House Rules to retain realism (and some clarifications)

[DarthDadaD20]

I wouldn't beat yourself up over it deckbuilder- I can easily see how and what your thought process was.

And I would say it very beneficial- first off, different strokes for different folks, second- I can see much good out of this thread.

[jacksmack]

I just find it kinda weird that you are house ruling stuff like Samandriel which you played wrong, and then end up house ruling it into the original rules.

Also alot of the stuff is not about house ruling but a request of clear rules... Different subject maybe?

[DarthDadaD20]

He made a mistake- we all helped. Staying on the subject of house rules would be preferable. 

One house rule we have )And its a common D&D one) is that the dice have to land on the table! (Those dice have a mind of their own....and boy do they love that floor!)

[Shad0w]

If this turns into a flame war I will lock it.


Now lets talk about this in a clear and rational manner.

[Kharhaz]

Let me see if I can help you here

So why does Codex Heal (with that hand symbol) mention living conjurations yet there is actually no way to heal them? (Goblin Builder is not healing and is limited to Corporeal, so yes he can mend Tanglevine with his tools).

Most living conjurations have REGENERATION X, which is a heal effect.


And I am on the other side of the fence as you here:

We have, in the rulebook, no ability to guard conjurations against flyers, something that some people find intuitive (see above) yet it was house ruled by us as different and this seems to be the norm.

Conjurations, like a temple, can not be guarded from flyers and rightfully so because the inverse is more absurd. Sure you get some "wonky" intances where my goblin can not protect a flower but that is better than my goblin protecting a poison gas cloud and adds benefits to flying to make it a more desirable trait.


Also how is graveyard ambiguous?

"Your mage may ignore the effects of any equipment worn."

I am confused here, when you also say this:

In Magic, protection from your own colour is a double-edged sword. You can't target it with your benign spells. But you also can't damage it via own global effects (Protection from Red and Inferno, Protection from Black and Pestilence etc). Good builds leverage that immunity. However Magic is not "fantasy realistic". It is primarily a game of leveraging mechanics. Whilst Mage Wars is more like a simulation.

Magic is more of a Eurogame. It's a cerebral challenge. Mage Wars is shameless Ameritrash (and better off for it, carving its own niche).

I do not think it is fair for you to simultaneously call one game  "a cerebral challenge" when the same thought process / leverage has to go into this "Ameritrash". Equipment and enchantments must be used properly, just like in Magic.

You are also claiming that a living FAQ is the answer yet only one of the issues you have just recently came to light,  (which is when they get added to a FAQ   )

[DarthDadaD20]

I have a few thoughts here.

I am happy for the clarification, and it is correct.....but the man is welcome to his opinions.

Ameritrash is not the dirty word it use to be.

I see the spirit in what this thread is trying to accomplish- I like the thought of being able to "ignore" your own equipment if you want to, and at the very least, it is a good discussion. I think we are still moving away from where we want to be.

[ringkichard]

Conjurations, like a temple, can not be guarded from flyers and rightfully so because the inverse is more absurd. Sure you get some "wonky" intances where my goblin can not protect a flower but that is better than my goblin protecting a poison gas cloud and adds benefits to flying to make it a more desirable trait.

Er, I am confused. Is this your statement of what you, as a playtester, believe the Rules as Written are?

Or are you saying that you have a house rule (or sympathize with such) that lets a flyer ignore guards if it's attacking a conjuration?

[lettucemode]

I agree with Kharhaz re: healing. None of the Codex entries deal with specific cards, but instead with the effects and traits that those cards represent or describe. Additionally, the text on Minor Heal, Heal, etc. says something like "Heal target thing the amount rolled on X dice." So we can conclude that the codex is describing what the healing effect does and is not intended to describe legal targets for the various healing spells. As Kharhaz mentioned, Regeneration is a healing effect, and according to the Codex living objects are legal targets for healing effects, and there are Living conjurations, so there you go. The wording leaves open the possibility of a healing spell that can target living conjurations, but so far none exist.

"Enchantments are perpetually targeting the object it is attached to."

Didn't realize this was even an issue.

"Text effects that do not cite Line of Sight do not need it"

As a Heroscape player I very strongly agree! 

"You can guard a conjuration against a flyer."

This is a tricky one. I think a decent house rule would be that guards can only guard creatures and non-temple, corporeal conjurations. But even this causes problems because it means you can guard a wall of stone, but not a wall of fire.

EDIT: removed some stuff

"Your mage may ignore the effects of any equipment worn."

I very strongly disagree with this one. There are plenty of cards that say "you may do such and such a thing". Even the rules for choosing different attacks spend words to make it clear that you can choose any available one you want. The provision is there, yes - but only for attacks. Nowhere in the rules does it state you can ignore certain effects because it's convenient for you. The Eagleclaw Boots text does not say "You may gain the Unmovable trait" or "You put on boots with retractable claws, how cool!" You can't ignore enchantments this way - if you enchant a creature with Melee +X and then need to attack one of your own creatures to wake it from Sleep you have to roll all the dice - so why would you get to ignore equipment effects?

