Goblin Builder and Mind's Eye

[Werekingdom]

So I was looking at the Mind's Eye card and noticed that is says quick spell by a familiar or mage.
After that I looked at the Goblin Builder, it says he spends a full cast to cast conjurations range 0-0.

So since the mind's eye says quick spell (the card type) and Goblin Builder takes a full action (the action cost) does that mean I can cast a wall, caltrops, ect (quick spell) at range 0-0 from mind's eye, if I use a full action from the builder to cast?

[Puddnhead]

I don't believe so.  I think that the Goblin Builder's ability treats the card attached to him as a Full Action spell in the same manner that a Straywood Beastmaster can treat a level 1 animal as a Quick Action spell.  Quick Summoning can be Jinxed and that's why I think Goblin Builder wouldn't be able to cast through Mind's Eye.

[Kelanen]

I don't believe so.  I think that the Goblin Builder's ability treats the card attached to him as a Full Action spell in the same manner that a Straywood Beastmaster can treat a level 1 animal as a Quick Action spell.  Quick Summoning can be Jinxed and that's why I think Goblin Builder wouldn't be able to cast through Mind's Eye.

I think the same. I read this last night, and was mulling it over before replying, but that was my gut reaction then, and after more thought, I'm pretty sure it's right.

Quick Summon and builder effectively change the action class of a spell.

I'd be interested to see a ruling, but I'm fairly sure this is right.

[aridigas]

I just went to check the wording and come to different conclusion.

Beastmaster Stats says he may summon a Level 1 animal creature spell as a quick spell.
Goblin Builder says he casts those spells as a full action with range of 0-0.

So the beastmaster changes what category of spell the animal is, the builder specifies, what kind of action he takes to cast that conjuration.

I'd say the builder actually can use Mind's Eye. He still has to take a full action, as he couldn't start the Cast Spell step otherwise.

The even more interesting part is, may the Eye ignore the range restriction?
It sounds like the range restriction is one made to the builder, not to the spell itself. In that case, the Eye might even ignore the range restriction.

[ClockWork]

oh yeah, this is sounding promising.....

[Puddnhead]

I just went to check the wording and come to different conclusion.

Beastmaster Stats says he may summon a Level 1 animal creature spell as a quick spell.
Goblin Builder says he casts those spells as a full action with range of 0-0.

So the beastmaster changes what category of spell the animal is, the builder specifies, what kind of action he takes to cast that conjuration.

I'd say the builder actually can use Mind's Eye. He still has to take a full action, as he couldn't start the Cast Spell step otherwise.

The even more interesting part is, may the Eye ignore the range restriction?
It sounds like the range restriction is one made to the builder, not to the spell itself. In that case, the Eye might even ignore the range restriction.

I know that the eye cannot ignore the range restriction. The eye only acts as the origin point for a familiar's spell. The familiar is still the one casting the spell and goblin builder must cast at 0-0. This logic is also why I still think the builder cannot use the eye.

[aridigas]

I just went to check the wording and come to different conclusion.

Beastmaster Stats says he may summon a Level 1 animal creature spell as a quick spell.
Goblin Builder says he casts those spells as a full action with range of 0-0.

So the beastmaster changes what category of spell the animal is, the builder specifies, what kind of action he takes to cast that conjuration.

I'd say the builder actually can use Mind's Eye. He still has to take a full action, as he couldn't start the Cast Spell step otherwise.

The even more interesting part is, may the Eye ignore the range restriction?
It sounds like the range restriction is one made to the builder, not to the spell itself. In that case, the Eye might even ignore the range restriction.

I know that the eye cannot ignore the range restriction. The eye only acts as the origin point for a familiar's spell. The familiar is still the one casting the spell and goblin builder must cast at 0-0. This logic is also why I still think the builder cannot use the eye.

Fair point on the range. Guess you're right here.
But I don't see how this logic applies to quick and full spells. The Goblin uses his full action, so this requirement is met. But the spell itself remains a quick spell, so it fulfills the requirement for Mind's Eye.

[wtcannonjr]

I know that the eye cannot ignore the range restriction. The eye only acts as the origin point for a familiar's spell. The familiar is still the one casting the spell and goblin builder must cast at 0-0. This logic is also why I still think the builder cannot use the eye.

