Animate Dead allows me to discard the spell to summon monsters. The rules for the number and type of monsters summoned requires that at least two monsters are summoned.
Robe of Bones has a power allowing me to banish a monster instead of discarding a spell other than as damage.
What rule, if any, prevents me from playing animate dead, netting 2+ monsters, banishing one to keep the spell in my hand, and continuing until I have all of the games monsters (give or take a few) in my hand?
I feel like this is misbehaving in one way or another but I would love to hear some opinions from you guys.
I was almost positive we fixed that last year, but I'm not seeing it in the FAQ. I will inquire immediately what happened, and I'd encourage people not to use that exploit in the meantime.
Although it is only when you get to the recharge check of Animate Dead that it's decided if the spell will *end up* Discarded, Recharged or Banished - you must IN THE FIRST PLACE discard the Spell to play its power and *then* draw 2 monsters.
Therefore, I would argue you must FIRST reveal Robe of Bones and banish a monster, at the time when you would PLAY (= discard) Animate Dead, and only afterwards you get the spell's effect (draw 2 monsters).
I would ask Keith for a ruling on the above, however:
While "my" approach does saddle you with the requirement to have at least 1 monster in your hand *to begin with* - since Animate Dead does remain in your hand, you again can get into the same exploit loop (banish 1 Monster, draw 2 monsters, banish 1 monster, draw 2 monsters...)
You do need to have 1 in hand for the loop, yes. I'm still worried about it, though :)
I'm still worried about it, though :)
Incidentally, I was thinking about the best way to fix this mechanically, without actually nerfing either card’s intended functionality – so I think the best play here might be similar to Restoration et al. FAQs – you make Animate Dead to “display” for its power and you check if it discards at the end of the turn.
Wooow!!!! I destroyed all monsters in one turn!!! I'm the greatest of all!!! Bow to the floor and embrace my glory!!!
Hum....
Yes I guess some kind of fix may be in order here and I always like straightforward ones like Longshot's proposition.
I was almost positive we fixed that last year,...
I'm hearing that at least 20 times a day in my line of business, so don't feel bad. ;-).
Would work obviously, so why not?
Thoughts?
Well, it's obviously a very heavy nerf of the Robes and it severely undercuts their usability for a big party -which seem really heavy-handed if you *only* wanted to fix the Animate Dead interaction.
So I'd like to ask -have there been *general concerns* about the power level of the Robe, or are you just future-proofing ?
If it's in one of the Ultimate decks then in Guild play all of the characters that naturally collect monsters can get one. That might be a concern.
I'm fine with reducing it to "once per turn and you'll get it back".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've spent some time in the past designing a cube of MtG cards for a game we made up (it includes all the rules of MtG, but is a distinct game). One of the design objectives for that cube was for it to contain no infinite combos - no matter how contrived they may be. After spending a long time doing this I came up with something which helped a great deal. It is an ordering of the various game resources, along with a rule that no card can transform one resource into another in an unlimited manner unless it's in line with the ordering.
So for example in PACG you may consider the following order:
Specific cards (buried/banished) -> Blessings deck -> Specific cards (discarded/recharged) -> Explore/Encounter -> Hand -> Deck -> Discard -> Bury/Banish/etc.
To explain it, first some examples of powers which follow this ordering:
* Certain cards can put blessings back into the blessings deck, but only by using up that specific card as a resource in a way that you can't get it back (bury/banish).
* Lem's and Alahazra's card swap powers get specific cards back from the discard pile, but only a limited number of times per turn, so they effectively convert "Blessings deck" to "specific cards (discarded/recharged)".
* Lots of cards let you use that specific card to explore your location.
* Encountering a card can put a card into your hand if you acquire a boon, or if you're e.g. Balazar and defeat a monster etc.
* Lots of powers move cards from more- to less-useful places, i.e. hand->deck, hand/deck->discard, hand/deck/discard->bury/banish and so on. These conversions don't create any risk.
* Curing moves cards from discard to deck, but there's always a real cost which is something further up the chain - such as discarding/recharging a specific card in hand (e.g. cure spell), or an explore (e.g. Kyra). If it's limited to once per turn it comes under "blessings deck". If it happens as part of or after a specific sort of check, then it's generally limited by the number of encounters you have.
Some examples which break this ordering:
* Powers which let you explore based on an encounter. Going from one resource to itself is also forbidden. Again, the key to these is they have to convert at a loss on average.
* Powers which get cards back from being buried. Which, again, means you need to be very careful with them.
Of course you might consider a different ordering of effects, but the one I gave seems to me to fit the existing design fairly well. Also, since there's existing examples of each single step in the chain I've given, reordering it will mean dealing with those cases somehow. You might be able to rethink the categories a little bit though.
I think where things tend to go wrong is the group "Specific cards (discarded/recharged) -> Explore/Encounter -> Hand" because the distinction between a specific card and a generic card is a little blurry in the first place.
