September 28, 2024, 06:38:53 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Arkdeniz

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 19
151
Spells / Re: Dark L1 Enchantments D-H
« on: March 03, 2018, 07:00:27 PM »
I do admit, though, that it would be a little unfair for Ehren if with a Battle Fury he gets one attack at 5 dice and the second attack at only 1 die.

152
Spells / Re: Dark L1 Enchantments D-H
« on: March 03, 2018, 02:27:43 PM »
I agree with you Kharhaz, but we probably won’t wait long for the lawyers to come and say that ‘trait’ and ‘effect’ are different words. :)

153
Rules Discussion / Re: Dragon's Breath target options
« on: March 02, 2018, 02:12:39 PM »
in this case could both attacks target the same wall between A1 and A2?

Surely the answer is No.

The card says: "Dragon's Breath may attack a second target (similar to a Sweeping attack)"

Sweeping says: "one attack action which comprises 2 attacks against different targets in the same zone"

Because a Sweeping attack has to have two targets in the same zone and DB does not, DB cannot be given the  Sweeping trait, but surely the phrase "similar to a Sweeping attack" means that we are instructed to follow the rules for Sweeping for all other aspects of the DB attack.

154
Mages are not themselves of any magic school, though they are trained in one or more of them.

The priestess, for instance, has the Creature type High Elf, with the subtype of Westlock. So she would be affected by spells that influence "High Elves", "Elves" or "Westlock". (Although note there are no such spells currently in the game.) She does not have the "Holy" type and thus is not affected by spells that influence Holy creatures.

155
Rules Discussion / Re: commander's cape
« on: February 23, 2018, 02:00:58 PM »
From the rulebook about enchantments:

"When you cast this spell, it creates a magical "matrix" on the target. At this point, it is not fully formed and exists only as magical potential, with no effect on the battle. When the spell is revealed later, the caster "completes" the spell by adding additional power. It is only then that the enchantment takes form and can affect the target." (my emphasis)


First, if this bit of flavor text was taken at face value then you could not target hidden enchantments and cards like [mwcard=MWSTX2FFJ01]Harshforge Monolith[/mwcard] would not be able to function properly, since were are now giving hidden enchantments traits (wrap your mind around that) .


I disagree.

The flavour text, as you put it, goes to intent of the rules (pax, RAW folk!) and certainly does not interfere with the gameplay in the ways you suggest. If you picture the face down enchantment as a blob of magical energy without much form it can still be dispelled and still affected by the magic-dampening power of harshforge (hence the need for the mage to expend more power to maintain it. It is not as if it has no existence at all.

I am not sure what you mean by giving hidden enchantments traits, though. Clearly haven't managed to get my head around that bit.


And as far as Izimbila goes, her subtype text only matters during spellbook creation. Once the game starts and the mage is on the board, the seeming option provided by the card's subtype text is moot. See here: http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=18390.msg87528#msg87528   

156
Rules Discussion / Re: commander's cape
« on: February 23, 2018, 03:45:27 AM »
Rules As Written seem to indicate that spells ALWAYS have subtypes and you don't have to prove those subtypes in order to be able to cast the spell (Cassiel, Gurmash, Serseiryx).

I don't like this view at all.

Cards always have a subtype, true.
But the examples provided are all familiars that have no option but to cast certain subtypes of spell. When Gurmash casts a spell you know it has to be a command spell. There is no doubt about it, so nobody should expect to ask for, or show, proof of the subtype.

The Mage, on the other hand, can cast anything. You cannot assume that the spell is of any subtype, and while you could ask for proof, you cannot expect to be shown any. The whole point of face down enchantments cast by a mage is the "it could be anything!" factor, after all. 

I argue that until it is revealed, a face down enchantment's subtype is an accounting matter only, useful only to delineate who can cast it.

From the rulebook about enchantments:

"When you cast this spell, it creates a magical "matrix" on the target. At this point, it is not fully formed and exists only as magical potential, with no effect on the battle. When the spell is revealed later, the caster "completes" the spell by adding additional power. It is only then that the enchantment takes form and can affect the target." (my emphasis)

This suggests strongly to me that a face down enchantment is nothing. It is not a command spell, it is not a healing spell. It becomes these things only when they are flipped face up and the word 'Command' or 'Healing' is visible to all.

Until it is revealed, an enchantment is a Schrodinger's Enchantment. It is a command spell and a healing spell and a curse (and so on) all at the same time, and yet not one of these things. Only when observed is its actual state confirmed.

To suggest that a face down enchantment can be said to be any specific subtype is unprovable until it is revealed. And if you cannot prove it you can't apply a discount to it, because unlike a familiar-cast spell, it could potentially be anything.

