PDA

View Full Version : Flock of seagulls incorrectly negating crush combat damage.



Vorpal
05-10-2014, 05:55 PM
Flock of seagulls has 1 defense.
When attacked by a creature with crush, one damage should be assigned to the seagull (which is subsequently ignored), the rest to the champion.

Instead the flock of seagulls blocks all the damage.

flock of seagulls does not say 'prevent all combat damage that would be dealt in a fight with this troop'. It says 'prevent all combat damage that would be dealt to this troop'. That amount is 1.

EDIT: There seems to be a larger issue where crush does not function correctly with regards to invincible units, but does function correctly in regards to seagulls. The functionality of crush in game does not line up with either the in game description of crush, nor the FAQ description of crush (the two are different).

Crush needs an overhaul, both in the in game description and in the FAQ, to ensure it correctly describes how crush functions. Right now it does not.

Voormas
05-10-2014, 06:03 PM
This is working as intended, it is different to the way it would work in MtG

Niedar
05-10-2014, 06:03 PM
Crush is a keyword power that troops can have. It means:

If this troop would deal more than fatal combat damage to all troops blocking it, it deals
exactly fatal damage to those troops, and the rest to those troop’s controller instead.

This applied before all other replacement/prevention modifiers for that packet have
been applied. If that damage is reduced or prevented to at or below fatal for those
troops, then no damage will be dealt to the champion this way.

Damage dealt to a hero this way can be further modified or prevented, but only if that
modifier did not affect the original packet.

If a troop with Crush was blocked, but all of its blockers were removed from combat, it
will deal its damage to the defending champion instead.

It is working correctly.

Vorpal
05-10-2014, 06:04 PM
If it's working as intended

-I think it's probably poor design as that seems to make the seagulls overpowered
-the text on the seagulls needs to be changed to match reality.

Pheelon
05-10-2014, 06:06 PM
nah the text is fine - crush just has a different mechanic - it only assigns damage to the champion if all blocking creatures die

see the rules faq : http://f31812b0b389f16c3943-bb9edd4f1582b9b60c1682bd9d280aa0.r48.cf2.rackcdn.c om/HEX_FAQ_1-3.pdf

Vorpal
05-10-2014, 06:09 PM
nah the text is fine - crush just has a different mechanic - it only assigns damage to the champion if all blocking creatures die

That is not remotely close to what crush says.

Crush says "If this troop assigns more than fatal combat damage to all troops blocking it, the rest will be assigned to the defending champion"

Fatal damage against a seagull is 1 damage. 1 damage is assigned to the seagulls (which then ignore it). The remainder is thus, by the definition of crush, assigned to the champion.

The actual DEATH of the creatures blocking it is absolutely 100% not part of the definition for crush.

The interaction between crush and the seagulls may be as the devs desire, but it is crystal clear that it is not functioning according to the stated definitions of the involved keywords.

It needs to be changed, for the sake of clarity.

Niedar
05-10-2014, 06:11 PM
It doesn't assign fatal combat damage because it is prevented. I am not sure what you mean.

Pheelon
05-10-2014, 06:12 PM
but the damage isn't fatal

Lawlschool
05-10-2014, 06:13 PM
The way it's been explained is that crush troops "assign" all their damage. If it's fatal, the remainder rolls over. Since Seagulls negate all damage assigned to them, crush troops can never assign more than fatal, so no damage goes through.

Vorpal
05-10-2014, 06:15 PM
It doesn't assign fatal combat damage because it is prevented. I am not sure what you mean.

That has causality backwards. The damage is assigned. It is not dealt.

What precisely do you mean by 'assign'? If it is a non standard definition then we need to change crush to say "If this troop deals more than fatal combat damage to all troops blocking it, the rest will be assigned to the defending champion"

Damage that is assigned has been allocated but not yet dealt, or implemented. It is an intermediate step.

You can see the difference between 'assign' and 'deal' in cards like 'circle of preservation'.

israel.kendall
05-10-2014, 06:16 PM
Seagulls are OP.

Pheelon
05-10-2014, 06:16 PM
from the FAQ:

1. Keyword Powers
• Crush is a keyword power that troops can have. It means:
If this troop would deal more than fatal combat damage to all troops blocking it, it deals exactly fatal damage to those troops, and the rest to those troop’s controller instead.
o This applied before all other replacement/prevention modifiers for that packet have been applied. If that damage is reduced or prevented to at or below fatal for those troops, then no damage will be dealt to the champion this way.
o Damage dealt to a hero this way can be further modified or prevented, but only if that modifier did not affect the original packet.
o If a troop with Crush was blocked, but all of its blockers were removed from combat, it will deal its damage to the defending champion instead.

Quasari
05-10-2014, 06:17 PM
Crush is a keyword power that troops can have. It means:
If this troop would deal more than fatal combat damage to all troops blocking it, it deals
exactly fatal damage to those troops, and the rest to those troop’s controller instead.

This applied before all other replacement/prevention modifiers for that packet have been applied. If that damage is reduced or prevented to at or below fatal for those troops, then no damage will be dealt to the champion this way.
Damage dealt to a hero this way can be further modified or prevented, but only if that modifier did not affect the original packet.
If a troop with Crush was blocked, but all of its blockers were removed from combat, it will deal its damage to the defending champion instead.



From the faq. The bolded part is the relevant. The sentence before it is in response to how it used to work.

Vorpal
05-10-2014, 06:23 PM
The way it's been explained is that crush troops "assign" all their damage. If it's fatal, the remainder rolls over. Since Seagulls negate all damage assigned to them, crush troops can never assign more than fatal, so no damage goes through.

Seagulls do not negate all damage assigned to them - they prevent combat damage dealt to them.

The damage was still assigned to them.

Fatal combat damage for a unit with 1 health is 1.
A unit with crush assigns one damage to the seagulls, which is fatal damage.
If the unit with crush has more damage remaining, by the text of crush, this damage is assigned to the champion.

There are all kinds of reasons why one or both of these assignments of damage may or may not happen.

I can believe crush is functioning the way CZE wants it to, but 'assign' is absolutely not the correct word choice here. They need to replace it with 'deal'. Deal and assign are not the same thing in this game.

The text of crush would line up with the function of crush if it said 'deal' instead of assign. Or, as a poster upthread suggested, 'assigns excess combat damage to champion if all blocking creatures die' which is much more succinct.

This is in fact to be preferred, because the current definition opens up another question - what is fatal combat damage? We shouldn't define specific keywords by using other undefined terms.

Vorpal
05-10-2014, 06:24 PM
from the FAQ:

1. Keyword Powers
• Crush is a keyword power that troops can have. It means:
If this troop would deal more than fatal combat damage to all troops blocking it, it deals exactly fatal damage to those troops, and the rest to those troop’s controller instead.

Good, that's exactly how it works.

It is thus clear that the in game description is incorrect.

They should update it with the definition from the FAQ. Note that the word 'assign' does not appear anywhere in the FAQ definition for crush - for good reason.

And it's not just esoteric edge seagull case where this could be an issue: It would happen any time a troop with crush was blocked by a troop with invincible.

Although I still don't like the undefined term 'fatal damage' in the FAQ.

'fatal damage' is not defined in the FAQ. What does it mean? No answer in game.

They may as well have it say "If this troop deals enough damage to kill all troops blocking it..." That has the added bonus of rolling the sub bullets into the main definition, making it clear that if any of your blocking troops survive, for whatever reason, no crush damage goes through.

Quasari
05-10-2014, 06:41 PM
Invincible can be dealt fatal damage, it just can't die.

FlyingMeatchip
05-10-2014, 06:42 PM
Silver Talon Senator, 2, , Troop—Pet Bird, 1 /1
Flight <p> When this troop deals damage to an opposing champion, its master gets permanent +1
/+1 .

This will affect the Silver Talon Senator’s master even if it moved into a different zone or
transformed into a different form.

[I had its master in my hand and damage from the T. Senator did not buff master]

Vorpal
05-10-2014, 06:43 PM
Does that mean crush does *not* bypass invincible?

This is why I dislike the term 'assigned/dealt fatal damage'.

Quasari
05-10-2014, 06:46 PM
Crush passes through invincible. The only thing it can't get around is damage prevention, because it doesn't deal the damage.

Cotton
05-10-2014, 06:47 PM
It's not just one Seagal, it's a flock of seagulls.

Vorpal
05-10-2014, 06:55 PM
Crush passes through invincible. The only thing it can't get around is damage prevention, because it doesn't deal the damage.

That makes no sense. Invincible IS damage prevention!


This card can’t be damaged

If a card can't be damaged, obviously you can't deal fatal damage to it - though you can assign it to it, just like seagulls.

Quasari
05-10-2014, 07:11 PM
That makes no sense. Invincible IS damage prevention!



If a card can't be damaged, obviously you can't deal fatal damage to it - though you can assign it to it, just like seagulls.

You are correct, I am dumb. Any who, this is just a change from magic, it's not really op, just different from the game it's based on.

Vorpal
05-10-2014, 07:11 PM
I've not played MTG, so I'm not trying to get it to behave like MTG.

I want the keyword descriptions to match the in game functionality.

If crush goes past invincible, then the FAQ description of how crush works is correct, and all that remains is to replace the incorrect in game definition with the correct FAQ definition.

Quasari
05-10-2014, 07:16 PM
I've not played MTG, so I'm not trying to get it to behave like MTG.

I want the keyword descriptions to match the in game functionality.

If crush goes past invincible, then the FAQ description of how crush works is correct, and all that remains is to replace the incorrect in game definition with the correct FAQ definition.
Haven't tested it since alpha, it used to go through invincible, may not anymore.

Showsni
05-10-2014, 10:46 PM
I remember attacking with my Wrathwood Colossus into a Bird o' Plenty in a game immediately after the patch where they changed how Crush works against it. If I'd known it would deal 0 damage to him and let him draw 9 cards I probably wouldn't have done it.

bactgudz
05-10-2014, 11:32 PM
from the FAQ:

1. Keyword Powers
• Crush is a keyword power that troops can have. It means:
If this troop would deal more than fatal combat damage to all troops blocking it, it deals exactly fatal damage to those troops, and the rest to those troop’s controller instead.
o This applied before all other replacement/prevention modifiers for that packet have been applied. If that damage is reduced or prevented to at or below fatal for those troops, then no damage will be dealt to the champion this way.
o Damage dealt to a hero this way can be further modified or prevented, but only if that modifier did not affect the original packet.
o If a troop with Crush was blocked, but all of its blockers were removed from combat, it will deal its damage to the defending champion instead.

I don't understand how to reconcile the bolded statements. If the previous statement applied before damage prevention, then it would seem the damage is dealt to the champion before any prevention effects are applied...but then it says if the damage is prevented, no damage is dealt to the champion...but as worded, the damage was already dealt to the champion before any prevention effects apply. I understand what the client is doing, but if that is how they want this keyword to work, that wording seems very obtuse.

Edit: and as written, this seems to mean that if a creature has the ability: "Any damage dealt to this creature is reduced by 1", then that would mean that if it blocks a creature with crush, it will not die, nor will the defending champ take any damage regardless of the power of the attacker with crush...again this is very strange.

Galvayra
05-10-2014, 11:33 PM
That makes no sense. Invincible IS damage prevention!



If a card can't be damaged, obviously you can't deal fatal damage to it - though you can assign it to it, just like seagulls.

Seaguls is not invincible, it only prevents combat damage, you can deal 2 damage to it with burn and it will die. You can use survival of the fittest and make something battle with it and it will die

Seaguls makes combat damage of the attacker it blocks 0, that is why crush does not go through,the attacker deals 0 damage that combat phase, there is nothing left to crush.

If you attack a 3/3 invincible with a 5/5 crush, the 3/3 wont die and controller will still take 2 crush damage, "fatal damage" does not mean the defender has to die, it means damage equal to its health

CGOOnline
05-11-2014, 11:23 AM
These are just my thoughts from what I've read so far. I think the text of Flock of Seagulls is fine. Note that I have do not have access to the game and I'm still searching for a rule book (so I don't know the technical definition for Invincible). However, I've played the "rules lawyer" with other trading card games in the past. Hopefully I'm not too far off. :)

An assumption I'm making is that all damage from an attacking troop is dealt to the blocking troop regardless of the abilities either troop has (Crush, Invincibility, etc.). So, the blocking troop will always be dealt the full damage from the attacking troop.

In the case of the Flock of Seagulls, the card text specifically states that *all* damage is prevented. Thus, no Crush damage may be dealt as all damage has been prevented the moment it is dealt. Thus, no damage remains to reach the champion as it was all prevented regardless of the health of the blocking troop (1 in the case of Flock of Seagulls). In this case no fatal damage is ever dealt due to all damage being prevented.

In the case of a troop with Invincible, no damage is being prevented so damage would still be dealt to that troop, up to the health of that troop. You would then determine the amount necessary to kill that troop (based upon the heath at the time health and damage is compared) and the remainder would be dealt to the champion. The Invincible troop would then survive due to being Invincible even though fatal damage would have been dealt.

ossuary
05-11-2014, 11:37 AM
That's pretty much exactly what it is. Invincible troops TAKE damage, their health just doesn't go down from it and they can't be killed by it (or being destroyed, or anything other than being reduced to 0 defense through alternate means). Whereas preventing combat damage, well, prevents it. :)

Vorpal
05-11-2014, 11:47 AM
If you attack a 3/3 invincible with a 5/5 crush, the 3/3 wont die and controller will still take 2 crush damage, "fatal damage" does not mean the defender has to die, it means damage equal to its health

If this is in fact what happens, the FAQ, as well as the in game description, are badly, badly wrong.

There is no difference between dealing fatal damage to an invincible unit and dealing fatal damage to seagulls.

According to the current wording of crush, if crush goes past one, it needs to go past the other. If it does not go past one, it needs to not go past the other.

I think they need to take a serious look at how crush interacts with invincible. (Seagulls are essentially given invincible only for the duration of the combat - the principles for crush damage are the same)


Seaguls makes combat damage of the attacker it blocks 0

That is not what seagulls says.

However, that would be a MUCH better and far more intuitive text for the seagulls!

Simply say "Troop blocked by this troop has an attack of 0"

Problem solved.

Vorpal
05-11-2014, 11:49 AM
That's pretty much exactly what it is. Invincible troops TAKE damage

No, they do not. Per the FAQ:


Invincible is a keyword power that cards can have. It means:
This card can’t be damaged or destroyed.

We are explicitly told that invincible troops do not take damage. Therefore, by the wording of crush, no crush damage should go past invincible troops.


This applied before all other replacement/prevention modifiers for that packet have
been applied. If that damage is reduced or prevented to at or below fatal for those
troops, then no damage will be dealt to the champion this way.


If crush is going past invincible, it's badly bugged.

OR else their FAQ is horribly wrong.

hex_colin
05-11-2014, 11:51 AM
If this is in fact what happens, the FAQ, as well as the in game description, are badly, badly wrong.

There is no difference between dealing fatal damage to an invincible unit and dealing fatal damage to seagulls.

According to the current wording of crush, if crush goes past one, it needs to go past the other. If it does not go past one, it needs to not go past the other.

I think they need to take a serious look at how crush interacts with invincible. (Seagulls are essentially given invincible only for the duration of the combat - the principles for crush damage are the same)



That is not what seagulls says.

However, that would be a MUCH better and far more intuitive text for the seagulls!

Simply say "Troop blocked by this troop has an attack of 0"

Problem solved.

You're just arguing semantics. Whether or not the text is as clear as you want it to be, the game works the way the developers intended and if you look at the FAQ they published it's explained there too. Crush is useless against the blue birds (FoS and BoP)...

