Polearm Slash's "Armor 2 Melee" also stops burning damage from cards like Fiery Stab and Burning Blade. I understand why it does this, but it probably shouldn't.
Well, on the other hand if the polearm prevented the attacking weapon from cutting very deep, the burning in the wound in also going to affect you less as the wound is not so big. Makes sense to me. If this is the original design intent, though, it would help if it was spelled out better on the card.
Well, Resistant Hide does not stop the initial hit, but does stop the burning. This makes sense, because the text of Burning says that it deals "Fire Damage". Because of that text, I would expect that it should NOT be considered melee damage. @Jarmo -- if that's your logic, then Burning attacks should not attach if all their damage is prevented. Actually, that would make a lot of flavor sense anyway...
Well, the way I thought of it is that you were hit with a flaming blade. The blade didn't go too deep but it did some damage. Same goes for the burning (represented by the attached card). The burning blade burned some tissue which continues to smart, but it's not as bad as it would have been if you hadn't partly blocked it with your polearm. So yes, the burn card should attach but it's OK that the polearm blocks part of the burning damage. That is, if you go along with this logic. I find it feasible but not necessarily the original intent.
ppl, the logic of the game engine operates independently of fantasy world physics. Polearm Slash triggers on burning damage because that damage originates from a melee weapon, and that's all the code checks. Too many what-ifs turn the field of mechanics into an even wilder jungle. (Also, burning should still cause damage even if armor prevents penetration, because metal armor conducts heat. And now we need a new keyword to distinguish hide armor from metal armor.)
The hot weapon is not in contact with the armor long enough to transmit appreciable amounts of heat to the defender. You need to get the blade through to the soft tissue beneath the armor for the flames to have an effect.
A magic aura and/or flaming oil (because the metal weapon sure isn't burning) transfer onto the armor, hence a lingering burn effect.
I thought you advocated simple systems? A burning enchantment that splits a part of itself from a weapon to the target and stays there is beyond all but two wizards in Cardhuntria and they don't work for the kind of money our characters have. Also, try oiling a sword and hitting plate mail. Check how much oil transfers. Not enough to even smudge a gloved finger let alone set alight smooth metal.
Indeed. My participation in this exercise is precisely to demonstrate the futility of modeling fantasy world combat physics.
Fair enough, but I don't think you've demonstrated any holes in the speculative model outlined above.
I'm not so worried about reality simulation. The reason I posted this as a bug is that the text of the Burning ability states that it deals "Fire damage". I actually think that the way Resistant Hide handles it is correct (doesn't stop the initial hit, stops the burning). I was arguing for consistency within the game -- i.e. "Burning" states that it deals "Fire damage", and so its damage should be treated as fire damage (and not melee damage). It seems like Burning is adding the Fire property to the existing card's types, rather than replacing the card's types with "Fire". This can be tested by seeing if Fiery Stab's burning damage is stopped by Only Bones. I believe it isn't, that's inconsistent with the behaviour of Polearm Slash. Here's what I think is happening with damage type: Damage has [type] [property] Fiery Stab is Melee Piercing Burning replaces the "Piercing" with "Fire" but leaves the "Melee" alone So its burning damage is Melee Fire This would predict that it would not be armored by Shimmering Aura, which would be weird. Probably the easiest fix (assuming the system is designed this way) would be to change Burning to deal "Magic Fire" damage. This would rationalize interactions with Polearm Slash, Shimmering Aura, and any future cards that play in this space. It would also fix the flavor issues described above.
Actually, what is happening here is that "Fire" is the damage type (of the Burning portion; the original attack does Piercing damage) while "Melee" is the attack type, and so Shimmering Aura should not block any of the damage. It is confusing, since this is the only melee attack that does elemental damage. I do think that Polearm Slash should only trigger on attacks, not attachments.
Yeah, what I meant by "simulate reality" is not that this is a simulation game, but more that the card rules generally reflect the way you expect things to be. For example, if we created a card called "Fire Smash" and had it do Cold damage, that would be perfectly legal in a rules sense, but it wouldn't make much sense to you, the player. This is the sort of sense in which Polearm Slash's armor effect reducing Burning damage is confusing. I think the analysis above is right: the Burning damage that comes from Fiery Stab is still coming from the Fiery Stab card, so it's attack type is still "Melee". To correct the disjunction between rules and expectations, we would need to explicitly state that Burning damage is Magic Fire.
What I was actually going to say was, Card Hunter is a PERFECT simulation of reality insofar as the game within the game has some non sequitur rules interactions, just like every RPG system in the real world
