6 different questions from russian community =)

[Santar]

Hi Mages!
Some questions from russian community:

1) Siren's call was casted at final quick cast. Does it work at the next round?

2) Siren cast BattleFury on her Water Elemental. Then this creature attacks enemy's Mage at a sea. So, this attack was 6 dices (5 +1 for sea) and successful push to another sea zone. The Elemental moves there because of his ability and attacks the Mage again. This second attack will be 5 or 6 dices? I think that i will be 6, because it's another sea zone and another melee +1 effect.

3)  Academy FM weapon can work with BattleFury like this: cast BF on FM, the FM move and pay 3 mana for sweeping and attacks 2 different creatures. At the end of this attack FM makes another sweeping attack because of BF (and not pay 3 mana again). Am I right?

4) If my Grizzly has Akiro's Favor and attack creature with reverse attack, can I use my AF to re-roll this dices?

5) My Pillars and enemy's creature in one zone. If it's my initiative I can make the Pillar's attack before any other effects on this creature. It is true. If it's enemy's initiative, this creature can regenerate before my attack. But if this attack makes burn on the creature, will this burn work this upkeep thase or it's done with this creature an burl will not has affect this upkeep thase?

6) Dwarf Warlord has mage wand with -1 mana discount rune.
-can he re-bind new spell to this wand for 2 mana, not 3?
-can FM steal this wand and use it? The rune will work?

[farkas1]

1) yes
2) I'm not sure
3) not sure
4) yes
5) burns that happen in upkeep do roll for burn in the same upkeep with or without intiative.
6) yea discount works on changing out spell
And yea runes carry over if stolen

[Zuberi]

1. Yes. Sirens call goes away at the end of the creature's action phase rather than at the end of the round. So if you use it during final quick cast, the creature's next action phase will be next round.

2. It will be 6 dice. The Water Elemental loses the first melee +1 bonus, which it couldn't have utilized a second time anyways, and gains a new melee +1 bonus. The second attack is the first attack made with this new melee +1 bonus, so it gets to use it.

3. Short answer: Yes. It would get another sweeping attack without having to pay another 3 mana. I'm not going to give my longer answer unless people express interest, because this is actually something I have a problem with.

4. Absolutely! Akiro's favor doesn't stop working just because you're targeting yourself. Just like Bear Strength wouldn't stop working.

5. If the Pillar places a Burn on the creature, then the Burn HAS to be resolved this upkeep phase. However, your opponent gets to decide the timing of the Burn regardless of who's initiative it is. Cause it's their creature that's burning. So, if you have initiative, you might choose to attack him before he regenerates, but if you fail to kill him he can then choose to regenerate before resolving the burn.

6. He definitely gets the -1 discount when binding a different spell to the wand, so he can do so for 2 mana instead of 3. Also the FM can definitely steal the wand and use it, but I'm actually unsure if the Rune would work or not. I can't find this covered explicitly anyplace. I would personally apply the same logic as for the Beastmaster's Pet or the Priest's Holy Avenger. For those, the ruling is that even when you take control of the creature, you don't take control of the ability marker. Meaning that the ability marker still works, but it continues to reference it's controlling Mage whenever you read the text for it. For example, if you Mind Control a Holy Avenger, it continues to have Life +5, but it only gains the Melee +2 and Piercing +1 if it's target had attacked a creature/conjuration friendly to the Priest. Making it much less useful for the Forcemaster.

With that logic, because the Rune says "you" may pay 1 less mana, and "you" continues to reference the Warlord, it would not be possible for the Forcemaster to get the discount. She could benefit from stealing the Rune of Fortification or Precision though.

[Zuberi]

Regarding #6, another example would be how when you steal an object, you don't gain control of the enchantments attached to it. So, if I mind control a creature with Akiro's Favor attached to it, my opponent still controls Akiro's Favor and still gets to decide whether or not the creature will reroll it's attack. Making it a much less useful creature for me.

