Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Rules Discussion => Topic started by: jacksmack on September 18, 2015, 01:41:45 PM
-
Whats the casting cost of Purify? 0 or variable (depending on what conditions you remove and what enchantments you destroy).
This is highly relevant against a possible nullify - as you will either lose 0 mana or potentially alot of mana.
The cost in the corner is X, but i find the text misleading because as i understand it its during the resolve phase that you are paying. And not even at the same time because of "Then".
There is also potentially a timing issue with enchantment transfusion. If its DURING the resolve step that you select the poison enchantments then enchantment transfusion cannt be revealed now.
In that case the enemy must reveal it before this step and choose what enchantments he wants moved.
In case you pay the mana up front do you also choose the enchantment, or can you wait til last step (assuming same or lower mana cost).
Please help :)
-
Before we all be Zuberized,
[mwcard=MW1I20]Purify[/mwcard] can be casted for 0 mana. Thus you can use it as a very long poking stick but you will remove nothing.
Now, casting steps are "Target and paying mana", "Counterspell step" and "Resolve step".
[mwcard=MW1I25]Shift Enchantment[/mwcard] is revealed any time before Resolve step, yes, your opponent can transfer all "Poison" enchantements from the target of Purify to some other.
Did you know, that if you say "Shift Enchantement" into half empty glass of milk three times, one of the card designers will curse your attack dice rolls? :)
-
Purify Cost = X
Is that an error? Should it say 0, because you pay during resolve? Or should it actually be X so you during step 1 already settle on how much mana you want to spend in total?
I know that the spell CAN be casted for 0 mana. But thats not what this thread is about.
Lets not confuse shift enchantment into this. Its enchantment transfusion.
-
I know that this is familiar information for most of us, but I think the first thing we should do is go over the steps for casting a spell. Especially since they have changed with the 4th edition printing. According to the rules on page 13 of the 4th edition English Rules, the steps for casting a spell are thus:
Step 1: Declare Spell
This is the step where you select your target AND choose the exact effect that the spell will have if there are multiple possible effects. For example, with [mwcard=MW1I07]Dissolve[/mwcard] you would choose both the Mage you are targeting, and the specific equipment that you wish to destroy as an effect of the spell.
Step 2: Pay Costs
This is the step where you actually pay for the spell. The cost of the spell may be affected by your choices in Step 1, such as with [mwcard=MW1I07]Dissolve[/mwcard] where the cost is equal to the casting cost of the equipment you selected for destruction.
Step 3: Counter Spell
Nothing happens during this step unless it specifically says it can.
Step 4: Resolve Spell
This final step is where the spell actually takes effect and does as you've intended. If it gets to this step, it is too late to stop it from happening.
It is also important to remember that a spell's text box isn't just used to describe it's effect, but is also used to clarify how to handle the spell during it's casting. Such as [mwcard=MWBG1I02]V'Tarrian Healing Song[/mwcard] restricting the target further than just a Living Creature, to one within the same zone as an orb you control. That's not an effect of the spell, it is clarification on targeting during the casting of the spell.
Now, let's finally take a look at [mwcard=MW1I20]Purify[/mwcard]. I 100% agree that this spell could be better written and is somewhat confusing to look at. First thing's first, the casting cost is listed as X, which we know indicates a variable casting cost which must be paid during the Pay Costs step. When a spell has a variable casting cost, it will tell you how to calculate that cost in it's text box. I really wish that Purify followed the same pattern as Dissolve with a line that read "X=this casting cost", but it does not.
Instead, the text box of Purify makes it sound like you neither have to select what you're removing nor pay for them until the Resolve Spell step. Especially since you don't handle the Enchantments until after the Conditions have already been removed completely. The magic rule which says that specific card text overrides general rules would allow it to do this as well. However, we still have to pay for the casting cost of X before we can even get to the Resolve Spell step, and we don't know how to calculate that cost. That does not mean it costs 0. Saying that we know it is 0 because we don't know how to calculate it makes no more sense than saying it is 2 because we don't know how to calculate it. We simply don't know and would have to leave it at that.
So, either the text box is poorly written and the spell is supposed to be handled the exact same way as other similar spells, such as Dissolve. Or, the variable casting cost of X is a typo and we don't know how much it actually costs. I am inclined to believe it is the former, and that is how I would personally play it. The other option would actually make it unplayable currently.
-
I have rules v3. Is "spell order" now in 4 steps? I should really update my stuff :)
-
I'm inclined to follow the text as written over the cost as printed, just because the text seems more indicative of intention.
-
It might be going off topic a little, but since we're discussing the possibility that Purify may be unplayable due to the confusing way in which it is written, I thought I'd mention the fact that the game does actually contain some entirely unplayable cards. [mwcard=DNI01]Animate Dead[/mwcard] and [mwcard=MW1I22]Resurrection[/mwcard] are two cards that can never be cast as they are currently written. It is impossible for you to legally target a Discarded Non-Epic Living Creature or a Destroyed Living Creature. Your discard pile is neither in range or in line of sight from the caster, so you would never be able to resolve these spells according to the rules.
-
It might be going off topic a little, but since we're discussing the possibility that Purify may be unplayable due to the confusing way in which it is written, I thought I'd mention the fact that the game does actually contain some entirely unplayable cards. [mwcard=DNI01]Animate Dead[/mwcard] and [mwcard=MW1I22]Resurrection[/mwcard] are two cards that can never be cast as they are currently written. It is impossible for you to legally target a Discarded Non-Epic Living Creature or a Destroyed Living Creature. Your discard pile is neither in range or in line of sight from the caster, so you would never be able to resolve these spells according to the rules.
I would argue that card as written is one of very few cards where the card text supersedes the normal rules.
-
I agree with Sike on that one. Those cards are written perfectly.
About purify, I always assumed x was the total cost of the enchantments/conditions you removed. I assumed they forgot to add this in the discription. In other words, you have to pay beforehand. The other possibility is indeed changing X to a zero. allowing you to pay afterwards.
Maybe Laddinfance can make an official statement about this when he has the time?
