Difference between revisions of "Current events"

Revision as of 13:12, 12 December 2008

This page is for discussion of stuff related to the game coming up this week, no matter when that actually is. For instance, we can all assume Nate isnt coming for some lame reason and that Ed is sick of pizza and is bringing teriyaki or some other crap. They can post something here if that happens to be untrue.

Schedule

Date...........game................Location..........(Advanced attendance)

11/28/08.....Likely CANCELLED (Thanksgiving):
12/05/08.....OAAAA...........Ben's Condo............Ed maybe gone, Matt gone
12/12/08.....OAAAA...........Ben's Condo............Ed maybe gone
12/19/08.....likely nada.......................Ed, Matt, Ben Gone
12/26/08.....likely nada.......................Ed, Ben Gone
1/2/09.....TBD...........Ben's Condo............
1/9/09.....TBD...........Ben's Condo............
1/16/09.....TBD...........Ben's Condo............Ed gone
1/23/09.....TBD...........Ben's Condo............
1/30/09.....TBD...........Ben's Condo............

BEN: do people want to play on the 2nd? I'm trying to decide when I want to come back from california. I will likely come back on the 4th, but the 2nd is also an option, particularly if we'd actually be having a session.

Edmiao is possible i will be down for the 2nd. but not sure.

Attendance and Food Preference

12/12/08

--Brandon 16:21, 8 December 2008 (MST) I might have to miss this Friday, or at least miss part of it. I am hosting guests this weekend, and I thought that they were coming in late Friday, but it turns out that they are coming in late Thursday. But, they may be going to see the Nutcracker on Friday, which would mean I would still be able to make it to most of gaming. I'll let you know as I know.

Gabe: Shit foo', they want to see some nuts being cracked? Just let them come watch me duel you in magic, its like back to back nut crack'in action boy.

--Brandon 15:42, 9 December 2008 (MST)It's hard to no how to respond to that, Gabe . . . . Anyways, they are going to the Nutcracker on Friday, so I'm almost positive I'll be there for at least 3 hours of gaming, likely from 7 o'clock on. I'll keep you posted if things change.

Gabe: Well, I may as well say "Yes I'm coming on Friday." Since nobody else has surely confirmed. That said I have to leave a little early, maybe around 11 or 12.

Edmiao I should be there. but that's what i thought last week too.

--Matts 16:31, 11 December 2008 (MST)I'm coming! Stop the presses, I know!

Gabe: And how about the whole pizza sitution? Anyone in for it? I'm in, I don't care where from cuz I don't have a pole up my ass. Well I do, but I still will eat just 'bouts any pizza.

--Dieter the Bold 19:54, 11 December 2008 (MST) Coming, down for Pudge Bros.

Gabe: Anyone willing to call in and pick up?

Edmiao wiki blocking bitch

--Brandon 11:13, 12 December 2008 (MST) I'm currently involved in (re)negotiations about tonight. I give it 50/50 at the moment of showing up at all, much to my dismay.

BEN: I will call in and pay, but I will not pick up. I'm happy to have someone make a pizza run with my car if necessary.

Ranting and raving or other random comments

Other RPG or Non-RPG or Monthly Board Gaming Day gaming Events

Weekly Magic Whining/Complaining/Smack Talking

Shards of Alara

Elder Dragon Highlander Rules

JASON: Magic rules question: Since I was big into magic back in the day the rules for trample and protection from colors have changed. This means damage is applied differently. So, what happens in the following case:

I attack with my Darksteel Colossus. You block with a pristine Phantom Nishoba. How much damage do you take? It is either 4 or 0. Also, if a Phantom Nishoba has 0 counters and an Armadillo Cloak, is it immune to all damage?

Edmiao my understanding: It's all about when damage is assigned and when it is prevented. Now there are two damage steps, first strike and regular strike. before it kind of worked as three damage steps, first strike, regular strike and then what's left over is assigned as trample damage. Now, trample damage is assigned during the first or regular strike steps assuming that the creature will take it's toughness in damage.

Darksteel assigns combat damage. Phantom is a 7/7 creature, so 7 damage is assigned towards Phantom and 4 damage is assigned to the player as trample damage. these go into the stack. Phantom removes a token after the damage is on it's way, takes no damage and you take 4.

