Does the wizard have to reveal elemental training.

[Kharhaz]

I have to be able to tell if you are cheating or not when ever you cast a spell or take control of a spell, both of which are affected by this rule and would not necessarily be weeded out by registration.

Not true sir,

If I place two hidden enchantments under a creature you do not get to check and see if they are different enchantments to ensure a legal play. You do not get to know.

[ringkichard]

Face down spells are a special case with exceptions written in the rules to handle the fact that it's particularly difficult to verify propper play otherwise, and what to do when there is an error.

I'm trying to think of other choices in Mage Wars, and what the norms around them are. I mean, you wouldn't use hand of Bim-Shalla and then not specify which ability you're using, melee our armor. You wouldn't use Boltstorm's attack without specifying whether it had triple attack or unavoidable.

I'm usually a hyperliterist with the rules, but when the game calls on you to make a choice for a revealed object in play, what it usually means is, "tell your opponent which option you're taking." I don't know if that's explicitly spelled out anywhere, but it seems to be the sense of it, right?

Though I will caution that the first part of the  rules' intro may be heavier on the introduction and lighter on the rules. Looking quickly, I didn't see any rule that explicitly said that spellbook contents were private (!!), for example. Are we going to have to argue about that one too?

[Kharhaz]

Face down spells are a special case with exceptions written in the rules to handle the fact that it's particularly difficult to verify propper play otherwise, and what to do when there is an error.

Except for the rule that says I can not cast 2 identical copies of a hidden enchantment on the same object. But you would not know until multiple rounds later, if ever.

That example was more to disprove the argument of "you have to be able to tell if I am cheating" and "any information that is needed to make legal game play is required to be public information."

 Looking quickly, I didn't see any rule that explicitly said that spellbook contents were private (!!), for example. Are we going to have to argue about that one too?

Yes, we will if every single detail of a detail is analyzed and a rule is called for that "you have to put cards in your spell book and not bananas." and the ever popular, "You have to show me the cards you prepared so I can know you did not prepare cards you are not able to cast. (ie beastmaster preparing a helm of fear)"

Wizard training has no rule breaking effect on the game and any targeting / control, in-game, circumstance is already clarified by the existing rules.

When it was a targeting object issue, I was behind it. Now that I know that those issues are already played out in the current rules, I can not agree with "because I want to know"

Now all of that said there may be more that I am missing on this topic and if so I would ask for clarity and reiteration. I can read something 100 times and not get the most obvious detail until the 101st time.

[ringkichard]

Except for the rule that says I can not cast 2 identical copies of a hidden enchantment on the same object. But you would not know until multiple rounds later, if ever.

That example was more to disprove the argument of "you have to be able to tell if I am cheating" and "any information that is needed to make legal game play is required to be public

I was thinking of the section of the rules that says "oops, so you cheated accidentally, now what happens to that nullify?" There's no section like that for the publicly available info, but because enchantments are a special case, they get special rules, that's all.

 Looking quickly, I didn't see any rule that explicitly said that spellbook contents were private (!!), for example. Are we going to have to argue about that one too?

Yes, we will if every single detail of a detail is analyzed and a rule is called for that "you have to put cards in your spell book and not bananas."

That's what I meant, I think. That there's no explicit rule that you have to announce your training when you chose it, but it would be (I think) an unusual and strange exception to the way that choices usually work in the game, and that the rules don't cover this for the same reason they don't forbid bananas.

You're not told that cards in the binder are private because in Mage Wars position implies public or private. Exceptions to this rule, like prepared spells or face down enchantments, are explicitly exempted with words like hidden, secret, or "face down".  Generally, the rule is that position dictates privacy, but this is a detail that isn't explicitly ruled on in this instance.

We might argue that we don't have to announce the choice we made, but then we might argue that spellbooks should be public, or that they ought to contain bananas.

Wizard training has no rule breaking effect on the game and any targeting / control, in-game, circumstance is already clarified by the existing rules.

When it was a targeting object issue, I was behind it. Now that I know that those issues are already played out in the current rules, I can not agree with "because I want to know"

Now all of that said there may be more that I am missing on this topic and if so I would ask for clarity and reiteration. I can read something 100 times and not get the most obvious detail until the 101st time.

