I actually had used energize on a minion after its attack. (Long time ago, don't know if current version changed it.) It will become ready from exhausted but you don't get to attack again because the attack phase is over.
So, the Last example you suggested about the doom cloud and aquamancer should work if I remember correctly what I saw.
You are correct. Actually I was wrong about energize on both counts -- I just used it to activate an aquamancer that had attacked. There have been times when energize did not work when I expected it to (no I wasn't overlooking magic immunity), but I have the circumstances wrong. I will post an update when I figure out what is going on there.
Two more: The first is obvious if one reads the cards carefully; the second is consistent with archmage behavior already noted.
1. Certain cards affect both factions, in particular, wolfpack strengthens enemy as well as friendly wolves; uncontinue destroys friendly forces as well as enemy forces.
2. If rebirth as cast on an archmage, and if that archmage resurrects in front of an enemy, that enemy takes damage from the archmage special. If tideshift is cast on an archmage, the enemy affected is the one in the column where the archmage is moved.
1. Creatures summoned by ominous eggs behave just like creatures played -- i.e. the effects of playing them are still invoked, they can trigger traps, etc.
Yes that is correct.
2. If ominous eggs are destroyed by any means, a creature is summoned; if ominous eggs are placed in the path of a tornado, they are returned to hand without summoning a creature (which makes sense -- the egg is not destroyed).
Yes, as you said, makes sense.
3. If an aetherfish power acts on a creature created by delusion, the timer resets to the original timer the creature would have had when played (often removing the timer entirely). This is consistent with how it acts on creatures granted a timer (say by overload or festerplague).
Yes. This leads to some cunning effects too.
4. Spells and effects that copy a creature (or a creature's stats) do not add the effects of auras (e.g. wildstrength). Sink does act on a creature whose strength is brought to 3 by an aura.
The effects of auras are not permanent, so won't get copied. They are only applied whilst a card is under its effect (on same path, etc)
5. Given several cards of equal strength to choose from, inferno appears to destroy one chosen at random.
Yes, all cards, if they should do something to a random target, when faced with a multiple choice, pick a random one.
6. Inferno can destroy itself.
Yes it can, or another Inferno.
7. Energize does not work on cards that have already attacked in a round.
Works fine as far as we can determine. There was an old bug along these lines but was fixed
With jungle (focusing on traps) the next faction expected, I thought it would be interesting to test trap interactions. While some of the has already been reported elsewhere, I thought it would be worthwhile to have comprehensive comments all in one place.
If a spell is played against multiple traps involving spells (mesmer, spell net), only the leftmost trap appears to trigger. Thus if I have played mesmer in the leftmost slot and spell net in the rightmost, an my opponent plays meteor, the mesmer trap is triggered, the meteor spell is destroyed, and spell net remains in play. On the other hand, if the positions of spell net and mesmer were reversed, the spell net would trigger, the meteor would come into my hand, and Mesmer would remain in play.
If a minion is played against multiple traps impacting minions, all applicable traps are triggered. Thus if I have 3 cinderbox traps in play, and my opponent plays a underdark worm, the worm will suffer 3 damage and enter play with 1 health. If I have 3 cinderbox traps in play, and my opponent plays a phantasma (health 1), the phantasma triggers all three cinderboxes (effectively destroyed by 3 damage), but all cinderboxes are used up. If two lost at sea traps are active, both are triggered by the play of any minion. If two waiting grave traps are active, both are triggered by the first minion played (actually, I have not been able to create a situation where both the AI and I have waiting grave traps active at the same time, but I would presume both are detonated by any single minion). The same is true of every combination of lost at sea, waiting grave, cinderbox, and unnatural gas that I've tried -- all are triggered even if some are effectively wasted.
I have also noticed that cinderbox is triggered by barriers (or at least by living maze and by spore farm.) Although it is triggered by these barriers, it does not harm them. Effectively, playing a barrier destroys cinderboxes.
For some time, i have noticed that the underworld card lost did not always return a minion to the player's hand. I think I now understand why. Since lost targets a random enemy minion in play, I believe it may randomly select a magic immune minion and have no effect -- even if there are nonimmune targets available. I can't prove this is what happens without looking at the code, but it is consistent and logical with what I have observed.