Vorpal
05-11-2014, 11:56 AM
You're just arguing semantics. Whether or not the text is as clear as you want it to be, the game works the way the developers intended

Colin, this response is beneath you. Obviously the text should be clear! How can you possibly say "It doesn't matter if the text is wrong, the game is doing what the coders want it to!"

I don't care how the game works - they can make it work however they want to. I want the description of how it works to match the way it works. And you should too.

The in game description does not match the FAQ description. Neither matches the way crush actually functions. These are all bad things. Crush should have a clear and accurate definition so that new players can grasp how it functions.

There is no possible grounds to object to asking for the crush description to match how it functions.



and if you look at the FAQ they published it's explained there too. Crush is useless against the blue birds (FoS and BoP)...

Yes, by the FAQ, it should be useless against the birds. It should also be useless against invincible units. Apparently it goes past invincible units. It should not, per the FAQ description.

If crush fails to penetrate both the birds and invincible units (and anything else that somehow doesn't die during combat) then the FAQ description of how crush works is correct and all that needs to happen is that the incorrect in game description be modified to match the FAQ description.

Quasari
05-11-2014, 12:52 PM
The wording on crush can be interpreted in two ways:
1. It checks the health of all blockers and applies fatal damage, with the rest damaging the player.
2. It applies damage after taking into account damage modifiers and then splits it.

It works like 2, same as choosing order to block with damage prevention. This is a good description as it can be interpreted in the correct way and the FAQ is the correct way to reinforce it.

There is a problem with this though. Double damage applies after the crush packets are formed. Maybe double damage is just an exception.

hex_colin
05-11-2014, 01:02 PM
Colin, this response is beneath you. Obviously the text should be clear! How can you possibly say "It doesn't matter if the text is wrong, the game is doing what the coders want it to!"

I never said it shouldn't be clear. I'm arguing the futility of a 4 page (and counting) thread (of many such threads in the life of these boards) that continues to debate the semantics. Bottom line - it works the way it's intended. There are quite a few other things that are a much bigger problem. This is a polish item.

Gwaer
05-11-2014, 01:10 PM
I fail to see what this has to do with Poland.

Sereaphim
05-11-2014, 01:14 PM
That's pretty much exactly what it is. Invincible troops TAKE damage, their health just doesn't go down from it and they can't be killed by it (or being destroyed, or anything other than being reduced to 0 defense through alternate means). Whereas preventing combat damage, well, prevents it. :)

They take no damage.
Invincible - This card can't be damaged or destroyed.

ossuary
05-11-2014, 01:29 PM
They take no damage.
Invincible - This card can't be damaged or destroyed.

Correct. They are not damaged (i.e. they do not lose health), but the damage is still DONE to them. Damage is dealt, they just don't take the damage. But it's still taking place. An invincible troop only stops damage to itself. Something that "prevents all combat damage" (surprise surprise!) prevents all of it. :)

Vorpal
05-11-2014, 01:29 PM
Bottom line - it works the way it's intended.

Bottom line: it works the way it is intended, but not the way it is described.

It's not futile to point that out. Given that it would take about 10s to change the in game description, the priority of this is hardly important, and I don't agree that it's futile to point out bugs that won't be addressed THIS INSTANT in any case.

This is not really a polish item : it's an item I'd expect to be corrected before open beta begins. Fundamental game concepts need to be correctly described in game.

Vorpal
05-11-2014, 01:33 PM
This is a good description as it can be interpreted in the correct way a

That is not the definition of a good description.

A good description is one that can ONLY be interpreted in the correct way.

Anyway, if crush goes past invincible, I would say the FAQ can not be interpreted in the correct way, as written.

I know updating the FAQ is probably a low priority when they are trying to stabilize servers, but hopefully they can do a FAQ/rules/keyword pass before open beta.

Vorpal
05-11-2014, 01:37 PM
Correct. They are not damaged (i.e. they do not lose health), but the damage is still DONE to them.

Incorrect. Invincible says the damage is NOT DEALT.


Damage is dealt, they just don't take the damage.

If they do not take damage, the damage is not dealt, by definition.


But it's still taking place. An invincible troop only stops damage to itself. Something that "prevents all combat damage" (surprise surprise!) prevents all of it. :)

Seagulls do not say the prevent all combat damage. They specifically say they prevent combat damage only to themselves.

Quasari
05-11-2014, 01:56 PM
Can you give me a concise description containing all conditionals?

Vorpal
05-11-2014, 01:58 PM
Can you give me a concise description containing all conditionals?

Who are you asking and for what exactly would you like to see such a description?

Quasari
05-11-2014, 02:08 PM
Who are you asking and for what exactly would you like to see such a description?
You. If you are petitioning it should be done, I'd like to hear what you think would be suitable. I only ask for a concise one as keyword definition s need to be so.

Vorpal
05-11-2014, 03:35 PM
It depends on whether or not crush should bypass invincible.

If crush does not bypass invincible, then the FAQ definition is correct and needs only some moderate fine tuning, then the in game description (which does not match the FAQ) should be replaced by the FAQ description.

Currently the FAQ says


If this troop would deal more than fatal combat damage to all troops blocking it, it deals
exactly fatal damage to those troops, and the rest to those troop’s controller instead.
o This applied before all other replacement/prevention modifiers for that packet have
been applied. If that damage is reduced or prevented to at or below fatal for those
troops, then no damage will be dealt to the champion this way.
o Damage dealt to a hero this way can be further modified or prevented, but only if that
modifier did not affect the original packet.
o If a troop with Crush was blocked, but all of its blockers were removed from combat, it
will deal its damage to the defending champion instead.

There is some unnecessary ambiguity with the undefined term 'fatal damage' which appears in the FAQ document pretty much only in this section. I suggest it be removed.

Instead, replace with


If this troop deals enough damage to kill all troops blocking it, any excess not needed to kill those troops is dealt to those troop’s controller instead.

This has two advantages:
-removes confusion over 'would deal'. In general hypothesizing as to what might have happened should not be part of keyword descriptions.
-removes the ambiguous term 'fatal damage'.

Now, if crush does bypass invincible then either the FAQ definitions of crush or invincible are incorrect and we need more work to revise it.

Showsni
05-11-2014, 03:52 PM
So, if Hex had a spell that said "Prevent the next 1 damage that would be dealt to target troop," and I blocked a 9/9 Wrathwood Colossus with Crush with a 0/1 Battle Hopper and then used that spell on it, 0 damage would be dealt to me and the Hopper will survive? That seems... off.

(From the FAQ - the Colossus would deal more than fatal to the Hopper, so it deals 1 (exactly fatal) to it and 8 to me, this being applied before any prevention modifies are applied. Now the 1 damage prevention modifier is applied, so the Hopper survives, and since it is now below fatal no damage is dealt to me either.)

Vorpal
05-11-2014, 04:53 PM
I would think such a spell would block only one point of damage, so 1 damage incoming to battle hopper means he lives and 2 means he dies. So...presumably you'd still take crush damage but it would be less?

sukebe
05-11-2014, 06:24 PM
I really don't understand the mix up here.

With crush, all damage is assigned to the creature(s) in question then the game checks to see if there is any damage in excess of lethal damage to the creature(s) that blocked. If there is, it is assigned to the defending player.

So, lets see how this interacts with the seagulls and a hypothetical 01 invincible creature. Lets assume you are attacking with a feral ogre (a 3/2 crush):

With the seagulls, all 3 damage is assigned to the seagulls. The seagulls ability then reduces all of that damage to zero. Now the game checks to see if there is any damage assigned that is in excess of the seagulls 1 health. There isn,t (because it was all reduced to 0) so no damage is dealt to the defending player.

With the make believe 01 invincible creature, all the 3 damage is assigned to it just like with the seagulls. This creature has no ability that reduces the damage so the game then checks to see if there is any damage assigned in excess of the creatures 1 health. There is 2 extra, so that is assigned to the defending player. Damage is then dealt. The player takes 2 points and the creature ignores the 1 point assigned to it (as it is invincible).

Both of these abilities work exactly as I assumed they would. The important thing to keep in mind is that when it comes to invincible creatures and crush is this: you can assign damage to invincible creatures even though they will not take it. crush only cares that the damage being assigned to a creature is in excess of its health (or toughness, I don't remember what Hex calls it) in order to do damage to the defending player.

Vorpal
05-11-2014, 06:40 PM
I really don't understand the mix up here.

With crush, all damage is assigned to the creature(s) in question then the game checks to see if there is any damage in excess of lethal damage to the creature(s) that blocked. If there is, it is assigned to the defending player.

Right. So 1 damage, fatal damage, is assigned to the seagulls. There is more than that, so it gets assigned to the hero.


So, lets see how this interacts with the seagulls and a hypothetical 01 invincible creature. Lets assume you are attacking with a feral ogre (a 3/2 crush):

With the seagulls, all 3 damage is assigned to the seagulls. The seagulls ability then reduces all of that damage to zero. Now the game checks to see if there is any damage assigned that is in excess of the seagulls 1 health.

Here's how it should be working:

1 damage, fatal damage, is assigned to the seagulls.
Game checks to see if there is more damage. There is.
2 damage is assigned to the champion.
1 damage is assigned to the seagulls (who subsequently ignore it)

It's quite clear that the timing of these events is not sufficiently explained.


There isn,t (because it was all reduced to 0) so no damage is dealt to the defending player.

Seagulls only reduce combat damage assigned to the seagulls to zero, not combat damage assigned to the hero.


With the make believe 01 invincible creature, all the 3 damage is assigned to it just like with the seagulls. This creature has no ability that reduces the damage

This is completely incorrect and explicitly contradicted by the FAQ. Invincible creatures cannot be damaged. As the FAQ says, if the damage is prevented, crush does not kick in.


you can assign damage to invincible creatures even though they will not take it. crush only cares that the damage being assigned to a creature is in excess of its health (or toughness, I don't remember what Hex calls it) in order to do damage to the defending player.

By this rational, crush should go right by the seagulls. If what you say is true, and all that crush cares about is if the damage is ASSIGNED, and not inflicted, then seagulls obviously cannot block crush.

Invincible absolutely ought to block crush according to the FAQ. Seagulls should not block crush according to the in game description, but should according to the FAQ.

Diesbudt
05-11-2014, 07:28 PM
Right. So 1 damage, fatal damage, is assigned to the seagulls. There is more than that, so it gets assigned to the hero.



Here's how it should be working:

1 damage, fatal damage, is assigned to the seagulls.
Game checks to see if there is more damage. There is.
2 damage is assigned to the champion.
1 damage is assigned to the seagulls (who subsequently ignore it)

It's quite clear that the timing of these events is not sufficiently explained.



Seagulls only reduce combat damage assigned to the seagulls to zero, not combat damage assigned to the hero.



This is completely incorrect and explicitly contradicted by the FAQ. Invincible creatures cannot be damaged. As the FAQ says, if the damage is prevented, crush does not kick in.



By this rational, crush should go right by the seagulls. If what you say is true, and all that crush cares about is if the damage is ASSIGNED, and not inflicted, then seagulls obviously cannot block crush.

Invincible absolutely ought to block crush according to the FAQ. Seagulls should not block crush according to the in game description, but should according to the FAQ.

You are missing the simple fact.

X troop deals 5 damage to seagulls.
Seagulls prevent said combat damage to them. Says so in the card effect.

This means no damage actually ever hits them, as they prevented it. Because of this, no fatal damage ever occurred because their defense was never dropped to 0, because they prevented said damage.

Now if they had the word "invincible" then yes, you would be right as leftover damage would still be there, BUT the creature wouldn't die because of the invincible tag.

Invincible =/= prevents all combat damage.

And the reason it says combat damage and not just damage (which may cause confusion for some) is so non combat damage can kill them. Burn, ragefire, etc.

Svenn
05-11-2014, 08:08 PM
Right. So 1 damage, fatal damage, is assigned to the seagulls. There is more than that, so it gets assigned to the hero.



Here's how it should be working:

1 damage, fatal damage, is assigned to the seagulls.
Game checks to see if there is more damage. There is.
2 damage is assigned to the champion.
1 damage is assigned to the seagulls (who subsequently ignore it)
I get what you are saying, and that's the way it works in MTG, but that's actually a bit counter-intuitive. 1 damage is NOT fatal to the seagulls. No amount of combat damage is fatal to the seagulls. The game takes into account all abilities to determine what is "fatal damage" instead of ignoring all abilities while "assigning damage".

How about this explanation:
1) You attempt to assign 1 damage to the seagulls, it's prevented... no fatal damage.
2) You attempt to assign 1 damage to the seagulls, it's prevented... no fatal damage.
3) You attempt to assign 1 damage to the seagulls, it's prevented... no fatal damage.

Werlix
05-11-2014, 08:13 PM
From a non-MtG player, the way Seagulls works currently is exactly how I would imagine it to work and seems intuitive. The Flock isn't dealt fatal damage as it never dies.

I'm confused by the way people use the work "assign" when talking about combat damage. From what I can see there are no cards or rules from the FAQ that ever mention "assigning" damage. Damage is dealt not assigned. When a troop is dealt enough damage to kill it, that's fatal damage.

Vorpal
05-11-2014, 08:30 PM
I'm confused by the way people use the work "assign" when talking about combat damage. From what I can see there are no cards or rules from the FAQ that ever mention "assigning" damage. Damage is dealt not assigned. When a troop is dealt enough damage to kill it, that's fatal damage.

The reason they say 'assign' is because the bugged (and horribly incorrect) in game text of crush says 'assign'.

The FAQ text of crush very correctly says 'deal'.

I agree that 'assign' should never be used in place of 'deal' as it is far too ambiguous.

Vorpal
05-11-2014, 08:43 PM
You are missing the simple fact.

X troop deals 5 damage to seagulls.

X troops deals 1 damage to the seagulls. Why would it deal 5 if it is a crush creature?

It says quite specifically that after it assigns fatal damage (damage = to the creatures health) then the rest is assigned to the champion.

Seagulls aren't killed by combat damage. Their text says nothing about them being assigned more combat damage.

fatal damage for seagulls is always 1. Their text does not change that. It does not increase their fatal damage number. Therefore, the only amount of damage assigned to seagulls in a battle with crush creatures is 1.


Seagulls prevent said combat damage to them. Says so in the card effect.

This means no damage actually ever hits them, as they prevented it. Because of this, no fatal damage ever occurred because their defense was never dropped to 0, because they prevented said damage.

Now if they had the word "invincible" then yes, you would be right as leftover damage would still be there, BUT the creature wouldn't die because of the invincible tag.

I very much disagree with this reasoning as well. According to the FAQ, invincible and seagulls alike should prevent crush from going through.

If crush is being blocked by invincible there is a bug somewhere.

There is no functional difference, once in combat, between seagulls and invincible troops. They both say that this troop doesn't take damage. No damage ever hits the seagulls, no damage ever hits the invincible troops. It specifically says 'these troops don't take damage'. Just like with the seagulls, no fatal damage ever occurred to the invincible troops because their defence was never dropped ot 0, because they prevent said damage. It's right there in the FAQ.

Invincible does not mean 'this troop doesn't die when it's health is reduced to zero' as some people seem to be thinking it means. It simply means the troop cannot be dealt damage. Exactly the same as seagulls in combat. Crush should be blocked both by the seagulls and invincible troops.

For seagulls to be different, they would have to say something like 'reduce the combat damage dealt by blocked troops to 0' or some such.

Vorpal
05-11-2014, 08:44 PM
I get what you are saying, and that's the way it works in MTG, but that's actually a bit counter-intuitive. 1 damage is NOT fatal to the seagulls.

