Divine Intervention & Creature Spell

[DeckBuilder]

And by the time she gets through the 24 turns needed to setup this "Awesome" play from Hades what ever I have been fighting against (as I have put all of my guys in a corner) will have a Buffed Steel Claw chewing on her or after 12 turns (half of the time needed for this play) BB will move in for the kill and end the game on round 13 or 14.

Oh sIKE, you spend resources to attack a Pit.
I have troops too. By all means attack a Priestess in her Sacred Fort.

We have this argument every time - because you have this rabid hatred of a mechanic that works.
It's like some sort of denial mechanic snaps in you.
Because the rest of the world may concede it works but not you.

As for BB, you have Guardian Angels, you can out-attrition her just with more actions and healing over time

For this Grizzly build, you manage to magic up better troops than a Priestess in a corner with a Knights and Guardian Angels?

It costs you resources to move and attack me. What do you think I've been doing meantime?
Golem Pit triggered on Turn 8, sIKE. This may take a bit longer but by all means assault a Priestess and see what happens.

Just take a look at Tarkin's Priestess build. You only need to make a few changes and you have your win.

But most importantly

WHERE IS THE FUN IN THIS?

[DeckBuilder]

I can counter whatever major investment you cast for 11

About Transfusion + Divine Intervention, it is not 11 mana. It is 15 mana (12+3) minus ring deductions.

I thought it was obvious 11 was the amount of mana I need to have untapped to have that level of control
Yes, it is considerable tempo cost
But that level of control is too much

And of course the opponent should disrupt your pit preparation. But nobody defends better than Priestess.

I don't know, if people don't see the un-fun brokeness of it, then they are getting the game they deserve.

[sIKE]

And of course the opponent should disrupt your pit preparation. But nobody defends better than Priestess.

I don't know, if people don't see the un-fun brokeness of it, then they are getting the game they deserve.

If preparation is disrupted then the issue is resolved (nothing is broken), as now we are talking theory vs. reality. If I am going to base my like or dislike of a game on a worse case scenario that is very very hard to pull off and hate because of the potential I might as well go back to playing Risk or Monopoly.

[Zuberi]

To pull off the Divine Intervention trick on round 1 costs me 18 mana. The best thing I can hope to disrupt with it on round one is a Grizzly which costs my opponent 17 mana. It seems like a fair trade to me. Maybe that screws their entire book, and maybe it doesn't. We've both lost about equal resources. Meanwhile, if I wait till round 2 to use it, I may indeed be able to come out ahead, but they should be able to seeking dispel it. In which case I have clearly come out the worse for wear. Using Divine Intervention later than the first 2 rounds means their big creatures are already out. You might get rid of a mid sized creature, but that's not going to ruin their whole strategy.

In regards to being able to teleport mages in general, I'm in favor of it. If we couldn't get the enemy out of their fortress, then wouldn't the win always go to whomever stayed in their start corner all game? That sounds extremely boring to me.

[DeckBuilder]

In regards to being able to teleport mages in general, I'm in favor of it. If we couldn't get the enemy out of their fortress, then wouldn't the win always go to whomever stayed in their start corner all game? That sounds extremely boring to me.

I am the first to concede a good point when I see one.
And you make a good point, Zuberi.

However, think of it in Medieval Warfare terms.
Your Fortress is too strong?
I attack it with ranged attacks.
Ideally the free mana ranged troops all schools have access to.
Maybe even Zonal ranged Attacks?
Better make more balanced books then.

BB would starve you out with Obelisk.
Necromancer would twiddle its thumbs with Pestilence.

Oh, did I mention just using a Wand and Teleporting your fortified troops into mine?
I obviously pick on one that has acted that turn and bring him to me and destroy it.
That's fine by the way, part of being a Wizard is an ability to rearrange the battlefield.

But to Teleport the King into traps? It's just so brutal and route 1, no finesse, no skill.

There are many tools available beyond the route 1 "Teleport Your Mage" to break down a fort.
All this means is those tools enter the meta (when did you last see a Zone Attack being cast?)


