Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Rules Discussion => Topic started by: sIKE on July 31, 2014, 05:46:04 PM
-
I looked all around of the forums to see if I could find a ruling. I was having a post game conversation on OCTGN with Imaginator and said that I if I was his opponent that I would of loved to [mwcard=MW1E35]Reverse Magic[/mwcard] his [mwcard=MW1I08]Drain Life[/mwcard]. He said it would not of mattered as he already had a [mwcard=MW1E29]Nullify[/mwcard] and he would have to reveal it to counter the Drain Life.
I thought that once the Reverse Magic was revealed that the Counterspell Step was over and therefore Nullify would not be able to be played. I.E. you can't Reverse Magic a Reverse Magic. Am I wrong?
-
This is how I understand it.
1. Cast spell step: I cast drain life on my opponent.
2. Counter spell step: Opponent reveals reverse magic, takes control of my drain life, becomes the new caster of the spell, and redirect's the spell back at me. This forces my own reverse magic to reveal, I pay the mana and the drain life goes back at my opponent again. Since there is no ruling anywhere in the rulebook, faq or forum that says that a maximum of only one counter spell can be revealed during the counter spell step, I must conclude for now that reverse magic can still activate in response to a spell that has already been reversed.
Note: Someone might bring up the example of mind shield, but that example has no bearing on this question. Mind shield directly counters a counter spell during the reveal enchantment step and not the counter spell step. The second reverse magic does not counter the first reverse magic, though. It causes the drain life to target the mage it's being redirected to.
-
Reverse magic does not target reverse magic. It targets the same spell that the first reverse magic targets.
It wouldn't target the same spell it would target the original mage. In the example we discussed, you would reveal Reverse Magic during the Counter Spell step and take control of the Drain Life, now the question becomes are we still in the Counter Spell step? If so then you can reveal the Nullify/Reverse Magic, if not and things have moved to the Resolve Spell step then the there would not be the chance to reveal a counter spell.
I guess what is frustrating to me is that clarity is not here after all of this time. I went looking for a ruling on this and found nothing. I surely would of thought that a ruling like once a spell is revealed during the counter spell step, it is now over and process now moves to the Resolve Spell step would of been documented and marked up in the FAQ by now.
*** Or if the ruling went the other way that ruling would be in the FAQ ***
-
sorry i mispoke/forgot for a moment about the specific meaning of the word "target". I'll rephrase it.
-
How do we not have a ruling on nullifying a reverse magic? those cards came out forever ago. You'd think it owuld be ironed out.
my sheer opinion is that you can nullify that, because we havent left the "counter spell" step yet.
what about using [mwcard=MW1E02] Block[/mwcard] on a [mwcard=MW1E34] Reverse Attack[/mwcard]?
I figure it would be the same ruling, which is we havent left the "avoid attack" step yet.
-
You already asked that question sIKE: http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=5407.msg10766#msg10766
You got an answer, but not an official.
And to me it is clear that you are still in the Counterspell step, so Nullify will trigger.
-
You already asked that question sIKE: http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=5407.msg10766#msg10766
You got an answer, but not an official.
No that was a different question. What were asking about here is not about a nullify and a reverse magic on the same mage simultaneously. Here we're talking about mage A casting an incant/enchant on mage B, activating mage B's reverse magic while mage A has a nullify on themself. Does the nullify activate in response to the spell that the reverse magic redirected?
Edit: nvm I see it. It's written in a tangled confusing way, but it's essentially what I said in the earlier post in this thread.
-
You already asked that question sIKE: http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=5407.msg10766#msg10766
You got an answer, but not an official.
No that was a different question. What were asking about here is not about a nullify and a reverse magic on the same mage simultaneously. Here we're talking about mage A casting an incant/enchant on mage B, activating mage B's reverse magic while mage A has a nullify on themself. Does the nullify activate in response to the spell that the reverse magic redirected?
Oh, you are right... i read it wrong.
Edit: nvm I see it
-
Reverse Magic
Current Text: As of May 12 2014
"When this creature is targeted by an incantation or enchantment spell controlled by an opponent, you must reveal Reverse Magic during the Counter Spell Step. Redirect it back to the caster, who now becomes the target of the spell. You become the caster of that spell, and now control that spell, and may reselect any other choices the spell requires you to make. Recalculate the total mana cost of the spell; if the new cost is higher than the original cost, you must pay the difference. Then, destroy Reverse Magic."
When you cast a spell, follow these steps in order:
• Cast Spell
• Counter Spell
• Resolve Spell
So to go in order;
1. Cast spell step:
I cast drain life on my opponent.
2. Counter spell step:
Opponent reveals reverse magic,
Redirects the spell back at me,
then becomes the new caster of the spell and takes control of my drain life
If drain life could have more targets they could be added on at this point.
At this point we are still in the Counter Spell step
[mwcard=MW1E29] Nullify[/mwcard] reads:
When this creature is targeted by an incantation or enchantment spell controlled by an opponent . You must reveal Nullify during the counter spell step.This spell is counter then destroy Nullify.
Lets look at RM quickly for a sec
Redirect it back to the caster , who now becomes the target of the spell.
You become the caster of that spell, and now control that spell.
So RM changes targets then it changes control
If we look at Nullify it has another clause (spell controlled by an opponent ). Nullify will not make a mandatory trigger since RM causes the caster to target themselves then changes ownership.
Remember we are still in the counter spell step.
Step 2: Counter Spell
Some spells and abilities, such as the Nullify enchantment, may allow him to counter your spell.
So Nullify does not have a mandatory trigger at this point but the controller may still choose to reveal it. Before moving to the step 3 Resolve spell.
-
what about using [mwcard=MW1E02] Block[/mwcard] on a [mwcard=MW1E34] Reverse Attack[/mwcard]?