Fair point on the range. Guess you're right here.
But I don't see how this logic applies to quick and full spells. The Goblin uses his full action, so this requirement is met. But the spell itself remains a quick spell, so it fulfills the requirement for Mind's Eye.

I would rule that yes Minds Eye could be used by the Goblin Builder when casting a quick spell Conjuration,  but not a full spell Conjuration such as Gates to Hell. I also agree that the range restricton of 0-0 remains in force, but the spell source moves to the zone with Minds Eye. The action type used to cast a spell typically matches the action cost on a spell, but spells and abilities can modify this as the Beastmaster Quick Summoning, Goblin Builder, and now Minds Eye examples demonstrate.

Nice find!

[Zuberi]

This is an interesting question. I think it's important in discussions like this to remind ourselves of how terms are defined. A quick spell is any spell that requires a quick action to cast, and a full spell is any spell that requires a full action to cast.

So, now the question is about when Goblin Builder casts a spell that normally requires a Quick Action, but his ability to cast it requires him to use a Full Action, which category of spell are you actually casting? I don't think the rules are really the clearest on this situation, however, I believe that it would be a Full Spell.

The rules are very clear that the type of action used and which category the spell falls into are inextricably linked. It's also very clear that you can't ever use a full action to cast a quick spell or vice versa. Of course, you can always argue that the card text overrides these rules, but I really don't think it's meant to. Going back to the definitions involved, when the Beastmaster's Quick Summoning ability says "as a Quick Spell" that's just another way of writing that it now requires a Quick Action to cast, because that's how Quick Spell is defined. Certainly nobody is arguing that he just changes the category of the spell and still has to use a full action to cast these quick spells. So, with Goblin Builder doing the opposite, saying the spell requires a Full Action for him to cast, I'm of the opinion that it works both ways and this changes the category of the spell into a Full Spell, because the two are tied together and dependent on one another.

[wtcannonjr]

This is an interesting question. I think it's important in discussions like this to remind ourselves of how terms are defined. A quick spell is any spell that requires a quick action to cast, and a full spell is any spell that requires a full action to cast.

So, now the question is about when Goblin Builder casts a spell that normally requires a Quick Action, but his ability to cast it requires him to use a Full Action, which category of spell are you actually casting? I don't think the rules are really the clearest on this situation, however, I believe that it would be a Full Spell.

The rules are very clear that the type of action used and which category the spell falls into are inextricably linked. It's also very clear that you can't ever use a full action to cast a quick spell or vice versa. Of course, you can always argue that the card text overrides these rules, but I really don't think it's meant to. Going back to the definitions involved, when the Beastmaster's Quick Summoning ability says "as a Quick Spell" that's just another way of writing that it now requires a Quick Action to cast, because that's how Quick Spell is defined. Certainly nobody is arguing that he just changes the category of the spell and still has to use a full action to cast these quick spells. So, with Goblin Builder doing the opposite, saying the spell requires a Full Action for him to cast, I'm of the opinion that it works both ways and this changes the category of the spell into a Full Spell, because the two are tied together and dependent on one another.

Agree that game terms are not as clear on this topic as they could be. We disagree on definitions a bit here. I will try and layout my thinking for discussion. I will start with spells as defined in detail on page 12 in particular the Action Icon on a spell card “… tells you the type of action required to cast the spell. And later, in the same paragraph “The icon shows what kind of action you must spend to cast the spell.” From this I believe that a quick spell or full spell is based on the Action Icon on the card and is separate from the type of action required to cast it. See further support for separate definitions in the parenthesis on page 8 in the sidebar titled Quickcast Action. It states “This action can only be used to cast one quick spell (a spell with the quick action symbol)…” To me this clearly indicates separate game terms that interact with each other.

Your definition seems to come from the Codex wording which states "A quick spell requires a quick action to cast it." I see this as further elaboration of how a quick spell interacts in the game similar to other Codex wording for other terms. However, it requires players to have a definition of a quick spell among all the other spells in order to check which action type or kind is required to cast it. So while I agree there is a strong interaction between the two game terms, I don’t think the intent is to combine the two as a single definition. Having two separate terms leaves the designer an opening in my view for The Magic Rule to apply and create new interactions which is at the heart of the magic system in Mage Wars.

