Updated FAQ (November 2013)

[diceman]

1.) Shouldn't the release of the new FAQs be announced on the main page? After all, this is BIG News. Good Job and Thanks for this, Arcane Wonders-Team!
2.) Is it only me, or is the Search Function (STRG+F) within the OfficialFAQ.pdf kinda weird/fubar a.k.a. doesn't really work (no matter if I use it online or browsing the downloaded version)? Well, it's no big deal since I'm planning to print this out, anyway, but for a fast access during online discussions it would be nice if it'd actually work like a Search Function is supposed to work.

[Zuberi]

The search function doesn't work for me either. Nor does copy + paste. You end up with repeating gibberish.

[DeckBuilder]

1.) Shouldn't the release of the new FAQs be announced on the main page? After all, this is BIG News. Good Job and Thanks for this, Arcane Wonders-Team!

After searching everywhere on this forum for this, I finally found this on the main site.
Well done, Arcane Wonders! (Maybe replace the old FAQ dropbox link in this forum?)

THIS LOOKS AWESOME!!! This is a much needed resource and deserves wider coverage. It answers so many issues including...

Hydro Immunity (total hydro benefits gained)
Enchantment Transfusion (needs different target with caster LOS, can counter Dispel)
Seeking Dispel (can reveal Transfusion to move hence save targeted enchantment)
Nullify (counters the entire spell, does not protect reveal targeting)
Mind Control (no more cheap Obelisk abuse, omission on reveal timing)
Duplicate Enchantments (logical and pragmatic ruling, no vaccines)
Battle Fury (think best case for defender and worst for attacker)
What is a move into a zone? (not a summon, Orb taxes move actions)
Deathshroud Staff (bonus to current occupants, not bonus in that zone)
No provision to ignore equipment (e.g. Eagleclaw boots) unless weapon

Impressive though this magnum opus is (49 pages), there were couple of rulings I couldn't initially find...
Can Flyers ignore Guards to attack Conjurations? (v2 p29 sidebar RAW flyers bypass guards, RAI flyers can't?)
Obscured vs. Vine range ("ignore the range"); most card interaction games give "cannot" ultimate precedence?

Well done AW! A great much needed resource. I hope it becomes a living version to avoid a big task updating it.

[Kharhaz]

Can Flyers ignore Guards to attack Conjurations? (v2 p29 sidebar RAW flyers bypass guards, RAI flyers can't?)

When a flyer chooses to attack any non-flying object they lose flying and then may be guarded against.

[IndyPendant]

The faq does clear a bunch of questions up, yes.  Thanks AW!

It does add one question though: what the heck is the "Joseph Trublood" promo card?  A quick google search comes up empty on that...

[ringkichard]

No such thing!

[aquestrion]

I thought bolt storm had a triple strike attack??? The FAQ says its sweeping under the multiple strikes section.

[Kharhaz]

Obscured vs. Vine range ("ignore the range"); most card interaction games give "cannot" ultimate precedence?

Obscured:

"It can not be targeted from more than one zone away (this is for all purposes - ranged attacks, spells, abilities, etc.)


Vine marker casting:

"you can destroy a target vine marker she controls as an additional cost to cast that spell. If you do, you may ignore the range of that spell  to target that vine marker's zone,an object in that vine marker's zone, or a border of that vine marker's zone...... That vine spell must have a legal target."


Even though the range has changed, or rather ignored, the source of the spell has not. Obscured prevents the mage from being targeted from more than one zone away. So while the obscured mage is indeed in range of the spell, it is not a legal target because he is more than one zone away from the druid.

It is no different than trying to cast a 0 - 3 ranged spell at an obscured mage. Is he in range? Yes. Is he a valid target? No.

All that to say,
Vine markers only replace the range of a spell with the vine markers ability. Source is still at the druid.

Hope that helps clear that up

[Wildhorn]

Obscured vs. Vine range ("ignore the range"); most card interaction games give "cannot" ultimate precedence?

Obscured:

"It can not be targeted from more than one zone away (this is for all purposes - ranged attacks, spells, abilities, etc.)


Vine marker casting:

"you can destroy a target vine marker she controls as an additional cost to cast that spell. If you do, you may ignore the range of that spell  to target that vine marker's zone,an object in that vine marker's zone, or a border of that vine marker's zone...... That vine spell must have a legal target."


Even though the range has changed, or rather ignored, the source of the spell has not. Obscured prevents the mage from being targeted from more than one zone away. So while the obscured mage is indeed in range of the spell, it is not a legal target because he is more than one zone away from the druid.

It is no different than trying to cast a 0 - 3 ranged spell at an obscured mage. Is he in range? Yes. Is he a valid target? No.

All that to say,
Vine markers only replace the range of a spell with the vine markers ability. Source is still at the druid.

