|
|
Post by Gamjuven on Jul 17, 2015 16:56:00 GMT -6
Misdirection is a  spell that reads "Move target face-up Enchant Squad or face-up Enchant Planeswalker to a new target". If you use this card to move the  spell Dark Harvest ("Dark harvest can enchant only a unique squad you control. When you enchant a squad with Dark Harvest, destroy a creature in that squad. Enchanted squad gets +3  ), do you have to destroy a creature in your own squad, or are you just moving the enchantment? Since it says "move" on hte spell I'm wondering if you just do that. |
|
|
|
Post by Yawgmoth on Jul 17, 2015 19:44:01 GMT -6
Misdirection is a spell that reads "Move target face-up Enchant Squad or face-up Enchant Planeswalker to a new target". If you use this card to move the spell Dark Harvest ("Dark harvest can enchant only a unique squad you control. When you enchant a squad with Dark Harvest, destroy a creature in that squad. Enchanted squad gets +3 ), do you have to destroy a creature in your own squad, or are you just moving the enchantment? Since it says "move" on hte spell I'm wondering if you just do that. An interesting situation. First; I'll start by displaying the relevant cards for the sake of precision:   My interpretation, is that once you transfer the enchantment to to a unique squad that you control, you are "enchanting it", and thus, must also destroy a creature in that squad to fulfill all requirements before the squad gets +3 . For comprehension, let's look at Dark Harvest more closely. In M:tG, you must fulfill each sentence ending in a period before going on to the next sentence, until the effect is reached. This logic should be transferred here as well. "Dark Harvest can only enchant a Unique squad you control." Easy to fulfill, since the game currently only has planeswalkers and Unique squads. "When you enchant a squad with Dark Harvest,"... The comma here is important, as this is a prerequisite before the next part of the sentence takes places. By transferring this enchantment to a new squad using Misdirection, you are, in effect, "enchanting" that squad. ... "destroy a creature in that squad."This effect must be fulfilled before we move on to the next sentence. Choose a model in that squad, and remove it from the game and place it in the model graveyard. "Enchanted squad gets +3 ."The remaining models in that targeted squad are now enchanted by this enchantment, and gets +3 . |
|
|
|
Post by Gamjuven on Jul 18, 2015 14:00:50 GMT -6
My only stipulation is that it says "move" and not "enchant". *sigh. I can't imagine we'll get an official answer ever, lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Yawgmoth on Jul 18, 2015 15:47:17 GMT -6
The trick is in the wording. The squad must be enchanted by the enchantment for the effect to take place. If its not enchanted then you don't get the effect. Each spell must fully resolve. Misdirection resolves by moving the enchantment. Dark Harvest resolves by enchanting the squad.. The last line is the dead give away. "Enchanted squad gets +3 ." Enchanted squad. Same logic as in magic. While this isn't precisely the same game, I can't imagine a game called "Magic the Gathering: arena of the planes walkers" not attempting to emulate the prior game when it comes to spell effects. If that's not sufficient, then look at it from a game balance perspective. is already incredibly powerful in their spell effects. You have to take the good with the bad, just like the player does. He/she already lost a model enchanting their squad. I see nothing about spell that bypasses Dark Harvest from fully resolving. |
|
Jsanner2
Apprentice
Currently waiting in the Reserve
Posts: 66 
|
Post by Jsanner2 on Jul 18, 2015 16:10:30 GMT -6
I'm actually not as sure, which is why I really wish they had been as conscious about the templating here as they are in MtG. Granted, this game is young, and early MtG sets had bizarre and inconsistent wording by modern standards. I would have liked to have seen something like: "When [card name] becomes attached to a squad, choose and destroy (perhaps sacrifice as a game term?) a creature in that squad." Which would work the way Yawg is describing. Pf course, if we're applying card game logic, I'm also concerned about Dark Harvest's condition, "Dark Harvest can enchant only a (unique) squad you control." In MtG rules, "you" refers to the controller of the card, which in this case would be the player using Liliana, not the player attempting to move the Aura with Misdirection. Thus, when you attempt to move Dark Harvest to a creature not controlled by Dark Harvest's controller, it would (under card game rules) be enchanting an illegal permanent, and would be put into its owner's graveyard as a state-based action. An example would be trying to move Dying Wish with Enchantment Alteration:   In this situation (pretend the reminder text is absent, because there isn't a card exactly like AoP Misdirection - probably to avoid this sort of problem), if Dying Wish were moved from a creature it legally enchanted onto a creature controlled by