PDA

View Full Version : AotP Question Dump


Pages : 1 [2]

Tornado
May 14th, 2016, 04:13 PM
That is not how it is ruled in Heroscape though correct?

Deadly Strike does not apply to LEAs.

Unhinged Manchild
May 14th, 2016, 05:31 PM
I doubt AotP does it differently than scape. I'm sure it's just the standard "roll 1 die against a figure leaving engagement, if it is a hit, inflict an unblockable wound," and it is not considered a standard attack.

I'd be more than happy to read the AotP rules when I get home later tonight to see what it says about LEA.

TREX
May 14th, 2016, 11:18 PM
your right that deadly strike does not count on a LEA, but a LEA can activate a hidden enchantment on a figure that has a hidden enchantment on them. The unblockable wound is the same as heroscape. I don't know if I understood the previous question wrong, as I wasn't talking about deadly strike. The opponent can choose not to roll for a leaving engagement attack.

Confred
May 14th, 2016, 11:33 PM
I'm not confident LEA trigger Hidden Enchantments, but I'm on my phone right now and researching on the phone is more hassle than fun for me.

TREX
May 14th, 2016, 11:38 PM
Confred, I'm thinking that if an enchanted unit attacks another unit with a hidden enchantment you can play the enchantment. A lea is an attack.

Unhinged Manchild
May 15th, 2016, 12:06 AM
Confred, I'm thinking that if an enchanted unit attacks another unit with a hidden enchantment you can play the enchantment. A lea is an attack.

I just checked the AotP rulebook:

Leaving an engagement: ".......may take a 'leaving-engagement attack' at your figure. To do this......... rolls one combat die to attack."

That actually does lead me to believe that LEA is an attack that would trigger hidden enchants that have the "must be attacked" condition (I am relatively unfamiliar with the game, so no enchants come to my mind at the moment, lol.)

Confred
May 15th, 2016, 12:12 AM
a LEA is an attack.
This is the part that I'm unsure of. I know, if not, the naming is counter intuitive, but we've learned from Syvarris not all attacks are 'attacks'.

caps
May 15th, 2016, 12:30 AM
I'm pretty sure that a LEA is not an attack in Heroscape, ergo it is not one in AotP.

Tornado
May 15th, 2016, 11:04 AM
Did we ever get an official ruling on using multiples of the same spell?

Everything I have read states there is no rule against it but there is some mention that it was intended to be limited to one of each spell and is more balanced that way.

Anyone have an answer here?

It seems to be a big unknown that is really important.

I am not sure how fair it is to have 12 Bountiful Harvest spell cards.

caps
May 15th, 2016, 11:09 AM
Well I think the spells must be exactly 12 cards and exactly 200 points. I would personally expect only one copy of a given card to be allowed.

Tornado
May 15th, 2016, 11:16 AM
Exactly 12 cards yes, 200 or less points as per the rule book.

So you could have 12 Bountiful Harvest spells at 180 points.

That is unless we get an official ruling against it, which feels right.

Otherwise it is off to copy a dozen B H cards.

Confred
May 15th, 2016, 11:33 AM
Why have Shock when you can have Lightning Bolt? When you're allowed only one of each.

keglo
May 15th, 2016, 09:24 PM
Jace's Scatter Arc

"Hidden Enchant Planeswalker
Flip Scatter Arc over the next time an opponent plays an enchantment.
Counter that enchantment. Destroy Scatter Arc."

Does this permanently destroy opponents enchantment or only for this turn? It sounds to me like it destroys Scatter Arc and temporarily counters the opposing echantment.

Marro_Warlord
May 15th, 2016, 09:39 PM
Jace's Scatter Arc

"Hidden Enchant Planeswalker
Flip Scatter Arc over the next time an opponent plays
an enchantment. Counter that enchantment.
Destroy Scatter Arc."

Does this permanently destroy opponents enchantment or only for this turn? It sounds to me like it destroys Scatter Arc and temporarily counters the opposing echantment.

No. In Magic, when a spell is countered, it goes directly to the graveyard and has no effect. It does not return to the caster's hand. The sequence of events works as follows:

1. You play Scatter Arc.
2. Opponent plays an enchantment.
3. You flip over Scatter Arc, countering the enchantment.
4. The enchantment is countered. It goes to its owner's graveyard. It does not change zones.
5. Scatter Arc goes is destroyed, and is put into your graveyard.

When a spell is countered, it is essentially destroyed. It doesn't return. All "counterspells" in this game are permanent.

igelkott
May 15th, 2016, 09:43 PM
1) The rulebook contains a section on combining multiple sets.
2) In that section there is a paragraph concerning building your spell deck.
3) There is no mention of restricting multiple copies of the same card
4) I can't believe that the designers are so stupid that they didn't think that someone would want to have multiples of a spell card.

Therefore, I will go with the assumption that this possibility was discussed by the designers and it was decided not to include the restriction. Until I hear otherwise I must logically conclude that it is OK to include multiple copies of a particular spell.

chas
May 15th, 2016, 10:14 PM
;) The Heroscape rules section is fine. The AOTP rules are a mess. I agree with some others here that only 1 of each spell should be allowed for game balance, and that's my house rule. Since I don't play in tournaments its no problem. Everyone else is free to do as they like.

keglo
May 15th, 2016, 10:20 PM
Thank you! Marro_Warlord

The wording on some of these cards aren't specific enough for a simple-minded oaf like myself. :)

The B.I.V.
May 16th, 2016, 02:44 PM
Well, in Mtg you can "buy" yourself a super-powerful deck by paying for 4 copies of powerful spells, so why not in AotP? ;)

I mean, if someone wants to buy 12 master sets, he should be able to play 12 of the same spell card.It's the MtG way! :p

Unhinged Manchild
May 16th, 2016, 03:12 PM
Well, in Mtg you can "buy" yourself a super-powerful deck by paying for 4 copies of powerful spells, so why not in AotP? ;)

I mean, if someone wants to buy 12 master sets, he should be able to play 12 of the same spell card.It's the MtG way! :p

I agree with this, only I'd print copies of the spells instead. I kinda want to try using all bountiful harvests lol.

Tornado
May 16th, 2016, 03:19 PM
Yeah, that will be fun when every match, your opponent has all BH spells.
Reminds me of the 4th Mass. Now I hate this game. :)

Confred
May 16th, 2016, 03:20 PM
Well, in Mtg you can "buy" yourself a super-powerful deck by paying for 4 copies of powerful spells, so why not in AotP? ;)


4 cards
12/60 = 0.2
0.2 * 4 = 0.8 => 1; 1 card at the same ratio. The "why not" is in the ratio.

At one time, MtG had no limit and people made Lightning Bolt.dec

Having card limits allow for powerful, undercosted cards. The limitation creates space for more designs to flourish.

Tornado
May 16th, 2016, 03:22 PM
I totally agree Confred.

The B.I.V.
May 16th, 2016, 03:49 PM
I wasn't nessecerily advocating for no cap. Just playing Devil's Advocate. Yeah, all of one card would be pretty cheeseball. There's supposed to be SOME random factor in the game (hence the 4 card max in MtG) and 12 of the same card would defeat that. I'm pretty sure the developers never intended for you to be able to make it so that you knew exactly what you were gonna draw every time.

For now, I'd go with the one card limit, maybe in the future once more cards are released they'll make a 2-card limit or something but until then, one card has to be the assumption.

Marro_Warlord
May 16th, 2016, 04:00 PM
I think we should wait around to see if WotC resolves this issue. Otherwise I agree with Chas here; I'd house rule it for yourself. If you want to play singleton, then you can. If you want to play with multiple copies, you can.

Just my :2cents:.

Tornado
May 16th, 2016, 05:15 PM
True, it is only a big factor for tournaments, which is why I am trying to get an official answer for Gen Con.
I imagine they will rule 1 of each spell simply because of how limited the selection is right now and most people will most likely just bring a master set army.

quozl
May 16th, 2016, 05:29 PM
Did you ask Hasbro?

gamjuven
July 5th, 2016, 09:56 AM
I had a couple of questions regarding the new stuff:

1. For the Planeswalker Nahiri - Her last power, Lithomancy, which is the power that allows her to place a single-hex sand tile below her 2x per game, it says "After moving, Nahiri may place 1 of those tiles on a non-water space Nahiri occupies". My question is: Does this technically allow her to place it on a magical ruin cryptolith? It seems like it does, even though it doesn't really fit and would be kind of dumb.

2. White spell Angel's Mercy - It says "Play Angel's Mercy only at the start of the turn of a hero creature you control. Remove up to 3 damage markers from a friendly creature". Now the fluff and the picture seem to indicate that it is the hero creature that does the healing to someone else, but the technical wording makes me think you could use this on a hero creature to heal 3 wounds from itself, is this correct?

3. White spell Tenacity - It says "Enchant Hero or Planeswalker. Creatures you control get +1 power while attacking figures engaged with enchanted figure". Does this mean that if you place this on your hero, that the hero will get +1 power to any of its engaged attacks as well as any other creature that attacks a target adjacent to your hero?

Targanth
July 5th, 2016, 11:42 AM
For #2, the PW 'casts' the spells. I think any friendly figure on the board (but not the PW) can be healed by the spell. The catch is that it can only be cast on a Hero creature turn, and then at the beginning. It sounds like the timing of the healing is what is important; and that any friendly can be healed.

Tornado
July 5th, 2016, 12:35 PM
#3 I believe is yes. Not sure on #1 but I lean towards yes, remove the glyph, place the sand hex, replace the glyph on top.

You cannot place enchanchments on cards of creatures that have not been summoned yet, correct?

During a spell casting phase, can you cast any number of spells(up to 3)?
Can I wait until the end of my PW's turn and cast 3 spells?

HeroTempest
July 5th, 2016, 03:57 PM
#2 and #3 Yes.

About the spells, you can move and attack with the pw, and then cast all 3 of your spells, no problem with that.

Tornado
July 5th, 2016, 06:30 PM
Thanks.

How about placing enchanments on creatures not yet summoned?

Marro_Warlord
July 5th, 2016, 07:10 PM
Thanks.

How about placing enchanments on creatures not yet summoned?

Yes. I forgot where they put that, but I'm pretty sure it can be done.

quozl
July 5th, 2016, 07:45 PM
Thanks.

How about placing enchanments on creatures not yet summoned?

Yes. I forgot where they put that, but I'm pretty sure it can be done.

#2 in the FAQ says no.

Marro_Warlord
July 5th, 2016, 07:48 PM
Thanks.

How about placing enchanments on creatures not yet summoned?

Yes. I forgot where they put that, but I'm pretty sure it can be done.

#2 in the FAQ says no.

Guess I should definitely read that! I thought they kept it the way with the AE and viking spirits.

gamjuven
July 7th, 2016, 01:19 PM
1. The black spell Ever After - "Return target squad creature from an opponent's figure graveyard to the battlefield on an empty space adjacent to a black Planeswalker you control. You may move and attack with that creature. At end of turn, return it to its owner's figure graveyard. "

My question is how this works? Do I play it, grab a figure, put it on the battlefield, and then attack with it, and then kill it at the end of the turn (ie attacking immediately)? Or do I grab the figure and then have to use that figure as my move and attack for the turn? Either way is a little confusing. I wish it said immediately like other cards do. I am going to assume that you immediately move and attack with it and just kill it at the end of the turn, but I wanted to ask.