The effect that prevents damage on phantom nishoba has two parts: prevent the damage, and remove a counter. if there are no counters, i think the effect fizzles.

--Brandon 17:42, 10 December 2008 (MST) Ed is a Wiki Blocker! We dealt with the first question recently, and as Ed says, in the first case (blocking with just the Nishoba), you take 4 damage. The trampler has to deal damage equal to the blocker's toughness, and then the rest goes through. But Ed is wrong in the second case. With the Armadillo Cloak, the Nishoba IS immune to all damage (you can find this information in the Oracle ruling for the Nishoba).

Edmiao I am confused. if an effect, spell or otherwise, has two parts and one part cannot resolve, does the other part fizzle? consider the card Seed Spark "Destroy target artifact or enchantment. If Green Mana was spent to play Seed Spark, put two 1/1 green Saproling creature tokens into play." First, I cannot cast this spell unless there is an enchantment to target. Second, if the targeted enchantment is sacrificed or otherwise leaves play before the Seed Spark resolves, I thought I did not get my two saprolings because one part fails, the whole shebang fizzles?

GABE: I'm pretty sure the spell fizzles, as it has no target. But isn't that kinda weird because if you do one damage to something using a Tim, even if you remove the Tim the damage is still there... crazy.

Edmiao that has to do with the source of the damage. once placed in the stack, the source has sent the damage on the way, kind of like killing an archer after the archer released his arrow. no effect on the arrow. But to the above, why would Seed Spark fizzle but the Nishoba effect not fizzle?

Edmiao look at the ruling on the spell Confound. Confound: counter target spell, draw a card. if the spell is countered before confound resolves, you get no card. Note, why i am so interested in this because of my love for Eye of the Storm: (remove a spell from the game, then copy all spells previously removed). Thus by the rule that legal targets must still exist, if the spell is countered before eye of the storm can remove it from the game, then the eye of the storm copy mechanic should fizzle.

Is the differnce that Phantom Nishoba says "remove a +1/+1 counter" but does not specify that there actually has to be a counter to remove? This would be similar to an effect that says "untap target land", which you can legally direct towards an untapped land, the effect just untaps it to no real effect, but the target was legal because it was just a land. whereas if the effect said "untap target tapped land" you would have to target a tapped land.

JASON: It is because the removal of the counter is not a cost. It is also notated in a separate sentence, so it isnt required for the effect to resolve. With the Seed Spark, you cant even cast the spell without a legal target. If the spell is countered, nothing could happen (the effect didnt occur in the first place). What would be more similar is if a separate effect removes the artifact. With Confound, if another effect counters the spell, Confound cannot resolve so none of its effects occur. With Phantom Nishoba, its not a spell with multiple effects, its a list of things that happen in a circumstance.

Also, with Eye of the Storm, nothing can counter the spell before it resolves. As soon as the costs are paid for the spell and it is placed on the stack it is removed, before anything else can occur.

Edmiao I don't understand the difference between "multiple effects" and "a list of things that happens". please esplain.

Confound also has its two effects in differenct sentences (counter spell. draw card.). Same with Seed Spark. The rules seem clear that if the enchantment that seed spark targets is no longer present when seed spark resolves, that the entire spell is "countered on resolution" so you get no saprolings. Apparently every spell when it resolves, rechecks for legal targets. If there any of its effects have no legal targets, then it is "countered on resolution", which counters the entire spell. Is the Nishoba exemption because removing a counter is not a "targeted effect"?

With reference to eye of the storm, the only things that happen out of the stack are paying costs. thus, eye of the storm places an effect in the stack that states: removes the spell from the game and blah blah.... Now if you come along and respond to the eye of the storm effect and counter the spell before it can get removed from the game..... then eye of the storm effect on resolution should check for its targets, find them lacking and be countered upon resolution. (I love eye of the storm, so fucking complicated.)

JASON: The Nishoba ability isnt a spell, its an effect. A spell cannot resolve without a legal target. The Nishoba ability says if x then y. Also z. This two effects are triggered by the same instance but resolve separately. One is not a cost of the other, nor does it rely on it. Confound cannot do anything if it isnt in play, and a spell never reaches play if its countered or if it fizzles. Eye of the Storm counters all appropriate spells before anyone can respond to it. As soon as it is on the stack it is countered and removed[1]. This is true because it says 'whenever a player plays', not 'whenever a player casts'. A spell need not be successfully cast to be played.

