Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Rules Discussion => Topic started by: Santar on March 14, 2017, 07:43:42 AM
-
Hi! I and my friend have great holy war for this question.
1 ХР, enemy's Ghoul Rot and my regenerate 2. Enemy's ini, will I survive?
(https://pp.userapi.com/c636522/v636522313/52f46/YbSyyZ7tmGM.jpg)
(https://pp.userapi.com/c636522/v636522313/52f3f/_CATQyX2z0k.jpg)
-
Initiative has no real effect on resolving this.
Initiative only indicates who resolves effects on his objects first.
The Ghoul Rot is a spell from your opponent but it affects your creature, so you resolve all effects on that creature during your initiative turn in the order that you want.
So, in a situation where your creature has 1 HP left
- You can decide to let it regenerate 2 first ( 3 HP left )
- then take the Ghoul Rot ( back to 1 HP left )
Thus, your creature survives the upkeep phase no matter who has initiative.
-
Just another classic example:
There is a Mage A (1 HP) and a creature (1 HP + Death Link), and a Mage B with Idol of Pestilence on his side.
If Mage A has the Initiative, he activates the Death Link in his Upkeep first, and survives the Idol of Pestilence effect.
If Mage B has the Initiative, the Idol activates first, and kills Mage A.
Is it right? If so, is it as an example of "In the rare case that a timing issue occurs, the player with the initiative decides the order." situation from the Rulebook?
-
Just another classic example:
There is a Mage A (1 HP) and a creature (1 HP + Death Link), and a Mage B with Idol of Pestilence on his side.
If Mage A has the Initiative, he activates the Death Link in his Upkeep first, and survives the Idol of Pestilence effect.
If Mage B has the Initiative, the Idol activates first, and kills Mage A.
Is it right? If so, is it as an example of "In the rare case that a timing issue occurs, the player with the initiative decides the order." situation from the Rulebook?
Hagen, you make the same interpretation error as Santar.
Initiative has nothing to do with it.
Mage A has two effects on him to resolve during upkeep, Lifelink and Idol.
When it's Mage A's turn he decides the order and will normally decide to use the lifelink effect first, then the idol, so he survives and has healed 1 damage total, no matter who has initiative.
-
Problem is when its the other way around. THEN initiative matters.
If warlock has deathlink on a highland unicorn with regen that has 2 life left.
When the warlock has initative he can choose to resolve his deathlink before the horse gets to regen.
-
Problem is when its the other way around. THEN initiative matters.
If warlock has deathlink on a highland unicorn with regen that has 2 life left.
When the warlock has initative he can choose to resolve his deathlink before the horse gets to regen.
That makes perfect sense, thank you!
-
Problem is when its the other way around. THEN initiative matters.
If warlock has deathlink on a highland unicorn with regen that has 2 life left.
When the warlock has initative he can choose to resolve his deathlink before the horse gets to regen.
That's correct.
Santar and Hagen currently seem to think that each effect triggers in initiative order.
But that's not correct.
All effects trigger at the same time.
Only the resolution of those effects are made in initiative order.
Meaning :
The mage with initiative chooses 1 of his objects and resolves all effects on it in the order he chooses ( so, for example, lifelink first, then idol )
Then he chooses another of his objects that has effects on it and resolves those in the order he chooses...
and so on until he has no more objects with upkeep effects on them.
Then the player who does not have initiative does the same.
So this means that it is possible, as Jacksmack points out, that the Player with initiative chooses to use his Death Link first but in the process of doing that kills the opposing player's Unicorn before that one can regenerate.
-
Just to be sure I got it right (that's still a bit vague). Let's take a slightly different situation.
Mage A has a creature (1 HP) with a Death Link.
Mage B *also* has a Death Link with the same creature.
Player B has the initiative.
Mage A gets to resolve all effects on his creature. Let's say both mages want to activate their Death Link. Who gets the Death Link effect? A player having an Initiative (I think so) or the creature controller?
-
no 2 time the same enchantment on the same object!
-
...but... if you have another enchantment with the same effect as death link, both must be triggered... you need an order.
The player with initiative will choose the order, he will choose to trigger his, healing from the last creature's HP.
-
no 2 time the same enchantment on the same object!
Ouch... Such a dumb and obvious mistake. Of course.
-
According to this message by Shad0w (http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=12478.msg20179#msg20179), the order of Ghoul Rot and Regeneration (the situation in TS question) is determined by the Initiative. Is it right?
