Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => General Discussion => Topic started by: jacksmack on April 06, 2016, 04:59:51 AM
-
How do we keep track of this?
A creature has 2 face down enchantments. First enchantment has an enchantment on it?!?!?
Will it not look like the creature has 3 enchantments on it? flipping it sideways seems like it will make cluttered zones even more cluttered.
Whats the point with going in this direction in the first place? I cant see how it will improve the game.
-
cause equipment should be protected somehow in academy i assume
and it finally lets protect your enchantments in a way it shifts the strength from equipment a bit into the direction of enchantments, cause pre academy a nullify protected your equipment, but now with crumble you need a nullify and a ward to protect it against dissolve and crumble and will never be action efficient. but you can protect your forcefield better for enchantments
and it had always been possible: decoy, just there was no point in it, btu you could do it
-
I think using mana counters could be used to keep stuff neat and tidy.
You just mark the enchantment/objects by putting counters when cast and during normal game process it doesn't change anything. Just when a dispel happens you can detach and use that to identify stuff.
Check screenshot . Maybe that's an idea ? Not having been in situation where Arcane Ward / Decoy were relevant.
P.S.:
Screenshots quality is very bad sorry....had to resize it because there is a totally annoying 128kb (wtf!) size limit for attachments.
How do we keep track of this?
A creature has 2 face down enchantments. First enchantment has an enchantment on it?!?!?
Will it not look like the creature has 3 enchantments on it? flipping it sideways seems like it will make cluttered zones even more cluttered.
Whats the point with going in this direction in the first place? I cant see how it will improve the game.
-
We have been working on that from an OCTGN perspective. The upcoming release will not add this support in, but the next release should. We are thinking that an attached Enchantment on an Enchantment should splay underneath to the right or left of the target Enchantment.
I do not think that there is an official ruling on this, though there should be (IMHO) before tourney season starts.
-
For events (both academy and arena), an enchantment attached to an enchantment will need to be 90 degrees from the enchantment it's attached to.
-
We have been working on that from an OCTGN perspective. The upcoming release will not add this support in, but the next release should. We are thinking that an attached Enchantment on an Enchantment should splay underneath to the right or left of the target Enchantment.
I do not think that there is an official ruling on this, though there should be (IMHO) before tourney season starts.
At Sike: It would be awesome if enchantments on mages would be placed next to the equipment, just as we do in real games. Not really sure how to program this easily but I'm sure it can be done.
90% of all the enchantments, both buffs and curses, are on mages anyway and it would clear the zones a lot. If you cast a ward on a forcefield lying next to equipment it will be very easy to see.
-
That was how things were done before the attachment system was implemented. The problem is the "attached" cards are analyzed by the Battle Calculator for buffs/debuffs. If the cards are to the side of the table there is really no clean way to do this bit of the work.
We do give the option to turn off the BC and Attachments so you could do that and place the cards to the side of the board.
-
We have been working on that from an OCTGN perspective. The upcoming release will not add this support in, but the next release should. We are thinking that an attached Enchantment on an Enchantment should splay underneath to the right or left of the target Enchantment.
I do not think that there is an official ruling on this, though there should be (IMHO) before tourney season starts.
At Sike: It would be awesome if enchantments on mages would be placed next to the equipment, just as we do in real games. Not really sure how to program this easily but I'm sure it can be done.
90% of all the enchantments, both buffs and curses, are on mages anyway and it would clear the zones a lot. If you cast a ward on a forcefield lying next to equipment it will be very easy to see.
no to next to equipment, leave it on mage. I also do it that way in real life. I find it much less confusing to check for a nullify on my target creature if the target create always have it next to it and not on the side of the board, not making differences between mage and other creature. (it also messes more with: is this facedown card there your hand or your enchantment?)
also for destroy magic, enchantment transfuse ... it is simpler and more overview if those enchantments are in the zone.
-
Newbie question: can somebody please give an example where I would want to have an enchantment on an enchantment? I could see Nullify attached to a weapon, but Nullify indicates the target must be a corporeal creature.
-
Newbie question: can somebody please give an example where I would want to have an enchantment on an enchantment? I could see Nullify attached to a weapon, but Nullify indicates the target must be a corporeal creature.
arcane ward is kind of like nullify and it is non-mage object. so you can counter that dispel
-
Newbie question: can somebody please give an example where I would want to have an enchantment on an enchantment? I could see Nullify attached to a weapon, but Nullify indicates the target must be a corporeal creature.
arcane ward is kind of like nullify and it is non-mage object. so you can counter that dispel
Ah gotcha- that makes total sense. Thank you!
