Armor Ward

[lukard]

1. MageA casts a Dissolve targeting Mage Wand (equipment cost 5)
2. MageA pays 5 mana
3. MabeB reveals Armor Ward and asks MageA to pay 4 extra mana, otherwise Dissolve will be nullified.
4. MageA does not have enough mana, Dissolve is discarded, and cost (5) is wasted.

Is this a correct scenario? It looks like revealing the enchantment in this way would "interrupt" the Dissolve. Same way as revealing a Force Hold when a creature attempts to move would "interrupt" that move and therefore it is illegal.

Thanks

[Lord0fWinter]

From the Rules and Codex Supplement:

"Armor Ward(Conquest of Kumanjaro) For example, if the opponent casts a Dissolve spell to attempt to destroy your Hunting Bow, he will pay the normal 11 mana to cast the Dissolve. Then, when the Dissolve spell resolves, he will have to pay an additional 4 mana to destroy the Hunting Bow.

If you reveal Armor Ward at the end of the Counter Spell Step of a Dissolve, then the opponent will have to pay the extra 4 mana to destroy it. (Thus, the spell will be wasted if the opponent does not have the 4 mana to pay.)"

So my interpretation is that yes, you are correct.

[lukard]

Thanks, I was basing the scenario on the Rule Book. So, I need to ready the expansions books to catch these details.

[Zuberi]

Yeah, it's a timing thing. The extra cost required by Armor Ward is paid during the Resolve Spell step. As long as Armor Ward is revealed before then, it applies because it's not simply increasing the casting cost (which is paid during the Cast Spell Step), it is an extra cost paid later.

Meanwhile, with Force Hold, there's no chance to reveal the enchantment after he has declared his move until the move is completed. At which point, it is too late to prevent. Now, you could reveal it after he activates the creature and before he declares a move. That would work.

If he is like most players, he probably declares his intention while he is flipping the action marker, or possibly even before. If so, you should feel justified in interrupting him and saying that you are revealing during the time between activation and movement. The rules require him to activate first, to declare which creature will be acting before actually acting with it. You are supposed to be able to respond to this and if he is trying to deny you that right, you should remind him that you have it.

[lukard]

Hi Zuberi,

I understood exactly what you mean.

Yeah, it's a timing thing....

Meanwhile, with Force Hold, there's no chance to reveal the enchantment after he has declared his move until the move is completed. At which point, it is too late to prevent. Now, you could reveal it after he activates the creature and before he declares a move. That would work.

If he is like most players, he probably declares his intention while he is flipping the action marker, or possibly even before. If so, you should feel justified in interrupting him and saying that you are revealing during the time between activation and movement. The rules require him to activate first, to declare which creature will be acting before actually acting with it. You are supposed to be able to respond to this and if he is trying to deny you that right, you should remind him that you have it.

However, there is a big issue here. Once, I was playing with someone and he moved his mage announcing a move/attack. So, I interrupted him and did exactly what you said. But, he replayed saying that "I already said that I would like to move and attack, you are interrupting my action... and even worse, you already know that I want to move/attack and you are revealing Force Hold only because of this...". As you can see, it generated a big argumentation.

Last night it was a discussion about Armor Ward. Last week, something else. Even something similar to this (http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=13987.0) happened to me.

In other words, MW is a fantastic game. But, among my group it is the game that generates more discussions around the rules. We play many other games (Game of Thrones, Magic the Gathering, Netrunner...) and MW is by far the one we waist hours discussing about rules. This is annoying and a huge drawback when compared to the other games.

In my humble opinion, MW could be more consistent. For instance, if with Armor Ward a player can see a possible outcome prior to revealing a enchantment; then Force Hold, Divine Intervention (and all the other enchantments) should behave the same.

I hope you get what I mean and really which to see less rules issues when playing MW.

