2, or remove 2 damage than yes, Regenerate 2 and a different healing effect can work together
If Dorsius says heal 2, or remove 2 damage than yes, Regenerate 2 and a different healing effect can work together
14
Rules Discussion / Re: Pillar Of Righteous Flame and Invisible Stalker
« on: January 08, 2017, 04:05:30 PM »It's easier for everyone if you link the cards
[mwcard=FWC08]Invisible Stalker[/mwcard]
When stalker attacks, he is visible until the end of the round, meaning in upkeep he will be invisible.
[mwcard=PSJ06]Pillar of Righteous Fury[/mwcard]
Pillar attacks are ranged 0-0 attacks. SIngle target attacks require targeting unless specified otherwise. Meaning pillar can not attack an invisible Invisible Stalker.
opps, Keejchan is right
15
Rules Discussion / Re: Drown
« on: January 08, 2017, 04:04:37 PM »
the problem is you cannot choose the order of effects on your opponent's enchantments, merely the order in which all of the enchantments(or other effects) effect you.
So if there were multiple enchantments on your creature, and one of them added a point of life each upkeep, you could choose gain the 1 maximum life before being effected by drown, and you could also choose to heal 2 damage from your regrowth before drown hits you, but you cannot force your opponent to pay upkeep on their card, before their card, does its effect .
So if there were multiple enchantments on your creature, and one of them added a point of life each upkeep, you could choose gain the 1 maximum life before being effected by drown, and you could also choose to heal 2 damage from your regrowth before drown hits you, but you cannot force your opponent to pay upkeep on their card, before their card, does its effect .
