Turn to Stone and Enchantment Transfusion

[echephron]

TTS: [mwcard=MW1E39]Turn to Stone[/mwcard]
ET: [mwcard=MWSTX1CKE04]Enchantment Transfusion[/mwcard]

Is ET restricted in when it can move TTS? Is there a general rule of ET that it cant move revealed enchantments which could not be revealed at that moment?


An example is a creature in the declare step of attacking your mage. You ET TTS and the creature would turn to stone mid attack and the attack would be presumably cancelled.

[Kharhaz]

TTS: [mwcard=MW1E39]Turn to Stone[/mwcard]
ET: [mwcard=MWSTX1CKE04]Enchantment Transfusion[/mwcard]

Is ET restricted in when it can move TTS? Is there a general rule of ET that it cant move revealed enchantments which could not be revealed at that moment?


An example is a creature in the declare step of attacking your mage. You ET TTS and the creature would turn to stone mid attack and the attack would be presumably cancelled.

As long as the enchantment being moved to a legal target then it can move.

As for the turn to stone example:

"Enchantments cannot affect an event that occurred before it was revealed"

Meaning that the attack action steps were already started, so you must go through them.

Different situation: Creature moves one space and you then transfusion turn to stone on it. Revealing inbetween the move and attack actions causes the creatures turn to end immediately after the move action, you cannot retroactively stop it from moving.

Same logic goes here. The attack action has already been taken and the enchantment cannot retroactively cancel that attack action. So the Incapacitated creature would finish its attack and get the full armor bonus from Turn to stone if there was a counter attack involved.

Would need Zuberi to confirm, it's kind of his defacto area of expertise.

[DaveW]

Same logic goes here. The attack action has already been taken and the enchantment cannot retroactively cancel that attack action. So the Incapacitated creature would finish its attack and get the full armor bonus from Turn to stone if there was a counter attack involved.

It is my thought that since the counterstrike is part of the activated creature's attack action, and since Turn to Stone can not be revealed during an action, the counterstrike would not have to deal with the additional armor from Turn to Stone.

Another spell that didn't have the specific text prohibiting it from being revealed during an action could be revealed and take effect prior to the end of the activated creature's attack action, however.

[Sailor Vulcan]

Except that in the above example, wasn't turn to stone already revealed?

[Zuberi]

You can not change an event that has already occurred, but you can affect events that have not occurred yet. Thus, if you transfusion Turn to Stone after an attack has been declared, you can not change the fact that an attack was declared and started. HOWEVER, you will immediately gain the effects of Turn to Stone and that will affect all of the following steps. Meaning you will be incapacitated and have armor +6.

So the question is how does incapacitated affect an attack already in progress. The codex for incapacitate says that it prevents you from taking an attack action. This could be interpreted as meaning it can not start an attack, and thus the one already in progress is unaffected, or it could be interpreted as meaning it can not perform an attack at all and thus the current attack is affected.

I'm not sure if this question is actually addressed directly anywhere. The closest thing I can find is in relation to stun preventing an attacker from making additional attacks. They all assume the stun was gained during either step 6 or 7 of the attack though and so don't mention how it impacts the attacker for the current attack. I would call this a gray area that people could house rule either way until we hear an official response, but I will give my own reasoning on it.

Since additional attacks are a part of the same attack action, it is clear that incapacitate can affect an action in progress rather than just preventing you from starting the action. Combine this with Turn to Stone's own limitation attempting to prevent it from affecting an attack already in progress tells me that it would have an affect on an attack already in progress. I see no reason why the attack would simply be cancelled though, considering that an attacker stunned by damage barrier would still go through steps 7 and 8. Thus, I would rule that the incapacitated creature would go through the full list of combat steps but is unable to perform steps 3, 4, or 5. Those represent things that the creature is doing, and an incapacitated creature can not do anything. However, the defender can still respond to the attack that occurred with steps 2, 6, and 7, and of course the attack has to finish in step 8.

However, Kharhaz's interpretation is equally valid as far as I can see, in which the attacker gets to finish their current attack as normal (minus their defenses but plus 6 armor in the case of a counterstrike) but would be unable to make additional attacks if the attack had sweeping or battle fury or the such.

[Kharhaz]

However, Kharhaz's interpretation is equally valid as far as I can see, in which the attacker gets to finish their current attack as normal (minus their defenses but plus 6 armor in the case of a counterstrike) but would be unable to make additional attacks if the attack had sweeping or battle fury or the such.