I think you're being reasonable, it just seems like we rarely agree on contentious rules points. Don't know why, but we seem to come at the rules from very different directions.

[DeckBuilder]

Ding dong! What a contest of heavyweights!

I am going to join Fence Hopper and switch camps back to "Don't Declare" because Kharhaz highlighted a good point on prior page.

I would take issue that this has little tactical rrelevance.

Knowing you are a Water Wizard tells me that my equipment and armour is vulnerable and non-plant guards are more likely to be slammed. Everyone can afford a few of those spells but choosing water means you want lots of them so I expect them.

Knowing you are a Fire Wizard tells me that swarms are vulnerable to Ring of Fire and Circle of Fire, i should avoid plants and play Flame Immunity creatures. If I am a Warlock and roll higher for initiative choice, I better choose second and avoid drain power range else you may beat me to Lord of Fire, a popular choice in the current meta.

Knowing you are an Air Wizard means I better husband my precious ethereal attack sources, see greater value in Immovable and Poison Immunity and avoid heavy armour creatures, expect Circle of Lightning and Electrify against swarm.

Knowing you are an Earth Wizard, I expect Iron Golems, that face down trap is maybe Spiked Pit, don't get walled in corners, maybe Pop-Up Sniper Watchtower Wall and Turn to Stone vs. my 6 Growth Shaggoth Zora. Most importantly not to get too low on life and be mugged by double Hurl Boulder finisher.

Knowledge is advantage. Wizard haters will bemoan yet another advantage. But Kharhaz makes a very valid point and until we get a FAQ ruling, our local meta will continue to play Don't Declare.

Oh, and next time I definitely only have 1 spell to cast, I'm going to pair it with a banana (face down of course) during Planning.

[Aylin]

The way I look at it, the Wizard stat card represents four wizard stat cards, one for each element. (Printing them as one saves on printing costs and avoids unnecessary clutter). When you chose your element, that element becomes a property of your stat card for this particular game.

The game has never been about hiding meta information like that (training, mana, channeling, life/damage, spells that are being cast, etc), so it seems out of place for this one mage's training to be the exception.

Additionally, I am of the opinion that in any rule ambiguity, more weight should always be given to the interpretation that is the most fair (deciding that the Wizard is the only mage special enough to keep normally public information secret due to an omission in the rules isn't exactly fair).

[aquestrion]

Remembering that this is an ARENA DEATH MATCH game. I agree the wizard shouldn't have special secret training, and making four individual wizards is a little overkill, but i like having a customizable spell book and the fact that revealing my training can really hamper my wizards ability to be broken.

[DaveW]

After all this I'm about ready to make a Wizard spell book that is 120 points no matter which element is trained....

I play a Wizard quite a bit, and have argued in the past that my Wizard's training should be kept from my opponent, just because I have a rather competitive spirit. I would say that I was trained in Arcane plus one of the elements, and leave it at that; that's what the card says, so that's what the opponent knows.

While I'll have a Lightning Ring or an Iron Golem or an Armor that probably indicates my training out soon enough, I can understand the point that it perhaps would be more reasonable to have to disclose training at the start of the game for reasons mentioned earlier (knowledge of which spells the opponent needs to preserve, avoid casting, etc.) After all, isn't that what we all do when we know we're going up against any other type of Mage? When I go up against a Dark-trained Mage, I try to avoid playing small, living creatures until I see my opponent's opening moves. He should have the same kind of foreknowledge.

Does informing my opponent of my training tell him how I'm going to play? No... not really. I might have a Gate of Voltari and be passive in the opening to build up my forces, or I can play the same Wizard aggressively with a big creature or two and teleports. (Many times how I play will depend on which other Mage I am going up against.) In truth, the Wizard feels to me more flexible to play than most (any?) other Mage(s) even if training is disclosed. You know that a Warlock is probably coming to get you, that a Forcemaster won't be going all swarmy on you, and so on.

It doesn't matter to me which way becomes the standard, but I would like this to become an official rule one way or the other... and sometime soon. Please

[Kharhaz]

I would take issue that this has little tactical rrelevance.

Knowing you are a Water Wizard tells me that my equipment and armour is vulnerable and non-plant guards are more likely to be slammed. Everyone can afford a few of those spells but choosing water means you want lots of them so I expect them.

