Urigons fang and defender (community input version)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Holy Punisher

I am sorry guys to be against this change but I don't get this logic. Why does the game behavior have to follow the real life logic? It is a game mechanic and it is well defined even in the old rulebook. When you play a shooter or rpg, do you complain why one shot doesn't kill? :P

---

Many complain that a knife to the foot is an instakill. :)
But i do find intuitive logic to be better. My logic states if you are frozen, you cant move, youre a block of ice. But apparently that block of ice has enough mobility to swing his sword, or bring his mighty claws down upon someones face. Because you know, logic. So long as snow saphire retains its current wording, i expect/dont want a change, but i would definitely like the change to occur for even a balancing standpoint for urigons fang/Gaderi, as thats a combo i personally believe should be allowed to work well.
But in addition, it hust seems logical to have a block of ice no longer capable of dealing the damage (unless you are imagining the frozen ally smashing its whole frozen body into the hero due to momentum.)

I don't think freezing a Puwen with two huge Axes jumping at you at 100 mph stops it from hurting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxi1230

I don't think freezing a Puwen with two huge Axes jumping at you at 100 mph stops it from hurting.

---

I guess it depends on what ones definition of the word "freezing" is. Is it instantaneous or a slow process? In a game such as this, I believe that most would consider it to be instantaneous. Therefore, those two axes deal no damage.

Maybe easiest change would just be the special effects (i.e. Don't show the ally being frozen until after it does its attack), rather than a frozen ally still striking the Hero. The underlying concept would still be disputed by players, but at least the visual perception in game would be different. But then again, I don't really care that much about snow sapphire, but I just found this this thread debate very interesting to read. I'm also really high right now so it's extra fascinating :) And Puwen should be immune to being frozen...just saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gondorian

See step 3.5. Being killed is covered, as is leaving play for some other reason.

The dispute is only over whether becoming disabled/frozen as the attacker should abort the combat. I say it shouldn't and the rules match up with that, as does the behaviour of Snow Sapphire. The reason is that the word "attack" refers only to what happens to start combat (step 1), so "can't attack" once in the combat is irrelevant to that combat.

---

Hi Gondorian,

I know you want me to move along... however I think you’ve missed the issue. I’m not saying the current logic doesn’t fit the coded rules. I’m highlighting that the behaviour is very inconsistent with the surrounding behaviours and hence is highly un-intuitive to players.
The fact you have had to build in “however”/”exception” rules to handle an attacking ally being killed/removed from play and cancelling the attack is evidence in itself of inconsistency.

• If a hero attacks with ankle-breaker, the defending ally is disabled during the combat and then can no longer defend.
• It would be an intuitive assumption that that when a hero has ‘defender’ and strikes first, the attacking ally is disabled and cannot attack.
• When an ally attacks and is killed by “ability’ damage when it enters combat, the attacking ally is killed and it doesn’t get to attack. (as highlighted in your previous post)

This game is amazingly technical and the strategic value is why this game is loved, however the un-intuitive and incontinences are it’s downfall in frustrating players. (Along with the poorly communicated rules and logic for those that don’t scour the forums)
Instigating this inconsistent and un-intuitive behavior now, will be harder to correct the longer it remains and it will only cause grief.

With the best intentions for the Shadow Era product,
Mr Fox

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShrapnelFox

Hi Gondorian,

I know you want me to move along... however I think you’ve missed the issue. I’m not saying the current logic doesn’t fit the coded rules. I’m highlighting that the behaviour is very inconsistent with the surrounding behaviours and hence is highly un-intuitive to players.
The fact you have had to build in “however”/”exception” rules to handle an attacking ally being killed/removed from play and cancelling the attack is evidence in itself of inconsistency.

• If a hero attacks with ankle-breaker, the defending ally is disabled during the combat and then can no longer defend.
• It would be an intuitive assumption that that when a hero has ‘defender’ and strikes first, the attacking ally is disabled and cannot attack.
• When an ally attacks and is killed by “ability’ damage when it enters combat, the attacking ally is killed and it doesn’t get to attack. (as highlighted in your previous post)

This game is amazingly technical and the strategic value is why this game is loved, however the un-intuitive and incontinences are it’s downfall in frustrating players. (Along with the poorly communicated rules and logic for those that don’t scour the forums)
Instigating this inconsistent and un-intuitive behavior now, will be harder to correct the longer it remains and it will only cause grief.

With the best intentions for the Shadow Era product,
Mr Fox

---

I appreciate the good intentions, but I think you are placing too much emphasis on your own brand of intuition, instead of just knowing and understanding the rules which is clear whoever you are without needing intuition beyond the application of the rules in a consistent manner from one card to the next. You state it's an intuitive assumption to think Anklebreaker would work different when you have defender and that's your downfall. If you read the rules then you would know that's a faulty assumption. While I do think we should try to be as intuitive as possible, there are times where we have to rely on rules above all to allow for a deeper game.

1. Read rules.
2. Understand rules.
3. Read cards.
4. Everything proceeds as expected.

If you go with the definition of the terms, then all is fine. There is no inconsistency. You are wanting an inconsistency to be coded into the code by adding an extra step in the combat phase - I'm not. The rule about someone being removed from play during combat is there to be explicit about that (it it is not "evidence in itself of an inconsistency") - it's common sense. Combat can't continue when one party is not on the board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gondorian

I appreciate the good intentions, but I think you are placing too much emphasis on your own brand of intuition, instead of just knowing and understanding the rules which is clear whoever you are without needing intuition beyond the application of the rules in a consistent manner from one card to the next. You state it's an intuitive assumption to think Anklebreaker would work different when you have defender and that's your downfall. If you read the rules then you would know that's a faulty assumption. While I do think we should try to be as intuitive as possible, there are times where we have to rely on rules above all to allow for a deeper game.

1. Read rules.
2. Understand rules.
3. Read cards.
4. Everything proceeds as expected.

If you go with the definition of the terms, then all is fine. There is no inconsistency. You are wanting an inconsistency to be coded into the code by adding an extra step in the combat phase - I'm not. The rule about someone being removed from play during combat is there to be explicit about that (it it is not "evidence in itself of an inconsistency") - it's common sense. Combat can't continue when one party is not on the board.

---

Thank-you for the prompt reply Gondorian. I (and the community) really appreciate that you put in the time to read, consider and respond to our endless posts :)

I'll stop pestering you... on this topic. I think we both have different opinions on this matter and that's fine. (We are humans, not bees)

I'll add this mechanic to the "Fun Facts" list - so if it's ever implemented, players will be aware of this logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShrapnelFox

I'll add this mechanic to the "Fun Facts" list - so if it's ever implemented, players will be aware of this logic.

---

There are quite a lot of these unfortunately... I wonder when the list will be compiled ... I'm happy to help!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gondorian

While I do think we should try to be as intuitive as possible, there are times where we have to rely on rules above all to allow for a deeper game.

---

^ I submit that that statement should be the opening statement for a "rule book"

Intuitive or not, logical or not - it is a game, with magic and monsters and magic so I just tell myself "why not?" and let it go

bascially Gondorian, its all about who initiates the attack. if your hero attacked an ally with anklebreaker, that ally is disabled and cannot attack back. but if that ally attacked the hero with anklebreaker, and that hero has defender, the ally still gets its attack?

now here is the big question, does that ally deal 1 less damage? because if it does, then it shouldnt get the attack. it gets that -1 from anklebeaker at the same time it is disabled.

this just makes defender even more useless than it was