So this happened in a multiplayer match. I'd been passing for numerous turns, knowing I could win if I got priority. Opponent proceeded to do a lot of damage to my army, then used a cantrip and passed. At this point, the round should have been over, with me having priority, however it wasn't. I then had to pass, and lost priority because of it. Surely this is not an intended function. I was the first person to pass, and maintained that pass state, I should be the one to get the initiative in the next round. Just because I see a dude move on a battlefield doesn't mean my army is suddenly going to be like 'oh well, I guess we'll stop being at the ready'
http://www.cardhunter.com/forum/threads/should-cantrip-effects-give-you-a-free-first-pass.1307/ Scroll down a little for the dev's response.
Seriously, that's working as intended? It'd be fine if there was a way to block it, but I guess not. Thanks for that Phaselock, I only scrolled through the bug threads.
This is the way they were designed. I definitely could be argued into changing it though. I did think this was a good point from the other thread:
Here is my thoughts on it. The concept of 'he who passes first, gets priority' is there to give someone who got a poor hand, or is tactically minded, the ability to get the first action in the next round. It's specifically designed (Correct me if I'm wrong @Jon) to provide a way for a weaker player to turn it around by acting first with a lucky draw. Cantrips currently allow a strong player the ability to beat the living snot out of someone, get a character to say 1-2hp while the opponent is passing, and then get pass priority. The way I see it is this: Player 1 passes Player 2 Cantrips Player 2 passes Player 1 gets the ability to counter, which drops his pass priority, or he can pass, which keeps his pass priority. It simply doesn't make sense for a team that has been doing nothing for 3+ rounds to lose pass priority because someone moved slightly, after being beaten within an inch of their life: Basically, give Player 1 the extra turn after a cantrip is played, but don't punish him for it. If he wants to react, let him, and if he does, then penalise. If he doesn't, his pass priority should remain where it is.
"Quoted from Crux: Cantrips would be much more powerful if they didn't give a free first pass. Because they would instead give a free end-of-turn action which the other player couldn't respond to." I disagree. It seems more logical to me that a turn with a cantrip still counts as a turn even if the second part of the turn wasn't used. The other player can choose to respond or not. If this applies to cantrips, why not apply it to step attacks in which you don't attack anyone? That said, gameplay should trump logic, so if it's felt that 'stealing the pass' with cantrips adds to the game, go for it.
The difference is that when you use step attack without attacking anyone, you click "done" When using cantrip you get a secondary turn enabling you to click "pass"
Its not an end-turn action, its end-turn move, where the opponent gets to respond with fresh set of cards. I would agree that for example cantrip firewall would require a respond but not movement. Passing is a tactical choice to get the first action in the next turn. But now you cant even do that choice as the opponen can just force you to be the second passer. I cannot imagine a situation where this would be more beneficial for the player who loses hes/her first action on the next turn because of this cantrip abuse. but i can easily see the benefit for first action!
I don't think that this does give a free first pass - it's a tactical decision. If a player (or the computer) uses it, you also have an option of using cantrip in response, regaining the first pass priority, as well as giving you a good positioning. But you have to have it in your deck, and from my experience (semi-limited, admittedly) the cards with it tend to not be very "powerful" in terms of offense. It's a trade-off like any other.
