Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 62

Thread: Rules updates on Lantern ring and mera global from SLC regionals

  1. #1

    Rules updates on Lantern ring and mera global from SLC regionals

    From Jimmy's IndyMon's Blog:
    http://jimmysflowinglocks.party/

    Lantern Ring:
    The damage done is character ability damage.
    Each attacking die triggers the ability. Yes, it is that strong.

    Mera Global:
    It doesn’t target a character. So Human Paladin doesn’t stop it.
    It’s reactive. So you can’t pay in advance.
    You have to pay for it for each instance of damage. You do NOT pay once and then have it reduce all remaining combat damage for the remainder of the turn.

    Still doesn't answer all questions about lantern ring but now we know a little more about it. Thoughts?

  2. #2
    My thoughts are:

    Unless and until it's on the rules forum it's not official.

  3. #3
    Fair enough, but I have a feeling it will be put up in a similar way on the rules forum. I'm not using these at my events until we have something solid, but these could definitely be foreshadowing things to come.

  4. #4
    Agreed. However, @geneaber pointed out to me that if the WizKids rules forums rules differently on these 2 major rules questions ((ruled on by Wizkids tournament officials) which influenced the outcomes of their first Regionals event, then the backlash could drive even more people from the game. We're playing this way locally until the Rules Forum rules differently. I hope it is officially answered soon.

  5. #5

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by zomburs View Post
    I think you're giving "officials" to much clout.
    You may be right, but if the ruling about ZMags preventing Ring activation on 4> costs led to an unexpected advantage for players who brought ZMags, over the large number of players who brought ring, and this interaction is then ruled differently later:

    1) the results of that tournament could be considered in question, though playing rules of the day is a skill pilots must learn.
    2) the players who practice, build and bring ZMags as a counter only to have him ruled different at the next event or by a forum ruling in close proximity to an event will have significant grounds for complaint.

    The uncertainty is where Jevansfp is suggesting this backlash will arise. It is difficult to plan for a large event, and to have the rules and interactions be a source of uncertainty leads one to avoid that sort of investment. The uncertainty of the rules leads to a lack of confidence in ones chances to win, and lets be honest, attending a competitive event on this scale is about trying to win. Lacking confidence in ones chances is the biggest detriment to success.

    I doubt the rules inconsistency will lead to a significant loss of casual purchase, but it will be a major setback for any competitive endeavour.

    On the plus side, as Necro pointed out, ASM and even WoL are looking up on production values, keyword usages and overall quality.

  7. #7
    @Shadowmeld - I do not believe that zMags was actually ruled at the event, only the Lantern Ring (and therefore there is speculation about zMags).

    I fully agree that there needs to be consistency though for all reasons stated above.

  8. #8
    I suppose my title was somewhat misleading, looking back on it. What does matter is that these rulings could have some bearing on what we get down the pipe later on from the WKRF.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Osprey View Post
    From Jimmy's Blog:
    http://jimmysflowinglocks.party/

    Lantern Ring:
    The damage done is character ability damage.
    Each attacking die triggers the ability. Yes, it is that strong.

    Mera Global:
    It doesn’t target a character. So Human Paladin doesn’t stop it.
    It’s reactive. So you can’t pay in advance.
    You have to pay for it for each instance of damage. You do NOT pay once and then have it reduce all remaining combat damage for the remainder of the turn.

    Still doesn't answer all questions about lantern ring but now we know a little more about it. Thoughts?
    FYI - That's not Jimmy's blog, that's a group calling themselves "Jimmy's Flowing Locks." It's IndyMon's.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    FYI - That's not Jimmy's blog, that's a group calling themselves "Jimmy's Flowing Locks." It's IndyMon's.
    I was going to fix it but Dave did it instead. 2fast2furious4me

    In my defense, I had absolutely no idea.

  11. #11
    So what's the prevailing wisdom at this point? Are most people house ruling the ring in the less powerful more feasible way? Or are we taking this as precedent setting?

  12. #12
    Ring of Magnetism Action Attraction is a 3 Cost. While not a character per se, seems like Continuous Action Dice would be affected by Z Mag. Although, there is not a precedence for it since it is not a character. The ring has already seen some "nerfing" by clarifying abilities that don't target, like BEWD, PxG, etc. The real issue is the 'intention' of the card vs. the wording on the card. We can only go by the wording on the card, not the intention. Ring of Magnetism is clearly an Action Die not a Character.

    NOW, for selfish reasons, I am hoping that all of these "rulings" will hit the rules forum to be indexed. We desperately need something like "Oracle" for this game. While I do not have time to take on a project like that, I DO ALREADY have a working model and caching mechanism. I would love to assist someone putting a ruling cache living rulebook together.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion0x17 View Post
    My thoughts are:

    Unless and until it's on the rules forum it's not official.
    Yo, lmao, I actually agree with you for once.