As to your Beastmaster's Quick Summoning ability - I AM claiming that this ability does in fact change the action icon of the spell from Full to Quick which then allows it to be cast with a Quick Action or a Quickcast Action during the Action Stage. Otherwise, the wording would be "The Beastmaster's Quick Summoning ability allows him to cast a Level 1 animal as a quick action." I believe the choice of the last word as 'spell' and not 'action' makes a difference. Note, later wording describing this ability on pg. 31 states "Also, as a quick spell, it can be cast using his quickcast action, ... Of course, since it is a quick spell, it is also vulnerable to things which affect spells, such as the Jinx enchantment." This reinforces the view of a spell action cost (as an icon on the spell card) and an action type (as described on page 11 sidebar) as different game terms that create different interactions with other spells and effects.

This is the logic I used to say that Mind’s Eye could be used by a Goblin Builder for conjurations that have a quick action icon on them. The Goblin Builder’s Familiar ability only changes the action cost to cast the conjuration while the Beastmaster’s Quick Summoning ability changes the action icon of Level 1 animal spells.

If this interpretation is correct, then it might help to revise the Codex wording for Quick Spell by adding the first sentence  – “A spell card with a quick action item on it.” This would be followed by the current wording.

[Zuberi]

“The icon shows what kind of action you must spend to cast the spell.

From this I believe that a quick spell or full spell is based on the Action Icon on the card and is separate from the type of action required to cast it.

You read exactly what the icon represents, and then substitute your own definition. The action icon tells you what kind of action to use. That's it. Nothing more, and nothing less. The link between the kind of spell it is back to the icon is indirect. The kind of spell it is depends on the action used to cast it, and the action used to cast it depends (usually) on the action icon printed on it. The current definitions are correct, and your quotes reaffirm my previous call and make me even more certain of it. There's actually nothing on spell cards to tell you whether they're a quick spell or a full spell, because that depends entirely on what action is involved.

See further support for separate definitions in the parenthesis on page 8 in the sidebar titled Quickcast Action. It states “This action can only be used to cast one quick spell (a spell with the quick action symbol)…” To me this clearly indicates separate game terms that interact with each other.

A Quick Spell is a SPELL that is cast using a Quick Action. It is more specific than Quick Action, which can be used to do all sorts of things, like moving, guarding, and attacking. I don't know how many new players I've had to explain that they can't use the Quick Cast marker to make their base attack. "But it has the Lightning Bolt." Yes, because it is also a quick action, but it's not a spell. The Goblin Builder though is casting a spell.

Perhaps they could have saved some confusion by writing out Spell cast with a Quick Action, but Quick Spell saves a lot of space. In the end, if you are using a Quick Action to cast a Spell, that spell is a Quick Spell. If you use a Full Action, that spell is a Full Spell. Because that's what makes a Quick Spell quick and a Full Spell full by their very definition. I've looked over everything I can think to, and I see no way that anything currently in the game could separate those two from one another.

EDIT: For clarity, the action you use is never a choice. Every action in the game, including spell casts, indicate that they require either a Full Action or a Quick Action. The type of action is never optional.

[ringkichard]

Maybe a good first question is, "Does Jinx work on Goblin Builder using a full action to cast what would otherwise be a quick spell?"

There is, understandably, not a lot of rules guidance for Goblin Builder, so mostly we're just speculating until we recieve a definitive ruling.

Given that, lets not rely too heavily on Goblin Builder casting as a "full action" rather than as a "full spell" without some previous precident that the distinction comprises a difference. Are there any other cards worded this way? The solution here may be to make a minor erattum to Goblin Builder to bring it in line with other similar cards.

For flavor reasons I can understand why Goblin Builder "might take an action" rather than "cast a spell" but I don't know if this was intended to be more than flavor. Generally, it's kind of out of flavor for the builder to use Minds's Eye, though, so there's minor flavor weirdness in both options.

--

As a thought experiment, if there were a Chronomage with an ability like, "may cast Full Spells as a Quick Action," how would we expect that to work?