Edmiao the Nishoba ability should go on the stack. everything goes on the stack. Consider a creature that says: "W3: destroy target enchantment. Put two saprolings into play". This is seed spark as an ability. you play the ability. it goes into the stack. your opponent sacrifices his enchantment before the ability resolves. Just like the Seed Spark spell, the ability should fizzle.

You think that eye of the storm is a unique card that operates outside the stack? It is my understanding that the only things that operate outside the stack are paying costs to put something in the stack. It says "whenever a player plays..." which is the trigger for Eye to activate its effect, which would create an image that goes right into the stack. Phantom Nishoba's effect should also enter the stack; "whenever this takes damage...." is the trigger for the ability to go into the stack. That ability creates an image on the stack that says "prevent damage, remove counter". What I'm trying to say is that "triggered abilities" create "images" that go into the stack.

Read this rule and you will understand my confusion, with nishoba, i think (from Crystal Keep)

404. Triggered Abilities

404.1. A triggered ability begins with the word "when," "whenever," or "at." The phrase containing one of these words is the trigger condition, which defines the trigger event.

404.2. Triggered abilities aren't played. Instead, a triggered ability automatically "triggers" each time its trigger event occurs. Once an ability has triggered, it goes on the stack the next time a player would receive priority. See rule 408.1, "Timing, Priority, and the Stack," and rule 410, "Handling Triggered Abilities."

404.3. A triggered ability may read "When/Whenever/At . . . , if [condition], [effect]." The ability checks for the stated condition to be true when the trigger event occurs. If it is, the ability triggers. On resolution, the ability rechecks the condition. If the condition isn't true at either of those times, the ability does nothing. This rule is referred to as the "intervening 'if' clause" rule. Note that the word "if" has only its normal English meaning anywhere else in the text of a card; this rule only applies to an "if" that immediately follows a trigger condition.

Edmiao not sure i understand this second example:

413.2a If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. A target that's moved out of the zone it was in when it was targeted is illegal. Other changes to the game state may cause a target to no longer be legal; for example, its characteristics may have changed or an effect may have changed the text of the spell. If the source of an ability has left the zone it was in, its last known information is used during this process. The spell or ability is countered if all its targets, for every instance of the word "target," are now illegal. If the spell or ability is not countered, it will resolve normally, affecting only the targets that are still legal. If a target is illegal, the spell or ability can't perform any actions on it or make the target perform any actions.

Example: Aura Blast is a white instant that reads, "Destroy target enchantment. Draw a card." If the enchantment isn't a legal target during Aura Blast's resolution (say, if it has gained protection from white or left play), then Aura Blast is countered. Its controller doesn't draw a card.

Example: Plague Spores reads, "Destroy target nonblack creature and target land. They can't be regenerated." Suppose the same animated land is chosen both as the nonblack creature and as the land, and the color of the creature land is changed to black before Plague Spores resolves. Plagues Spores isn't countered because the black creature land is still a legal target for the "target land" part of the spell.

JASON: Preventing the damage and removing a counter are two separate triggered abilities. Neither has a consequence if they do not resolve, so if either fizzles, no big deal. For instance, there is a creature that can counter any triggered ability. You could use it to counter the prevention of damage, the counter would still be removed and the Nishoba might die.

Sacrifice also operates outside the stack, as does playing a spell. Once you have paid the costs the spell is played, and nothing can prevent that. With Eye of the Storm it doesnt matter whether that effect goes on the stack because you cant respond to it in any effective way. Since its ability works on play and not on cast, it resolves before the opponent can respond. Countering a spell stops it from being cast, but since it was countered before it even attempted to cast, the opponent cannot respond with a counterspell of any kind.

1. Pay costs.
2. Play spell.
3. Spell attempts to resolve. Fast effects can occur.

Edmiao countering a spell does not stop it from being cast, it stops it removes it from the stack before it can resolve. casting a spell is playing the costs and putting it into the stack.