I played a game where my opposing Wizard had to Mana Siphon himself because of my Divine Intervention.
He was fine with it because it was a fun play.
Recently, being forced to go first in Round 1, my Fire Wizard cast Drain Power in Round 2 Early QC to deny my Warlock his Adramelech then cast it myself in Round 3.
The same opponent was fine with it because it was a fun play.
The same opponent Rage Quit when I revealed Mind Control in Upkeep and killed his buffed up Grizzly to my Obelisk (that short period between the wrong ruling and the errata to cover it up).
Because it was not on the card, some off-card rule.

And that's the point here.

Cards should do what you expect them to do - and Divine Intervention does not mean "counter anything".

Enchantment Transfusion says "target" so it should target, not bypass Nullify.
Bypassing Nullify, we get double Nullify situations and make Transfusion free action guaranteed delivery.
We also make Transfusion mean "counter any spell targeting an enchantment on this creature".
Is "Counter" what "Transfusion" means? I never realised this when I last donated at the Blood Bank.

There is nothing intuitive about moving is a counter unless you move target so it's out of range.
What should happen is if I move an enchantment out of range of your Dispel, then it is countered.
Not just because I moved it from my mage to the creature I just summoned next to it or even you.

A creature spell targets the mage's current zone.
A mage is moved while summoning - why does it not simply target the new current zone?
Why MAKE UP a rule that seems grossly counter-intuitive - and knowingly keep it quiet for so long?

Enchantment Transfusion used to be "counter by moving to itself" in the prior FAQ.
But now it has its own rules and it has to be to another target, even in the same zone.
What is the intuitiveness of the first rule or even the second rule? Why does it counter?
The target is still in range and still has line of sight and line of effect (D&D 4E term). Why counter?

We can see by this change of rules in the FAQ that this is just being made up as they go.
Like an episode of Lost after the first 2 seasons.


Zuberi, I lost my argument to you about Mind Control and, soon after they realised the mistake, pride took over and we got an ugly errata instead that was first smuggled in as a "FAQ Clarification".

I lost my argument to you, Zuberi, on having a cool mechanic like secret information (Wizard Training) and to just nerf Teleport instead. After sIKE told me he had known the decision for sometime (Laddin told me I almost convinced them), I finally signed the NDA and became establishment (sort of). But that didn't really help gain much influence, no matter how much effort I put in.

So there's not much I can do - except try to highlight what a turn-off this is to a lot of people on the public forum and see if there is agreement or if I'm a lone voice. I don't think I am.


You have amazing knowledge of the rules, Zuberi.
But sometimes, you just need to rewrite the rules.

[Shad0w]

It is not a new rule if you look at the English rrules version 1& 2 it was in the resolving spells section


When a spell resolves, if you find the target of that spell is no longer valid (has moved or changed) then the spell is countered.


DI was on the list already for approved spells the core set. That passage was added to the book to explain how DI could be used defensesively. I can understand why most people never saw the larger picture.


I was going to use this  one of the books I was looking at for Origins 2013, but the main book was based off HoB aggro. To be honest HoB BF interaction was a far bigger problem. As proof it took till 2014 for this to get noticed by the masses. When I was asked to help with Origins I did not lend those books out.

[Zuberi]

I shall concede that there are other ways to combat a fortress, DeckBuilder. Perhaps, some people would even enjoy other methods more so. However, I still think being able to force the opponent out of their hole is an important component to the game.

Trying to convince them to come out by placing down conjurations that hurt them via attrition is still a long and boring game in my mind, where the person who comes out of their corner is still the one who loses. I build up my fortress and drop some arena wide conjurations that I believe will hurt you more than me, and you do the same. Whoever blinks first, loses.

Teleporting his creatures out one by one to slowly dismantle his fortress also sounds like a boring war of attrition to me. It also may or may not be viable, as walls can block teleport and archers could fire at your mage from that range.

Ranged warfare could be interesting. I fire off my siege engines, and you fire back with yours. That is a design approach I might could get behind.

None of these solutions really are viable for Aggro though. The meta would become dominated by defensive builds. Anyone who tried to rush their opponent would be destroyed.