Knowing you are a Fire Wizard tells me that swarms are vulnerable to Ring of Fire and Circle of Fire, i should avoid plants and play Flame Immunity creatures. If I am a Warlock and roll higher for initiative choice, I better choose second and avoid drain power range else you may beat me to Lord of Fire, a popular choice in the current meta.

Knowing you are an Air Wizard means I better husband my precious ethereal attack sources, see greater value in Immovable and Poison Immunity and avoid heavy armour creatures, expect Circle of Lightning and Electrify against swarm.

Knowing you are an Earth Wizard, I expect Iron Golems, that face down trap is maybe Spiked Pit, don't get walled in corners, maybe Pop-Up Sniper Watchtower Wall and Turn to Stone vs. my 6 Growth Shaggoth Zora. Most importantly not to get too low on life and be mugged by double Hurl Boulder finisher.

Knowledge is advantage. Wizard haters will bemoan yet another advantage. But Kharhaz makes a very valid point and until we get a FAQ ruling, our local meta will continue to play Don't Declare.

Oh, and next time I definitely only have 1 spell to cast, I'm going to pair it with a banana (face down of course) during Planning.

You see that is my point exactly on the minuscule nature of this topic! All of those statements are true regardless of the element the wizard has chosen. 

Your equipment and armor is always vulnerable to a any wizard! His book is always flexible enough to run 4 dissolves regardless of elements.

Iron Golems? Expect arguably the best creature from any wizard

I could go on but I think you get the point.

[Zuberi]

I have to be able to tell if you are cheating or not when ever you cast a spell or take control of a spell, both of which are affected by this rule and would not necessarily be weeded out by registration.

Not true sir,

If I place two hidden enchantments under a creature you do not get to check and see if they are different enchantments to ensure a legal play. You do not get to know.

So, you are going to take the position that your opponent doesn't need to know if you are cheating or not? Why have rules at all if you can't tell when people are following them? Even with enchantments, you find out if it was a legal move or not at the time it tries to actually cause an effect in the game.

[Kharhaz]

So, you are going to take the position that your opponent doesn't need to know if you are cheating or not? Why have rules at all if you can't tell when people are following them? Even with enchantments, you find out if it was a legal move or not at the time it tries to actually cause an effect in the game.

My position is that there are instances where I, as the player, do not and can not know if my opponent is making legal plays, intentionally or otherwise.

That is just how the game is played.

[HeatStryke]

The mechanical oddities of facedown enchantments aside, a mage's training is fundamental to the legality of his spellbook. This is not even a function of the play mechanics.

 It is absolutely necessary that your opponent can at least be sure your spellbook is legal. Without the Wizard announcing his training it is impossible to do this.

[Zuberi]

My position is that there are instances where I, as the player, do not and can not know if my opponent is making legal plays, intentionally or otherwise.

That is just how the game is played.

I would appreciate some examples, because I can't think of any time you are allowed to outright deny your opponent such information. Enchantments come close. They delay information until they are revealed, but they don't actually have any effect until they are revealed either. Once they are revealed, you do get to verify their legality.

There's no situation in the game where you are allowed to simply deny your opponent information that impacts the game. You could make a case that there is precedent that allows you to delay such information until it impacts the game, though, by citing enchantments.

I shall concede that such is the case, but I contend that such is the exception rather than the rule. For enchantments you have very specific wording in the rules outlining when you can keep such information secret and when it becomes public. For magical training, you do not have any such guidelines and so I maintain that it instead falls under the norm that it becomes public as soon as it enters play.

[baronzaltor]

Im still not sure that Id say actively concealing it is acceptable game behavior regardless of if you're made to reveal it at the beginning.  You aren't "assisting" the opponent by doing so, you are specifying an unknown variable that has to be specified.   If I ask your health total, you don't get to say "my starting total minus damage dealt so far, plus healing".   So if asked what type of mage you are, "Arcane and an element of my choice" isn't a satisfactory answer."

Saying that "because I want to know" isn't a good enough reason to divulge it seems like projecting a personality onto the rules which should have an otherwise neutral voice.  My motivations for any choice have nothing to do with the rules or why global game information should be presented to me.  (unless talking about face down enchantments or things that the rules protect the anominity of.)

