As referenced in one of the linked threads, I remember a discussion I had about using the word "attack" to mean different things between the two games would bite us in the butt. In general, I would recommend reading all text on Academy cards, when used in Arena, to mean the same thing they generally would in Arena. So this would only work on one attack, like the other "Strike" cards. And I'm pretty sure that was the intention.

The problem is, that causes some of the other academy cards to behave a bit wonky in Arena. In Arena, each roll of the dice is one attack, and the entirety of the attack steps is an attack action. Normally if something gained a trait for one attack, it would lose it before doing another attack in the "Additional Strikes" step. But having that happen with traits like doublestrike and sweeping doesn't make sense because it would lose them before they could actually be utilized. They become nonsense on certain Academy cards and the cards would be useless if played as written. Obviously, we're not going to have useless cards. So we had to do some mental gymnastics and make special exceptions for them to get them to work. This resulted in "well, attack should just be attack action in this case." That allows those cards to function and makes sense because Academy has the two terms being synonymous. But these should really be considered special exceptions, and not a precedent to judge other cards by. In general, just play the cards as written.

When the mage dies, like other creatures, he is immediately destroyed and removed from play along with anything attached to him. There are a few additional restrictions that don't normally apply to other creatures, such as being unable to pay any mana for things, but for the most part it follows the normal creature death rules. I'm not really sure the problem here.

I believe Kharhaz would like the game to end immediately upon Mage Death, which is a reasonable argument, but it currently doesn't end until the phase finishes. Basically, the game can't end mid-phase which does allow time for the other Mage to be killed. Basically, if both deaths happen in the same phase it is considered simultaneous.

I'm not sure the issue with Magebane, because the Mage takes the Magebane damage after resolving the attack. As in, the Mage doesn't get to complete an attack after death and isn't working different from other creatures. The comparison to a damage barrier seems apt.

That said, I think the rules could definitely be simplified, but I don't think that's the games biggest problem and the changes I would like to see actually aren't possible without rewriting the game to a significant extent. Maybe a new edition will see them. Stuff like simplifying traits and conditions, cleaning up the spell restrictions and training rules, and yes the order of operations could use some attention. I agree with all of that, but those are significant overhauls to the game. Basically, after nearly 6 years, I feel we've learned a lot about how this very unique first of it's kind game operates and we can do better. But not without making a whole new game.

But again, that's not really the problem with the game. The real problem is output and support. LCG's tend to get an expansion per month. We've gotten 1 or 2 per year. To put out more expansions they would need to prepare more material in advance, because there's only so much you can do to speed up playtesting. So, there's no way for us to really fix that with the game already being out there, it's something that would need to be planned for pre-launch. They then also need to fix their support for the game, maybe approaching it more like a miniature war game than a CCG, but I don't really know. That's an area that they really haven't figured out yet imo, with even the GenCon tournament still experimenting on how to run things (no more timed victories this year).

For future reference, Arcane Wonders links all relevant documents for a game to that game's specific page on their site. Just go to arcanewonders.com, click games, and then click the game you're interested in. Documents are listed down at the bottom.

Quote from: Sailor Vulcan on April 22, 2018, 01:55:03 PM

But Data isn't a Vulcan.

no, but he isn't only a

Quote from: Zuberi on April 22, 2018, 01:46:20 AM

mechanical androids or computers and their logic is often shown to be a flaw or short coming rather than something to aspire to.

either!

Actually, he is. The entire point of his character was that his highly logical nature was a shortcoming, a flaw, that he spent the entire series trying to overcome and to become "more human". He's different from most such characters in that he realizes these traits are "flaws" that limit his perspective and capabilities but they're still depicted as such even when their usefulness is being proven time and time again. He taught us we should want to be human, not that we should want to be like him as he didn't even want to be like him.

Oh god no. Trying to be an emotionless robot isn't rationality. If you're completely calm all the time no matter what the circumstances, that is not indicative of any kind of good reasoning skills and it also means that *something is very wrong with you*. Vulcans are not rational.

If people here think that I aspire to be as unreasonable as Spock, then I really should change my username.

Nobody said that you had to be emotionless to be rational. But you can't let emotions dictate your actions either. Emotions can be useful, but they are involuntary and often very irrational. The entire point of the Vulcan Philosophy is that Vulcans are VERY emotional beings who are prone to outbursts of passion, and this nearly tore their society apart as they let those passions rule them. Those emotions haven't gone away, but the philosophy is to ensure that they think through their decisions so that they can be reasonable. But yeah, we have kinda hijacked the thread. Sorry about that. I could talk about Star Trek all day long. It's such an amazing series, and the Vulcan culture is one of my favorite aspects. You're right that they aren't perfectly rational and reasonable at all times, but the point is that they TRY to be and consider such traits to be virtues. If you wanna discuss further, we can take it to private messages.

I used to play WoW and had lots of different characters with different names. I used the website behindthename.com to name these characters (and many D&D characters before/since). The one that ended up being my main was a troll shaman that I named Zuberi.

Anyways, I grew accustomed to being called Zuberi or Zub or ZubZub, both online and in real life (as lots of real life friends played WoW also) so I just started using it as my default online persona. You'd be surprised how often it's already taken though, so you'll also see me use Zub3ri or Zuberii as alternatives.

It's entirely coincedence that i eventually ended up polyamorous with 3 girlfriends.

High five for polyamory. I have two spouses so I always have a gaming group without ever having to leave the house, lol.

All answers given here are correct. Welcome to the forums Souerdiane

The image on OCTGN and the spellbook builder is wrong. They seem to have used an older image file of the card from when it was being playtested. The actual card that went to print has the text "When this creature is destroyed, you may pay its casting cost. If you do, summon it into the zone in which it was destroyed after the current action resolves."

This does mean it needs to be revealed before the creature gets destroyed.

You are correct that the card is specifically worded the way it is to help it be compatible with both versions of the game. That doesn't change my point or the results of its writing.

I could point you back to the rulebook, but I feel like that is wasted effort at this time. What really matters is the Magic Rule. Card text overrides general rules. So we could argue about how the rules don't limit Defenses to a specific step, but it doesn't matter because even if they did (they don't) the text on the card would still break that rule.

When attacked means when you are the target of an attack. It's very clear and clean. With Block, it reads that when you are the target of an attack, you reveal Block during the Avoid attack step (so you don't reveal it when you're the attacker, for example). Dodge reads that when you are the target of an attack, you must reveal Dodge. Immediately. So, when do you become the target of an attack? At the end of the Declare Attack step. If you have to do something immediately upon being attacked, then that's the time it happens.