Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
MagiNation
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Want your group to be featured on the Yahoo! Groups website? Add a group photo to Flickr.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
[RULES] Spell costs with multiple modifiers   Message List  
Reply | Forward Message #20180 of 21643 |
Re: [MagiNation] [RULES] Spell costs with multiple modifiers

Both possibilities are technically correct. Because all of the effects happen at
the same time, and the opponent can choose the order they all resolve, then he
may choose the most advantageous order of resolution, i.e:

-Resolve the Frozen addition first. (This is not an opposing effect, even if an
opposing card froze him, since it is generated by a condition, and therefore
must be resolved first.)
-Resolve Fury, reducing the cost to four.
-Resolve Maelstrom Flask, reducing the cost to 2e.

You scenario also works, however. If the opponent had applied Uncork before
Fury, Fury would have been inelligible to make the reduction, a final cost
result of 4e. Both possibilities have their strategic uses, your opponent just
chose the generally "better" option.


Zach <tdc_zaq@...> wrote:Alright, the situation was an Orothe player
against a Nar player. The
Orothe player had out Karse, and the Nar player had out an Essence of
Frost, freezing everything. The Orothe player used Maelstrom Flask's
Power Uncork to reveal a Tidal Wave. Between the Maelstrom Flask's
cost reduction, Karse's Effect Fury, and the extra cost incurred by
Frezing, how much should the Orothe player have paid for the spell?

The Orothe player claimed that he should have paid 2e, calculated
like so:

6e (base cost) + 1e (freeze penalty) = 7e
7e causes Fury to kick in
7e - 3e (Fury) = 4e
4e / 2 (Flask cost reduction) = 2e total

However, the Nar player argued that the Orothe player should have
paid 4e, calculated thus:

6e (base cost) / 2 (Flask reduction) = 3e
3e cost does not cause Fury to be activated
3e + 1e (freeze) = 4e
4e cost does not cause Fury to be activated
4e total

Who was right, and how should the damage have been calculated?



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MagiNation/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
MagiNation-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Mon Feb 9, 2004 3:52 pm

lawofsteel
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email

Forward
Message #20180 of 21643 |
Expand Messages Author Sort by Date

Alright, the situation was an Orothe player against a Nar player. The Orothe player had out Karse, and the Nar player had out an Essence of Frost, freezing...
Zach
zelr44
Offline Send Email
Feb 8, 2004
7:57 pm

Both possibilities are technically correct. Because all of the effects happen at the same time, and the opponent can choose the order they all resolve, then he...
L. Sterling
lawofsteel
Offline Send Email
Feb 9, 2004
3:54 pm

Really? So are Thunderquakes played by Karse also reduced by 3 (if he spends the 7 or more)? Dave In a message dated 2/9/2004 9:56:19 AM Central Standard Time,...
davester64@...
davester64
Offline Send Email
Feb 9, 2004
5:15 pm

... spends the 7 or ... Yes, absolutely. Karse's effect looks for cards that "cost seven or more energy" to play, and a 7+ cost Thunderquake meets that ...
ryuteki@...
hida_dragonbane
Offline Send Email
Feb 9, 2004
6:22 pm
Advanced

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help