The other thing has to do with what happens when the figure enter's the battlefield. For example, say I grab a Kessig Ranger, who says at the start of their turn one of their guys gets to attack an additional time. Does that go into effect or not since it might not technically be a turn for them, but rather whatever figure I activated before playing this event. I am sure there are other more interesting interactions with this spell, this was just the one that came up.

2. My other question has to do with the Transform abilities. For example, when Arlinn transforms, it happens at the end of her turn. It is optional. However, she has abilities that trigger at the end of her turn. Are you only allowed to choose one of the end of turn abilities to use if you are transforming? Or for example may I use Alinn's Archmage Assault to deal 1 damage, transform into a wolf, and then Howl and add a +1 power icon to a squad? I am hoping you can only use one ability. There also isn't a limit clause to the transform ability. What's to stop someone from transforming to get both bonuses and then just finish transforming to the form they want? I doubt you can use transform twice but I thought I'd ask. I also don't think you can just keep transforming and using both abilities but there really isn't anything in the rulebook that says otherwise.

Tornado
July 7th, 2016, 01:42 PM
Great questions.

Another one.

Can you place icons on cards of creatures not yet summoned?
My guess is no since you cannot place spells on them but some clarity would be great.

Looking forward to trying Nissa with the Zombie Hero for a full Zombie army at 600.

Kajoq
July 7th, 2016, 02:31 PM
1. The black spell Ever After - "Return target squad creature from an opponent's figure graveyard to the battlefield on an empty space adjacent to a black Planeswalker you control. You may move and attack with that creature. At end of turn, return it to its owner's figure graveyard. "



My question is how this works? Do I play it, grab a figure, put it on the battlefield, and then attack with it, and then kill it at the end of the turn (ie attacking immediately)? Or do I grab the figure and then have to use that figure as my move and attack for the turn? Either way is a little confusing. I wish it said immediately like other cards do. I am going to assume that you immediately move and attack with it and just kill it at the end of the turn, but I wanted to ask.


The 'you may move and attack with that creature' is part of the resolution of the spell, you must do it then as the spell is resolving. Regardless of what phase in the turn you case the spell, the targeted creature comes out of the "Figure Graveyard" is placed onto the battle, MAY then move and attack, and then at the end of the turn a trigger is placed 'on the stack' to remove that figure.

The other thing has to do with what happens when the figure enter's the battlefield. For example, say I grab a Kessig Ranger, who says at the start of their turn one of their guys gets to attack an additional time. Does that go into effect or not since it might not technically be a turn for them, but rather whatever figure I activated before playing this event. I am sure there are other more interesting interactions with this spell, this was just the one that came up.


The ranger's ability triggers 'At the start of their turn' I would say that only the Army card you choose for that turn as the figure/squad 'taking a turn' Look at the wording for the spells that read along the lines of 'Play only on the turn of a blue planeswalker you control' and the like.
Basically, the figure is only 'Moving and attacking' as opposed to 'Taking a Turn'
IE: The Kessig Ranger's double attack would not trigger.



2. My other question has to do with the Transform abilities. For example, when Arlinn transforms, it happens at the end of her turn. It is optional. However, she has abilities that trigger at the end of her turn. Are you only allowed to choose one of the end of turn abilities to use if you are transforming? Or for example may I use Alinn's Archmage Assault to deal 1 damage, transform into a wolf, and then Howl and add a +1 power icon to a squad? I am hoping you can only use one ability. There also isn't a limit clause to the transform ability. What's to stop someone from transforming to get both bonuses and then just finish transforming to the form they want? I doubt you can use transform twice but I thought I'd ask. I also don't think you can just keep transforming and using both abilities but there really isn't anything in the rulebook that says otherwise.

Taking a page from M:TG I would say these abilities should read 'At the beginning of the end step' so that you could have multiple end step triggers which you can place on the stack in whatever order you choose, BUT it would clear up the confusion of this.

Basically what I'm getting at is:
Arlinn can only trigger the abilities on ONE side of her card per turn (whichever the face-up side was that turn)
If she's in Human mode and a figure was destroyed you could put both Transform and Archmage's assault on the stack. Resolve them in the order you want, and then even though she now has Howl, it is past the time for that to trigger (since the end step has already begun) and her turn ends.

gamjuven
July 7th, 2016, 04:06 PM
Thanks Kajoq. I hope you are correct. This game has shown NOT to follow the card game in regards to rulings before though (look at life drain in AotP and how you only gain life equal to the life lost, rather than wounds inflicted). I think what you said makes sense.

And in regards to Ever After they have put the word "immediately" on cards before, like the Blazing Firecats. So that made me think this was different.

igelkott
July 7th, 2016, 04:20 PM
1. The black spell Ever After - "Return target squad creature from an opponent's figure graveyard to the battlefield on an empty space adjacent to a black Planeswalker you control. You may move and attack with that creature. At end of turn, return it to its owner's figure graveyard. "



My question is how this works? Do I play it, grab a figure, put it on the battlefield, and then attack with it, and then kill it at the end of the turn (ie attacking immediately)? Or do I grab the figure and then have to use that figure as my move and attack for the turn? Either way is a little confusing. I wish it said immediately like other cards do. I am going to assume that you immediately move and attack with it and just kill it at the end of the turn, but I wanted to ask.


The 'you may move and attack with that creature' is part of the resolution of the spell, you must do it then as the spell is resolving. Regardless of what phase in the turn you case the spell, the targeted creature comes out of the "Figure Graveyard" is placed onto the battle, MAY then move and attack, and then at the end of the turn a trigger is placed 'on the stack' to remove that figure.



My thought when I read the text was that since it doesn't specify a timing, that the default should be to move and attack during the normal move and attack phases of the turn along with whatever unit you activate. If it said immediately then your interpretation would of course be correct. I can see both interpretations being correct so is going to need a faq.

Kajoq
July 7th, 2016, 05:01 PM
My thought when I read the text was that since it doesn't specify a timing, that the default should be to move and attack during the normal move and attack phases of the turn along with whatever unit you activate. If it said immediately then your interpretation would of course be correct. I can see both interpretations being correct so is going to need a faq.

Compare to 'Malevolent Whispers'

'You may move and attack with target squad creature an opponent controls that is within 2 clear sight spaces of a red Planeswalker you control. That creature gets +1(ATK) until end of Turn'

It does not have the immediately phrasing, but you would be given the opportunity (MAY!) to move and attack after the resolution of the spell, and that figure would get +1(ATK) until EOT regardless of if you choose to move and attack.

You do not do this during the normal 'chosen figure's turn Move->Attack' or else there would be no point to playing this post-combat. It does not say 'during the chosen army's card turn move and attack'

___

Another MTG example of the distinction here:
Bloodbraid Elf
3/2
Haste
Cascade (When you cast this spell, exile cards from the top of your library until you exile a nonland card that costs less. You may cast it without paying its mana cost. Put the exiled cards on the bottom in a random order.)

vs


Abbot of Keral Keep
2/1
Prowess (Whenever you cast a noncreature spell, this creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn.)
When Abbot of Keral Keep enters the battlefield, exile the top card of your library. Until end of turn, you may play that card.

___

The bloodbraid elf is more akin to the your question with 'Ever After'
The way the exiled card is worded you must cast it RIGHT THEN or you lose your opportunity.

The abbot is more Akin to the way you were thinking of. It basically queues it up and you can use that ability until the end of the turn. Ever After does not say 'until the end of the turn you may move and attack'

The 'move and attack' is part of the resolution of the spell itself.

igelkott
July 8th, 2016, 06:41 PM
I'm convinced. But I agree it would be better if it used the word immediately as in other cards.

vegietarian18
July 8th, 2016, 07:36 PM
I believe it's similar to Seize the Day which is immediate. But I don't have official backing for that

Tornado
July 17th, 2016, 12:57 PM
For Nahiri's Pass Through Stone, that is a Move and not a Teleport correct?
I assume it is since it says move instead of place.
Also you do take LEAs while using PTS correct?

For the Bloodline Nobles and their power that is based off of their Attack. That is total combined Attack from spells, high ground ect. correct?

TREX
July 17th, 2016, 02:11 PM
@Tornado (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/member.php?u=10479), I believe you are correct about the bloodline nobles. As it does not specify the value on their card making the assumption that it is their whole attack including height advantage.


The Nahiri thing says move, and if it does not specify, I do think it means that she will take a LEA.

chas
July 19th, 2016, 01:56 PM
I'm working on my own FAQ, which will include various questions of mine, those here, on the FAQ thread including some for which answers were received from Hasbro, and eventually from those on bgg. Whew! Answers on the "Book of threads" will still supplement my own list.

Tornado
July 24th, 2016, 10:26 AM
@Tornado (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/member.php?u=10479), I believe you are correct about the bloodline nobles. As it does not specify the value on their card making the assumption that it is their whole attack including height advantage.


The Nahiri thing says move, and if it does not specify, I do think it means that she will take a LEA.

So it has a 'movement of 4'?

The wording is different than most other powers. It says '...you may move her to a space of equal terrain elevation within 4 spaces of her.'

This reads more like a teleport power and it is called Pass Through Stone so it makes me think she can go through Ruins, figures ect.

This has been strongly debated. I just wish they would have said 'place' if it is a teleport or said 'move up to 4 spaces' is it is a move.

The current wording is wishy-washy and in between.

The B.I.V.
July 25th, 2016, 04:49 PM
Sounds similar to Granite Guardians' Gain High Ground:

"After taking a turn with Granite Guardians, you may move each Granite Guardian you control up to one space. This space may be up to 4 levels higher."

I agree that the wording is weird, but I'd hafta agree with Trex, that it's a move, and therefore, she takes the LEA.

obfuscatedhippo
July 25th, 2016, 05:17 PM
For Nahiri's Pass Through Stone, that is a Move and not a Teleport correct?
I assume it is since it says move instead of place.
Also you do take LEAs while using PTS correct?

For the Bloodline Nobles and their power that is based off of their Attack. That is total combined Attack from spells, high ground ect. correct?

I think of it more like an Earth Elemental's UNDERGROUND MOVEMENT. She phases underground and then when she pops up - if she rolls high enough - she erupts out of the ground injuring adjacent figures. I don't know her Bio/story to know if that's what happens.

http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=29625

But like most folks are saying here, if it was 'Scape they would clarify whether an engagement strike happens or not. Since it is AotP - if it does say she doesn't take them, then she is vulnerable to LEA.

Wondering though if she is already engaged and just Passes through Stone to an adjacent space - can she roll to damage her target and since she didn't leave engagement not have a LEA?

Probably should be considered like Flying where if she uses the power when she's engaged, she will take LEA.

Tornado
July 25th, 2016, 05:19 PM
There is no debate over LEA, the debate is if it is a 'move' based on the Move # of the figure or is it a 'place' with no distance restriction.