-
I also always assumed that this X related to the enchantments and conditions... though never really thought about when in the sequence of play you had to pay for them all.
Since the X represents (in part) Enchantments that are actually removed, does this mean that you don't have to pay mana if some of them are transfused off the creature before the spell resolves? I am thinking that you have to pay first (due to the new sequence, mentioned earlier... which I wasn't aware of until it was mentioned here).
Also, I also have heard (I think) that the spell can be cast with zero mana spent, to be used to pop a Nullify. You are choosing to remove zero enchantments and conditions, after all. That could be made more clear (either way) in any change to card text or Codex entry.
-
It might be going off topic a little, but since we're discussing the possibility that Purify may be unplayable due to the confusing way in which it is written, I thought I'd mention the fact that the game does actually contain some entirely unplayable cards. [mwcard=DNI01]Animate Dead[/mwcard] and [mwcard=MW1I22]Resurrection[/mwcard] are two cards that can never be cast as they are currently written. It is impossible for you to legally target a Discarded Non-Epic Living Creature or a Destroyed Living Creature. Your discard pile is neither in range or in line of sight from the caster, so you would never be able to resolve these spells according to the rules.
I would argue that card as written is one of very few cards where the card text supersedes the normal rules.
How? The target line tells you what you need to target, and then the text box says that you also get to summon your choice of creature, taken from a discard pile instead of a spellbook. The fact that it's from a discard pile instead of a spellbook supersedes normal rules, but there is nothing written on the card that overrides normal targeting rules. As it is written, you need to first target a creature in a discard pile, which is impossible, and then you can choose any creature you want from a discard pile and summon it to your zone. It doesn't even have to be the creature you originally (tried to) target.
These two spells are similar to [mwcard=MWSTX2FFI03]Disarm[/mwcard], where you choose an equipment to disable. This choice has no effect on the fact that you are still required to follow the normal rules when targeting the Mage. Same with [mwcard=MW1I22]Resurrection[/mwcard] or [mwcard=DNI01]Animate Dead[/mwcard], choosing a creature to summon has no effect on the fact you are still required to target an impossible target. Nothing in the targeting bar or text box says we are able to ignore those rules, the targeting bar just gives us an impossible task.
What they should do is have you target a zone, and then choose a creature from a discard pile to summon to the target zone. Can still keep the 0-0 range and it would work perfectly. Very easy and simple change, but otherwise the cards are currently broken and unplayable.
-
Interesting, I wasn't a playtester for DvN, but just looking at [mwcard=DNI01]Animate Dead[/mwcard], the Target Bar: Discarded non-Epic Living Creature, here is one of the places where the card text overrides the typical rules, and is therefore possible). You can choose a non-Epic creature from any discard pile, note not Obliterated/removed from game, and then finally summon it into your zone. Your zone of course is the location where it will be summoned to, which jibes with the location you would normally summon a creature to though that is the actual target typically.
This is clearly and concisely written and of course it is outside of the normal game mechanic's, is it broken? No, it just doesn't follow the typical game rules.
The same goes from Resurrection though it is worded slightly different.
Could the card text be written better, sure and I do like your approach much better.
These two spells are similar to Disarm, where you choose an equipment to disable. This choice has no effect on the fact that you are still required to follow the normal rules when targeting the Mage. Same with Resurrection or Animate Dead, choosing a creature to summon has no effect on the fact you are still required to target an impossible target. Nothing in the targeting bar or text box says we are able to ignore those rules, the targeting bar just gives us an impossible task.
This is reason I really despise directly targeting Equipment.
-
...the Target Bar: Discarded non-Epic Living Creature, here is one of the places where the card text overrides the typical rules, and is therefore possible).
So, you're saying that because it is listed in the target bar, that makes us able to target it? By that logic, I should be able to target whatever is in the target bar, regardless of the normal targeting rules, because the card text overrides them. So, I can cast Dissolve on you from 5 zones away, because it says I can target a Mage. Saying that the target bar supersedes the normal targeting rules makes the normal targeting rules completely pointless. The target bar tells you what you need to target, it doesn't tell you how to accomplish targeting it.
-
...the Target Bar: Discarded non-Epic Living Creature, here is one of the places where the card text overrides the typical rules, and is therefore possible).
So, you're saying that because it is listed in the target bar, that makes us able to target it? By that logic, I should be able to target whatever is in the target bar, regardless of the normal targeting rules, because the card text overrides them. So, I can cast Dissolve on you from 5 zones away, because it says I can target a Mage. Saying that the target bar supersedes the normal targeting rules makes the normal targeting rules completely pointless. The target bar tells you what you need to target, it doesn't tell you how to accomplish targeting it.
Yes this is exactly what I am saying. You are saying that the company who built the card, has made something that is broken. I disagree, I am quite sure (once again I was not involved in the DvN play testing) that this was discussed heavily during the playtesting process and if Arcanus said that the target bar worked for him, then that is what it is. Not a mistake, not broken, just an exception to the normal rules. Just because Arcanus can say so doesn't mean that siKE can cast a Dissolve from 5 zones away just because I say, I do not have that kind of power and it is not my game. Really not trying to be mean or argumentative for the sakes of being argumentative. I just believe that if the creators/designers intent is written out in the card text, and it is atypical for the game, doesn't mean that it is broken.
I have stated that I agree with you, that both cards could be better worded and fit more easily in the typically rules framework. Errata these two cards, good luck.
-
Or just say that all cards not on the board/cast are 0-0 from all mages playing.
-
If you say that the fact that it is in the target bar makes you able to target it, then you have to be consistent and apply that logic to every card. There is nothing written differently about this target from every other target on every other card. Other targets can be out of range as well. Other targets can be out of line of sight as well. The fact that they are the required target does not allow you to ignore range and line of sight. There is also nothing in the text box that says you can ignore those things.
It's not just atypical. It doesn't work. We are given no instructions on how to make it work. Just like Purify gives us no instructions on how to make the variable casting cost work. We can guess at the intent, but they just do not work as written.