I'd expect Jinx to fail, and to be able to cast full spells for my quickcast action, right?

So if you can cast a Full Spell as a Quick Action (hypothetically), it would suggest that you could also cast a Quick Spell as a Full Action if instructed to do so.

Then again, as Jurassic Park wisely points out, you can spend all your effort worrying about if you can, and forget to worry about if you should.
--

If Goblin Builder can use Minds's Eye, I would definetly expect that the range would be 0-0 from the eye, since the goblin is still using its ability to cast the spell, and that ability interprets the spell as range 0-0, and only the source changes to the Eye.

[wtcannonjr]

You read exactly what the icon represents, and then substitute your own definition. The action icon tells you what kind of action to use. That's it. Nothing more, and nothing less. The link between the kind of spell it is back to the icon is indirect. The kind of spell it is depends on the action used to cast it, and the action used to cast it depends (usually) on the action icon printed on it. The current definitions are correct, and your quotes reaffirm my previous call and make me even more certain of it. There's actually nothing on spell cards to tell you whether they're a quick spell or a full spell, because that depends entirely on what action is involved.

Well I do admit it is my logic I was describing and a substitution of terminology may be at play here. I noted my references and to me it seems consistent with other wording in the rules to qualify spells. For example, a Nature spell is defined as any spell with a Nature School icon on it. A Command spell is defined as any spell with the subtype Command on it. I simply applied the same logic of looking at the card to define a quick or full spell. i.e. using information printed on the card. So a Quick spell usually takes a quick action to cast, but in some instances may take a full action based on spell effects in play. To me this doesn't change the fact that the spell is a Quick spell. However, the Codex actually uses both references to the action and the icon in its description. So when an effect changes one what happens to the other? It is unclear. My logic allows both the icon and the action type to remain separate and thereby break the normal definition in the Codex under The Magic Rule. Your logic would mean that an effect that changes one would then change the other to keep the Codex definition as written.

Perhaps they could have saved some confusion by writing out Spell cast with a Quick Action, but Quick Spell saves a lot of space. In the end, if you are using a Quick Action to cast a Spell, that spell is a Quick Spell. If you use a Full Action, that spell is a Full Spell. Because that's what makes a Quick Spell quick and a Full Spell full by their very definition. I've looked over everything I can think to, and I see no way that anything currently in the game could separate those two from one another.

Your interpretation could be the designer's intention. My logic was to start from the card itself to define a spell, while you have started from the rules for an Action Phase. Both of these methods are in the Codex description for Quick spell and Full spell. I am looking at "What" the card is first (e.g. a quick nature spell) and then applying "How" the card is cast (using a quick or quickcast action). So I see two different definitions - the What and the How - that are interconnected in the Codex wording.

[wtcannonjr]

Maybe a good first question is, "Does Jinx work on Goblin Builder using a full action to cast what would otherwise be a quick spell?"

Good question. I would say yes because the Goblin Builder effect was not worded as "full spell",  but "full action" instead. However, this could be splitting hairs and not the intent. There are several instances where specific wording does make a difference so I tend to use this as a general rule.

As a thought experiment, if there were a Chronomage with an ability like, "may cast Full Spells as a Quick Action," how would we expect that to work?

I'd expect Jinx to fail, and to be able to cast full spells for my quickcast action, right?

So if you can cast a Full Spell as a Quick Action (hypothetically), it would suggest that you could also cast a Quick Spell as a Full Action if instructed to do so.

Lol - I actually had an Archmage design with a similar ability worded "may cast Creature Spells as a Quick Spell."

I would agree with most of your interpretation of this hypothetical situation. However, I would split hairs around the Quick Action versus the Quickcast Action wording. I see the Quick Action and the Quickcast Action as separate game terms and in this case one could argue that the ability was not worded such to allow casting Full Spells during the Quickcast Action, only during a Quick Action.

[Kelanen]

As a thought experiment, if there were a Chronomage with an ability like, "may cast Full Spells as a Quick Action," how would we expect that to work?

I'd expect Jinx to fail, and to be able to cast full spells for my quickcast action, right?

I would expect Jinx to work.

I'm pretty certain that Jinx does work against a Straywood quickcasting a creature which is exactly the same scenario.