Of course it is. If I hit the seagulls with a spell that does 1 damage, they die. 1 is the fatal damage number for seagulls. The seagulls text does not say 'the fatal damage for this troop while in combat is infinity' which is what it would need in order to block crush using the in game text.

That is how much damage a crush creature would assign to seagulls.

seagulls just have an extra text that prevents them from dying from fatal damage assigned during combat.

It says nothing about them needing to be assigned more damage than fatal damage.

This kind of confusion is exactly why the terms 'fatal damage' and 'assign' need to be removed from the in game description of crush.

eioi
05-11-2014, 08:47 PM
You can look to this another way.
When you attack and the creature is blocked, than you assign/deal first all the damage to the first blocking creature.
Than if there is value left you assign/deal the rest to the next blocking creature (or in crush case to the player) and so on.

The Text on the Seagulls say: "Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt to this troop".

So what happens is:
Your X combat damage is assign/dealt to the seagulf (if it is the first blocking) and is reduced by its ability to 0 (ALL combat damage is preventet).
So there is nothing left to deal to other blocking creature or players.

Diesbudt
05-11-2014, 08:51 PM
X troops deals 1 damage to the seagulls. Why would it deal 5 if it is a crush creature?




This is where you have it wrong, and in which you have to wrap your head around.

1) This is Hex, it's rules are not exactly the same as MTG

2) Prevents combat damage

pre·vent
[priˈvent]
verb
- keep (something) from happening or arising.

The combat damage never happened because a creature is blocked by the seagulls. Since the damage never happened no damage can "go through" as crush damage past the seagulls defense. Thus the wording on the card is fine. The way the mechanic works is as intended.

The only thing you are thinking of is invincible. Invincible any damage over a creatures defense via crush does hit the champion because there is excess damage. All invincible does is mean the creature does not die. Unlike preventing damage, the damage never hit the seagulls. Because that is the definition of prevent. Because no damage ever actually hits the seagulls, there is no excess damage to activate the crush ability.

Werlix
05-11-2014, 08:55 PM
X troops deals 1 damage to the seagulls. Why would it deal 5 if it is a crush creature?


https://hextcg.com/card-overview/ "Anatomy Of A Card" section:

"When attacking or blocking, a troop deals damage based on his attack."

Seems simple to me. If a troop has 5 attack, it will deal 5 damage when it attacks, right?

So if Flock blocks, it will prevent all of that damage.

Vorpal
05-11-2014, 09:04 PM
You can look to this another way.
When you attack and the creature is blocked, than you assign/deal first all the damage to the first blocking creature.
Than if there is value left you assign/deal the rest to the next blocking creature (or in crush case to the player) and so on.

The Text on the Seagulls say: "Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt to this troop".

So what happens is:
Your X combat damage is assign/dealt to the seagulf (if it is the first blocking) and is reduced by its ability to 0 (ALL combat damage is preventet).
So there is nothing left to deal to other blocking creature or players.

That's one possible interpretation. But crush says


Crush - if this troop assigns more than fatal combat damage to all troops blocking it, the rest will be assigned to the defending champion

So the chain of events is as follows:

Ogre is blocked by seagulls.
1 is fatal damage to seagulls, since the seagulls health is 1.
Ogre assigns 1 damage to seagulls.
The remainder of the damage is assigned to the defending champion.
Now that damage has been assigned, it's time to deal damage.
Seagulls special text kicks in, and the 1 damage they were assigned doesn't kill them.
The 2 damage assigned to the champion goes through.

There is nothing in this chain of events that is contradicted by the rules of crush and seagulls

Therefore, the text of crush needs to be changed so that it is obvious ahead of time how they will interact. As it is, the interpretation I have posted is just as plausible as the one you have posted- it's all a question of timing. You keep quoting 'prevent all combat damage that would be dealt to this troop' but a crush troop would only ever deal 1 damage to a 1 health creature. Asking people to try to guess what shades of meaning 'would be' carries and when it would be evaluated is not a good way to go.

The terms 'assign' and 'fatal combat damage' are unnecessarily ambiguous and need to be removed from the in game crush description.

A lot of you are working backwards from a pre-existing knowledge of how the game works, and attempting to rationalize an explanation for how you could arrive at the correct interpretation of the given rules. That's not how we should do it: we should start with the given rules, and ensure the only interpretation for them is the correct one. If the way two keywords interact can be interpreted in a variety of ways, one incorrect and the others not, that's not a good situation for us to be in.

You might think this is low priority but this all needs to be hashed out before open beta begins (which was originally scheduled to be less than a month away).

Vorpal
05-11-2014, 09:08 PM
https://hextcg.com/card-overview/ "Anatomy Of A Card" section:

"When attacking or blocking, a troop deals damage based on his attack."

Seems simple to me. If a troop has 5 attack, it will deal 5 damage when it attacks, right?

So if Flock blocks, it will prevent all of that damage.

If a troop has 5 attack and crush, it will assign some damage to the blocking creature and some damage to the champion.

This is precisely what crush says in game right now


Crush - if this troop assigns more than fatal combat damage to all troops blocking it, the rest will be assigned to the defending champion

I don't like the 'assign' terminology that raises a whole host of questions. I also don't like the 'fatal combat damage' which is equally problematic. You could argue that, say, droos walker is blocked by a 1/1. It assigns 1 damage to the 1/1, and then assigns 7 damage to the champion. and THEN the owner of the blocker plays a +7/+7 buff on it. The question of whether the buff is played before or after the damage assigning would be an important one.

In game description needs to be changed to say 'deals'. Actually, it would be much simpler for it to simply say 'kills all troops blocking it' specifically to avoid the seagull issue. Someone could argue the damage is dealt, it just didn't kill the troop. (In fact, some people have specifically been making this claim with regards to invincible troops and why crush should go through them)

Vorpal
05-11-2014, 09:12 PM
The basic issue is you have two 'would's that are fighting.

Which takes priority?


Seagulls: prevent all combat damage that would be dealt to this troop

Crush: if this troop assigns more than fatal combat damage to all troops blocking it, the rest will be assigned to the defending champion

Just from that text, there is no way to know in which order the 'woulds' are evaluated in.

Do you evaluate crush first, and apply 1 damage to the seagull and the rest to the champion? And THEN the seagulls text kicks in ?

Or do you evaluate the seagulls text, and only THEN evaluate crush?

Hypothesizing about the future (how much damage would be dealt, how much damage might be assigned) needs to be excluded from keyword definitions because if you get two such cases you have no idea in which order to resolve them.

Werlix
05-11-2014, 09:34 PM
If a troop has 5 attack and crush, it will assign some damage to the blocking creature and some damage to the champion.

No, a troop with 5 attack attempts to deal 5 damage whether it has crush or not. Again with this "assign" word...

It's straight from the website! I'll quote it again:

"When attacking or blocking, a troop deals damage based on his attack."

Any fancy stuff like crush happens if/when damage "would be dealt" not before.

sukebe
05-12-2014, 12:12 AM
You keep missing the point vorpal. the way crush works in this game is that all damage is dealt to creatures blocking it. then the game checks to see if you dealt more damage than was necessary to destroy those blockers. If yes, then you deal that extra damage to the player, if not then no damage is dealt to the player. Because all (and I do mean ALL) damage is dealt to blocking creatures the seagulls power stops all of it. by the time crush checks to see if any damage gets through the damage has already been reduced to 0.

At this point any further discussion seems pointless. We have given you the explanation of what you were wrong about. It has been made clear by me and others that your interpretation of the rules and wording is incorrect. Despite this you say the same thing over and over and over like a broken record. The game works exactly like the wording and the FAQ says it does (both very clearly as far as I am concerned), it is not the games fault that you are misinterpreting it.

Is it different than other games do it? yes. Is it clear how it works to most people? At least according to this thread, yes it is.

There is nothing bad about being wrong. In fact it is the only way we improve ourselves.

PS: to those saying that you do not assign damage to anything in this game, please read the definition of assign and tell me that it isnt what we (or more often, the game) do with damage. To put it another way, it means that you or the game are choosing where damage will be directed. Usually in hex there is not a lot of choice (besides which creature you attempt to damage/destroy first).

PPS: as another example of how this works, try this out next time you can. Have an opponent attack you with a creature whose power is sufficient to kill your flock of seagulls and one of your other creatures. block with both the seagull and the other creature and have your opponent choose the seagull as the first creature to damage. you will find that neither your seagull or your other creature will have died because all damage is first dealt to the seagull (and therefore prevented). This is the same reason crush will not go past the flock of seagulls.

Sereaphim
05-12-2014, 02:15 AM
All invincible does is mean the creature does not die. Unlike preventing damage, the damage never hit the seagulls. Because that is the definition of prevent. Because no damage ever actually hits the seagulls, there is no excess damage to activate the crush ability.

Invincible - This card can't be damaged or destroyed.

Invincible troops take no damage so it is more then not to die...
So if it takes no damage this mean that the damage never happens to this troop.
By definition of prevent:




pre·vent
[priˈvent]
verb
- keep (something) from happening or arising.


Invincible troops prevent all the damage they would take.
You can easy test with Terrible Transfer and using it on a invincible troop.
You will not heal any health because all the damage get prevented by the troop.
Same goes for lifedrain troops that get blocked by invincible troops.

Nero_Jinous
05-12-2014, 02:48 AM
oh cool a 7 page thread about bad descriptions on cards.

I"m gunna pull a Vorpal and complain about the prime wild gem. It says: When this troop enters play , target troop you control has +[atk]/[def] each equal to this troop's [atk] and [def] this turn.

The way it works it should read: When this troop enters play , target troop you control has +[atk]/[def] each equal to this troop's [atk], and [def] this turn.

Note the added comma.

Example: I had a a peanut butter and jelly sandwich . This means I had 1 sandwich with both items listed on it.
Example 2: I had a peanut butter, and jelly sandwich. This means I had 2 sandwiches(1 peanut butter sandwich. 1 jelly sandwich)

Since there is no comma that means it should get +[atk] = [atk + def] / + [def] = [atk + def]

Now being the logical man that I am I read the card and understand the intended function is atk + atk / def + def even with the missing comma.

My point is stfu Vorpal and stop complaining about slight language issues. All that matters is that the card works as intended, which it does.

primer
05-12-2014, 05:40 AM
Example: I had a a peanut butter and jelly sandwich . This means I had 1 sandwich with both items listed on it.
Example 2: I had a peanut butter, and jelly sandwich. This means I had 2 sandwiches(1 peanut butter sandwich. 1 jelly sandwich)


Example 2 is just bad grammar and makes no sense.

'I had a peanut butter and a jelly sandwich' would be two sandwiches.

The gem would be better if: When this troop enters play a target troop you control has +[atk] equal to this troops [atk] and +[def] equal to this troops [def] this turn.

As for Flock of Seagulls its easy to see how there is an argument to be made for both sides. Just need a CZE guy to put this to rest once and for all.

ossuary
05-12-2014, 06:03 AM
It HAS been put to rest. Repeatedly.

"Prevent combat damage" stops Crush.
Invincible does not.

I think the only possible complaint anyone could legitimately make about this is that the tooltip in game for Crush didn't get updated when they fixed how it functions in-client.

The way it used to work was bugged, that has been stated multiple times. The way it works now is how it is (and always was) intended to work.

Diesbudt
05-12-2014, 06:15 AM
oh cool a 7 page thread about bad descriptions on cards.

I"m gunna pull a Vorpal and complain about the prime wild gem. It says: When this troop enters play , target troop you control has +[atk]/[def] each equal to this troop's [atk] and [def] this turn.

The way it works it should read: When this troop enters play , target troop you control has +[atk]/[def] each equal to this troop's [atk], and [def] this turn.

Note the added comma.

Example: I had a a peanut butter and jelly sandwich . This means I had 1 sandwich with both items listed on it.
Example 2: I had a peanut butter, and jelly sandwich. This means I had 2 sandwiches(1 peanut butter sandwich. 1 jelly sandwich)

Since there is no comma that means it should get +[atk] = [atk + def] / + [def] = [atk + def]

Now being the logical man that I am I read the card and understand the intended function is atk + atk / def + def even with the missing comma.

My point is stfu Vorpal and stop complaining about slight language issues. All that matters is that the card works as intended, which it does.

Commas. Ruining a people's life one at a time.

eioi
05-12-2014, 08:47 AM
@Vorpal: I think your problem is the word assign.
But you cant freely choose which defender gets how many damage, only the order.
As an Example think about a Creature with the ability that it destroys each blocking creature which it deals damage to at the end of the turn.
If this Creature is 6/6 and the enemy blocks with six 1/6 you cant assign the damage that every blocker gets one damage and get destroyed at the end of the turn.

The order in which damage and effects in battle take place is in my Oppinion (if there is an error please correct me):

1. Effects from assigne Attacking (effect from Rage, like 'Thunderbird') and Blocking Creature (like 'Guard Dog')
2. Swiftstrike Creature (like 'Pack Raptor') Attack now (All Damage damage from this Creatures are put Together)
3. Creature without Swiftstrike Attack now (All Damage damage from this Creatures are put Together)

Inside Attack (2. und 3.):
a. Damage prevent effect (like 'Flock of Seagulls') and this nullify all the damage from the Stack and the attacking-chain ends
b. Damage equal ( if damage>=defense which is considered fatal) or lesser (max damage if damage<defense) than the defending Creaure is assigned to this creature
c. Damage ignore effects (effect from Invincible, like 'Fist of Briggadon')
d. Effects from damaging the creature (like effect lifedrain from 'Vampire King')

All Damage from b which was not assign goes to the next Creature and the Cycle beginns from a.

If damage from the Stack is over after Hitting all Creature and the attacking Creature has Crush then this Damage is Assign to the Player and he is then affected like the Creature (only that he gets all damage and his life can get negative) and he goes Through the path from a.

P.s: Sorry for my bad english, i hope it is understandable what i mean.

Vorpal
05-12-2014, 09:03 AM
No, a troop with 5 attack attempts to deal 5 damage whether it has crush or not. Again with this "assign" word...

It's straight from the website!

'Assign' is straight from in game, and obviously takes priority.

If you aren't even aware of what crush says in game I'm not sure why you are in this thread?

The FAQ replaces the ambiguous word 'assign' with 'deals' which is a big improvement. However it retains the ambiguous 'fatal damage' term, which is nowhere defined.

poizonous
05-12-2014, 09:12 AM
This is the kind of issue that pops up when CZE gets tired of hearing this game is like MtG. They change a simple mechanic like this and it actually is a HUGE change and poorly thought out change. It makes any future card design with combat damage negation way overpowered. Flock of seagulls not so much but any future card designed like this will have the potential of being overpowered. Forcing a player to waste a Kill spell on something like this instead of a bomb in that players deck is brutal for any Midrange type deck that isnt going to spam the field with attackers. Also with this change Crush may as well not even be in the game.

From a very experienced TCG player this is my true feelings. Crush is not crushing anything if a 0/1 negates all of the attack. Anyone who has been multi blocked by 2 troops in this game knows how the "Assign damage" step works. Flock of Seagulls gets a 1 assigned to it, which means I am only directing 1 of my attack at it, not 3 which my troop has with crush.

Vorpal
05-12-2014, 09:18 AM
You keep missing the point vorpal. the way crush works in this game is

No, you are missing the point. The way crush works in this game is not the way it is described to work.
Therefore, the descriptions need updating. I am asking for rules to be clarified. I am not asking for gameplay changes. How can anyone object to this?


At this point any further discussion seems pointless.

On the contrary, this discussion is absolutely necessary, and will continue to be necessary until the incorrect in game description of crush is updated to be correct (either matching the FAQ, or a 3rd option if crush is incorrectly being blocked by invincible currently). This needs to happen before open beta.