-
Or just say that all cards not on the board/cast are 0-0 from all mages playing.
Does make me wonder if technically you're raising the dead or corrupting the lingering essence of a previously cast and destroyed spell?i.e. is it the spell or the creature you're restoring? It only really matters in terms of the mythology or explanation you use.
I was thinking that all spells exist in potentia, cast spells leave an echo in etheria's mana or on the plane of voltari. A necromancer actually rebuilds this echo, not drags a corpse from the ground...
Cause we don't leave dead summoned creatures all over the board I always figured the creatures remains dissipated back into the ether, which is probably why I think that's a good explanation.
-
If you say that the fact that it is in the target bar makes you able to target it, then you have to be consistent and apply that logic to every card.
You don't have to be consistent at all, it would be nice, but its not a requirement. Look at a speed sign, they are not all the same some say 50, others 20, and so forth. They are not consistent. However the layout is, so whatever the number that is shown on the sign we all know that it is the posted speed limit. I belive it is the same for the target bar.
What I think you are trying to do is mix how things happen in the Arena with LoS + Targeting (Mage) and how a good part of the game "happens" outside of the Arena, during spell preparation with you digging through your spellbook (Player). Typically you prepare a spell by placing "it" face down on the "table" not in the arena and it is the same with the discard pile. As far as I know the discard pile does not exist to any Object in the Arena and therefore under normal game rules does not exist and can never be targeted. How do you imagine the mage running out of the Arena to the Table to dig through the history of the spells he cast for Resurrection or both Mages history of spells for Animate Dead, to dig out the creature in question. I think (and hope I do) I know the answer: No.
With that in mind, how would your Mage who is casting this spell work if the Target were a Zone? The two cards in question and their specific game mechanic is outside "the box" thematically and you would still have to write up specific card text (since the target is no longer the Discard Pile) to resolve the cards functional design, which is to access a Players discard pile and then cast it.
-
I think it's pretty safe to say that cards that target the discard pile or its contents are actually supposed to work. I guess the question is, does this work within the technical constraints of the rules, or only by fiat?
If I look at the rules and see that
1. The card requires something impossible to ever function even minimally,
Then
2. Either
a. The card does nothing,
Or
b. The requirement isn't actually impossible,
Or
C. The card doesn't have the requirement, appearances to the contrary.
A's not really an option. The game isn't a trick played on the players. Players can't and should never have to examine cards minutely to see if they do what they promise.
B, in this case is a non-starter, I think. Target is a heavily regulated term, and LoS rules are very clear that you can't draw a line to something that's not a zone.
This leaves C. Turns out that we're not actually targeting in accord with the rules. Yes, I know it has a target written on the card, but the parsimonious ruling seems to be that the card is technically written wrong. I would probably conclude that the cards really mean "choose" instead of target.
So, yeah, they probably needs to be fixed, because they only really work by fiat right now. That's probably mostly ok, but fiat has bad interactions with other rules and cards.
-
I think it's pretty safe to say that cards that target the discard pile or its contents are actually supposed to work. I guess the question is, does this work within the technical constraints of the rules, or only by fiat?
If I look at the rules and see that
1. The card requires something impossible to ever function even minimally,
Then
2. Either
a. The card does nothing,
Or
b. The requirement isn't actually impossible,
Or
C. The card doesn't have the requirement, appearances to the contrary.
A's not really an option. The game isn't a trick played on the players. Players can't and should never have to examine cards minutely to see if they do what they promise.
B, in this case is a non-starter, I think. Target is a heavily regulated term, and LoS rules are very clear that you can't draw a line to something that's not a zone.
This leaves C. Turns out that we're not actually targeting in accord with the rules. Yes, I know it has a target written on the card, but the parsimonious ruling seems to be that the card is technically written wrong. I would probably conclude that the cards really mean "choose" instead of target.
So, yeah, they probably needs to be fixed, because they only really work by fiat right now. That's probably mostly ok, but fiat has bad interactions with other rules and cards.
No disagreement here!
-
I think it's pretty safe to say that cards that target the discard pile or its contents are actually supposed to work. I guess the question is, does this work within the technical constraints of the rules, or only by fiat?
If I look at the rules and see that
1. The card requires something impossible to ever function even minimally,
Then
2. Either
a. The card does nothing,
Or
b. The requirement isn't actually impossible,
Or
C. The card doesn't have the requirement, appearances to the contrary.
A's not really an option. The game isn't a trick played on the players. Players can't and should never have to examine cards minutely to see if they do what they promise.
B, in this case is a non-starter, I think. Target is a heavily regulated term, and LoS rules are very clear that you can't draw a line to something that's not a zone.
This leaves C. Turns out that we're not actually targeting in accord with the rules. Yes, I know it has a target written on the card, but the parsimonious ruling seems to be that the card is technically written wrong. I would probably conclude that the cards really mean "choose" instead of target.
So, yeah, they probably needs to be fixed, because they only really work by fiat right now. That's probably mostly ok, but fiat has bad interactions with other rules and cards.
Agreed as well. Right now, these two cards can only function by us ignoring the target bar and forgetting about some rules. Obviously they are supposed to work though, so that's what we have to do. It's a little harder with Purify though, because of the bad interactions you mention and not knowing exactly how to resolve the timing of the card.
@sIKE speed limit signs may have different numbers on them, but they all tell you what the max speed is. The target line always tells you what you are required to target, and target is a very precise game term with specific requirements. If the target of those two cards was zone, you could leave the card text exactly the same and it would work fine. Choosing a creature to summon, regardless of its origin point, doesn't require targeting that creature. Casting a spell though does require you to target according to the target bar.
In the end though, I think kich summarized things better than I've been doing.
-
I think it's pretty safe to say that cards that target the discard pile or its contents are actually supposed to work. I guess the question is, does this work within the technical constraints of the rules, or only by fiat?
If I look at the rules and see that
1. The card requires something impossible to ever function even minimally,
Then
2. Either
a. The card does nothing,
Or
b. The requirement isn't actually impossible,
Or
C. The card doesn't have the requirement, appearances to the contrary.
A's not really an option. The game isn't a trick played on the players. Players can't and should never have to examine cards minutely to see if they do what they promise.
