Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Rules Discussion => Topic started by: jacksmack on May 29, 2013, 03:32:15 PM
-
Can the forcemaster mind control the beastmasters pet ?
If yes:
will the pet keep its bonus stats (armor, melee & hp) ?
will the pet get an additional +1 melee when it attacks the beastmaster due to the added bonus when sharing zone with him?
What happens when the forcemaster mind controls a soldier with the enchanment Standard bearer (warlord only enchantment)?
Will the bonus keep working for the warlord and his units in same zone as the now hostile soldier?
Or
Will the bonus from standard bearer change alignment along with the mindcontrolled creature so the forcemasters side now gets the bonus when sharing zone?
What happens if the Forcemaster mind controls the warlocks bloodreaper.
Will the warlock still (may) heal 2 life when the creature damages a living creature?
Is the only 2 limits to Mind Control Psychic immunity and Mages?
-
You can mind control pet/reapers/etc. Its a buff like any other, so it stays with them as a bear strength would.
With Standard Bearer I -Think- the Standard Bearer Enchantment is destroyed.
Mind Control wont let you take a creature you normally couldnt cast (i.e. cant steal thorg due to Warlord only)
Standard Bearer is Warlord only, but doesnt confer that status to the creature itself. So the Forcemaster is allowed to control the creature, but not the enchantment. So I think Standard Bearer would become null and destroyed (then cantrip back to the spellbook)
-
You can mind control pet/reapers/etc. Its a buff like any other, so it stays with them as a bear strength would.
With Standard Bearer I -Think- the Standard Bearer Enchantment is destroyed.
Mind Control wont let you take a creature you normally couldnt cast (i.e. cant steal thorg due to Warlord only)
Standard Bearer is Warlord only, but doesnt confer that status to the creature itself. So the Forcemaster is allowed to control the creature, but not the enchantment. So I think Standard Bearer would become null and destroyed (then cantrip back to the spellbook)
did you even bother to read my post?'
edit:
btw steal equipment on the Card reads "legally attach". Mind control says nothing about that, so it made me Wonder if Huginn could be Mind controlled.
-
I did, but I perhaps I didnt clarify
First, Mind Control was updated on the FAQ to specificy that it cannot take a creature labled as "mage only."
So, vs Pet
Yes the pet maintains the stats
Yes he even gets +1 Melee when attacking his former master (as control is not specified.)
Blood Reaper will still heal the Warlock even if attacking him. All those abilities function as their literal interpretation as of current.
With Standard Bearer the issue of Warlord only comes up, because she cannot control "Standard Bearer" the enchantment. So when she steals that creature, Im not 100% sure how that resolves as she can control the creature but not the enchantment...I dont know the official ruleing there.
-
Restricted Spells
If a spell is restricted to a particular Mage or school of training, it refers to two things:
1)Placing that spell in that Mage’s spellbook when building their spellbook before the game begins.
2)Controlling or using that spell during the course of the game.
Examples:
If the Forcemaster casts Steal Equipment, she can target a Warlock’s Lash of Hellfire, which has the Warlock Only trait. However, since she cannot use this spell, it is destroyed instead.
Steal Enchantment cannot be used to take control of an enchantment you might otherwise be restricted from. For example , the Wizard cannot take control of a Forcemaster’s Forcefield.
If the Priestess steals a Mage Wand with a Drain Life spell bound to it, she cannot cast that spell. She can steal the wand, but the wand would be of no use to her unless she chooses to bind a new spell to it.
The Forcemaster cannot cast Mind Control on Huginn, Raven Familiar because it has the Arcane Mage Only trait.
As baronzaltor already answered the questions (have you bothered reading his post?) I just gave the official source...
-
tl;dr: The Standard Bearer enchantment is not destroyed, but doesn't have any effect on any creatures.
Warning: Rules Literalism Ahead!
Standard Bearer was clearly never intended to be attached to a creature not controlled by the Warlord.
If the enchantment were worded like Death Link, this could all have been avoided. ;)
---
The literal application of the rules is that the Force Master gains control of the creature but not any of the enchantments on the creature. Mind control doesn't say anything about enchantments. It just says, "You control this creature."
Standard Bearer has a targeting restriction of "Friendly Creature" but the only times I can see that targeting restrictions for enchantments are checked is at spellcasting steps 1 and 3, and when enchantments are revealed. Those times aren't relevant here.
However, the FAQ (somewhat awkwardly) says that restricted spells can not be
1. Placed in a non-compatible spellbook before the game begins
2. Controled or "used" during the course of the game by a non-compatable mage.
No definition of "used" is given, but in the examples "used" seems to mean more than "control." It includes "cast" in the Priestess with Drain Life Wand example.
