Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Rules Discussion => Frequently Asked Questions => Topic started by: diceman on November 30, 2013, 04:31:02 AM
-
1.) Shouldn't the release of the new FAQs be announced on the main page? After all, this is BIG News. Good Job and Thanks for this, Arcane Wonders-Team! :)
2.) Is it only me, or is the Search Function (STRG+F) within the OfficialFAQ.pdf kinda weird/fubar a.k.a. doesn't really work (no matter if I use it online or browsing the downloaded version)? :o Well, it's no big deal since I'm planning to print this out, anyway, but for a fast access during online discussions it would be nice if it'd actually work like a Search Function is supposed to work.
-
The search function doesn't work for me either. Nor does copy + paste. You end up with repeating gibberish.
-
1.) Shouldn't the release of the new FAQs be announced on the main page? After all, this is BIG News. Good Job and Thanks for this, Arcane Wonders-Team! :)
After searching everywhere on this forum for this, I finally found this on the main site.
Well done, Arcane Wonders! (Maybe replace the old FAQ dropbox link in this forum?)
THIS LOOKS AWESOME!!! This is a much needed resource and deserves wider coverage. It answers so many issues including...
Hydro Immunity (total hydro benefits gained)
Enchantment Transfusion (needs different target with caster LOS, can counter Dispel)
Seeking Dispel (can reveal Transfusion to move hence save targeted enchantment)
Nullify (counters the entire spell, does not protect reveal targeting)
Mind Control (no more cheap Obelisk abuse, omission on reveal timing)
Duplicate Enchantments (logical and pragmatic ruling, no vaccines)
Battle Fury (think best case for defender and worst for attacker)
What is a move into a zone? (not a summon, Orb taxes move actions)
Deathshroud Staff (bonus to current occupants, not bonus in that zone)
No provision to ignore equipment (e.g. Eagleclaw boots) unless weapon
Impressive though this magnum opus is (49 pages), there were couple of rulings I couldn't initially find...
Can Flyers ignore Guards to attack Conjurations? (v2 p29 sidebar RAW flyers bypass guards, RAI flyers can't?)
Obscured vs. Vine range ("ignore the range"); most card interaction games give "cannot" ultimate precedence?
Well done AW! A great much needed resource. I hope it becomes a living version to avoid a big task updating it.
-
Can Flyers ignore Guards to attack Conjurations? (v2 p29 sidebar RAW flyers bypass guards, RAI flyers can't?)
When a flyer chooses to attack any non-flying object they lose flying and then may be guarded against.
-
The faq does clear a bunch of questions up, yes. Thanks AW!
It does add one question though: what the heck is the "Joseph Trublood" promo card? A quick google search comes up empty on that...
-
No such thing! :)
-
I thought bolt storm had a triple strike attack??? The FAQ says its sweeping under the multiple strikes section.
-
Obscured vs. Vine range ("ignore the range"); most card interaction games give "cannot" ultimate precedence?
Obscured:
"It can not be targeted from more than one zone away (this is for all purposes - ranged attacks, spells, abilities, etc.)
Vine marker casting:
"you can destroy a target vine marker she controls as an additional cost to cast that spell. If you do, you may ignore the range of that spell to target that vine marker's zone,an object in that vine marker's zone, or a border of that vine marker's zone...... That vine spell must have a legal target."
Even though the range has changed, or rather ignored, the source of the spell has not. Obscured prevents the mage from being targeted from more than one zone away. So while the obscured mage is indeed in range of the spell, it is not a legal target because he is more than one zone away from the druid.
It is no different than trying to cast a 0 - 3 ranged spell at an obscured mage. Is he in range? Yes. Is he a valid target? No.
All that to say,
Vine markers only replace the range of a spell with the vine markers ability. Source is still at the druid.
Hope that helps clear that up
-
Obscured vs. Vine range ("ignore the range"); most card interaction games give "cannot" ultimate precedence?
Obscured:
"It can not be targeted from more than one zone away (this is for all purposes - ranged attacks, spells, abilities, etc.)
Vine marker casting:
"you can destroy a target vine marker she controls as an additional cost to cast that spell. If you do, you may ignore the range of that spell to target that vine marker's zone,an object in that vine marker's zone, or a border of that vine marker's zone...... That vine spell must have a legal target."
Even though the range has changed, or rather ignored, the source of the spell has not. Obscured prevents the mage from being targeted from more than one zone away. So while the obscured mage is indeed in range of the spell, it is not a legal target because he is more than one zone away from the druid.
It is no different than trying to cast a 0 - 3 ranged spell at an obscured mage. Is he in range? Yes. Is he a valid target? No.
All that to say,
Vine markers only replace the range of a spell with the vine markers ability. Source is still at the druid.