It is not like the GG because of the wording.

See the Book of for more. :)

EDIT: Now that last point is certainly still debate-able but I would have to say no LEAs if you end the 'move' adjacent to the same figures as it does not explicitly state you take an LEA as soon as you 'move'.
Do what the card says not what it does not.
That would be one that I could see going either way and being house ruled either way.

Confred
July 26th, 2016, 09:16 AM
Any movement/ space placement change of a figure is affected by LEAs, unless specifically mentioned otherwise.

igelkott
July 26th, 2016, 10:09 AM
I interpret PassThroughStone as being just like Flying except it's a bonus move at the end of a move and it's restricted by requiring ending up at the same level as she started. I see no reason she can't pop up behind an opponent she's engaged with (and roll damage) but since she never really left engagement she would not take a LEA in that case.

Just my opinion...

quozl
July 26th, 2016, 10:18 AM
Have you tried asking Hasbro customer service?

Tornado
July 26th, 2016, 01:36 PM
Any movement/ space placement change of a figure is affected by LEAs, unless specifically mentioned otherwise.
But what if you move 'through' figures, from one side to another but your final placement leaves you engaged with the same figures you were engaged with before moving?

Is it no LEAs(I lean this way) or is it like Flying in Heroscape where as soon as you start to 'move' you take LEAs?

Again I can easily see an argument either way. You are certainly subject to LEAs but does this situation trigger LEAs where you begin and end your 'move' adjacent to the same figures?


Here is another one.

All Sorcery cards are 'instant' effects correct?

Burn at the Stake does not apply for the whole game, only one turn correct?

TREX
July 26th, 2016, 02:08 PM
Any movement/ space placement change of a figure is affected by LEAs, unless specifically mentioned otherwise.
Here is another one.

All Sorcery cards are 'instant' effects correct?

Burn at the Stake does not apply for the whole game, only one turn correct?
All sorcery cards are instant effects and only get played once, unless they are re summoned out of the graveyard pile by another sorcery card.

Tornado
July 26th, 2016, 02:19 PM
Thanks. I knew it had to be that way but it is good for confirmation so the folks I play with do not think I am making the rulings. :)

Confred
July 27th, 2016, 03:43 PM
Any movement/ space placement change of a figure is affected by LEAs, unless specifically mentioned otherwise.
But what if you move 'through' figures, from one side to another but your final placement leaves you engaged with the same figures you were engaged with before moving?

I would need to see this "pass through" wording.
With Nahiri in particular, the move is like normal so LEAs are decided by the path you take.

Tornado
July 27th, 2016, 03:47 PM
Nahiri is whom I am referring to.

You can perform the exact 'move' I described but does she take LEAs?

Confred
July 27th, 2016, 04:38 PM
Nahiri is whom I am referring to.

You can perform the exact 'move' I described but does she take LEAs?


PASS THROUGH STONE
After moving Nahiri for the first time each turn, you may move her to a space of equal terrain elevation within 4 spaces of her.

you may move her to a space
Normal move rules apply unless stated otherwise. Here they aren't. The only modifier is that the ending space must be of equal terrain elevation and within 4 spaces of previous location.
You can't normally move through enemy figures or figures engaged with enemy figures. The same is true with this power.

Now let's check our work by playing around with the tech:
You may move her to a space within 4 spaces of her.
Awkward; makes me want to say, "her what?"

The gaping hole I see, and also the one that cares about LEAs is the travel path between Points A and B.
Can she only move 4 spaces?
Can she move unlimited spaces, as long as she ends within that 4 spaces?
Can she move unlimited spaces, as long as she ends on that elevation and remains within that 4 space radius?
What about Entering Engagement Strikes, or other powers that trigger when moved adjacent?

Is it indeed an awkwardly phrased teleport?
Certainly one for the email in to judge official.

I tell you what it doesn't say:

PASS THROUGH STONE
After moving Nahiri for the first time each turn, you may move her an additional 4 spaces. ...


The more I type, the more it looks like a teleport.

PASS THROUGH STONE
After moving Nahiri for the first time each turn, you may place her on a space of equal terrain elevation within 4 spaces of her.

What does Swamp Water Tunnel say?
"If a Marro Drudge ends its normal movement on a swamp water space, you may immediately place it on any empty same-level swamp water space within 5 spaces."

The power also doesn't say:
After Nahiri ends her normal movement, you may immediately place her on any empty same-level space within 4 spaces.

Phone this one in folks. Inconclusive.

Tornado
July 27th, 2016, 05:30 PM
Exactly.

No way to argue this either way and win.

Uggg.

Why must things be so difficult?

quozl
July 27th, 2016, 06:08 PM
Let me show you the easy way:

Step 1. Email Hasbro Customer Service

Step 2. Receive answer

Step 3. Share with Heroscapers and rejoice!

Confred
July 27th, 2016, 09:17 PM
Exactly.

No way to argue this either way and win.

Uggg.

Why must things be so difficult?

For now I would say yes to LEA.
My unofficial judgment is the opponent would be able to make an attack unless Nahiri chose one of the two adjacent spaces to pass through to

Tornado
July 28th, 2016, 08:33 AM
That is what I am proposing. She simply moves from one side to the other, starting and ending engaged to the same two figures.

If it was done by Flying in Heroscape it certainly would be two LEAs because Flying tells us such. Pass through Stone does not address this situation.

I will have to take a pic to show what I mean.

chas
July 28th, 2016, 09:15 AM
;) Sounds like a variant on teleportation to me, and that's how I'll play it for now. But Quozl has a point about asking Hasbro, if you're concerned about it!

Tornado
July 28th, 2016, 12:01 PM
As long as my gaming group agrees on the ruling I am good with that.

We now know it is a 'place' and not a 'move' and we know LEAs take place when engagement is broken. I am OK with allowing no LEAs if you end your 'move/place' engaged to same figures as when you started.
If it is officially ruled the other way, that is how we will play.

If someone wants to email Hasbro, that would be cool. :)

Tornado
July 31st, 2016, 09:27 AM
Are colorless figures considered to be every color?

If a spell refers to a 'red creature' does a colorless Scion count as Red?

chas
July 31st, 2016, 10:49 AM
;) I would say yes. I'd count a Colorless unit as the color/s of its PW, just offhand. But I'd be interested in what others think.

TREX
July 31st, 2016, 11:04 AM
Are colorless figures considered to be every color?

If a spell refers to a 'red creature' does a colorless Scion count as Red?
That's a great question. I know in the games that I have played with the colorless units, we have not let them be used with color specific spells/enchantments. We only allowed use of enchantments/spells that were not color specific referring to creatures in general.


I would be interested in hearing the final word on that from wizards.

caps
July 31st, 2016, 11:32 AM
They're literally colorless. They're not any color. So I don't see how you would use spells and abilities that affect a specific color on them.

Tornado
July 31st, 2016, 02:11 PM
Heh, I had a feeling it would be a split decision. :)

This is another one I could see going either way.

I lean ever so slightly towards colorless is no color but it makes sense the other way also.

keglo
July 31st, 2016, 02:40 PM
They're literally colorless. They're not any color. So I don't see how you would use spells and abilities that affect a specific color on them.

I'm with caps on this. To me, colorless is the absence of color. So it seems to me that any spell referring to a specific color, or any color, would exclude these guys. They are not all colors. They are no colors.

Tornado
July 31st, 2016, 02:44 PM
Is there a Magic precedent?

keglo
July 31st, 2016, 03:01 PM
Is there a Magic precedent?

I couldn't find anything official but I did find these two discussions.

this (http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-rulings/magic-rulings-archives/260394-colorless-a-color)

and

this (http://tappedout.net/mtg-questions/is-colorless-considered-a-color/)

Tornado
July 31st, 2016, 03:07 PM
That sounds like colorless is no color. Thank you. :)

caps
July 31st, 2016, 03:32 PM
I'm trying to wrap my brain around how something that applies to a specific color could apply to something that is colorless, and failing.

Tornado
July 31st, 2016, 03:54 PM
I look at it like this. A White PW can only pick White figures except it may also pick colorless figures so colorless must equal white.

Though I agree I think it is the other way but I can see the other side.

Hogg
July 31st, 2016, 05:15 PM
In MTG colorless creatures are exactly that, colorless. Spells and abilities that affect a specific color of card do not affect them.

That's why they have gold/multicolor as well. If colorless creatures were supposed to be affected by spells/abilities that affect any color then they would be gold cards with all five color symbols on them.

Colorcrayons
July 31st, 2016, 08:33 PM
They're literally colorless. They're not any color. So I don't see how you would use spells and abilities that affect a specific color on them.

This. Precisely this.

There is also precedent in MtG that supports this, officially.

Colorless cards are not all colors, they are exactly what it says on the tin; colorless.

So, for example, if you are trying to target a colorless creature with a spell that can only target a red creature, the spell goes *poof* and doesnt work since the target was not a legal target.

https://secure.static.tumblr.com/60d0cc7a10d3f5cbe10241ec3f517a01/gdleu8y/jbZo32e2d/tumblr_static_filename_640_v2.gif

chas
July 31st, 2016, 08:52 PM
So what you're saying is that Colorless cards are colorless?

What a concept!

Tornado
August 1st, 2016, 10:06 AM
One question answered. Yes!

Here is one that should already have a Heroscape answer.

A figure is always adjacent to the space next to it correct?

If you bring back a destroyed Phoenix and your PW is on level 0 and standing next to an empty Cryptolith, can you place it on top of the Cryptolith?

quozl
August 1st, 2016, 10:30 AM
No.

Tornado
August 1st, 2016, 11:52 AM
Then how do you determine if you are adjacent to a hex?

obfuscatedhippo
August 1st, 2016, 11:58 AM
One question answered. Yes!

Here is one that should already have a Heroscape answer.

A figure is always adjacent to the space next to it correct?

If you bring back a destroyed Phoenix and your PW is on level 0 and standing next to an empty Cryptolith, can you place it on top of the Cryptolith?

No, because the top of the Cryptolith is 9 levels high. A size 5 PW would not be adjacent to the 'top' of the Cryptolith.

quozl
August 1st, 2016, 12:09 PM
Then how do you determine if you are adjacent to a hex?

Just like Heroscape. If the height of the figure is higher than the sapce, you are adjacent to it.

Tornado
August 1st, 2016, 12:10 PM
So the only way a hex can be adjacent is if it is the exact same level as the base of your PW or higher than their base but no higher than their height?

Can you post an official Heroscape ruling that states this?

So you could never place a Phoenix on a hex 'next to' your PW if it is one level lower than your PW's base with Rebirth?

quozl
August 1st, 2016, 12:17 PM
It'd be easier if you just looked in the rulebook and looked at all the pictures showing what's adjacent and what's not.

Tornado
August 1st, 2016, 06:20 PM
That is figure adjacency though correct or do they specifically show a single figure and what hexes are adjacent to that figure?

quozl
August 1st, 2016, 06:24 PM
But the returned phoenix is a figure, right?

Tornado
August 1st, 2016, 06:40 PM
Is that how you interpret it?

I could see it that way and that certainly makes it easier.

