Turn to Stone and Enchantment Transfusion

[Zuberi]

That is correct according to how I understand Kharhaz's interpretation. You would become incapacitated immediately but still be able to attack while incapacitated as long as the incapacitation occurred after the Cast Spell Step.

It is not correct according to my interpretation of the rules however. Instead, I would say that you are unable to perform the Declare Attack Step, and thus could not pick a target. Without a target, the entire attack would be cancelled.

We do not have an official ruling on this. It all depends on how you interpret being unable to "take" an action.

[Kharhaz]

It is not correct according to my interpretation of the rules however. Instead, I would say that you are unable to perform the Declare Attack Step, and thus could not pick a target. Without a target, the entire attack would be cancelled.

I am away from my materials but in step 1 of casting a spell target has already been selected and approved. The fireball spell must resolve unless it is specifically countered in step 2 and resolves in step 3. Then the attack sequence is initiated. The spell is canceled if the original target is not longer legal or moves. The caster is not spending actions and so on after this. Different example: let's say a familiar cast an incantation and you transfusion turn to stone after step 1. The spell will still resolve because the spell was not canceled. So the heal or teleport goes into strep 3 regardless of what happens to te caster at this point (unless the caster or target act in a way which cancels the spell)

Would be nice if an official rules person would speak up. Until then I will continue to post here regularly until we get someone's attention

[Laddinfance]

Just because you have my attention, does not mean I can offer a quick answer.

To confirm an earlier question, if you get Incapacitated during a multi-strike attack, then you do not get to make the remaining attacks.

Now, I know that an attack spell brings up an interesting point.

[Kharhaz]

Just because you have my attention, does not mean I can offer a quick answer.

To confirm an earlier question, if you get Incapacitated during a multi-strike attack, then you do not get to make the remaining attacks.

Now, I know that an attack spell brings up an interesting point.

I know you're always watching, it is reassuring to see it

Corazin makes a double attack. After step 4 I transfusion turn to stone, that would stop step 5 from completing? Do you proceed to step 6, 7, then 8? Makes sense to but that would mean the attack sequence was not canceled but just a single step?

Interesting

 

[Zuberi]

Corazin makes a double attack. After step 4 I transfusion turn to stone, that would stop step 5 from completing? Do you proceed to step 6, 7, then 8? Makes sense to but that would mean the attack sequence was not canceled but just a single step?

Interestin

This would line up with my interpretation of the rules. Incapacitation prevents certain steps from being performed, namely steps 1, 3, 4, and 5. I think we have strong evidence now that this is correct for steps 1 and 5 at least. In the case that step 1 is prevented, the entire attack would be cancelled due to lack of a legal target. However, preventing other steps would not cancel the attack and you would still go through steps 2, 6, 7, and 8.

With regard to a spell, I had not given it proper thought I believe. Following the same logic I've used on attacks, I would think that incapacitation would also prevent steps 1 and 3 of casting a spell from occurring. Thus preventing an incantation from resolving as well as an attack spell (and actually ending the attack spell sooner than I previously suggested). After all, the spell has NOT been cast as soon as step 1 is finished. It is in the process of it. So, basically you get stunned and stop chanting your spell in the middle of it before it can resolve.

We still need more detail from an official source exactly which steps are affected by incapacitation, however. It seems pretty clear that some are, we just don't know for sure which.

[Kharhaz]

 So, basically you get stunned and stop chanting your spell in the middle of it before it can resolve.

?

From page 13

"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."

Incapacitate does not counter a spell, it must resolve. If step 1 of casting a spell is completed.

[Kharhaz]

I think we have strong evidence now that this is correct for steps 1 and 5 at least. In the case that step 1 is prevented, the entire attack would be cancelled due to lack of a legal target. However, preventing other steps would not cancel the attack and you would still go through steps 2, 6, 7, and 8.

Yes it appears that if you are incapacitated before step 1 or step 5 (step 5 is essentially steps 1 - 4 repeated), then the attack sequence is canceled there and we move on to 7 since since damage barriers only trigger on successful attacks. Just waiting the official word there

So that was fun. Any new questions we should probably start a thread about? Aside from the obvious does Incapacitate stop damage from effecting the target? Say Incapacitated after step 2 before step 3 or after 3 and before 4

[Zuberi]

Using the same logic that allows spells like Nullify to work. How can you prevent a spell from resolving if it is already finished? You can't. But since it has not finished yet, you can still affect it with things like counterspells and incapacitate to interrupt it. I believe the wording in the rules is to indicate that you are now committed to the action, just like with the declare attack step, and that's all. You've begun casting and are past the point of no return, but you aren't finished with the spell until step 3 ends.

Granted, there's nothing that says incapacitate works this way, but it is not an illogical interpretation like you seem to think. We know that it does affect the steps of combat, which work similar to the steps of casting a spell, and we know that there is time to still stop a spell from being cast after step 1 because spells like nullify are able to.

In the end, I think we are in agreement about steps 1 and 5 of combat, and step 1 of spell casting all being affected. I could certainly see things ending there. But, I still think it's possible that steps 3 and 4 of combat, and step 3 of spellcasting could be affected as well.

[DaveW]

And then there is the phrase "unless your opponent counters it." -- Is the spell countered by the transfused Turn to Stone?

[Kharhaz]

And then there is the phrase "unless your opponent counters it." -- Is the spell countered by the transfused Turn to Stone?

I would argue not by the codex entry of counter and that abilities / cards, such as [mwcard=MW1E29]Nullify[/mwcard], specificialy say that they actually counter a spell.

Counter is not a concept in Mage Wars it is a keyword, and as such, has special meaning outside of the logical use for "countering". Cancel is the filler word for stopping a spell in progress, such as the target moving.

As per the rules sup:

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).

Similarly, an attack fails and is canceled, if either of the following occur before the Apply Damage and Effects
step of an attack :

1. The target of the attack is no longer a legal target, or
2. The source or target of the attack 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).
The most common way these can happen is through the spell Divine Intervention.

A canceled spell or attack ends immediately. All costs that have already been paid, remain paid, and are not
refunded. If a spell was being cast, the spell card is discarded (exception: see Spellbind).

[Kharhaz]

In the end, I think we are in agreement about steps 1 and 5 of combat, and step 1 of spell casting all being affected. I could certainly see things ending there. But, I still think it's possible that steps 3 and 4 of combat, and step 3 of spellcasting could be affected as well.

I am thinking, after my last post, we will get  a rule along the lines of:

"Incapacitate prevents you from taking the step 1 of an action  and makes your target now illegal and you follow the Changing the Range or Target of a Spell or Attack as per the rules supplement."

Which means that the spell or attack would be canceled if the enchantment transfusion is revealed before step 3: Resolve Spell during a spell or step 4: Apply Damage and Effects during an attack.

It is not how I would have gone with the rules, but it is the most logical and linear course of action.

[exid]

I didn't find a clear answer to this one: when an attacker becomes incapacitate between two attack steps (for example by a transfused turn to stone)... how does the attack continue?
(I think it's clear that additional attacks are cancelled)

[exid]

How does the attack work if the attacker becomes incapacitated after the first steps of the attack?

[jacksmack]

If the attack is not cancelled then something is wrong.

Just like if the target is moved with divine intervention the attack will miss...
If the attacker freezes in place the attack is cancelled.

Just saying... dont have rules to back this up.

[exid]

Every body thinks it would be logical that you can't apply damages if you become incapacitate... but the rules don't say that (neither the range nor the target changes!).

official rulling?