B, in this case is a non-starter, I think. Target is a heavily regulated term, and LoS rules are very clear that you can't draw a line to something that's not a zone.
This leaves C. Turns out that we're not actually targeting in accord with the rules. Yes, I know it has a target written on the card, but the parsimonious ruling seems to be that the card is technically written wrong. I would probably conclude that the cards really mean "choose" instead of target.
So, yeah, they probably needs to be fixed, because they only really work by fiat right now. That's probably mostly ok, but fiat has bad interactions with other rules and cards.
Agreed as well. Right now, these two cards can only function by us ignoring the target bar and forgetting about some rules. Obviously they are supposed to work though, so that's what we have to do. It's a little harder with Purify though, because of the bad interactions you mention and not knowing exactly how to resolve the timing of the card.
@sIKE speed limit signs may have different numbers on them, but they all tell you what the max speed is. The target line always tells you what you are required to target, and target is a very precise game term with specific requirements. If the target of those two cards was zone, you could leave the card text exactly the same and it would work fine. Choosing a creature to summon, regardless of its origin point, doesn't require targeting that creature. Casting a spell though does require you to target according to the target bar.
In the end though, I think kich summarized things better than I've been doing.
And I think he said what I was trying to say better than I was.
-
I never noticed these problems! but it's problematic...
purify: the X isn't well defined.
for me it's clear AW forgot to wright "X=total cost" (and all time issues would then be solved)
resurection and animate dead: the discard pile is out of LOS, etc.
for me it's clear AW wrote the wrong target. the target should be the zone, as well as the creature's
... any official AW statement? ( or a new version of the official rulles supplement? ;D)
-
Yeah, I don't think y'all were actually disagreeing :)
-
I never noticed these problems!
All games/software/laws have corner-cases/bugs/errors. The are more, and worse! And AW has fixed far more, and far worse. Most people would never notice, or need to care, because the game runs smoothly in nearly all cases of actual play.
... any official AW statement? ( or a new version of the official rulles supplement? ;D)
Laddinfance no longer needs sleep or rest, but toils ceaselessly in the White Spires: working great magic, writing tomes of rules, and herding cats. I would expect one sooner than later.
-
I never noticed these problems! but it's problematic...
purify: the X isn't well defined.
for me it's clear AW forgot to wright "X=total cost" (and all time issues would then be solved)
... any official AW statement? ( or a new version of the official rulles supplement? ;D)
It seems another possible intent would be to have both X=casting cost AND pay additional mana for additional effects during the Resolve Step. This could be clarified as a spell with both a required Casting Cost and an optional Resolve Cost. This would work similar to Armor Ward when it is revealed.
It might help if this was made into a general rule with consistent language.
-
Does make me wonder if technically you're raising the dead or corrupting the lingering essence of a previously cast and destroyed spell?i.e. is it the spell or the creature you're restoring? It only really matters in terms of the mythology or explanation you use.
You may even not be killing those creatures. When one legendary creature is destroyed it may be summoned once again, resurrected or reanimated (and later summoned if reanimated copy is destroyed).
...the Target Bar: Discarded non-Epic Living Creature, here is one of the places where the card text overrides the typical rules, and is therefore possible).
I see no reason why Target Bar of those spells shouldn't state "Zone", just like normal summoning of a creature. EDIT: should have read 2nd page before posting.
-
Does make me wonder if technically you're raising the dead or corrupting the lingering essence of a previously cast and destroyed spell?i.e. is it the spell or the creature you're restoring? It only really matters in terms of the mythology or explanation you use.
You may even not be killing those creatures. When one legendary creature is destroyed it may be summoned once again, resurrected or reanimated (and later summoned if reanimated copy is destroyed).
See I think this is what this thread really needs to resolve first - it might be different for legendary creatures, since they're named. I mean if you summon Aldremech, you're clearly summoning that demon. If you summon it again, its the same demon. So clearly when its destroyed it isn't destroyed, just returns to its pit. Now if you summon a fox, destroy it and sumon a fox... is it the same fox...
-
Does make me wonder if technically you're raising the dead or corrupting the lingering essence of a previously cast and destroyed spell?i.e. is it the spell or the creature you're restoring? It only really matters in terms of the mythology or explanation you use.
You may even not be killing those creatures. When one legendary creature is destroyed it may be summoned once again, resurrected or reanimated (and later summoned if reanimated copy is destroyed).
See I think this is what this thread really needs to resolve first - it might be different for legendary creatures, since they're named. I mean if you summon Aldremech, you're clearly summoning that demon. If you summon it again, its the same demon. So clearly when its destroyed it isn't destroyed, just returns to its pit. Now if you summon a fox, destroy it and sumon a fox... is it the same fox...
When you summon an object in the arena, it is a in our terms a copy/clone of the real thing, not the real thing.
-
Does make me wonder if technically you're raising the dead or corrupting the lingering essence of a previously cast and destroyed spell?i.e. is it the spell or the creature you're restoring? It only really matters in terms of the mythology or explanation you use.
You may even not be killing those creatures. When one legendary creature is destroyed it may be summoned once again, resurrected or reanimated (and later summoned if reanimated copy is destroyed).
See I think this is what this thread really needs to resolve first - it might be different for legendary creatures, since they're named. I mean if you summon Aldremech, you're clearly summoning that demon. If you summon it again, its the same demon. So clearly when its destroyed it isn't destroyed, just returns to its pit. Now if you summon a fox, destroy it and sumon a fox... is it the same fox...
When you summon an object in the arena, it is a in our terms a copy/clone of the real thing, not the real thing.
From what I understand, when a mage summons a creature they are not actually summoning a thing in the world right now. The creatures are merely copies of what already exists. So a [mwcard=MW1C04]Bitterwood Fox[/mwcard] is just a "average" Bitterwood Fox (think of it like how all fireballs probably look similar). When you cast a legendary creature you are actually copying a specific thing. So for [mwcard=MW1C06]Brogan Bloodstone[/mwcard] the spell is most likely because the mage has gotten to know Brogan and can copy his exact likeness.