I say the Cape should not be able to provide a discount to a face down enchantment.


I'll use another counter example to try to prove why it would be silly to give face down enchantments a subtype.

A creature has Mind Shield on it.
The opponent's Naiya casts a face down enchantment on that creature.
The owner of the Mind Shield reveals it during the Counterspell step and removes the new enchantment, on the grounds that since naiya cast the spell it is clearly a song, therefore of the psychic subtype, which is affected by the Mind Shield.
The Naiya owner points out that the spell could technically be a Healing Madrigal, and therefore not psychic and not affected by the Mind Shield. But he won't flip the card to prove it.

Now, who in this situation has the right of it? Clearly the Naiya owner has the advantage, because of the inherent uncertainty about what the spell is. 99.99999% of the time it will not be a Madrigal and instead a psychic song of some sort, but until it can demonstrably be shown to be a psychic spell the Mind Shield has to remain inert.

Like the Mind Shield, the commander's cape must remain inert until the enchantment is revealed, becasue the person wanting to use the power cannot state with certainty that the enchantment is a Command. 

Sorry for the big rant about what seems a teeny tiny point, but I think it warrants the discussion.

157
Spells / Re: Dark L1 P-T
« on: February 20, 2018, 05:35:53 AM »

The way I see it: - Mage A regenerates 1 instead of 2 damage from the Regrowth, because one point of healing is stolen by Mage B's Theft of Life on Mage A. - Mage B heals 1 damage, but this is prevented by Mage A's Theft of Life on Mage B. - Therefore Mage A heals another point of damage through Mage A's Theft of Life on Mage B.

Result: Effectively both Theft of Life cancel each other out and Mage A heals 2 damage.

I had pretty much this exact situation about a month ago (my opponent actually used Steal Enchantment on one of my thefts of life), and yes, this is how it works.

158
Spells / Re: Novice Enchantments
« on: February 19, 2018, 03:43:14 AM »
Miss would be a nice addition to a Domination book. You see a lot of small creatures used there.

"Are you relying on that Goblin Grunt to touch the orb? Oh, that's a shame..."

159
Spells / Re: Card of the Day yah! :)
« on: February 19, 2018, 01:51:05 AM »
Unstable Fire Imp
or
Moonglow Faerie
or
Otto Kronig
or
Quicksand

In my years of playing this game I do not think I have seen any of these four cards used.

160
Spellbook Design and Construction / Re: Enslaver - The Shark Tank 6
« on: February 16, 2018, 03:17:45 AM »
Oh, good. I'd hate to think I had another rule wrong!

161
Spellbook Design and Construction / Re: Enslaver - The Shark Tank 6
« on: February 16, 2018, 02:14:09 AM »
Blood Demon not really good as it will lose vampirism.

Does it?

We had always read it as the newly risen zombie gaining additional traits (Psychic Immune, Slow, Nonliving and Bloodthirsty +0) rather than having these replace the traits it originally had.

162
Rules Discussion / Re: Armory and Royal Armorer
« on: February 14, 2018, 04:30:05 AM »
That was certainly my first assumption, given how expensive he is.

163
Rules Discussion / Re: Armory and Royal Armorer
« on: February 14, 2018, 12:43:48 AM »
Another wording question:

Alandell:
“He gains Melee +1 and adds +1 to his effect rolls for each mana spent”

Now, this does not seem 100% clear to me.

Does each mana give +1 melee and +1 effect,
or
does the first mana give +1 melee and +1 effect, and each subsequent mana only gives a +1 effect

I can read both options into the wording.

What is the right one?

164
General Questions / Re: About the Paladin...
« on: February 12, 2018, 06:06:28 PM »
Well, yes.

I should possibly have been clearer that the straight bonus should be for the Pally only, and not come with a boost to the enemy.

The Paladin should be out there fighting Adremalech rather than the goblin, but being the Mage it is unlikely to do so since it does not want to face that boosted counterattack.

I think the Red Helm power is actually a better implementation of what the Pally’s power could have been.

165
General Questions / Re: About the Paladin...
« on: February 12, 2018, 01:42:19 PM »
The main problem with Challenge, as I see it, is that its buff to the enemy actively discourages the Paladin from being heroic.

A classic Paladin wants to engage with the biggest, meanest enemy. The Paladin stands tall on the field against the dragon.

The Challenge instead suggests that what the MW Paladin wants to do is bully the little stuff that won’t punch back very hard, if they get a chance to do so at all.

So instead of fighting the dragon, he waves his sword at the goblin grunt.

I would have preferred a character power that gave a straight bonus (such as melee +1 and a Valour) when the Paladin engages with the strongest enemy creature.

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 19