Poisoned Blood and Barksin

[DaveW]

Now that I think of it, I think most people know intuitively that adramelech's touch needs to be revealed BEFORE rolling blanks for burns, not after, in order to have an effect on those burns. When the burns roll blanks and adramelech's touch has not been revealed yet, the automation on octgn causes the burns to immediately disappear, and I've yet to see anyone argue that they should have been allowed to reveal touch and preserve the burns after the fact. If you ask them, "why didn't you wait until you saw the result before revealing adramelech's touch?" they probably won't know exactly why. They likely will say that they weren't thinking about it and just playing normally. And yet they will consistently play it that way every time until you point it out to them. Or at least every time I can recall someone using Adramelech's Touch, that was how they played it. I do not remember anyone waiting until they saw the result of the burn roll before revealing adramelech's touch and paying for the burns to stay.

I have been playing this that the reveal will almost always be after a blank is rolled, but before it's applied. In just the same way as I will wait until after non-critical damage is rolled, before revealing Brace Yourself/Rhino-Hide.

Intuitively, that makes complete sense to me, and is in keeping with everything else I know (or knew, until the world just blew up!).

The text says that you pay one mana to keep the burn on the creature... but only applies if the enchantment is already revealed. Rolling a die (outside the casting of a spell / attack sequence) does not provide an opportunity to reveal enchantments, so you can not reveal Addy's Touch (and make use of it) after rolling dice for the burns. If you roll a blank... the burn goes away.

You can reveal Rhino Hide, etc., during a normal attack sequence because there are specific steps in that sequence for roll dice, separate from the step for taking damage. There is no such step (or whatever you want to call it) during the die roll for a burn.

[Zuberi]

@Beldin:
You have basically described how I believe enchantments to work. If this was your intention, then we wouldn't really need to define "event". We'd have a solid rule as to when enchantments can and can not be revealed. Immediately after a phase, step, or activation, which are all well defined terms.

The one part I disagree with is after a ready marker is used, as that implies that players can respond between flipping the marker and actually resolving the effect that the marker indicates, which I do not believe is the case. Ready markers also aren't really a type of occurrence unto themselves. They are used to remind you of any limited use effect that you may have.

It is important also to note that with 4th edition, all enchantments can now be revealed between the steps of a Movement Action. There is also the possibility for some enchantments to be revealed between the steps of Revealing an Enchantment (currently only [mwcard=FWE08]Mind Shield[/mwcard]) but only when they specifically indicate so.

@DaveW:
This just goes to show the type of confusion this ruling has wrought and why we should ignore it. If we allowed enchantments to be revealed after an "event" then there is nothing in the rules to say that Kelanen's method is incorrect. Who is to say that rolling the die and applying the damage aren't two separate events? Indeed, there seems to be support for that kind of judgement based on them being two separate steps during combat. Since we don't know what an event is, it is all up to interpretation and using what we know about how the game works in other cases. The fact that we are seeing differing opinions on these things, which most of us take for granted, just stresses how bad a call this is. We need to forget about "events" and just go with the rule that enchantments can only be revealed immediately after a phase, step, or activation.

Anything else just seems like a major rules headache to me.

[ringkichard]

I'm suspicious that there are common interactions that require the event language, but I can't actually think of any at the moment, so that may be pure blind prejudice on my part.

Are we sure there aren't any official examples of e.g. enchantments being revealed during the upkeep?

I think things might be clarified by having a rules definition of event.

[sIKE]

The ruling for Mind Control was anytime not during a creatures action, including any point during the Ready Stage. I linked to it a while back. With that said, both approaches, the one I defined or Zuberi's would still work in that case.

I still do not get the difference "magically" between the end of one phase and beginning of the next from a revealing an Enchantment perspective.

[ringkichard]

I still do not get the difference "magically" between the end of one phase and beginning of the next from a revealing an Enchantment perspective.

I will consider this.

[Sailor Vulcan]

The ruling for Mind Control was anytime not during a creatures action, including any point during the Ready Stage. I linked to it a while back. With that said, both approaches, the one I defined or Zuberi's would still work in that case.

I still do not get the difference "magically" between the end of one phase and beginning of the next from a revealing an Enchantment perspective.

The difference is that Mage Wars is turn based rather than in real time. If it were real life, there would be no turns.