I just wish it said something like 'place the figure on an empty space so it is adjacent to your PW'.

Hogg
August 2nd, 2016, 04:11 AM
Hexes can't be adjacent to a figure. Only other figures can be adjacent. When it says "..An empty space adjacent to a red planeswalker" It means the figure must be adjacent and the space must be empty.

Tornado
August 2nd, 2016, 06:07 PM
That makes sense. I just wish they worded it a bit clearer.

Thanks Hogg.

Hogg
August 3rd, 2016, 04:33 PM
That makes sense. I just wish they worded it a bit clearer.

Thanks Hogg.

I wish they worded a lot of things clearer. If they gave this board a few days to review what they put out I think we would have given them back a much more consistent product.

Tornado
August 3rd, 2016, 04:43 PM
:word:

TREX
August 4th, 2016, 07:38 AM
That makes sense. I just wish they worded it a bit clearer.

Thanks Hogg.

I wish they worded a lot of things clearer. If they gave this board a few days to review what they put out I think we would have given them back a much more consistent product.
That's right, it must pass the Heroscapers board of trustees.:)

The B.I.V.
August 4th, 2016, 03:30 PM
You would think that the company that gave us MtG would have wording down to a science by now...:?

quozl
August 4th, 2016, 03:31 PM
I wonder how much of this is done by WotC and how much is done by Hasbro.

The B.I.V.
August 5th, 2016, 03:30 PM
Well, whoever's doing it, Hasbro has experience with Heroscape and WotC has experience with MtG so you would think that they'd be able to get it right...

keglo
August 7th, 2016, 12:22 PM
I know that I am a bit behind everyone but I just played my first game using the Zendikar expansion and 600 point armies. I was confused on how to determine what cards, and how many to include. Is it always just any 12 cards? Or do we actually count the point cost up to 200? I couldnít find anything official in the rule books that would make this clear. We ended up just picking 12 random cards. What is the correct way to build you deck?

Kajoq
August 7th, 2016, 12:35 PM
I know that I am a bit behind everyone but I just played my first game using the Zendikar expansion and 600 point armies. I was confused on how to determine what cards, and how many to include. Is it always just any 12 cards? Or do we actually count the point cost up to 200? I couldnít find anything official in the rule books that would make this clear. We ended up just picking 12 random cards. What is the correct way to build you deck?

12 cards equaling at most 200 points.

It's a bit of a hassle for quick pick up games unless you use the pre-fab decks. There's an excel deckbuilder now that's very helpful for speeding it up though

keglo
August 7th, 2016, 02:32 PM
I know that I am a bit behind everyone but I just played my first game using the Zendikar expansion and 600 point armies. I was confused on how to determine what cards, and how many to include. Is it always just any 12 cards? Or do we actually count the point cost up to 200? I couldnít find anything official in the rule books that would make this clear. We ended up just picking 12 random cards. What is the correct way to build you deck?

12 cards equaling at most 200 points.

It's a bit of a hassle for quick pick up games unless you use the pre-fab decks. There's an excel deckbuilder now that's very helpful for speeding it up though

Yeah that 200 point thing is a pain. Well at least I know now. Thank you.

TREX
August 7th, 2016, 02:40 PM
keglo, Innistrad brings it back down to 500pt armies if I'm not mistaken. Still 200pt up to 12 card decks though.

keglo
August 7th, 2016, 02:52 PM
keglo, Innistrad brings it back down to 500pt armies if I'm not mistaken. Still 200pt up to 12 card decks though.

Really? Why would they keep changing it like that? Was the 600 points meant for the Zendikar scenario only? I only played the one 600 point game but I liked it.

Kajoq thank you for letting me know about the spreadsheet. It will indeed make it easier.

Kajoq
August 7th, 2016, 03:48 PM
Innistrad just lists 500 points because that's all the box includes.

Zendikar lists 600 because you really need that to fit the Zendikar squads in.

It's really up to the community to decide what 'standard' should be (imo, 600 army 200 deck is where I feel it should be right now)

I think an argument could be made for increasing deck size, while keeping the allocation per card about the same (200/12 ~ 16.66 a card) So maybe 18 cards 300 points? Especially once we get another 1-2 sets worth of cards to work with

Right now you can pretty much guarantee the same sequences of buffs/enchants/counters in every game. It'd be nice to have the deck be a little more decision based.

keglo
August 7th, 2016, 04:56 PM
Innistrad just lists 500 points because that's all the box includes.

Zendikar lists 600 because you really need that to fit the Zendikar squads in.

It's really up to the community to decide what 'standard' should be (imo, 600 army 200 deck is where I feel it should be right now)

I think an argument could be made for increasing deck size, while keeping the allocation per card about the same (200/12 ~ 16.66 a card) So maybe 18 cards 300 points? Especially once we get another 1-2 sets worth of cards to work with

Right now you can pretty much guarantee the same sequences of buffs/enchants/counters in every game. It'd be nice to have the deck be a little more decision based.

That makes sense. Now I can still play 600 point armies while feeling all warm and fuzzy because Iím not breaking any official rules. And yes it would be nice if decks where decision based.

TREX
August 7th, 2016, 06:12 PM
keglo, why not try them out using 300 point decks. As long as both parties have the same point value worth of cards and figures, who's to stop you from having as much fun as you possibly can. That might be pretty fun to have that much magic in the deck. I have been toying with the idea of using multiple planeswalkers for big games with a mixed double deck.

caps
August 7th, 2016, 08:50 PM
I'm hoping we see 600 points (or even 650) for armies in tournament formats. I think 12 cards at 20 points is interesting enough for now.

keglo
August 7th, 2016, 09:37 PM
keglo, why not try them out using 300 point decks. As long as both parties have the same point value worth of cards and figures, who's to stop you from having as much fun as you possibly can. That might be pretty fun to have that much magic in the deck. I have been toying with the idea of using multiple planeswalkers for big games with a mixed double deck.

And break the official rules?!? :shock:

I might just try that. :D

Colorcrayons
August 7th, 2016, 11:00 PM
We tried using 18 and 24 card decks in 100 point intervals. (400 and 500 points respectively)

It doesn't really change the dynamic, it just lengthens the game. 24 cards was just way too much (we did this with multiple copies if the base set last year). 18 was a lot better.

But then again, we didn't use the '1x of each named card rule', and did some intensive deck building using three sets. I'm glad that the deck building rules are 1x, since colors like Blue Red and Black dominated with Green and White being so far behind.

I haven't tried the build a deck beyond 12 cards since we got official word about 1x.

The B.I.V.
August 8th, 2016, 01:32 PM
keglo, why not try them out using 300 point decks. As long as both parties have the same point value worth of cards and figures, who's to stop you from having as much fun as you possibly can. That might be pretty fun to have that much magic in the deck. I have been toying with the idea of using multiple planeswalkers for big games with a mixed double deck.

And break the official rules?!? :shock:

I might just try that. :D

There are no "official rules" as far as point values go. So far AotP has been heavily scenario-based, so you just play with the scenario point values. I don't think there have been any major AotP tourneys so tournament values have yet to be decided...

caps
August 9th, 2016, 12:53 AM
There was a Planeswalker tournament at GenCon this year, hosted by the Heroscape organizers. It was 500 points to allow people with only the original base set to participate. Hopefully future events will be at least 600 points--I don't think 500 points leaves enough room for dynamic armies.

Rathburn
November 14th, 2016, 05:02 PM
This question came up in my game. Is there a range limit for spell cards. I am aware of the range that is specific to some spells. But what about the cards that don't have any specific range?

lefton4ya
November 14th, 2016, 05:09 PM
Rathburn no, you can use the spells anywhere on anyone, except where noted on the cards.

One thing, I am not 100% sure on is the Cryptolith scaling rules. They state:
If you are standing on a space that is adjacent to a cryptolith, you may choose to scale it to go to the top space. When you scale a cryptolith, you count four spaces to get to the top.
My question is, if the base of the cryptolith is on a hex higher than the hex you are on (whether one hex height, or up to one less than your figure's height), do you have to count extra movement to climb, or is it set at exactly 4 move points as long as you are considered engaged/adjacent to the cryptolith. I am leaning to going what the rules say and not what they don't, meaning it is always exactly 4 spaces, even if you are the Eldrazi Ruiner, and the cryptolith is on a hex nine hexes above you, since you are still adjacent to the cryptolith it is only 4 spaces. I just wanted to verify I had the same interpretation as everyone else.

obfuscatedhippo
November 15th, 2016, 12:15 AM
Rathburn no, you can use the spells anywhere on anyone, except where noted on the cards.

One thing, I am not 100% sure on is the Cryptolith scaling rules. They state:
If you are standing on a space that is adjacent to a cryptolith, you may choose to scale it to go to the top space. When you scale a cryptolith, you count four spaces to get to the top.
My question is, if the base of the cryptolith is on a hex higher than the hex you are on (whether one hex height, or up to one less than your figure's height), do you have to count extra movement to climb, or is it set at exactly 4 move points as long as you are considered engaged/adjacent to the cryptolith. I am leaning to going what the rules say and not what they don't, meaning it is always exactly 4 spaces, even if you are the Eldrazi Ruiner, and the cryptolith is on a hex nine hexes above you, since you are still adjacent to the cryptolith it is only 4 spaces. I just wanted to verify I had the same interpretation as everyone else.

My thought is that a "space" is zero level - so it is only adjacent if it is on the "same level" as the Cryptolith {where the base of the 'lith is attached}.

Smurf_Scape
November 15th, 2016, 09:32 AM
This question came up in my game. Is there a range limit for spell cards. I am aware of the range that is specific to some spells. But what about the cards that don't have any specific range?

The rule book mentions nothing about maximum range of spells (First rule book, I do not have SoI). Take that and the fact that some spell cards do specifically state ranges, I would say that unless specified, spell cards can target any creature/planeswalker regardless of range from one for your figures.

Hope this helps.

lefton4ya
November 15th, 2016, 03:50 PM
obfuscatedhippo You are right, I did not pay attention that it says , "If you are standing on a space that is adjacent to a cryptolith" which means it is not the figure but the space that must be adjacent. I guess that means if the hex you are on is lower than the base of the cryptolith, you must essentially climb up to the invisible space adjacent to the cryptolith first, which means you count movement up to the base of the cryptolith, then add 4. Of course, if the hex you are on is higher than the hex the cryptolith is standing on, it is adjacent which means you still only count 4 spaces. This is similar to the ladder rules in the Fortress set.

Sheep
December 23rd, 2016, 12:01 PM
Having no AotP, what should I get?

Thanks!
~HS2010, who can't believe he's even considering a HeroScape ripoff. :lol:

quozl
December 23rd, 2016, 12:21 PM
All 3 of them, especially now that they're so cheap at Amazon.

Sheep
December 23rd, 2016, 12:22 PM
All 3 of them, especially now that they're so cheap at Amazon.

Multiples of any?

quozl
December 23rd, 2016, 12:37 PM
I have 2 of each so that either player can choose any spell, any planeswalker, or any unit. It's not necessary but it's nice, especially for building a spell deck. You don't need more than 1 for each player since everything is Unique.