I would argue that ignoring such effects is actually illogical. When Link puts on the big heavy boots in that Zelda game, he doesn't get to just will the effects away - he has to take them off before he can move normally again. And currently the only way to remove equipment in Mage Wars is to replace it with something else or Dissolve it.

Having said all that, I think a house rule that says "a mage may return a piece of equipment to his spellbook as a free action" would be a fine, still-friendly alternative to what you're ruling now.

[DeckBuilder]

This is replying to Kharhaz's post above...

You picked and chose a few of my points that you feel you can refute. I, on the other hand, will deal with all of the subset that you chose.

I don't have the rulebook here at work but I would guess "Regeneration" is the keyword that allows healing, the mechanic which is the removal of damage from living creatures and conjurations. I am referring instead to the Heal symbol that was gleefully pointed out (hey, none of us spotted the subtle difference). I assume that refers to Asryan Cleric (and Healing Wand)? Which can't target living conjurations (less sure about the Wand). I think we are mixing the keyword Heal and the mechanic of healing which is the removal of damage.

On flyers and conjurations, I believe your Read As Written interpretation is contradictory to what was voiced when I first brought this up in a separate thread in this Rules section (when I took your position and everyone told me I was wrong) and which Moonglow has also said in this thread earlier. If anything, this is clear evidence that there is far too much ambiguity for a game of this quality.

You imply that Boots are a double-edged sword. That would be fine and consistent if Lash was a double-edged sword. But the rules state you can ignore it (e.g. against Dragonscale) and use your melee basic attack instead. My friend was arguing he should be able to ignore the Boots similarly. Do I become a rules lawyer and say "no" or rule what I felt was in the spirit of the game, demonstrated by the leniency with a weapon and wand in your hands? I chose to do the latter. It just felt friendlier. It seems you have officially ruled that I chose wrong?

Please read the Graveyard Preview thread to show that experienced players like Koz and SIKE were confused by the ambiguous wording.

I note that you picked those points and no others that I made. Well, here is my rebuttal. I am not trying to be confrontational or antagonistic here. But the very fact that people are confused, about guarding conjurations vs. flyers and watering their plants and Graveyard, you can't refute some of your biggest fans, the customers who spend time on this forum because they absolutely love this game, need clarity here.

I think your anger is sourced from my use of "Ameritrash". I never think of it as derogatory, it is just a category that is used in BGG. I think I have referenced some other games I like elsewhere (Teaching Variant thread): Twilight Imperium 3, Rune Wars, Mage Knight. I confess I even used to play Summoner Wars (not now). I GM 4th Edition, a miniatures skirmish game masquerading as a RPG. I like Descent and Runebound. And now I absolutely love the fun yet deep cross-genre game Mage Wars and try to convert others to it (incorrectly it seems). All these games place theme and flavour over gimmicky abstract mechanics, the difference between Ameritrash and Eurogames. Some of these Ameritrash games are very complex, far more than any Eurogame (try Mage Knight or Twilight Imperium 3 with all expansions). Being classed as Ameritrash is no longer derogatory, it's simply a game category that even the American site Board Game Geek uses.

Maybe you took umbrage that I called Magic cerebral. And by implication Mage Wars was not. My apologies here as that was not exactly what I meant.

Magic deck building is more cerebrally challenging than Mage Wars book building. But that is just a function of card pool (and balancing the casting cost constraints). Once Mage Wars has the same pool as a Magic Standard rotation, the 2 games will become more on par

To play however, it's entirely reversed in my opinion. Magic is like Poker, you improvise with what you get, whilst Mage Wars is like Chess, you can choose what you get (if prepared) and you need to tactically maneouvre. Add to that the lifetime value mechanic giving cumulative benefit, the balancing of action quantity and quality, spell actions, mana, life and board position that gives you "opportunity windows" and I actually insist that playing it is far more skillful than playing Magic. My Magic friends disagree (though they like it). I have written repeatedly that Mage Wars is a deceptively deep game. Attack rolls have low variance, only the d12 adds luck really. Sure, Poker has lots of play skill - but Chess is considered more skillful.

I contend Magic is really a Eurogame because its theme actually means nothing. Somebody (ringkichard?) cited equiping your Loxodon Warhammer onto your Bird of Paradise (often a good play). No Magic player thinks anything wrong with this (after years of going to Grand Prixes around Europe as a journeyman, making day 2 sometimes, I certainly don't). Because good Magic players view the cards as just mechanics, clever card synergies to leverage. No picture and no flavour text? That's fine. All we care about is +2 Power Trample Lifelink.