Cycling through your entire deck means that any card that draws from your deck is now drawing specific cards instead of generic cards, thus creating a loop. This is what went wrong with Restoration, and it was fixed by making it turn (i.e. blessings deck) limited.
Some explore/encounter powers are not very specific about the cards required and can get out of control as a result.
Alain let you recharge a generic card for a specific card (a mount of your choice), and was broken as a result. He was eventually changed to require a more specific sort of card in the first place
In this case, Robe of Bones converts fairly generic cards (monsters) to specific cards (any spell you have), thus breaking the ordering. So on this basis I agree it's a card that needs fixing.
Animate dead however also still has other potential issues. There's character powers which banish a monster to draw a card. Combine them with a very thinned out deck and a good recharge probability and I think it could be used in a similar manner to restoration, without even needing Robe of Bones.
Come to think of it, the power to banish a monster to draw a card totally breaks the suggested fix for Robe of Bones anyway. Draw 2+ monsters from Animate Dead, banish one to recover Animate dead, banish a second to redraw Robe of Bones, it's the same loop just takes longer to draw all the monsters because you only profit those times you get 3. So it only starts to work in AD3 and then stops once you run out of AD1 (or out of AD1 plus AD2 if you're in AD 5+) monsters, but that's still pretty broken.
Overall I think (and this is often the case with these things) both cards are at fault.
I'm with Longshot. It seems like a significant Nerf to fix a loop. My main motivation for keeping it on Nyctessa is to keep casting elemental bombardment. Because that spell tends to perform better than my other spells with a banished monster. I'm not sure I would keep it with that change (in my super specific circumstance).
Also I appreciate all the feedback folks.
What if instead of top-decking Robe of Bones, you recharged the spell (in addition to banishing the monster)?
So it might look like:
"When you would discard a spell other than as damage, reveal this card and banish a monster to recharge the spell instead."
Alternately, you might top-deck the spell:
"When you would discard a spell other than as damage, reveal this card and banish a monster to put the spell on top of your deck instead of discarding it."
Or something like that. This is more thinking out loud to explore alternatives to the top-decking of the Robe of Bones. There are probably some other alternatives that restore balance while preserving the thematic concepts involved.
Alternately, you might top-deck the spell:"When you would discard a spell other than as damage, reveal this card and banish a monster to put the spell on top of your deck instead of discarding it."
This would change exactly nothing for classic Ezren though. Furthermore, I seem to recall a character being able to draw the top (item) card of his deck upon casting a spell (though, I *could* be thinking of Pathfinder Adventures characters): if there is indeed one, then Vic's fix again does nothing for those characters.
The simple answer to that, then, is that the recharge solution is better.
So a measured correction really requires a comprehensive listing of the potential exploit combinations (not just boon combinations, but now character power combinations), an assessment of the likelihood of each combination taking place (with the more likely/frequent combinations being more of a priority), an evaluation of the impact on game balance/fun by each combination (with the most negative impacts being more of a priority), and potential solutions to mitigate/prevent the most egregious of the likely exploits.
Man, these flexible text-based games can be complicated. ;)
Want a fun new effect ? Try
"Display Robe of Bones. While displayed, when you would discard a spell other than as damage, banish a monster to put the spell on this card instead of discarding it. At the start of any turn, recharge a card to draw a spell on this card or to recharge this card and bury the spells on it."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It does seem like the whole point of Robe of Bones is to be able to use it multiple times per turn. Fixing the loop by changing that is going to seriously affect the card. I think the only reason to change Robe of Bones is if you think it's actually too good generally anyway. Which it might be, it seems like all the other powers which use monsters as fuel do significantly smaller effects than what's available from spells. But, people don't tend to like having cards nerfed unless they're really broken, not just part of a specific combo.
On the other hand, Animate Dead does seem like a card which is not required nor intended to be used multiple times per turn. Which is therefore an argument for changing Animate Dead. Plus the fact that Animate Dead is potentially broken, Restoration-style with Balazar, just on its own, and the fact that none of the fixes for Robe of Bones actually work.
It does seem like the whole point of Robe of Bones is to be able to use it multiple times per turn. ...
Agreed, that's why I propose to display it and allow it to be used multiple times when displayed.
The whole idea of my (to be improved) suggestion is that the spell "saved" by the Robe cannot be used twice in the same turn (thus breaking the loop), but still will end up in your hand on the next turn (thus not nerfing the Robe).
You could even make that spell return for free by saying:
"Display Robe of Bones. While displayed, when you would discard a spell other than as damage, banish a monster to put the spell on this card instead of discarding it. At the start of any turn, you may draw a spell on this card or you may recharge this card and (draw/recharge/discard/bury... exact action to be chosen) the spells on it."
It does seem like the whole point of Robe of Bones is to be able to use it multiple times per turn.
I disagree.