The reason might have something to do with conjurations and their activated abilities. Dancing scimitar's attack can only be used at the end of its controlling mage's action phase, but not the beginning of the next. If you could attack with dancing scimitar after your opponent used ballista but before they activate their mage, that would be ridiculous.

[wtcannonjr]

The ruling for Mind Control was anytime not during a creatures action, including any point during the Ready Stage. I linked to it a while back. With that said, both approaches, the one I defined or Zuberi's would still work in that case.

I still do not get the difference "magically" between the end of one phase and beginning of the next from a revealing an Enchantment perspective.

For me I always go back to reality - "MW Arena is foremost a boardgame" and not a comprehensive simulation of a magical world. I think if we define "event" at a lower hierarchy than step as an element in the game round that allows player interruptions, then it slows down play. A player could consider whether to reveal after each individual event happens within a given step. By keeping the opponents reaction at the end of step level it ensures that the player executing any step can resolve all the game activities required to complete the step without waiting for the opponents decision. The result is simpler mechanics that lead to faster play.

Consider the extreme case where a mage might only be allowed to reveal an Enchantment at the end of a Phase. This would allow even fewer opportunities for interrupts to happen. A design limit has to be set to keep the game moving so that it is not always in a pause mode while the opponent decides whether to reveal an Enchantment or not.

[sIKE]

The ruling for Mind Control was anytime not during a creatures action, including any point during the Ready Stage. I linked to it a while back. With that said, both approaches, the one I defined or Zuberi's would still work in that case.

I still do not get the difference "magically" between the end of one phase and beginning of the next from a revealing an Enchantment perspective.

For me I always go back to reality - "MW Arena is foremost a boardgame" and not a comprehensive simulation of a magical world. I think if we define "event" at a lower hierarchy than step as an element in the game round that allows player interruptions, then it slows down play. A player could consider whether to reveal after each individual event happens within a given step. By keeping the opponents reaction at the end of step level it ensures that the player executing any step can resolve all the game activities required to complete the step without waiting for the opponents decision. The result is simpler mechanics that lead to faster play.

Consider the extreme case where a mage might only be allowed to reveal an Enchantment at the end of a Phase. This would allow even fewer opportunities for interrupts to happen. A design limit has to be set to keep the game moving so that it is not always in a pause mode while the opponent decides whether to reveal an Enchantment or not.

Literally the first paragraph from the rulebook:

Mage Wars was designed to be as intuitive as possible, and play as if magic were real. Spells work the way you think they should, and affect the battle in a way that makes sense. As a result, you will find that you can learn the rules very quickly.

I honestly could not say this better. No it is not a simulation, but trying to argue that everything in an "phase" happens all at once simultaneously and that you can not reveal until the "end" of the phase, as there is not one, does not make any sense to me.

The reaction seems to me to be, what is an event? There is not a definition and as such, I can define it however I want, and therefore it is a bad idea. Like I find an event in the middle of step. Really? I hate Seth Meyers, but really?  An event is something that you do as a part of game play. If an event can be legally subdivided they are called steps. Done. You can reveal an Enchantment before/after an event, during a phase, or as ruled on the card. You can not interrupt an event in progress, such as a move.

[exid]

after 5 pages of this (and some more in parallel topics), i'm a little lost...

do we have a clear official rule about revealing enchantment?
(the "intuitive MW rules" doesn't count, i don't believe in one human intuition that will resolve every situation)

[Beldin]

@Beldin:

The one part I disagree with is after a ready marker is used, as that implies that players can respond between flipping the marker and actually resolving the effect that the marker indicates, which I do not believe is the case. Ready markers also aren't really a type of occurrence unto themselves. They are used to remind you of any limited use effect that you may have.

@ Zuberi Yes that's fine. I was trying to think of instances where an action can happen and got carried away.  Also yes that was my intention to flesh out a set of workable rules. I realsied that it was possible that this was the way people were playing and if the case then we have a set of rules to work with, with well defined terms. It is how I prefer my rules.

[wtcannonjr]

Literally the first paragraph from the rulebook:

Mage Wars was designed to be as intuitive as possible, and play as if magic were real. Spells work the way you think they should, and affect the battle in a way that makes sense. As a result, you will find that you can learn the rules very quickly.

I honestly could not say this better.