Eye of the storm is essentially a counterspell that remove the "card" from the game. consider: I cast giant growth. You cast rewind. I don't want you to untap those four lands you just tapped, so i cast counterspell on my own giant growth (because i'm nuts). resolution: 1) counterspell removes giant growth from the stack. 2) rewind lacks a legal target, fizzles and your lands are still tapped.

Phantom Nishoba has only one trigger "if damage would be dealth to phantom nishoba, prevent that damage. remove a counter." one trigger, one image (with multiple effects) goes into the stack, i think.

GABE:I hate Eye of the Storm. Give me a counter.

JASON: Since you wikiblocked me (AND SO DID GABE), I didnt read your example stuff until just now. Here is my understanding of that second example. The effect is not countered because there is only one target and it is both legal and illegal, which means it is a legal target. Had there been two targets, and one of them rendered illegal, the effect would have fizzled. But since the sole target remains legal (because its still a land), the spell resolves.

Countering a spell does stop a spell from being cast, it does not stop it from being played. Casting a spell is successfully resolving; playing a spell is paying its costs and placing it on the stack. Eye of the Storm targets spells as they are played, before they can be cast.

Phantom Nishoba has two separate triggered abilities with the same triggering event. It might be valuable to think of it saying this: If damage is dealt to PN prevent that damage. If damage is dealt to PN remove a counter.

Edmiao eye of the storm is like the ultimate card for me. it's so crazy and fun and pisses everyone else off. i am so not being productive at work today.

Edmiao Hum. so i had my semantics wrong, CAST = Resolve. Play = pay costs and put in stack. all well and good.

If that is what PN really is, that it makes two effects, then I would understand the ruling. However, i do not get that it has two triggered effects based on the wording i read on the card.

oh, and that second example above is really really confusing with the same target being legal and illegal and if they were different it would fizzle. mind bend.

JASON: Which is exactly why I asked the question in the first place! Here are the rulings summaries, where it clearly agrees with what Brandon said[2]. I interpret it as two separate effects because that is the only way it makes true sense to me, I havent seen that written officially.

I would never have guessed on that legal/illegal target thing either. To me, if a target is at all illegal, its illegal. Me wrong.

Edmiao sometimes i wonder if all their rulings are correct.

Next step in Super Heroes

Next step in Of Amor, Armor, and Alchemy

Current OAAAA XP: 75 base + 107 XP

Stuff we want to buy:

Horses for all plus one or two as pack animals
Winter clothing and sleeping rolls
climbing gear and rope
torches and lanterns
rations
dragon repellent
picks, shovel, other digging equipment to clear cave ins? dynamite?
Ketchup (if you can't beat 'em . . .)
carrier pigeons

Edmiao let me guess, big grandfather flame wants us to find Ixymion

--Brandon 16:20, 8 December 2008 (MST) Um, basically, yes, if by "find" you mean "find and free from entrapment". Basically, we had a choice between that and fetching the Ruby Shield for grandfather flame. We - again by Gabe's prompting - decided on dealing with the dragon. I guess that he thought we should mess with an even more powerful dragon ; ). I'm still not sure of the wisdom of the decision, but, then again, I'm not sure that wisdom is possible in choosing between two essentially impossible tasks.

BEN: there was a third option that was suggested: finding the thing Oryxys "most desires". That was too vague and therefore risky for the characters.

Edmiao oh, jeez. sorry i wasn't there. cus the thing Oryxys "most desires" is Aefra. zoing.

BEN: unfortunately, what a dragon "most desires" and "wants to eat" are often the same thing. He actually almost ate brandon.

--Brandon 17:07, 8 December 2008 (MST) Lucky for him he didn't try. He totally would've gotten a spear stuck in his ass, from the *inside*.

--Matts - It's obvious that what he most desires is a high-quality bridge.

BEN: too bad you weren't there to suggest it...*maybe* that would be correct. The problem really was that the dragon indicated he himself wasn't sure what that thing might be.

Edmiao maybe we should work on this "most desires" angle. seems like unleashing the most powerful dragon ever that will likely topple countries and start wars might be in the category of "bad". what's the deal with the ruby shield?

BEN: If you guys feel like the Ixymion details are things your character(s) would have known (some of it certainly qualifies as "common knowledge", like the story of tom the fool), and you think it would have changed your decision, we can trade out this choice for another if y'all think that is what you would have done...it won't really affect what has happened since, although the sooner I know what the plan is, the better.