I figure it would be the same ruling, which is we havent left the "avoid attack" step yet.
Reverse attack will not trigger block because the text on reverse attack says 'for step 3 and 4' which means its too late for block to take effect.
It also means that the block gets to stay on the target because the force reveal is during step 2.
With the current wording i believe that nullify will counter your own incatation/enchantment that your opponent reverse magic back to you.
-
Jack you were a few seconds early :P
-
Reverse attack will not trigger block because the text on reverse attack says 'for step 3 and 4' which means its too late for block to take effect.
It also means that the block gets to stay on the target because the force reveal is during step 2.
Correct and worth a sticker.
-
i dont get the part with nullify.
Are you saying nullify can be choosed to counter, but no mandatory reveal?
-
i dont get the part with nullify.
Are you saying nullify can be choosed to counter, but no mandatory reveal?
Yeah, i dont get it either why the reveal would not be mandatory.
-
I've heard that ruling on reverse attack before, but I disagree. Reverse attack does not say you have left the "avoid attack" step. it just clarifies that the future steps have a different target. You reveal reverse attack in the middle of the avoid attack step, so there is plenty of avoid attack step left to use a defense, mandatory reveal a block, ect. The ruling is that once reverse attack is revealed, you are no longer in the avoid attack step. I feel like I'm hogging the thread to rant on reverse attack though, so I'll stop.
I guess for reverse attack (but not reverse magic), the original attack is the "controller" of the attack so they can do things like use Akiros Favor to mitigate the damage. I can now see how block and nullify are different though. block triggers on any attack, but nullify only triggers on an enemy "attack"(spell thingy)
-
I've heard that ruling on reverse attack before, but I disagree. Reverse attack does not say you have left the "avoid attack" step. it just clarifies that the future steps have a different target. You reveal reverse attack in the middle of the avoid attack step, so there is plenty of avoid attack step left to use a defense, mandatory reveal a block, ect. The ruling is that once reverse attack is revealed, you are no longer in the avoid attack step. I feel like I'm hogging the thread to rant on reverse attack though, so I'll stop.
I guess for reverse attack (but not reverse magic), the original attack is the "controller" of the attack so they can do things like use Akiros Favor to mitigate the damage. I can now see how block and nullify are different though. block triggers on any attack, but nullify only triggers on an enemy "attack"(spell thingy)
To clarify you how Reverse Attack works:
Player 1 has an hidden Block/defense/whatever.
Player 2 has an hidden Reverse Attack.
Player 1 attacks Player 2.
In Avoid Attack Step, Player 2 reveal Reverse Attack.
We are still in Avoid Step, but Player 1 can't reveal Block or use defense, because he is not attacked yet, because Reverse Attack make you the target of the attack only in the 2 next steps.
We are now in Step 3. Dice get rolled.
We are now in Step 4. Damage are dealt.
From step 5 everything goes back to normal.
-
Another part of the game where the doesn't work like you think that it would or should.
-
i dont get the part with nullify.
Are you saying nullify can be choosed to counter, but no mandatory reveal?
Yeah, i dont get it either why the reveal would not be mandatory.
Neither do I. My understanding now is that the person missed the timing so the nullify can't be revealed.
-
Well, I don't think it is called the Counter Spells Step or Counter Spell Steps. Once a "counter spell" is revealed during the "counter spell step", logically the step is over, and we move the Resolve Effect steps but no, we get some Inception like bending of the steps that turn all of this in to the spell version of Ping Pong.
-
Well, I don't think it is called the Counter Spells Step or Counter Spell Steps. Once a "counter spell" is revealed during the "counter spell step", logically the step is over, and we move the Resolve Effect steps but no, we get some Inception like bending of the steps that turn all of this in to the spell version of Ping Pong.
Nothing points in the direction that revealling a nullify or reverse magic would end the step.
If you get attacked while you have a block and a reverse attack on you, your also forced to reveal both which with your theory would be impossible because revealling the first would end the step.
-
Well, I don't think it is called the Counter Spells Step or Counter Spell Steps. Once a "counter spell" is revealed during the "counter spell step", logically the step is over, and we move the Resolve Effect steps but no, we get some Inception like bending of the steps that turn all of this in to the spell version of Ping Pong.
Remember we never left the counter spell step. The target was then changed by RM before control of the spell was changed. You don't not move to the next step until each player has ad a chance to react.
The trick with the counter spell step is that only enchants with the ability to counter spells may be revealed.
No enchantment may be used during a step unless the enchantment says it may be used.
-
Well, I don't think it is called the Counter Spells Step or Counter Spell Steps. Once a "counter spell" is revealed during the "counter spell step", logically the step is over, and we move the Resolve Effect steps but no, we get some Inception like bending of the steps that turn all of this in to the spell version of Ping Pong.
Nothing points in the direction that revealling a nullify or reverse magic would end the step.
If you get attacked while you have a block and a reverse attack on you, your also forced to reveal both which with your theory would be impossible because revealling the first would end the step.
With Reverse Attack the reason would be the new wording on RA
Reverse Attack
Updated wording: When this creature is attacked, you must reveal Reverse Attack during the Avoid Attack Step. The attack is avoided and then redirected back; this creature becomes the new source (although the attacker stays the same), and the original source becomes the new target (even if the original source would not normally be a legal target), for the next 2 steps (Roll Dice and Damage and Effects).
Thus you do not change target till after avoid attack step
-
Another part of the game where the doesn't work like you think that it would or should.
Hopefully someone from the design team will add this to the list of issues to be revised or clarified when there is a second edition...
-
I've heard that ruling on reverse attack before, but I disagree. Reverse attack does not say you have left the "avoid attack" step. it just clarifies that the future steps have a different target. You reveal reverse attack in the middle of the avoid attack step, so there is plenty of avoid attack step left to use a defense, mandatory reveal a block, ect. The ruling is that once reverse attack is revealed, you are no longer in the avoid attack step. I feel like I'm hogging the thread to rant on reverse attack though, so I'll stop.
