Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Rules Discussion => Topic started by: exid on April 05, 2017, 08:33:50 AM
-
the card says "upkeep +x" does it mean that the creature gains the trait upkeep +x?
and does it work with sistarran robes? ("when an oponent pays mana because of an effect you contrôle")
-
No, it means that the drown itself has upkeep +X just like force hold has upkeep +3. :)
It has no interaction with sistarran robes since the caster of drown will have to pay the upkeep.
-
ok!!!
and suffocate is a condition! (I now found it in the rules)
thanks!
-
ok!!!
and suffocate is a condition! (I now found it in the rules)
thanks!
Also remember that the suffocation conditions go on the drown card and are removed when it is destroyed.
-
Drow is an affect on creature. And timing WHEN this effect work chose creature's controller.
But I chose, in which order I pay upkeep and add 1 marker.
For example: I reveal Drow and then pay 0 mana for 1st upkeep, then it get 1st token (-2 HP for creature).
2nd upkeep: I pay 1 mana and add 2nd token (-4 HP)
3d upkeep: I pay 2 mana and then add 3d token (-6 HP)
4th upkeep: If Drown's creature was KotRH (3 armor 8 HP) I choose first add 4th token (-8 HP) and creature destroy. So I didn't pay 4th upkeep. And kill this creature for 2+1+0+1+2=6 mana, yes?
-
during each upkeep drown affects itself (under your controle) for the marker and the upkeep, so you can choose the order (pay befor put a new marker).
each marker affects the creature, it will take 1 damage for each (doesn't matter if it arrives during the upkeep).
so I think you're correct.
-
Drow is an affect on creature. And timing WHEN this effect work chose creature's controller.
But I chose, in which order I pay upkeep and add 1 marker.
For example: I reveal Drow and then pay 0 mana for 1st upkeep, then it get 1st token (-2 HP for creature).
2nd upkeep: I pay 1 mana and add 2nd token (-4 HP)
3d upkeep: I pay 2 mana and then add 3d token (-6 HP)
4th upkeep: If Drown's creature was KotRH (3 armor 8 HP) I choose first add 4th token (-8 HP) and creature destroy. So I didn't pay 4th upkeep. And kill this creature for 2+1+0+1+2=6 mana, yes?
This sounds contrary in spirit to the rules on another enchantment that was discussed a long while ago (forget which one right off). The ruling that we got was that for the creature to be affected by the spell, the upkeep had to be paid in the same turn. Might have been force crush or something.... Does this ring a bell? If so, is Drown supposed to be handled differently?
-
This sounds contrary in spirit to the rules on another enchantment that was discussed a long while ago (forget which one right off). The ruling that we got was that for the creature to be affected by the spell, the upkeep had to be paid in the same turn. Might have been force crush or something.... Does this ring a bell? If so, is Drown supposed to be handled differently?
Was it Whirlpool?
Whirlpool damages the creatures directly, what brings a timing issue (player with initiative must choose). Drown doesn't (the markers damages the creature), I see no timing issue here.
-
The important thing is that you're adding the Suffocate Markers to the Drown enchantment rather than to the creature. Thus, it is the enchantment that is being affected, and the controller of the enchantment that gets to decide when the markers are added. So they could indeed choose to add the Suffocate marker before paying the upkeep cost. Whenever the Suffocate marker is added, the creature loses 2 Life.
This is probably most similar to Death Link where a single effect seems to be affecting objects controlled by both players. Just like with Death Link, it's important to recognize that these are not two separate effects though. Adding the Suffocate marker and the creature losing 2 Life are a single effect that can not be separated from each other. They have to happen simultaneously. You can't add the marker, pay the upkeep, and THEN have the creature lose life. So, if the controller of the enchantment adds the Suffocate before paying upkeep, there is no recourse for the creature's controller to prevent destruction (barring other effects like healing or life gain).
-
The important thing is that you're adding the Suffocate Markers to the Drown enchantment rather than to the creature. Thus, it is the enchantment that is being affected, and the controller of the enchantment that gets to decide when the markers are added. So they could indeed choose to add the Suffocate marker before removing the Dissipate marker. Whenever the Suffocate marker is added, the creature loses 2 Life.
