Zero reveal costs and discount rings

[Beldin]

Hi guys,

If a zero reveal cost enchantment has a subtype that interfaces with a discount ring, does that give it a -1 cost; thus gaining a mana. I cannot find anywhere in the rules or FAQ a ruling on paying costs, casting costs, or reveal costs being subject to a minimum of 0. Also the same question to general costs reduced below zero?

[Laddinfance]

Making a cost go below zero is not the same as gaining mana. Reducing a reveal below zero will have no effect.

[Kelanen]

With respect, in maths it IS the same... The process is that you subtract the cost from your mana

Subtracting 1 from you mana supply takes 1 off of it.
Subtracting -1 from you mana supply adds 1 on.

Subtracting a negative is an addition. Normal maths and language applies where it's not specified otherwise.

I completely expected this ruling, but it absolutely needs to be an official rule, because without it, the reverse is the logical conclusion.

[sIKE]

Even if the game does not have a concept of negative numbers?

I have to deal with this in OCTGN all the time, so I do understand what you are getting at though....

[Kelanen]

If the game is not defined as having 'no concept of negative numbers' then normal maths prevails. And it doesn't have such a rule. In fact the discount rings show it does have a concept of negative numbers...

[drmambo23]

Reducing a reveal below zero will have no effect.

A mw game designer said this. Why argue your point even though its not in writing. Maybe they'll change that; for now, though, you know that it will not give you mana.

[iNano78]

Reducing a reveal below zero will have no effect.

A mw game designer said this. Why argue your point even though its not in writing. Maybe they'll change that; for now, though, you know that it will not give you mana.

Because not all MW players peruse the forums regularly.  It isn't only sufficient to answer a question that one player asks, but to have an answer available to anyone who might wonder the same thing.  This information should probably find its way into a future FAQ and/or the clause "reduces mana cost by 1, to a minimum of 0" could be included in future discount cards. 

[drmambo23]

Reducing a reveal below zero will have no effect.

A mw game designer said this. Why argue your point even though its not in writing. Maybe they'll change that; for now, though, you know that it will not give you mana.

Because not all MW players peruse the forums regularly.  It isn't only sufficient to answer a question that one player asks, but to have an answer available to anyone who might wonder the same thing.  This information should probably find its way into a future FAQ and/or the clause "reduces mana cost by 1, to a minimum of 0" could be included in future discount cards. 

That is the point I was trying to make. it apparently isn't in any rules elsewhere and I think they should make it clear for people who don't think it is; hopefully they get to it. But just saying "thanks, will this be updated to the rules for further clarification?" or something to that effect would have been swell, which he did at the end,  but still continued to attempt to plead a case (from my understanding).

Maybe I just read the whole conversation with the wrong attitude and if I did, my apologizes.

[Kelanen]

A mw game designer said this. Why argue your point even though its not in writing. Maybe they'll change that; for now, though, you know that it will not give you mana.

You are misunderstanding me. I am not arguing about the ruling. I 100% expected this ruling when we were discussing it before posting it here. The ruling is NOT the point - if that is your interest here, then thread closed.

What IS the interest, is because this is contrary to normal convention, language and maths, that it needs to be a formal rule. Aaron's response indicated that he thought there was an obvious reason for his rule, but actually, the reverse is true, there is a logical reason for the reverse, and that's why it needs a formal rule. The rule is 100% right, I completely support it. There's just a gap between rules and designer intent.

Because not all MW players peruse the forums regularly.  It isn't only sufficient to answer a question that one player asks, but to have an answer available to anyone who might wonder the same thing.  This information should probably find its way into a future FAQ and/or the clause "reduces mana cost by 1, to a minimum of 0" could be included in future discount cards.

Precisely so.

This is going to sound perjorative, and I don't intend that, but I can't think of a better way of wording it. AW has a very bad track record of understanding and wording cards/rules with arithmetic or algebra involved. If you'd like some more examples then look at Purify and Stranglevine - both cards have made very clear in how they should work on these forums, but neither card works remotely as printed.

I'll throw out a bonus errata required to get this all to where the designer's intent (presumably) is:

As debated extensively here (http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=16014.0), Purify actually has been ruled to actually have a cost of zero, with X being an additional cost paid on resolution. This, together with the above ruling means that Ring of Asyra won't give Purify a discount of -1, when most would assume it would (and I presume it's intended it would). So it either needs clarifying to not, or ruling under Purify that it has a strange interaction with Ring of Asyra.