Well I read this as a design philosophy that describes the intent of the rules. However, by itself it leaves unclear situations open to individual definitions. Each of us will have different perspectives on how we think spells should work. This is where more specific rules take over and guide us (eventually) to a shared understanding to resolve our different views.

[sIKE]

Literally the first paragraph from the rulebook:

Mage Wars was designed to be as intuitive as possible, and play as if magic were real. Spells work the way you think they should, and affect the battle in a way that makes sense. As a result, you will find that you can learn the rules very quickly.

I honestly could not say this better.

Well I read this as a design philosophy that describes the intent of the rules. However, by itself it leaves unclear situations open to individual definitions. Each of us will have different perspectives on how we think spells should work. This is where more specific rules take over and guide us (eventually) to a shared understanding to resolve our different views.

I totally agree! I think what we are really waiting on is designers intent with an update to wording for revealing Enchantments, that matches the intent.

I think if we define "event" at a lower hierarchy than step as an element in the game round that allows player interruptions, then it slows down play.

I totally agree here, I think I misread this last night.

[wtcannonjr]

Literally the first paragraph from the rulebook:

Mage Wars was designed to be as intuitive as possible, and play as if magic were real. Spells work the way you think they should, and affect the battle in a way that makes sense. As a result, you will find that you can learn the rules very quickly.

I honestly could not say this better.

Well I read this as a design philosophy that describes the intent of the rules. However, by itself it leaves unclear situations open to individual definitions. Each of us will have different perspectives on how we think spells should work. This is where more specific rules take over and guide us (eventually) to a shared understanding to resolve our different views.

I totally agree! I think what we are really waiting on is designers intent with an update to wording for revealing Enchantments, that matches the intent.

I think if we define "event" at a lower hierarchy than step as an element in the game round that allows player interruptions, then it slows down play.

I totally agree here, I think I misread this last night.

I agree to agree with your agreement.

Let's see what we get back from the designer.

I just taught 4 new players the game yesterday using the latest version of the rules and didn't want to add this discussion to their learning curve. They all seemed to enjoy it and as X-Wing players they picked up the game quickly and liked the customization aspects. They had two players each playing a mage with the apprentice Beastmaster defeating the apprentice Warlock.

[Kelanen]

I have been playing this that the reveal will almost always be after a blank is rolled, but before it's applied. In just the same way as I will wait until after non-critical damage is rolled, before revealing Brace Yourself/Rhino-Hide.

Intuitively, that makes complete sense to me, and is in keeping with everything else I know (or knew, until the world just blew up!).

The text says that you pay one mana to keep the burn on the creature... but only applies if the enchantment is already revealed. Rolling a die (outside the casting of a spell / attack sequence) does not provide an opportunity to reveal enchantments, so you can not reveal Addy's Touch (and make use of it) after rolling dice for the burns. If you roll a blank... the burn goes away.

You cannot divine that as the only interpretation from the rules using event language. Event is undefined currently, and in that state this is as good an example of an event as anything, and in fact better than many given parallels elsewhere.

The enchantment needs to be revealed before the burn is resolved, not before it is triggered (I think we would all agree that). The question is whether there is a 'something' that gives me an opportunity to reveal. There isn't a step, phase or action, but I'd argue there is an event, if an event means anything at all outside of the others.

@DaveW:
This just goes to show the type of confusion this ruling has wrought and why we should ignore it. If we allowed enchantments to be revealed after an "event" then there is nothing in the rules to say that Kelanen's method is incorrect. Who is to say that rolling the die and applying the damage aren't two separate events? Indeed, there seems to be support for that kind of judgement based on them being two separate steps during combat. Since we don't know what an event is, it is all up to interpretation and using what we know about how the game works in other cases.

Precisely so.

[sIKE]

@DaveW:
This just goes to show the type of confusion this ruling has wrought and why we should ignore it. If we allowed enchantments to be revealed after an "event" then there is nothing in the rules to say that Kelanen's method is incorrect. Who is to say that rolling the die and applying the damage aren't two separate events? Indeed, there seems to be support for that kind of judgement based on them being two separate steps during combat. Since we don't know what an event is, it is all up to interpretation and using what we know about how the game works in other cases.

Precisely so.

No no no no, this is problem created by looking for a problem. A step is a division of an event, so can not find an event inside of a step. Still awaiting the ruling on this though.