This is probably most similar to Death Link where a single effect seems to be affecting objects controlled by both players. Just like with Death Link, it's important to recognize that these are not two separate effects though. Adding the Suffocate marker and the creature losing 2 Life are a single effect that can not be separated from each other. They have to happen simultaneously. You can't add the marker, remove the dissipate, and THEN have the creature lose life. So, if the controller of the enchantment adds the Suffocate before removing the Dissipate, there is no recourse for the creature's controller to prevent destruction (barring other effects like healing or life gain).
That is exactly the difference... it is the enchantment control, rather than creature control. Thanks... it makes sense now.
-
yet not clear for me...
I understand that the loss of life on the creature is simultaneous to the new marker on the enchantment (I thought suffocate would damage the creautre... bad reading...).
So it's important to know if the upkeep is paied befor or after the loss of life: to diferent controler! shouldn't the player with initiative decide?
-
yet not clear for me...
I understand that the loss of life on the creature is simultaneous to the new marker on the enchantment (I thought suffocate would damage the creautre... bad reading...).
So it's important to know if the upkeep is paied befor or after the loss of life: to diferent controler! shouldn't the player with initiative decide?
No one gets to decide when the creature loses life. The controller of Drown chooses the order of paying the upkeep and when a Suffocate marker gets added. The creature always has -2 Life (trait) for each Suffocate marker on Drown at all times.
-
You always choose the order in which events that affect your creatures and objects occur during this phase. In the rare case that a timing issue occurs, the player with the initiative decides the order.
Example: You control a Highland Unicorn with the Regenerate 2 trait that has a Burn marker on it. Since the creature has a lot of damage on it, the Burn effect could destroy it. You can choose to resolve the Regenerate trait first or the Burn condition first.
I would say that you can replace the burn effect here with the drown card as both are a timing issue that is resolved by initiative.
So as long as you have initiative and a trait to resolve as well, like Regenerate X, you can choose which resolves first.
Otherwise this passes to the other player and they choose in what order they resolve the effects of the drown. They can choose to place the life -2 counter before paying upkeep, if you creature is destroyed after this counter is placed then both cards are placed in their players own discard, and the upkeep no longer has to be paid as the Drown is no longer in play; otherwise they choose whether to pay the upkeep or not after that.
-
I would say that you can replace the burn effect here with the drown card as both are a timing issue that is resolved by initiative.
This is wrong.
Suffocate is added to drown and not the creature. (which is very very weird considered enchantment transfusion or Shift enchantment).
-
You always choose the order in which events that affect your creatures and objects occur during this phase. In the rare case that a timing issue occurs, the player with the initiative decides the order.
Example: You control a Highland Unicorn with the Regenerate 2 trait that has a Burn marker on it. Since the creature has a lot of damage on it, the Burn effect could destroy it. You can choose to resolve the Regenerate trait first or the Burn condition first.
I would say that you can replace the burn effect here with the drown card as both are a timing issue that is resolved by initiative.
That is not correct.
The Burn and regenerate are effects that are controlled by the controller of the Unicorn, thus he can resolve them in the order that he wants.
The Drown effect however is controlled by the other player, not by the player controlling the creature.
Thus, suppose the Unicorn player has initiative :
Unicorn controller resolves any effects he controls like Burn or regenerate first.
Then, opposing player decides the order and how to resolve the Drown effects ( pay first or put a marker first )
Seems I've been ninja'd already by jacksmack while still typing this :)
-
No. I think you misunderstand me. It is a destroying effect, a destroying effect is any effect that would cause the destruction of this creature by the damage on the card equalling or exceeding the creature's life total or by a direct destruction effect that removes the creature from play and places it into the discard pile. Burn, rot, life -2 can all be destroying effects, given a set life total. It does not matter where the destruction effect is placed, locally on the creature, on another card attached to that creature , or on the zone. Any destruction effect targets a creature directly in the case of a condition marker such as Burn or Rot; or indirectly as an amended trait such as the placement of condition markers on another card, such as drown.
In this case the drown places a life -2 condition marker on itself that effects the life total of the creature it is attached to, in each upkeep phase where the upkeep +x trait is paid. It's controller may place the life -2 condition marker on the drown card before the upkeep is paid, it does not matter which order the upkeep effects occur in unless the damage on this creature equals or exceeds the creature's new life total, thus triggering a destruction effect.