-
From what I understand, when a mage summons a creature they are not actually summoning a thing in the world right now. The creatures are merely copies of what already exists. So a [mwcard=MW1C04]Bitterwood Fox[/mwcard] is just a "average" Bitterwood Fox (think of it like how all fireballs probably look similar). When you cast a legendary creature you are actually copying a specific thing. So for [mwcard=MW1C06]Brogan Bloodstone[/mwcard] the spell is most likely because the mage has gotten to know Brogan and can copy his exact likeness.
If spells are summoning copies of an object, then why can't there be more than one legendary creature in play? Do they have some sort of copy protection? Or maybe it's non-legendary objects that are in public domain?
-
To summon a precise copy of a legendary creature you have to have that creature's permission. Unfortunately, only a single copy of a unique individual can exist at a time.
-
To summon a precise copy of a legendary creature you have to have that creature's permission. Unfortunately, only a single copy of a unique individual can exist at a time.
Can there be more than one arena fight at a single time? If yes, then how mages deal with summoning copy of legendary creature when one copy of that creature is already fighting in different arena?
Can a mage bribe another mage to summon Brogan and prolong fight, because an hour later than other mage he'll be fighting Priestess?
-
And what's even more fun is that for many of the very high level creatures, e.g. Adremelech, what the mage summons is only a shadow of the subject's true power.
-
To summon a precise copy of a legendary creature you have to have that creature's permission. Unfortunately, only a single copy of a unique individual can exist at a time.
More on how this works here on the World and Lore board, for those who are interested in the storyline aspects.
http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=16022.0
-
Thanks... this hasn't been a rules discussion for some time now.
-
and yet the rulles question was important!
-
and yet the rulles question was important!
and to be fair, I'm not sure its been answered has it?
-
and yet the rulles question was important!
and to be fair, I'm not sure its been answered has it?
nope!
-
and yet the rulles question was important!
and to be fair, I'm not sure its been answered has it?
Actually, Zuberi answered the original question in the third reply to the original post. The question was one of timing of when to pay for the effects of casting the spell.
-
I'm going to paraphrase Exid, who I think gave a wonderful summary of things.
With Purify, the X isn't well defined. I believe that Arcane Wonders simply neglected to write "X=total cost" on the card. This means you would pay for it during Step 2: Pay Costs.
With Resurrection and Animate Dead, the discard pile is out of range and LOS. I believe the target for these spells should have been zone instead.
There is no official word from Arcane Wonders currently, but these answers make the cards playable. Any other answer would cause the cards to be unusable.
-
Which make it obvious, what kind of answer it would be :)
-
does that mean the wording should be something like remove condition tokens up to the value of the mana you paid?
Cause it reads like you don't determine the mana cost until the effect stage. So going back to the initial question, whats the cost of a nullify etc? Its hard to make the caster agree they were going to remove those 8 weaken tokens when they could say I'd only planned to test if you'd got a nullify on me?
-
there are still uncertainties with enchantment transfusion.
Must the choice of poison enchantment(s) be made up front so the opponent with a face down enchantment transfusion can select only to move those targetted before the spell resolves, or can the caster of purify select a combination of poisen conditions and / or poison enchantments that totals equal or less than the mana spend on purify during the resolve step?
-
The general rule is that when a spell has multiple effects to choose from, you make those choices during Step 1: Declare Spell. This is when you would choose which conditions and enchantments you wish to destroy. Then in Step 2: Pay Costs you pay the total mana cost required to destroy them. If it then gets Nullified, you are out the entire amount of mana.
Enchantment transfusion is an interesting case. You don't actually target the enchantments that you plan on destroying, so it doesn't matter that they've been moved. I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that Enchantment Transfusion would be pointless and the selected Enchantments would still be destroyed regardless of them being moved. I can't think of a reason off the top of my head at least why moving them would save them, since they are not targeted by the spell, but I'd have to actually look over things to be certain, which I don't have time to do right now.
-
1. the purify chooses the targeted creature, the enchantments to destroy and pays
2. the enchantment transfusion is revealed and the enchantments go away
3. the purify destroys what is left, but the mooved enchantments are safe (not on the targeted creature anymore, could be out of range too)
doesn't it work?
-
The issue is that the enchantments that were selected for destruction are not targets. That means they don't fall under the normal rules for cancelling an action in progress. You've already selected to destroy them, and there isn't really any rule or check that occurs after that point to cancel that destruction so long as the spell reaches the Resolve Spell step. You never again check that they are in range or line of sight, nor whether they are still attached to the initial creature. Not after the Declare Spell step. People are welcome to double check me on this, as I still haven't gone through things thoroughly, but a quick scan of the documents didn't reveal anything to me to cause their destruction to be affected by moving them.
-
i see your point now... and agree.
(and while the target isn't checked again, it would be the same with a dispel instead of the purify, isn't it?)
could we have an official statement?
-
Moving all enchantments with ET before the resolve step means that you cant follow the text on purify "revealed poison enchantments from the target".
-
Moving all enchantments with ET before the resolve step means that you cant follow the text on purify "revealed poison enchantments from the target".
That restricts what you can select to destroy, but you've already done that before they are moved. You don't check to make sure they are still valid targets when you actually destroy them because they aren't targets at all. There's no rule that I can find that says you double check if they are still attached to the target once they've already been selected for destruction. They don't follow the normal rules for canceling an action in progress because they aren't targets. That includes both checking to see if they've moved, and checking to see if they are still a valid recipient of the effect. The fact that we don't check if they are still valid means we don't care that they are no longer attached to the target. They were when we cast it and that's all that matters.
Dispel does not work the same way though, because it does target the enchantment to be destroyed.
-
Dispel does not work the same way though, because it does target the enchantment to be destroyed.
when do we have to re-check that the target is valid?