another player, it would be destroyed as a state-based action. However, this logic may be inapplicable because there are lot of cards with targeting/enchanting restrictions in AoP, which would make Misdirection(AoP) of very limited usefulness. To make Misdirection work in both rules frameworks, I would have worded it like Aura Graft:  Wording it like this would make it immediately obvious that you could now move Dark Harvest onto a creature you control, because "you" are now the controller of Dark Harvest. The word "you" in Dark Harvest's second sentence creates a similar confusing problem. Because "you," the controller of Dark Harvest, wouldn't be the one doing the enchanting when it is moved via Misdirection, it would be illogical for "you" to take the required action. In sum, to have this work in the intellectually-satisfying way described by Yawgmoth, Misdirection should read: "Gain control of target face-up Enchant Squad or Enchant Planeswalker. Attach it to another permanent it can enchant." Dark Harvest, for the sake of clarity, might be better revised as: "Enchant (unique) Squad You Control Whenever Dark Harvest becomes attached to a squad, destroy (sacrifice would be a better term, but I digress) a creature in that squad. Enchanted squad gets +3 ." |
|
Colorcrayons
Apprentice
On a bit of a hiatus, sorry. So busy
Posts: 110
Mana: Red
|
Post by Colorcrayons on Jul 18, 2015 20:42:50 GMT -6
I asked one of the codesigners of this game on twitter (Ethan Fliescher) for some clarification by directing him to this thread. This was his response:  |
|
Colorcrayons
Apprentice
On a bit of a hiatus, sorry. So busy
Posts: 110
Mana: Red
|
Post by Colorcrayons on Jul 18, 2015 21:34:05 GMT -6
By the way, the link Ethan left for official answers is: link
Maybe we can combine the answers we get to form a FAQ for this site. |
|
Jsanner2
Apprentice
Currently waiting in the Reserve
Posts: 66
|
Post by Jsanner2 on Jul 18, 2015 22:18:28 GMT -6
I'm not really sure using MtG rules as a guideline helps very much. MtG is one of the most thorough and exhaustive rulesets I'm aware of. It provides for nearly every interaction and cards are worded (99% of the time) in unambiguous ways. Either something fits this mold, or it doesn't.
My friends and I are all more MtG oriented, and we've been applying effectively MtG rules, which makes some cards worse, and others better. Misdirection has been extremely limited in this way, but Jace still has a nice bag of tricks.
|
|
Colorcrayons
Apprentice
On a bit of a hiatus, sorry. So busy
Posts: 110
Mana: Red
|
Post by Colorcrayons on Jul 19, 2015 6:16:34 GMT -6
All I know is that he is a designer for M:tG, and he probably did the lions share if card design on this game sincenthe Heroscape portion is largely unchanged.
He might know what he's talking about.
I'm not sure even an official ruling would be trusted at this point. It would be generated by Hasbro. This is an M:tG game. The auspice of WotC, who employs Ethan.
|
|
Colorcrayons
Apprentice
On a bit of a hiatus, sorry. So busy
Posts: 110
Mana: Red
|
Post by Colorcrayons on Jul 19, 2015 7:22:54 GMT -6
Regardless, I agree with Jsanner2 that some terminology could be better used. Especially the use of sacrifice instead of destroy.
|
|
Jsanner2
Apprentice
Currently waiting in the Reserve
Posts: 66
|
Post by Jsanner2 on Jul 19, 2015 12:37:10 GMT -6
All I know is that he is a designer for M:tG, and he probably did the lions share if card design on this game sincenthe Heroscape portion is largely unchanged. He might know what he's talking about. I'm not sure even an official ruling would be trusted at this point. It would be generated by Hasbro. This is an M:tG game. The auspice of WotC, who employs Ethan. Yeah, I understand. I just wish he had been a little more willing to address my concerns, because the way the cards are written, there are some seriously confusing interactions that can derail games. |
|
|
|
Post by Gamjuven on Jul 22, 2015 15:33:21 GMT -6
I got an official answer from hasbro. This was my initial question: "If you use this card [Misdirection] to move the spell Dark Harvest ("Dark harvest can enchant only a unique squad you control. When you enchant a squad with Dark Harvest, destroy a creature in that squad. Enchanted squad gets +3 ), do you have to destroy a creature in your own squad, or are you just moving the enchantment? Since it says "move" on the spell I'm wondering if you just do that." Response By Email (Mike) (07/22/2015 03:19 PM) Hi Brad, "Thank you for contacting Hasbro regarding Magic the Gathering: Arena of the Planeswalkers. I'm pleased to reply. In regards to playing your Misdirection spell against the Dark Harvest spell, you would just move the enchantment, as instructed in the spell. This is a very new game, so there are no current plans for official tournaments and no information regard rule changes for tournament play. Again, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to reach out to us. I hope you have a fun day! |
|
|
|
Post by Yawgmoth on Jul 22, 2015 16:19:56 GMT -6
Really?!?