    There's no way in Sam's Hill that that ruling makes any sense, nor will it be played that way at the store where I judge, until it's up on their WES; It completely contradicts the rules of the game.

    As I said when @Dave first posted it on his blog post or whatever:

    This is crazy.

    I think what happened is that the judges took a look and realized that 2 cost characters were doing 5+ damage each (or 4 in the case a Mera was in play) every turn, and realized they hadn't fully tested and made an immediate, off the cuff ruling, hopefully before they release errata (they've done it for HeroClix, most memorably for the most recent Worlds, where there was a piece that was like a Magic Unglued card printed in a normal set, which won the finals game, with the head of HeroClix or whatever and the National champion doing commentary, and the Wizkids official couldn't even go over the different powers on the card of the piece eventually errata'd, because the game ended in like, 7 and a half minutes, of rounds that normally go to time (45 or so minutes) and the winner is based off of points of pieces KO'd.

    It was actually hilarious to watch, but you feel terribly for the opponent. Basically, this dude has a d20 with 1/4 or 1/5 sides with differently worded powers that effectively stop your opponent from doing anything but like, the equivalent of drawing only 4 sidekick dice, rolling them, specifically only sidekick dice, and being able to purchase something at most. Anyway, he had a bunch of other cheap pieces (it's done out of 300 points, with bigger pieces going even higher than 300 points for non tournament games, or smaller characters at 20-40 points) that let you re-roll a dice roll for free, more than enough so that he was statistically given like a 125%+ chance of rolling a shut-down power, and then having another smaller point costed (because it didn't need defense or anything) attacker go in and do small damage each turn, with the opponent literally just passing after doing nothing for 5 seconds, rinse repeat, which happened so quickly even with such small amounts of damage from each attack of the winner, that the judge was still trying to explain the concept of World Finals a piece having a d20, and didn't even realize it was finished because he wasn't paying attention, and had no idea the piece was capable of that. The next day, the piece was on the HeroClix website's "watch-list," which is pieces that are either being evaluated, or have had errata released, literally changing the card text of a piece. If you didn't ever think to check online and just played with friends, and weren't involved in the competitive scene, you'd have no idea about it.

    The better thing, than completely overpowering a SR zombie, would be to just errata the text of the card that was so offensive so as to spur such an obviously totally against the current reading ruling. My hope would be for an errata, as someone who has played on both side of an Iceman/rare ring team, I can say, it's cheaper and just as little fun as playing against Tsarina/Hellblazer back in the day. It's literally like, ok, I have a ring out and a 2 cost bolt character... I'll iceman, and attack for 8 unavoidable (if just one is fielded). Of course, Captain America does stop it, and he's a character I've run anyway - along with the new meta basically requiring action hate of some kind - I don't really think any errata should be released, and they should come out and say that they made an incorrect ruling, or that they've changed their minds, whatever, and that *how it should be, not introduce a whole new element into the rules that's crazy and unnecessary* should be re-implemented, and the meta will balance itself, as metas tend to do.

    I think this was a reactionary measure to seeing a powerful combo at one event, before the rock to its scissors, etc..., comes along. It's just going to have to start being normal to have a rare Bleez or something of that sort on one's team.


    I just really don't want it to set a precedent of making bad rulings to cover up poorly conceived cards. I don't even think this is that case, this is just the first time the combo was used in a bigger, more public setting. Once action hate becomes standard, something else will come up, and it will just be another of scores of strategies and growing that this game has.

    They really need to undo that ruling, like, ASAP, in writing on the WIzkids Dice masters website.

    Quote Originally Posted by Basementcuts View Post
    So what's the prevailing wisdom at this point? Are most people house ruling the ring in the less powerful more feasible way? Or are we taking this as precedent setting?
    I really hope not, because that will just make the lives harder of the judges actually going by the rules, when people from other stores that just blindly follow any poor ruling that's made, until it has been reviewed, come in and are upset because THEIR ZMags doesn't shut everyone down, or whatever else could be ruled in the future.
    Last edited by SlapsterMcFlash; 09-28-2015 at 10:25 AM.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by SlapsterMcFlash View Post
    This ruling honestly puts a damper on an otherwise awesome write up and event from what I've read and seen.
    Can someone explain what makes this ruling so bad or so bad for the C/UC rings?

    I'm clearly missing the important part of this based on all the rants above. Sorry I'm just confused

  15. #15
    I'm not sure what the ruling has to do with "Continuous".

  16. #16

  17. #17
    Well, one thing is for sure: the Ring is definitely a source of controversy!