Hope that helps clear that up
Burst of Thorns spell (the only one I can think of that would bring up this question) is casted on a Vine Marker, BUT the attack's source is the vine marker, so it can attack a Shrouded target.
-
Thanks, Kharhaz, both rulings make imminent sense (if not explicitly clear in FAQ, needing some logical deduction).
The most recent debate on when you can reveal Charm/Mind Control (the latter can be devastating with Healing Wand) seems to have been omitted - considered too obvious?
Ditto the fact you can forget about your Lash in hand (against Flame Immunity or Flame-4 targets) but not your Eagleclaw Boots which you are stuck with - again too obvious I assume?
Every time I read the FAQ, I spot another subtle rules clear-up (e.g. how to deal with Extending Walls and LOS).
However, what I like most about the FAQ is that retaining "fantasy realism" has been given top priority.
Occasional updates would make it a less onerous task in future. This one was gargantuan so well done to the design trio for this excellent much-needed resource.
-
When a flyer chooses to attack any non-flying object they lose flying and then may be guarded against.
The rulebook does NOT say that a flying creature loses flying when it attacks a non-flying OBJECT. It specifies that it only loses flying when it attacks a non-flying CREATURE. Thus, it can ignore guards when attacking conjurations.
-
Hi Zuberi. This old hat discussion has been going on for sometime.
http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=12738.msg18464#msg18464
It sort of came to a head later in this thread where I challenged many ambiguities by giving my own house rules.
http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=13050.msg23382#msg23382
My house rules included "Hydro Immunity can still benefit from beneficial hydro effects" and "Flyers cannot bypass guards when attacking conjurations". Both were against the letter of the rules but seemed to be what was intended. Kharhaz as a Playtester is understandably a stickler for the rules (a perfectly valid position to take that I fully support) and we passionately voiced contrary views (as euphemisms go).
Whilst the FAQ has sadly done nothing to clarify whether "creature" should be read as "object" (which is what I highlighted earlier in this thread), I was not willing to argue this again. Even though it is actually a pretty important clarification due to its commonplace occurrence.
There are omissions, even from my house rules thread that was left unanswered, but let's just rejoice that we have a new FAQ, it may be missing a few pieces and they should utilise their fan base and rules lawyers (that's you, Zuberi!) to highlight any such missing points for the December 2013 FAQ (as any FAQ for a game like this will inevitably be a living document).
I am starting to feel a bit sorry for the good-natured Arcane Wonders team. I know I have given them a hard time at times (in defence, I like to believe my criticisms may have resulted in good, certainly motivated constructively) but they are starting to take flak for every small thing when it's no big deal really. The current FAQ is a gargantuan improvement on the last. As my boss says (whenever I try to innovate too fast at work), change is incremental. So let's take the positives out of this. We have a far more complete FAQ that even duplicates its rulings for easy reference by ordering itself first by game mechanic, then by codex keyword, then by spell!
Let's rejoice, digest what all the purple text means, give them a short rest - then come back to them asking for the missing jigsaw pieces?
In the meantime, as Kharhaz as a Playtester has now changed his position on Flyer vs. Guarded Conjuration, I shall use his ruling above as the official position (i.e. that "creature" in the p29 sidebar should read "object" instead, a wording error). Else those Tree Spawnpoints will burn to Lord of Fire...
-
Whilst the FAQ has sadly done nothing to clarify whether "creature" should be read as "object" (which is what I highlighted earlier in this thread), I was not willing to argue this again. Even though it is actually a pretty important clarification due to its commonplace occurrence.
From the v2 rulebook codex:
Object
Enchantments, equipment, creatures, and conjurations are spells which become objects in the game, remaining in play after they are cast. The Mage is also considered an object. Incantation and attack spells do not become objects.
I see no need for a ruling or such in the FAQ.
-
sIKE, I expected better things from you, sir! :) So let me enlighten you.
The set {objects} includes {creatures, conjurations, enchantment, equipments}
So {creatures} is a subset of {objects}.
The p29 (v2) side bar states "creatures".
Therefore flyers can ignore guards when attacking a conjuration, read as written.
Common consensus is that it should read "objects" instead (as stated by Kharhaz above).
The new FAQ does not resolve this.
I therefore humbly disagree with your "no need for a ruling" statement.
Sorry, I don't mean to be argumentative, but I don't back down when I know I'm right.
On a side point, I would argue they missed "zone" in the list of objects. This is because conjurations are actually attached to their zone. (This is the rule that forbids 2 Orchids or 2 Lotus in 1 zone). You can only attach to an object hence zone is missing in that list of objects?
-
I had not realized this was an issue. It has been added to my thread about things currently not clarified by the rules: http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=13276.msg26075#msg26075
-
Yes yes, I remember this now, and we both agree on this front, I just didn't catch the reference to the Flying and Conjurations in context. I am of the RaI school here....