Gaining +1 Melee and +1 Armor for all other friendly creatures does seem to be "using" the Standard Bearer enchantment. Therefore, the Forcemaster's creatures will never gain the bonus from Standard Bearer, per the FAQ.
---
The only question remaining is
1. Is the Standard Bearer enchantment destroyed (and cantripped back to the Warlord's book), or
2. Does it sit useless on the stolen Soldier, or
3. Does it continue to grant the Warlord's soldiers the +1 bonus?
There is no rules reason the Standard Bearer enchantment would be destroyed. The reason incompatible stolen equipment is destroyed is that it says so on Steal Equipment. It's not a general rule for incompatible stolen objects. A stolen wand keeps its incompatible spell, it's just useless.
Now we come to an unexplored area of the rules:
When Standard Bearer says "All other friendly creatures in the same zone gain [+1]" does it mean friendly to the creature or friendly to the enchantment?
The Codex entry for friendly only says, "A friendly object is one which is currently controlled by the player [or his team]." This isn't a model of clarity, but it tells us that all objects controlled by the same player are friendly.
If Standard Bearer were written
1. "All creatures friendly to this creature, except this creature, gain [+1]" the intent would be clear.
Likewise, if it said
2. "All creatures friendly to this enchantment, except this creature, gain [+1]" that would also be clear.
But since it just says "friendly creatures" without saying to what they are friendly, we can only interpret that to mean, "currently controlled by you, the player". It is not immediately clear to whom the rules are speaking.
There is one clue: the bolded word other on the card. The word "other" is where we get the "except this creature" clause in Standard Bearer's meaning. But "other" what? "Other Creatures."
This leads me to believe that the unspoken meaning of the card is, "All other friendly creatures [friendly to this creature] in the same zone gain +1 Melee and Armor." It's difficult to parse it as "All other friendly creatures [friendly to this enchantment]" because "this enchantment" isn't a creature, other or otherwise.
Therefore, Standard Bearer would give other creatures friendly to the stolen Solder (i.e. controlled by the Forcemaster or his team) +1 Melee and Armor, but because you can't use Warlord Only enchantments as a Forcemaster, instead no bonus is granted.
-
This is in all a very interesting conversation.
The literal application of the rules is that the Force Master gains control of the creature but not any of the enchantments on the creature.
Where in rules did you find this? I would expect that a controlled creature with Bear Strength and Vampirism to still have these spells in effect.
Still there is a wiggle in the back of the mind that since the "revealed" enchantment is attached to the creature before the Mind Control, and the Mage Casting the Mind Control, does not have to cast the spell, would it not stay in effect. Therefore all of the Creatures include the mage himself (he is a creature after all) would get the buff.
One little note it is a Friendly, Soldier Creature that has to be the target.
Once again I think this is going to take the Master Mage himself to resolve.....
-
Where in rules did you find this? I would expect that a controlled creature with Bear Strength and Vampirism to still have these spells in effect.
Yes.
If you and I were playing against each other, you could cast Bear Strength on my creature (Why? Donno.) You'd control the Bear Strength, but I'd control the Soldier, and my Soldier would get the benefit from it. This is how curses work, too. Different controller for the enchantment and the creature.
Same deal with the Mind Control and Standard Bearer: The Warlord keeps control of the enchantment, but control of the enchantment doesn't matter. The enchantment has whatever effect the rules say it has, and it never asks who controls it.
The only catch here is that Standard Bearer uses the word "friendly" and so we have to figure out what that means in this circumstance. I think it means "Friendly to the creature" but it's also possible that it means "friendly to the enchantment."
If it were to mean "friendly to the enchantment" then the Warlord would continue to get the benefit of the Standard Bearer, even though it's attached to a creature he doesn't control.
But the FAQ is pretty clear that the Forcemaster can never use the Standard Bearer, whatever "use" means.
Still there is a wiggle in the back of the mind that since the "revealed" enchantment is attached to the creature before the Mind Control, and the Mage Casting the Mind Control, does not have to cast the spell, would it not stay in effect. Therefore all of the Creatures include the mage himself (he is a creature after all) would get the buff.
Yes, this is probably how it would work, except that Standard Bearer says "Warlord Only" and that's a much more powerful rule (thanks to the FAQ) than merely preventing casting. The FAQ says
Steal Enchantment cannot be used to take control of an enchantment you might otherwise be restricted from. For example , the Wizard cannot take control of a Forcemaster’s Forcefield.
It's not just about casting, it's about "using" and (apparently) all the things that word can mean.
Once again I think this is going to take the Master Mage himself to resolve.....