I guess for reverse attack (but not reverse magic), the original attack is the "controller" of the attack so they can do things like use Akiros Favor to mitigate the damage. I can now see how block and nullify are different though. block triggers on any attack, but nullify only triggers on an enemy "attack"(spell thingy)
Correct:
With RA you do not leave the avoid attack step.
Correct:
Future steps have a different target.
With[mwcard=MW1E02] Block[/mwcard]the reveal trigger is created during step 1 only
Making an Attack steps:
1. Declare Attack
2. Avoid Attack
3. Roll Dice
4. Damage and Effects
5. Additional Strikes
6. Damage Barrier
7. Counterstrike
8. Attack Ends
During step 2 RA is revealed but target has not changed yet.
During step 3 the target changes before rolling dice
You do not go back to step 2 and get a chance to reveal block.
When we compare RM and RA
RA switches targets after the avoid step.
RM switches targets during the counter spell step.
-
How do we not have a ruling on nullifying a reverse magic? those cards came out forever ago. You'd think it owuld be ironed out.
my sheer opinion is that you can nullify that, because we havent left the "counter spell" step yet.
what about using [mwcard=MW1E02] Block[/mwcard] on a [mwcard=MW1E34] Reverse Attack[/mwcard]?
I figure it would be the same ruling, which is we havent left the "avoid attack" step yet.
We did the old threads got lost in one of the server changes.
-
i dont get the part with nullify.
Are you saying nullify can be choosed to counter, but no mandatory reveal?
Yeah, i dont get it either why the reveal would not be mandatory.
During the Counter spell step:
Opponent reveals reverse magic,
Redirects the spell back at me,
then becomes the new caster of the spell and takes control of my drain life
If drain life could have more targets they could be added on at this point.
Remember we never left the counter spell step. The target was then changed by RM before control of the spell was changed.
So the mandatory reveal is not created by Nullify since it states when targeted by a spell controlled by an opponent. You still control the spell at the point the primary target is changed.
Since you have not left the counter spell step you may choose to reveal Nullify or not
-
Still no clarity on when the step ends then. It is just open to whatever whim of the day. IMHO, things in this game need a clear beginning and end. Ping Pong still doesn't make any sense....
-
Another part of the game where the doesn't work like you think that it would or should.
Hopefully someone from the design team will add this to the list of issues to be revised or clarified when there is a second edition...
Trust me when I say this is one of the least complex things that are being looked at.
-
Still no clarity on when the step ends then. It is just open to whatever whim of the day. IMHO, things in this game need a clear beginning and end. Ping Pong still doesn't make any sense....
During most steps players do not get a chance to react unless an enchantment says it may be revealed.
A step ends after each player chooses react or not. If a player does choose to reveal any enchants that can be revealed you then see if the effect of that enchantment resolves or not. Also remember after leaving the current step before moving to the next step each player has another chance to reveal enchantments.
With the avoid attack step each defender of that attack gets a chances to use a single defense.
This gets into a deeper timing because if you read [mwcard=FWE08] Mind Shield[/mwcard] it has 3 different times when it can be used.
-
This is an absurd ruling to RM and nullify.
Is this really the intention with the interaction between these 2 cards?
If this is truly how its intended then it would have suited you to add in a a big fat THEN before 'You control that spell'
The FAQ really needs to be updated with this - this is so counter-intuitive.
-
Still no clarity on when the step ends then. It is just open to whatever whim of the day. IMHO, things in this game need a clear beginning and end. Ping Pong still doesn't make any sense....
It end once everybody allowed to do something into that step are done. It is pretty clear to me.
-
This is an absurd ruling to RM and nullify.
Is this really the intention with the interaction between these 2 cards?
If this is truly how its intended then it would have suited you to add in a a big fat THEN before 'You control that spell'
The FAQ really needs to be updated with this - this is so counter-intuitive.
Going over the FAQ, Core Rules, Codex, and all the cards is a huge project but it is on our to do list. Since my play-test group is not employed by AW it is hard to find time to do a project of that level.
BTW: Jack what is with the curt response?
We have to use the current wording when looking over this interaction.
-
I appreciate this issue. I'm adding it to my list.
-
This is an absurd ruling to RM and nullify.
Is this really the intention with the interaction between these 2 cards?
If this is truly how its intended then it would have suited you to add in a a big fat THEN before 'You control that spell'
The FAQ really needs to be updated with this - this is so counter-intuitive.
I don't consider that absurd and it is totally intuitive to me. This is how I understood that spell. And I don't get what a "Then" before "You control" would change...
-
This is an absurd ruling to RM and nullify.
Is this really the intention with the interaction between these 2 cards?
If this is truly how its intended then it would have suited you to add in a a big fat THEN before 'You control that spell'
The FAQ really needs to be updated with this - this is so counter-intuitive.
I don't consider that absurd and it is totally intuitive to me. This is how I understood that spell. And I don't get what a "Then" before "You control" would change...
I don't understand where we don't proceed to the next step or we loop back around to the cast spell step we just end up stuck in the counter spell step I would hate to see a half dozen counter spells (the first mandatory and the others non-mandatory) bound to each mage and we just go back and forth until one runs out of mana or counter spells. I know ridiculous but it is what it is....we can just call it Counter Spell Step limbo, just how low can we go with the limbo stick?
-
This is an absurd ruling to RM and nullify.
Is this really the intention with the interaction between these 2 cards?
If this is truly how its intended then it would have suited you to add in a a big fat THEN before 'You control that spell'
The FAQ really needs to be updated with this - this is so counter-intuitive.