Hahahahaha....
Oh boy. Hasbro really wants to make this a game for 4 year olds.
It's not the ruling I have a problem with. It's the explanation given by a poorly paid customer service phone/email operator. Cripes that's really dumb.
I mean, of course you move the enchantment. But he didn't answer if the squad has to destroy a creature or not.
The answer is more ambiguous than the actual problem with the interaction itself.
Regardless, I'll add this to the eventual site FAQ. That misdirection does indeed move the enchantment over... Thanks For clearing that up, Hasbro. XD
|
|
|
|
Post by Gamjuven on Jul 22, 2015 16:49:46 GMT -6
I took the response as they were agreeing with me. I ended my thing talking about just moving the enchantment.
Now what's more interesting is the clash from the "official" customer support (that the designer of the game pointed us to) compared with the designer's actual opinion.
As Han says: "I have a bad feeling about this"
|
|
Jsanner2
Apprentice
Currently waiting in the Reserve
Posts: 66
|
Post by Jsanner2 on Jul 22, 2015 16:53:24 GMT -6
Well, if that is the real sort of rulings we can expext going forward, this game will not do well. They are going to create frustrating gameplay experiences and annoy a good chunk of the playerbase.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gamjuven on Jul 22, 2015 17:06:02 GMT -6
Well, if that is the real sort of rulings we can expext going forward, this game will not do well. They are going to create frustrating gameplay experiences and annoy a good chunk of the playerbase. True. It's especially annoying since this has the Magic: The Gathering title in it. Magic players are known for rules lawyering. The game is so scrutinized. I'm not fully of confidence to see this game lacking in that regard so far. Hopefully when the street date officially arrives maybe we'll get the stuff figured out. |
|
|
|
Post by hendal on Aug 10, 2015 14:01:33 GMT -6
I just wish they had a rule book that explained the use of the cards better for 1, and have a example of play for a few things that are the most confusing, and finally would a list of how the spells work be that hard - at least have it online and put a link to it in the rules - Hasbro is big enough they could have done their homework and had this all figured out and spelled out right from the beginning ( unless they could give a crap and just needed to Keep Craig busy ).
|
|
|
|
Post by clownkingdon on Sept 7, 2015 0:39:16 GMT -6
This dose not seem very confusing to me. If it worked the way where a creature dies then you should  the first line as well when it says " Enchant only Unique squad you control" that means misdirection cant even be used on it. What I am saying here is, if you are enchanting your creature, as opposed to just moving an enchantment from one creature to another, then the first clause should prevent you from taking it. The opponent still controls this card even though it is on your creature. A good example of this in action is casting Gideon's Phalanx on an opponent. Even though it is on you, I still control it, and it still buffs my creatures. In this case the PW Still controls it, it has just moved and is now buffing someone else. |
|
|
|
Post by kawaiidespair on Sept 11, 2015 0:10:08 GMT -6
silly-ish thought. Wouldnt the "new target" have to be a *legal* target? Like you could swap it from the zombies to the reavers to kill one of them, or visa versa, cuz control of the enchant doesn't change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brett on Dec 14, 2016 16:54:37 GMT -6
My idea is this. When a card refers to "you" (as per the MTG card game rules) it refers to the controller of the card. Dark harvest says "when you enchant" so the destroy trigger only happens when it is enchanted by its controller. Misdirection does not change control of the card. Dark Harvest is still controlled by the player, and as such can only be moved to another squad of the same player. |
|
spell that reads "Move target face-up Enchant Squad or face-up Enchant Planeswalker to a new target".
spell Dark Harvest ("Dark harvest can enchant only a unique squad you control. When you enchant a squad with Dark Harvest, destroy a creature in that squad. Enchanted squad gets +3 
), do you have to destroy a creature in your own squad, or are you just moving the enchantment? Since it says "move" on hte 
the first line as well when it says " Enchant only Unique squad you control" that means misdirection cant even be used on it. What I am saying here is, if you are enchanting your creature, as opposed to just moving an enchantment from one creature to another, then the first clause should prevent you from taking it. 