Can you send in anything I can grab the text from.I have a PC , so anything like word or some other simular program. Let me know what you use.
You can put it up on the forum if you wish for others to see or we can look through it.
I believe they do. They counter the spells and in effect they are never played. However I am not 100% certain although I think i remember this happening in a game. I can always test anything if you want . Where as lost at sea/waiting grave let the victims come into play.
Right, I thought that's how Lost at Sea/W.G. work. Want to make sure I'm correct that traps that target spells work slightly differently--which makes sense, as spells never "reside" in play.
Actually, I don't know if it's right to even call that "working differently"...Spell Net/Mesmer counter a spell, negating everything about it. L.a.S/W.G./Cinderbox/etc. "allow" their targets to enter play, which, as we determined earlier, they must, since you can't damage a minion UNTIL it is in play.
That seems logical/consistent to me.
I expect one or more of the regulars knows the answer and can confirm for us shortly.
Is it true that a Stitched Golem played into two Cinderboxes will take 2 damage and die before it gains strength/health from removing two minions from the graveyard?
If so, this seems potentially inconsistent with how traps such as Lost at Sea affect other minions. We've determined that minions with "enters play" effects like Sea Dragon and Aeromancers will have their effect occur even if they are subsequently destroyed by Lost at Sea, and I believe the rationale is that the minions "completely" enter play before being destroyed.
If that manner of thinking about it: that minions "completely" enter play before a relevant trap's effect occurs, that would mean Stitched Golem would grow before being damaged by Cinderbox. Note that this would also mean that the Golem would remove two minions from your graveyard before being destroyed by Lost at Sea or Waiting Grave.
Am I going about this the wrong way, or is this just a peculiar situation which the Goblins would prefer to keep seemingly "inconsistent"? (Obviously, this alleged inconsistency is based on what may be a flawed manner of considering the various interactions)
I just tested this and the golem survives 2 cinderboxes . We reworked how traps work in the last update so they should now all behave correctly. I know before it would have taken the 2 damage ,regitered as dead and then applied the extra bonous.
It is possible to go to zero health without losing the game. If one is reduced to zero health during an attack sequence, but later in the same sequence brought above zero (by the death of a forest faction's fey spirit), the game is not immediately lost.
Here is another that I was unaware of until today. Psychic vortex's (underdark) power does not merely reduce one's starting power points, it lowers the cap on power points. Against a psychic vortex, pyromancer's power could not bring my power points up to five. I presume the same would apply to all other power enhancement cards.
Unless I am mistaken, this would imply that psychic vortex, if it can be kept on the board, completely prevents the playing of five cost cards.
In my experience, the vortex does exactly that and it is its most important attribute, to prevent the playing of high costs cards.
When planning a quick deck or a hand-tying deck, it is most useful. Moreso that many annoying spells (bodyswap, lich touch, taken under, crushing waves for examples) use 4 power points and are very useful against big minions.
There are now minions that have abilities affected by an "opposing minion that is not at full health", razorsaurs & piranhas, for example.
This may be a designer's choice, but I want to make sure: if that opposing minion has had its health augmented and you deal damage to it, the game does not trigger the above-mentioned abilities if the reduced health is still above the "normal" health of the creature.
This, to me, is counterintuitive. The smell of blood is the smell of blood, no matter how many cans of spinach you eat in the morning.
I will welcome the decision though, should it remain so.
but this would involve having an understanding if a card has healed the minion from his wounds or boosted their health total and they are still bleeding. Perhaps a bit complicated. for example is life essence healing them or making them tougher and they are still bleeding.
Has anyone else noticed that in spellcraft we really fight mirror battles? The left flank from my perspective is also the left flank from my opponent's. This has some minor impact in the order effects are resolved, but in no way detracts from the game. And it is the natural way to program it.
Yes, I noticed that. It took me a minute to figure out how it worked. First I was impressed with the ingenuity, then a little sad that it represents a significant roadblock to the game having a physical form someday.
I have now been able to test at least some of the trap interactions involving jungle faction, with a couple of interesting observations.
First, multiple copies of smash are all triggered by a single play of an item or barrier. Thus, not surprizingly, smash works like lost at sea and waiting grave. I could not get the AI to cooperate in testing how smash interracts with lost at sea when an object is played, but I would expect both to trigger.
Backfire, on the otherhand, appears to act in an entirely new way. If two backfires are in play, both fire with a single occurance of a trigger. If backfire and a spell cancelling effect (either spell net or mesmer) the spell cancelling effect is triggered and backfire is not. Backfire does remain in play for the next spell. This occurs regardless of the relative position of the two traps. Realistically this makes a lot of sense since a spell that is cancelled would not be cast to backfire.
Would it be a roadblock though?
The representation in physical form would still represent the same game if played on a physical board.
The fact that the digital version is "cheating" with reality slightly shouldn't prevent the game being played :)
Hmm I'm wondering whether to change it now :)
On 17 Dec 2013, at 17:57, --cwc88--
> Yes, I noticed that. It took me a minute to figure out how it worked. First I was impressed with the ingenuity, then a little sad that it represents a significant roadblock to the game having a physical form someday.