This certainly feels appropriate, although it could be seen as inconsistent. Magic immunity has been changed so immune cards are never affected by spells ( no more bodyswap opposite an immune card). However, magic immunity only applies while cards are in play. Thus rebirth, rise again, and ashes all can affect magic immune creatures in a discard pile. And mind tranfer and miasma affect cards immune cards in one's hand. I presume, but have not yet verified that pilfer will affect magic immune cards in a deck.
It's because cards like Rebirth and Pilfer are not actually directed at other cards. Pilfer targets the opponent's deck, Rebirth targets your discard pile.
And yes, immunities, and all other stats like health are not active unless they are on the game board. Otherwise you would have creatures powering up each turn and timers ticking whilst in the deck or in your hand – which might the fun, but would be chaos.
Hope this explains it better.
When we made the game we didn't expect people to analyse it in such depth. I am reminded of how Magic had a similar problems and eventually had to progress to a massive law book to explain it all.
I agree with Quint's point that cards that are immune to magic should still be unaffected when in hand or the discard pile.
You know i promote your game as much as i can as being innovative and the one card game that actually requires wits to win (unlike facebook "games" i've seen some friends waste their time on, but then I don't waste my time with facebook at all so I'm no reference although my opinion is clear...) and that your game, Spellcraft, is the ONE card game that is really using the power of computerization in its cards abilities (i.e. draw a spell from your deck) to be worth money in the appstore (or at least that's where I put my money). What Quint underlines (methinks) and what I support is just that.
It does not mean that in a gameplay decision as the Goblins, owners, BoD and EDs of this game I would not respect your decision. As a player (customer) though, you have had my opinion as of now. You have not created an innate game and you did create high expectations. Please don't lower yourself to Magic standards, I have had enough of Magic as a teen. I was on board for more than that.
What i am asking for is not a lawbook, but just a simple clarification whether you will apply Quint's suggestion or nor not. Remember, it's only about the logics of having a spell-immune card being affected when it's not in play. That's why you have a forum, if you don't like it, shut it down.
Actually, I like that magic immunity only applies to cards in play. Otherwise effects that remove immunity have to be tracked (and would be inconsisted with cards resetting when sent to discard pile). I think the present system works, and was merely noting behavior for the benfit of those who may not have noticed or had opportunity to observe.
One advantage of the Spellcraft system is that the computer moderates all disputes. Essentially, the rules are what the program does. That does not guarantee the program always works as intended, or that it always works as users anticipate; but at least a voluminous rule book is not necessary to play and enjoy the game.
I am probably guilty of over-analyzing. As I have commented to Confused (who is certainly a wonderful opponent and mentor), I am a better theoretician than player. I apologize if my presentation of details is becoming onerous.
cards in your hand are just a card type and nothing else. ie they cannot use any of their abilities. It is best to see them as scrolls, so you are not actually holding a monster ,but it is created and come out to fight, then it has its abilities including spell immune and any others. Also a dead minion would not have any abilities as he has just gone back to being a card type in the discard pile.
It makes sense to me that cards not in play would not have any abilities and instead merely have card "types". That is simply one of the basic (unstated) rules of the game. Mark provides a convenient manner of thinking about cards in hand/deck/discard pile versus cards in play that explains this rule, and Steve provides a very convincing reason why it ought to be this way (apart from the fundamental and sufficient reason that this is the way the Goblins have designed the game to work).
It is true that, as Quintavarium, says:
"One advantage of the Spellcraft system is that the computer moderates all disputes. Essentially, the rules are what the program does. That does not guarantee the program always works as intended, or that it always works as users anticipate; but at least a voluminous rule book is not necessary to play and enjoy the game."
An extensive rulebook does not currently exist (at least not publicly), and yet many of us still derive a great deal of enjoyment from playing.