Oh yes. No set of rules in a game this complex is ever written both unambiguously and completely. Keeping up with rules is like tending a garden. Sometimes you pull weeds, and sometimes you cut down trees.
-
Thanks for the answers.
I guess only official ruling on Mind Control vs Standard Bearer remains.
-
Why hasn't the Pet/Bloodreaper problem been fixed yet. That is still vary weird that the Forcemage is allowed to take control of them. I know rules wise right now it won't change but creation wise it really breaks 2 mages abilities.
-
Trust me Ring this has been explored. :-\
-
Why hasn't the Pet/Bloodreaper problem been fixed yet. That is still vary weird that the Forcemage is allowed to take control of them. I know rules wise right now it won't change but creation wise it really breaks 2 mages abilities.
Why fix it when nothing is wrong?
Making some a pet, reaper, or any other ability like this does not make it X mage only unless the ability said only
-
Why hasn't the Pet/Bloodreaper problem been fixed yet. That is still vary weird that the Forcemage is allowed to take control of them. I know rules wise right now it won't change but creation wise it really breaks 2 mages abilities.
It's a little weird, and you're right that it could be patched by giving the Pet token Beastmaster Only, but maybe I'm alone in thinking that Mind Control isn't actually all that good, competitively speaking? It's a level 6 spell that almost always gets an immediate dispel, or a dispel next turn. It seems like a lot of mana to stun a creature for 2 turns, mostly.
You're right that when it works its really flashy, but I guess I've never seen it work?
Trust me Ring this has been explored. :-\
If I ever run into you at a con or something, I'll buy you a drink of your choice.
-
I see you understand fully about MC.
The mana you need to invest to lock a guy out is not worth the cost per turn. 90% of the time it IS an overpriced flashy 2x stun
-
Yes.
If you and I were playing against each other, you could cast Bear Strength on my creature (Why? Donno.) You'd control the Bear Strength, but I'd control the Soldier, and my Soldier would get the benefit from it. This is how curses work, too. Different controller for the enchantment and the creature.
I think we crossed paths here, I was meaning you cast a Bear Strength enchantment on to you of your creatures that I then Mind Controlled. The critter would still be Enchanted and it will still be working, just controlled by me now. :)
Same deal with the Mind Control and Standard Bearer: The Warlord keeps control of the enchantment, but control of the enchantment doesn't matter. The enchantment has whatever effect the rules say it has, and it never asks who controls it.
In this scenario, would not the Enchantment be "attached" to the critter and the Warlord not be the controller of the creature? It would make a difference.
I just spent the last ten minutes reading the Enchantment section of Rulebook 2.0 and the FAQ, nothing there offers any clarity.
-
I think we crossed paths here, I was meaning you cast a Bear Strength enchantment on to you of your creatures that I then Mind Controlled. The critter would still be Enchanted and it will still be working, just controlled by me now. :)
You'd control the stolen critter, and the critter would still be enchanted, and the bear strength would still be working. All of that's right.
Also, I still control the bear strength. I could use Shift Enchantment to move it to a different creature. I cast it so I control it, and no card changed that. Mind Control takes control of the creature, but not the enchantments on that creature. You don't gain control of enchantments on a creature just because you gained control of that creature. They're separate rules objects.
In this scenario, would not the Enchantment be "attached" to the critter and the Warlord not be the controller of the creature? It would make a difference.
The Enchantment is attached to the critter, yes. The Warlord is not the controller of the creature, yes. However, the Warlord is still the controller of the enchantment.
Maybe a different example will be more clear.
(http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/uploads/mw/death-link-core.jpg)
Suppose I cast Death Link on my own Necropian Vampiress, but then you Mind Control the Vamp.
You gain control of the Vamp, but I still have control of the Death Link. And Death Link reads, "The Controller of Death Link may heal up to 2 damage [...] and place it on this creature[.] So I'm the one who can heal and place the damage, even though you now control the creature.
This is the same as if you cast Necropian Vampiress and then I cast Death Link on it. You control the Vamp, I control the Death Link, and I'm the one who heals.
-
Touche
-
In the upcoming FAQ, we will state that any object that is attached to another object (like an enchantment attached to a creature) is destroyed if the target it is attached to becomes illegal. Thus if you Mind Control a creature with a Standard Bearer attached, the Standard Bearer will be destroyed.
-
In the upcoming FAQ, we will state that any object that is attached to another object (like an enchantment attached to a creature) is destroyed if the target it is attached to becomes illegal. Thus if you Mind Control a creature with a Standard Bearer attached, the Standard Bearer will be destroyed.
Mind Control could become an interesting, if expensive, Dissolve if we ever get equipment that can be attached to creatures.