Lets say its an official game setting.  I ask to clarify your mages trainings… this could be for whatever reason, but there is currently a grey area/undefined aspect on the board that Id like more info on or am uncomfortable with.  Then you say no. 
Unsatisfied, I then have an official come over to clarify the variable.  I don't see any reason that said neutral party would have any basis to say "Thats his secret, you have to just guess."  rather than to clarify the state of the game.   To me I just don't see any grounds for it to be secret other than a player trying to be shifty. 

So, if called in, would a judge be required to clarify in an official situation?

If yes, then yes you have to reveal your training if called upon to do so if only to skip the middle man.
If he wouldn't, then no having secret training is supported not only for the Wizard, but any "this or that" trained mage that may come out in the future.

I think its important to remember that while there are no "element only" spells and only one "this or that" mage, its only a matter of time before there are more of both.
Siren can very likely bring "water mage only" cards,  alternate Warlock could bring Fire mage only or even alternate Wizard could be elemental only… its all possible.

So, regardless of which way the decision ultimately falls, I think its a good thing to hash out for global purposes.  All it takes is a variable trained mage to come out who gets to choose one of the existing mage only cards to crack this whole discussion open again.

[Kharhaz]

There's no situation in the game where you are allowed to simply deny your opponent information that impacts the game. You could make a case that there is precedent that allows you to delay such information until it impacts the game, though, by citing enchantments.

You are not allowed to cover up or hide printed information. I do not have to tell you my mana total or current life score. You would have to get up and look for yourself.

If we are playing and you ask, "what enchant is revealed on that creature? " I do not have to tell you. It is your responsibility to look at the board and read the cards.

This topic has never been about denying information; It is about my responsibility (as a player) to interpret the pregame book construction rules for you.

Do I have to tell you that my Warlord is trained in War? No. Do I have to tell you what my wizard is trained in? No.

As for enchantments. If I slide a hidden bear strength under my zombie brute, that is an illegal play. However if I shift enchantment that bear strength to my necromancer and reveal it was an illegal spell cast?

Same situation but you cast a seeking dispel on that zombie brutes bear strength...

So you see there are some examples that go beyond the identical enchantment stacks argument for hidden enchantments.

As for examples of information you do not have to tell your opponent. I do not have to tell my opponent any prepared spell information, the number of spell book points my book is, if any illegal cards are in my book, my spawnpoints prepared spell, what any hidden enchantment is, and my wizard training

I can not hide any printed or revealed card on the table. You can not cover up and hide any marker, or card, on the board or mage status board.

You may not shuffle the order enchantments are placed, but I do not have to tell you what enchantments are placed in what order. It is your job to keep up with that information yourself.

Lets say its an official game setting.  I ask to clarify your mages trainings… this could be for whatever reason, but there is currently a grey area/undefined aspect on the board that Id like more info on or am uncomfortable with.  Then you say no. 
Unsatisfied, I then have an official come over to clarify the variable.  I don't see any reason that said neutral party would have any basis to say "Thats his secret, you have to just guess."  rather than to clarify the state of the game.   To me I just don't see any grounds for it to be secret other than a player trying to be shifty. 

I'm sorry, but, I think you need valid reasons to have a judge stop a timed game to satisfy your none game-mechanic impacting, personal issue. If you called him over I assume he would count my wizards spellbook and tell you that it is a legal 120 point spell book. After that he can not tell you what cards are in it or if it favors one school or the other.

When such elemental only spells are introduced into the game they will be handled like any other restricted spell in the game. When my water wizard casts a water only equipment or spell it will resolve accordingly. If I later cast a fire mage only spell then a flag goes up and you say,"I think we have an issue." Just like with any other mage in the game right now.

Mage Wars assumes you are making legal plays until an illegal play is made, and handled accordingly for all instances. It never once makes you prove that you are legal target for a spell, it either is or is not. If you attempt to cast a spell on an illegal target it fails either before or after the counter spell step (as described in the FAQ) and plays out as per the existing rules.

If you try to cast a sleep on my zombie, it is not my responsibility to say, "Do not pay the mana for that my zombie is immune!" In mage wars information gathering is the responsibility of each player, not the responsibility of the player to give that information and assist you in casting / preparing spells.