-
According to this message by Shad0w (http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=12478.msg20179#msg20179), the order of Ghoul Rot and Regeneration (the situation in TS question) is determined by the Initiative. Is it right?
That is not correct, imo.
The order is not chosen by initiative.
The order is chosen by the player who controls that creature.
The player who controls the Ghoul Rot has no say in this as it does not affect one of his creatures.
You only have say over effects on your own creatures ( objects )
-
If there is a timing issue then the player with initiative decides, this means if a creature has 2 effects controlled by different players then the player with initiative decides what happens first.
in the case of the rulebook example burns are not controlled by your opponent therefore the creatures controller decides the order in which the burns and regenerate take place
in the example of death link vs regenerate, since the effects are controlled by different players, the player with initiative decides in what order they take place.
edit: what i meant to say is that because the death link effects your opponents mage and your creature then the warlock, if he has initiative, can choose to heal triggering the damage before your regen.
in the case of ghoul rot vs regen it is two effects that are on your creature, therefore you choose in what order they resolve.
-
That is not correct, imo.
The order is not chosen by initiative.
The order is chosen by the player who controls that creature.
The player who controls the Ghoul Rot has no say in this as it does not affect one of his creatures.
You only have say over effects on your own creatures ( objects )
never the less thats how it is....
There is no effect on the creature with deathlink until the owner of deathlink (the warlock) decides that he wish to do this. And then its fully resolved: warlock heal himself and place damage on the creature. Damage on creature is not delayed - its done right here and then no matter what other effects are on the creature.
And its the iniative player that decides the order if there is a conflict of interest.
While deathlink is cast on a creature, its actually the Warlock that is the affected creature when it comes to determine ownership effect.
A bit like a the creature with plagued cast on it is not the creature that decides when this happens for all the creatures in the zone only itself.
talking about plagued... With initiative - if i have a creature with plague on it and 1 Health remaining, then i could ask you to resolve the plague effect first. And when its my turn ill start with my creautre that has plague to spare my other creautres in zone.
-
If there is a timing issue then the player with initiative decides, this means if a creature has 2 effects controlled by different players then the player with initiative decides what happens first.
Incorrect, imo.
A creature that regenerates ( owning player effect ) and that will take damage from an Idol ( opposing player effect ) can choose the order it which it resolves both effects. Normally Regenerate first, then take 1 damage.
The owner of the idol has no say in this, no matter who has initiative.
in the example of ghoul rot or death link vs regenerate, since the effects are controlled by different players, the player with initiative decides in what order they take place.
Again incorrect, imo.
A creature that regenerates ( owning player effect ) and that will take damage from a Ghoul Rot ( opposing player effect ) is the same example as above.
Death Link and Regenerate is different.
In the examples above we're always talking about two effects on 1 creature.
In case of Death Link and Regenerate we're essentially talking about 1 effect on two creatures.
The controller of Death Link can heal and deal damage and the controller of the Regenerator can regenerate.
In this case it's the player with initiative who can resolve his effect first.
So, if the player that controls the Death Link has initiative it is possible to kill the creature before it gets a chance to regenerate.
-
In this case it's the player with initiative who can resolve his effect first.
or last if he wish to :) (when the creature has full health.)
-
"You always choose the order in which events that affect your creatures and objects occur during this phase". So, always. And in Official Rules Supplement no one example which can break this rule.
But we have example for the second part: "In the rare case that a timing issue occurs, the player with the initiative decides the order."
(https://pp.userapi.com/c636522/v636522313/52f58/j_e4C6UoOWM.jpg)
In this case order extremely important, because if my holy creatures in wirlpool trap and it has the last dissipate token and it's my ini, I can say to remove the token first and no dmg and affect on my creatures.
-
If there is a timing issue then the player with initiative decides, this means if a creature has 2 effects controlled by different players then the player with initiative decides what happens first.
Incorrect, imo.
A creature that regenerates ( owning player effect ) and that will take damage from an Idol ( opposing player effect ) can choose the order it which it resolves both effects. Normally Regenerate first, then take 1 damage.
The owner of the idol has no say in this, no matter who has initiative.
in the example of ghoul rot or death link vs regenerate, since the effects are controlled by different players, the player with initiative decides in what order they take place.
Again incorrect, imo.
A creature that regenerates ( owning player effect ) and that will take damage from a Ghoul Rot ( opposing player effect ) is the same example as above.
Death Link and Regenerate is different.
In the examples above we're always talking about two effects on 1 creature.