It has been made clear by me and others that your interpretation of the rules and wording is incorrect.

Yes, that is the root of the entire problem. The current wording of the rules for crush and invincible and seagulls lend themselves to several different interpretations, only one of which is correct. They need to be changed so that the only possible interpretation is the correct one.


The game works exactly like the wording and the FAQ says it does (both very clearly as far as I am concerned), it is not the games fault that you are misinterpreting it.

You are wrong on all counts here. More than that, you have committed a fundamental category error.

Look, it takes a very specific kind of mind to write good rules. Most people are not good at it. I have been reviewing and proof reading rules for a very long time.

The most common error, which you and people in this thread are committing incessantly, is to reason backwards from the designer's intent.

You say 'well, the way crush currently works is thus and such, and therefore since you COULD interpret the in game rules in that way, all is well'.

This is exactly wrong. Rules are supposed to be predictive, not ex post facto rationalizations.

The correct way to go about it is to say : "All right, here are what the rules say. If I knew nothing else about the game, and had never played before, knew none of the mechanics, and did not know the designer's intent, what would I interpret these rules to mean?"

This is why rules reviews involve outside eyes : the game designer makes a poor proof reader of his own rules, because he already knows exactly how the game is supposed to work, so to him, the rules will always be perfectly clear! Rules are an exercise in communicating the designer's intent to players via the written word. To anyone who already knows the designer's intent, the rules will always seem perfectly acceptable, unless they make a great and conscious effort to think abstractly and logically and go over the rules with a fine tooth comb looking for possible errors in interpretation.

And only the very worst of game designers would say "What's that? You don't think my rules are clear? Well it must be YOUR fault!". Likewise, it would be entirely inappropriate and unhelpful for people who already know the designer's intent to dismiss someone else pointing out that one section of the rules lends itself to multiple interpretations. It's a fundamental category error to say "No, really, there's only one interpretation, the one that matches the way the game actually works!"

Now, I have highlighted a set of interactions (crush/seagulls/invincible) that are not adequately explained. These explanations need to be improved. As it is, they are flat out incorrect.

The in game description does not match the FAQ description. According to the in game description, crush would go right past both seagulls and invincible. In both cases the damage is 'assigned' it is simply not dealt. OR if interpreted another way, both seagulls and invincible would block crush.

According to the FAQ, both seagulls and invincible should block crush. There's no room for doubt in this case, it's crystal clear. In both cases the damage is prevented.

In game, apparently, seagulls block crush and invincible does not. Therefore we may have two problems instead of one.

It seems every other person has a different opinion on how crush works with invincible. I can't quite figure out how to test it yet myself, as the only invincible card I have is Fist, who must attack each turn, and has a very high defense strength.

If crush is blocked by invincible, then the FAQ definition is entirely correct, and all that remains is to replace the ambiguous in game description with the FAQ definition (although it too is more ambiguous than it needs to be)

If crush is not blocked by invincible, then not even the FAQ definition correctly describes how the game functions.

TL: DR anyone who says "The game is working the way the developers designed it, so the rules don't need to be correct" does not have the right mentality to be critiquing a draft set of rules.

Marsden
05-12-2014, 09:24 AM
According to the FAQ, both seagulls and invincible should block crush. There's no room for doubt in this case, it's crystal clear. In both cases the damage is prevented.

I agree.

If Invincible means takes no damage (as it says in the FAQ and appears to work in-game if you look at the Toughness stat of the creature) then it should block all damage from Crush exactly as Seagulls do right now.

If Invincible instead is meant to mean 'cannot die from fatal damage' then Crush is working correctly on the two cards, but the FAQ and in-game displays need to update to show damage being done to Invincible creatures, but they simply do not die at <1 Toughness.

ETA: I was going to say you were wrong until I went and read the texts and FAQ and studied the interactions myself.

Svenn
05-12-2014, 09:34 AM
No, you are missing the point. The way crush works in this game is not the way it is described to work.
Therefore, the descriptions need updating. How can anyone object to this?
The way crush works IS the way it is described to work. They can change the word "assign" to "deal" which would make sense (and I fully support for consistency), but there is no difference between assigning damage and dealing damage in this game. You are adding that entire thing into your explanations when it comes from nowhere else. There IS a step where you set the order in which damage is dealt, but you are not assigning any damage there. All damage is assigned/dealt to the first target until it is dead (actually dead, not just matching it's defense value), excess damage rolls over to the next target, until all targets are taken care of. In the case of crush, any excess damage is then assigned to the champion.

What you are arguing is that there is an "assign" phase where you can assign "fatal damage" to a target without killing it. That's not a thing. Where are you getting this phase? Also, it's not "fatal damage" if the target doesn't die. You can't assign/deal "fatal damage" when the target prevents damage to itself.

From a rules perspective it makes sense from just the wording (and not working backwards) that if you attack something and it prevents all damage to itself then you CANNOT assign fatal damage to it. It's counter-intuitive to think that you CAN assign fatal damage to something that prevents that damage. The thing doesn't die, it's not fatal.

According to the FAQ, both seagulls and invincible should block crush. There's no room for doubt in this case, it's crystal clear. In both cases the damage is prevented.

In game, apparently, seagulls block crush and invincible does not. Therefore we may have two problems instead of one.
Sounds like a bug. Invincible SHOULD stop crush, as the troop is not being killed. Write up a bug report about that.

Rendakor
05-12-2014, 09:41 AM
No amount of combat damage is fatal damage to the Seagulls, so no damage can Crush past them. How is this difficult to understand?

They should update the in-game text to match the FAQ, but it's not a high priority and that is literally the purpose of an FAQ.

Vorpal
05-12-2014, 09:47 AM
Svenn if you support changing assign to deal then we are in complete agreement as to what needs to be done.

In many games, there is indeed an 'assign' phase and a 'deal' phase and things might happen in between such that the damage assigned a character is not the damage the character winds up taking. A wise rules writer will address preconceptions players might have coming into his game, particularly if he breaks conventions that are generally upheld in his game's genre.

Two different words should never be used to describe the same concept in rules writing. People will assume you have chosen your words carefully and that 'assigning' damage and 'dealing' damage are two different steps of the process. Obviously if that were the case, assigning damage would come before dealing damage. Typically 'assigning' damage means 'this unit is about to take this damage but it hasn't yet, so therefore there is a chance for someone to do something about it' and then if no one does, the damage is dealt.

Rules writing is not the time to break out the synonyms. If assigning damage is the same thing as dealing damage, all instances of 'assign' damage need to be replaced with 'deal'.

I agree that with the current in game description of crush, you CAN arrive at the correct interpretation. But I think you can also arrive at an incorrect one. I think replacing 'assign' with 'deals' will fix this. Apparently CZE thought so too as the FAQ uses 'deals'.

But it's more important to have in game descriptions correct than an out of game FAQ.

A player in the midst of a game should be able to look at seagulls/invincible troops, look at the crush keyword, and predict, with 100% certainty, how the two will interact before it happens.

Note: I am not that happy with the term 'fatal damage' either as it is not particularly clear how this interacts with creatures like seagulls or invincible troops.

Vorpal
05-12-2014, 09:48 AM
No amount of combat damage is fatal damage to the Seagulls, so no damage can Crush past them. How is this difficult to understand?

If I block a 5 damage attacker with seagulls and another troop, how much damage is assigned to the seagulls?

Quasari
05-12-2014, 09:52 AM
I don't think any of us has tested the invincible vs crush thing lately. We only have two creatures that can be invincible, one that has to attack each turn and is 6 toughness to boot and the other requires one of each threshold. It's not a common interaction yet. I know it did early alpha, but I never touched it since they fixed the interaction with seagulls.

Svenn
05-12-2014, 09:52 AM
Complete agreement on changing the in-game text to "deals" instead of "assigns" (and using "deals" for all future things that need to refer to damage in this way). I am a fan of consistency in rules wording.

As for fatal damage... it makes sense to me that "fatal damage" is enough to kill a troop. No amount of combat damage is enough to kill seagulls. No amount of damage is enough to kill an invincible troop. I suppose they could use something like "If this troop kills all defending troops, any excess damage is applied to the champion" instead of using "fatal damage".

Svenn
05-12-2014, 09:53 AM
If I block a 5 damage attacker with seagulls and another troop, how much damage is assigned to the seagulls?
If you were to choose seagulls to receive damage first... then all damage should stop at the seagulls and never make it to the other troop.

Quasari
05-12-2014, 09:54 AM
If I block a 5 damage attacker with seagulls and another troop, how much damage is assigned to the seagulls?

If they close the seagulls first, no damage gets through. If they choose the other troop, it gets dealt as much as possible then the rest are absorbed by the seagulls.

Arveene
05-12-2014, 10:27 AM
No, you are missing the point. The way crush works in this game is not the way it is described to work.
Therefore, the descriptions need updating. I am asking for rules to be clarified. I am not asking for gameplay changes. How can anyone object to this?



On the contrary, this discussion is absolutely necessary, and will continue to be necessary until the incorrect in game description of crush is updated to be correct (either matching the FAQ, or a 3rd option if crush is incorrectly being blocked by invincible currently). This needs to happen before open beta.



Yes, that is the root of the entire problem. The current wording of the rules for crush and invincible and seagulls lend themselves to several different interpretations, only one of which is correct. They need to be changed so that the only possible interpretation is the correct one.



You are wrong on all counts here. More than that, you have committed a fundamental category error.

Look, it takes a very specific kind of mind to write good rules. Most people are not good at it. I have been reviewing and proof reading rules for a very long time.

The most common error, which you and people in this thread are committing incessantly, is to reason backwards from the designer's intent.

You say 'well, the way crush currently works is thus and such, and therefore since you COULD interpret the in game rules in that way, all is well'.

This is exactly wrong. Rules are supposed to be predictive, not ex post facto rationalizations.

The correct way to go about it is to say : "All right, here are what the rules say. If I knew nothing else about the game, and had never played before, knew none of the mechanics, and did not know the designer's intent, what would I interpret these rules to mean?"

This is why rules reviews involve outside eyes : the game designer makes a poor proof reader of his own rules, because he already knows exactly how the game is supposed to work, so to him, the rules will always be perfectly clear! Rules are an exercise in communicating the designer's intent to players via the written word. To anyone who already knows the designer's intent, the rules will always seem perfectly acceptable, unless they make a great and conscious effort to think abstractly and logically and go over the rules with a fine tooth comb looking for possible errors in interpretation.

And only the very worst of game designers would say "What's that? You don't think my rules are clear? Well it must be YOUR fault!". Likewise, it would be entirely inappropriate and unhelpful for people who already know the designer's intent to dismiss someone else pointing out that one section of the rules lends itself to multiple interpretations. It's a fundamental category error to say "No, really, there's only one interpretation, the one that matches the way the game actually works!"

Now, I have highlighted a set of interactions (crush/seagulls/invincible) that are not adequately explained. These explanations need to be improved. As it is, they are flat out incorrect.

The in game description does not match the FAQ description. According to the in game description, crush would go right past both seagulls and invincible. In both cases the damage is 'assigned' it is simply not dealt. OR if interpreted another way, both seagulls and invincible would block crush.

According to the FAQ, both seagulls and invincible should block crush. There's no room for doubt in this case, it's crystal clear. In both cases the damage is prevented.

In game, apparently, seagulls block crush and invincible does not. Therefore we may have two problems instead of one.

It seems every other person has a different opinion on how crush works with invincible. I can't quite figure out how to test it yet myself, as the only invincible card I have is Fist, who must attack each turn, and has a very high defense strength.

If crush is blocked by invincible, then the FAQ definition is entirely correct, and all that remains is to replace the ambiguous in game description with the FAQ definition (although it too is more ambiguous than it needs to be)

If crush is not blocked by invincible, then not even the FAQ definition correctly describes how the game functions.

TL: DR anyone who says "The game is working the way the developers designed it, so the rules don't need to be correct" does not have the right mentality to be critiquing a draft set of rules.

I'm going to agree with this. This is also one of the reasons why I keep pushing for a comprehensive rulebook. The rules need to be written in such a way that the interactions of the cards make sense in-game without prior knowledge of how the game is supposed to work. If you read the rules and they're clear, you should be able hop in a game and look at a troop with Crush and Flock of Seagulls (or a troop with Invincible) and go "Oh, this and this will happen." As everything is currently written, that's not that case.

Invincible says that a card cannot be damaged or destroyed. If a troop with Crush cannot damage a troop with Invincible, then 0 damage should be dealt across the board. How can you deal more than or exactly fatal combat damage to something that can't be damaged? I don't understand how anyone could argue that Crush damage should go through a troop with Invincible based off this wording.

Edit: I would also argue that Crush should go through Flock of Seagulls. You can deal damage to the Flock, but then the damage that is dealt is prevented by its' ability. An 8/1 with Crush WOULD deal more fatal damage to the Flock, but after damage is dealt it's prevented by the Flock's ability. This is more easily argued against because of timing. Does damage have to be assigned and dealt before Crush's ability takes effect? Which card text / rule is applied first?

Edit2: Basically, I'm making arguments for both Crush going through Seagulls and Invincible and not going through them. Or going through one, but not the other. I don't actually care about what actually happens, I just think the rules should be clear on what actually happens.

Is Shellsafe Sure Shot currently bugged? I wanted to test out a few interactions with Rampaging Tarasque and the Turtle Pet's ability, but it doesn't appear to be preventing damage at all.

ossuary
05-12-2014, 10:49 AM
Edit: I would also argue that Crush should go through Flock of Seagulls. You can deal damage to the Flock, but then the damage that is dealt is prevented by its' ability. An 8/1 with Crush WOULD deal more fatal damage to the Flock, but after damage is dealt it's prevented by the Flock's ability. This is more easily argued against because of timing. Does damage have to be assigned and dealt before Crush's ability takes effect? Which card text / rule is applied first?

You can "argue" whatever the hell you want, it doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. The devs have explicitly stated that Flock of Seagulls stops Crush damage. That is how they intend it to work. End of "argument."

Arveene
05-12-2014, 10:51 AM
You can "argue" whatever the hell you want, it doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. The devs have explicitly stated that Flock of Seagulls stops Crush damage. That is how they intend it to work. End of "argument."

That's wonderful, but the way the rules are written DOESN'T explicitly state what occurs.

Edit: Question, have the devs clarified how Boldheart's, the Turtle Pet's, and Mystic Spiritwalker's damage prevention abilities are supposed to work with Crush? No one in chat wants to help test this stuff out.

Galvayra
05-12-2014, 11:46 AM
Invincible says that a card cannot be damaged or destroyed. If a troop with Crush cannot damage a troop with Invincible, then 0 damage should be dealt across the board. How can you deal more than or exactly fatal combat damage to something that can't be damaged? I don't understand how anyone could argue that Crush damage should go through a troop with Invincible based off this wording.


As i understand it , dealing damage and taking damage are two separate things its goes like this

Troop with crush declares combat
Defender declares blocker with invincible
Damage is declared, lethal damage is assigned to the defender based on its hp, invincible prevents that assigned damage , rest of the damage goes to champion


Now the same thing with flock of seagulls but during the damage declaration of the combat phase, damage is reduced to 0 from the card effect

Diesbudt
05-12-2014, 11:56 AM
That's wonderful, but the way the rules are written DOESN'T explicitly state what occurs.

Edit: Question, have the devs clarified how Boldheart's, the Turtle Pet's, and Mystic Spiritwalker's damage prevention abilities are supposed to work with Crush? No one in chat wants to help test this stuff out.