Sheep
December 23rd, 2016, 12:44 PM
I have 2 of each so that either player can choose any spell, any planeswalker, or any unit. It's not necessary but it's nice, especially for building a spell deck. You don't need more than 1 for each player since everything is Unique.

Alright! I'll think about it. Thanks for the help! :D

Confred
December 24th, 2016, 11:44 AM
I don't understand how these aren't instant buys for any MtG fan. Just dream of using figures as tokens..drool

caps
January 5th, 2017, 08:28 PM
+1. Thanks to Amazon and Target I now have 2x of everything except Zendikar (which I would have got from Amazon for $4 if I hadn't dallied).

Great game, and very very easily mixed with Heroscape if you don't mind the metagame changes.

The B.I.V.
January 16th, 2017, 10:20 AM
I was under the impression that all water in AotP is 1 level lower than the land. Though it's never explicitly stated in the rules, they mention when leaving water that you have to spend an extra point of movement to go up the bank. That's what leads me to believe so.

chas
January 16th, 2017, 10:24 AM
Correct; its Heroscape in 2D!

obfuscatedhippo
January 16th, 2017, 02:59 PM
I was under the impression that all water in AotP is 1 level lower than the land. Though it's never explicitly stated in the rules, they mention when leaving water that you have to spend an extra point of movement to go up the bank. That's what leads me to believe so.

In the base rules, there is an Example of moving into water that clarifies that water is one level lower.

Arena, page 8
Example 7 - Moving from Water to Land
When moving Chandra from the starting water space to a land space, you count two spaces because the water is considered a level lower than the land space.

The B.I.V.
January 16th, 2017, 10:42 PM
Thank you! That's what I thought. I was just too lazy to look it up...

Sir Yeshua
March 9th, 2017, 07:01 PM
Anyone know if there's a good place to buy the cardboard land tiles?

obfuscatedhippo
March 9th, 2017, 07:07 PM
Anyone know if there's a good place to buy the cardboard land tiles?

hoard_bits on eBay has a bunch of AotP pieces, including cardboard land.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/MTG-Arena-of-the-Planeswalkers-SOI-TERRAIN-BOARDS-/351935289661?hash=item51f0fa593d:g:RsUAAOSwOtdYVMt3

Sir Yeshua
March 9th, 2017, 08:22 PM
Yeah, I saw them, I was just kinda hoping there were more options lol

obfuscatedhippo
March 9th, 2017, 11:05 PM
Yeah, I saw them, I was just kinda hoping there were more options lol

I don't really use mine .. I think they are still in the shrinkwrap. I think I have 2 sets of each AotP and SOI.

PM me and let me know what you are looking for and we can work out something.

Airborne Elite 5
June 19th, 2017, 01:44 PM
Is there a limit on how many enchantments I can put on one squad? Because, last night my squad of Bloodline Nobles were stupid strong. I had three +1 attack counters on them from Arlinn, a plus 2 from an enchantment I played eairler (still memorizing spell card names), another plus 1 enchantment, the attack glyph, and the green spell which provides Trample. Basically, I was rolling 13 dice for each one. I thought it was way overpowering. Awsome, but a little OP. Not even Krug or Jotun could ever roll that much. While there were othe modifiers, having two enchantments that gave me 3 more dice made me wonder.

obfuscatedhippo
June 19th, 2017, 02:01 PM
Is there a limit on how many enchantments I can put on one squad? Because, last night my squad of Bloodline Nobles were stupid strong. I had three +1 attack counters on them from Arlinn, a plus 2 from an enchantment I played eairler (still memorizing spell card names), another plus 1 enchantment, the attack glyph, and the green spell which provides Trample. Basically, I was rolling 13 dice for each one. I thought it was way overpowering. Awsome, but a little OP. Not even Krug or Jotun could ever roll that much. While there were othe modifiers, having two enchantments that gave me 3 more dice made me wonder.

You can stack as many Enchantments as you want. There are a limited number of Spells in a game, and I think they are powerful to reflect the unique aspect of Planeswalkers vs traditional Heroscape.

The danger of stacking too many on one unit is that some spells like Unsummon will destroy the Enchantments easily. Plus squads can fall a little easier to some spells/effects.

Airborne Elite 5
June 19th, 2017, 02:05 PM
Thanks for responding. Now I need to convince my friends to do a Planeswalker vs Scape battle so I can do the same thing. Lol.

schnizol
July 10th, 2017, 07:46 PM
Can you move and attack with the same creature/unit in one turn? I mean, move and immediately attack?

obfuscatedhippo
July 10th, 2017, 08:40 PM
Can you move and attack with the same creature/unit in one turn? I mean, move and immediately attack?

This is from the Shadow of Innistrad rulebook. You first move and then attack with the Army Card that you chose in Action 2. If the Army Card is a squad - then you move all the figures in that squad and then attack with all the figures in that squad.


On Your Turn
On most turns, you'll perform five actions,
in this order:
Action 1. Draw a spell card
Action 2. Choose an army card to play as that turn
Action 3. Move any number of figures on your army
card
Action 4. Attack with one or more figures on your
army card (optional)
Action 5. Move the turn marker on the turn track
to the next number
Let's look more closely at the turn actions.

schnizol
July 10th, 2017, 08:46 PM
I'm looking through cards... There is card with such a wording "A creature you control gains lifelink (...)". Does the "creature" mean "army squads AND/OR planeswalker?" Or creature = anything but planeswalker?

obfuscatedhippo
July 10th, 2017, 09:07 PM
I'm looking through cards... There is card with such a wording "A creature you control gains lifelink (...)". Does the "creature" mean "army squads AND/OR planeswalker?" Or creature = anything but planeswalker?

Creature meaning non-planeswalker. Since it is singular ("A creature .. ") then it is just one figure. You can pick one figure in a squad to gain the lifelink bonus.

schnizol
July 10th, 2017, 09:15 PM
Thanks for answers... And questions about mind control...

1. If an opponent controls my unit, does the unit receive his or my buffs/debuffs? E.g. Gideon has AoE buff enchant. If an opponent controls a unit within the buff area... does it apply? Or maybe both players' buffs apply?

2. Cards refer to "figures an opponent controls" - does that count mind controlled figures? If so, some enchants would grant debuffs to its own squad?

Confred
July 11th, 2017, 11:15 AM
In the parent game, if an opponent's creature was enchanted with an "enchant opponent's creature" aura and was then controlled, even temporarily, in that moment it wouldn't be an opponent and the aura would fall off.

obfuscatedhippo
July 11th, 2017, 11:27 AM
Thanks for answers... And questions about mind control...

1. If an opponent controls my unit, does the unit receive his or my buffs/debuffs? E.g. Gideon has AoE buff enchant. If an opponent controls a unit within the buff area... does it apply? Or maybe both players' buffs apply?

2. Cards refer to "figures an opponent controls" - does that count mind controlled figures? If so, some enchants would grant debuffs to its own squad?

I'll start by saying the cards in AotP are not the best : )

"Mind Control" and effects that steal figures temporarily are not well described.

MIND CONTROL
Sorcery
You may move and attack with target squad creature an opponent controls that is within 4 clear sight spaces of a blue Planeswalker you control.


Jace's power is a good guideline.

MIND STEALER
At the end of Jace's turn, you may choose target Planeswalker within 4 clear sight spaces of Jace. Roll the 20-sided die. If you roll a 16 or higher, you control that Planeswalker and you may use abilities, move, and attack with the Planeswalker. Afterward, return control of the Planeswalker.


In Heroscape, when you temporarily take control or steal a figure - it becomes yours and therefore it follows the normal "figures you control" buffs (even if the control is temporary). This includes Leaving Engagement attacks. In AotP - if that figure has an Enchantment on its Army Card - that Enchantment continues.

schnizol
July 17th, 2017, 05:58 PM
I played AotP with friends and we weren't sure about one thing. If a player uses a spell card that says "deal 3 damage" or any amount of damage to a figure... does the opponent roll for defence? or the deal x damage sorcery cards are unblockable?

TREX
July 17th, 2017, 06:03 PM
Those damage are unblockable unless you can pull some card or ability that can block it.

raXas1516
July 20th, 2017, 01:06 AM
Sorry if this has been asked before, but can you enchant creatures that have not been summoned yet?

Airborne Elite 5
July 20th, 2017, 02:14 PM
Sorry if this has been asked before, but can you enchant creatures that have not been summoned yet?

Yes, you can.

Dr.Goomonkey
July 20th, 2017, 02:18 PM
Sorry if this has been asked before, but can you enchant creatures that have not been summoned yet?

Yes, you can.

But if a creature is returned to your reserve, the enchantments come off, incorrect?. correct.

Airborne Elite 5
July 20th, 2017, 02:31 PM
No, only if a squad is destroyed do the spells come off. Since a unit that returns to your reserve can be summoned again, the spells remain on it.

obfuscatedhippo
July 20th, 2017, 02:51 PM
Sorry if this has been asked before, but can you enchant creatures that have not been summoned yet?

Yes, you can.


Sorry - I disagree. I think the answer is "No" you cannot play spells on creatures that are not summoned yet.

Per the rule book, at the start of the game your Planeswalker is placed in front of you and the army card and figures for other units are placed to the side in your Reserve.

Army cards/figures are only moved into play when Summoned (from the Reserve). With this in mind, I think of the cards in Reserve as out of the game until summoned - and therefore cannot be affected until they enter the battlefield.

Airborne Elite 5
July 20th, 2017, 02:59 PM
Sorry if this has been asked before, but can you enchant creatures that have not been summoned yet?

Yes, you can.


Sorry - I disagree. I think the answer is "No" you cannot play spells on creatures that are not summoned yet.

Per the rule book, at the start of the game your Planeswalker is placed in front of you and the army card and figures for other units are placed to the side in your Reserve.

Army cards/figures are only moved into play when Summoned (from the Reserve). With this in mind, I think of the cards in Reserve as out of the game until summoned - and therefore cannot be affected until they enter the battlefield.
It appears you are correct.

chas
July 20th, 2017, 05:50 PM
:thumbsup: I say yes, the answer is no!

Kajoq
July 21st, 2017, 04:32 PM
Sorry if this has been asked before, but can you enchant creatures that have not been summoned yet?

Yes, you can.


Sorry - I disagree. I think the answer is "No" you cannot play spells on creatures that are not summoned yet.

Per the rule book, at the start of the game your Planeswalker is placed in front of you and the army card and figures for other units are placed to the side in your Reserve.

Army cards/figures are only moved into play when Summoned (from the Reserve). With this in mind, I think of the cards in Reserve as out of the game until summoned - and therefore cannot be affected until they enter the battlefield.

2nd this. Figures cannot be enchanted until they're on the battlefield.

M:TG analogy, You couldn't cast Unholy Strength to enchant a creature that's still in your hand.

raXas1516
July 22nd, 2017, 12:54 PM
Ok, so the consensus is no, you cannot enchant creatures in your reserve. Another sort of related question that popped up: if a squad is unsummoned, are face up and face down enchantments on that squad destroyed?