-
As I'm reading through these various posts, it would help a lot of the online SBB was updated to include Domination and Academy cards.
-
For events (both academy and arena), an enchantment attached to an enchantment will need to be 90 degrees from the enchantment it's attached to.
And enchantments attached to another enchantment that is already attached?
Start to flip them back again?
-
For events (both academy and arena), an enchantment attached to an enchantment will need to be 90 degrees from the enchantment it's attached to.
And enchantments attached to another enchantment that is already attached?
Start to flip them back again?
i feel that shifting to the side is better in this sense
-
That was how things were done before the attachment system was implemented. The problem is the "attached" cards are analyzed by the Battle Calculator for buffs/debuffs. If the cards are to the side of the table there is really no clean way to do this bit of the work.
We do give the option to turn off the BC and Attachments so you could do that and place the cards to the side of the board.
Just a random thought to solve this:
How about adding 1 extra zone to each side of the Arena. (so two in total) Each enchantment in zone 1 could be linked to mage 1 and vice versa for zone 2.
If you don't like these zones you could of course still use the current method.
Since you already have a way to automate zone enchantments I think it's not extremely hard to automatically link every enchantment in a particular zone to a particular mage.
-
That was how things were done before the attachment system was implemented. The problem is the "attached" cards are analyzed by the Battle Calculator for buffs/debuffs. If the cards are to the side of the table there is really no clean way to do this bit of the work.
We do give the option to turn off the BC and Attachments so you could do that and place the cards to the side of the board.
Just a random thought to solve this:
How about adding 1 extra zone to each side of the Arena. (so two in total) Each enchantment in zone 1 could be linked to mage 1 and vice versa for zone 2.
If you don't like these zones you could of course still use the current method.
Since you already have a way to automate zone enchantments I think it's not extremely hard to automatically link every enchantment in a particular zone to a particular mage.
total dislike, what is the issue with the current system for you? To crowded zones?
-
not in every game, but sometimes yes. Would also be a way to solve the enchantment-on-enchantment issue? I don't think the current system is "bad" at all. Just thought it could be improved by freeing up some space.
-
why cause you still have enchantments on enchantments and enchantments then
and you still have enchantments on enchantments on other creatures
-
It just occurred to me that if you can Arcane Ward an Arcane Ward, you can create a chain of Arcane Wards! It would of course be disrupted by a seeking dispel at the base of the chain, but it would really funny.
-
why cause you still have enchantments on enchantments and enchantments then
and you still have enchantments on enchantments on other creatures
Yes, but both of these don't happen very often. (or at least a lot less)
-
really? the obvious choice for it is mind control
-
It just occurred to me that if you can Arcane Ward an Arcane Ward, you can create a chain of Arcane Wards! It would of course be disrupted by a seeking dispel at the base of the chain, but it would really funny.
Wouldn't it be prohibited to have similar cards stapled?
-
It just occurred to me that if you can Arcane Ward an Arcane Ward, you can create a chain of Arcane Wards! It would of course be disrupted by a seeking dispel at the base of the chain, but it would really funny.
Wouldn't it be prohibited to have similar cards stapled?
No. As long as no enchantment has the same target as another enchantment with the same name, it's fine.
Forcefield<=Arcane Ward1
Arcane Ward1<=Arcane Ward2
Arcane Ward 2<=Arcane Ward3
<= "targets"
-
It just occurred to me that if you can Arcane Ward an Arcane Ward, you can create a chain of Arcane Wards! It would of course be disrupted by a seeking dispel at the base of the chain, but it would really funny.
Wouldn't it be prohibited to have similar cards stapled?
No. As long as no enchantment has the same target as another enchantment with the same name, it's fine.
Forcefield<=Arcane Ward1
Arcane Ward1<=Arcane Ward2
Arcane Ward 2<=Arcane Ward3
<= "targets"
Yes that's true. It would be awesome to see someone play a third arcane ward to build this arrangement in a real game. “as my qc I play arcane ward on arcane ward, and as full action I play arcane ward on arcane ward on arcane ward. Ha!“. “wtf dude?“
-
i only dont see the purpose of it
-
You cant seeking dispel the entire chain. Though dispelling the card being protected gets around all of that.
