|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Feb 7, 2011 6:55:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by hermit on Feb 7, 2011 8:40:01 GMT -5
Good to get back into the flow of things. My first thought was this is pretty weak rule this month, as I think we can probably predict with 90% accuracy which hand someone will paralyze. Then I realized this also says which *warlock* will be paralyzed. I'm liking it  |
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Feb 7, 2011 11:46:31 GMT -5
GammarN*zi alert:
"When casting paralysis, you *must* declare which hand you'll be effecting with paralysis."
Technically, you must declare which hand you will be *Affecting* with paralysis
|
|
|
|
Post by ephemerr on Feb 7, 2011 14:02:30 GMT -5
Then I realized this also says which *warlock* will be paralyzed. This conclusion is not evident. Is it right? |
|
utis
Ronin Warlock
longing to see were it but the smoke leaping up from his land
Posts: 29
|
Post by utis on Feb 7, 2011 15:51:10 GMT -5
My first thought was this is pretty weak rule this month, as I think we can probably predict with 90% accuracy which hand someone will paralyze. Then I realized this also says which *warlock* will be paralyzed. I'm liking it I don't understand. Which warlock is paralyzed, is something that one would know anyways, once Paralysis is cast, isn't it? I'm assuming the rule implies something like this:
123
LH:xx
RH:FF
LH:xx
RH:SP
-------
Turn 3
Warlock1 says "Para on RH."
Warlock1 casts Paralysis at Warlock2.
123
LH:xxx
RH:FFF
LH:xxF
RH:SP>
-------
Turn 4
Warlock2's right hand is paralysed.
Warlock1 says: "Ouch!"
1234
LH:xxxx
RH:FFFF
LH:xxFF
RH:SP>>
Am I wrong? (Minor EDIT of example.) |
|
|
|
Post by ellipsis on Feb 7, 2011 18:04:07 GMT -5
In theory I should be a fan of para-nerfing, but I'm a little disappointed that there is no "positive" aspect to the rule - no way to earn points by doing something different, only a way to lose points. Oh well, there will be more chances to come up with good league rules in the future, I suppose.
|
|
utis
Ronin Warlock
longing to see were it but the smoke leaping up from his land
Posts: 29
|
Post by utis on Feb 7, 2011 18:26:28 GMT -5
Also, the penalties seem a little bit weak for pulling off stunts like what I thought at first. "Haha! You forgot to declare which hand your spell paralyses! That's -2 points for you ... and only +8 in total, because I'm losing the battle now ..." Since Ephemerion and moi are paired against each other, I assume, the independents won't get a stab at declaring the rule? (I know it's presumptuous, but, hey!, all that lives strives.) Next term, we could be counted as a special faction; and on the off chance that every other match ends in double death, we could both submit our rules publicly and everybody gets to vote.  |
|
|
|
Post by ephemerr on Feb 7, 2011 19:27:54 GMT -5
You are right. Now I see. |
|
|
|
Post by mikeEB on Feb 8, 2011 1:17:19 GMT -5
Just to be clear:
*I do not have to declare a hand when paralyzing a monster or at nobody
*I do not get penalized for not following through if the paralysis fails/is countered
right?
Because the literal interpretation, where I need to declare a hand against a monster and lose 5 points anyway because monsters don't have hands, is ludicrous.
EDIT:I'd like the answer in a timely fashion please; one of my league matches is blocked on these issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by xade on Feb 8, 2011 21:01:31 GMT -5
Mike- no need to declare when throwing it at a monster, or nobody. Ellipis- yeah, it's a pretty weak rule. You'd think that with months of tourney play we could have come up with an epic rule- and yet, there I was with a PM from Bio that was asking for a rule and I paniced and spewed forth the first thing that came to mind. |
|
|
|
Post by mikeEB on Feb 8, 2011 22:25:51 GMT -5
Mike- no need to declare when throwing it at a monster, or nobody. And no not-following-through penalty where the paralysis missed/was countered/was grounded/failed/bounced with another mindspell/landed on the last turn of the game/otherwise couldn't have any effect? |
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Feb 9, 2011 17:41:20 GMT -5
Building on MikeEB above, I find my game-end comment and my initial results reporting may be in error... my opponent FFF'd me 3 turns in a row, but only told me what hand for the first successful paralysis... Also, one turn I blocked the FFF with PSDD but that turn did not have a hand selection statement either. Maybe Xade or Hermit would want to looks at (and re-score?) this battle: games.ravenblack.net/warlocks?num=77079&full=1 |
|
|
|
Post by ourjake on Feb 10, 2011 15:57:21 GMT -5
i would think thusly: if you get the box to choose, you should have called it, if no box, then no need to call it.
so he didnt need to call it the second two turns because he couldn't have changed hands anyway
|
|
|
|
Post by hermit on Feb 10, 2011 21:27:46 GMT -5
Ourjakes interpretation sounds very reasonable. The point to the rule is to give information a warlock does not already have. declaring a hand when a handed is forced already is not really necessary in my humble opinion.
(also, not sure what I was smoking in my first post. You are right... the warlock is known at the time the spell is cast. I think my hope was you would have to declare the warlock you were going to cast a para at the turn *before* you even cast the spell. That would totally change the dynamics of paraFoD)
|
|
|
|
Post by xade on Feb 11, 2011 2:23:57 GMT -5
i would think thusly: if you get the box to choose, you should have called it, if no box, then no need to call it. so he didnt need to call it the second two turns because he couldn't have changed hands anyway Yep, this is my interpretation. |
|