Though I know nothing of programming, my assumption has always been that the Goblins first determine how they want the game to work, and then make it so. That is, the execution of the rules (what happens in the game) comes after the creation of the rules; the rules are not merely what is observed after some "random" programming is put into place. I suppose the latter could be used to explain certain apparent "inconsistencies" between certain cards that have (or at one time had) different responses to similar triggers/situations, such as one card's "enters play" effect occurring even when it is destroyed by Lost at Sea while another card's "enters play" effect does not, or the various ways different cards have affected or not affected spell immune cards (in play). But as far as I can tell, it seems that the game is moving more and more towards overall consistency with this regard.
And if that is the case, it seems the explanation would be, as stated above, that the execution of the rules comes after the creation of the rules. Any true aberration from these (often unstated) rules that is noticed in a particular card or circumstance is changed to adhere to the relevant unstated rule.
I agree that the rulebook for Magic:TG is overwhelmingly long. I would hate to see the same thing happen to Spellcraft. But frankly, I think it would be very hard to get to that point precisely because of how very different the natures of the two games are. Much of the difficulty in making Magic:TG run smoothly is based on the fact that a player can play cards and activate abilities on his opponent's turn. Also, each turn has more stages/actions than does a turn in Spellcraft. Spellcraft completely lacks the potential for direct, moment-to-moment player interaction, and, as such, there is no possibility for "layering" of spells and/or abilities with competing effects.
In Spellcraft, only one card can be played at a time. And it can only be played by the player whose turn it is. If I play two cards, the first fully "resolves," including anything it may trigger (traps, enters play effects--it's own or those of other cards in play, etc), before I can even start to play a second card, or activate an ability, or attack, or discard, etc. And so there is FAR less room for confusion and complexity than in MTG.
Which is great.
It's also why I think even a complete rulebook for Spellcraft wouldn't have to be that long.
Assuming all cards are meant to be consistent as stated above, there wouldn't need to be a "rule" for every possible interaction of two (or more) cards. Instead of having one rule explain how Waiting Grave affects Sea Dragon and one to explain how Lost at Sea affects Aeromancers, one rule would explain how, for example:
"A card is not affected by any "enters play" effects of other cards, including traps, until the card itself has entered play. Therefore, any effects of the card being played that trigger when that card enters play will occur, even if/as the card being played is destroyed or otherwise affected by a trap or other card in play."
This is not me asking for an extended rulebook. I may not know every little intricacy of the game, but I know it well enough to take great pleasure in playing it and to not feel confused by the "enforcement of the rules".
But I do think the community at large would benefit from the existence of a complete rulebook. If one is published, it ought not replace the existing tutorial, which is an excellent combination of simplicity and sufficient thoroughness for a beginner to learn the basics of how to play Spellcraft. Rather, if a complete rulebook were published, it ought to be available in addition to the tutorial. If I were writing it, I'd end the tutorial by saying something to the effect of: "That's all you need to know to get started; if you notice a card interaction or anything else that seems confusing, check out the extended rulebook or post your question on the forum. Have fun!"
Such a rulebook may even make things easier for the Goblins with regards to maintaining consistency (if that's a goal) in similar situations/card interactions. And it never has to limit creativity; if anything changes along the way with regards to how things happen in the game, the rules would merely be changed to reflect that (note that this is already the case now, except that the rules that change are not written for us to see, but are instead the hidden ones that dictate the operation of gameplay). Announcements of such changes would enable existing players to read up on the change and better understand it when they next play, rather than be caught off guard by it.
Frankly, Goblins, if you ultimately decide you want such a rulebook, I'd be happy to write up a draft of the rules, as I perceive them, for your review, stated in a way that makes sense to at least this one dedicated player of the game. And if you do not create or want such a rulebook, it will have absolutely no effect on my continuing to play and enjoy this game.
An advanced rulebook would be good, we can have it on the web and in the game somewhere.(not replacing the simple rules). If you are kind enough to write one , I can doing any illustrations and put it together much as our current one is done on an old scroll.
I'll be basing this "advanced rulebook" on the rules as stated in the existing basic rulebook, as observed by my playing of the game, and as understood by my reading of posts from other informed players, especially those contained in this thread, with regards to particular card interactions/patterns.
Mark, what is the best way to submit this to you when I am done? It will obviously need to be reviewed by the Goblins at some point. Would a player review here on the forum first be helpful in ironing out any things I've missed, or would you rather see it yourself first?