Printable View
Wait, I'm confused now.
If the hero has defender and Anklebreaker, and an ally attacks, does the ally deal damage?
Similarly, if the hero has defender and Dagger of Unmaking, would the ally deal damage before returning to hand?
I would find either of these outcomes very unintuitive. Could someone confirm what happens here?
Not that difficult -
It comes down to how people are "intuitively" defining attack for themselves as opposed to how the rules define "attack".
The rules have to be specific about what "attack" means and I think that specificity came a bit later in the development. Still GDC has been very clear here:
"Attack" means initiating an attack which then allows both players to deal damage to eachother. In the case of defender - the defending player gets to deal damage first. The attack happens first, then the defender deals damage, then the attacker deals damage.
Since the attack already happened at the point the defender deals damage, disabling or freezing won't affect that combat. since those effects stop allies from attacking. If they could somehow prevent the "attack" from happening, then they would also prevent combat from happening, which would paradoxically make their own effects impossible.
With Dagger of Unmaking it returns the ally to hand on dealing damage - so if you have defender and dagger of unmaking, the allies go to hand - when it comes their turn to deal damage, the allies are no longer in play, so they can't deal damage.
Regarding claims of it being unintuitive - I think it's mostly intuitive, almost all of it works the way you'd think it would. It just gets a little weird in certain special cases. Those special cases happen in any game with complicated and intersecting rules. In those cases all you can do is follow specific wording and logic. It's nice if those match your intuitive understanding, but it's not always possible. It's easy to point fingers with hindsight, but you have to recognize that there are sometimes a lot of reasons that things have to stay the way they are. As far as the logic, it's sound. The intuition - if you are ignoring the wording on those rules and just imagining a scenario: a guy hitting ice armor, or getting tripped up by a jump rope as he's swinging his warhammer - in both situations you could imagine it going either way. So that's why we have to just drop the intuition (which is usually a bit self-serving) and rely instead on strict rules of logic. In this case, the word "attack" needs to be specifically defined, and it has been - it's the moment when the ally or hero card starts moving. The weapon doesn't hit them until after that has happened, and so they get to finish moving.
well, if dagger of unmaking works, the the rest should work. dagger of unmaking deal damage and then removed the ally from combat as a result. then the opposing ally does not get to deal is damage because it is no longer able to. it should be the same with disabling. disabling doesnt just make it so you cannot attack, it makes it so you cannot deal damage.
if you attacked a frozen ally, that was frozen before you initated an attack on it, it doesnt get to deal damage.
basically there is the order we are dealing with here. someone initiates an attack. now you are in combat. one deals damage and effects are resolved and the other deals damage and effects are resolved. if the hero with the anklebreaker or the OP situtation initiated the attack, the opposing ally would not get to deal damage back. defender switches the order in which damage and effects are resolved. yet, the effects being resolved are still out of order.
hero initiates attack, the hero deals damage, the opponent loses -1 attack kand is disabled and cannot attack back, yet its not that way if the hero was attacked and had defender.
attack and damaging have different definitions is fine. ordered of things being resolved isnt right.
Please read the rules. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caitlyn0
To elaborate on specific parts:Quote:
Originally Posted by maxi1230
Can't attack doesn't mean can't do combat damage if already in combat phase. It means you can't attack to initiate combat (all combat starts with an attack).
Being killed or bounced means you are no longer in combat, so it should end the combat.
i read the rules. doesnt make sense to me that it is that way. thats what i am arguing.
so why dosent an ally get to do damage when it wasnt the one that initated the attack? again using the anklebreaker example. your hero initiates the attack, damages and diables the ally, it doesnt get to attack you back. this is where the problem is. just because who initiates the attack is different, the rules shouldnt be different. or what is the point of defender? its even worse than we thought, and we thought pretty bad of it.
If you attack with Anklebreaker then you disable the ally before it defends in step 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caitlyn0
If you defend with Anklebreaker and Defender, then you disable the ally after the attack which happened in step 1.
It comes down to one thing. Attacking isn't when damage happens. Attacking is when you decide your puwen will smash into something, and choose what target he will be hitting. The ally isn't frozen when it attacks, and so it still gets to deal combat damage. I believe the same is also true for disable, unless in the case of ricochet trap where it explicitly says the attack is cancelled.
Just for my clarification, if a one attack ally attacks a hero with defender and an anklebreaker equipped, they will in effect still attack but not do any damage to the hero because the -1 debuff should already have taken effect right?
It's easier to understand just as long as you accept that all those disabling effects only affect the ability to initiate an attack. Once an attack has been initiated, there's no way you can stop it unless the attacker is taken out of play (killed or in DoU's case, bounced) before their attack lands.
I cant help but feel responsible for starting a huge disagreement. Is this considered constructive discussion?
Anyways, after all of gondorians explanations, i accepted that the way things are will do fine. It is video game logic adter all, and its clearly defined in the rules.