Same idea with Runes and other ability Markers. Their owner retains control of them even when you steal the object they're attached to. I'm 95% sure this is the correct answer now that I've thought about it some.

[silverclawgrizzly]

If I mind control a Pet I still get the Pets +1 Melee and it'll even still get the extra +1 if it's in the same zone as the original Beast Master.

I'd argue that yes you do get the rune if you steal the item.

[Enti]

Same idea with Runes and other ability Markers. Their owner retains control of them even when you steal the object they're attached to. I'm 95% sure this is the correct answer now that I've thought about it some.

Hmmm. I am still skeptical.

If I read the text in the rulebook: https://gyazo.com/711f05ecc2242aa6c8565c5797e1de18

It seems more like runes work like enchantments which modify the object.

So the runes add a trait/ability to the equipment and because you control the equipment you can use its abilities. For example if the Rune of Fortification is on a breastplate, if you steal the armor, you benefit from the rune and suddenly the armor has 3 armor.
Same with the rune of power, now your equipment has the ability that you can pay 1 less mana for certain actions.
Also true with piercing +1, I doubt that the weapon loses its piercing +1 trait if you steal it. I mean, the rune is forged into the equipment, you can't just decide that "it creases to work" once it is stolen - the equipment is already forged, too late for that :p

Though another interesting question.. do you have to pay 2 more mana if you, as the AT Warlord, want to destroy the equipment?

[drmambo23]

I remember aaron stating that the rune was assigned to the equipment and not the mage itself or something along those lines. So if someone steals the equipment they can use the rune. But if its cantrip the rune goes to the original owners book. Not the controllers.

Its on another thread somewhere but im positive you can use the runes of you steal the equipment

[Kharhaz]

Same idea with Runes and other ability Markers. Their owner retains control of them even when you steal the object they're attached to. I'm 95% sure this is the correct answer now that I've thought about it some.

Hmmm. I am still skeptical.

If I read the text in the rulebook: https://gyazo.com/711f05ecc2242aa6c8565c5797e1de18

It seems more like runes work like enchantments which modify the object.

So the runes add a trait/ability to the equipment and because you control the equipment you can use its abilities. For example if the Rune of Fortification is on a breastplate, if you steal the armor, you benefit from the rune and suddenly the armor has 3 armor.
Same with the rune of power, now your equipment has the ability that you can pay 1 less mana for certain actions.
Also true with piercing +1, I doubt that the weapon loses its piercing +1 trait if you steal it. I mean, the rune is forged into the equipment, you can't just decide that "it creases to work" once it is stolen - the equipment is already forged, too late for that :p

Though another interesting question.. do you have to pay 2 more mana if you, as the AT Warlord, want to destroy the equipment?

TL;DR Controlling an object does not mean you gain control of all attached effects

Depends on the rune, and they are:

Rune of Fortification: If this equipment gives an Armor +X bonus to the Mage, it gives an additional Armor +1.

Rune of Power: Once per round, you may pay 1 less mana when casting a spell bound to this equipment or using a spell action provided by this equipment.

Rune of Precision: This equipment’s non-spell attacks gain the Piercing +1 trait.

Rune of Reforging: This equipment gains the Cantrip trait.

Rune of Shielding: If this equipment gives your Mage a Defense, the first time each round that defense is used, add +2 to the Defense roll.

When the FM steals the equipment the rune is still on the item and the "rune" never passes to the FM control.

So the piercing rune for example still gives the pierce +1 because that is not an optional ability and it is always in effect.

The rune of power gives the controller of the rune, not the equipment, the ability to spend one less mana. you here means the AT warlord.

Its the exact same thing as mind controlling a BM pet, it still gets melee ++ for attacking in the same zone as the BM, not melee ++ for being in the FM zone, regardless of who controls the creature.

[Enti]

Its the exact same thing as mind controlling a BM pet, it still gets melee ++ for attacking in the same zone as the BM, not melee ++ for being in the FM zone, regardless of who controls the creature.