    Speaking of rings, I have a question on another ring - Ring of Magnetism. Would this ring work on the Lantern Ring and direct the damage, now that it is character ability damage, to the character the ring is on? Or since it is direct opponent damage, and not something that targets a character in the field, does that not apply? I'm guessing the latter, but I haven't had as much experience "ring locking" as y'all probably have.

    (Nevermind - tried to delete but couldn't, but after actually searching, found this discussion, which confirms the latter interpretation:
    http://www.thereservepool.com/thread...-Direct-damage)

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by SlapsterMcFlash View Post
    I misunderstood what the ruling was exactly when I first read it.

    That was a copy/paste from yesterday.
    I'm still not seeing the relevance of Continuous.

  19. #19

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion0x17 View Post
    I'm still not seeing the relevance of Continuous.
    The only way this makes sense if they assume that all continuous dice are active in play, thus Zombie Magneto would affect any dice in play with a 3 cost or less. STRETCHING here in my opinion, because Action Dice are clearly not Characters.

  21. #21
    Question: other than the power issue which I get, tell me why the ruling was incorrect.

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Indy Mon View Post
    Question: other than the power issue which I get, tell me why the ruling was incorrect.
    Someone said, opinions are never wrong! I know you dont ask me this question. But for all here. I think it was correct for this tournament and everybody accepted it.

    Now here is the deal. No one can force you to play like that rulings. And if the majority goes with something, where is the problem?
    Until it is national or worldwide big thing and Wizkids doesnt provide beforehand rulings for it,that could mean you have to prepare for 2 possible outcomes and maybe 2 possible created teams.

    I rule it like the text is written, as long as WK gives a statement to it.

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Ressless View Post
    Someone said, opinions are never wrong! I know you dont ask me this question. But for all here. I think it was correct for this tournament and everybody accepted it.

    Now here is the deal. No one can force you to play like that rulings. And if the majority goes with something, where is the problem?
    Until it is national or worldwide big thing and Wizkids doesnt provide beforehand rulings for it,that could mean you have to prepare for 2 possible outcomes and maybe 2 possible created teams.

    I rule it like the text is written, as long as WK gives a statement to it.
    Totally get that. I was just trying to understand why from a rules perspective people think the ruling is incorrect. I can't quite figure that angle out yet.

  24. #24
    I think the real sticking point here @Indy Mon is that it is the ring generating the ability, even though the configuration of characters and energy determine the damage value. This leads one to assume that it is an action ability generating the damage, despite the fact that the value is determined be outside factors.

    When overcrush was ruled as being combat damage and not an ability damage, the context of the ruling seemed to imply that the source of the damage determined the type of the damage, and in overcrush's case, damage was generated from a characters attack value, and simply redirected, or carried over, to the opponent, not changing type or source.

    In the case of ring, the damage is created by the ring, and its value and resolution are determined by circumstance. I can see an argument that since the value is determined by attacking characters, they are the actual source, but Ring, and its much ignored cousin Colossus are the few instances where a character does damage to a player, through an ability that was not its own. (Cardsharp beign a third example).

    I am not saying that the ruling is necessarily wrong, only that this collection of hedge cases goes against other established rulings in logical precedent. There is room to fit this ruling in amongst those precedents, but the stark contrast of this brand of interaction with others, such as overcrush, leaves a significant burden of unpredictability on each new unclear card interaction. It is not that we can't keep making rulings, and adding them in piecemeal, it is just that the burden of knowledge and research is getting heavier and heavier on each new player, and with the release of each new set, the predictability of rules interactions does not seem to become easier.

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Indy Mon View Post
    Totally get that. I was just trying to understand why from a rules perspective people think the ruling is incorrect. I can't quite figure that angle out yet.
    The ruling looks right to me but I've seen two other interpretations

    One damage per matching symbol type:
    I've seen others read the card differently to a maximum of 4 damage.

    "When your characters attack they deal 1 damage to target player for each energy symbol in your Reserve pool that matches their type."

    I've seen some people read this as for each energy symbol type you have in your reserve pool deal 1 damage to your opponent if you are attacking with a character that matches.

    So 4 Guy gardeners with 2 fists. You would check your reserve pool you have one type a symbol a Fist. You check your attackers you have a matching character type so you deal 1 damage.

    One damage per matching symbol:
    I've seen some people read this as for each energy symbol you have in your reserve pool deal 1 damage to your opponent if you are attacking with a character that matches.

    So 4 Guy gardeners with 2 fists. You would check your reserve pool you have two fists. You check your attackers you have a matching character type so you deal 2 damage to your opponent one for each symbol in your pool.

    The way I read the ruling
    So 4 Guy gardeners with 2 fists. You would check your reserve pool you have two fists. You check your attackers you have 4 matching characters of that type so you deal 8 damage to your opponent.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •