The biggest problem MW has: rule-uncertainty

[Kharhaz]

Enchantments may not be revealed during upkeep. (EXCEPTION: if an attack occurs during the upkeep then only enchantments that affect that particular attack sequence may be revealed)

This causes fundamental issues in the way some cards are designed.

It is important to note that the Upkeep phase has no steps. It's a book keeping phase. There should be no discussion on what to do, you follow the cards and effects active; choosing the order of events effecting your things as needed. (Design Goal)

The arguement that "initative timing can be stupid" is valid sometimes, but you should not attempt a fix that prevents a multitude of interatctions from taking place that is rendering cards temporarily ineffective (enchantment transfusion or healing charm, etc.)

You really should note make Upkeep contain a separate set of rules. If Upkeep and dissipate are a problem then it's something that can be tweaked with dissipate.

@DevilsVendetta can you link the ruling on ghoul rot so I can read that again by chance?

To answer the topic at hand:  FAQ sup has 46 pages; There is a rule clarity issue.

[Kharhaz]

What if we came up with a system in which initiative didn't pass automatically?

That's an interesting idea, having events unfold based on spell level.


Spell level one effects happen first, then resolve 2nd level, etc....

[Brian VanAlstyne]

I don't know where the ruling was or if it was just told to me during a game, but I know you can reveal during upkeep and force the 2 damage during the same upkeep phase. It's never made any sense to me.

[Kharhaz]

I don't know where the ruling was or if it was just told to me during a game, but I know you can reveal during upkeep and force the 2 damage during the same upkeep phase. It's never made any sense to me.

Firing form the hip but revealing an enchantment can only be done after phases, not in them unless an event that has steps like an attack gives you that option.


I don't want to derail the this post, was just curious to reread some of the older posts

[RomeoXero]

Channel phase happens before upkeep. Therefore you actually HAVE mana to spend on upkeep costs and such. There is therefore a legal window to flip your ghoul rot after channel phase, before upkeep. Doesnt seem right on octgn where many of these actions are autoed or clunky in the interface. It only seems like the enchant is flipping in upkeep since that's the first time the automation lets you manipulate the board again.

[exid]

no revealing during upkeep, but just befor upkeep is possible.
during upkeep, the player A with initiative can make the player B take the last dissipate off one of his cards befor the card affects A.

I like these initiative questions. not the timinig part, but the fact that I have to think on what round I cast a spell to take the most advantage from it.

[Obsidian Soul]

I would prefer it if you could only reveal enchantments during the action phase.

[Drefan]

I think generally the rules are pretty straightforward, there are a few exceptions the most obvious one to me being enchantment transfusion and how tricky it can be to understand.
I do not know how the translated versions of MW are since I only played the English version, perhaps that plays a big part in rule-uncertainty?

If there's something tricky, generally there's already a thread about it. Perhaps adding more explanations to certain cards/traits could be needed and just added to a rule- & tricks book online? Would solve most of the confusion and also give new players an insight into "more advanced mechanics" of play.

[DaveW]

Isn’t this rules and tricks thing much like the existing supplement?

[exid]

I do not know how the translated versions of MW are since I only played the English version, perhaps that plays a big part in rule-uncertainty?

the translated versions of MW were very badly supported... that's another reason why MW didn't grew more: a lot of people don't read enough english to play in original version (for example kids, who don't have enough money to buy minis and would be happy to have a card version of a mini game!).

Isn’t this rules and tricks thing much like the existing supplement?

the supplement should be upgraded regularly...

[zot]

this rules item seems a bit much of a tempest in a teapot. there are very few places the rules could be an issue. and those are mostly rare circumstances generally. so this is overblown imo. the rules are overwhelmingly solid.

[exid]

this rules item seems a bit much of a tempest in a teapot. there are very few places the rules could be an issue. and those are mostly rare circumstances generally. so this is overblown imo. the rules are overwhelmingly solid.

that was the classic AW answer when I tried to make them fix effectively these rules problems a few years ago!

I really don't like to stop a game because we arrive on one of these few situations.

[Drefan]

Isn’t this rules and tricks thing much like the existing supplement?

Yeah, it already exists, but it would be nice to see if some few are chosen to be able to edit or add clarifications to it. Making the games more advanced and hard to get elements more transparent.

[Kharhaz]

this rules item seems a bit much of a tempest in a teapot. there are very few places the rules could be an issue. and those are mostly rare circumstances generally. so this is overblown imo. the rules are overwhelmingly solid.

The rules supplement is 46 pages and roughly 27,000 words when thrown into word by the way.

TL;DR If you need 8 examples and 700 words to describe something then the rules are not clear.

It's not about being "solid"; it's about density. The rules are to dense, there are literally thousands of unnecessary words to describe interactions in this game. That's not debatable by the way, it's one of the reason that the game is in the state it is in. Every expansion comes with ~60 cards and a few thousand new words to describe corner case interactions within it. The rules are drafted in such a way to make the game longer and less fun.

Some people don't mind all that and that's fine, but that is not a defense. Look at what I am talking about


"Mage Death
Once a Mage dies, he cannot perform any further actions, pay mana costs, cast spells, make a counterstrike, etc. Any enchantments and equipment attached to himself are immediately destroyed. Other objects he controls in the game remain in play.

If a Mage dies, continue play until the end of that Phase (e.g. the Upkeep Phase, or the current creature's Action Phase.) If all remaining Mages die before the end of that Phase, the game is a draw.

Example: In a two-player game, a Wizard with 1 remaining health and enchanted with Magebane casts an attack spell on the enemy Warlock to kill him. The Warlock is killed and the Wizard will die from the Magebane, and the game will be a draw."

1.) Overcomplicated rules for corner cases are not good and literally bogging down the game.

2.) That example allows for a complete attack sequence to continue when the mage is already "dead". This rule allows for the incredibly rare situation for a draw outcome when there does not need to be. I would argue that this situation is only a detriment to the game as the Warlock, if I were in that position, would be pissed his spell didn't actually kill you and you got to complete an entire attack sequence, even though you were dead and no other creature functions like that in the game, it's only mages for some allow the phase to continue instead of ending the game there.

[Brian VanAlstyne]

I mean, of all the rules that are convoluted and exist with too many exceptions, that is one I have the least issue with in any sense. Magebane doesn't hit until a spell is cast and/or resolved so the attack spell has to be cast in order to die from Magebane. If that so happens to kill the opponent, so be it.