HeroTempest
July 25th, 2017, 06:51 PM
Ok, so the consensus is no, you cannot enchant creatures in your reserve. Another sort of related question that popped up: if a squad is unsummoned, are face up and face down enchantments on that squad destroyed?

Yes, If none figure of an army card is on play anymore, all enchantments go to graveyard. Doesnt matter If all the squad was destroyed or unsummoned.

Hawkfire
January 12th, 2018, 11:43 AM
1) Do you become engaged/disengaged when you just move through a space next to an opponent during your move and don't start or finish there (hoping no)?

2) Do squads keep enchantments if their Planeswalker dies?

3) The Eldrazi Ruiner has something like +3 defense in the in box scenario for Zendikar. Thats just an ability for that one scenerio to make him tougher, yes? Saving them putting it on the card as just a higher defense because it wouldn't apply outside that scenario?

Please and thank you

bradtato
January 12th, 2018, 01:41 PM
1) Do you become engaged/disengaged when you just move through a space next to an opponent during your move and don't start or finish there (hoping no)?

2) Do squads keep enchantments if their Planeswalker dies?

3) The Eldrazi Ruiner has something like +3 defense in the in box scenario for Zendikar. Thats just an ability for that one scenerio to make him tougher, yes? Saving them putting it on the card as just a higher defense because it wouldn't apply outside that scenario?

Please and thank you

1) Yes, occupying a space adjecent to an opponents figure causes the figures to become engaged. Moving from an engagement will result in a disengagement roll, even if it all happens through your normal move phase.

2) Without rereading the rules manual, I'm pretty sure yes, enchantments stay active event after a Planeswalker is destroyed. Wizards is usually pretty thorough with the wording on their cards, and if they didn't stay active, there would probably be text on the card dictating otherwise.

3) Correct, the Eldrazi Ruiner has it's card's abilities and only it's card's abilities outside the in-box scenario. Keep in mind, house rules, as long as all players agree to them, can make for a fun way to change things up :)

Dhaphaos
January 15th, 2018, 02:02 PM
I've read through the game manuals and through several pages here. I'm not finding an answer though. Is there a cap to how many squad auras can be active on a single squad at once? I had a game Saturday night where Nissa was one shotted from full health (amazing roll) by a Blazing Firecat due to +4 attack from 3 separate auras. Firebreathing +2, power of fire +1 and sure strike +1. She rolled full swords (7) attack which ended up being 8 due to the intense strike ability. I rolled one shield.... toasty.

HEROSCAPERMTL
January 15th, 2018, 05:36 PM
I've read through the game manuals and through several pages here. I'm not finding an answer though. Is there a cap to how many squad auras can be active on a single squad at once? I had a game Saturday night where Nissa was one shotted from full health (amazing roll) by a Blazing Firecat due to +4 attack from 3 separate auras. Firebreathing +2, power of fire +1 and sure strike +1. She rolled full swords (7) attack which ended up being 8 due to the intense strike ability. I rolled one shield.... toasty.
My memory is a bit hazy but I'm pretty sure there isn't a limit to the amount of enchantments one can place on an army card.

japes
January 15th, 2018, 05:42 PM
1) Do you become engaged/disengaged when you just move through a space next to an opponent during your move and don't start or finish there (hoping no)?

2) Do squads keep enchantments if their Planeswalker dies?

3) The Eldrazi Ruiner has something like +3 defense in the in box scenario for Zendikar. Thats just an ability for that one scenerio to make him tougher, yes? Saving them putting it on the card as just a higher defense because it wouldn't apply outside that scenario?

Please and thank you

I have only glanced at the rules for AotP but #1 is a most assuredly a YES. That is the same through out AotP and Heroscape.

2. I thought once your Planewalker was dead you lost, your game was over?

quozl
January 15th, 2018, 05:52 PM
I thought once your Planewalker was dead you lost, your game was over?

No, that's a common scenario rule but not a game rule.

japes
January 15th, 2018, 05:53 PM
I thought once your Planewalker was dead you lost, your game was over?

No, that's a common scenario rule but not a game rule.

Ahhh...gotcha.

Tornado
January 16th, 2018, 09:45 AM
I thought the same thing and unfortunately taught my nephew to play that way. :(

Really important with some of the new PWs who are better mixing it up then hanging back.

Confred
January 16th, 2018, 09:49 AM
I thought the same thing and unfortunately taught my nephew to play that way. :(

Really important with some of the new PWs who are better mixing it up then hanging back.

Yeah, I don't know why I made this assumption also.
I like it that way, because it has a more chess feel, but still I wonder why I thought it? Because in Magic when main caster, you, are defeated, you lose? That's a big assumption

PS: another mistake I would make at first was rolling for initiative every round

Unhinged Manchild
November 24th, 2018, 10:56 AM
AotP Scapers, I have a question: are the adjacent attack LoS rules the same in AotP as they are in Heroscape?

I know in hs that you do not need LoS in order to attack a figure that you are adjacent to (aka the Nilfheim will fire Ice Shards out of his rear-end at your adjacent knight rule.) Is that same rule in the AotP book?

Tornado
November 24th, 2018, 11:04 AM
Yes

Flash_19
July 24th, 2019, 02:48 AM
So, with Arlinn Moon-Blessed's Howl ability, can you keep stacking counter markers on the same squad?

quozl
July 24th, 2019, 11:36 AM
Yes, you can.

Flash_19
July 24th, 2019, 12:02 PM
Yes, you can.

Awesome. Thanks for that!

Confred
July 27th, 2019, 11:36 AM
So, with Arlinn Moon-Blessed's Howl ability, can you keep stacking counter markers on the same squad?

You get only one trigger, like if she was given Double Attack, but you may choose the same figure each time to "stack."

Flash_19
July 27th, 2019, 11:48 AM
So, with Arlinn Moon-Blessed's Howl ability, can you keep stacking counter markers on the same squad?

You get only one trigger, like if she was given Double Attack, but you may choose the same figure each time to "stack."

Cool. Thanks so much for your answer!

Heirloom
September 24th, 2019, 02:53 PM
Are PDFs of the AotP army cards available on this site? I finally opened my base game and it's missing Liliana Vess and Blighted Reavers :-( , would like to print them out. TIA!

chas
September 24th, 2019, 03:00 PM
There is a separate AOTP section on the Forums; you'll probably find them there.

quozl
September 24th, 2019, 03:15 PM
There is a separate AOTP section on the Forums; you'll probably find them there.

That's the section we're in right now. :)

quozl
September 24th, 2019, 03:16 PM
Are PDFs of the AotP army cards available on this site? I finally opened my base game and it's missing Liliana Vess and Blighted Reavers :-( , would like to print them out. TIA!

The 1st post of the Rulebooks and FAQ thread has links to PDFs.

lefton4ya
September 24th, 2019, 03:38 PM
Yes:
...
Hasbro has Printables (https://www.hasbro.com/en-us/brands/hasbrogames/printables) of the unit and spell cards from the first master set and Zendikar:
Magic: Arena of the Planeswalkers Squad Cards (http://www.hasbro.com/common/assets/Image/Printables/dad261421c4311ddbd0b0800200c9a66/C3337C0A50569047F5BB7A2E214958DF/C33637A250569047F58AF1BEA344BD6C.pdf)
Magic: Arena of the Planeswalkers Spell Cards (http://www.hasbro.com/common/assets/Image/Printables/dad261421c4311ddbd0b0800200c9a66/C32B1FFF50569047F598C9479C68608D/C331440A50569047F52777969A4530AD.pdf)
Battle For Zendikar Squad Cards (http://www.hasbro.com/common/assets/Image/Printables/dad261421c4311ddbd0b0800200c9a66/C33D240E50569047F587DA03210B45A0/C33E7F2B50569047F5A50DF21BC1A17D.pdf)
Battle For Zendikar Spell Cards (http://www.hasbro.com/common/assets/Image/Printables/dad261421c4311ddbd0b0800200c9a66/C33869C650569047F50DCCB9A45ED04C/C33A9FB350569047F5ABEF7452FA28EC.pdf)
...

TREX
October 6th, 2019, 01:00 AM
Are PDFs of the AotP army cards available on this site? I finally opened my base game and it's missing Liliana Vess and Blighted Reavers :-( , would like to print them out. TIA!

Also. Adding to what was already suggested. Not sure on the first box but the 2nd and 3rd set were all scanned by myself and should be able to be printed at 100% of their file size. I didnt do any modification to the sizes on the files after they were scanned. There were far too many of them.

TREX
October 6th, 2019, 01:07 PM
I just checked out the edits to my post Dysole, how did that other text get put on my post? I didnt have all that filth in my original post?

Dysole
October 6th, 2019, 02:16 PM
I just checked out the edits to my post Dysole, how did that other text get put on my post? I didnt have all that filth in my original post?

I deleted bot posts and then merged them away so there wasn't anything to see. Your post was the last one in the thread so I merged it all with yours, deleted the offensive content, and left it. Given that you personally can still see it and I wasn't aware you could, I might not continue this practice, but the intention was to clear away bots and make it look like they were never here.

~Dysole, informationally

HeroscapeMaster
April 14th, 2020, 02:45 PM
I have a question, and I'd like to get the opinion from fellow Heroscapers here. Why didn't the creators of AOTP not just adopt the rules from Heroscape for that game? They had rules with solid foundations, and I've found a great way to intergrate ATOP into a Heroscape setting (with 500 point armies of course), and other than Planeswalkers having the advantage of spells and summoning their armies it seems to work! I just can't understand why they had to reinvent the wheel by making new rules for the AOTP game.

lefton4ya
April 14th, 2020, 04:05 PM
They were trying to take elements from Magic the Gathering into a new game. If they wanted to they could have made the new set just Heroscape Master Set 4 and Wave M1+ (Wave 14+), Similar to how they made Marvel & D&D Master Set 3 and waves D1-D3 sets as a continuation of Herosape with a coupe new ideas (Dungeon scenarios, treasure glyphs) and just added a new type of unit Planeswalker (that can all summon) and Spell cards, and the 5 colors. However IMHO there are two reasons why they made AotP a separate game:

They wanted to get Magic Players as well as other non Heroscape players into the game and figured name it as a Magic game (and not just a "Magic Expansion" to an old game. Plus new games generally have more appeal than an expansion for an old game.
They were trying to integrate ideas from Magic such as Summoning and Spells in a larger way than just an "add-on" to Heroscape

IMHO those two reasons are not enough and would have better as a new wave for Heroscape. Magic players constantly jump in and don't have to buy old sets to get in. And all the additions could easily have been made on top of current sets, basically add back Order Markers and just make summoning a Scenario or power on Planeswakers. The hardest part would be Spell cards balancing with all previous Heroscape sets in addition to the new sets - as many are way too overpowered if you added in with Herocape armies.

Alternatively I wish the went MORE away form Heroscape and toward MtG with Manna to activate powers, and more combos. It was way to far away form Magic players to really attract them in a meaningful way except as a collector for the figures. Going 90% Heroscape alienated both Heroscape and Magic players, IMHO. They should have been 100% Heroscape + magic stuff, OR make the game at least 50% Magic. Oh well, se la vi - enjoy what we have.