In case of Death Link and Regenerate we're essentially talking about 1 effect on two creatures.
The controller of Death Link can heal and deal damage and the controller of the Regenerator can regenerate.
In this case it's the player with initiative who can resolve his effect first.
So, if the player that controls the Death Link has initiative it is possible to kill the creature before it gets a chance to regenerate.
i did a bad job of explaining it but i agree with you, and in my last part i meant to only say deathlink.
-
"You always choose the order in which events that affect your creatures and objects occur during this phase". So, always. And in Official Rules Supplement no one example which can break this rule.
But we have example for the second part: "In the rare case that a timing issue occurs, the player with the initiative decides the order."
(https://pp.userapi.com/c636522/v636522313/52f58/j_e4C6UoOWM.jpg)
In this case order extremely important, because if my holy creatures in wirlpool trap and it has the last dissipate token and it's my ini, I can say to remove the token first and no dmg and affect on my creatures.
This statement in the supplement seems contradictory to me.
1) Whirlpool follows normal rules
2) controller of the creature decides when those creatures are affected
3) controller of whirlpool decides when to remove the dissipate token
then it states
4) player with Initiative decides when dissipate is removed...seriously?
As the controller of whirlpool, I decide to do the damage effect first and then remove the dissipate...just because you arbitrarily have initiative means that I don't control my OWN effects anymore? Contradiction.
You are certainly free as per the normal rules to apply the damage after a healing effect, but if you've got 2 life left and no healing/regen. Sorry, you take the damage and die. I control whirlpool and you've had 3 rounds to get out of it, sonny.
-
"You always choose the order in which events that affect your creatures and objects occur during this phase". So, always. And in Official Rules Supplement no one example which can break this rule.
But we have example for the second part: "In the rare case that a timing issue occurs, the player with the initiative decides the order."
Essentially that's the problem: these two phrases are somewhat contradictionary. Always except rare cases? What are these rare cases, how should one identify these? Why, for example, Death Link vs Regeneration is considered to be a timing issue (if I got it right), and Ghoul Rot vs Reneneration is not?
I'd say we have a good candidate for a new section in the next Official Rules&Codex Supplement.
-
Not today. It's the rules. If I have ivi and your whirlpool has 1 token, so I can destroy your conjuration. And only then activate my creater's upkeep effects. Oh, no whirlpool- no effect, no dmg.
But with Pillars it will work this way: my Pillar have last token. I have ini and remove token, then attack your mage (attack is not the effect) and can burn you with this attack. And only then I let you activate your mage with new burn, which will burn you this upkeep thase. It will not work the same way if ini is yours.
But return to the mane question: I have 1 HP enemy's Ghoul Rot and my regenerate 2. Enemy's ini, will I survive?
-
But return to the mane question: I have 1 HP enemy's Ghoul Rot and my regenerate 2. Enemy's ini, will I survive?
Hasn't that been answered several times already ?
-
But return to the mane question: I have 1 HP enemy's Ghoul Rot and my regenerate 2. Enemy's ini, will I survive?
Hasn't that been answered several times already ?
Yes it has and the rules agree that you are the creature that you control and you can choose to apply the Regenerate before the Ghoul Rot. Death Link is special as it's a doubly contingent card.
To the other points, I think the Rules Supplement is wrong on Dissipate, but that opinion needs to be dealt with by the writers and designers. As it stands right now, Whirlpool will die on off initiative before doing its damage.
-
In case of Death Link and Regenerate we're essentially talking about 1 effect on two creatures.
Strictly speaking, Ghoul Rot is not fundamentally different from Death Link: both are Enchantments, both have a single target. Why should they be treated differently when determining a resolution order? Are there any formal criteria? Intuitive feeling is such a thin ice.
-
But return to the mane question: I have 1 HP enemy's Ghoul Rot and my regenerate 2. Enemy's ini, will I survive?
yes
But with Pillars it will work this way: my Pillar have last token. I have ini and remove token, then attack your mage (attack is not the effect) and can burn you with this attack. And only then I let you activate your mage with new burn, which will burn you this upkeep phase. It will not work the same way if ini is yours.
the way pillar works is you are the controller so you decide what happens first between the dissipate and attack so you will always get your last attack, even on the other players initiative. (whirlpool is the only one the supplement makes an exception for) and if a burn happens they have to resolve it because conditions gained during upkeep are resolved even if they already resolved burns because conditions are technically resolved individually.
In case of Death Link and Regenerate we're essentially talking about 1 effect on two creatures.
