Updated FAQ (November 2013)

[sIKE]

Yes yes, I remember this now, and we both agree on this front, I just didn't catch the reference to the Flying and Conjurations in context. I am of the RaI school here....

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?

I would argue that the zone is not the reason that you can not have 2 of the same conjuration in the same zone, I would attribute that to the rules that are written, it is in the same vein as Enchantments. Which are attached to both Creatures (Objects) and Zones (). Interesting thought......

[Kharhaz]

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.

A. That is what I was told when I asked for a clarification on the issue and, even though I disagree, that's how it works.

I would direct you to the bullet

Protect the zone (v2. pg 29)
"If a creature is in a zone with one ore 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 prevents the flyers from targeting the conjuration with a melee attack as long as there is an enemy creature with a guard marker. He may still melee a flyer as per the sidebar.


Sidebar (v2. pg 29)
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. Attacks against other flying creatures always ignore guards. If a flying creature guards, it loses, and cannot gain, the flying trait for as long as it has the guard marker."

I can only assume that it was not clarified because of the wording in "protecting the zone". The sidebar is suppose to describe the interaction between flying attacking a flyer in a guarded zone.

[jacksmack]

As a general rule:
Flyers Ignore guards when attacking flying objects.
Guards are ignored when attacking flying objects
(corrected for the sake of the "reach" trait.)


Flyers do NOT ignore guards when attacking non-flying objects.


(Exception could be: The attacker has Elusive or the (only) guard(s) in the zone has Pest and/or is restrained.)

EOD

[aquestrion]

If. A seedling pod turns into a Samara tree would you get its can trip effect?

[DeckBuilder]

Not "EOD" (end of discussion) - unless you have the power to lock threads?

We have had Playtesters (Kharhaz in particular) who have interpreted the rulebook as "You Cannot Guard Conjurations From Flyers" because that's actually grammatically what it says in the rules. Here is the logic why.

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!

I was simply surprised such a big issue was not clarified, especially after a set that uses many conjurations.

When I highlighted some house rules to retain fantasy realism, your response was

seems like you got bitten by something with the "house-ruling-disease-syndrome".

Nothing you have mentioned so far neither requires, need, would benefit or could use house ruling.

But some of those house rules (that you saw no use for) have been adopted
> You can now douse your burning plants.
> There is now clarity on LOS for Teleport Trap, Enchantment Transfusion, Teleport moves etc
> There is now clarity on what constitutes "enter" and what triggers Suppression Orb
> We now have explicit approval that Transfusion can be used to foil Dispel and Seeking Dispel
> We now have explicit ruling that a reveal "target" wording does not target

The areas which the FAQ does not address include...
* The recent Mind Control/Charm "when can reveal" ruling that required a Bryan Pope phone call
* You can attack with your basic equiped with Lash and Wand so can you ignore your own Eagleclaw Boots?
* Kharhaz may have changed his position on flyers attacking guarded conjurations but this is not in the FAQ

I believe Zuberi's excellent live-updated Rules thread has highlighted other rules ambiguities or gaps.

I realise that some people are perfectly happy with fuzzy rules and probably don't want their interpretations challenged. But that secret fear that you may have been playing it wrong all the time (sIKE shuffling his face down enchantments, me placing 2 Poison Gas Clouds in 1 zone) is no reason to suppress polite totally relevant enquiries on rules ambiguities with a dictatorial "EOD".

[Zuberi]

If. A seedling pod turns into a Samara tree would you get its can trip effect?

That is an excellent question. It depends on if the seedling pod is destroyed upon initiating the cast or resolving the cast. If it is destroyed upon initiating the cast (in Step 1: Cast Spell) then the answer would definitely be "No, it is destroyed before gaining the Cantrip trait."

If, however, it occurs upon resolving the spell (Step 3: Resolve Spell), then the destruction happens at the same time as the effect of Samara tree. The normal rule when two things occur simultaneously under your control is that you get to choose the order of events, so you could then apply the Cantrip trait before destroying the Seedling Pod.

I might be over-thinking this or simply missing something, but I believe this is something else that deserves clarification.

Edit: I just realized that this question would have serious ramifications on other spells cast by the Seedling Pod as well. If the pod is destroyed during Step 1: Cast Spell (kind of as a cost to casting the spell) then it gets destroyed even if the spell ends up being countered or cancelled. Meanwhile, if it isn't destroyed until Step 3: Resolve Spell, you would be able to keep the pod if the spell was countered or cancelled (although you would still lose the Mana).

For example: using it to cast Tanglevine on a target which then teleports away using Divine Intervention.

[lettucemode]

* You can attack with your basic equiped with Lash and Wand so can you ignore your own Eagleclaw Boots?

Taken from the Core Set Rulebook, v2, pages 20-21:

Some equipment spells have an attack bar on them, and give your Mage a new attack he can perform. When the Mage
makes an attack, he can choose to use an attack printed on
an equipment card, instead of another attack he may have.

Weapons simply give your mage the option of a different attack. However there is nothing that says you can ignore the effect of any other benefits conferred by equipment. So yes you can ignore your Lash attack, but not your Unmovable from Eagleclaw Boots.

[Laddinfance]

There were clarifications planned for the "flying + conjurations + Guarding" issue. I believe they didn't make it in the update because they are in the updated rules manual. Now, I could be wrong, but I plan on asking Bryan today where that ruling ended up. I'll post it as soon as I know something.

[aquestrion]

Also on page 6 of the new FAQ there is a discrepancy about the OR attacks example concerning Ludwig boltstorms attack bar... the FAQ says he has a sweeping attack when after checking the card he has a triple strike attack OR a zone attack.

wow it's amazing the amount of work that went into these clarifications is phenomenal...

[aquestrion]

Also regarding the seedling pod question could you enchantment transfuse a harmonize front the dying pod to the new tree?

[Zuberi]

That is a definite negative. You can't reveal an enchantment in the middle of a phase or step. So even if the seedling pod isn't destroyed until Step 3: Resolve Spell, and you are able to justify the tree coming into existence before the Pod is destroyed, you would not be able to reveal Enchantment Transfusion until after Step 3 which unfortunately is after the Pod has been destroyed.

[Laddinfance]

Yes you can guard a non-flying conjuration against a flying enemy. That's the short version.

Long version is that this was updated in the rulebook for the next printing of the game, and that was why it was not on the "Faq" update. I'll see if we can't get the rulebook for this most recent printing up on the website here.

Thanks for your patience guys!

[Zuberi]

Thank you Laddinfance for the official answer ^_^

[Shad0w]

If you want the long break down I posted it a while back.Hmm cant seem to find it 

[Moonglow]

Yes you can guard a non-flying conjuration against a flying enemy. That's the short version.

Long version is that this was updated in the rulebook for the next printing of the game, and that was why it was not on the "Faq" update. I'll see if we can't get the rulebook for this most recent printing up on the website here.

Thanks for your patience guys!

Will this be MWC version 3.0? It would be great if the version could be visible in the front of the PDF somewherre ?

Edit ... Found it, the MWC book linked on the forums is still only 2.0. Patrick's other links to the main dice on the home page has the 3.3 version.