You also contradict yourself a little bit by saying you understand a teleport could counter a spell by moving the caster or target out of range of the other by then later saying you should be able to choose a new target if this happens. I would be willing to agree with a ruling that said the spell is only countered if it's range is exceeded, but I would not like it if they said you could then simply pick a different target. Which means creature spells would still get countered by Divine Intervention.

Although, personally I don't see a problem with the spell or attack being countered just by the target or caster moving, even if it is still within range, because in reality it is very difficult to hit a moving target. If you go to shoot someone and they suddenly blink out of existence and reappear elsewhere, even if it is within the same room, your shot would have missed. It makes perfect thematic sense to me.

I kind of think it is funny that teleport gets so much flak, but people seem fine with Push. Both are spells that seek to control board position, and they are very similar to me. Advantages of teleport include, can move a target greater distances, has "instant" options with Divine Intervention and Teleport Trap, and allows escape from many restrained/unmovable conditions. Advantages of push include in transit movement (allowing for passage attacks from walls).

Due to the advantages of Push, I believe that teleport will always have the greater range. A push that moves it's target multiple zones would just be too powerful due to traps, even if said push couldn't move them through walls. Could you imagine pushing someone through 3 hellfire traps? I also believe that there should be some conditions that prevent teleportation but don't prevent a push, kind of like a reverse of Eagle Claw boots. If cards like that were implemented, then these two effects would be much more on par, and it would help with your complaints against teleport.

Any "instant" spells that move their target, rather it be by a push or a teleport, should be looked at long and hard for balance before they get implemented. We do need to be cautious of those. The only two currently in the game are fine in my opinion, but they do provide a very powerful effect by allowing both position control and counterspell options.

[Zuberi]

I felt like adding why the current two instant speed teleports are okay in my opinion.

Teleport Trap is a triggered effect and therefore can not be used to counter a spell or attack.
Divine Intervention is balanced both by it's restrictions (Epic + Holy mage only) and it's moderately expensive cost (12 mana unadjusted).

If such spells were more common or less restricted, I would be with you guys screaming foul. I will also closely scrutinize any future spells they come out with that behave similarly. However, in our current meta at least, these spells seem okay to me.

[DeckBuilder]

But your argument is flawed
Because all this does is give the defender the ability to teleport you into his Fortress!

And because the defender has invested in
(a) creatures and enchantment traps while you have been spending actions advancing
(b) high damage creatures
(c) often under-costed for its attack Slow creatures
He is in a far better position than you to kill you.

Teleport does not cure this. It makes it worse for the attacker!
Defender has had more actions to set up the Transfusion trap so that you can't win "Teleport Wars"!

Teleport Wars is just silly.
You Teleport me out. I Teleport back in.
You Teleport me out. I Teleport back in.
You Teleport me out. I Teleport back in
You Teleport me out. I Teleport back in.
You have run out of Teleports. Luckily I have been using a Wand of Teleport.
I Teleport you into my Pit. GG

WHAT A SILLY GAME THAT IS!

The reality is this, Zuberi: Teleporting Mages has done incredible damage to the game.
I know some experienced playtesters who are also with me here, perhaps not as brazenly rebellious.

I am probably going to lose my Playtester privilege by confessing this.
However, unless we are testing something (like a playest or BB), we mostly play to a House Rule here.
It is based on the Stunned exception to Mages.

"A Mage has so much control over his physical body that he can choose to be Stunned instead of being Teleported.
This decision is made after knowing his Teleport destination."

Teleport therefore still remains a threat with a heavy price. But it's not lethal.
Why do you think I come up with silly creative ideas like Hoover Jelly (4 Jellies + Wand of Force Wave)?
Because we've opted to fix the game to make it more fun and balanced for all mages (still not true sadly).

This was after my main opponent rage quit, refusing to play the game unless I fixed it with a House Rule.
I want to play the game so I fixed it.
And it's a much better game with this rule added.
I urge the forum to try it this way because the books and strategies become so much more interesting.
Because you don't need to spend minimum 8 spell points on 2+ defensive Teleports.
You can actually spend it on refining your book's strategy and those extra points are huge extra diversity.
Why do you think I don't post many builds these days? Because we play to a far better game here.