Strictly speaking, Ghoul Rot is not fundamentally different from Death Link: both are Enchantments, both have a single target. Why should they be treated differently when determining a resolution order? Are there any formal criteria? Intuitive feeling is such a thin ice.
because death link effects both your mage and the opposing creature.
-
In case of Death Link and Regenerate we're essentially talking about 1 effect on two creatures.
Strictly speaking, Ghoul Rot is not fundamentally different from Death Link: both are Enchantments, both have a single target. Why should they be treated differently when determining a resolution order? Are there any formal criteria? Intuitive feeling is such a thin ice.
It's not intuition. It's reading the card. An important distinction here is that it's not CARDS that get resolved it's EFFECTS that get resolved in an order.
Ghoul Rot's effect applies to ONE creature that creature's controller decides what order the effects are resolved.
Death Link has TWO effects that are an creatures with TWO different controllers. Therefore the order of resolution is in the hands of two different players. Death Link states that your mage may heal up to 2 damage...then IF you do so, the creature that Death Link is attached to MUST take 2 damage.
After thinking about this, I see no reason why the creature's controller cannot choose to apply the damage after regenerating. The effects are tied together and IF one, THEN the other, but it's still an effect on the creature that someone else controls. I don't think Death Link should be able to kill a regenerating creature.
-
I've read through most of this discussion, and I think the confusion comes from understanding (a) who controls a creature and (b) who controls an effect that affects a creature they don't control:
- A creature Alice controls has the Regenerate trait (for whatever reason). Who determines when Alice's creature Regenerates? (Alice, because Alice controls the creature)
- A creature Alice controls has Ghoul Rot attached that Bob controls. Who determines when Alice's creature takes damage? (Alice, because Alice controls the creature)
- A creature Alice controls has Bob's Deathlink attached to it. Who determines when the effects of Deathlink occur? (Bob, because Bob controls the Mage that Deathlink heals)
- A creature (Mage) Alice controls has a Waterfall Cloak and a Burn token. Who determines when these effects resolve? (Alice, since she controls the Mage. As an aside, the Burn token doesn't remember where it came from; e.g. it belongs to the creature now; no one controls it)
- An object that Alice controls has Dissipate tokens. Who determines when a Dissipate token gets removed? (Alice, since she controls the object. Note that this might cause things to happen, like an attack from Pillar of Righteous Flame. Also note that the damage from Whirlpool does not occur due to a Dissipate token being removed.)
When the order of effects could be in dispute because both players lay claim to them (e.g. a creature that has Regenerate AND has an enemy Deathlink attached; or the last Dissipate has to come off Bob's Whirlpool and Alice's creature has to take damage from the same Whirlpool), the player with initiative decides the order.
In the Regenerate 2 + Ghoul Rot example, Alice controls the creature being affected by both effects so she can choose to resolve them in either order. Example 1: Her creature has no damage, so she chooses to have Ghoul Rot happen first, then Regenerate 2 heals the damage. Example 2: Her creature has 1 point of life remaining, so she chooses to have Regenerate 2 heal some damage first, then Ghoul Rot puts the damage right back.
-
Alice!?!?! who the F*** is Alice?
-
iNano78: that was a perfect explanation, much better than I could ever give :)
-
Initiative has no real effect on resolving this.
Initiative only indicates who resolves effects on his objects first.
Lets check if I got that right.
Mage A has a creature (2HP, just for a change) under Mordok's Obelisk.
Mage B has a Death Link with a creature.
Mage B has an Initiative. He decides that he will resolve *himself* first, and heals 2HP, placing 2 damage on a Deathlinked creature.
Now Mage A resolves two effects on his creature: 2 direct damage and the loss of a creature (because he refuses to pay upkeep). What are his options? Common sense hints that he cannot destroy his creature first, somehow "cancelling" his opponent's healing. It it correct?
If Mage A has the Initiative, he starts with destroying his creature. Mage B cannot resolve Death Link... too bad for him.
Is it correct?
-
Initiative has no real effect on resolving this.
Initiative only indicates who resolves effects on his objects first.
Lets check if I got that right.
Mage A has a creature (2HP, just for a change) under Mordok's Obelisk.
Mage B has a Death Link with a creature.
Mage B has an Initiative. He decides that he will resolve *himself* first, and heals 2HP, placing 2 damage on a Deathlinked creature.
Now Mage A resolves two effects on his creature: 2 direct damage and the loss of a creature (because he refuses to pay upkeep). What are his options? Common sense hints that he cannot destroy his creature first, somehow "cancelling" his opponent's healing. It it correct?