Dragon4201976
June 3rd, 2020, 10:31 PM
Been a good while since I have been on the site. I saw this and was intrigued.

My 2 cents on the whole MTG and Heroscape.

I am one of the original Players of Heroscape. I love the game and was sad when Wizards was handed the game. I am one of those who was not happy with the mixing of DnD into the game.

That being said I do own everything the game had to offer. I really wished Wizards wasn't Wizards and if Something isn't MTG or Dnd They want nothing to do with it.

When AOTP hit the shelves I was Floored with Disappointment and discontent. They took Heroscape and tried to reskin it but not in a good way. I tried the game and expansions of the game hoping I would enjoy it but it was missing something and that was the heart of Heroscape!

All in all if the Cost to produce Heroscape in todays Gaming world wouldn't be so Expensive I would love to see the game have a rebirth. But the overall cost and and the Companies need to make money I think we all know Hasbro will never revive the game.

I am Happy with all we were given and Still to this day Have a big place in my heart for the game and do not think I will ever stop playing it and giving it the love it deserves on the Table!

Unhinged Manchild
May 29th, 2021, 09:25 PM
Hoping this is the appropriate spot for this question - I don't think there was ever "official" lava field rules for AotP: Does anyone have a good house rule for using the Heroscape lava field tiles with the full on AotP ruleset? I'm talking straight up Planeswalker v Planeswalker fights, alternating turns endlessly, not the Heroscape ruleset with OMs. I'd prefer it to be easy to track and apply - a light rule that doesn't require additional tracking pieces/brain cells to memorize (I don't want to remember to roll for lava field damage after every 3 turns... this seems ideal, but we aren't using the turn trackers, so we have no idea what turn it is.)

On the fly, I decided to use this rule: When a figure ends it's active turn on a lava field tile, roll two combat dice against it. If both dice show swords/skulls, the figure takes one wound - lava field damage. If either one of the dice showed a non-sword/non-skull, nothing happens (looking back, I could have made this a D20 roll of 1-5 to inflict damage...) However, one flaw with this system is that a "sleeping" figure can stay on a lava field almost indefinitely and never take damage, I guess could be fixed by having players roll the D20 check against all of their figures on lava field at the end of their turns, but this might slow game flow down quite a bit when hordes of figures are fighting each other on lava!

So perhaps I'm grasping at straws (I understand AotP is basically dead,) but does anyone have a good/balanced rule and/or suggestions?

quozl
May 29th, 2021, 10:15 PM
You could use markers if you want to replicate Heroscape lava fields. At the end of every turn you take, all figures you have on lava fields get a marker. When a figure would receive a third marker, instead roll for a wound and remove all markers.

Unhinged Manchild
March 10th, 2022, 10:18 AM
Interesting scenario from a recent game of AotP:

This was in a 1v1 game between Jace Beleren, Mindmage (the one with Mind Stealer, not the crappy newer Jace) and Nahiri, Fury in Stone. Nahiri summons Flamewing Phoenixes onto the field and then Nahiri is enchanted with white enchantment Not Forgotten (I am pasting enchantment text here because this is primarily where my question lies - Enchant Planeswalker - Whenever a spell or figure an opponent controls destroys a creature you control that's adjacent to enchanted Planeswalker, put a +1 power [attack] counter on enchanted Planeswalker.) In his following turn, Jace succeeds with the Mind Stealer D20 roll and the player moves Nahiri into adjacency/engagement with one of the flamewing phoenixes and destroys it in combat. Does Nahiri's Not Forgotten enchantment trigger here and give her a +1 attack token?

My interpretation: It does trigger, since Jace's mind stealer ability says "...16 or higher, you control that Planeswalker..." and Nahiri, now a "figure an opponent controls" which destroyed a creature (creature in control of the original white/red player) which is adjacent to the enchanted Planeswalker, meets the criteria to earn a +1 attack counter.

Thoughts on my interpretation, should this be ruled differently?

Side note: Eldrazi Ruiner + Swift Justice + Ghostly Possession is devastating against the high defense blue squads, and has a high chance to heal the Ruiner for a truckload of health given the target blue squaddie has no wounds before the Eldrazi attack.

quozl
March 10th, 2022, 10:20 AM
Your interpretation looks right to me.

Tornado
March 10th, 2022, 11:01 AM
Does the enchantment not go with Nahiri?

Unhinged Manchild
March 10th, 2022, 11:21 AM
Does the enchantment not go with Nahiri?

This is a good question, and was probably the only argument I could see against my initial interpretation. I think my argument against this is - the enchantment doesn't change control (it is still owned by the player that originally played it,) only Nahiri changed control.

So how about a similar question, one I've considered in the past:

-White enchantment Gideon's Phalanx reads "Enchant Planeswalker - All white creatures you control within 4 clear sight spaces of enchanted Planeswalker get +1 toughness." Do you agree that a white player is allowed to play this card on an enemy black Planeswalker so that the white player's white creatures will gain +1 toughness when near that black Planeswalker? This play sounds completely legal to me. So, even though the enchanted Planeswalker is not ALWAYS under the white player's control (they can enchant any Planeswalker with Gideon's Phalanx) the white player's white creatures will have this +1 toughness as long as those creatures are within 4 clear sight spaces of the enchanted PW.

This above example, IMO, seems parallel to my recent Nahiri mind stealer experience. In my Phalanx example above, the enchantment is still owned by the white player, even if they cast it on an enemy black Planeswalker that the white player does not have control of.

This also begs some potentially more complicated issues/questions that I bet would stem primarily from blue and red taking temporary control of a single enemy creature from a squad that has enchantments, but I think those can mostly be proven/disproven by whether or not those enchantments say something along the lines of "creatures you control", referring to creatures under control of the player that played the enchantment, therefore excluding creatures in the squad that are not under the enchanting player's control.

The crux of the argument regarding the Nahiri scenario probably is: When the more complex enchantments mention "you", what is the definition of you? Is it:

Definition 1: The "you" (player) who drew the card and played the enchantment, the owner of the enchantment?

OR

Definition 2: The "you" (player) who controls the figure in which the enchantment has enchanted?

-If it is the former definition, (and I argue that this is the correct definition,) a few enchantments can act in seemingly odd ways when you consider the legal possibilities; this includes the Nahiri/Not Forgotten scenario.

-If the correct definition of "you" is the latter, then my Nahiri/Not forgotten interpretation is incorrect, as is the freaky Gideon's Phalanx example. With my limited knowledge, I believe that this definition "breaks" more cards than definition 1. I won't be making much of a case here because I do not believe this is the correct interpretation.

Here is where I begin building an argument, bear with me as I go through my understanding of the game. Skimming through some enchantment descriptions, a reasonable portion of them can be generically summed up as "enchanted [figure] gets [static buff/debuff.]" Examples: Divine Favor (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=52000), Power of Fire (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=52061), Paths Revealed (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=52039), Crippling Blight (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=52010), Despise (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=52018), etc. These are very straightforward and easy for us to understand. For purposes of deciphering which figures are entitled to the effects of the cards, we need look no further than "Enchant [Planeswalker/squad]" and "Enchanted [Planeswalker/squad] gets..." When we enchant the proper kind of figure(s) with the above enchantments, they immediately meet the condition to benefit from the enchantment, no other strings attached. We can completely disregard the states and attributes of almost everything else in the game because there are no other checks (no mention of adjacency/engagement, figure color, comparing one creature's power to another, how much damage is on the figure, etc.) The enchanted figure(s) will always have these static modifications as long as the figures exist on the battlefield AND the enchantment is actively enchanting them.

Simple example to get the ball rolling: Black's enchantment Despise, reading "Enchant Planeswalker - Enchanted Planeswalker gets -1 power." I'd imagine that most readers would agree that this card was not intended to be played on one's own black Planeswalker (but please, don't let my insistent ravings stop you from enchanting your own PW with this in games against me!) The natural inclination is to play this on an enemy Planeswalker, but the black player is still "the owner" (for my lack of better word at the moment) of the enchantment. The conditions of the card state "enchanted Planeswalker gets," so it matters not who owns the enchantment or who controls the figure. The Planeswalker meets the conditions for -1 power if that Planeswalker exists AND they are enchanted by the card. (This simply demonstrates how loose the enchantment conditions can be for some cards. I will build on this further below.)

Here is another reason why I believe the former definition of "you" is correct, and I think this does it some justice: Let's review black enchantment Dark Harvest - Enchant Squad - 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 power. Funny enough, note how the very last line sounds just like our simpler enchantments above, "Enchanted [squad/hero/Planeswalker] gets [static buff/debuff.]" We will not be paying particular attention to that, but instead to the conditions on this card that precede it. IMO the way Dark Harvest references "you" can ONLY mean the owner of the enchantment, the black player who drew the card into their hand. "You" cannot mean a player controlling a figure enchanted by the enchantment because there is no enchanted figure while the card is still in your hand! Frankly, I think that using definition 2 of "you" would completely remove one's ability to play this card out of one's hand, but I'll turn a blind eye to that and continue with another train of thought. If we go with the interpretation that "you" means the person in control of the enchanted figure, then I argue that the black player can enchant ANY squad on the board with this card. Requiring a very liberal interpretation of "you" in conjunction with bending the strict translation of the text on this card to make it work for us under definition 2, "you" only becomes valid once the enchantment has enchanted a squad (and therefore, we define who the "you" is by tracing back to the player in control of that squad.) In effect, this strikes null the entire first sentence of Dark Harvest! Example - an AotP game of black player vs a blue player. I, the black player, designate my enemy (blue player) as the "you" on Dark Harvest by enchanting an enemy blue squad with it. However, we need to consider the second "you" in the piece of Dark Harvest where it says "When you enchant a squad....destroy a creature in that squad" and now we have this odd problem. "You" (blue player) didn't enchant the blue squad, it was me, the black player, who performed that action, so "you" have no obligation to destroy a creature; the criteria for that trigger is not met. Under this definition of "you" and our rather rough reading of this card, when we play AotP games with ally players, a black player can use Dark Harvest to gift +3 power (with no squaddies forcefully destroyed by this enchantment) to their comrades' squads by citing this logic! This enchantment simply becomes "enchanted squad gets +3 power" as long as at the time of the initial enchanting, that squad isn't one that the enchanting black player owns.

Let's eye up another black enchantment: Creeping Dread (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=53156) - Enchant Squad - At the start of enchanted squad's turn, its controller chooses to discard a card or deal 1 damage to a creature in enchanted squad. There is no mention of "you" on this card. In similar fashion to Despise, we would be inclined to play Creeping Dread on an enemy squad. If "you" is supposed to mean "the player in control of the enchanted figure," why are the words "...enchanted squad's turn, its controller chooses..." used instead of "...enchanted squad's turn, you choose...?" In my opinion, this implies that definition 2 of "you" is incorrect, and that definition 1 is, if nothing else, closer to the intended use of "you" when it comes to enchantments.