I don't consider that absurd and it is totally intuitive to me. This is how I understood that spell. And I don't get what a "Then" before "You control" would change...
I don't understand where we don't proceed to the next step or we loop back around to the cast spell step we just end up stuck in the counter spell step I would hate to see a half dozen counter spells (the first mandatory and the others non-mandatory) bound to each mage and we just go back and forth until one runs out of mana or counter spells. I know ridiculous but it is what it is....we can just call it Counter Spell Step limbo, just how low can we go with the limbo stick?
At worst we currently have RM, Jinx, Mind Shield, and Nullify that have the ability to be used during the counter spell step. If we made a non-mandatory counter that could be used.
If some how we had
Caster A with Jinx and Nullify
Caster B has RM and owns the Jinx on Caster A
Caster A - uses an Incantation targeting Caster B
Caster B - now has 2 mandatory Triggers
Jinx and RM
Caster A now has the chance to reveal (if they have an enchant that can be revealed)
Both Jinx and RM are revealed Caster B can pay for none, Jinx, RM, or both
If Caster B just pays for Jinx the spell is sent to the book.
If Caster B pays for RM the spell is redirected.
If Caster B pays for both they choose what happens first
If they use RM first Jinx fails since B is now the caster
If they use Jinx first the spell has been countered before RM redirects it.
If Caster B pays for nothing the spell continues on.
-
Maybe it is my programming background that help to understand this easily.
Counter Spell Step is a simple loop.
CastStep();
while CounterIsAvaible() is true then
CounterTheSpell();
end while;
ResolveStep;
-
Maybe it is my programming background that help to understand this easily.
Counter Spell Step is a simple loop.
CastStep();
while CounterIsAvaible() is true then
CounterTheSpell();
end while;
ResolveStep;
You and me both 8)
-
I know I haven't been too active on the forums the past couple of months, and kind of missed the party on this topic, but I wanted to add my 2 cents anyways.
sIKE is correct that there can be a ping pong effect when we allow enchantments to be revealed after one another before concluding or beginning a step or phase. I think it is very clear by the rules that this has been allowed since the game's initial release, however, and I do not feel that it is a bad thing or at all confusing. You go back and forth until everyone is satisfied and then you move on.
Also, as Shad0w pointed out, there's not very many weapons in this ping pong battle currently. The only one that can actually prolong the battle is Reverse Magic, because any others would end the battle by sending the spell to the discard pile or back to the spellbook. You can't even reveal an Enchantment Transfusion to prolong things, because it doesn't have the exemption allowing it to be revealed during a step (although you could use Transfusion before beginning this ping pong match in order to put your pieces in place).
I believe that the entire point of having a Counter Spell Step is to limit this ping pong battle, actually. Otherwise, it's not really necessary. You could just have a Cast Spell step, and then a Resolve Spell Step, and allow people to reveal enchantments in between which might counter the spell. However, by specifically putting an extra step in between and then severely enforcing what can and can't be done during it, they keep very tight reigns on the ping pong match. They prevent most spells from being used at all, force other spells to be used, and in general keep things short and simple.
I do wish they would add a "Then" to the wording on Reverse Magic to make Shad0w's ruling a little more clear, although his ruling makes sense even without that wording due simply to grammatical structure of the spell and the period separating the two effects. Even so, I probably wouldn't have caught the implication right away either that this eliminates the mandatory trigger of spells like Nullify when targeted by a reversed spell. That is certainly an interesting loophole. Overall, I am happy with the current ruling.
-
I think that most of these observations are spot on. I think less wording in the card text is needed and more when does the counter-spell step end, or any step when casting cause now that is all grey and murky.
I can see it now: Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-spell that!
(15 minutes later) Crap! What was I trying to do in the first place? I can't even remember!
-
I think that most of these observations are spot on. I think less wording in the card text is needed and more when does the counter-spell step end, or any step when casting cause now that is all grey and murky.
I can see it now: Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-spell that!
(15 minutes later) Crap! What was I trying to do in the first place? I can't even remember!
No spell is worth such a long counter battle. That would cost a LOT of mana and actions to set up. I highly doubt we would be getting more than three counters per side with any card that isn't really overpowered, if such a "ping pong" were even possible.
But it's not. Let's not forget that counters are MANDATORY enchantments, so ALL counters on the same target are revealed at the same time and only one of them takes effect. The longest "ping pong" you could get is with one reverse magic on each side. The spell would only be redirected twice, and would end up resolving on the original target. There is no annoying 15 minute counter battle.
And even with plenty of pseudo-counters to reveal after the cast spell step but before the counter spell step, only one such enchant would be revealed to pseudo-counter the spell the vast majority of the time. You cast ghoul rot on me? I reveal Regrowth right before the counter spell step. That's it. No long counter battles. They're not possible and they'd only be necessary against a spell so overpowered enough to want to waste so much mana and actions to stop that one spell in the first place.
I reread nullify's text, and realized it would still be mandatory. The timing has not been missed. It says "when this creature is targeted by an incantation or enchantment controlled by an opponent, you must reveal nullify during the counter spell step."
It does not matter that the target changes before control of the spell changes. The spell continues to target you when your opponent gains control of the spell. You are now being targeted by an incantation or enchantment controlled by an opponent, which satisfies the conditions of nullify, and it is still the counter spell step so you have not missed the timing to reveal it, which according to nullify's text is "during the counter spell step"
-
I think that most of these observations are spot on. I think less wording in the card text is needed and more I can see it now: Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am when does the counter-spell step end, or any step when casting cause now that is all grey and murky.
going to counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-spell that!
(15 minutes later) Crap! What was I trying to do in the first place? I can't even remember!
No spell is worth such a long counter battle. That would cost a LOT of mana and actions to set up. I highly doubt we would be getting more than three counters per side with any card that isn't really overpowered, if such a "ping pong" were even possible.