-
But 1 decoy on the first enchantment triggers them all. If not, you can reveal your decoy and safely assume the opponent also used a decoy on their enchantments and dispel. Ever since academy arrived I started adding decoy a lot more in my deck.
-
i only dont see the purpose of it
Because there is none. Imagine how your face would look like if your opponent would play that. :)
-
You cant seeking dispel the entire chain. Though dispelling the card being protected gets around all of that.
Yes you can. Just seeking dispel the arcane ward at the base and then everything attached to it is destroyed. Therefore everything attached to what is attached to it is also destroyed. And so on. Of course decoy is probably preferable.
-
At Sike: It would be awesome if enchantments on mages would be placed next to the equipment, just as we do in real games.
I have played hundreds of games, against many dozens of players in many different play groups, including a lot of tournaments. I have only EVER seen one player do this - it's not the normal way to play at all.
-
At Sike: It would be awesome if enchantments on mages would be placed next to the equipment, just as we do in real games.
I have played hundreds of games, against many dozens of players in many different play groups, including a lot of tournaments. I have only EVER seen one player do this - it's not the normal way to play at all.
i do it!
the creatures are on the board with theire stuf (normally not a lot) but the mage's card is naked, all its stuf (including counters) are on the side. i'd like to find figurines for the mages and gain more space on the board.
-
I have played hundreds of games, against many dozens of players in many different play groups, including a lot of tournaments. I have only EVER seen one player do this - it's not the normal way to play at all.
I might have had the wrong idea because my friends and I do it this way. :P
i do it!
the creatures are on the board with theire stuf (normally not a lot) but the mage's card is naked, all its stuf (including counters) are on the side. i'd like to find figurines for the mages and gain more space on the board.
Hurray! I'm not alone! :D
I also like the "naked" mage cards. Their art is also bigger then the other cards because they have no information on them. (+1 on the figurines, but it might be too expensive :s )
-
We also do it :)
Hidden ones stay on mage, revealed ones are where the equipment is (next to the board).
-
the "naked" mage
the Priestress and Druide design are however fast naked!
-
At Sike: It would be awesome if enchantments on mages would be placed next to the equipment, just as we do in real games.
I have played hundreds of games, against many dozens of players in many different play groups, including a lot of tournaments. I have only EVER seen one player do this - it's not the normal way to play at all.
It was very very common on OCTGN before the attachment system was implemented. That how almost all of us played. It was very time consuming to move each card or select the stack of cards in a crowded zone so most of the time the mages Enchantments were played to the side and if you had a creature with a large stack of enchantments you would declare an area on the table and move them there. Ah the good old days.
-
Interesting... perhaps that's where that originated then (at least in large part).
I only know one person who's ever played on OCTGN, and him hardly at all, so my regular playerbase are all from physical play.
-
It would be awesome if enchantments on mages would be placed next to the equipment, just as we do in real games.....
That might be the way you do it in "real" games, but in the "fake" games that I play, we put them on the Mage, just like any other creature.
-
It would be awesome if enchantments on mages would be placed next to the equipment, just as we do in real games.....
That might be the way you do it in "real" games, but in the "fake" games that I play, we put them on the Mage, just like any other creature.
Halewijin isn't saying that your mage wars games are fake. He was contrasting his online mage wars games with his offline ones. Sometimes people use the word "real" as a synonym of "not over the internet". Or at least they do where I live.
-
Sometimes people use the word "real" as a synonym of "not over the internet". Or at least they do where I live.
wich is a nonsens, since every body knows every realm is as real as Etheria!
-
Halewijin isn't saying that your mage wars games are fake. He was contrasting his online mage wars games with his offline ones. Sometimes people use the word "real" as a synonym of "not over the internet". Or at least they do where I live.
I think DaveW was being ironic...
-
Just a random thought to solve this:
How about adding 1 extra zone to each side of the Arena. (so two in total) Each enchantment in zone 1 could be linked to mage 1 and vice versa for zone 2.
If you don't like these zones you could of course still use the current method.
Since you already have a way to automate zone enchantments I think it's not extremely hard to automatically link every enchantment in a particular zone to a particular mage.
Problem is irregular maps, and multiplayer maps.
We already have code that assigns default card locations for players, and it is rather long and ugly. This would require coming up with a system to assign a mage enchantment box based on the number of players and the shape of the map, which would likely add length and ugliness to the existing code.
I suppose one compromise is allowing players to attach enchantments to the mage stats card, since that is off the board.