-
A spell fails and is canceled, if either of the following occur before the Resolve Spell Step:
1. The target of the spell is no longer a legal target, or
2. The caster or target of the spell moves (e.g. by being Pushed or Teleported away), even if the move was to a location where the spell was still in range. (In the cas of a Teleport, this applies even if the teleport was into the same zone).
Similarly, an attack fails and is canceled, if either of the following occur before the Apply Damage and Effects step of an attack:
1. The target of the attack is no longer a legal target, or
2. The source or target of the attack moves (e.g. by being Pushed or Teleported away), even if the move was to a location where the spell was still in range. (In the case of a Teleport, this applies even if the teleport was into the same zone).
These things are constantly checked for under these rules. And these are the only rules I can find regarding canceling something in progress (other than of course cards/effects that specifically do so), and they apply only to targets. Since the enchantments being destroyed by Purify are not targeted, these rules do not apply to them. However, Dispel does target the enchantment it wants to destroy and thus would be restricted by these rules.
-
Purify calculates it's cost when it resolves. In this case the X is just there to remind you that the spell could have a variable cost. In this way it also interacts correctly with Enchantment transfusion.
-
The card should not have an X in the casting cost then. Casting costs aren't paid during the resolve spell step, they are paid during the pay costs step. That's not too say that we can't require mana to be paid during the resolve spell step, just that it's not the same thing as a casting cost. Purify should have its actual casting cost printed on it, which I'm assuming is 0.
As it is currently written, we are required to pay an unknown casting cost, not a zero mana casting cost, but an unknown casting cost before we can even get to the resolve spell step. I would really suggest errata on this card to make it align with the intention.
-
(The thing I never noticed, and should have, is that in Purify, the X is never defined.)
Purify seems to be a case of the card over-riding the rules framework, then. The rulebook is pretty explicit that this can happen.
The rules can handle a deferred casting cost just fine, as long as we know that's what's happening. It's a potential corner case if there's ever a spell that triggers e.g. during the Counter Spell step dependent on the casting cost of the spell, but the actual process to follow seems clear enough.
For example, if there were a Nullify that triggered only on spells of casting cost 10 or greater, and if it were worded like this:
When this creature is targeted by an incantation or enchantment spell, controlled by an opponent, with a mana cost of 10 or greater, you must reveal FILTER SPELL during the Counter Spell Step....
Purify could never trigger it, that's all.
-
Purify calculates it's cost when it resolves. In this case the X is just there to remind you that the spell could have a variable cost. In this way it also interacts correctly with Enchantment transfusion.
it breaks a normal rulle.
it's no problem but it should be clearly written on the card ("X is calculate and payed during the resolve step").
a few questions about how it will work:
1) with nulify
a nulify costs 0 to counter a purify?
2) with transfusion
purify decides to destroys an enchantement (and adds its cost to its own cost) / it's an event, so the other player can reveal transfusion and save a few other enchantements / purify chooses some other enchantements if thers's somme left?
-
It is certainly possible for it to break the normal rules and defer the casting cost. You are correct. However:
A. It does not clearly communicate that such is what it is doing.
B. It would be a lot simpler to just write the casting cost as 0 and then write that the destruction effects require extra mana to be paid at the time of the destruction, like it is currently written, than it is to explain that the casting cost is paid at a different time than normal.
C. Inconsistent use of variable casting costs can cause confusion. Which spells pay this variable during the Pay Costs step and which ones pay it during the Resolve Spell Step? A confused soul could easily assume that spells like [mwcard=MW1I07]Dissolve[/mwcard] also work like Purify, and thus you don't lose any mana if it gets Nullified.
I'm okay with it breaking the normal rules and behaving how Laddinfance stated, but it is horribly written currently and needs errata to clarify how it works.
@Exid:
[mwcard=MW1E29]Nullify[/mwcard] always costs 2 to cast and 2 to reveal regardless of what it counters. With the transfusion, previously I would have stated that you can't reveal it during the Resolve Spell Step, but with the discussion currently going on here (http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=16048.msg57712#msg57712) I am unable to say that with certainty. You might be able to reveal it after they've removed things with Purify.
-
@Exid:
[mwcard=MW1E29]Nullify[/mwcard] always costs 2 to cast and 2 to reveal regardless of what it counters.
:-[
sorry for that question... it's very early on a sunday morning here...
-
Purify calculates it's cost when it resolves. In this case the X is just there to remind you that the spell could have a variable cost. In this way it also interacts correctly with Enchantment transfusion.
it breaks a normal rulle.
it's no problem but it should be clearly written on the card ("X is calculate and payed during the resolve step").
a few questions about how it will work:
1) with nulify
a nulify costs 0 to counter a purify?
2) with transfusion
purify decides to destroys an enchantement (and adds its cost to its own cost) / it's an event, so the other player can reveal transfusion and save a few other enchantements / purify chooses some other enchantements if thers's somme left?
No you cannot reveal enchantment transfusion during the resolution step of casting a spell. You'll have to pull the enchantments off before then.
-
Purify calculates it's cost when it resolves. In this case the X is just there to remind you that the spell could have a variable cost. In this way it also interacts correctly with Enchantment transfusion.
it breaks a normal rulle.
it's no problem but it should be clearly written on the card ("X is calculate and payed during the resolve step").
a few questions about how it will work:
1) with nulify
a nulify costs 0 to counter a purify?
2) with transfusion
purify decides to destroys an enchantement (and adds its cost to its own cost) / it's an event, so the other player can reveal transfusion and save a few other enchantements / purify chooses some other enchantements if thers's somme left?
No you cannot reveal enchantment transfusion during the resolution step of casting a spell. You'll have to pull the enchantments off before then.
According to your other post in another thread *barkskin and poisoned blood* you can if the situation is right.
After the caster of purify selects and pays for 1 or more poison conditions - BAM! step/event! - you can reveal enchantment transfusion.
-
The resolution step of spellcasting is the event. You cannot split up a step into smaller steps.
Just to be clear, I realize exactly what you're saying and I understand the arguments put forth by Zuberi. That being the case, you cannot interrupt the resolution step, you have to wait for it to resolve.