"An incapacitated creature cannot take any actions, including, moving, attack, guarding, or casting spells. It cannot make a counterstrike........"

My thought process here is that step 3 4 and 5 are not actions. They are steps of the previous action. Rolling dice is not an action in mage wars and so.

Because of the wording on battle fury it would not, however additional attacks are part of the same action and would still get to make those. Incapacitated prevents are creature from taking any action, but the combat steps are part of the same action.

The question is can turn to stone stop an action in progress? Which I am 99% sure it cannot.

Could be wrong however, that is further explaining where I was going with all that

[Kharhaz]

However, Kharhaz's interpretation is equally valid as far as I can see, in which the attacker gets to finish their current attack as normal (minus their defenses but plus 6 armor in the case of a counterstrike) but would be unable to make additional attacks if the attack had sweeping or battle fury or the such.

"An incapacitated creature cannot take any actions, including, moving, attack, guarding, or casting spells. It cannot make a counterstrike........"

My thought process here is that step 3 4 and 5 are not actions. They are steps of the previous action. Rolling dice is not an action in mage wars and so.

Because of the wording on battle fury it would not, however additional attacks are part of the same action and would still get to make those. Incapacitated prevents are creature from taking any action, but the combat steps are part of the same action.

The question is can turn to stone stop an action in progress? Which I am 99% sure it cannot.

Could be wrong however, that is further explaining where I was going with all that

Actions being defined on page 11.

Full - quick - Nothing  and all the options that fall into those three categories

[Zuberi]

Battle Fury is not a separate action though, and incapacitate does prevent Battle Fury attacks according to the Rules Supplement, demonstrating that incapacitate will affect an action already in progress.

You are correct that steps 3, 4, and 5 are not themselves actions. Neither is step 1. They are all results of an action and a part of carrying out that action. It is clear that incapacitate will prevent step 1 in an additional attack like Battle Fury, and thus the entirety of the additional attack for without a legal target the attack is cancelled out right. However, my hypothesis that it affects the other steps is conjecture. Saying that they can not be affected though because they are not actions does not have merit because the same would apply to Battle Fury, Sweeping, etc where we know they are affected.

Whether Turn to Stone stops an action in progress also seems clear that it does not, as incapacitate does not prevent steps 7 and 8 from occurring if you become stunned during step 6. So, it is clear that you continue the action and it is also clear that some steps are affected while others are not. We know for certain that steps 6, 7, and 8 are not affected and that step 1 is, but we are in the dark about all of the other steps.

The reason that I hypothesize that steps 3, 4, and 5 are affected is that it seems to me that more than step 1 needs to be affected for there to be a reason to restrict Turn to Stone from being revealed after step 1. If it's only effect would be to prevent additional attacks from occurring (and mess with your defenses and armor in the case of a counterstrike), I do not think there would be much reason to prevent it's reveal during an attack. It seems to me that the designers intended it to have more of an effect, even though there's no written rule stating such explicitly. The only rule implying it is an ambiguous interpretation of what it means to take an action which has been shown to include having an effect on actions in progress. As steps 3, 4, and 5 represent the primary functions of the attack, representing what you are actually doing, it seemed logical to me that they would be the ones affected by incapacitation. The steps unaffected would then be the ones primarily carried out by the defender rather than the attacker.

So, it all boils down to our interpretation of taking an action. A strict interpretation of simply meaning the initiation of an action has been shown to be false, as it has been clearly stated that it prevents certain steps from occurring during an action already in progress. One could take a strict rules as written approach and say that it only affects steps clearly mentioned, and thus only step 1, but I believe there is evidence that indicate the rules as intended is for it to affect more than that and such an interpretation does not contradict anything within the rules. In the end though, we need an official response. Until then, anything else is merely a house rule.

[Kharhaz]

One more thing and thing I want to run by you

Step 1 seems to be where commitment to the action happens. Before step 1 finishes you can decided not to attack and do a separate action in certain examples.

This leads me to believe that reason battle fury would not get a second attack, would be because the action can not be completed in step 1 as the target is no longer a valid target of the quick melee action, as per incap condition. (aside from the clear as day rule written that says so)

Step 1 seems to be the lynch pin here and boy it would be nice to get something all official. Not because I really care one way or the other, but so I can stop thinking about it

[Zuberi]

You are correct that you are not fully committed to the action until you complete step 1, but step 1 is still merely a part of the process of completing the action no different than steps 2 through 8 are. All we're saying is once you've already done part of the action, you can't change your mind about doing the whole action.