Hope that helps clear that up

Burst of Thorns spell (the only one I can think of that would bring up this question) is casted on a Vine Marker, BUT the attack's source is the vine marker, so it can attack a Shrouded target.

[DeckBuilder]

Thanks, Kharhaz, both rulings make imminent sense (if not explicitly clear in FAQ, needing some logical deduction).

The most recent debate on when you can reveal Charm/Mind Control (the latter can be devastating with Healing Wand) seems to have been omitted - considered too obvious?

Ditto the fact you can forget about your Lash in hand (against Flame Immunity or Flame-4 targets) but not your Eagleclaw Boots which you are stuck with - again too obvious I assume?

Every time I read the FAQ, I spot another subtle rules clear-up (e.g. how to deal with Extending Walls and LOS).

However, what I like most about the FAQ is that retaining "fantasy realism" has been given top priority.

Occasional updates would make it a less onerous task in future. This one was gargantuan so well done to the design trio for this excellent much-needed resource.

[Zuberi]

When a flyer chooses to attack any non-flying object they lose flying and then may be guarded against.

The rulebook does NOT say that a flying creature loses flying when it attacks a non-flying OBJECT. It specifies that it only loses flying when it attacks a non-flying CREATURE. Thus, it can ignore guards when attacking conjurations.

[DeckBuilder]

Hi Zuberi. This old hat discussion has been going on for sometime.

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

It sort of came to a head later in this thread where I challenged many ambiguities by giving my own house rules.

http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=13050.msg23382#msg23382

My house rules included "Hydro Immunity can still benefit from beneficial hydro effects" and "Flyers cannot bypass guards when attacking conjurations". Both were against the letter of the rules but seemed to be what was intended. Kharhaz as a Playtester is understandably a stickler for the rules (a perfectly valid position to take that I fully support) and we passionately voiced contrary views (as euphemisms go).

Whilst the FAQ has sadly done nothing to clarify whether "creature" should be read as "object" (which is what I highlighted earlier in this thread), I was not willing to argue this again. Even though it is actually a pretty important clarification due to its commonplace occurrence.

There are omissions, even from my house rules thread that was left unanswered, but let's just rejoice that we have a new FAQ, it may be missing a few pieces and they should utilise their fan base and rules lawyers (that's you, Zuberi!) to highlight any such missing points for the December 2013 FAQ (as any FAQ for a game like this will inevitably be a living document).

I am starting to feel a bit sorry for the good-natured Arcane Wonders team. I know I have given them a hard time at times (in defence, I like to believe my criticisms may have resulted in good, certainly motivated constructively) but they are starting to take flak for every small thing when it's no big deal really. The current FAQ is a gargantuan improvement on the last. As my boss says (whenever I try to innovate too fast at work), change is incremental. So let's take the positives out of this. We have a far more complete FAQ that even duplicates its rulings for easy reference by ordering itself first by game mechanic, then by codex keyword, then by spell!

Let's rejoice, digest what all the purple text means, give them a short rest - then come back to them asking for the missing jigsaw pieces?

In the meantime, as Kharhaz as a Playtester has now changed his position on Flyer vs. Guarded Conjuration, I shall use his ruling above as the official position (i.e. that "creature" in the p29 sidebar should read "object" instead, a wording error). Else those Tree Spawnpoints will burn to Lord of Fire...

[sIKE]

Whilst the FAQ has sadly done nothing to clarify whether "creature" should be read as "object" (which is what I highlighted earlier in this thread), I was not willing to argue this again. Even though it is actually a pretty important clarification due to its commonplace occurrence.

From the v2 rulebook codex:

Object

Enchantments, equipment, creatures, and conjurations are spells which become objects in the game, remaining in play after they are cast. The Mage is also considered an object. Incantation and attack spells do not become objects.

I see no need for a ruling or such in the FAQ.

[DeckBuilder]

sIKE, I expected better things from you, sir! So let me enlighten you.

The set {objects} includes {creatures, conjurations, enchantment, equipments}
So {creatures} is a subset of {objects}.

The p29 (v2) side bar states "creatures".
Therefore flyers can ignore guards when attacking a conjuration, read as written.
Common consensus is that it should read "objects" instead (as stated by Kharhaz above).
The new FAQ does not resolve this.
I therefore humbly disagree with your "no need for a ruling" statement.

Sorry, I don't mean to be argumentative, but I don't back down when I know I'm right.


On a side point, I would argue they missed "zone" in the list of objects. This is because conjurations are actually attached to their zone. (This is the rule that forbids 2 Orchids or 2 Lotus in 1 zone). You can only attach to an object hence zone is missing in that list of objects?

[Zuberi]

I had not realized this was an issue. It has been added to my thread about things currently not clarified by the rules: http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=13276.msg26075#msg26075