Charm and Guard

[Schwenkgott]

Imagine this situation.

A forcemaster fights a priestress. The holy one has summoned a knight for protection. The forcemaster answers with a charm on the knight, so she can't be attacked. The knight, unable to attack, guards the zone with the priestress. The forcemasters goal is to attack the priestress.

Here is my problem concerning charm:
The knight guards the zone and therefore the priestress against enemy melee attacks, right? But the knight is charmed, so in his eyes the forcemaster, that attacks the priestress, is not his enemy. Why would he step in and place his body between them?

If charm is working as it should in my opinion, he could not step in, the forcemaster could execute his attack on the priestress.
If charm isn't working that way, guarding would be the easiest way to get rid of this amazing enchantment.

[ACG]

There are many cases in this game where mechanics do not agree with what we believe should be the case - for me, my biggest thematic issue is the hydro immunity of plants and the lightning weakness of metal objects. But game balance and the interaction of mechanics come first. I am sure there are many ways to interpret the theme of charm, but the interpretation provided by the text on the card is fairly unambiguous; guarding still works.

If you want to counter the tactic of guarding, I advise pairing charm with a guard-breaking creature of your own or with Mongoose agility. You could also restrain the guard with force hold or tanglevine.

[Schwenkgott]

Thats not an answer to my question

btw. i totally disagree. Plants should be water immun and metal objects should be vulnerable to lightning or acid.

Upon starting to play MageWars, i did read the rulebook, that says like "Rules are not complicated, its all logical", so my questions remains with the charm/guard-problem.

[YoungDave]

Schwenkgott,

Wow, I had a very similar issue (but different!) when playing my son yesterday.  Oh aye, and he's 22 - and knows what he's doing, before anyone makes a comment about a "young son"!

But in response to your question, your Forcemaster is not allowed to attack the Priestess; as the knight is guarding in the zone, the Forcemaster MUST attack the knight, and as soon as the Forcemaster damages the knight, the Charm spell drops off.

My issue with my son was different.  He charmed my Dire Wolf (remember, who's bloodthirsty) and the Forcemaster was wounded - so what does my Dire Wolf do?  To make it worse - my son put his Forcemaster on guard!!!  We ended up with the Dire Wolf doing nothing - a seriously confused puppy!  (bit like us really).

But that was part of an epic 4 hour game yesterday, where I went through EVERY creature in my spellbook, and lost.  And in case any of you reckon we're just really slow, son and I had a game last Wednesday which lasted all of 28 minutes, start to finish.  I won that one!!!

But this game just gets better and better - there's a dozen of us at my local club who've gotten into it since January.  And 8 of us are gathering for an "all-dayer" in a fortnight's time in a mate's house.  Can hardly wait.

Dave I

[Bluebaron]

For me it makes sense. The magic is strong enough to prevent an aggressive attack against the caster of the spell. However, it is not strong enough if the creature is defending a zone and therefore friendly units inside the zone. The creature defending only reacts to a hostile move. Maybe there exists another spell, which is more powerful that would prevent both kind of attacks.

[Zuberi]

The knight guards the zone and therefore the priestress against enemy melee attacks, right? But the knight is charmed, so in his eyes the forcemaster, that attacks the priestress, is not his enemy. Why would he step in and place his body between them?

Think of it as if your best friend was trying to hit one of your relatives. You would step in to protect your blood, putting yourself in between the two and possibly taking the blow even though you don't really want to fight your friend.

Charm does not remove the Knight's free will or his desire to protect his Priestess. It does make him consider the Forcemaster to be a friend, but he can still recognize when that friend is attacking his beloved Priestess.

My issue with my son was different.  He charmed my Dire Wolf (remember, who's bloodthirsty) and the Forcemaster was wounded - so what does my Dire Wolf do?  To make it worse - my son put his Forcemaster on guard!!!  We ended up with the Dire Wolf doing nothing - a seriously confused puppy!  (bit like us really).

Bloodthirsty does not allow you to make an attack against an otherwise illegal target. Thus, if the Dire Wolf is charmed, and the Forcemaster is the only wounded enemy creature, the Wolf may ignore it's Bloodthirsty trait. If there were two creatures, one undamaged but on guard while the other was not on guard but was wounded, your Wolf would still ignore the Bloodthirsty trait and could only attack the guard because the wounded creature would be an illegal target. A key phrase in the Codex description of Bloodthirsty is "if possible". Bloodthirsty does not force you to attack an illegal target.