Before people start deriding a House Rule, I was derided by some (e.g. jacksmack) in my "House Rules" thread.
And what happened? On many points, Mage Wars either clarified it or changed the rules to legitimise our House Rules.

Let's never forget the tripod of good strategic game design:
1. FUN - a game should be fun to play, or otherwise rewarding (fun is a subjective word)
2. INTUITIVE - a game should be intuitive, not a rules referencing chore which is not fun
3. BALANCED - a game should have counters to every strategy so no strategy is dominant

I contend Teleport undermines the "Fun" and "Balanced" tripod legs - a good game can't stand on one leg.
And using Divine Intervention like this here even undermines the "Intuitive" leg too!

I urge the forum to just try the game with this House Rule.
Free yourself from the Tyranny of Teleport!
Cast forth your shackles and give this great game the freedom it deserves to flourish to its full glory!

(Ok, I'm getting a bit carried away, Agitator was always my favourite career in Warhammer Fantasy RPG).
Seriously though, the game is much better with this House Rule.


Zuberi, as a rules expert, I can't blame you developing the mindset of treating rules as some sort of Bible.
Well, most Christians don't take the self-contradicting Bible literally - and a good thing too, in my opinion.

I weep at the damage that the wrong decision on Mind Control, championed by you, did to the Forcemaster.
I know you are arguing contrary with good intentions - but we know which road is paved by good intentions.


Surely this deliberate Divine Intervention nonsense is the final straw for many players?
It has got to stop. The game is so handicapped by this mule-headed refusal to fix a design flaw.

It's still a great game. But it could be so much better.

[silverclawgrizzly]

Ok maybe it's time to take a deep breath here. We're not going to get anywhere with long arguments. Teleport is awesome but it's maybe not the end all auto win. How is that for a compromise? I think we all understand the points both sides of that argument can make but not all of us agree on all points. One thing I would like to point out(and I know I'm going to get decapitated for this) is many players have learned to recognize what their opponent is setting up(like oh say casting Iron Golems and bringing out a Mage Wand....) and are learning how to counter those moves. The game is fluid and dynamic, which is why I love it.

[Zuberi]

Due to the way Teleport's targeting system is setup, I would be able to teleport you further than you could teleport yourself. I then would have several options to restrict your movement or block your line of sight to prevent you from getting back to your fortress, using my quick cast before you have had a chance to act. You shouldn't simply engage in a teleport war. That is quite unwise. Especially if they have a teleport wand (which must be dissolved).

*Note that in the absence of teleport, this counter fortress measure can be achieved with a push as well.

I wonder, do you also have a house rule where Push effects don't affect mages? I still maintain that these two effects are more similar than people realize. The disparity between them is caused by the current card pool rather than the effects themselves. Primarily, there needs to be cards that counteract teleport, similar to the many cards that counteract push. Once that occurs, I believe many of these complaints about teleport being over powered will subside.

Other than that, there's the fact that there are no "instant" push effects like Divine Intervention. There's nothing inherent to the teleport effect that allows Divine Intervention to counter actions, it's the instant speed of it that makes it so powerful. A similar push effect is equally possible. I will agree with you that such effects are quite powerful. New ones are not needed, and indeed should be approached with extreme caution. I think Divine Intervention is balanced because of it's restrictions and mana cost, but others may disagree with me on that. If it was more expensive, I do think it would still be useful.

Besides those differences in the card pool, the only other differences are that teleports are capable of a greater range while pushes are able to move you through things. Because of the nature of the two effects, I believe these difference are intrinsic and irreconcilable. But I also believe they are on par with each other. I would not consider either to be more powerful than the other.

Thus, unless you believe that both Push and Teleport need to be house ruled, I conclude it is the card pool that needs to be altered, not the rules.

[DeckBuilder]

Ok maybe it's time to take a deep breath here. We're not going to get anywhere with long arguments. Teleport is awesome but it's maybe not the end all auto win. How is that for a compromise? I think we all understand the points both sides of that argument can make but not all of us agree on all points. One thing I would like to point out(and I know I'm going to get decapitated for this) is many players have learned to recognize what their opponent is setting up(like oh say casting Iron Golems and bringing out a Mage Wand....) and are learning how to counter those moves. The game is fluid and dynamic, which is why I love it.