The whole point of Robe of Bones is to use monsters to fuel spellcasting. The first power supports that purpose by putting monsters into the character's hand, while the second power is really the crux of the card's purpose.
The ability to use the robe multiple times per turn is part of the problem we've been discussing. However, correcting/mitigating the problem doesn't necessarily require removing the ability to use the robe multiple times per turn (which is one of the suggestions - the top-decking idea).
The "display" option that Frencois suggested is interesting, but the ending portion about burying the spells is wholly inconsistent with [what I think is] the robe's intended purpose. Until there's a character that can reliably draw buried spells (the way Talitha can draw buried blessings), there would be little incentive to recharge the robe and bury the spells underneath. So perhaps a usable modification would be something like:
"Display this card.
While displayed, when you defeat a monster and would banish it, shuffle this card into your deck to draw that monster instead.
While displayed, when you would discard a spell other than as damage, banish a monster to place the spell under this card instead. At the end of your turn you may draw or recharge any cards under this card."
The display usage still allows the robe to be used multiple times per turn, but placing the used spell under the robe prevents the problematic cycles that have been described. The ability to draw/recharge the spells at the end of your turn, though, somewhat preserve their availability, but only for 1 game turn. The recharge portion was added to support usage of the robe throughout a game turn (i.e., not during your own turn), with the potential to use a number of spells that would increase beyond your hand size without the penalty of having to discard them when you reset your hand (satisfying what I think is the robe's intended purpose).
This also creates a potential new cycle, much like the ammunition cycle, where certain items with the Clothing trait may be displayed; but much like the ammunition cycle, you may only have one such card displayed. This would require the addition of wording along the lines of:
"Display this card. After playing this card, if you have more than 1 card that has the Clothing trait displayed, recharge 1 of them."
Existing items with the Clothing trait wouldn't necessarily have to be changed to fit in this cycle. While some such cards might be put into the cycle (requiring FAQ changes), it might simply be used for future cards that are appropriate for the cycle (I have no idea what such cards might be, but I'm sure the designers can come up with some).
Not sure why everyone here is trying to fix the robes. The issue is animate dead which you should not be able to cast multiple times in one turn. I propose that you address this similar to how you did with other infinite loop spells and effects. Display Animate dead for its effect, recharge at the end of turn.
EDIT: One of the biggest issues with casters is not having enough combat spells for multiple combats in one turn. I like the ability to use a spell and dump a monster and if I explore again I can still have my spell. This is why I feel spells like Circle of Flame or the Orb line of spells was so good.
I could get behind Animate Dead requiring a display action, with banishing/discarding/recharging taking place at the end of your turn to prevent multiple uses in the same player turn.
Is the issue just Animate Dead, though?
Without Robe of Bones, Animate Dead is just fine and can only be used once during a turn, being banished/discarded/recharged afterwards. It's the wording of the second power on Robe of Bones that creates the exploit.
Without Robe of Bones, Animate Dead is just fine and can only be used once during a turn, being banished/discarded/recharged afterwards. It's the wording of the second power on Robe of Bones that creates the exploit.
That statement would also work if you swapped Robe of Bones with Animate dead.
Both are fine in their own right.
But just like the Spell:Restoration and Ally:Imp, anything that allows you to draw more than one card (i.e. Animate Dead) should be displayed. There are too many loop combos out there when you allow a card to give you a +1 card advantage.
Without Robe of Bones, Animate Dead is just fine and can only be used once during a turn
No, it isn't though.
If WotR Balazar has Animate Dead, sufficient bonus to his recharging, and no cards in his deck, he can play animate dead, recharge it, banish a monster to draw it again, repeat. No robes required.
Yes it's hard + risky to set up, but so was the Restoration thing and that eventually got fixed.
You could even make that spell return for free by saying:
"Display Robe of Bones. While displayed, when you would discard a spell other than as damage, banish a monster to put the spell on this card instead of discarding it. At the start of any turn, you may draw a spell on this card or you may recharge this card and (draw/recharge/discard/bury... exact action to be chosen) the spells on it."
That does at least fix this problem (barring the solo animate dead issue above), but it's still a significant nerf to the Robe. I would speculate that one of the main use cases is to have a combat spell handy for multiple checks in one turn, which that doesn't let you do.
If such a nerf is desired for other reasons then that's fine, with regards to that version I'd at least let them get all their spells back each turn (or all their spells back at the start/end of their own turn instead of one per other turn).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone feel that my fix wouldn't work? I think anything that increases your card count should be displayed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a recent owner of HV2, and having an interest in seeing a resolution to inform my future decks and characters; I'm with Longshot, Slacker and Irgy.
Given that Animate Dead fundamentally provides an average of more than 1 card added to your hand per cast (and there's sufficient ways to exploit that, either with Robe of Bones, Balazar's power following the Ultimate decks, etc) then it's the problem, rather than the Robe of Bones, and I think the Restoration solution of Displaying it is the most elegant solution.