Urigons fang and defender (community input version)

[ShrapnelFox]

Hi Gondorian,

The addition of a single line of logic to the Shadow Era combat phase step-by-step guide would result in the game behaving in an intuitive manner to players.
Is there any reason why the following can not be done?
(I've also incorporated your "note" into the combat phase logic)


0. Confirm that A can attack and D can be attacked by A.
0.1. If A can't attack, there is no attack.
0.2. If A has attack value of 0, there is no attack.
0.3. If D can't be attacked by A (e.g. D has stealth), there is no attack.
0.4. If the attack was initiated directly through a player action (as opposed to a card effect) and the attacking hero/ally is exhausted, there is no attack.

1. A attacks D, triggering the start of the combat phase (A and D are now considered "in combat")
1.1. Any effects that trigger off "when A attacks D" or "when A/D enters combat" resolve.
1.2. If A or D has left play (e.g. through being killed), we jump to step 4.
1.3 . If D has defender, then Steps 2 and 3 are reversed.

2. D takes attacking combat damage from A, equivalent to A's attack value (which can be 0).
2.1. The combat damage to D may be reduced, increased or prevented by card effects.
2.2. If D is a hero, the combat damage can be reduced by the defense value of his armor.
2.3. If the combat damage is greater than zero, it is dealt to D.
2.3.1. Any effects that trigger off that damage being dealt resolve.
2.4. Durability is updated for A's weapon and D's armor.
2.4.1. If A is a hero, the durability of her weapon used is reduced by 1.
2.4.2. If D is a hero, the durability of his armor is reduced by 1.
2.5. If A or D has left play (e.g. through being killed), we jump to step 4.

3. If D can defend and has attack value of at least 1, A takes defending combat damage from D, equivalent to D's attack value.
3.1. The combat damage to A may be reduced, increased or prevented by card effects.
3.2. If A is a hero, the combat damage can be reduced by the defense value of her armor.
3.3. If the combat damage is greater than zero, it is dealt to A.
3.3.1. Any effects that trigger off that damage being dealt resolve.
3.4. Durability is updated for D's weapon and A's armor.
3.4.1. If D is a hero, the durability of his weapon used is reduced by 1.
3.4.2. If A is a hero, the durability of her armor is reduced by 1.
3.5. If A or D has left play (e.g. through being killed), we jump to step 4. (This is only relevant when D has defender, which causes steps 2 and 3 to switch.)
3.6. If A is unable to attack (frozen, disabled, can’t attack), we jump to step 4. (This is only relevant when D has defender)

4. The combat phase has ended (A and D are no longer "in combat").
4.1. Any effects that trigger off "end of combat" or "leaves combat" resolve.
4.2. If the attack was initiated directly through a player action (as opposed to a card effect), the attacking hero/ally is exhausted if it has done its maximum number of attacks that turn (default is 1).

[bobrossw]

This ruling goes back to Snow Saphire, which reads: When a hero or ally attacks your hero, that hero or ally is frozen (it can't attack, defend or use abilities) until the end of its controller's next turn.

So the ally gets frozen while attacking, but still gets to hit your hero. This is a crucial ruling from a balance standpoint because it's too late to reword the card and if freezing cancelled the attack, Snow Saphire would become a ridiculously OP card (as it could never lose durability from opposing attacks).

[ShrapnelFox]

This ruling goes back to Snow Saphire, which reads: When a hero or ally attacks your hero, that hero or ally is frozen (it can't attack, defend or use abilities) until the end of its controller's next turn.

So the ally gets frozen while attacking, but still gets to hit your hero. This is a crucial ruling from a balance standpoint because it's too late to reword the card and if freezing cancelled the attack, Snow Saphire would become a ridiculously OP card (as it could never lose durability from opposing attacks).

Ah, so intuitive game-play is lost due to the refusal of rewording a card.

Although I understand the reasoning of not re-wording with a physical set... I don't believe this would honestly be a problem.
Anyone playing a physical version of this game has to scrawl through the SE forum to understand the complex logic and have the paradoxes explained, and rulings on SRO of phases. They would have pieces of paper all over the place to indicate what is disabled, poisoned, can attack, can't defend, dying at end of turn, health and attack bonuses....

Seriously. Publishing an 'amendments page' for physical cards on the form would be of little consequence.

[danae]

If you're thinking about it as if it's happening for real, Snow Sapphire would only work once the attacker has hit the armor. However, with defender, the "defender" gets to attack before the attacker so you freeze the "attacker" even before they get to hit you. It would actually be more intuitive to make it so that if someone has the defender trait, and they are not the one attacking, they should automatically be considered as the "attacker" in the SRO.

[Demnchi]

Ah, so intuitive game-play is lost due to the refusal of rewording a card.

Although I understand the reasoning of not re-wording with a physical set... I don't believe this would honestly be a problem.
Anyone playing a physical version of this game has to scrawl through the SE forum to understand the complex logic and have the paradoxes explained, and rulings on SRO of phases. They would have pieces of paper all over the place to indicate what is disabled, poisoned, can attack, can't defend, dying at end of turn, health and attack bonuses....