So, let's take a step back now. I think "you" means the player that drew the card from their library and later played that card, the controller of the enchantment itself. Not that this is much proof, but I have spoken to a guy about this situation, he is really into MTGTCG (spends $900+ for a deck of competitive MTG cards.) He said that my interpretation is in line with how a similar situation would be decided within the card game. In AotP, we see "Enchantment - Aura" on most (if not all) of our enchantments. Aura enchantments in MTGTCG are not required to be used on creatures under your control unless they specifically state to the contrary. Straight off MTG Wiki: "An Aura’s controller is separate from the enchanted object’s controller or the enchanted player; the two need not be the same. If an Aura enchants an object, changing control of the object doesn’t change control of the Aura, and vice versa." So, I argue that my original Nahiri/Not Forgotten/Mind Stealer interpretation is correct, since the figure changed ownership while the enchantment did not.

This isn't to say that the developers wrote the rules and cards perfectly and all is well if you use my definition 1 of "you." As you may have heard or seen elsewhere, some of the AotP cards/rules are poorly written (thus this whole explanation, I suppose!) My next example, using definition 1 of "you", is perhaps not the "intended" use of the card, but it is legal, and if I were a TD/moderator for AotP, I would allow it.

Check out Honor of the Pure (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=52030) (I refer to it as HotP going forward) - Enchant Squad - As long as you control only white creatures, all undamaged white creatures you control get +1 power and +1 toughness. There is no mention of "enchanted squad gets..." here, so creatures can be a beneficiary even if those creatures are completely alien to the squad directly enchanted by HotP, since being a member of the enchanted squad is NOT a condition to receive this particular enchantment's benefits. I believe this statement is, at a minimum, unconsciously assumed by most players to be the case. In typical gameplay situations most of us will think something like "let's attach HotP to my Rhox Veterans so that my Kor Hookmasters and Avacyn on Bloodied Wings can also get the buffs!" But, let's surgically shred apart the text on HotP:

#1. First condition - “As long as you control only white creatures,”

Explanation of first condition – First and foremost, “you control only white creatures” as an entire phrase needs to be tackled. I interpret this as “all creatures that you control can only be categorized as white creatures” instead of “you are only in control of figures that are strictly categorized as white creatures” - more on this near the bottom of this entire post. As long as all creatures that “you” (white player that drew and played the enchantment, the ongoing owner of the enchantment) control can only be categorized as white creatures.

If this first condition is not met, the rest of the text means nothing until the existing creatures we control are modified to meet this condition! In a case where a white player has played HotP but they do not meet this condition, I imagine it mostly amounts to "purposefully slay/sacrifice your currently existing/summoned non-white creatures." If this primary condition is met, then you are presented with secondary condition, next!

#2. Second condition - “all undamaged white creatures you control”

Explanation of secondary condition: A point to note - the word "white" in "undamaged white creatures" could have been scrubbed at this point in the card because we have already established under the first condition that all creatures under your control can only be categorized as white creatures. "White" is redundant, this phrase could be changed to "all undamaged creatures you control" and it would change nothing about the logical resolution of the text on this card. Anyway, the strict reading of this card now places a filter upon the white creatures under the control of “you.” A given white creature that “you” control must have no damage markers on it if that creature is to earn the payload/benefits of HotP.

#3. Payload: “get +1 power and +1 toughness.” The end of the card.

A white player may place HotP on an enemy's red squad. Yes, go read the card - Enchant Squad - that is the ONLY requirement for enchanting anything with this card; it must be a squad that exists. Just like our Despise example above where it can be enchanted unto ANY Planeswalker. Once that enemy red squad is enchanted, the white player's creatures shall reap the benefits of HotP as long as that enemy red squad exists, that red squad is enchanted by HotP, and conditions #1 and #2 from above are met. This might not be the optimal way to play, but this is only to say that it appears legal. Perhaps to make best use of this specific scenario, the white player slays all of the enchanted red squad except for one figure so that their turn efficiency and/or imposed threat (less figures activated per turn, akin to our order marker efficiency discussions) is diminished, motivating the red opponent to try and harass white with other figures and leave that red squaddie somewhere by his lonesome so that the white player can benefit from Honor of the Pure for the rest of the game! If you want to live on the edge, stroll on into an AotP game with a white Planeswalker + Kor Aeronaut Captain + Avacyn on Bloodied Wings and use HotP in your deck. Now you have no choice but to leverage your opponent's squad to get HotP buffs for your white heroes! Woe is you if your opponent brings no squads, though...

If you were to ask me how I would change the card to make it function more in alignment with how it seems to have been designed to work, I would make it have the same opening statement as Dark Harvest: "Honor of the Pure can enchant only a unique squad you control." Boom the previous paragraph's oddity is erased; the white player can only enchant a squad under their control. The buff conditions and potential beneficiaries of the enchantment are all left intact because we have not added any phrases like "enchanted squad gets..." that exist on many of the simpler enchantments we reviewed earlier.

(Bonus rules lawyer issue not pertinent to the immediate discussion - Honor of the Pure says "As long as you control only white creatures," well, the developers that wrote this card seem to have left a particular issue up to debate due to how the phrase is structured, and I'm not sure if I have the words to explain it perfectly: when we read the phrase "you control only white creatures," is "white" supposed to be used as the adjective to describe the requirement of the creatures under our control, as in "all creatures that you control can only be categorized as white?" Or, does "you control only white creatures" literally mean that "the entirety of figures under our control must consist solely of white creatures and nothing outside of that classification" in such a way that we would not meet the requirements for HotP if we still have a Planeswalker under our control? As we know, a Planeswalker is not a creature, and certainly it is not a white creature, so under this interpretation, Honor of the Pure is a mostly worthless card until your Planeswalker dies. I play (and I'm sure many readers play) with the interpretation that "all creatures you control must be white" rather than the interpretation that "if you control any figure not classified as a white creature, your entire army is excluded from HotP's benefits." It's not like HotP is skyrocketing to the high tiers of white cards anytime soon, even under my preferred interpretation of "only white creatures.")

Thoughts? As you can tell, I'm totally a guy with the honor of the pure.

Unhinged Manchild
March 27th, 2022, 12:48 PM
I'm back with a another fun AotP question. Also interested to hear any takes on my wall of text in my post before this one.

The short of my question is: May I enchant an enemy squad/hero with Senseless Rage (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=53143)? If so, then once per turn may I re-roll one of the creature's attacks against my figures, if I so choose?

I think/hope most of us are familiar with the whole "once per turn" army card abilities, which in the rulebook they appear to refer to these as "activated abilities." Hasbro support has said that activated abilities can only be used on a turn that the army card has been activated (I suppose that's a "duh!" moment for me) - IE Liliana's Snuff Out would probably be completely busted if the player were literally allowed to activate it every single turn (enemy/ally figure turns included in that.)

So, activated abilities (often accompanied by the text "once per turn" or mentioning "at X point [usually start or end] of figure's turn") make total sense to me when considered in the context of army cards, because army cards are literally chosen to be activated in action 2, and therefore they are taking a turn. But, what about enchantments with these kinds of words? Off the top of my head, red's Senseless Rage (SR) and green's Equestrian Skill (ES) (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=53138) effectively add up to be "activated abilities" that are spelled out on an enchantment instead of an army card.

ES appears to be less ambiguous about the legal one-time opportunity to activate it, saying "Each creature in enchanted squad...blah blah move 2 spaces... at end of enchanted squad's turn." So, for me to continue my line of thought, I think I'd need consensus on some things, which I currently believe are legal/allowed:

1. If I (as green) attempted to enchant an ally or enemy squad with ES, is that legal? The card only has enchantment condition "Enchant Squad," which means any squad that exists on battlefield.

2. Assuming #1 is true, then whenever that enchanted squad is activated on a player's action 2, at the end of that squad's turn the undamaged creatures in that enchanted squad may move 2 spaces legally due to ES, correct?

Now, assuming #2 is true, I have no further questions regarding ES. I want to move into discussion of my real question regarding Senseless Rage (SR) because unlike ES, SR has the dreaded "you" in it, as well as a more lenient "activated ability" classification of text which simply says "once per turn."

Full text of SR: "Enchant Hero or Squad - Once per turn, you may re-roll all attack dice for enchanted hero creature or a creature in enchanted squad after seeing the defending player's roll."

SR can actually be enchanted unto a wider variety of creatures - "Enchant Hero or Squad." So, empowered by precedent of #1 with ES, a red player may enchant (with SR) any squad or hero that exists on the battlefield.

Two primary things to unpack, in my opinion:

A. What does "Once per turn" mean in SR? We can't use the same exact definition as we can for basically any army card "once per turn" activated abilities, because that requires us to designate that army card in action 2. We don't/can't designate an enchantment in action 2. I can best imply, akin to the way the end of turn clause in ES is used, that "once per turn" on SR is in reference to a turn taken by the enchanted army card.

B. Is "you" a reference to the red player that played the enchantment? Again, based on precedent set by the whole Nahiri/Not Forgotten/Mind Stealer (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=2507096&postcount=431) deal, I do believe that "you" on any enchantment is truly referring to the player that put the card into play, as that person is still the "owner/controller" of the enchantment.

If A and B are both true, then we have a funky scenario to consider, which I think some of us may find controversial. To me, under a strict reading of this card and with our previously discussed points, you should now see that SR might be almost as useful for defensive purposes as it is for offensive. You can enchant any hero or squad with this. Is an enemy’s Eldrazi Ruiner (complete with +1 power token and high ground!) barreling toward your poor red Planeswalker? Gift Mr. Ruiner with "the power" of Senseless Rage. When your opponent inevitably moves the Eldrazi in for the attack and rolls 7 hits versus your 2 shields, announce that you (the red player, owner of SR,) after seeing the defending player’s roll, are re-rolling the attack dice for the enchanted Eldrazi, courtesy of SR. If the stars align maybe you’ll get 1 or 2 skulls on the re-roll, and it will make for a funny story when you turn the tables on your opponent and then your opponent literally flips the table. But, roll all skulls on the attack re-roll to slay your own Planeswalker and it may make for an even more memorable story.

This is an extremely odd scenario, but in some sense it is a flavorful representation of the card. This is what somebody with IRL senseless rage would act like - without concern or consideration of what damage they may or may not do while they are wildly and uncontrollably aggressive. For anyone familiar with D&D, this interpretation of SR is almost like having the choice of giving one of your creatures advantage, or giving an enemy creature disadvantage (of course not precisely in a D&D sense because you don't roll both AotP attacks at the same time and pick the higher/lower one. Your opponent may roll 5 hits on 6 dice and you choose to re-roll and there's always that chance that you will roll all skulls, but that's a calculated risk and unlikely to happen!)

What do you guys think of my points? Are there any other "once per turn" enchantments that might help clear this up?

Edit: Well, thanks for the +rep you kind strangers! Would you like to post public thoughts on if you believe this is correctly interpreted?

Unhinged Manchild
April 12th, 2022, 10:25 PM
Does anyone have the German release/version of AotP? Please contact me if you do, I have questions regarding how a few card abilities are written out in the German version.

Edit: Have received scans of the first AotP set and of the Shadows Over Innistrad set, so I no longer need help with those. I am interested in checking out some cards from the German version of Battle for Zendikar, so let me know if you have it!