The Dude brought up an old chestnut, Dungeon Twister. Now this is 80% Ameritrash and 20% Eurogame. Sure, the characters, items, abilities and setting is pure joyous Ameritrash, But then there is the Twisting, a spatial element like in a recent good Eurogame Tzolkin. They dress it up with fake chrome but that mechanic (also its Unique Selling Point like Spellbook choice is Mage War's USP) makes it slightly Eurogame. Maybe I am biased as I lack spatial intelligence, I get lost in my garden. But it's a fun game due to it and The Dude's transference of the bluffing element is certainly true for the Planning phase - another dimension to Mage Wars that I hadn't considered.

So abject apologies if you felt I "dissed" your game, Kharhaz, as that was never my intention. Please accept my grovelling apology on that count. But I am unrepentant for highlighting the ambiguity and issues with the current rules as I see them. For that, I honestly do think you should encourage your minority activists to voice concerns instead of trying to quell them as they are doing the game a free service, from the love that they bear for the game.

[Kharhaz]

@Ringkichard

As a playtester, I am required to play the rules as written. I feel that a goblin guarding all sides of a barracks from a flying creature is more out of place than not being able to guard a flower. It's not perfect but I do agree with the existing rules on guarding in regards to flying creatures & conjurations.

@ Deckbuilder

These are your house rules, not mine! Nothing I post here can really make you change them, I was only offering criticism, as you requested. Could I have been less of an ass? Sure but that could probably said about most of my posts. I do apologize if I was being coarse and was not trying to "quell" anyone. That was not my intent, the team appreciates all feedback, even the little stuff. There was no anger on my part I assure you. I have no substantial attachment to this topic as house rules are a luxury I am not allowed when I play this game.

@ equipment ignoring.
Ignoring the trait immoveable is like a pop n'lock (warlock) playing a deathlock and trying to make the argument that his regeneration belt should ignore the finite life trait. One of Shadow's first recommended uses of Eagle Claw Boots was to put them on an enemy mage and repulse the zone to clear all the creatures except the mage, but I digress.

@watering their plants 
There is nothing ambiguous about extinguish and hydro immunity. There is a targeting immunity which is clearly stated in the rules. It may not be the most intuitive design but in no way is it ambiguous or new; Geyser has never been able to extinguish the burn markers on a mana flower. Nevertheless, I completely understand why you choose to house rule around it and if that is what is best for your group then more power to ya!

[Moonglow]

I feel like I'm talking to myself! Re Guarding against flyers.

This thread clarified that the Flyers guarding ambiguity was a misprint and should probably have been object to capture the statement in the rules:

Use Guard:
Guarding allows you to protect important creatures or conjurations.

(emphasis mine)

http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=12738.msg18464#msg18464

[ringkichard]

Right, it now sounds like everyone agrees that the Rule as Written is that guards protect conjurations from flyers. Just checking, because it seemed like there was some confusion about that.

[lettucemode]

Right, it now sounds like everyone agrees that the Rule as Written is that guards protect conjurations from flyers. Just checking, because it seemed like there was some confusion about that.

I'm still confused about it.

Page 15 of the rulebook says "A Flying creature is affected by guards when it makes a melee attack, but only if it is attacking a non-Flying creature in the guard’s zone." This implies that you can't guard conjurations against flying creatures.

Page 23 of the rulebook says "Remember: If a Flying creature attacks a non-Flying object, it loses Flying until the end of the attack." This implies that you can guard a conjuration against a flying creature, since the attacking, flying creature would lose flying during the attack and thus be subject to non-flying guarding rules. However this appears to contradict the rule on page 15.

Page 29 of the rulebook has the updated wording mentioned in that thread: "If a creature is in a zone with one or more enemies with guard markers (except for guards he can ignore; see sidebar), that creature cannot make a melee attack against any object without a guard marker" and in the sidebar, it says "Guards affect a flying creature when it makes a melee attack, but only if it is attacking a non-Flying creature in the guard’s zone." So flying creatures attacking non-non-Flying-creatures are an exception to the "Protect the Zone" text. This appears to support the rule on page 15 and contradict the rule on page 23.

So which is it?

It seems like the rules as written state that when a flying creature attacks a conjuration, it loses flying for the duration of the attack, and it gets to ignore any guards. So it's both.

[Shad0w]

Found this in the official FAQ/Errata.

Guarding

While a creature has a Guard marker it loses, and cannot gain, the Flying trait.

A Guard cannot prevent a creature from attacking itself or an object attached to itself.

Under “Protect the Zone”, on page 33 of the original rulebook, replace the current description with: “If a creature is in a zone with one or more enemies with guard markers (except for guards he can ignore; see sidebar), that creature cannot make a melee attack against any object without a guard marker.” This has the same meaning as before, but may be slightly more clear. Note that similar text is already inserted in the second printing rulebook.