If a player has a life saving effect, an effect that has the potential to prevent a destruction effect, by either increasing life or reduces damage on that creature in the same upkeep phase, the player who has initiative
decides which effect is triggered first.
Typed on a phone sorry for autocorrect :(
-
Hm, nice discussion. Sorry for my grammatic, but I have something to say:
1) creatures controller desides the oder of ALL effect at the creature in upceep. So, regen, rot, burn or other things, doesn't matter. If unicorn have 1 hp and groolrot he can regen 2 and then have 2 dmg, and doesnn't matter who have ini.
2) in time conflict ini player say, wich creatures and cards with dissapait and such effect go first. Tipical example: whirlpool, it has last dissipate token and Paladin with ini can say Siren to remove dissipate first. Then no whirlpool- no dmg on Paladin's creatuer.
3) some effect trigger 2 cards in same time upkeep: deathlink for example. If unicorn have deathlink and 1 HP, but Warlok has ini, mage can trugger his mage first and kill unicorn, becouse this effect trigger 2 creatures in same time.
Drow the same think. If unicorn has 2 hp, Siren's ini, she add 1 marker on drow and creature dead. And no upkeep cost. This is a unic card and this is her strong abbility.
4) new question: Paladin has ini, his creature has lulabai with last dissipale token. Paladin say Siren to remove token befor he active his creature. This creature will suffer from this card or not? Can Siren first activate card abbiluty to roll d12 and stun/daze creature befor card's destruction? Or it is like whirlpool?
-
Hm, nice discussion. Sorry for my grammatic, but I have something to say:
1) creatures controller desides the oder of ALL effect at the creature in upceep. So, regen, rot, burn or other things, doesn't matter. If unicorn have 1 hp and groolrot he can regen 2 and then have 2 dmg, and doesnn't matter who have ini.
No you are wrong. This is as fundamental as rolling dice for attacks. It is in initiative order for timing effects.
You always choose the order in which events that affect your creatures and objects occur during this phase. In the rare case that a timing issue occurs, the player with the initiative decides the order.
Example: You control a Highland Unicorn with the Regenerate 2 trait that has a Burn marker on it. Since the creature has a lot of damage on it, the Burn effect could destroy it. You can choose to resolve the Regenerate trait first or the Burn condition first.
I am not making this up I copied it from the 4th ed rulebook.
-
Beldin, the important thing in the part you highlighted is timing issue. Initiative doesn't get to decide the timing on all things, they only get to decide when there's a conflict, an issue, that is not otherwise resolved by the rules. Read the sentence you copied immediately before the one you bolded, and read the example. Both say exactly what Santar said, that the controller gets to decide the timing on all of the things they control. NOT Initiative. So, clearly Santar is not wrong.
With the Drown card, the controller of Drown always gets to decide which to do first. Apply the Suffocate Marker or pay the Upkeep cost. Always.
If there are other effects that are controlled by the opponent, such as the creature having Regeneration, and the two players disagree on whether that happens before or after the Suffocate Marker is applied, then Initiative would decide. But ONLY because the two things are controlled by different players. And Initiative would only decide the order of the Regenerate and Suffocate Marker, NOT the Suffocate Marker and Upkeep Cost. Drown's controller still decides the order of those two things.
If it was a different situation, like a Burn and Regenerate, then Initiative wouldn't be used at all, because they'd both be decided by the creature's controller. As per the example Beldin quoted.
The rule is very simple. I decide the order for everything that affects my stuff. You decide the order for everything that affects your stuff. Initiative only gets to decide when these things happen RELATIVE to each other.
-
I had that misunderstood then. Not sure if it has ever come up as an issue when playing however. Happy to be wrong and corrected. :)
-
I still don't understand :'(
during upkeep the normal rule is that the controler of the afected object chooses the order of the effects.
normal case:
my object A has a burn and a regenerate.
I choose to first regenerate A ans then roll the burn.
but some case are more complicate and need timing to be decided by the player with initiative.