--Matts 13:18, 9 December 2008 (MST) What about jerkface mchonkyson merchant (Zabulon) who has some evil plan to bring the faerie queen back from the dead? How would Iximyon fit into his plans, because maybe that's what he wants?

My notes say he wants to forge an iron circle? But he can't use his magic to summon somebody dead? Can Ixymion?

--Brandon 14:36, 9 December 2008 (MST) I doubt that Oryxys is in league with Zabulon, and freeing Ixymion was Oryxys' idea. It seems like the schemes of dragons operate on levels above that of stupid mortals, even powerful mortals like Zabulon. The deal with the Ruby shield is that it is in the possession of an Orc Warlord in some far away place, and likely impossible to obtain. From what I remember, Ixymion was chosen because it was perceived as less impossible and closer (mostly the latter, I think). The "unleashing of the most powerful dragon ever" point is well taken, and is kind of why I was against the idea. But, I didn't really press that point. Maybe I should've (shrug). But, anyway, like I said before, I'm not sure there are any good reasons in favor of pursuing one seemingly impossible task rather than another.

Maybe the Order of Peace can offer some insight on how bad it would be if Ixymion is realized. Tithe is sort of on the fence about whether Ixymion is an aspect of nature that deserves to be unleashed, or an appropriate amount of control exerted upon nature by us mortals.

GABE: Actually... we DID need a bridge. I even said "Man... we need a bridge..." Anyway, if the dragon gets outta hand we kill it. I said very specicically what I can do in the deals but as Ol'Grand Father Flame said YOU people are not bound by MY word. Perhaps he will be so greatful that we can persude him to move elsewhere. I also like making possible dragon allies.

By the way, my character is serious about declaring war on Eborron, anyone interested?

--Brandon 15:42, 9 December 2008 (MST)This is awesome! I never knew that Fantus had a secret army that could be easily marshaled for both dragon-killing AND war-declaring purposes! Sweet! Oh, wait, what? He doesn't have an army? Just a little purple-glowing claw, a talking book, and crow?

Edmiao I wasn't there, so we can do whatever quest y'll are up for. plus then i get to say: told you so. why not the shield, we've already shown we can kick orc butt after getting ours handed to us.

GABE: The only way someone got it before is some famous thief got it. We have next to zero thiefing ability. Waking up a dragon I think is easier. Plus nobody has to know we woke up the dragon, stealing the shield is much risker, and with a possible war with another country on the burner I believe we may need allies. So yeah, dragon.

--Brandon 20:47, 9 December 2008 (MST)There are two problems with this analysis. One is that said "sleeping" dragon is in a diabolical clockwork tower filled with intricate and fiendish traps. So, our next to zero thiefing ability (which I agree about) is also relevant in the dragon case. Second, everyone will know that the dragon is awake, and I don't foresee it being much of a problem for someone to track that awakening to us. If there is one thing that we are not, it is discreet. But, for all my whining, I'm as much down with the Ixymion plan as I am with the ruby shield plan (although Tithe REALLY wants that ruby shield). I mean, there's impossible, and there's impossible, and they're both impossible.  : )

--Matts 10:13, 10 December 2008 (MST)What's this about a war?

GABE: You know... a war. Eborron tried to use our Priestess of the High Forge. I am certainly not going to sit around and be like "Oh golly, everything is a-okay now!" We have to make them pay... Besides he is about to start a war ON our island. Its time to allie with the fairies.... ugh, and combine our forces to fight this evil power of evilness. In the words of Hulk...

"Never stop making them pay."

--ED: hum. we killed the knight of flowers, then release the dragon he imprisoned. knight of flowers = great fairy hero. release evil dragon on the world, hope none of our family back home will think badly of it, and sucks to be the poor fools who get eaten by said dragon. this really challenges Aefra's moral compass. Am she the only one in the group with a sense of morality? isn't Tithe like a paladin or something?

