Thorg vs. Thoughtspore

[Zuberi]

Which to me, indicates that this is not a  single happenstance turn-of-phrase, but that attack spells are attacks. I've always played (for example) that if my mage killed a creature with an attack spell, that would trigger my opponent's Valshalla because my mage is a creature and an attack spell is an attack.

I agree that the attack originates from your creature, which is an important distinction. However, I still believe that the attack requires you to cast the spell. Until you cast the spell, it is not in play, and therefore you have no attack to choose from.

The Taunt condition gives you the options to either attack or move and attack. Casting a spell is not an option. Even casting a spell that immediately generates an attack from your creature, is not an option.

[Rinc]

About a year ago, in a different thread:

Hello NovemberAdam,

Yes, Attack Spells are considered attacks too, and will trigger a Block enchantment.

Attack spells are both a spell and an attack.  When you cast them, they are cast just like any spell, with a Casting Step, and a Counter Spell Step.  Then, during the Resolve Spell Step, they are resolved just like an attack, following all of the normal Attack Steps. For the Declare Attack Step, most of these choices and checks have already been accomplished during the Cast Spell Step (choose target, checking range and LoS, pay mana costs, etc.). Then, you move right on to the Avoid Attack Step.

Hope this helps!

Which to me, indicates that this is not a  single happenstance turn-of-phrase, but that attack spells are attacks. I've always played (for example) that if my mage killed a creature with an attack spell, that would trigger my opponent's Valshalla because my mage is a creature and an attack spell is an attack.

It's important to contrast this with incantations that make attacks, like Explode. These are not attacks, they are spells that make attacks.

I agree with this. Either you attack with your weapon/hands etc. Or you attack with an attack spell, as is supported by Arcanus statement above, "Yes, Attack Spells are considered attacks too,". This is then followed by "Attack spells are both a spell and an attack.". I dont think this can be made more clear.

[ringkichard]

I feel like I haven't made my case clearly. I'm arguing that, under both the rules as written and expressed designer intent, attack spells *are* attacks. I'm not talking about the 3 steps of spellcasting followed by the 8 steps of making an attack. That would mean that attack spells cause attacks, or are spells immediately followed by attacks, or are spells that include attacks.

I'm saying that the act of casting an attack spell *is an attack*  from the beginning of spellcasting step #1, only because the rules say so, not because of any component of the procedure. The whole thing is an attack.

This is, admittedly, a little weird, but it's what the rulebook and Arcanus say in plain unanimous English. I think this is so that the rules treat attack spells as attacks in cases just like this one.

[lettucemode]

One issue I see with kich's interpretation is that many of the rules have little "flavor" introductions.

For example, the first sentence defining the Incorporeal trait is "An insubstantial or amorphous object that is very resistant to damage." It then proceeds to explain exactly what Incorporeal means in mechanical terms. The first sentence is just to help the reader understand what Incorporeal is supposed to represent thematically.

Another example: the first sentence of Magebind is "This enchantment is a little tougher to attach to a Mage". This is not intended to be a mechanical rule, just an explanatory sentence.

Last example: the first sentence of Slow is "This creature is very slow". That explains nothing about how Slow actually affects the game.

Therefore, the sentence "it is both a spell and an attack" found in the rulebook and in Arcanus's explanation might just be helpful, explanatory text that is not intended to be an actual game rule.

Additionally, Arcanus's explanation is within the context of whether or not Block affects attack spells as well as regular attacks. Essentially it is just an explanation of how to go through the steps of casting an attack spell. Whether or not an attack spell counts as an attack or a spell before it is cast is a different animal and I don't think those comments apply. So while I fully understand what he (and kich, and Rinc, and everyone else) is/are saying, I still think there's some ambiguity.

At this point I'd really like an official ruling. I don't think we're going to get any farther by ourselves.

[Arcanus]

Hello everyone,

Sorry for the confusion here!  I have got to be more careful when I answer a post, so that I use the most precise language possible!  This mix-up is my fault, because of a poor choice of words I used.

Assuming I understand the question correctly:  Is an attack spell an attack? Answer:  No.  It is a spell, the resolution of which provides an attack.

An attack spell starts out as a spell, like any other spell.  It has a Cast Spell Step and a Counter Spell Step.  When (and if) it gets to the Resolve Spell Step an attack begins. 

This attack is like any other attack, except a few pieces of information have already been decided for the "Declare Attack Step". For example, when you cast the spell, you have already checked range and LoS, declared targets, made yourself the source for the attack, and paid some costs.

I hope this helps.

Bryan

[lettucemode]

Thank you very much for the post, Arcanus!

Based on your post, I am going to conclude that my original ruling was correct: a Thoughtspore with a bound attack spell cannot use that spell when Taunted by Thorg. It must move into his zone and make its pitiful melee attack against him.

Good discussion, all. Same time next week?

[ringkichard]

Yep, that's how it looks! Thanks for the post!

[Zuberi]

Thank you Arcanus! This has been on my mind all day and I was just about to concede the point when I logged on. The other participants in this thread made much more compelling arguments than I did (I think I confused myself even) and they had me pretty much convinced to change my position. I'm happy to log on and find an official answer to greet me.

[sIKE]

Thank you Arcanus! This has been on my mind all day and I was just about to concede the point when I logged on. The other participants in this thread made much more compelling arguments than I did (I think I confused myself even) and they had me pretty much convinced to change my position. I'm happy to log on and find an official answer to greet me.

We all bow to the mighty Arcanus!