You make a good argument. Despite my reputation, I'm not the official answer on rules and I admit that I'm a bit rusty having only played a handful of games with my family in the past year. It all comes down to how you want to interpret obscured and I think your interpretation is a valid one. I'm not sure what the official stance would be here.

I don't think that the quote from me is relevant here, as I was talking about forcing someone to choose a different target rather than simply canceling the action in progress. Meaning in this case if he had revealed before the Ballista attacked, the Ballista could have chosen a different target. But the question is what happens if he reveals after the Ballista attacked.

For this, we first should look at the Rules Supplement regarding Changing the Range or Target of a Spell or Attack. Here it says the attack is cancelled if:

1) The target is no longer a legal target
or
2) Either the attacker or the target moves.


Neither moved, so then the only question is does Naiya still count as a legal target. Which is not the same thing as being able to target them. Here we look at the Targeting rules in the rules supplement. To target something, the target has to (in summary):
1. Be in line of sight.
2. Be in Range.
3. Be a legal target.

So you are correct that line of sight and range no longer matter. Those were checked during the Declare Attack step and it doesn't matter whether or not those have changed. But that's not the question, as being a legal target is separate from those two. So, does Obscure change the range of the attack, or does it change the legality of Naiya being a target of that attack?

I think I agree with the Judges on this one. What's happening is that Blur makes Naiya an illegal target for attacks further than 1 zone away. And if we agree that that's the case, rather than it changing the range of the attack, then the attack would be canceled just like they ruled.

I hope that makes sense. I feel a bit rusty dusting off the rules lawyer hat and had to look up everything to refresh myself

RAW all effects happen at the same time, so both Freezes applied at the same time.

I agree with Puddnhead regarding rules as written. It seems clear with the current wording that the Freeze conditions do get applied. Removal doesn't happen until after both conditions are on the object, and as soon as the Freeze conditions are added to the creature, it dies.

Interesting thoughts.

I strongly disagree with letting players change their prepared cards. For me, planning is the greatest display of skill in the game. Letting people swap their cards destroys this.

I agree. I think the game would work fine without the planning phase, and it may even speed the game up a bit as people with AP wouldn't have to agonize over the decision. But, it also removes a key part of the skill inherent in the game.

There are significant differences between Academy and Arena. They are separate games. When using Academy cards in Arena, the actual Arena rules always take precedence. Such as the difference in the Pest trait. However, if there are no Arena specific rules for a given trait or ability, it is because they are supposed to work the same in both games. Differences should be detailed in updates to the rules supplement if they aren't detailed in the released Academy rules. Should be.

So, it is slightly pertinent to DaveW's question, though his question doesn't hinge on it, but I do want to answer the debate regarding LOS really quick. wtcannonjr is correct that you only have to check LOS when targeting something. Not necessarily when checking range. If Kharhaz will reread the quote from page 17, it says "When you count range to your target you must also check to see if you have clear LOS." I'm not thinking of anything off the top of my head that cares about range and doesn't target something though. Every spell has a target, guaranteed. So this might really be a moot point.

Now, regarding DaveW's question, the important thing here is actually regarding the source of the second attack. The source is still the caster. Unlike Chain Lightning, it is not bouncing from the first target to the second. Instead, like the card says, it is more like a sweeping attack, wherein both attacks come from the caster who is just catching multiple targets in this jet of flame. Be it because the flame is so wide/long, or because the caster pivots and redirects, that's up to your thematic imagination.

But mechanically, you basically are making two attacks coming from the caster, one after the other. A wall between those two targets doesn't matter. However, if there was a wall between the caster and one of the targets, that may stop it because LOS from the caster does matter. Because you have to target them.

I hope that makes sense. I'm a little sicky atm.

The decision was as I described it. You check at the end of the move action and thus you can leave the swamp unaffected. Kharhaz just didn't get the memo, which I'm sure a lot of people didn't. It was just handled in private chats and hasn't made it into print yet.

I also want to recognize that Kharhaz's logic is sound. That is probably how I would have interpreted the codex definition also. The key thing here is that that definition was written before this was a problem, before movement had steps. Back then, you just moved and it was instantaneous. Which had its own problems (there's reasons we don't do it that way anymore) but did mean that this wasn't a concern. You couldn't lose slow mid move. You either had it or your didn't.

The decision wasn't based on that previous definition so much as what was best for the game. Basically, the arguments I talked about regarding if we checked at the beginning, end, or constantly were all discussed and it was decided that checking at the end worked best.