I think it would be cool if I could hide my magic user behind my dwarf tank fighter and the fighter blocked linear attacks (lightning) from anything in front of him. The Magic user could still be attacked from attackers from behind of course. I think this would add another level of strategy. Of course it would not effect area of effect spells.
I support this. You should rephrase that from linear to targeted. There are cards that specifically use the word linear, because that is a mechanic all in itself. Tanks lack a certain significance right now, because there isn't any way to force your opponent to attack him, unless you're bunkering down on a victory square. (Talking about Mulitplayer) Zone of Control is nice, but it's not nearly enough. Tanks need a way to actually protect their teammates. If my tank is right in front of my mage, you shouldn't be able to stab my mage OVER my tank, nor should you be able to snipe it with your own mage. This would add a lot more significance to damage mitigation AND to mobility/positioning.
Well, I don't have any preference on using a "characters count as Blocking Terrain" mechanic. Could play that way, could live without it. But certainly, blocking a multi-target attack by having it stop at the first character means it's no longer a multi-target attack: it is, in fact, a normal one-target attack with a special "characters count as Blocking Terrain" mechanic. This means reframing the issue: is it worthwhile to have both normal Linear attacks and some new "targeted" attack that gets blocked by characters? Would it add anything to the game for JUST ONE attack type to follow this fundamental mechanic? It would be a unique bit of code just to make a weaker type of attack. And to how many cards would it apply? Which Attacks? For that matter, which Curses, Heals, and Frenzies? Basically, I stay on the level of "I could play with this mechanic or without it." I just don't think that a hybrid system, adding new code and re-balancing SOME of all cards, would be worth it. But still, there's already a "Heal the nearest target" mechanic, so maybe a small selection of "damage the nearest target" cards would get across the point. A Wizard hiding behind a Warrior, after all, would be protected in such a manner automatically.
You didn't understand what I meant by target. Noun A person, object, or place selected as the aim of an attack. Verb Select as an object of attention or attack. When you hit someone with Impaling Stab, you target them. Violent Swing: Target Bad Medicine: Target. Nimble Strike. Glob of Fire. Bludgeon. Unstable Bolt. Misguided Heal. Most of the cards in this game target. I'm not talking about specific card texts, I'm talking about the action of targeting the victim for whatever hostile card you're using against them. Anything where you have to select (or target) a specific character for the attack, you shouldn't be able to ignore the tank if he's blocking the other units. The game auto-targets when there is only one target to choose from, but that doesn't change the fact that its still a targeted attack. For AoE cards like fireball, obviously this wouldn't apply. For a card that hits multiple targets like that one spark spell, this wouldn't apply (You would still have to target the tank/blocker, but that wouldn't keep the spell from affecting the units around him). For cards that target the terrain, like hot spot and fire wall, this wouldn't apply. Nothing would need to be recoded or reworked other than what enemies you are able to select as targets. Otherwise, the game would be played exactly the same as it is now, with more emphasis on positioning, movement, and damage mitigation.
I addressed the both of you in my post. It certainly doesn't make sense to take "Linear" and make it follow such a rule, which is what you already acknowledged. "Linear" might as well not exist in such a case. So the matter comes down to having a character count as "Blocking Terrain," either permanently (a fundamental matter of code) or as a special rule for some cards. As I said, I'm totally okay with a game that uses such a rule as fundamental code. But does it make sense to have just a few cards out of the total use the rule? I'd say not, and at the end I suggested an alternative on a similar principle: cards targeting "the nearest enemy." Such a system would likewise make Warriors into stronger shields for Wizards. But you're emphasizing the flip side, so here: does it make sense to have just a few cards NOT follow such a rule? Well . . . why would you be able to use Fireball or Acid Blast to hit hidden characters if you could NOT shoot a Long Spark past that same "Blocking Terrain," i.e., that character? Is it Blocking Terrain or isn't it? And the example of Arcing Spark, well, just demonstrates there'd have to be a card-by-card re-check of literally everything to see which ones "would logically bypass Blocking Terrain." And by "re-check," I also mean "re-balance," as literally every map would need rebalancing based on this new strategy (and all beta statistics gathered to now would be thrown out). That's what happens when you talk about fundamental game principles.
I don't think this is really necassary. The idea of a "Tank" in traditional MMO or RPG is outdated IMO, having one member of the party whose job is to be immortal while the rest of the party does whatever they please behind him. Card Hunter seems perfectly balanced how lines of sight are currently, and if your wizard/cleric drops too quickly then maybe it's time to switch to a beefier race...
Just to reword this suggestion I would now say [Suggestion] Characters act as blocking terrain ie a character is the same as one block of stone wall for characters behind it. Of course they would not blocks area of effect spells like fire ball or acid spray but they could block target spells like big zap, sorcerous bolt, etc. Thanks
Well, cards targeting the nearest enemy wouldn't be ideal if there isn't a tank in your way. When his "taunt" feature is no longer factor, the characters should still be able to target the same way they do now. That being said, the character would need to count as Blocking Terrain (to a degree) as a special rule for any card that targets individual characters. The reason fireball and acid blast should work despite the "Blocking Terrain" is because it doesn't actually hinder your line of sight, and you aren't targeting a character, you're targeting the map. As for Arcing spark.. You got me there. I thought the way the card worked was that you only selected the initial target and the card chose the other two targets for you (assuming there were viable targets to choose from to begin with). I guess it may be more trouble than its worth, but it could also be implemented in the form of a card.
Maybe a skill along the lines of " Take the Brunt " where if the tank is trying to block damage from the wizard or priest they can if there is room to move, step in front and take the damage?
For starters, it's a golden rare. The idea is to force your opponent to attack into your armor. One block any doesn't do very much unless you're preventing a really powerful attack, and even then it doesn't fill the role cause it's a one-time use.
What you are assuming is that someone who COULD be in the way is ALWAYS in the way, so by the same token, friendlies would also have to block LOS.