On a side point, I would argue they missed "zone" in the list of objects. This is because conjurations are actually attached to their zone. (This is the rule that forbids 2 Orchids or 2 Lotus in 1 zone). You can only attach to an object hence zone is missing in that list of objects?
I would argue that the zone is not the reason that you can not have 2 of the same conjuration in the same zone, I would attribute that to the rules that are written, it is in the same vein as Enchantments. Which are attached to both Creatures (Objects) and Zones (???). Interesting thought......
-
When a flyer chooses to attack any non-flying object they lose flying and then may be guarded against.
The rulebook does NOT say that a flying creature loses flying when it attacks a non-flying OBJECT. It specifies that it only loses flying when it attacks a non-flying CREATURE. Thus, it can ignore guards when attacking conjurations.
A. That is what I was told when I asked for a clarification on the issue and, even though I disagree, that's how it works.
I would direct you to the bullet
Protect the zone (v2. pg 29)
"If a creature is in a zone with one ore more enemies with guard markers (except for guards he can ignore; see sidebar) that creature cannot make a melee attack against any OBJECT without a guard marker."
This prevents the flyers from targeting the conjuration with a melee attack as long as there is an enemy creature with a guard marker. He may still melee a flyer as per the sidebar.
Sidebar (v2. pg 29)
Flying creatures and guards:
"Guards affect a flying creature when it makes a melee attack, but only if it is attacking a non-flying creature in the guard's zone. Attacks against other flying creatures always ignore guards. If a flying creature guards, it loses, and cannot gain, the flying trait for as long as it has the guard marker."
I can only assume that it was not clarified because of the wording in "protecting the zone". The sidebar is suppose to describe the interaction between flying attacking a flyer in a guarded zone.
-
As a general rule:
Flyers Ignore guards when attacking flying objects.
Guards are ignored when attacking flying objects
(corrected for the sake of the "reach" trait.)
Flyers do NOT ignore guards when attacking non-flying objects.
(Exception could be: The attacker has Elusive or the (only) guard(s) in the zone has Pest and/or is restrained.)
EOD
-
If. A seedling pod turns into a Samara tree would you get its can trip effect?
-
Not "EOD" (end of discussion) - unless you have the power to lock threads?
We have had Playtesters (Kharhaz in particular) who have interpreted the rulebook as "You Cannot Guard Conjurations From Flyers" because that's actually grammatically what it says in the rules. Here is the logic why.
Guarding (p29)
"Protect the Zone: If a creature is in a zone with one or more enemies with guard markers (except for guards he can ignore; see sidebar), that creature cannot make a melee attack against any object without a guard marker."
Ignoring Guards (sidebar p29)
"In some cases, guards can be ignored. If an attacking creature can ignore a guard, it may choose to melee attack a different target in the zone, and does not have to attack the ignored guard.
Flying Creatures and Guards: Guards affect a flying creature when it makes a melee attack, but only if it is attacking a non-Flying creature in the guard's zone."
I contend that the rules as they stand allow Flyers to ignore guards when melee attacking conjurations in that zone. The rules specifically only allow guards to interpose against flyers when they melee attack non-Flying creatures.
The logical and grammatical syntax of the above is follows:
(a) There are exceptions to the Guard rule
(b) Flyers is one of these exceptions
(c) However Flyers attacking non-Flying creatures is an exception to exception (b)
However, this interpretation (RAW as the game uses precise terminology) has caused some disagreement.
Can someone please clear this up? Many thanks!
I was simply surprised such a big issue was not clarified, especially after a set that uses many conjurations.
When I highlighted some house rules to retain fantasy realism, your response was
seems like you got bitten by something with the "house-ruling-disease-syndrome".
Nothing you have mentioned so far neither requires, need, would benefit or could use house ruling.
But some of those house rules (that you saw no use for) have been adopted
> You can now douse your burning plants.
> There is now clarity on LOS for Teleport Trap, Enchantment Transfusion, Teleport moves etc
> There is now clarity on what constitutes "enter" and what triggers Suppression Orb
> We now have explicit approval that Transfusion can be used to foil Dispel and Seeking Dispel
> We now have explicit ruling that a reveal "target" wording does not target
The areas which the FAQ does not address include...
* The recent Mind Control/Charm "when can reveal" ruling that required a Bryan Pope phone call
* You can attack with your basic equiped with Lash and Wand so can you ignore your own Eagleclaw Boots?
* Kharhaz may have changed his position on flyers attacking guarded conjurations but this is not in the FAQ
I believe Zuberi's excellent live-updated Rules thread has highlighted other rules ambiguities or gaps.
I realise that some people are perfectly happy with fuzzy rules and probably don't want their interpretations challenged. But that secret fear that you may have been playing it wrong all the time (sIKE shuffling his face down enchantments, me placing 2 Poison Gas Clouds in 1 zone) is no reason to suppress polite totally relevant enquiries on rules ambiguities with a dictatorial "EOD".