But it's not. Let's not forget that counters are MANDATORY enchantments, so ALL counters on the same target are revealed at the same time and only one of them takes effect. The longest "ping pong" you could get is with one reverse magic on each side. The spell would only be redirected twice, and would end up resolving on the original target. There is no annoying 15 minute counter battle.
And even with plenty of pseudo-counters to reveal after the cast spell step but before the counter spell step, only one such enchant would be revealed to pseudo-counter the spell the vast majority of the time. You cast ghoul rot on me? I reveal Regrowth right before the counter spell step. That's it. No long counter battles. They're not possible and they'd only be necessary against a spell so overpowered enough to want to waste so much mana and actions to stop that one spell in the first place.
I reread nullify's text, and realized it would still be mandatory. The timing has not been missed. It says "when this creature is targeted by an incantation or enchantment controlled by an opponent, you must reveal nullify during the counter spell step."
It does not matter that the target changes before control of the spell changes. The spell continues to target you when your opponent gains control of the spell. You are now being targeted by an incantation or enchantment controlled by an opponent, which satisfies the conditions of nullify, and it is still the counter spell step so you have not missed the timing to reveal it, which according to nullify's text is "during the counter spell step"
I think you are missing my point, it is the Counter Spell Step singular. I think that there should be "one counter spell" cast during this step and then it is on to the Resolve Spell Step. Therefore there would be no opportunity for Nullify to trigger as we would no longer be in the Counter Spell Step (singular) but the Resolve spell step.
-
When I last talked to Bryan he did not want 2 opposing Reverse Magics to interact. This is the last known intent.
Both Reverse Magic and Nullify have the same trigger (When Target by a spell that an opponent controls). Therefore both rulings will stand at least till after the Gencon event. Once Gencon is over we will put this up for review to the rules team.
-
I think that most of these observations are spot on. I think less wording in the card text is needed and more I can see it now: Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am when does the counter-spell step end, or any step when casting cause now that is all grey and murky.
going to counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-spell that!
(15 minutes later) Crap! What was I trying to do in the first place? I can't even remember!
No spell is worth such a long counter battle. That would cost a LOT of mana and actions to set up. I highly doubt we would be getting more than three counters per side with any card that isn't really overpowered, if such a "ping pong" were even possible.
But it's not. Let's not forget that counters are MANDATORY enchantments, so ALL counters on the same target are revealed at the same time and only one of them takes effect. The longest "ping pong" you could get is with one reverse magic on each side. The spell would only be redirected twice, and would end up resolving on the original target. There is no annoying 15 minute counter battle.
And even with plenty of pseudo-counters to reveal after the cast spell step but before the counter spell step, only one such enchant would be revealed to pseudo-counter the spell the vast majority of the time. You cast ghoul rot on me? I reveal Regrowth right before the counter spell step. That's it. No long counter battles. They're not possible and they'd only be necessary against a spell so overpowered enough to want to waste so much mana and actions to stop that one spell in the first place.
I reread nullify's text, and realized it would still be mandatory. The timing has not been missed. It says "when this creature is targeted by an incantation or enchantment controlled by an opponent, you must reveal nullify during the counter spell step."
It does not matter that the target changes before control of the spell changes. The spell continues to target you when your opponent gains control of the spell. You are now being targeted by an incantation or enchantment controlled by an opponent, which satisfies the conditions of nullify, and it is still the counter spell step so you have not missed the timing to reveal it, which according to nullify's text is "during the counter spell step"
I think you are missing my point, it is the Counter Spell Step singular. I think that there should be "one counter spell" cast during this step and then it is on to the Resolve Spell Step. Therefore there would be no opportunity for Nullify to trigger as we would no longer be in the Counter Spell Step (singular) but the Resolve spell step.
Grammar's a rather weak argument. Suppose it WAS called the Counter Spells step. By your logic, that would mean that you would have to reveal counters in plural, and not a singular counter. But suppose you had the choice to reveal 0, 1, or 2 counters. Then would you call it the counter spell step or counter spells step?
I'm really curious about that, because I honestly have no idea.
-
When I last talked to Bryan he did not want 2 opposing Reverse Magics to interact. This is the last known intent.
Both Reverse Magic and Nullify have the same trigger (When Target by a spell that an opponent controls). Therefore both rulings will stand at least till after the Gencon event. Once Gencon is over we will put this up for review to the rules team.
I don't really see why I can't counter an incantation or enchantment targeting me if I have a nullify or a reverse magic on me, even if my opponent did redirect it first. Did Bryan say why?
Also, what rulings? Where can I read them? I didn't see them in this thread I don't think...
-
Grammar's a rather weak argument. Suppose it WAS called the Counter Spells step. By your logic, that would mean that you would have to reveal counters in plural, and not a singular counter. But suppose you had the choice to reveal 0, 1, or 2 counters. Then would you call it the counter spell step or counter spells step?
I'm really curious about that, because I honestly have no idea.
Please no personal attacks.
-
Grammar's a rather weak argument. Suppose it WAS called the Counter Spells step. By your logic, that would mean that you would have to reveal counters in plural, and not a singular counter. But suppose you had the choice to reveal 0, 1, or 2 counters. Then would you call it the counter spell step or counter spells step?
I'm really curious about that, because I honestly have no idea.
Please no personal attacks.
Um, how was that a personal attack? I didn't say anything about him, I was merely pointing out a very probable flaw in his argument, and inviting him to explain his reasoning to me. I am VERY skeptical, but if he can give a sound explanation for his singular/plural claim, I might change my mind. While I really don't think its likely, for all I know he might be right. I apologize if I came across as irritated or impatient though. That was not my intention.
-
When I last talked to Bryan he did not want 2 opposing Reverse Magics to interact. This is the last known intent.