Cheers,

[sIKE]

I do understand that frustration, one of the habits I have picked up from playing on OCTGN is to select what I am going to do next and ask Reveal? I then do that several times in-between and try to enable a proper chance to reveal there card without tipping my hand. That has translated well to IRL.

Yes this game leads to a lot of rules questions but with steady play a great majority of them will be answered and at that point the game just flows. I keep a copy of the Codex handy and it should help answer almost all of your questions during the game.

[Zuberi]

I understand what you are saying lukard. The important thing is to have fun and arguments do detract from that. It might be better to have a discussion with your opponent about this outside of the game rather than waiting till during a game when it is more likely to lead to an argument.

I think every group is going to be different. Some people are okay with playing fast and loose and allowing people to backup if something was skipped over. Others are going to be sticklers for the order of events and say we're already past that step. If you find yourself playing with the latter, then you may need to have a talk with them about declaring each step and allowing time to respond. Like sIKE said, you may even go as far as asking your opponent if they wish to reveal after every single step.

Force Hold and Divine Intervention do operate the same way as Armor Ward. If you reveal Force Hold during a spell cast, such as Force Push, you can see which creature they are pushing and where to before deciding to make it Unmovable with your enchantment. Thus negating their spell. If you reveal Divine Intervention during a spell cast, you can cancel whatever it is they are casting after having seen their plans for it.

You could also reveal any of these after they activate a creature, but in that case you do not get to see what their plans are for that creature. If you wait till after they declare a move, the reveal will not have an effect until they have finished moving.

Enchantment rules are very consistent. You can reveal in between any steps or phases you wish. Some steps/phases give you more information than others to help you make your decision about revealing. The important thing is that you have a CHANCE to reveal after any given step. It is only fair that your opponent make sure you have the opportunity to reveal before continuing their turn, or that they allow you to back up the game to reveal whenever you have been denied the opportunity.

[lukard]

Hi Zuberi,

I totally agree with you and sIKE, these issues occurs with a few players, normally those very competitive or stickler.

Force Hold and Divine Intervention do operate the same way as Armor Ward. If you reveal Force Hold during a spell cast, such as Force Push, you can see which creature they are pushing and where to before deciding to make it Unmovable with your enchantment. Thus negating their spell. If you reveal Divine Intervention during a spell cast, you can cancel whatever it is they are casting after having seen their plans for it.

You have exemplified very well how Force Hold and Divine Intervention operate the same way. In this example, a Mage can use these enchantments to counter act the outcome of a given spell (Force Push), mainly during the Counter Spell Step.

You could also reveal any of these after they activate a creature, but in that case you do not get to see what their plans are for that creature. If you wait till after they declare a move, the reveal will not have an effect until they have finished moving.

As you correctly pointed out, it is a timing issue. Move does not have a "Counter Move Step", that's the key difference. I cannot see the outcome of his action.

Moreover, I just read again the Counter Spell Step from the rule book and it does not mention how your example would possibly work. We know that it is legit and correct because we read the FAQ and the forum. Otherwise, a player would not be able to know it. Therefore, if I am playing with a beginner, I need to show the FAQ so he can trust what I am saying. Looks like I am playing a lawyer's game

I only wish the rules could be somehow more streamlined.

Thanks for the clear examples and support.

[Laddinfance]

As you correctly pointed out, it is a timing issue. Move does not have a "Counter Move Step", that's the key difference. I cannot see the outcome of his action.

Moreover, I just read again the Counter Spell Step from the rule book and it does not mention how your example would possibly work. We know that it is legit and correct because we read the FAQ and the forum. Otherwise, a player would not be able to know it. Therefore, if I am playing with a beginner, I need to show the FAQ so he can trust what I am saying. Looks like I am playing a lawyer's game

I only wish the rules could be somehow more streamlined.

Thanks for the clear examples and support.

On page 19 of the Core Rules, it covers all the times you're allowed to reveal enchantments. Sometimes the rules you're looking for are in a slightly different spot.