Urigons fang and defender (community input version)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Umbra7

I have urigons fang in play, as well as a weapon, and i play gaderi: braxno citadel to give myself defender.

Opposing ally attacks me, but is hit by my hero first and becomes frozen. Frozen ally proceeds to deal damage to my hero.

It has been explained to me that this is an intended function, but it seems to be counter intuitive towards what a frozen ally should be able to do. It seems that it would make more sense if that frozen ally's attack were to be cancelled. All things considered, snow saphire works in much the same way, freezing an ally as it attacks. Of course we can't have that allys attack be cancelled from that because that would make snow saphire OP (since no ally would be able to damage the armor) and as such think the card should be re-worded to allies and heros being frozen as they LEAVE combat rather than enter. This would allow defender+urigons fang to actually become a viable thing, as well as making the mechanics more intuitive towards a frozen allies capabilities.

Suggestions aside, what is the official explanaition for this interactions ruling? Why does this make sense?

---

Hi Umbra,

Sorry to create a new thread, however it’s the only way peasants like myself can reply. (That thread is locked to mod replies)

I’d expect that when an ally/hero is frozen, it is unable to defend. This logic is already in place as seen with Ankle Breaker – an ally attacked with Ankle breaker is disabled and does not defend.

Probably a good idea to check if Ankle Breaker, when its hero has defender, as to whether an opposing ally defends once it’s disabled. (I’d expect not, however un-intuitive logic is not uncommon in Shadow Era)


Great work Umbra in putting in the effort to raise such matters so they can be addressed / inform the forum community :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShrapnelFox

Probably a good idea to check if Ankle Breaker, when its hero has defender, as to whether an opposing ally defends once it’s disabled. (I’d expect not, however un-intuitive logic is not uncommon in Shadow Era)

---

and

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gondorian

Garth defended first, but it's still an attack. And the ally attacked first (to trigger the combat to start) and then got disabled. In terms of attacking, disabled only prevents you starting that attack.

---

I would of wanted this the other way around, but as mentioned intuitive is not always the way and this is one mechanic I have never agreed with.

According to this logic if you have a 1/5 defender and it gets attacked by a 5/1 attacker then they both die, since the attack can not be stopped by defender (happens with heroes so the same must be true between allies).

This is something that would be great to see changed, though it won't. Just have to accept it the way it is. And that is - disabled prevents you from attacking but becoming disabled during the attack before you deal damage will not stop you from carrying out the full attack even though your attacker is now in a condition that would not even allow him to start an attack, let alone finish one, yet that is exactly what it will do - finish an attack while disabled.

The logic is kinda flawed..

- when you attack an ally and that ally is disabled/freeze by your attack, their counterattack will be cancelled

- when you have defender and an ally attack you but killed by your attack first, their attack will be cancelled

- when you have defender and an ally attack you but it's disabled/freeze by your attack first, their attack still continue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tafkad

and



I would of wanted this the other way around, but as mentioned intuitive is not always the way and this is one mechanic I have never agreed with.

According to this logic if you have a 1/5 defender and it gets attacked by a 5/1 attacker then they both die, since the attack can not be stopped by defender (happens with heroes so the same must be true between allies).

This is something that would be great to see changed, though it won't. Just have to accept it the way it is. And that is - disabled prevents you from attacking but becoming disabled during the attack before you deal damage will not stop you from carrying out the full attack even though your attacker is now in a condition that would not even allow him to start an attack, let alone finish one, yet that is exactly what it will do - finish an attack while disabled.

---

Thanks tafkad,

Excellent response - especially sourcing that old ruling from Gondorian.


Now that you've communicated that logic so well - I'm going to curse the Balor gods for creating a world which is so un-intuitive.

haha I'm with you on that curse session

i think everyone agrees this is not how it should be. its like the trap thing. if a trap is destroyed it can still activate if everything happens all at once. maybe its just a complicated code rewrite thats stopping them from fixing it.

I made Violet Thunderstorm and Urigon's Fang deck bcs I thought that this combo prevents my hero from ally attacks... but it works the same as defender: allys gets damage and froze and than atack me frozen...

how about dagger of unmaking with defender? ally returns to hand and attacks from there? that makes even less sense

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maskee

I made Violet Thunderstorm and Urigon's Fang deck bcs I thought that this combo prevents my hero from ally attacks... but it works the same as defender: allys gets damage and froze and than atack me frozen...

---

BRAVO Maskee! That is an amazing combo you've devsied.
If Wulven change the mechanics to use intuitive logic - the unused Violet Thunderstorm will actually get some play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dejvo

how about dagger of unmaking with defender? ally returns to hand and attacks from there? that makes even less sense

---

LOL, that's hilarious! Allies attacking from the hand.




When something attacks we are treating it as a step by step process - so that if the attacker deals lethal damage the defender doesn't have a chance to defend.
However when an attacker vs defender it's treated as a simultaneous event (like Hearthstone) where both parties attack each other at the same time and hence can both deal lethal damage to each other.

We are mixing 2 different game mechanics together and wondering why people are being confused of the outcomes... *sigh*


I'm sure Wulven or development will "spin the absurd", and reinforce reasoning to appease the coding, stating "it's a very complicated game but it makes sense when you know all the rulings", rather then correct the mechanics so they are intuitive and behave in a consistent manner.

Thanks for this thread. It has highlighted one place where the rules were not explicit enough - the case where an ally/hero with defender causes the attacker to be killed or otherwise leave play.

Consequently, I've updated the combat phase step-by-step guide to add in step 3.5 for when the defending hero/ally has the Defender ability (which causes steps 2 and 3 to switch). It makes clear that the combat ends (go to step 4) if either the attacker or the defender leave play before step 2 can start.

http://www.shadowera.com/showthread....ebook-section)

With regards "frozen", you can see that we only care whether an ally can attack at step 0, which means frozen is only relevant for the would-be attacker at that point. It's the attack that starts the combat in the first place, creating the roles of attacker and defender for the combat phase. So if you become frozen as the attacker during the combat then the combat continues just fine since you are still the attacker and that attack already did happen.

I appreciate there has been some over-usage of the word "attack" in the past, both to represent what triggers the start of combat and the act of doing your combat damage to the defender when you are the attacker. It was that which led to the creation of the new clearer combat phase outline, where "attack" only means what initiated the combat and the combat damage part is explained as one character taking combat damage from the other.