Various questions

[kevmo]

Man cant you just say yes so i can charge and burn lol

[Keith Katsikas]

sorry. Nice try though. =)

[Deleted]

Do all spells need an action to be cast? In the case of me playing Tranquil Touch aggressively against my opponent to discard his items or effects, do I have to declare at least one caster, or can I cast it for 0 even if all my dudes are fully engaged?

[Keith Katsikas]

As the card it worded it can be and has been ruled that it can be used without having any creatures with light magic and without an action. This would destroy all items and effects on the card without healing it. I have found no real reason to change that ruling, yet.

[Deleted]

I'm not sure it's created a problem or an abusive situation, so I would agree with you if you didn't change it.

I just wanted to make sure from a ruling standpoint if you needed an action or not. Thanks!

[redshirt]

So hypothetically, a Glye or Sutraps player could "cast" Tranquil Touch without a single magician in play -- or even in the deck -- to get rid of Biblios, Devil's Contracts, Rings, Trade Agreements, Declarations of War, Magical Wings, etc. that an opponent might be using?

If that's the case, good to know.

[Deleted]

Uh huh! Shhh! Before they figure out it's too open-ended and errata the card.

[Keith Katsikas]

I am well aware of how good the card is, however, I also know how powerful Items and Effects are. Balance Man! =)

[kevmo]

Wait a second you dont even have to use an action. Thats a little crazy I would think you would have to engage a creature as if you were trying to cast a spelll even if it was for zero. Dont you agree.

[sobrokenjay]

thats prolly the first thing uve said that i agree with kvmo lol

[spiller]

I think that there needs to be a caster for the spell, even if that caster adds zero magic of any kind to cast it. How is a spell being cast if nobody is actually casting it? Somebody needs to engage or how is the event even started?

[Deleted]

Yikes! It's too late...the dream is over.

Ah, Spiller, I would have to agree with what you and Jay are suggesting. It's just the bias in me that wants it to stay the way it is.

And perhaps it will. Keith is fully aware of the situation and has continued to state that the card doesn't need an action. I'm not too sure yet if the upcoming "cantrip" mechanic will work the same way.

But conceptually speaking, it would make more sense with the card itself that someone is "tranquilly touching" a living target in play, meaning that someone should use an action. If I were to argue semantics, I would also say that that someone should have to be someone with actual light magic ability (at least a value of 1 for light magic stat), seeing as the card symbolizes a healing regeneration from a "passive" or "good" source.

Even if the card were changed to reflect what I just said, it would still be awesome to do what it does best, which is to heal yourself. If you wanted to take advantage of what is supposed to be a "side-effect", it would seem to me that you should probably heal that target at least a little.

The way the card is now is superb from a utility standpoint. It is an invaluable tool at a common status. The only reason it doesn't get that much attention is because it isn't aggressive, or killing anyone on turn 2.

Still, it's important to know that as of right now, no one need use an action to cast this for 0.

[kevmo]

Cantrips fully engage a creature you control thats how they will work. As should tranquil touch i honestly think Keith just mis wrote it.