Perfect example! The creature keeps its "abilities". So it doesn't matter that the pet marker is from the BM, it still works the way it did before.

But with the equipment you want to change the common sense rule. Suddenly the equipment does not work like before, because the rune (comparable with the pet-token) apparently "does not switch over".

But why does the pet retain its abilities and the equipment does not?

[Kharhaz]

Its the exact same thing as mind controlling a BM pet, it still gets melee ++ for attacking in the same zone as the BM, not melee ++ for being in the FM zone, regardless of who controls the creature.

Perfect example! The creature keeps its "abilities". So it doesn't matter that the pet marker is from the BM, it still works the way it did before.

But with the equipment you want to change the common sense rule. Suddenly the equipment does not work like before, because the rune (comparable with the pet-token) apparently "does not switch over".

But why does the pet retain its abilities and the equipment does not?

Its not a common sense rule, just a normal "how the game works rule" and they both technically retain their abilities.

Rune of piercing is the exact same situation. The equipment retains the pierce +1 because the rune grants the ability that effect, regardless who controls the rune.

The rune of power ability says, "Once per round, you may pay 1 less mana when casting a spell bound to this equipment or using a spell action provided by this equipment."

In MW "you", is the mage in control of the rune. The control of the rune never changes. Just like if I mind control a creature with a deathlink attached, I would not gain the life from the link since I do not control that enchantment, just the creature it attaches to.  Another example is taking control of a creature with a standard bearer. The standard still gives the warlords creatures melee and armor ++ since the control of that spell never changes, it's still the warlord.

[Zuberi]

Exactly. The equipment still has the Rune of Power on it. The Rune of Power still works. But the Rune of Power only gives a discount to the Rune's controlling mage, the Anvil Throne Warlord, because of how it's written. And unfortunately the Anvil Throne Warlord can't make use of that discount because they don't control the equipment itself any more.

I noticed another good question regarding whether or not the Warlord would have to pay extra if they tried to destroy the stolen equipment. The answer is no, they would not. The increased cost required to destroy a runed equipment is not something imbued to the equipment NOR is it even a part of the Rune. That is something granted by the Runesmithing ability, so only ever affects the Dwarf's opponents. Also, by the way it's written, it works not only if the equipment isn't yours but also if the rune isn't even yours. Which is interesting.

For example, in a 3 person FFA match with two Anvil Throne Warlords and a Forcemaster, if the Forcemaster tried to dissolve a runed equipment she would have to pay 4 extra mana because both Warlord abilities would kick in. I suspect this is an oversight as Arcane Wonders doesn't pay too close of attention to multiplayer games, and I can't think of any time this would be relevant in a 1v1 match. I would personally houserule the ability to state "When an equipment with a rune you control would be destroyed..." but that would be a houserule. Without such a houserule, I could see a double Anvil Throne team being pretty annoying in team games.

[exid]

we allready had this discussion, the conclusion was: runes are on the object and the new object's controler take the effect for himself. I did'nt like this (to big danger for the Anvil Throne Warlord!) so I'm happy to read new arguments.

my problem is that the fortification is to "the mage" (the new controler of the object will get it) but the shielding is on "your mage" (will not go to the new controler of the object)... this is clearly not willingly different!
what was AW's idea for the runes?

[exid]

Am I wrong?
As it is written, doesn't the frotification rune give its bonus to the mage who has stolen the object, while the shielding doesn't?

[RomeoXero]

Fortification gives its bonus to the equipment itself, enhancing leather boots (or whatever) armor value. Therefore that armor itself is now worth more protection for whatever mage wears it.

[exid]

Fortification gives its bonus to the equipment itself, enhancing leather boots (or whatever) armor value. Therefore that armor itself is now worth more protection for whatever mage wears it.

I'm sure one can find a "roleplay" explanation for each mecanisme (Power is linked to the caster's magic ability, Precision is a modification of the object as well, Reforging is a magic deal with the smith, Shielding is a magic link with the caster's nerves, etc.), but as a rule in a game it's really unnecessarily complicate!