I will help test stuff after 5:30pm EST if you'd like

Turtlewing
05-12-2014, 12:19 PM
That is not remotely close to what crush says.

Crush says "If this troop assigns more than fatal combat damage to all troops blocking it, the rest will be assigned to the defending champion"

Fatal damage against a seagull is 1 damage.

There is no such thing as "fatal damage" against a troop that won't die from damage, you can deal an infinite amount of damage and it wouldn't be enough to kill it.

Turtlewing
05-12-2014, 12:25 PM
I don't think any of us has tested the invincible vs crush thing lately. We only have two creatures that can be invincible, one that has to attack each turn and is 6 toughness to boot and the other requires one of each threshold. It's not a common interaction yet. I know it did early alpha, but I never touched it since they fixed the interaction with seagulls.

I've been running the white necrotic troop in a 5 shard deck and can confirm that it blocks all damage from crush (as of last week sometime).

LNQ
05-12-2014, 12:27 PM
Vorpal is right in that the way Invincible is worded and how Seagulls works against crush doesn't make sense when put together.

I remember reading that Seagulls is working as intended. As this is the case, then Invincible should also negate crush, or it needs to be worded differently.

It's pretty simple really: Invincible says that it cannot be dealt damage. Therefore it cannot be dealt fatal combat damage either. Crush advances past a troop only when it has dealt fatal combat damage to the current troop. Therefore it should never advance past a troop with Invincible.

I don't understand how ossuary keeps arguing against this.

Also, this is the reason why a rulebook is extremely relevant. I'm surprised the need for a rulebook has not been taken more seriously by CZE considering they want to make this into the de facto TCG e-sport.

Xenavire
05-12-2014, 12:39 PM
OK, I swear that invincible was confirmed to block crush, and it was doing so in-game for as long as I can remember too. Has this been proven to be false somewhere?

Because I am 99% sure that invincible is meant to block crush just like flock and bird.

Turtlewing
05-12-2014, 12:45 PM
OK, I swear that invincible was confirmed to block crush, and it was doing so in-game for as long as I can remember too. Has this been proven to be false somewhere?

Because I am 99% sure that invincible is meant to block crush just like flock and bird.

Invincible does block crush.

It also counters lifedrain.

Vorpal
05-12-2014, 01:02 PM
If invincible does block crush that is good, because that is the way it should work from the FAQ.

I have not been able to test it myself, but people in this thread have reported that invincible does not block crush, or have argued that it should not block crush due to what the FAQ says and the wording of crush.

It is evident there is quite a bit of confusion on this point. I think we can all agree clear and update rules, both in game and on the web site, would be nothing but a positive good thing for this game. It's low priority now but should absolutely be finished before open beta. I feel the definition of the crush keyword needs some help.

Turtlewing
05-12-2014, 01:12 PM
If invincible does block crush that is good, because that is the way it should work from the FAQ.

I have not been able to test it myself, but people in this thread have reported that invincible does not block crush, or have argued that it should not block crush due to what the FAQ says and the wording of crush.

It is evident there is quite a bit of confusion on this point. I think we can all agree clear and update rules, both in game and on the web site, would be nothing but a positive good thing for this game. It's low priority now but should absolutely be finished before open beta. I feel the definition of the crush keyword needs some help.

While I agree that a clear and comprehensive rulebook would be good, I honestly don't think this would confuse anybody if they weren't assuming Hex is just like Magic.

CGOOnline
05-12-2014, 01:12 PM
If invincible does block crush that is good, because that is the way it should work from the FAQ.

I have not been able to test it myself, but people in this thread have reported that invincible does not block crush, or have argued that it should not block crush due to what the FAQ says and the wording of crush.

It is evident there is quite a bit of confusion on this point. I think we can all agree clear and update rules, both in game and on the web site, would be nothing but a positive good thing for this game. It's low priority now but should absolutely be finished before open beta. I feel the definition of the crush keyword needs some help.

As I followed this thread I see now that no rule book is available unfortunately. I certainly agree that clarification needs to be made (coming from a player interested in playing the game). I don't think we all can truly answer that question here until a final rule book has been developed.

An earlier point was made regarding having two words meaning the same thing ("assign" and "deal"). To this point, the reason I made my conclusion (way back at the beginning) was due to the fact that Flock of Seagulls does not use "Invincible." If "Invincible" and "prevents all damage" means the same thing (both blocking Crush damage), then why not just add "Invincible" to Flock of Seagulls (FoS)? Since FoS does *not* use "Invincible" I came to the possible incorrect conclusion that I made.

LNQ
05-12-2014, 01:12 PM
Well if Invincible blocks crush, then everything is WIP. There was some misinformation in this thread.

CGO, Flock can not use Invincible, because it only prevents combat damage. You can Burn the flock to death.

CGOOnline
05-12-2014, 01:15 PM
Well if Invincible blocks crush, then everything is WIP. There was some misinformation in this thread.

CGO, Flock can not use Invincible, because it only prevents combat damage. You can Burn the flock to death.

Yes, that makes sense. Thanks.

Vorpal
05-12-2014, 01:17 PM
While I agree that a clear and comprehensive rulebook would be good, I honestly don't think this would confuse anybody if they weren't assuming Hex is just like Magic.

A huge number of people are going to assume magic conventions carry over into Hex. Anything that 'breaks the mold' from MTG to Hex needs to be carefully crafted to be crystal clear.

AswanJaguar
05-12-2014, 01:21 PM
Ok, let's see if we can come up with some templating for Crush and damage prevention that will make Vorpal and others who hate ambiguous rules happy. What about something like this:

Crush

If a troop with crush become blocked, it deals as much damage as is necessary to kill any blocking troops. Any remaining damage is carried over to the opposing champion.

Combat Damage Prevention

Troops that prevent all combat damage will absorb all combat damage dealt to them. Crush troops will never deal lethal damage and therefore deal no Crush damage to your champion. Other effects such as actions or troop abilities can still deal damage to these troops.

Invincible

Invincible troops are immune to damage and destroy effects. They absorb all damage sources and will prevent Crush damage from carrying over to your champion. Void effects will still affect Invincible cards.

*edit* Honestly after reading the faq (http://f31812b0b389f16c3943-bb9edd4f1582b9b60c1682bd9d280aa0.r48.cf2.rackcdn.c om/HEX_FAQ_1-3.pdf) it seems pretty clear. If the cards in game use different terminology then it's a simple matter of cleaing up their text. Did we need 100 posts for this?

Svenn
05-12-2014, 01:23 PM
We just keep rehashing the exact same arguments. Here's what we've got:

1) Wording should be consistent. Crush should use the same wording in game as in the FAQ ("deal damage" instead of "assign damage"). I don't think anyone will disagree with this?

2) Disagreements as to what constitutes "fatal damage". One side (which I agree with) says that damage dealt to a troop that is prevented can never be "fatal damage". The other side says that damage that would be enough to kill a troop ignoring special abilities is "fatal damage", even if it doesn't die (and this is how MTG works). It's really a matter of opinion on how you view it, but is there any better way to word that?

3) Disagreements as to how damage assigning/dealing is handled. Is there an "assign damage" and "deal damage" step (as in MTG)? Currently there does not appear to be an "assign damage" step, which is where a lot of confusion is coming in I think. Is damage assigned such that ALL damage is assigned to the first target, abilities are resolved, and any excess damage after the target is dead move on to the next target?

4) Does Invincible block crush? It appears that it currently does block crush (confirmed by Turtlewing). Should it? Seems to be some disagreement, but the wording says to "prevent all damage" in the same way that Flock of Seagulls does so this appears to be working as intended.

Am I missing anything?

Diesbudt
05-12-2014, 01:25 PM
A huge number of people are going to assume magic conventions carry over into Hex. Anything that 'breaks the mold' from MTG to Hex needs to be carefully crafted to be crystal clear.

Why? It's a similar style but not the same game and no choice words being the same. If they make said assumption then it is their fault/problem from said false assumption. I played a lot of MTG and even then not a single "rule" or action has messed me up because... I read the FAQ and I read the card effects and take them as they are written. So when I read seagulls prevent damage, to me that means no damage hits them at all. Thus crush doesn't go through. But maybe i am just more intelligent than I give myself credit

Svenn
05-12-2014, 01:32 PM
Ok, let's see if we can come up with some templating for Crush and damage prevention that will make Vorpal and others who hate ambiguous rules happy. What about something like this:

Crush

If a troop with crush become blocked, it deals as much damage as is necessary to kill any blocking troops. Any remaining damage it carried over to the opposing champion.
I think this is where a lot of the confusion is coming in ("as much damage as is necessary to kill any blocking troops"). Some people believe that if a troop has 4 defense and you assign 4 damage, for example, then you have dealt "as much damage as is necessary to kill any blocking troop", regardless of any keywords that may prevent this damage from actually happening and thus any excess damage can go through. That's how MTG works.

However, some of us believe that "as much damage as is necessary to kill any blocking troop" needs to take into account abilities, such as invincible or preventing combat damage, before determining that the damage is enough to kill the troop. Thus, if you do 6 crush damage against a Flock of Seagulls then no amount of combat damage is "as much damage as is necessary to kill any blocking troop" because any damage assigned is prevented.

The big difference is that "assign damage" part that doesn't seem to exist in Hex. Instead of saying "I'll assign 1 damage to flock of seagulls because that's enough to take care of it's defense, and I'll assign 5 damage to the champion from crush" and then having the 1 damage get prevented it's "I can't kill flock of seagulls because it will prevent any damage that would be assigned/dealt to it, therefore I cannot assign/deal damage to the champion".

Diesbudt
05-12-2014, 01:36 PM
We just keep rehashing the exact same arguments. Here's what we've got:

1) Wording should be consistent. Crush should use the same wording in game as in the FAQ ("deal damage" instead of "assign damage"). I don't think anyone will disagree with this?

2) Disagreements as to what constitutes "fatal damage". One side (which I agree with) says that damage dealt to a troop that is prevented can never be "fatal damage". The other side says that damage that would be enough to kill a troop ignoring special abilities is "fatal damage", even if it doesn't die (and this is how MTG works). It's really a matter of opinion on how you view it, but is there any better way to word that?

3) Disagreements as to how damage assigning/dealing is handled. Is there an "assign damage" and "deal damage" step (as in MTG)? Currently there does not appear to be an "assign damage" step, which is where a lot of confusion is coming in I think. Is damage assigned such that ALL damage is assigned to the first target, abilities are resolved, and any excess damage after the target is dead move on to the next target?

4) Does Invincible block crush? It appears that it currently does block crush (confirmed by Turtlewing). Should it? Seems to be some disagreement, but the wording says to "prevent all damage" in the same way that Flock of Seagulls does so this appears to be working as intended.

Am I missing anything?

1) Correct

2) No damage hits seagulls because they prevent it, so no lethal damage can be done to them unless they lose their effect.

3) There is no assign phase. This is where hex is different and not MTG. Also in a situation where multiple blockers you can't assign damage, you just decide the order they block in.

Quasari
05-12-2014, 01:48 PM
Invincible should block crush. I originally thought it was like Indestructible in Magic, which can not die, but can be damaged and remember it working like that in early alpha. Invincible can't take damage, so it should block it.

sukebe
05-12-2014, 02:07 PM
That's wonderful, but the way the rules are written DOESN'T explicitly state what occurs.

Edit: Question, have the devs clarified how Boldheart's, the Turtle Pet's, and Mystic Spiritwalker's damage prevention abilities are supposed to work with Crush? No one in chat wants to help test this stuff out.

Do people even read my posts? Or do they just skim them for things they feel they can refute and ignore the rest? Vorpal replied to my post but it seems he did not actually understand what it said.

Yes, they do. Just because you and vorpal do not understand this does not make it any less a reality. Vorpal, you say this isnt how crush is described, but I say it is what it describes. Not all rules are perfectly written (not even in MTG) but that doesnt mean they need more added. As long as the way they really work matches the rules written, it is a proper rule. There will never be rules that no one will misinterpret. If we try to make the rules 100% impossible to understand we will only succeed in making rules that are so long no one will bother reading them.

If they do anything (which I do not think is necessary) I would hope they simply add examples of crush interacting with Invincible and Flock of Seagulls to the FAQ entry for Crush. Nothing more is necessary in any way. It works like I (and many others) believed it to work from the start. These examples will be enough to show to those who do not understand the exact way it functions.

Svenn: The reason invincible does not stop the damage is explained in nearly all of my posts in this thread. If the word "assign" bothers you or others just replace it with target. You can target Invincible creatures with damage, they just dont take it. All damage dealt by a crush creature is targeted at the invincible creature. The game then checks for effects that affect damage (invincible doesnt affect damage, it just ignores it). Then the game checks to see if the damage targeting a creature is greater than its defense. If yes, the remainder is dealt to the defending player. All of this is explained in the FAQ.

Svenn
05-12-2014, 02:19 PM
Svenn: The reason invincible does not stop the damage is explained in nearly all of my posts in this thread. If the word "assign" bothers you or others just replace it with target. You can target Invincible creatures with damage, they just dont take it. All damage dealt by a crush creature is targeted at the invincible creature. The game then checks for effects that affect damage (invincible doesnt affect damage, it just ignores it). Then the game checks to see if the damage targeting a creature is greater than its defense. If yes, the remainder is dealt to the defending player. All of this is explained in the FAQ.

Edit: NM, misunderstood you.

Also, it appears that invincible DOES, in fact, stop crush.

Vorpal
05-12-2014, 02:22 PM
We just keep rehashing the exact same arguments. Here's what we've got:

1) Wording should be consistent. Crush should use the same wording in game as in the FAQ ("deal damage" instead of "assign damage"). I don't think anyone will disagree with this?

2) Disagreements as to what constitutes "fatal damage". One side (which I agree with) says that damage dealt to a troop that is prevented can never be "fatal damage". The other side says that damage that would be enough to kill a troop ignoring special abilities is "fatal damage", even if it doesn't die (and this is how MTG works). It's really a matter of opinion on how you view it, but is there any better way to word that?

3) Disagreements as to how damage assigning/dealing is handled. Is there an "assign damage" and "deal damage" step (as in MTG)? Currently there does not appear to be an "assign damage" step, which is where a lot of confusion is coming in I think. Is damage assigned such that ALL damage is assigned to the first target, abilities are resolved, and any excess damage after the target is dead move on to the next target?

4) Does Invincible block crush? It appears that it currently does block crush (confirmed by Turtlewing). Should it? Seems to be some disagreement, but the wording says to "prevent all damage" in the same way that Flock of Seagulls does so this appears to be working as intended.

Am I missing anything?

1)I think we are all agreed on #1

2)I think the term 'fatal damage' itself is unclear and should be replaced by less ambiguous terminology.

3)This is only an issue with the current (incorrect) in game description of crush, which uses the word 'assigns'. If it is replaced by the FAQ definition of crush which uses the word 'deals' then it is resolved. In any case, the rules should absolutely not use two different words to refer to the same thing.

4)According to the FAQ, invincible absolutely should block crush. If it does, we are all good here. Description matches functionality.

Svenn
05-12-2014, 02:26 PM
2)I think the term 'fatal damage' itself is unclear and should be replaced by less ambiguous terminology.

This is the one thing I don't get. How can damage be "fatal" if the troop is still alive? The only way that works is if you just completely ignore anything but the defense value, including all abilities and keywords. Is there a reason why we would ignore these?

What would be more clear? "Any excess damage after a troop is killed..."?

Vorpal
05-12-2014, 02:28 PM
If they make said assumption then it is their fault/problem

You do not have the right mindset to constructively critique draft rules.This is not a valid response to unclear rules.