Now, I will work through all of the other ruling issues as fast as I can. I've already been pouring over the rulebooks v2 through v4 constantly for the past 48 hours, and it would seem I'll continue doing that for a fair portion of the foreseeable future. We all need some peace on that issue and if that means I dig through all of them, then I dig through them.
-
After the caster of purify selects and pays for 1 or more poison conditions - BAM! step/event! - you can reveal enchantment transfusion.
Nope, a step is a step and not event. And no, you cannot pour water on a step after midnight and it becomes an event.
-
Purify calculates it's cost when it resolves. In this case the X is just there to remind you that the spell could have a variable cost. In this way it also interacts correctly with Enchantment transfusion.
it breaks a normal rulle.
it's no problem but it should be clearly written on the card ("X is calculate and payed during the resolve step").
a few questions about how it will work:
1) with nulify
a nulify costs 0 to counter a purify?
2) with transfusion
purify decides to destroys an enchantement (and adds its cost to its own cost) / it's an event, so the other player can reveal transfusion and save a few other enchantements / purify chooses some other enchantements if thers's somme left?
No you cannot reveal enchantment transfusion during the resolution step of casting a spell. You'll have to pull the enchantments off before then.
According to your other post in another thread *barkskin and poisoned blood* you can if the situation is right.
After the caster of purify selects and pays for 1 or more poison conditions - BAM! step/event! - you can reveal enchantment transfusion.
;D ;D ;D
i like this forum these days!
-
After the caster of purify selects and pays for 1 or more poison conditions - BAM! step/event! - you can reveal enchantment transfusion.
Nope, a step is a step and not event. And no, you cannot pour water on a step after midnight and it becomes an event.
I thought water made the step split into mini steps. It only becomes an event if you feed it after midnight.
-
After the caster of purify selects and pays for 1 or more poison conditions - BAM! step/event! - you can reveal enchantment transfusion.
Nope, a step is a step and not event. And no, you cannot pour water on a step after midnight and it becomes an event.
I thought water made the step split into mini steps. It only becomes an event if you feed it after midnight.
That and Judo Chops will split steps into many mini-steps especially if performed by mini-me (or mini-you).
-
After the caster of purify selects and pays for 1 or more poison conditions - BAM! step/event! - you can reveal enchantment transfusion.
Nope, a step is a step and not event. And no, you cannot pour water on a step after midnight and it becomes an event.
It does if the water freezes and someone slips on the ice....
-
After the caster of purify selects and pays for 1 or more poison conditions - BAM! step/event! - you can reveal enchantment transfusion.
Nope, a step is a step and not event. And no, you cannot pour water on a step after midnight and it becomes an event.
It does if the water freezes and someone slips on the ice....
QFT!
-
Why i always remember Home Alone! with Culcin when came to Ice on stairs :)
-
Can we keep this on target please.
My two cents on this.
1) Purify is declared, it chooses a target and it checks it is a valid target within range.
2) It targets a number of enchantments, and or markers and creates an integer for each.
3) Pay costs, each integer is multiplied by its respective cost and summed to create a total cost. Upon this total cost being zero then the casting cost is also zero. Due to the variable nature of the cost of this card, a casting cost of X is used.
4) Resolve the effects of purify, following each line and apply in order.
5) Check for trigger effects, such as Priestess life gain.
6) End activation.
-
Can we keep this on target please.
My two cents on this.
1) Purify is declared, it chooses a target and it checks it is a valid target within range.
2) It targets a number of enchantments, and or markers and creates an integer for each.
3) Pay costs, each integer is multiplied by its respective cost and summed to create a total cost. Upon this total cost being zero then the casting cost is also zero. Due to the variable nature of the cost of this card, a casting cost of X is used.
4) Resolve the effects of purify, following each line and apply in order.
5) Check for trigger effects, such as Priestess life gain.
6) End activation.
The only target is the Living Creature selected at the start of the spell. You do not target the enchantments or conditions.
Where would you put the counterspell step in the above list? I think that that is the main question here. Do you cast the spell (having not yet paid any mana), let the opponent counter it, and then... if not countered... select the conditions and enchantments that you want removed and pay the mana cost? Or... do you select all of the conditions and enchantments that you would like to have removed at the start and pay the mana costs up front?
-
Laddinfance has answered this question.
Step 1: Declare Spell
You declare that you are casting purify and select which creature it is targeting.
Step 2: Pay Costs
The casting cost of Purify is 0. Ignore the X printed on the card, it is a misprint.
Step 3: Counter Spell
See if anything triggers here.
Step 4: Resolve Spell
Now you first select which conditions to remove and pay for them, then you select which enchantments to remove and pay for them. I'm not sure why it matters what order you do this in since there's no chance for a response during this step....unless they count as two different events (a headache currently being discussed in another thread).
-
Laddinfance has answered this question.
Step 1: Declare Spell
You declare that you are casting purify and select which creature it is targeting.
Step 2: Pay Costs
The casting cost of Purify is 0. Ignore the X printed on the card, it is a misprint.
Step 3: Counter Spell
See if anything triggers here.
Step 4: Resolve Spell
Now you first select which conditions to remove and pay for them, then you select which enchantments to remove and pay for them. I'm not sure why it matters what order you do this in since there's no chance for a response during this step....unless they count as two different events (a headache currently being discussed in another thread).
Yes, I know. I was pointing this out in a different way. I'll just stop talking... thanks.
-
I was about to post this. I didn't have the card in front of me when I posted before. I thought I knew the text.
-
Purify calculates it's cost when it resolves. In this case the X is just there to remind you that the spell could have a variable cost. In this way it also interacts correctly with Enchantment transfusion.
it breaks a normal rulle.
it's no problem but it should be clearly written on the card ("X is calculate and payed during the resolve step").
a few questions about how it will work:
1) with nulify
a nulify costs 0 to counter a purify?
2) with transfusion
purify decides to destroys an enchantement (and adds its cost to its own cost) / it's an event, so the other player can reveal transfusion and save a few other enchantements / purify chooses some other enchantements if thers's somme left?