Both Reverse Magic and Nullify have the same trigger (When Target by a spell that an opponent controls). Therefore both rulings will stand at least till after the Gencon event. Once Gencon is over we will put this up for review to the rules team.
I don't really see why I can't counter an incantation or enchantment targeting me if I have a nullify or a reverse magic on me, even if my opponent did redirect it first. Did Bryan say why?
Also, what rulings? Where can I read them? I didn't see them in this thread I don't think...
I don't really see why I can't counter an incantation or enchantment targeting me if I have a nullify or a reverse magic on me, even if my opponent did redirect it first.
You can still choose to reveal it just does not create a new mandatory trigger.
Did Bryan say why?
No, But I have to talk about several intent questions but we do the next rulings doc. This is one of them.
Also, what rulings?
Player A targets Player B
Player B Reveal and pays for Rm
Payer A has RM and /or Nullify - Neither get a mandatory trigger.
Where can I read them?
This was an intent question just like the Decoy Ruling. I have known about this for a while but it had not been asked untill now. So we had no other posts on it. Last time it was asked was back in Sept 2012. That thread got lost in the server move along with over 200+ other threads.
-
I just think that a well defined beginning and end is important here. Yes we have very small number of spells to question here. Going forward as we work on more cards how this step is currently working is/could be limiting to adding more cards in this vein as I have pointed out.
Yes it is a reach to use English to fortify my position. However why would you logically have a counter spell step that is by design to counter a spell then turn around and allow the counter spell to be countered? Therefore my use of "Counter Spell Step" in my argument.
I also took my argument to be weak not me or my mage, if so we would meet in the Arena to settle that one. I would stack a bunch of counter spells on my mage too.
-
Grammar's a rather weak argument. Suppose it WAS called the Counter Spells step. By your logic, that would mean that you would have to reveal counters in plural, and not a singular counter. But suppose you had the choice to reveal 0, 1, or 2 counters. Then would you call it the counter spell step or counter spells step?
I'm really curious about that, because I honestly have no idea.
Please no personal attacks.
Um, how was that a personal attack? I didn't say anything about him, I was merely pointing out a very probable flaw in his argument, and inviting him to explain his reasoning to me. I am VERY skeptical, but if he can give a sound explanation for his singular/plural claim, I might change my mind. While I really don't think its likely, for all I know he might be right. I apologize if I came across as irritated or impatient though. That was not my intention.
When I read it it came accross as curt and sarcastic. I hope this was not your intent.
As far as this thread goes.
This topics is closed till after the rules team reviews the issue.
-
My biggest problem with the current ruling is this:
Nullify CAN trigger but it is not Mandatory!!! that really confuses me!
Either it works and MUST be revealled or it doesnt work at all - I believe thats how nullify is interpretated by most players. In this 'complicated' interaction with reverse magic the 'personality' of nullify changes.
-
It should be pointed out, sIKE, that even if we limit it to one counterspell during the Counter Spell Step, you would legally be able to counter a counterspell.
For example, I cast Dissolve on you and you reveal Nullify. As soon as you reveal nullify, we begin the Reveal Enchantment process as detailed in the FAQ. You can think of this as steps within steps. We are technically still in the Counter Spell Step for my casting of Dissolve, but now we also have to go through the steps for your Nullify of:
1) Flip over the hidden enchantment card showing it to all players.
2) Counter the Enchantment: A player may reveal an enchantment or use an ability which specifically allows it be used during this step.
3) Pay Reveal Costs
4) Resolve the Enchantment’s Effects
During the Counter Enchantment Step, I would still be able to counter your Nullify if there existed a spell that could do so. Currently Mind Shield is the only spell that can be used during this step, and it doesn't affect any existing counterspells (since the only psychic counterspell currently is Mind Shield, and revealing a second one on the target would result in the second one's immediate destruction, thus it can't counter the first one). Since we HAVE to follow the steps for revealing an Enchantment, even though we're in the midst of the steps for casting whatever spell prompted the reveal, we could still have counterspell battles.
Personally, I am satisfied with the rules as laid down by Shad0w and the documents on hand. I like having the option of a back and forth with my opponent as we try to mess up each other's plans. I am not saying that sIKE's concern is completely unfounded, however. It is possible in the future for these battles to get out of hand, though I don't think it is possible with the current card pool. Luckily, the design of having a very restrictive Counter Spell Step and an even more restrictive Counter Enchantment step should give us ample tools to keep this from happening.
-
My biggest problem with the current ruling is this:
Nullify CAN trigger but it is not Mandatory!!! that really confuses me!
Either it works and MUST be revealled or it doesnt work at all - I believe thats how nullify is interpretated by most players. In this 'complicated' interaction with reverse magic the 'personality' of nullify changes.
The reason nullify can be used is because it has the ability to counter a spell in the card text. As per 3.3 then it can be used during the counter spell step if this clause was met. That would not be a trigger just a volentery reveal.
-
My biggest problem with the current ruling is this:
Nullify CAN trigger but it is not Mandatory!!! that really confuses me!
Either it works and MUST be revealled or it doesnt work at all - I believe thats how nullify is interpretated by most players. In this 'complicated' interaction with reverse magic the 'personality' of nullify changes.
The reason nullify can be used is because it has the ability to counter a spell in the card text. As per 3.3 then it can be used during the counter spell step if this clause was met. That would not be a trigger just a volentery reveal.
I still don't get why you would not be required to reveal it when a spell get reversed at you.
-
Apparantly because there is a ---> . <--- between target sentence and control sentence.
-
It should be pointed out, sIKE, that even if we limit it to one counterspell during the Counter Spell Step, you would legally be able to counter a counterspell.