If Mage A has the Initiative, he starts with destroying his creature. Mage B cannot resolve Death Link... too bad for him.
Is it correct?
[mwcard=MW1J16]Mordok's Obelisk[/mwcard] grants all non-Mage creature the "Upkeep +1" trait. This is now a trait of every non-Mage creature.
Mage B is the only Mage that will get to resolve Deathlink. If Mage A has initiative, Mage A only gets to choose when Deathlink (and all of Deathlink at once) gets to resolve. Similarly, if Mage B has initiative, Mage B gets to choose when Deathlink resolves.
If Mage B has initiative, then Mage B can choose to resolve Deathlink before Mage A has to pay Upkeep for the creature that has Deathlink attached.
If Mage A has initiative, he can choose to pay (or not pay) Upkeep first, before letting Deathlink resolve... which might prevent Mage B from healing (if he doesn't choose to pay and lets the creature be destroyed).
-
Oh, wow, it's been a busy day.
So, as others have pointed out, the first thing you have to understand is who has say over what. The rulebook tells us that we have say over when effects that affect objects we control occur. So, it doesn't matter who controls the effect, but rather who controls the object being affected. If my creature is burning, I have say over that burn damage (as an aside, it should be mentioned that nobody controls Conditions). If my creature is regenerating, I decide when it regenerates. If my creature takes damage in any way, I decide when it takes damage.
With this system, timing issues are pretty rare. Initiative never gets to decide when their opponent applies an effect. Instead, what they are deciding is when their own effects happen relative to their opponent. Does mine go off before or after theirs? That's it. That is the entirety of the power bestowed upon initiative. Deciding relative order.
Effects like Death Link can cause confusion because it appears to be affecting two different objects which may each have a different controller. The catch is, that these are actually the same effect. They are linked and have to occur at the exact same time. You can't break them apart. On top of that, the card itself makes it clear that the controller of death link decides when the effect occurs.
So, what we have then is Player A deciding when to use Deathlink, and Player B deciding when to regenerate the creature that has Deathlink attached. Since the relative order of these two events matter, we have a timing issue that gets resolved by Initiative. So, if Player A has initiative, they may say that they heal before you regenerate, and their healing just happens to kill your creature before it can regenerate.
Whirlpool, in my opinion, is a lot easier and more straightforward, but I feel obliged to comment on it since I'm the one who wrote the supplement entry and it appears like it wasn't quite clear enough. If player A controls a whirlpool, they decide when to remove the Dissipate tokens from that whirlpool. If player B controls a creature stuck in the whirlpool, they decide when their creature takes damage. Initiative decides when these two things happen in relation to each other. This is all part of the normal rules. Nothing special going on.
So, if Player B has initiative, they can't force Player A to resolve the effects on their objects in any specific order. Player A can resolve as many effects as they want on their objects before and after resolving the whirlpool, in whatever order they so choose. However, Player B does get to say when effects happen to Player B's objects in relation to Player A's, and can say that his creature doesn't take damage until after whirlpool's dissipate is removed. Which would avoid the damage all together on the last dissipate since the Whirlpool would be destroyed.
-
Alice!?!?! who the F*** is Alice?
You don't know Alice and Bob (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_and_Bob)? Wait till you meet their friend Carol!
-
Zuberi, " If my creature takes damage in any way, I decide when it takes damage.".
If mage A left 1 dmg till dead, but have a lot of armor, regenerate 2 and Dorseus in his zone. Player B have ini and Pillar of Flame in this zone.
Player B can trigger the Pillar befor mage A heals, and if the attack deal 1 dmg mage A will be dead. Yes?
-
An attack in the up keep works differently than taking damage from effects, because the attack has a damage and effects step. So therefore if the player with initiative resolves his pillar he should be able too attack the enemy before regeneration.
-
With Pillar of Flame specifically, the attack happens at the same time the dissipate token is removed, and the Player with Initiative would indeed get to decide when that happens in relation to the healing, since they are controlled by different players. So, Santar, the answer is Yes. You are correct.
-
I'm sure I'll understand MW's time rules... one day...
-
I'm sure I'll understand MW's time rules... one day...
It is the most complicated bit of MW in my opinion. However it doesn't come up very often, and far less than people try and invoke it.
Whenever someone talks about doing something in initiative order, the first question I always ask is "Is it really about initiative order?" Because mostly it's not...