Decapitated? Am I that scary, Silverclaw? I wouldn't decapitate you. Who would I have to chew the fat with when the rest of the US are asleep?

I realise that  the game is fluid, books adapt and the designers bring new mechanics to solve issues (e.g. Corrode).

However what Teleport Mage does is stifle innovation by imposing a spell point tax on every book.
It destroys certain strategies like Ranged Fortress, one of the cornerstones of the Warlord options.
Most importantly, it really puts off new players who just look at the manoeuvre and think "cheese!".

You would be amazed how incredibly liberating it is playing without the tyranny of this Teleport paranoia.
The game actually becomes tactical, manoeuvering of forces in different zones to destroy zone exclusive assets.
Instead of always ending up in one big brawl in a zone that can't take more than 6 cards (let alone walls).

Ranged units are skillful becauise it requires positioning and protection with melee units, ideally with Defense.
The closest we get is Gorgon Archer with Eagle Wings and you've spent all your Dispels on my Essence Drains.

Teleport is actually incredibly lazy. The hard way is to play tactically better than your opponent.

I have been quiet on my anti-Teleport crusade and failed to convince on a new spell available to all to help curb it.
What has triggered me back to being a drooling wreck is this latest incarnation.
Divine Intervention + Enchantment Transfusion is just plain too strong and anti-intuitive

[Zuberi, I will respond with my counter arguments but I'm a bit busy at work here in the UK]

[lettucemode]

I am with you all the way on this, DB (and Indy). I think we are getting off-topic with generalizing this discussion to the concept of Teleport however, let's bring it back to DI cancelling stuff.

1) sIKE mentioned that this is a case of one "silver bullet" cancelling out another. However not all silver bullets are equal. I would gladly trade my DI for an opponent's Adramelech or Grizzly or Angel. And if facing a Warlock-Adra book and you successfully cancel it on turn 2, what is the opponent to do? He probably also has a NV and DPS in his book too, okay, but now those aren't hitting the table until round 5, game over.

2) Zuberi mentioned that if a Grizzly is canceled on turn 1 that the amount of resources spent is equal. That is just that one case though. If you get Adra it's definitely not equal. I would argue that if you get Vine Tree or some other Spawnpoint it is also not equal, because if the opponent is casting those things on round 1 or 2 it is a central piece of their strategy and they probably built their book around it. Meanwhile DI is a card you include just because.

3) And what if DI is used in the midgame instead of spending 18 mana on turn 1? I am not speaking from the perspective of Pits here. I mean cancelling an angel or bear or Thorg or Sir Corazin or Togorah or whatever in the midgame. That's a very large tempo swing. You can even combo into this with a ET + DI on yourself! That is 2 actions banked but if you get a huge card it's definitely worth it.

4) Shadow brought up this ruling "When a spell resolves, if you find the target of that spell is no longer valid (has moved or changed) then the spell is countered", saying that this has already been in the rules. However the new FAQ says this:

A spell fails and is canceled, if either of the following occur before the Resolve Spell Step:
1. The target of the spell is no longer a legal target, or
2. The caster or target of the spell moves (e.g. by being Pushed or Teleported away), even if the move was
to a location where the spell was still in range. (In the case of a Teleport, this applies even if the teleport
was into the same zone).

This"caster" portion of that rule was definitely NOT covered in the original rules, neither is the "same zone" thing, neither is the "even if still in range" thing (arguable). So yes, this is new.

5) I don't see how someone teleporting out of the path of an arrow to avoid it (logical) is equivalent to a spell targeting a zone failing because you were teleported to the same zone. The target has not changed and is not out of range, the caster has not moved in any significant way.

6) If a player knows about the DI trick and the opposing Holy Mage casts an enchantment on them, they must now waste a full round (half this round because they didn't pocket Seeking Dispel, half next to cast it) to get rid of it before they can use their key card. With a Jinx you can extend this to a round and a half IF they anticipated the Jinx and prepared two seeking dispels, 2 rounds if not (because they prepared the big card to cast also, but now they are afraid to cast it cause it'll just get cancelled, so they have to wait again). If I was in this situation as the Holy Mage I would first bluff it with a Decoy and extend it up to 2.5 rounds. 2.5 rounds of standing around preparing Seeking Dispels just so you can proceed with your book's actual strategy. That is not fun.