-
If. A seedling pod turns into a Samara tree would you get its can trip effect?
That is an excellent question. It depends on if the seedling pod is destroyed upon initiating the cast or resolving the cast. If it is destroyed upon initiating the cast (in Step 1: Cast Spell) then the answer would definitely be "No, it is destroyed before gaining the Cantrip trait."
If, however, it occurs upon resolving the spell (Step 3: Resolve Spell), then the destruction happens at the same time as the effect of Samara tree. The normal rule when two things occur simultaneously under your control is that you get to choose the order of events, so you could then apply the Cantrip trait before destroying the Seedling Pod.
I might be over-thinking this or simply missing something, but I believe this is something else that deserves clarification.
Edit: I just realized that this question would have serious ramifications on other spells cast by the Seedling Pod as well. If the pod is destroyed during Step 1: Cast Spell (kind of as a cost to casting the spell) then it gets destroyed even if the spell ends up being countered or cancelled. Meanwhile, if it isn't destroyed until Step 3: Resolve Spell, you would be able to keep the pod if the spell was countered or cancelled (although you would still lose the Mana).
For example: using it to cast Tanglevine on a target which then teleports away using Divine Intervention.
-
* You can attack with your basic equiped with Lash and Wand so can you ignore your own Eagleclaw Boots?
Taken from the Core Set Rulebook, v2, pages 20-21:
Some equipment spells have an attack bar on them, and give your Mage a new attack he can perform. When the Mage
makes an attack, he can choose to use an attack printed on
an equipment card, instead of another attack he may have.
Weapons simply give your mage the option of a different attack. However there is nothing that says you can ignore the effect of any other benefits conferred by equipment. So yes you can ignore your Lash attack, but not your Unmovable from Eagleclaw Boots.
-
There were clarifications planned for the "flying + conjurations + Guarding" issue. I believe they didn't make it in the update because they are in the updated rules manual. Now, I could be wrong, but I plan on asking Bryan today where that ruling ended up. I'll post it as soon as I know something.
-
Also on page 6 of the new FAQ there is a discrepancy about the OR attacks example concerning Ludwig boltstorms attack bar... the FAQ says he has a sweeping attack when after checking the card he has a triple strike attack OR a zone attack.
wow it's amazing the amount of work that went into these clarifications is phenomenal...
-
Also regarding the seedling pod question could you enchantment transfuse a harmonize front the dying pod to the new tree?
-
That is a definite negative. You can't reveal an enchantment in the middle of a phase or step. So even if the seedling pod isn't destroyed until Step 3: Resolve Spell, and you are able to justify the tree coming into existence before the Pod is destroyed, you would not be able to reveal Enchantment Transfusion until after Step 3 which unfortunately is after the Pod has been destroyed.
-
Yes you can guard a non-flying conjuration against a flying enemy. That's the short version.
Long version is that this was updated in the rulebook for the next printing of the game, and that was why it was not on the "Faq" update. I'll see if we can't get the rulebook for this most recent printing up on the website here.
Thanks for your patience guys!
-
Thank you Laddinfance for the official answer ^_^
-
If you want the long break down I posted it a while back.Hmm cant seem to find it :o
-
Yes you can guard a non-flying conjuration against a flying enemy. That's the short version.
Long version is that this was updated in the rulebook for the next printing of the game, and that was why it was not on the "Faq" update. I'll see if we can't get the rulebook for this most recent printing up on the website here.
Thanks for your patience guys!
Will this be MWC version 3.0? It would be great if the version could be visible in the front of the PDF somewherre ?
Edit ... Found it, the MWC book linked on the forums is still only 2.0. Patrick's other links to the main dice on the home page has the 3.3 version.
-
I'm having trouble downloading the FAQ, is this just me or something else going on? Loving the clarity of the new super codex and 3.3 rulebook.
-
Yes you can guard a non-flying conjuration against a flying enemy. That's the short version.
Long version is that this was updated in the rulebook for the next printing of the game, and that was why it was not on the "Faq" update. I'll see if we can't get the rulebook for this most recent printing up on the website here.
Thanks for your patience guys!
Will this be MWC version 3.0? It would be great if the version could be visible in the front of the PDF somewherre ?
Edit ... Found it, the MWC book linked on the forums is still only 2.0. Patrick's other links to the main dice on the home page has the 3.3 version.
Yes there is a large dichotomy between the maintenance of the documentation on the Forums and Web site. I have asked a couple of times to have this all updated but nothing has ever come of it. I wish that they would just remove the stuff on the forums and just announce the release of new documents and link back to the website....
-
Im very sorry about this. I have a lot to look into now that i am back from GTS.