For example, I cast Dissolve on you and you reveal Nullify. As soon as you reveal nullify, we begin the Reveal Enchantment process as detailed in the FAQ. You can think of this as steps within steps. We are technically still in the Counter Spell Step for my casting of Dissolve, but now we also have to go through the steps for your Nullify of:
1) Flip over the hidden enchantment card showing it to all players.
2) Counter the Enchantment: A player may reveal an enchantment or use an ability which specifically allows it be used during this step.
3) Pay Reveal Costs
4) Resolve the Enchantment’s Effects
During the Counter Enchantment Step, I would still be able to counter your Nullify if there existed a spell that could do so. Currently Mind Shield is the only spell that can be used during this step, and it doesn't affect any existing counterspells (since the only psychic counterspell currently is Mind Shield, and revealing a second one on the target would result in the second one's immediate destruction, thus it can't counter the first one). Since we HAVE to follow the steps for revealing an Enchantment, even though we're in the midst of the steps for casting whatever spell prompted the reveal, we could still have counterspell battles.
Personally, I am satisfied with the rules as laid down by Shad0w and the documents on hand. I like having the option of a back and forth with my opponent as we try to mess up each other's plans. I am not saying that sIKE's concern is completely unfounded, however. It is possible in the future for these battles to get out of hand, though I don't think it is possible with the current card pool. Luckily, the design of having a very restrictive Counter Spell Step and an even more restrictive Counter Enchantment step should give us ample tools to keep this from happening.
Yes that is how things work today. However if Reverse Magic did its thing (control/retarget) then we moved to the resolve spell step then no you would not be able to do anything else as it would be to late to reveal the enchantment.
My problem is in the original theory (remember this was all around a war gaming theory session after a game) we are in the Counter Spell Step for the Drain Life, a Reverse Magic is revealed (it has to be) and now are no longer talking about the Drain Life and its steps, we now are (for some reason) in the Counter Spell Step for the Reverse Magic which should only happen when it is bound to the object not when it is revealed (much like Enchantment Transfusion).
-
How many people are planning to treat the trigger as mandatory anyway until this rules issue gets resolved? There are so many arguments I can see myself having with newer and not so new players. So many people I could win against because they assume the enchantment on me isn't a nullify when it is, all because of this really weird temporary ruling.
I'm strongly considering treating the trigger as mandatory regardless so I don't have an unfair advantage over real life opponents who don't regularly frequent the forums.
But I like to be competitive, so I'm not entirely sure. What if this puts me at an unfair disadvantage? Thoughts?
-
How many people are planning to treat the trigger as mandatory anyway until this rules issue gets resolved? There are so many arguments I can see myself having with newer and not so new players. So many people I could win against because they assume the enchantment on me isn't a nullify when it is, all because of this really weird temporary ruling.
I'm strongly considering treating the trigger as mandatory regardless so I don't have an unfair advantage over real life opponents who don't regularly frequent the forums.
But I like to be competitive, so I'm not entirely sure. What if this puts me at an unfair disadvantage? Thoughts?
+1000
this is excately my problem with the interaction currently.
Its completely standard to check for nullify before you wish to land an expensive incantation. My guess is that most player will assume this check has been performed when they reverse magic something back to the opponent and from then on assume he is clear from nullify.
-
Yes that is how things work today. However if Reverse Magic did its thing (control/retarget) then we moved to the resolve spell step then no you would not be able to do anything else as it would be to late to reveal the enchantment.
My problem is in the original theory (remember this was all around a war gaming theory session after a game) we are in the Counter Spell Step for the Drain Life, a Reverse Magic is revealed (it has to be) and now are no longer talking about the Drain Life and its steps, we now are (for some reason) in the Counter Spell Step for the Reverse Magic which should only happen when it is bound to the object not when it is revealed (much like Enchantment Transfusion).
After you reveal the Reverse Magic, it has to go the the Counter Enchantment Step before the Reverse Magic takes effect per the procedual rules of revealing an enchantment. Currently though, there is nothing that could possibly counter the Reverse Magic. After Reverse Magic Resolves, it is completely done and over with and can not be affected by anything. There is no "stack" in Mage Wars and no way to affect things that have already finished occurring. However, we are still within the Counter Spell step for the Drain Life, as it hasn't actually been countered yet (wink, wink, Reverse Magic isn't even a counterspell).
If an enchantment was revealed to actually counter the Drain Life, your opponent would get the same chance, during the Counter Enchantment Step, to prevent it from happening. Otherwise, as soon as the enchantment resolves, Drain Life goes away and there is nothing else that can be done.
-
After you reveal the Reverse Magic, it has to go the the Counter Enchantment Step before the Reverse Magic takes effect per the procedual rules of revealing an enchantment. Currently though, there is nothing that could possibly counter the Reverse Magic. After Reverse Magic Resolves, it is completely done and over with and can not be affected by anything. There is no "stack" in Mage Wars and no way to affect things that have already finished occurring. However, we are still within the Counter Spell step for the Drain Life, as it hasn't actually been countered yet (wink, wink, Reverse Magic isn't even a counterspell).
If an enchantment was revealed to actually counter the Drain Life, your opponent would get the same chance, during the Counter Enchantment Step, to prevent it from happening. Otherwise, as soon as the enchantment resolves, Drain Life goes away and there is nothing else that can be done.
I see you understand :P
-
I added a poll.
This way I know what the community is thinking when the rules team goes to discuss the issue.
-
Personally, it is the not-mandatory reveal of Nullify on a Reversed spell that is non-instinctive.
-
Personally, it is the not-mandatory reveal of Nullify on a Reversed spell that is non-instinctive.
Then this would be the way you should vote RM: Removes all other triggers and goes back to casting step
If we did this it would be as if you are casting the spell for the first time.
-
Personally, it is the not-mandatory reveal of Nullify on a Reversed spell that is non-instinctive.