This is explained in detail on page 11 of the FAQ.

[sIKE]

I would think that the Guarding creature would perceive the FM as a Friendly creature and since Guards do not block Friendly creatures, the attack would proceed as you thought it would.

[Schwenkgott]

Nasty situation. This needs to be clarified by official side and added to the codex supplement.

[ACG]

I would think that the Guarding creature would perceive the FM as a Friendly creature and since Guards do not block Friendly creatures, the attack would proceed as you thought it would.

Nasty situation. This needs to be clarified by official side and added to the codex supplement.

I don't think there is any clarification needed here. The rules are crystal clear:

[mwcard=FWE01]Charm[/mwcard]

The affected creature does not perceive charm's controller as friendly; it simply is not allowed to declare an attack against them. There is nothing on the card that allows the controller of charm to ignore the charmed creature if it is guarding; the charmed creature is still an enemy creature, and the rules for guard still apply. If the controller of charm attacks and the charmed creature is guarding, the controller of charm must attack it. If that attack damages the creature, charm is destroyed. No ambiguity. The mechanics may not match some peoples' expectations based on the theme, but that is thematic interpretation, and has no bearing on the way the mechanics operate in practice.

[Schwenkgott]

Thats ONE interpretation of this case. But as you can see, there are others. Maybe a look to the picture of charm is helpful here.

[ACG]

Thats ONE interpretation of this case. But as you can see, there are others. Maybe a look to the picture of charm is helpful here.

The picture of charm contains no information relevant to the interpretation of its mechanics.

Perhaps I misunderstand your question. You look at thematically how charm should work. Whether or not I agree with your interpretation, I agree that it seems like a reasonable interpretation of the theme. Are you suggesting that charm ought to work a different way based on the theme of the card? If that is the case, then you are correct that there are other interpretations besides mine.

But if you are asking specifically about whether charm DOES work in the way you described, the answer is definite that it does not. A breakdown of the relevant mechanics:

This creature cannot make a melee or ranged attack against the controller of Charm.

Guarding does not qualify as making an attack.  Per the rulebook:

A creature may spend a quick action to guard...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.

The creature that has been charmed still qualifies as an 'enemy with a guard marker', since charm does not change its alignment. Therefore the only question is whether the controller of charm may ignore the guard. Unless the guard also satisfies one of the conditions in the sidebar on page 29 (none of which involve being enchanted by spell matching the description of charm) or charm specifies that the controller of charm may ignore guards on the enchanted creature (which it does not), the controller of charm is still required to attack the guard.

Again, maybe I am misinterpreting your question, but if you are asking about how the actual mechanics work, this is how. I see no ambiguity in the rules as written.

[Zuberi]

Also relevant would be the definition of Friendly in the Codex.

Friendly (Game Term) A friendly object is one which is currently controlled by the player, or players on his team (in a multiplayer game).

The rules are very clear, as ACG has pointed out. Charm does not affect a creature's ability to guard. Your Forcemaster would not be able to ignore the guard just because it is Charmed. Charm states nothing about the creature becoming friendly or otherwise switching allegiance. It states absolutely nothing that would affect Guard, except in the case of the promo card Temple High Guard.

Thematically, you can justify the rules however you wish. I provided you with what makes sense to me.

[YoungDave]

Guys, thanks for all the above - it is making sense to me.  And the comments are appreciated.

And, in the case which happened with me and my son, a charmed creature CANNOT attack ANYTHING in the zone if the mage that charmed the creature is on guard.  And is the only enemy that is on guard.  Yup, it's all making sense.

Oh aye - and just finished a couple of games with my buddy.  Cracking stuff!

Dave I

[ACG]

And, in the case which happened with me and my son, a charmed creature CANNOT attack ANYTHING in the zone if the mage that charmed the creature is on guard.  And is the only enemy that is on guard.  Yup, it's all making sense.

Actually, I'm fairly sure that if your creature cannot legally declare an attack against a guard, then it may ignore that guard and attack something else instead, similar to the point Zuberi brought up with bloodthirsty. Can't find the clarification at the moment; it might be in the FAQ. Maybe somebody else can shed some light on this?

[ringkichard]

If you can't attack a guard, you have no legal targets.