Not all rules are perfectly written (not even in MTG) but that doesnt mean they need more added.

You have completely the wrong mindset to evaluating draft rules. You have the relationship completely backwards here and have not a leg to stand on. This is not a valid response to unclear rules.


Svenn: The reason invincible does not stop the damage is explained in nearly all of my posts in this thread.

Turtlewing assures us that invincible does stop crush damage. If he is right, then nearly all your posts in this thread are wrong.

It is crystal clear that according to the FAQ, invincible should stop damage. The argument that you can target an invincible creature with damage, they just don't take it, applies equally well to the seagulls.

I don't think you are evaluating these arguments and analogies in the sufficiently precise and abstract methods which are necessary to ascertain if the rules are correct or need improvement.

Every single thing you have said about crush bypassing invincible troops allies just as much to crush bypassing seagulls.

Vorpal
05-12-2014, 02:43 PM
This is the one thing I don't get. How can damage be "fatal" if the troop is still alive?l

The same way a troop that is 'invincible' can be destroyed by reducing it's health to zero. These words need strict definitions, not just whatever they mean in casual conversation.

The phrase 'if a troop would be dealt fatal damage' is inherently ambiguous. Would be dealt, except for...? How do we handle the exceptions?

You can either interpret fatal damage to mean 'damage equal to a creatures health, damage that would normally kill the creature' or 'damage that actually killed the creature'. If the latter is meant, it is wise to rule out possible words that lead to the former interpretation.

Similarly, are invincible troops dealt fatal damage, but simply suffer no effects, or are they dealt no damage?

What about a troop that says "If this troop suffers fatal damage, revive it and re-assign it to this combat"? Would crush go through? The 'fatal damage' rubric leads to one answer, the 'all blockers are dead' rubric leads to another.

Saying 'if a troop suffers fatal damage' is needlessly ambiguous, saying 'if no blockers remain' is less so.

The term 'fatal damage' is nowhere defined.

Suppose you had a bird of plenty. Then suppose someone played a card that said 'deal fatal damage to all troops'.
How many cards would you draw with bird of plenty? You don't know, because you are trapped in a circular logic loop.

Fatal damage for the bird of plenty WOULD be 1, but the bird can't actually die, so it clearly can't suffer fatal damage. so how many cards do you draw? 0? 1? 2? 3? 4? infinity?

'Fatal damage' needs to be a specific number, not a set of continually moving goalposts attempting to reach a certain state. If it is the certain state that we desire, then we should specify that state.

Does 'deal fatal damage to a troop' mean 'deal damage = to it's health' or does it mean 'deal however much damage is necessary to REALLY kill that troop'? The latter is forcing the term to predict the future, which opens up all sorts of cans of worms as far as rules interpretations go.

Svenn
05-12-2014, 03:08 PM
The same way a troop that is 'invincible' can be destroyed by reducing it's health to zero. These words need strict definitions, not just whatever they mean in casual conversation.

The phrase 'if a troop would be dealt fatal damage' is inherently ambiguous. Would be dealt, except for...? How do we handle the exceptions?
Okay, I understand "would be dealt". I would say that it should read "is dealt" instead of "would be dealt". Not sure why it's worded that way specifically.


You can either interpret fatal damage to mean 'damage equal to a creatures health, damage that would normally kill the creature' or 'damage that actually killed the creature'. If the latter is meant, it is wise to rule out possible words that lead to the former interpretation.
"damage equal to a creatures health" or "damage that would normally kill the creature" is not fatal if there is something else interacting, such as damage prevention. That's clearly not "fatal damage" because the troop is still alive. It's only fatal damage if the troop is killed (I don't know if we have any regeneration type abilities in yet, but in that case the troop IS killed, but comes back after, so yes the damage is fatal). To me, this is not ambiguous at all.


Similarly, are invincible troops dealt fatal damage, but simply suffer no effects, or are they dealt no damage?
Invincible troops cannot take damage, thus any damage dealt to them is prevented by definition. I'd argue that Invincible wording should be "Prevent all damage that would be dealt to this troop" to match up with something like Flock of Seagulls.


What about a troop that says "If this troop suffers fatal damage, revive it and re-assign it to this combat"? Would crush go through? The 'fatal damage' rubric leads to one answer, the 'all blockers are dead' rubric leads to another.
"Fatal damage" would say that yes, crush goes through. The damage WAS fatal, but there was an ability AFTER the fatal damage that brought it back. "All blockers are dead" is bad wording. If you meant the "Any excess damage after a troop is killed..." thing that I mentioned, well, that's the same thing. The troop IS killed, the state of the troop after it dies has no bearing on that.


Saying 'if a troop suffers fatal damage' is needlessly ambiguous, saying 'if no blockers remain' is less so.

The term 'fatal damage' is nowhere defined.
It's defined in the dictionary. ;) But seriously, you can't define every word... as I explained above I think "fatal damage" is pretty self explanatory: damage that kills the target. If the damage does not kill the target, it's not fatal. Nowhere does "fatal damage" itself imply that you ignore any keywords or abilities for determining if the damage is fatal or not.


Suppose you had a bird of plenty. Then suppose someone played a card that said 'deal fatal damage to all troops'.
How many cards would you draw with bird of plenty? You don't know, because you are trapped in a circular logic loop.

Fatal damage for the bird of plenty WOULD be 1, but the bird can't actually die, so it clearly can't suffer fatal damage. so how many cards do you draw? 0? 1? 2? 3? 4? infinity?

'fatal damage' needs to be a specific number, not a set of continually moving goalposts attempting to reach a certain state. If it is the certain state that we desire, then we should specify that state.
Irrelevant. Fatal damage is not a term used on cards, and it is specifically used as an unspecified amount of damage (which is why it's not used on cards) because the amount that would be fatal can vary (typically it is equal to the defense of a creature, but that is not always the case, but that's also why Crush does not say "If this troop deals damage equal to a creatures defense value then excess damage is applied to the champion", different things). This card already exists, btw... Extinction. Any card that would "kill" a creature regardless of health uses "Destroy".

Werlix
05-12-2014, 03:09 PM
The same way a troop that is 'invincible' can be destroyed by reducing it's health to zero. These words need strict definitions, not just whatever they mean in casual conversation.

The phrase 'if a troop would be dealt fatal damage' is inherently ambiguous. Would be dealt, except for...? How do we handle the exceptions?

You can either interpret fatal damage to mean 'damage equal to a creatures health, damage that would normally kill the creature' or 'damage that actually killed the creature'. If the latter is meant, it is wise to rule out possible words that lead to the former interpretation.

Similarly, are invincible troops dealt fatal damage, but simply suffer no effects, or are they dealt no damage?

What about a troop that says "If this troop suffers fatal damage, revive it and re-assign it to this combat"? Would crush go through? The 'fatal damage' rubric leads to one answer, the 'all blockers are dead' rubric leads to another.

Saying 'if a troop suffers fatal damage' is needlessly ambiguous, saying 'if no blockers remain' is less so.

The term 'fatal damage' is nowhere defined.

Suppose you had a bird of plenty. Then suppose someone played a card that said 'deal fatal damage to all troops'.
How many cards would you draw with bird of plenty? You don't know, because you are trapped in a circular logic loop.

Fatal damage for the bird of plenty WOULD be 1, but the bird can't actually die, so it clearly can't suffer fatal damage. so how many cards do you draw? 0? 1? 2? 3? 4? infinity?

'Fatal damage' needs to be a specific number, not a set of continually moving goalposts attempting to reach a certain state. If it is the certain state that we desire, then we should specify that state.

Does 'deal fatal damage to a troop' mean 'deal damage = to it's health' or does it mean 'deal however much damage is necessary to REALLY kill that troop'? The latter is forcing the term to predict the future, which opens up all sorts of cans of worms as far as rules interpretations go.

You're making up meanings for fatal damage. A card that says 'deal fatal damage to a troop' does not make sense at all and could never be made. That doesn't mean that 'fatal damage' is a bad term. I could say the same for other nonsensical examples. Eg what would a card that says "deal graveyard damage to a troop" do?? "deal definite modifier damage to a troop"??? The FAQ mentions the word "modifier" but never explains what the term means OMG!!! What do we do???

Damage means damage. Fatal means deadly, as in death, as in destruction. It is not a number that you can define, it's damage that is fatal. FATAL DAMAGE.

Xenavire
05-12-2014, 03:09 PM
This is how the game does things for crush:

1) Is this troop blocked? Y
2) Does this blocking troop prevent more than the potential damage? Y
3) Fatal damage cannot be assigned, therefore there is no crush damage.

For a normal troop, or double blocking, it would be like this:

1) Is this troop blocked? Y
2) Does this blocking troop prevent more than the potential damage? N
3) Fatal damage is assigned. Any excess damage is then assigned to the next troop or the opposing player. Damage is then dealt.


Is this at all ambiguous?

Vorpal
05-12-2014, 03:12 PM
I guess I don't see the reason to substitute 'suffers fatal damage' for 'dies'. It's longer! And less precise.

If the way you tell if a troop has suffered fatal damage is to see if the troop is dead, then we have gained absolutely nothing by using the term, and may as well replace all instances of 'suffers fatal damage' with 'dies'.

Xenavire
05-12-2014, 03:16 PM
I guess I don't see the reason to substitute 'suffers fatal damage' for 'dies'. It's longer! And less precise.

If the way you tell if a troop has suffered fatal damage is to see if the troop is dead, then we have gained absolutely nothing by using the term, and may as well replace all instances of 'suffers fatal damage' with 'dies'.

Actually, you are being short sighted here - the current wording opens them up to effects that let troops take damage (and let through crush damage) without actually dying. The current wording can be used in replacement effects for that purpose - 'dies' cannot.

Werlix
05-12-2014, 03:19 PM
I guess I don't see the reason to substitute 'suffers fatal damage' for 'dies'. It's longer! And less precise.

If the way you tell if a troop has suffered fatal damage is to see if the troop is dead, then we have gained absolutely nothing by using the term, and may as well replace all instances of 'suffers fatal damage' with 'dies'.

So how exactly would you reword this phrase from the FAQ to use "dies" instead of "suffers fatal damage" (not that the term "suffer" is ever used, either) and to be shorter and more precise?

"If this troop would deal more than fatal combat damage to all troops blocking it, it deals exactly fatal damage to those troops, and the rest to those troop’s controller instead."

Also using "dies" in that context doesn't make sense because the troops don't die until after the damage is dealt, and all combat damage is dealt in one packet (excluding swiftstrike). That's why "would be dealt" is used - it hasn't actually been dealt the damage yet.

Vorpal
05-12-2014, 03:20 PM
Actually, you are being short sighted here - the current wording opens them up to effects that let troops take damage (and let through crush damage) without actually dying. The current wording can be used in replacement effects for that purpose - 'dies' cannot.

Are you saying 'suffers fatal damage' might actually mean troops that took damage but didn't actually die?

That would seem to me to certainly require a precise definition of what fatal damage means.

Rycajo
05-12-2014, 03:22 PM
And we wouldn't want the defender to be able to remove the blocker in some other way other than death to avoid crush damage.

Svenn
05-12-2014, 03:26 PM
I guess I don't see the reason to substitute 'suffers fatal damage' for 'dies'. It's longer! And less precise.

If the way you tell if a troop has suffered fatal damage is to see if the troop is dead, then we have gained absolutely nothing by using the term, and may as well replace all instances of 'suffers fatal damage' with 'dies'.
There might be minor differences here, and this might be a slightly more precise definition. If we get a keyword like MTG's deathtouch (I believe there were rumors that this might be coming in set 2?) then "fatal damage" from a troop with that keyword to any troop that can't stop it would be 1. It deals 1 damage, which is fatal damage, the rest is then carried over. If it simply said "dies" then how much would go to the blocker and how much to the champion?

Vorpal
05-12-2014, 03:30 PM
So how exactly would you reword this phrase from the FAQ to use "dies" instead of "suffers fatal damage" (not that the term "suffer" is ever used, either) and to be shorter and more precise?

"If this troop would deal more than fatal combat damage to all troops blocking it, it deals exactly fatal damage to those troops, and the rest to those troop’s controller instead."

Also using "dies" in that context doesn't make sense because the troops don't die until after the damage is dealt, and all combat damage is dealt in one packet (excluding swiftstrike). That's why "would be dealt" is used - it hasn't actually been dealt the damage yet.

With the 'packet' argument are we not simply returning to the very concept of 'assign/deal' that caused the trouble in the first place?

The 1 damage assigned to the seagull, the rest to the champion, then it is all dealt in one packet.

If it's a 2 step process where damage is first dealt to the blocking troops, and then any excess to the champion, the single packet argument can't really apply.

I'd reword it to say the following:


If this troop destroys all troops blocking it, any damage dealt in excess of those troops' health is dealt to those troops' controller

That is shorter and makes it clear that seagulls/bird o plenty/invincible troops are not going to allow a crush troop to do any damage to the champion.

It also moves us away from the problematic 'would' formulation, and moves us into a 'what actually did happen' formulation, which is far superior from a rules interpretation standpoint.

Even simply changing it to say

"If this troop deals more than fatal combat damage to all troops blocking it, the excess is dealt to the troop's controller" is a vast improvement, if you simply must keep the 'fatal damage' term around.

Vorpal
05-12-2014, 03:32 PM
And we wouldn't want the defender to be able to remove the blocker in some other way other than death to avoid crush damage.

How does removing a blocker prevent you from taking damage?

That said, isn't that still true of the current definition?

If the defender removes the blocker in some way such that attacking troop with crush didn't deal the fatal damage, isn't crush damage avoided even with the current rules?

Werlix
05-12-2014, 03:42 PM
With the 'packet' argument are we not simply returning to the very concept of 'assign/deal' that caused the trouble in the first place?

The 1 damage assigned to the seagull, the rest to the champion, then it is all dealt in one packet.

If it's a 2 step process where damage is first dealt to the blocking troops, and then any excess to the champion, the single packet argument can't really apply.

I'd reword it to say the following:


If this troop destroys all troops blocking it, any damage dealt in excess of those troops' health is dealt to those troops' controller

That is shorter and makes it clear that seagulls/bird o plenty/invincible troops are not going to allow a crush troop to do any damage to the champion.

It also moves us away from the problematic 'would' formulation, and moves us into a 'what actually did happen' formulation, which is far superior from a rules interpretation standpoint.

Even simply changing it to say

"If this troop deals more than fatal combat damage to all troops blocking it, the excess is dealt to the troop's controller" is a vast improvement, if you simply must keep the 'fatal damage' term around.

By packet I just meant that damage is dealt at once, not in two steps. This is why your revised definition doesn't work. "if this troop destroys..." doesn't work because all the damage has now been dealt and combat is over.

"Would"..."instead" are important terms as they replace what would have happened with a new scenario.

In fact in your scenario if a 5/5 crush/lifedrain troop killed a 1/1 blocker it would deal 5 to the troop and 4 to the champion so you would gain 9 life, which is wrong.

Vorpal
05-12-2014, 03:47 PM
By packet I just mean that all damage is dealt simultaneously, at once. It doesn't deal X damage to the troop then Y damage to the champion.

The "would" term is required because it has to replace what "would" have happened with something else.

In this case, not really.

There is no functional difference between saying a troop with crush that kills all it's blockers deals that excess damage to the champion INSTEAD, or just saying it gets bonus damage in the amount of that excess that is assigned to the champion in ADDITION.


This is why your revised wording doesn't work as the crush troop never actually deals more than fatal damage, it would have dealt more, then instead it deals X to the troop and Y to the champion.