Seriously. Publishing an 'amendments page' for physical cards on the form would be of little consequence.

Some rewording is still possible, although i don't know to what extent Wulven is willing to do such rewording. But they have reworded cards in the past. For example, Cover of Night was printed like this:



Now, in-game, it holds the Duration keyword instead of saying it lasts for two turns. Rather or not this is applicable to this situation isn't the point of this post, only to show that they aren't 100% unwilling to make an "amendments" to cards. Granted, I do want every angle to be considered... I don't want another Dragon's Tooth buff to anything else lol.

[Delay of Game]

If you're thinking about it as if it's happening for real, Snow Sapphire would only work once the attacker has hit the armor.

If this were happening for real I would instruct my ally to attack Snow Sapphire's chest area, there's no armor on her there. It's probably so that Snow Sapphire gal can show-off her cleavage...

[Gondorian]

Hi Gondorian,

The addition of a single line of logic to the Shadow Era combat phase step-by-step guide would result in the game behaving in an intuitive manner to players.
Is there any reason why the following can not be done?
(I've also incorporated your "note" into the combat phase logic)


0.Confirm that A can attack and D can be attacked by A.
0.1. If A can't attack, there is no attack.
0.2. If A has attack value of 0, there is no attack.
0.3. If D can't be attacked by A (e.g. D has stealth), there is no attack.
0.4. If the attack was initiated directly through a player action (as opposed to a card effect) and the attacking hero/ally is exhausted, there is no attack.

1. A attacks D, triggering the start of the combat phase (A and D are now considered "in combat")
1.1. Any effects that trigger off "when A attacks D" or "when A/D enters combat" resolve.
1.2. If A or D has left play (e.g. through being killed), we jump to step 4.
1.3 . If D has defender, then Steps 2 and 3 are reversed.

2. D takes attacking combat damage from A, equivalent to A's attack value (which can be 0).
2.1. The combat damage to D may be reduced, increased or prevented by card effects.
2.2. If D is a hero, the combat damage can be reduced by the defense value of his armor.
2.3. If the combat damage is greater than zero, it is dealt to D.
2.3.1. Any effects that trigger off that damage being dealt resolve.
2.4. Durability is updated for A's weapon and D's armor.
2.4.1. If A is a hero, the durability of her weapon used is reduced by 1.
2.4.2. If D is a hero, the durability of his armor is reduced by 1.
2.5. If A or D has left play (e.g. through being killed), we jump to step 4.

3. If D can defend and has attack value of at least 1, A takes defending combat damage from D, equivalent to D's attack value.
3.1. The combat damage to A may be reduced, increased or prevented by card effects.
3.2. If A is a hero, the combat damage can be reduced by the defense value of her armor.
3.3. If the combat damage is greater than zero, it is dealt to A.
3.3.1. Any effects that trigger off that damage being dealt resolve.
3.4. Durability is updated for D's weapon and A's armor.
3.4.1. If D is a hero, the durability of his weapon used is reduced by 1.
3.4.2. If A is a hero, the durability of her armor is reduced by 1.
3.5. If A or D has left play (e.g. through being killed), we jump to step 4. (This is only relevant when D has defender, which causes steps 2 and 3 to switch.)
3.6. If A is unable to attack (frozen, disabled, can’t attack), we jump to step 4. (This is only relevant when D has defender)

4. The combat phase has ended (A and D are no longer "in combat").
4.1. Any effects that trigger off "end of combat" or "leaves combat" resolve.
4.2. If the attack was initiated directly through a player action (as opposed to a card effect), the attacking hero/ally is exhausted if it has done its maximum number of attacks that turn (default is 1).

Sheesh. Frozen doesn't mean that you abort the combat if you are the attacker. It means you can't attack (nor defend nor activate abilities), where we define attack as the instigation of combat.

In the immortal words of Obi-Wan Kenobi ...

Move along, move along ...

[Caitlyn0]

why move along?

what good is defender then?

if the ally with defender kills the opposing ally, does that ally still get its attack? it was frozen before it got to deal its damage, so why does it? isnt that the purpose of defender? it was disabled before it dealt damage, why does it still deal its damage disabled?

if you use an ally with 1 health, to attack into a hunter with emore... does that ally not die before it deals damage?

with the logic you presented, it should still get to deal its damage against a defender even if the defender killed it, because it initiated the attack.

[Gondorian]

why move along?

what good is defender then?

if the ally with defender kills the opposing ally, does that ally still get its attack? it was frozen before it got to deal its damage, so why does it? isnt that the purpose of defender? it was disabled before it dealt damage, why does it still deal its damage disabled?

if you use an ally with 1 health, to attack into a hunter with emore... does that ally not die before it deals damage?

with the logic you presented, it should still get to deal its damage against a defender even if the defender killed it, because it initiated the attack.

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.

[BP 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