[DeckBuilder]

Er, Shad0w. This was my OP from July when I explained that RAW (using latest rules), a guard did not stop a flyer attacking a conjuration. This is because the sidebar is the exception mentioned in "Protect the Zone" and only creatures can be guarded from flyers. I have added the undeline myself, not in the rules.

Guarding (p29)

"Protect the Zone: If a creature is in a zone with one or more enemies with guard markers (except for guards he can ignore; see sidebar), that creature cannot make a melee attack against any object without a guard marker."

Ignoring Guards (sidebar p29)

"In some cases, guards can be ignored. If an attacking creature can ignore a guard, it may choose to melee attack a different target in the zone, and does not have to attack the ignored guard.

Flying Creatures and Guards: Guards affect a flying creature when it makes a melee attack, but only if it is attacking a non-Flying creature in the guard's zone."

I contend that the rules as they stand allow Flyers to ignore guards when melee attacking conjurations in that zone. The rules specifically only allow guards to interpose against flyers when they melee-attack non-Flying creatures.

The logical and grammatical syntax of the above is follows:
(a) There are exceptions to the Guard rule
(b) Flyers is one of these exceptions
(c) However Flyers attacking non-Flying creatures is an exception to exception (b)

However,  this interpretation (RAW as the game uses precise terminology) has caused some disagreement.

Can someone please clear this up? Many thanks!

Initially I had the same opinion as Kharhaz who said guards cannot stop flyers attacking conjurations is the way playtesters play as they have to follow the Rules As Written. I even said what Kharhaz said, that this upgrade of flyers (and downgrade of powerful conjurations) was probably good for balance.

However, the consensus of wiser players than me (including you, Shad0w) seemed to agree the underlined "creature" should be "object". Since then, our local meta have ignored the written rule and played it that way as our House Rule. This is all saved for prosperity in the link that Moonglow has posted (twice) in this thread.


I did read the FAQ on Guarding that you quoted but I think most of it at least is a red herring here.

While a creature has a Guard marker it loses, and cannot gain, the Flying trait

This clarifies the +2 attack bonus does not apply if you use Tarok to attack a Guardian Angel on guard (or if she Intercepts a Jet Stream). She can also be targeted by Surge Wave, a very common use to Slam remove her marker. The "cannot gain" clarifies that casting Eagle Wings will not suddenly give any guard flying until it loses its guard marker. The "while" clarifies that, after you remove the angel's guard marker, she no longer hinders your ground forces.

This brings up the issue of attachments perpetually targeting what it is attached to which people say is obvious but not explicit, Guardian Angel is on guard. I cast Tanglevine on her, she is Restrained so cannot guard others but can Counterstrike. In her action, she loses her guard marker and regains flying. Do you check Tanglevine's condition requirement again so that it slips off as an illegal target? The rules as they stand are easy to read but need more all encompassing rules (like static effects rules in other games) as well as clarity in places.

I want to add the rulebook is very good, mostly very clear. The Codex is brilliant (need a downloadable single reference please). It knocks spots off FFG rulebooks. Just that the game is complex and in keeping it very easy to understand, subtleties of triggered, activated, static etc have been ignored. But games like this will bring up these issues until resolved in a complicated FAQ for serious competitive players.

A Guard cannot prevent a creature from attacking itself or an object attached to itself

This clarifies that a guard does not prevent you attacking the Tanglevine on you. Also that the Forcemaster can order a Mind Controlled Grizzly on low life to try to kill itself with a full action attack on itself, despite an enemy Guard in its zone. (We'll assume your Obelisk has been destroyed!) I am sure there are other edge cases for this FAQ clarification that I haven't considered.


So, to answer ringkichard's question:

Rules As Written  = cannot guard conjurations from flyers
Rules As Intended = can guard conjurations from flyers


However, back in 11 July when I posted that question, I did not own Conquest of Kumanjaro. In that expansion, Intercept was introduced which correctly uses "object". So a Panzergarde guarding a conjuration can intercept a ranged attack by a Royal Archer with Eagle Wings but, RAW, it cannot guard against it if it moves forward 1 and melee attacks the conjuration. This confirmed to me RAW was an oversight and RAI (house rule) was right.


As a postscript, we did toy with "flyers ignore guards when attacking level 2+ conjurations" as the role-players in our group are really into realism and wanted to differentiate between small and larger conjurations. But this would be plainly "making up your own rules" (like our Ready marker solution) instead of making a decision where there is ambiguity. Also, for game balance, being able to guard conjurations from flyers is good for the game as this protects spawn points. So that is why we stuck with RAI consensus of that July post. But nothing official on this was ever announced (like a FAQ addition on this and many other points).