That's the precise type of situation in which the revised wording is more clear than the existing wording. The ogre WOULD have more than fatal damage to the bird except for the fact the bird had special text, so, instead the ogre deals 1 to the bird INSTEAD and deals 2 to the champion.

That's why you should avoid 'would' if possible. It's difficult to specify which things you consider when trying to figure out 'what would have happened'. It's a fools game. Instead tell the player to make decisions based on what actually happened.

Werlix
05-12-2014, 03:50 PM
In this case, not really.

There is no functional difference between saying a troop with crush that kills all it's blockers deals that excess damage to the champion INSTEAD, or just saying it gets bonus damage in the amount of that excess that is assigned to the champion in ADDITION.



That's the precise type of situation in which the revised wording is more clear than the existing wording. The ogre WOULD have more than fatal damage to the bird except for the fact the bird had special text, so, instead the ogre deals 1 to the bird INSTEAD and deals 2 to the champion.

That's why you should avoid 'would' if possible. It's difficult to specify which things you consider when trying to figure out 'what would have happened'. It's a fools game. Instead tell the player to make decisions based on what actually happened.


In fact in your scenario if a 5/5 crush/lifedrain troop killed a 1/1 blocker it would deal 5 to the troop and 4 to the champion so you would gain 9 life, which is wrong.

Your revised wording doesn't mention "instead" and also you can't change something that has already happened. If it destroyed something, you can't go back and change the amount of damage it dealt.

Xenavire
05-12-2014, 03:54 PM
Are you saying 'suffers fatal damage' might actually mean troops that took damage but didn't actually die?

That would seem to me to certainly require a precise definition of what fatal damage means.

Have you never heard of regenerate? There could be similar and much more specific versions of regenerate that only require you to reach the fatal threshold, but not have the troop die.

Svenn
05-12-2014, 03:54 PM
That is shorter and makes it clear that seagulls/bird o plenty/invincible troops are not going to allow a crush troop to do any damage to the champion.

It also moves us away from the problematic 'would' formulation, and moves us into a 'what actually did happen' formulation, which is far superior from a rules interpretation standpoint.

Even simply changing it to say

"If this troop deals more than fatal combat damage to all troops blocking it, the excess is dealt to the troop's controller" is a vast improvement.
Specifying fatal damage is actually more precise. Here is the exact wording of Crush:

"If this troop would deal more than fatal combat damage to all troops blocking it, it deals exactly fatal damage to those troops, and the rest to those troop’s controller instead."

I'll break it down into parts...
1)"If this troop would deal more than fatal combat damage to all troops blocking it"
Check how much damage the troop is doing, then check how much damage it would take to kill the blocking troops combined. Pretty simple. If the amount the troop would deal is more than the amount that is needed to kill all the blocking troops, then continue reading. The "would deal" in this case makes sense, it's a check to find out if this applies first.

2) "it deals exactly fatal damage to those troops"
Okay, this tells us exactly how much damage it does to the troops specifically. Exactly enough to kill them ("fatal damage").

3) "and the rest to those troop’s controller instead"
Any excess damage after is applied to the controller. Pretty clear I think.

Now that I actually went and looked up the exact, full wording... there is nothing wrong with it.

Vorpal
05-12-2014, 03:58 PM
Your revised wording doesn't mention "instead"

Oops, sorry, missed the 'instead' on the end.


and also you can't change something that has already happened. If it destroyed something, you can't go back and change the amount of damage it dealt.

If you're trying to tell me it would be impossible to code it this way, it's easy to demonstrate a way to do so:

if ( damage total > creature health)
damage dealt to creature = creature health
damage dealt to champion = damage total - damage dealt to creature
assign damage

Simple! There's no need to 'go back'.

The fact of the matter is you cannot say 'if this troop would do X' is equivalent to 'this troop did X'.

The ogre WOULD deal more than fatal combat damage to the bird if the bird didn't have that special text. So I guess crush should go past it?

But it doesn't. Because what matters is not what the ogre WOULD have done, but what actually happened.

This is the fundamental weakness of the 'would' formulation. You aren't sure which hypotheticals to consider.

All the code can be the same under the hood - the change in wording is strictly to make things more clear to the player.

The other issue is that you aren't sure when to perform the 'what would happen' check.

Now, both of these can be definitively resolved with appropriate references in a FAQ or rules document so it's not as big an issue.

Svenn
05-12-2014, 04:00 PM
If you're trying to tell me it would be impossible to code it this way, it's easy to demonstrate a way to do so:

if ( damage total > creature health)
damage dealt to creature = creature health
damage dealt to champion = damage total - damage dealt to creature
assign damage

Simple! There's no need to 'go back'.

The fact of the matter is you cannot say 'if this troop would do X' is equivalent to 'this troop did X'.

The ogre WOULD deal more than fatal combat damage to the bird if the bird didn't have that special text. So I guess crush should go past it?

But it doesn't. Because what matters is not what the ogre WOULD have done, but what he DID do.

This is the fundamental weakness of the 'would' formulation. You aren't sure which hypotheticals to consider.

All the code can be the same under the hood - the change in wording is strictly to make things more clear to the player.
You are reading too much into the "would". It's performing a check and then executing something in that case. The "would" only means "check this before it is all resolved".

dogmod
05-12-2014, 04:06 PM
Vorpal the past tense of would is did....

If you think it happened wrong then place the potential in the past.

Did the Ogre do fatal damage?
You have your answer

Werlix
05-12-2014, 04:07 PM
If you're trying to tell me it would be impossible to code it this way, it's easy to demonstrate a way to do so:

if ( damage total > creature health)
damage dealt to creature = creature health
damage dealt to champion = damage total - damage dealt to creature
assign damage


you say "if ( damage total > creature health)"

...but has damage been dealt yet, or not? If it has, then we have to go back and change that damage dealt. If it hasn't dealt damage yet then we have to use the "would be dealt damage" phrase to change the amount of damage dealt before it happens.



Simple! There's no need to 'go back'.

The fact of the matter is you cannot say 'if this troop would do X' is equivalent to 'this troop did X'.

The ogre WOULD deal more than fatal combat damage to the bird if the bird didn't have that special text. So I guess crush should go past it?

But it doesn't. Because what matters is not what the ogre WOULD have done, but what he DID do.

This is the fundamental weakness of the 'would' formulation. You aren't sure which hypotheticals to consider.

All the code can be the same under the hood - the change in wording is strictly to make things more clear to the player.

I'll quote your revised wording again so you can read it:

"If this troop destroys all troops blocking it, any damage dealt in excess of those troops' health is dealt to those troops' controller"

Now tell me how a 5/5 lifedrain/crush troop would work under this ruling if a 1/1 blocked it?

5/5 deals 5 damage to the 1/1 -> troop is destroyed and controller gains 5 life
"all troops blocking it" were destroyed as per revised wording -> (5-1) = 4 damage dealt to champion -> troop's controller gains 4 life.

Did I get it right? Gaining 9 life is intended functionality?

Vorpal
05-12-2014, 04:11 PM
You are reading too much into the "would". It's performing a check and then executing something in that case. The "would" only means "check this before it is all resolved".

Yes, but what if there are two competing 'would' triggers?

If this troop would kill this other troop...

vs

If this troop would die...

Or for a simpler formalation, you have two cards

If A would happen, make B happen instead.

If A would happen, make C happen instead.

A happens.

Is it B or C that happens instead? The order can matter when there are two 'would' checks.

Svenn
05-12-2014, 04:24 PM
Yes, but what if there are two competing 'would' triggers?

If this troop would kill this other troop...

vs

If this troop would die...

Or for a simpler formalation, you have two cards

If A would happen, make B happen instead.

If A would happen, make C happen instead.

A happens.

Is it B or C that happens instead? The order can matter when there are two 'would' checks.
Where does this ever happen?

If Troop A would deal more than fatal damage to Troop B, then deal fatal damage to troop B and deal the rest to the controller instead.

If Troop B would be dealt combat damage, prevent it.

Is this a situation you are referring to? If so, that's easy.

If Troop A would do fatal damage to Troop B... okay, let's check.
Troop B prevents any combat damage.
Troop A does NOT deal fatal damage to Troop B.

Or are you talking about "If troop A would deal fatal combat damage to Troop B, then do something 1" and "If troop A would deal fatal combat damage to Troop B, then do something 2"? If that's the case... where does that happen? Because unless there is a specific conflict that's not an issue.

EDIT:
In the case of "If this troop would kill this other troop..." vs "If this troop would die..." then the first one would trigger and the second one depends on what the second part of the first phrase is (if the replacement does not involve the troop "dying" then the condition for it is never met).

If the first one said "If this troop would kill this other troop, then void that troop instead" and the other said "If this troop would die, then return it to play instead of the graveyard" then the troop would be voided. Why?
Well, the troop doesn't die. It says "If this troop would kill this troop, then do something instead". The troop didn't get killed, it got voided in place of being killed, therefore the "If this troop would die..." trigger never happens.

LordGorchnik
05-12-2014, 04:46 PM
The wheels on the bus go round and round....

Just wait for a CZE answer.

Marsden
05-12-2014, 05:23 PM
If the defender removes the blocker in some way such that attacking troop with crush didn't deal the fatal damage, isn't crush damage avoided even with the current rules?

Not according to the FAQ.

"If a troop with Crush was blocked, but all of its blockers were removed from combat, it will deal its damage to the defending champion instead."

DuroNL
05-13-2014, 03:21 AM
Please leave the Flock of Seagulls alone, you Wild lovers have enough Fatties and crush abilities, all Sapphire has is the Seagulls to negate it!!!


Since crush has to deal fatal damage for the ability to activate, the blocking creature actually has to "DIE", only then will the remaining Attack points go over to the Champion. if the Defending creature stays alive Crush won't activate, it really is simply stated in the FAQ's.

I'm Dutch, my English is decent, and even i understand what it says, so the English explanation can't be to complicated!!
That is called something like reading comprehension i think...

Dralon
05-13-2014, 06:19 AM
Most card games I have played not only have a master rules document, but also have a FAQ page and a rule page that includes a set of card specific descriptions for certain cards where interpretations can be tricky. This is because one master rules document can not have perfect rules that account for every possible scenario. Especially when you are dealing with games with thousands of cards and hundreds of thousands of possible interactions. No matter how "perfect" you want a rule to be.

To play the game at a top level, you not only need to know the rules well, you need to know the specific card descriptions well.

Is there always room for improvement? Sure. And I do hope Hex develops further descriptions of certain rules interactions such as Seagulls and crus that come up not infrequently. I think by this time Cryptozoic is aware of this issue and everyone can return to getting along :)

negativeZer0
05-13-2014, 07:37 AM
The wheels on the bus go round and round....

Just wait for a CZE answer.

CZE has already answered.
It is currently working EXACTLY how they want it to work.
It doesn't matter whether you (using you to refer to everyone not the person I quoted) agree or not.

The wording on the abilities (all of them not just crush and seagulls) I'm sure will get some polish sometime during the beta. There are legitimate reasons in this thread explaining why the current wording can be confusing. Add on to this the fact that the crush seagull interaction works the exact opposite of MTG, it is even more important that the wording be crystal clear. I don't think anyone can legitimately argue against improving the way the abilities are worded.

That all said this thread needs to die in a pit of fire because it can and has only gone down hill.

GatticusFinch
05-13-2014, 07:50 AM
Please leave the Flock of Seagulls alone, you Wild lovers have enough Fatties and crush abilities, all Sapphire has is the Seagulls to negate it!!!

Yeah, that and time ripple, counter spell, buccaneer, polymorph, mesmerize, and yesterday, assuming you are only playing mono-sapphire.

vickrpg
05-13-2014, 09:06 AM
Yeah, that and time ripple, counter spell, buccaneer, polymorph, mesmerize, and yesterday, assuming you are only playing mono-sapphire.

you forgot monkey of nine tails and Bird of plenty... technically Kraken's tentacles can too, or any troop with enough attack that has been inspired by Cerulean grand strategist...

Sereaphim
05-13-2014, 09:29 AM
Please leave the Flock of Seagulls alone, you Wild lovers have enough Fatties and crush abilities, all Sapphire has is the Seagulls to negate it!!!



And now we take a look into the cards that mono wild has against Flock.
Tectonic Break, Vine Goliath and Turbulence.
Oh man wild is so op ... *roll eyes*

Quasari
05-13-2014, 10:32 AM
And now we take a look into the cards that mono wild has against Flock.
Tectonic Break, Vine Goliath and Turbulence.
Oh man wild is so op ... *roll eyes*

Survival of the Fittest.
Squirrel

DeusPhasmatis
05-13-2014, 10:39 AM
Survival of the Fittest.
SquirrelIs that confirmed to work? Generally, damage caused by "battling" is combat damage, which should be prevented by Flock of Seagulls...

(Stuff like this is why we need a set of comprehensive rules)

Quasari
05-13-2014, 10:48 AM
Is that confirmed to work? Generally, damage caused by "battling" is combat damage, which should be prevented by Flock of Seagulls...

(Stuff like this is why we need a set of comprehensive rules)
It's in the FAQ. It is not combat damage.

TJTaylor
05-13-2014, 10:50 AM
Is that confirmed to work? Generally, damage caused by "battling" is combat damage, which should be prevented by Flock of Seagulls...

(Stuff like this is why we need a set of comprehensive rules)

Battle is not combat damage. It simply makes two troops deal damage to each other based on their attack value. Combat damage is damage received from an attacking and blocking troop dealing damage to each other during the combat step.

Sereaphim
05-13-2014, 10:55 AM
Survival of the Fittest.
Squirrel

Last time i did test it it didn't work.
Flock survived my Squirrel.

Quasari
05-13-2014, 10:57 AM
Last time i did test it it didn't work.
Flock survived my Squirrel.

Then that is a bug.

Sereaphim
05-13-2014, 11:32 AM
Then that is a bug.

I have tested it again and you right it kills it now.
Makes me to be honest happy.

At least this way wild has viable options to kill Flock of seagulls with Survival of the Fittest and Squirrel.
Very confusing that battle damage is not the same as combat damage.

Disordia
05-13-2014, 11:46 AM
I'm thoroughly enjoying seeing other people having their feathers ruffled by the current implementation of crush in regards to damage prevention.

Turtlewing
05-13-2014, 12:44 PM
I'm thoroughly enjoying seeing other people having their feathers ruffled by the current implementation of crush in regards to damage prevention.

It's pretty beautiful when they arrack into a Bird o' Plenty with some big crusher.

Showsni
05-13-2014, 12:53 PM
Seagulls aren't too bad for Mono Wild.

Bird O' Plenty just destroys it, though.

Now, is Bird working correctly, as far as the FAQ ruling on Crush goes?

Let's say I attack into a Bird with my 5/5 Crush troop.

This is my reading of what should happen based on the FAQ:

FAQ says: "If this troop would deal more than fatal combat damage to all troops blocking it, it deals exactly fatal damage to those troops, and the rest to those troop’s controller instead.
This is applied before all other replacement/prevention modifiers for that packet have been applied."

So, Bird is a 0/1, so before applying any replacement/prevention modifiers fatal damage is 1. My crusher will assign 1 to it and 4 to the enemy champion.

"If that damage is reduced or prevented to at or below fatal for those troops, then no damage will be dealt to the champion this way."

The damage to the Bird is replaced with card draw; instead of taking 1, they draw one. The damage is now below fatal, so no damage is dealt to the champion.

What actually happens:

The crusher assigns all 5 damage to the Bird, with no opportunity to do anything else. They draw five cards.

Quasari
05-13-2014, 01:00 PM
Eh, least with bird o plenty you can deck em out with damage. I know I had a draft match that was won on the back of it, but I just barely stabilized and barely won one of the games due to a forfeit. I wasn't sure I could pull a win prior to decking, glad he forfeit.

