Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Rules Discussion => Topic started by: Sailor Vulcan on November 12, 2013, 02:04:44 PM
-
Like, if a creature is enchanted with two of this enchantment, then will that creature have to pay 2 mana twice in order to attack?
-
Like, if a creature is enchanted with two of this enchantment, then will that creature have to pay 2 mana twice in order to attack?
***Ignoring that a creature can not have two of the same enchantment active at the same time***
Yes, the mana payment is a mandatory action for each.
So creature declares an attack,
He / she must pay 2 mana for pacify A,
Then he / she must pay 2 mana for pacify B.
Now lets pretend that the player only has 3 mana.
Creature (with 2 pacifies) declares an attack
He/she must pay 2 mana.
He / she can not pay the two mana so the attack does not happen.
-
Wait, really? You can't have more than one of the same enchantment on a single creature at a time? So all those times someone's beaten me using a double bear-strengthened creature...?
-
You cant have more then one of the same enchantment on anything.
Rules Book:
There is no limit to the number of different enchantments
that can be on an object, but each object or zone cannot
have more than one enchantment with the same name
attached to it at one time. This includes both hidden and
revealed enchantments. For example, you cannot attach two
Bear Strength spells to the same creature. It is possible that
both players may attach an identical enchantment to the
same target. If an identical enchantment is revealed on the
same target, it is immediately destroyed
-
So all those times someone's beaten me using a double bear-strengthened creature...?
Yep, it was illegal. Sorry duder
-
I believe the same goes for any spell on a given target. e.g. only 1 Mangler Caltrops per zone, only 1 named Ring on a Mage.
-
That is correct. Great point!
-
You cant have more then one of the same enchantment on anything.
Rules Book:
There is no limit to the number of different enchantments that can be on an object, but each object or zone cannot have more than one enchantment with the same name attached to it at one time. This includes both hidden and revealed enchantments. For example, you cannot attach two Bear Strength spells to the same creature. It is possible that both players may attach an identical enchantment to the same target. If an identical enchantment is revealed on the same target, it is immediately destroyed
QFT 8)
-
Rules Book:
There is no limit to the number of different enchantments
that can be on an object, but each object or zone cannot
have more than one enchantment with the same name
attached to it at one time. This includes both hidden and
revealed enchantments. For example, you cannot attach two
Bear Strength spells to the same creature. It is possible that
both players may attach an identical enchantment to the
same target. If an identical enchantment is revealed on the
same target, it is immediately destroyed
This creates some interesting interactions if players unknowingly play the same enchantment facedown on a creature. I remember there being a discussion a while back about the potential for counter spelling given the interaction.
-
Rules Book:
There is no limit to the number of different enchantments
that can be on an object, but each object or zone cannot
have more than one enchantment with the same name
attached to it at one time. This includes both hidden and
revealed enchantments. For example, you cannot attach two
Bear Strength spells to the same creature. It is possible that
both players may attach an identical enchantment to the
same target. If an identical enchantment is revealed on the
same target, it is immediately destroyed
This creates some interesting interactions if players unknowingly play the same enchantment facedown on a creature. I remember there being a discussion a while back about the potential for counter spelling given the interaction.
That sounds great! It sounds like such counterspell tactics would be quite useful against the most threatening enchantments. For instance, a build that depends on mobility could include a force hold or two for casting on its own mage!
The only problem I might have with this mechanic being used in such a way is that it seems very much like sympathetic magic, and that should be a Sympath's specialty if we ever get a Sympath in this game.
Also, doesn't this mean that if there were ever an illusionist, the illusionist's creatures would either have to be REAL creatures, or if they're enchantments, they would be destroyed if they entered a zone with an identically named illusion-creature? Then again, an illusionist would most likely have training in mind, so would probably have some access to illusionary position control try to stop this from happening. Something like weaker forms of shift enchantment or enchantment transfusion that only work on friendly zone enchantments—basically an illusionary "force push" and illusionary "force wave" respectively. That would be cool.
This looks like a really fun way to counter and it opens a door in my imagination to lots of awesome enchantment countering to help compensate for the worst enchantment weaknesses of certain spellbook ideas. I'm not sure how I feel about it thematically, though.
-
I think illusionary creatures would still be of the creature type, not enchantments. They would simply have the "illusion" subtype and special traits and rules that go along with that.
-
This creates some interesting interactions if players unknowingly play the same enchantment facedown on a creature. I remember there being a discussion a while back about the potential for counter spelling given the interaction.
Back in the day there was a "tactic" the boards nick named immunizing. (I will take the credit for creating, not the naming)
Where you purposely enchant yourself with an enchantment (say poison blood) so if the opponent reveals that enchantment on you, you flash yours to prove that you already played that on you, making you an illegal target for it. Since the original is an older enchantment, it took precedence and destroyed the opponents, as per the rules.
However, the FAQ has since changed how the enchantment matrix resolves in such circumstances and that tactic is no longer available.
-
However, the FAQ has since changed how the enchantment matrix resolves in such circumstances and that tactic is no longer available.
I am having trouble locating that information in the FAQ. Could you pin point it for me? Such a tactic has never occurred to my group, but I would like to know how it is resolved anyways.
-
However, the FAQ has since changed how the enchantment matrix resolves in such circumstances and that tactic is no longer available.
I am having trouble locating that information in the FAQ. Could you pin point it for me? Such a tactic has never occurred to my group, but I would like to know how it is resolved anyways.
For your viewing pleasure:
http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=9174.0
-
Thank you kindly. This is a fascinating read.