GABE: Actually it was Tom The Fool who imprisoned the dragon I think, we are just undoing all the shit he fucked up. Dragon's are not evil, or good, they just are what they are. We can't be responsible for the entire world anyway. Plus maybe the dragon would like to maybe just sit in his tower and make stuff. If the dragon gets outta order we can always kill him too. Heck maybe we could even get him on our side, who knows. Point is, is that if we don't free him someone else most likely will.

If you guys DON'T want to free the dragon, we can always do something else, I'm cool with that but consider this...

If you truely want to save the world from more random dragon attacks, we should crush Grand Father Flame's egg... Oh what if we set up his baby as a future ruler of a state? That'd be pretty cool.

Edmiao wow. none of what you said makes sense in a logical world. Good thing this is rpg.

How is imprisoning a dragon that causes war a "fuck up" by Tom the Fool (name not withstanding).

can't be responsible if Jeffrey Dahmer eats a bunch of homosexual adolescents just because we broke him out of jail. Maybe Dahmer would just knit socks, he's getting on in age. and maybe he would make a good friend too. why not?

All that said, Ed the player is totally down with freeing the dragon and watching the mayhem, should be more fun than fighting orcs for some shield or psychoanalyzing a dragon. and Aefra the character will just have to deal with that. heck, she already married a half elemental underground demon king or whatever he was.

Reviewing the schedule recently, since I'm turning into the occasional attendee lately, probably shouldn't get too much of a say in the whole dealy-o. Dragon HO!

GABE: I know, its great to make points about what to do in a fantasy game, and how waking a dragon makes sense.

That said we should use Aefra's husband's army to help us out. That'd be tight.

Edmiao i was thinking about that. what if the dragon's true desire is to have 2000 goblins give him a back rub? or worship him? or 'insert favorite mom joke here'

--Brandon 18:07, 10 December 2008 (MST) Ok, so maybe we do have the possibility of access to an army of rowdy, disorganized goblins. I'll keep that in mind. As for Tithe's moral compass, there are a few things to consider. First of all, we didn't all that lore about Ixymion that is now on the wiki, so we didn't have any reason to believe that Ixymion was an especially dangerous dragon or whatever. Secondly, Tithe is no do-goody paladin who's overall aim in life is to ensure that no poor, innocent child has to suffer. He's a Templar primarily dedicated to protecting the interests of the Goddess of the Forge, and who is interested in ensuring that there is an appropriate balance in the affairs of mortals between the synthetic and the natural. Ixymion is no mortal, and Tithe pretty much considers him a force of nature. So, he's kind of on the fence about what to think of Ixymion's imprisonment, but is currently focusing his attention on saving Daenerys, pretty much come what may.

--Matts 12:49, 11 December 2008 (MST)Just to point out - Zabulon isn't necessarily representative of Eburon's political stance. My reading is that he's just a big-time dick, not a state-sponsored dick. So we should make HIM pay (and never stop doing it) and if in the course of that it turns out he's the hezbollah to eburon's Iran then we can take the battle to those jerks.

Re: dragon versus alternatives: I maintain that all Grandfather Flame really needs is a nice bridge. Maybe it's a bridge from Iximyon to the destruction of all that is holy; who cares. If it frees Daenerys, the specifics aren't important to Aetan.

GABE: Uh... isn't Zabulon like the Duke or something of all of Eburon? To me that says he is representing its political stance... and don't we all know (in the common knowledge section of the wiki) that the entire nation is "looking for something"? We could make him a bridge... but he can fly.

--Matts 16:37, 11 December 2008 (MST)If he's a duke, then engineering his downfall would cause a ruckus in Eburon. We could cut a deal with their neighbors too, like we supply the instability and you guys supply the suicidal army.

We will need to take action against Eburon, or specifically Zabulon, but I don't think we'll succeed by going off half-cocked.

--Brandon 11:17, 12 December 2008 (MST) Last I checked, there are usually plenty of dukes in any given nation. So, it's kind of weird to say that Zabulon is Duke "of all of Eburon". Really, I imagine he's just one, of many, random ne'er do well nobles in that vast (and vastly evil) nation. We aren't even sure if Eburon knows about - let alone is sanctioning - Zabulon's activities.

--Matts 11:57, 12 December 2008 (MST)Gabe's probably right that they're all motherfuckers over there, and I certainly wouldn't put it past them to send in one of their best to go about fucking with the priestess of the forge.