Then this would be the way you should vote RM: Removes all other triggers and goes back to casting step
If we did this it would be as if you are casting the spell for the first time.
It would not be the same. Because it would allow enchantment to be revealed between the new cast and counter steps.
-
Personally, it is the not-mandatory reveal of Nullify on a Reversed spell that is non-instinctive.
Then this would be the way you should vote RM: Removes all other triggers and goes back to casting step
If we did this it would be as if you are casting the spell for the first time.
It would not be the same. Because it would allow enchantment to be revealed between the new cast and counter steps.
Correct but it would give a similar function and be very easy for people to understand
-
the famous --> . <-- could be replaced with and AND it would have same effect (if i understand this correctly.)
-
the famous --> . <-- could be replaced with and AND it would have same effect (if i understand this correctly.)
Would that be clear enough that even new players would understand it?
-
the famous --> . <-- could be replaced with and AND it would have same effect (if i understand this correctly.)
Would that be clear enough that even new players would understand it?
Yes it would.
-
I would say that yeah Nullify would trigger as you're the new target. I'm a little confused on the poll. Which should I vote for if I believe it triggers Nullify?
-
I would say that yeah Nullify would trigger as you're the new target. I'm a little confused on the poll. Which should I vote for if I believe it triggers Nullify?
I voted "wording change" to reflect that. Because I think everything is fine but Nullify should still be mandatory.
-
I would say that yeah Nullify would trigger as you're the new target. I'm a little confused on the poll. Which should I vote for if I believe it triggers Nullify?
I voted "wording change" to reflect that. Because I think everything is fine but Nullify should still be mandatory.
This would be for the best if you wanted to stay in the CSS and then resolve the trigger of null.
Remember that whatever the rules team does for this we must also do for 2 opposing RMs. Since the trigger are the exact same.
-
I would be fine either way with whether or not it triggers a mandatory reveal from Nullify or another Reverse Magic. My only concern is that things remain in the Counter Spell Step. I don't like time travel. It makes me queasy.
If you were to reword Reverse Magic so that it's owner takes control of the spell in question and THEN redirects it back to the caster, then a ruling stating that mandatory triggers apply would make sense. This would maintain the expected behavior of spells like Nullify, making the game easier to understand and learn.
However, leaving the wording the same or updating it to clarify that the owner redirects the spell and then takes control of it, thereby avoiding further mandatory triggers, allows for more tactical options during game play which I think enriches the experience. If I'm being honest, however, this is unintuitive. The question then seems, to me, are more tactical options with these spells worth a steeper learning curve?
*shrug* I don't know the answer to that. Either way though, things can and should stay in the Counter Spell Step.
-
Let us wait on an official ruling from AW after GenCon.
-
just to be clear, when it says "function does not change but the wording doesn't but the wording does" does that refer to the function before the temporary ruling or during it?
-
just to be clear, when it says "function does not change but the wording doesn't but the wording does" does that refer to the function before the temporary ruling or during it?
For this choice?
RM: Function does not change but the wording does?
-
Let us wait on an official ruling from AW after GenCon.
It would most likely take 2+ weeks if we made a change.
-
just to be clear, when it says "function does not change but the wording doesn't but the wording does" does that refer to the function before the temporary ruling or during it?
For this choice?
RM: Function does not change but the wording does?
Yes.
-
just to be clear, when it says "function does not change but the wording doesn't but the wording does" does that refer to the function before the temporary ruling or during it?
For this choice?
RM: Function does not change but the wording does?
Yes.
After Bryan clearly states the intent for both RM v RM and RM v Null. The rules team would make the wording of RM fit the intended function.
-
This is in response to both this discussion and the locked one on teleport traps >>>here<<< (http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=14511.msg40824#msg40824)
In the discussion on teleport trap, the question is asked whether or not you can use a mandatory spell without the trigger occurring, which this thread on Nullify has answered in the affirmative (at least for the time being).
With the case of teleport trap, it is possible to cast it into a zone and then have a creature appear in the zone WITHOUT entering the zone, via a spawnpoint (FAQ page 9). Thus, the trap would not be triggered. However, if we could then voluntarily choose to use the enchantment, like the Nullify decision implies, then the creature would still be teleported.
And if we can voluntarily use these spells, why wouldn't we be able to use teleport trap to teleport our own creatures? The target for the effect of the spell is "that creature" meaning the creature that triggered it. This would imply it cannot be used without being triggered at all. However, the target for Nullify is "that spell" meaning the spell that triggered it. This would imply it also cannot be used without being triggered. Since we have been told that it can be used voluntarily without the trigger, it raises questions as to what "that spell" actually means.
An "incantation or enchantment spell controlled by an opponent" is merely what triggers Nullify and not what Nullify counters. "That spell" is what Nullify counters. If we allow it to be used voluntarily against a spell of our choosing "that spell" becomes any spell, including equipment, conjurations, and attack spells. Similarly "that creature" for teleport trap could be any creature, including our own.
Allowing mandatory spells to ever be revealed voluntarily would open a huge can of worms. Although I originally appreciated the tactical options it would allow, I think it is not worth the trouble and should be always mandatory. I still don't like the idea of time travelling to a previous step or skipping ahead to the next step, however. I think Reverse Magic can be rewritten to where it triggers Nullify within the Counterspell Step.
-
I still don't like the idea of time travelling to a previous step or skipping ahead to the next step, however.
What I have proposed is not skipping ahead. The original spell has been cast:
- The Cast Spell Phase
Reverse Magic has been revealed and changes the target
- The Counter Spell Step
Apply Damage and Effects of the original spell
- Resolve Spell Step
There would not be a chance to counter the counter with my proposal.
-
@Zuberi (http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?action=profile;u=3693)
that is exactly what we talked about on Sunday the 10th
We are also still talking about it.