7) Speaking of fun, I haven't seen any responses to DB's arguments about fun or intuitiveness, both of which this mechanic is not. I throw my weight behind those arguments.

[Zuberi]

1 & 2) If the holy mage does not reveal it during round one, you should have the opportunity to seeking dispel it. A holy mage casting an enchantment on you that early should send off huge warning bells. And if you dispel it, they have lost considerably more resources than you have. The holy mage is taking a big gamble on hoping you misplay.

3) I will still be spending 12 mana and an epic spell on the tactic. It is more likely to succeed and cheaper for me, but it is less likely to be as devastating. After the first 2 rounds, very few big baddies are summoned. The best I can really hope for is a medium sized creature which doesn't cost much more than the 12 mana I have invested. I have thus spent a quick action and an epic spell to cost you a full action and a piddly amount of mana. Still a net gain for me, but hardly game breaking.

4) No argument

5) You make a very good point. A creature avoiding a spell or attack by teleporting within the same zone makes sense to me because there is a lot of room in the zone (enough for many many creatures) so I have no problems believing they have still moved out of the way. However, if you are in fact targeting the entire zone, moving within that zone shouldn't really have a big impact. This could be rationalized by tying the spell cast to a small region of the zone, but actually I agree with you that it is unintuitive overall. This wouldn't change the fact that DI can move you to any other zone for no extra cost and it would be intuitive for it to have countered the creature summon. So it does really effect the power of the spell much.

6) If the holy mage has initiative on round one and rushes you to put DI on you, then you will have initiative on round 2 and can seeking dispel it without fear of a Jinx. I think this already rare tactic would be even more rare if the holy mage does not have initiative on round 1, but assuming they did use it without initiative, then going into round 2 they could indeed put a Jinx on you before you could remove the DI. In this situation, you were allowed to cast whatever you wished during round 1, and should again have warning bells about the DI going into round 2. You could try as you suggested to get rid of the DI, which will probably delay Adramelech till round 3 at the very least due to Jinx, or you could immediately switch to plan B and summon the Dark Pact Slayer. If he uses DI to cancel the Dark Pact Slayer, I'd say you've come out ahead. If he does not, you've gotten feet on the ground and bought an extra round to deal with the DI and the Jinx. Use your final Quick Cast during round 2 to cast a buff on your slayer or yourself and see if Jinx is triggered. Then Round 3 when you have initiative you can seeking dispel the DI.

7) I do think the spell is fun. I don't know how many agree with me on that. I will concede that you made a good point about an unintuitive situation with the rules, but there are plenty of intuitive uses of it that would accomplish the same ends.

[lettucemode]

In response to your response to 1, 2, and 6:

So there are a couple different situations here with regards to who has initiative and whether the Holy Mage lead off with the DI straightaway.

He cast the DI round one, your initiative round 2: easy Seeking Dispel. However the Holy Mage knows about this situation and will probably avoid it, read on...
He cast DI round one, his initiative round 2: he covers it with Jinx, you probably prepared your key card and one SD, have fun preparing SDs the next few turns.
He bluffs the DI with a Decoy on round one, you have initiative round 2: You SD it, he laughs and casts DI on you. Now you're back to preparing more SDs.
He bluffs and has initiative round 2: the optimal situation. He could wait for you to SD the bluff card before Jinxing, or just cast DI straightaway, now you have to guess which card is the DI. Or are neither the DI? He's going to put on some equipment or put down a Temple this turn. What do you do?

Do you see what I am saying about how bluffing with a Decoy changes things? And what if the Holy Mage anticipates this whole guessing game and cast the DI first round just to trip you up?

This isn't Mage Wars anymore. This is a mix-up chain in a fighting game. Do I block low or high? Is he going to throw or block? DI or Decoy? You don't know, and you can't possibly know until after the play is made.

I don't think that situation is good for the game.