I thought the drown case (marker afecting both my creature and my oponent's enchantment) would be one of them... but it seems it is not...
could somebody state clearly when the player with initiative has to decide the timing during upkeep?
-
Your normal case is correct. Initiative doesn't automatically get to decide when things get more complicated though. They only get to decide when the rules don't otherwise cover the situation.
The confusion with Drown, I think, is that you see it as affecting both objects. If that was the case, then it might indeed require Initiative to step in, but I don't believe this is the case. The effect of the Drown enchantment is that "Drown gains 1 Suffocate Marker." This effect is only affecting the Drown enchantment, thus the enchantment's controller is in charge of when the effect occurs. After the Suffocate Marker is placed, the effect of the MARKER, not the enchantment, is that the creature loses 2 Life. However, there's no timing to be decided here. It happens immediately when the marker is put into place, so the creature's controller doesn't have a choice in the matter. There's no point in time where the Marker exists but the creature hasn't yet lost the Life.
I know I said in an earlier comment that these two things were essentially one single effect, and I apologize if that has caused confusion for you. More accurately, what I meant, were that these two things are inextricably linked. Their timing can not be separated.
But essentially, what I'm saying is that the creature is only affected indirectly, and that's why the enchantment's controller has say over the timing rather than the player with Initiative.
-
ok... only drown is affected, and then the creature looses 2 life as an "non-upkeep imediate effect"... i can do with that...
and would you have an example in which the player with initiative sould decide the order of effects?
-
Cards with Dissipate, like Whirlpool, are the most common situation where Initiative steps in. Besides that, it's actually very rare that it matters. To give you an example outside of Dissipate, we'd need to setup very specific scenarios. Such as:
During Upkeep I have a Goblin Bomber near death with a Burn condition on it, and my opponent has a Highland Unicorn that is also near death. If the Burn kills my bomber, it will immediately have a chance to trigger the Detonate attack. The attack, if triggered, has to happen at the same time that my creature dies. It's another case of two things being linked. Therefore, I probably want to roll for my Burn before the Unicorn Regenerates, so that I have a better chance of taking it with me. Obviously my opponent would want to Regenerate first. Initiative decides who must resolve their effect first.
Now, let's add an extra layer of complexity just for fun. Let's say the Highland Unicorn also has an Essence Drain enchantment attached to it. Now, the most beneficial course of events for me is to have my opponent pay the Upkeep cost, then roll for my burn, and only let them regenerate AFTER we see if my bomber explodes. However, even if I have Initiative, I can't dictate this course of events. If I let them resolve an effect before I roll for my Burn, they still get to choose which of their effects they resolve first. So, they'd probably choose to Regenerate first.
A trick that I find useful for thinking about these situations is that Initiative gets to decide who's turn it is to resolve an effect, but not which effect they resolve. This is because most, if not all, effects are clear about who controls the timing and the only reason to ever have Initiative step in is to determine the relative order between multiple effects with different controllers.
But if you aren't sure who controls the timing of an effect, then I would have Initiative decide for that as well. I can't currently think of any effects that I would say don't have a single person in control already, but there are certainly cards which aren't the clearest on who that person is. So, if it's not clear, have Initiative decide and then after the game check the Supplement or ask the forums to see if other's can help figure it out.
-
cool examples!
thanks!
the dissipate (or upkeep) examples are "do my effect disapear befor it affects your object".
am i right?
the bomber example make me think that if the creature with drown (original thread) would have an effect that gives it 2 life during upkeep, then the player with ini shoul decide if the drown marker can be put before or after the +2 life effect.
am i right?
the Unicorn + esence drain example is nice indeed!
the player with ini could resolve any number (0 included) of effect, then let the other resolve 1 effect, than resolve any number (0 included) of effect, then let the other resolve 1 effect, etc., but not choose the effect the other would resolve each time.
am i right?
-
All of that sounds right to me. It might be important to repeat that Initiative deciding who's turn it is is just a trick to help you figure stuff out though. Upkeep isn't really resolved in any kind of strict turn order structure, and if you tried to actually play it out turn by turn like that it could really bog the game down. I just find thinking about it like that to be very useful any time you do need to figure out what's happening, as that's essentially how Initiative's power works in those situations.
-
thank you!
untill the next post, I can think I understand initiative rules!