Turtlewing
05-13-2014, 01:13 PM
So, Bird is a 0/1, so before applying any replacement/prevention modifiers fatal damage is 1. My crusher will assign 1 to it and 4 to the enemy champion.


Fatal damage is infinite because no amount of damage will kill Bird O' Plenty.

The rest of your analysis degrades logically form there.

The Idea that "fatal damage" is equal to the troop's def comes from Magic and does not appear to have been adopted by Hex. Absent that special game specific definition the term means "enough damage to kill the troop". Which appears to be how it's used by Hex.

Showsni
05-13-2014, 01:15 PM
Fatal damage is infinite because no amount of damage will kill Bird O' Plenty.

The rest of your analysis degrades logically form there.

The Idea that "fatal damage" is equal to the troop's def comes from Magic and does not appear to have been adopted by Hex. Absent that special game specific definition the term means "enough damage to kill the troop". Which appears to be how it's used by Hex.

The FAQ specifically says that the damage is "applied before all other replacement/prevention modifiers for that packet have been applied." So how can fatal be any more than 1 when we are not yet applying the Bird's ability?

Disordia
05-13-2014, 01:22 PM
It's pretty beautiful when they arrack into a Bird o' Plenty with some big crusher.
I feel as if you've misinterpreted my post.

Turtlewing
05-13-2014, 01:24 PM
The FAQ specifically says that the damage is "applied before all other replacement/prevention modifiers for that packet have been applied." So how can fatal be any more than 1 when we are not yet applying the Bird's ability?

Because the last sentence of that bullet point which you did not quote says:

If that damage is prevented to at or below fatal for those troops no damage will be dealt to the Champion this way.

That means that since Bird o' Plenty prevents the damage none gets done to the champion.

Arveene
05-13-2014, 01:37 PM
Question, how many cards would you expect to draw when a Bird o' Plenty blocks a Te'talca, High Cleric? 5?

Xenavire
05-13-2014, 01:38 PM
Question, how many cards would you expect to draw when a Bird o' Plenty blocks a Te'talca, High Cleric? 5?

The transformed version, correct? 10. The damage potential is still doubled, regardless of whether it is prevented or not. (And I have tested that it does indeed work that way.)

Turtlewing
05-13-2014, 01:48 PM
Question, how many cards would you expect to draw when a Bird o' Plenty blocks a Te'talca, High Cleric? 5?

The High Cleric has a printed atk of 5 and an effect that doubles all damage from sources you control so it should result in 10 card draws when blocked by Bird o' plenty (5 x2 damage replaced 1 for 1 with card draws).

Arveene
05-13-2014, 01:51 PM
The High Cleric has a printed atk of 5 and an effect that doubles all damage from sources you control so it should result in 10 card draws when blocked by Bird o' plenty (5 x2 damage replaced 1 for 1 with card draws).

So are you saying that the damage effect on the High Cleric goes into effect before Bird o' plenty's damage replacement ability? Also, there's no actual damage being dealt to be doubled in this scenario.

Edit: That came out awkwardly. I guess the better question is does the High Cleric have to actually deal the damage for it to be doubled or is her attack just always considered to be doubled for most intents and purposes?

Example: Shellsafe Sure Shot and its turtle pet is currently broken so I can't test this. I feel like the High Cleric attacking Shellsafe with the turtle pet's damage prevention ability would deal 4 damage to the Shellsafe. 5 atk, 3 blocked, 2 damage dealt which would then be doubled as damage is dealt.

Turtlewing
05-13-2014, 02:06 PM
So are you saying that the damage effect on the High Cleric goes into effect before Bird o' plenty's damage replacement ability? Also, there's no actual damage being dealt to be doubled in this scenario.

Edit: That came out awkwardly. I guess the better question is does the High Cleric have to actually deal the damage for it to be doubled or is her attack just always considered to be doubled for most intents and purposes?

I would expect it goes something like this:

Damage being assigned triggers the High Cleric's effect which replaces the amount of damage with double the amount, then when the damage is applied the bird o' plenty's ability triggers replacing the damage with card draws. So it's double then replace.

Quasari
05-13-2014, 02:06 PM
The FAQ specifically says that the damage is "applied before all other replacement/prevention modifiers for that packet have been applied." So how can fatal be any more than 1 when we are not yet applying the Bird's ability?
It says "was" before applied, meaning that behavior was in the past.

Turtlewing
05-13-2014, 02:14 PM
So are you saying that the damage effect on the High Cleric goes into effect before Bird o' plenty's damage replacement ability? Also, there's no actual damage being dealt to be doubled in this scenario.

Edit: That came out awkwardly. I guess the better question is does the High Cleric have to actually deal the damage for it to be doubled or is her attack just always considered to be doubled for most intents and purposes?

Example: Shellsafe Sure Shot and its turtle pet is currently broken so I can't test this. I feel like the High Cleric attacking Shellsafe with the turtle pet's damage prevention ability would deal 4 damage to the Shellsafe. 5 atk, 3 blocked, 2 damage dealt which would then be doubled as damage is dealt.


I would expect it to be 7.

Damage is doubled to 10 when it is assigned then 3 of that is prevented when it is dealt.

GatticusFinch
05-13-2014, 02:31 PM
--Bird o'Plenty's text says: "If damage would be dealt to this troop, draw that many cards instead."

--Flock's text says: "Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt to this troop."

--Crush states: "If this troop would deal more than fatal combat damage to all troops blocking it, it deals exactly fatal damage to those troops, and the rest to those troop’s controller instead."

I really don't think the text on Bird is clear, particularly the word "would," which implies that the post-condition only is activated after what would otherwise be the normal course of gameplay--that is, if the Bird, absent the card text, would get hit for damage, instead it draws that many cards worth of damage.

So, absent the card text, if Bird blocked a crush, it would take 1 damage, crush would deal more than fatal combat damage, but instead it draws 1 card. There is a leap of logic that isn't made clear to the player in the card text that this acts as a complete damage prevention, because what "would" normally happen is different. Flock is different because of the "prevent all combat damage" language, but still not as clearly written as it could be.

Regardless of whether this operates correctly by looking over the FAQ repeatedly, the fact it spawned 17 pages of forum talk makes it clear that the language could be worded better. Just changing it to "prevent all combat damage done to this troop, and draw a card for each point of damage prevented," would make it much cleaner, in my opinion. It's now clear that all damage is being prevented so it will never take combat damage.

Svenn
05-13-2014, 03:58 PM
I really don't think the text on Bird is clear, particularly the word "would," which implies that the post-condition only is activated after what would otherwise be the normal course of gameplay--that is, if the Bird, absent the card text, would get hit for damage, instead it draws that many cards worth of damage.

So, absent the card text, if Bird blocked a crush, it would take 1 damage, crush would deal more than fatal combat damage, but instead it draws 1 card. There is a leap of logic that isn't made clear to the player in the card text that this acts as a complete damage prevention, because what "would" normally happen is different. Flock is different because of the "prevent all combat damage" language, but still not as clearly written as it could be.

Regardless of whether this operates correctly by looking over the FAQ repeatedly, the fact it spawned 17 pages of forum talk makes it clear that the language could be worded better. Just changing it to "prevent all combat damage done to this troop, and draw a card for each point of damage prevented," would make it much cleaner, in my opinion. It's now clear that all damage is being prevented so it will never take combat damage.

The "would" is fine. It's a replacement, meaning instead of taking the damage like it normally would you draw cards. Also, no amount of damage is fatal, because no matter how many damage you would normally do to it, none of it gets through.

ossuary
05-13-2014, 04:18 PM
The "would" is important on Bird, because if something else prevents the damage before the Bird's "would" replacement takes effect, the Bird doesn't draw cards. Example: Bird o' Plenty and Eternal Guardian both in play, blocking with Bird doesn't get you any cards (EG prevents the damage instead of Bird replacing it).

Vorpal
05-13-2014, 04:52 PM
So if a card that said 'deal fatal damage to a troop' was played on Bird 'o Plenty it would draw infinite cards?

Quasari
05-13-2014, 04:55 PM
So if a card that said 'deal fatal damage to a troop' was played on Bird 'o Plenty it would draw infinite cards?
Probably would never have a card like that. It's better to use destroy or Deal X damage where X is the targets toughness.

Xenavire
05-13-2014, 05:04 PM
So if a card that said 'deal fatal damage to a troop' was played on Bird 'o Plenty it would draw infinite cards?

It might just fizzle, since it is asking the impossible. Interesting question. Going to sleep on that one.

Werlix
05-13-2014, 06:00 PM
So if a card that said 'deal fatal damage to a troop' was played on Bird 'o Plenty it would draw infinite cards?

Again, that text doesn't make sense and a card like that could/would never be made.

We can all make up random, improper card texts that have an unknown effect, eg: "Deal modifier damage to a troop", "Deal robot damage to a troop", "Deal cheeseburger damage to a troop"

dwebber88
05-13-2014, 06:04 PM
i think the question of this thread was answered in the second post. I assume this thread can be closed.

Vorpal
05-14-2014, 10:11 AM
Again, that text doesn't make sense and a card like that could/would never be made.

If the term fatal damage doesn't make sense, the perhaps it needs some refinement?

If your definitions fall apart under hypothetical situations...maybe some more explanation is needed?

The text makes perfect sense. A troop can be dealt fatal damage. A troop cannot be dealt modifier damage or robot damage or cheeseburger damage.

Svenn
05-14-2014, 10:24 AM
If the term fatal damage doesn't make sense, the perhaps it needs some refinement?
The term "fatal damage" makes sense, but it's a concept and not a value to be used on a card. Saying "Deal fatal damage" on a card is not going to happen because "fatal damage" is not a value that can be assigned, and it needs a concrete value. As mentioned above, the possibilities would be "Destroy target troop" or "Deal damage to target troop equal to it's defense value" (which may or may not be fatal damage depending on other modifiers).

Vorpal
05-14-2014, 10:39 AM
Aren't all instances where a troop actually is dealt damage equal to its defense value ones where the troop winds up taking fatal damage and dying?

The birds prevent the damage. Invincible prevents the damage.

Destroy is a bit different in that the card dies, but not by taking damage.

Fatal damage doesn't seem to be some widely used term in the game - in the FAQ, it shows up 4 times, 3 of which are in the crush section, one of which is dealing with the genesis hydra (that portion of the FAQ wouldn't be needed if they simply said 'after' instead of 'when')

Svenn
05-14-2014, 11:26 AM
Aren't all instances where a troop actually is dealt damage equal to its defense value ones where the troop winds up taking fatal damage and dying?

The birds prevent the damage. Invincible prevents the damage.

That's the point. Again, a card that says "Deal damage to a troop equal to it's defense value" works just fine because that damage is usually fatal, but in the case of Flock of Seagulls/Invincible the damage is instead replaced and no fatal damage occurs. That's exactly why there are no cards that say "Deal fatal damage to a troop." The "fatal" part of fatal damage is a qualifier and not a quantity.

Turtlewing
05-14-2014, 01:25 PM
So if a card that said 'deal fatal damage to a troop' was played on Bird 'o Plenty it would draw infinite cards?

Well no, because if you do infinity damage to bird o' plenty it still won't die.

So "fatal damage" has no meaning for bird o' plenty in this context and the card should probably fail to do anything (similar to if you murder a fist).

That said the wording is poor for an actual card as you could reword your it more clearly with "destroy target troop" or 'deal damage to target troop equal to its def" depending on your actual intent.

Werlix
05-14-2014, 02:28 PM
If the term fatal damage doesn't make sense, the perhaps it needs some refinement?

If your definitions fall apart under hypothetical situations...maybe some more explanation is needed?

The text makes perfect sense. A troop can be dealt fatal damage. A troop cannot be dealt modifier damage or robot damage or cheeseburger damage.

The term fatal damage does make sense but only when talking about something that has happened or would happen. You cannot "deal fatal damage" to a troop. When a troop has taken damage (or would take damage) that damage can be fatal or not.

poizonous
05-14-2014, 06:17 PM
Lets look at Fatal Damage from a MtG point of view. Fatal Damage is when a creature gets dealt damage equal to the toughness of the creature which is why when a card that prevents combat damage to it gets attacked with trample, the only "Fatal damage" dealt to the creature is it's toughness and the rest of trample going through to the champion.

The point is people need to stop talking in this forum with their unknown knowledge about how the game is meant to work.

Also the fact still remains that IF crush, prevent damage, and invincible are all working as intended there is a Major flaw in the game mechanic. So UNTIL we get a Full Rulebook this argument is all theoretical nonsense and needs to end.

Quasari
05-14-2014, 08:08 PM
Lets look at Fatal Damage from a MtG point of view. Fatal Damage is when a creature gets dealt damage equal to the toughness of the creature which is why when a card that prevents combat damage to it gets attacked with trample, the only "Fatal damage" dealt to the creature is it's toughness and the rest of trample going through to the champion.

The point is people need to stop talking in this forum with their unknown knowledge about how the game is meant to work.

Also the fact still remains that IF crush, prevent damage, and invincible are all working as intended there is a Major flaw in the game mechanic. So UNTIL we get a Full Rulebook this argument is all theoretical nonsense and needs to end.

The FAQ is probably the closest we'll get and it says it is working as intended. How is it a major flaw? The timing is just different than you think it is.

Svenn
05-14-2014, 09:45 PM
Lets look at Fatal Damage from a MtG point of view. Fatal Damage is when a creature gets dealt damage equal to the toughness of the creature which is why when a card that prevents combat damage to it gets attacked with trample, the only "Fatal damage" dealt to the creature is it's toughness and the rest of trample going through to the champion.

1) This isn't MTG. ;)
2) I never understood the MTG way of doing this. Damage equal to a creature's toughness is not necessarily fatal damage. It makes no sense to me that you can trample an invincible creature.

poizonous
05-14-2014, 10:07 PM
Svenn lets look at it from a different standpoint then. You are an invincible statue protecting your guardian. You have a herd of bulld charging at you. Now while you may survive the stampede, does that mean your guardian will as well?

poizonous
05-14-2014, 10:09 PM
The FAQ is probably the closest we'll get and it says it is working as intended. How is it a major flaw? The timing is just different than you think it is.

The FAQ is the closest we get and according to the description of Invincible and combat prevention damage, neither of which should take crush damage, but being as how crush goes through invincible and not combat prevention, means they need to reword their FAQ and take a look at the mechanic.

Svenn
05-14-2014, 11:45 PM
Svenn lets look at it from a different standpoint then. You are an invincible statue protecting your guardian. You have a herd of bulld charging at you. Now while you may survive the stampede, does that mean your guardian will as well?
I'm invincible... I stand in front of him to protect him and nothing gets to him. They either stop at me or the are off to the side and miss.

Turtlewing
05-15-2014, 05:49 AM
Lets look at Fatal Damage from a MtG point of view.

Why would you do that?

Magic and hex are different games with different rules. there's no reason to expect a similar rule to work exactly the same way in both games.

Xenavire
05-15-2014, 09:21 AM
The FAQ is the closest we get and according to the description of Invincible and combat prevention damage, neither of which should take crush damage, but being as how crush goes through invincible and not combat prevention, means they need to reword their FAQ and take a look at the mechanic.

Since when has invincible not blocked crush damage? Source?

Turtlewing
05-15-2014, 10:46 AM
... but being as how crush goes through invincible...

No it doesn't.

(Lixil the Deathless Gem and Midnight Shepard are a really fun proving grounds combo BTW)

Warrender
05-15-2014, 11:21 AM
http://youtu.be/iIpfWORQWhU

Yup. Overpowered.