With the battle fury example, you have already completed step 1 for the initial attack before you get stunned and are thus committed to the action of attacking. The action of attacking, however, includes a battle fury attack. They are not separate things. So, the fact that battle fury is prevented from performing step 1 again, tells us that incapacitation keeps an action that you've already committed to from carrying out certain steps. Incapacitation does not prevent step 1 from occurring because you're unable to select a legal target either. No place in it's definition does it mention being unable to target or having restricted targeting. The only reason you'd be unable to perform step 1 is because it is considered part of taking an action.

So, could anything else be considered part of taking an action? Well, every step could potentially be considered part of the action, but we also know that steps 6, 7, and 8 are not affected. Thus, I think all of the steps of an action in which the incapacitated creature could be said to be acting or doing something are part of the action, ie steps 1, 3, 4, and 5. Steps 2, 6, and 7 are being performed by the defender rather than the attacker, and step 8 is a mandatory status check to see if the attack has ended or has other parts that still need performed, so none of them are affected. Of course, if you are unable to complete step 1, then you do not have a legal target and the whole attack is cancelled. That is my thinking on the matter. Like you said, I would really like to hear an official answer to this, but I'm also waiting on an official answer to some other interesting rules abnormalities that have been pending for a few months now. Perhaps I should revive my old unanswered questions thread that I kept going a good portion of last year.

[Kharhaz]

Battle Fury is not a separate action though, and incapacitate does prevent Battle Fury attacks according to the Rules Supplement, demonstrating that incapacitate will affect an action already in progress.

I am having trouble finding this ^

All I see is " If the attacking creature becomes affected by a condition acquired from the counterstrike or damage barrier (such as being stunned or dazed), its extra attack will be affected, and the condition marker will remain on the creature until end of the next round (if it has an “end of action phase” effect, as per rules for conditions acquired from a damage barrier or counterstrike). "

Don't get me wrong if a daze can cause the second swing to miss then obviously an Incap should end the attack sequence then and there (which I think we can both agree on would be the intent in such a situation)

However, I am having difficulty finding any rule that would do that. At best an incap would be placed and that creature "cannot take any actions" but since were still in mid action that it already took............

[Zuberi]

Hmm, perhaps the Rules Supplement is not as explicit as I remembered. I recall a conversation awhile back with Laddinfance about this topic and I could have gotten a more specific interpretation of it mixed up with what was in the supplement. I'm not sure how else you could interpret stun affecting the extra attack, however. How do you propose the extra attack is affected by it?

I will see if I can find my previous conversation to point towards, but until then another example on the issue of incapacitate affecting an action in progress would be page 13 and 16 of the rules supplement where it mentions a stun applied by a passage attack will halt a move action that was currently in progress. This would occur during step 3 of a move action and prevent steps 4 and 5 from happening.

[echephron]

Another example is when that the imp familiar cast a fireball. before the fireball attack is declared(during the fireball casting), you can move a TTS onto him, which prevents him from declaring an attack, so i assume the fireball mana is lost

[Kharhaz]

Another example is when that the imp familiar cast a fireball. before the fireball attack is declared(during the fireball casting), you can move a TTS onto him, which prevents him from declaring an attack, so i assume the fireball mana is lost

This is one is much easier because during step 1 of casting the spell it clearly states that "As soon as you pay the costs required, your spell has been cast. Until you pay the costs, you may change your mind and choose not to cast the spell. If you do, you are not required to pay any costs. But once the costs have been paid, you must resolve the spell, unless your opponent counters it."

So, If it is before step 1 when you transfusion TTS, then you stop him before casting the spell. If you wait till in between step 1 and 2 , fireball resolves as per normal.

[DaveW]

Another example is when that the imp familiar cast a fireball. before the fireball attack is declared(during the fireball casting), you can move a TTS onto him, which prevents him from declaring an attack, so i assume the fireball mana is lost

This is one is much easier because during step 1 of casting the spell it clearly states that "As soon as you pay the costs required, your spell has been cast. Until you pay the costs, you may change your mind and choose not to cast the spell. If you do, you are not required to pay any costs. But once the costs have been paid, you must resolve the spell, unless your opponent counters it."

So, If it is before step 1 when you transfusion TTS, then you stop him before casting the spell. If you wait till in between step 1 and 2 , fireball resolves as per normal.

Does this mean that either the TTS is moved and takes effect (before step 1, in which case no mana has yet been spent), or the mana is spent in step 1 and the spell is cast... and is unable to be affected by the transfused TTS? This is saying that there is no chance to lose/spend the mana without the spell being cast successfully. Is that right?