No you cannot reveal enchantment transfusion during the resolution step of casting a spell. You'll have to pull the enchantments off before then.
just getting up an old topic if i have poisoned blood on me i cast purify for 5mana and after they pay step the oponent reveals an enchantment transfusion, my spell will be cast but nothing will be removed and poisoned blood on a new target, as in the resolve step there is not poisioned blood on it.
In the case i have plagued and ghoul rot on me i pay 8 mana for purify and an echantment transfusion is revealed before the resolve step, but the oponent has only 2mana he can only move one of the two away, and in either case i can destroy the other as i payed enough mana to destroy it and it is still there?
and last case i pay 8mana ghoul rot and pb are there transfusion is revealed ghoul rot moved, but i can still destroy PB as i have payed 8 which is sufficient (but is more than 5 by 3)
-
The important thing here, Mystery, is you don't choose what you remove until the resolve spell step AND you don't have to pay anything until the resolve spell step. You pay for the effect of removing the poison, not for Purify itself. The casting cost of purify is essentially 0.
Thus, if they move things around before the Resolve Spell step, you don't have to pay any mana at all. You're still out the spell and the action, but you don't ever lose mana unnecessarily. If they let you get to the point where you're spending mana, the Resolve Spell step, then they are too late to stop it from having the intended effect and you will remove things exactly as you planned.
-
The important thing here, Mystery, is you don't choose what you remove until the resolve spell step AND you don't have to pay anything until the resolve spell step. You pay for the effect of removing the poison, not for Purify itself. The casting cost of purify is essentially 0.
Thus, if they move things around before the Resolve Spell step, you don't have to pay any mana at all. You're still out the spell and the action, but you don't ever lose mana unnecessarily. If they let you get to the point where you're spending mana, the Resolve Spell step, then they are too late to stop it from having the intended effect and you will remove things exactly as you planned.
is that the official rule? thats my question
That would mean on dispel you also pay during resolve as it is the card text, but there you pay in pay cost as x is specified and purify has also x casting cost. I know the problem with that it is not clear.
I wanted to know what is the official end rule for it
-
The important thing here, Mystery, is you don't choose what you remove until the resolve spell step AND you don't have to pay anything until the resolve spell step. You pay for the effect of removing the poison, not for Purify itself. The casting cost of purify is essentially 0.
Thus, if they move things around before the Resolve Spell step, you don't have to pay any mana at all. You're still out the spell and the action, but you don't ever lose mana unnecessarily. If they let you get to the point where you're spending mana, the Resolve Spell step, then they are too late to stop it from having the intended effect and you will remove things exactly as you planned.
is that the official rule? thats my question
That would mean on dispel you also pay during resolve as it is the card text, but there you pay in pay cost as x is specified and purify has also x casting cost. I know the problem with that it is not clear.
I wanted to know what is the official end rule for it
My personal guideline is that Zuberi knows more about how the rules work than AW :P
The devious culprit here is "X".
From the rules:
Step 2: Pay Costs
You must pay all costs for the spell: reduce the mana in your Mana Supply equal to the casting cost (or reduce the mana on your Familiar or Spawnpoint by removing mana markers). Some spells may have additional costs (such as taking damage, lowering your Life value, or destroying an object in play). These costs must also be paid now. As soon as you pay the costs required, your spell has been cast. If you cannot pay all of the costs, the spell is cancelled and discarded, and you have lost the action.
Lets change the example of the card in question to better show what is happening here; at least from where I am sitting.
[mwcard=MW1I11]Explode[/mwcard]
Step 1: Declare / target the mage
Step 2: Pay costs. The cost of the spell requires you to target an equipment on the other mage. You cannot " dead fire" a 6 mana cost explode on a mage with no equipment. The additional target line is not an option, but a requirement to cast the spell so you have to pay that cost during step 2, and as such has to be paid for in step 2 as per the bolded part; which does the most important thing, set the X variable equal to something. Without that there is no way to know how much to pay for a spell.
During step 2 you have to pay all the costs associated with that spell. If you are paying part of the cost for the spell after step 2 then something is not working right. The spell wont take effect until the resolution step but you have to declare something to resolve. The biggest issue with why Purify is a "problem" is that there is no "X = " in the card text. What that does is literally say everything tied to this card is an extension of the resolution ability and not an variable cost to cast the spell. and as such it plays out as Zuberi described. That means in the specific case of purify, or anything where X is not specifically given a VALUE OR OTHER CONDITIONAL COST, there is no cost until step 4.
-
Yep it should be a 0 casting cost....
-
Those playtesters from before my time, like....oh never mind.
-
The important thing here, Mystery, is you don't choose what you remove until the resolve spell step AND you don't have to pay anything until the resolve spell step. You pay for the effect of removing the poison, not for Purify itself. The casting cost of purify is essentially 0.
Thus, if they move things around before the Resolve Spell step, you don't have to pay any mana at all. You're still out the spell and the action, but you don't ever lose mana unnecessarily. If they let you get to the point where you're spending mana, the Resolve Spell step, then they are too late to stop it from having the intended effect and you will remove things exactly as you planned.
is that the official rule? thats my question
That would mean on dispel you also pay during resolve as it is the card text, but there you pay in pay cost as x is specified and purify has also x casting cost. I know the problem with that it is not clear.
I wanted to know what is the official end rule for it
Yes, that is the official ruling as seen here:
Purify calculates it's cost when it resolves. In this case the X is just there to remind you that the spell could have a variable cost. In this way it also interacts correctly with Enchantment transfusion.
"When it resolves" means during the resolve spell step. This, however, is limited just to Purify and is not the way you handle any other spell with a variable cost. It's easier to think of it as a misprint, though they aren't going to change it. The casting cost is actually zero, and then the effect of the spell requires additional costs per the text.
Any other spell with an x in the casting cost still has to pay its costs during the pay costs step.
-
So official rule: a card errata should have simply 0 printed on the casting cost
This should be added to the next rules supplement file as clarification!
-
So official rule: a card errata should have simply 0 printed on the casting cost
This should be added to the next rules supplement file as clarification!
i agree!