I thought I knew how Lifesaving Blocks works but I don't and I lost a match due to it. These things happen I was only bitter for like 2 minutes (I was having a good weekend back to 1500s for first time in months) but it is a card I avoid using because I think it is flawed, but perhaps it is not as flawed as I thought. What I remember was that that it triggers after calculating base damage only. Well it appears to consider Frenzy Aura. I attacked knowing someone had a life save expecting a 7+3 attack would get through since he was at 8 HPs. It seems to me the only thing it doesn't account for a are "punishing" type of boosts (Devastating, Touch of Death, and all attacks that start with Punishing), although would consider the base damage e.g. Punishing Strike 3 + any Frenzies or traits that affect damage. I know there have been discussions on this in the Text Bug forum, but I am not interested in what it should or should not do, but instead only what it actually does. The text IS confusing: "Block Any if the base damage of the card is as much as your health. Draw a card." This would indicate to me that frenzies and other effects should not be considered, although they appear to be calculated as part of the damage check for triggering the Block. I know this is a complex matter since it involves understanding the exact order of resolution which is why I would love to see a reliable description of when it does or doesn't trigger. What I do know is it IS a Block and will not trigger if there is not forward LoS (if attacker is positioned behind the target).
http://forums.cardhunter.com/thread...unter-faq-and-glossary.6913/page-4#post-80244 As far as I can make out, you have the right idea of how it works. Frenzies and boosts are added before the block triggers, while punishing types, vulnerable and the like are added afterwards.
Correct. Right now everything calculated before blocks are checked counts (i.e. frenzy) and everything that's calculated after the attack is regarded 'unblocked' doesn't count (i.e. punishing). Laser erratic damage was going to be in the latter category and I persuaded Jon to make it roll before checking for blocks - so maybe we can try to move the punishing cards' damage calculation to before block checks, but eh. Not high priority.
Here's a list of cards that do not trigger Lifesaving Block: http://forums.cardhunter.com/thread...-not-triggered-by-zombie-mob.4474/#post-44859 There's probably more such cards by now, after the expansions.
FWIW, I like having a few selected attacks that can get past the block, so prefer it as it is now. Anyone can avoid a block by attacking from behind. Sneaking past a 100% chance from the front is rare, but oh so satisfying.
Should probably be more clear that that's how it works- common sentiment is it works as doog initially believed. Which isn't surprising, given that 'base damage' is the keyword thrown around in relation to it, and much like 'co-op', is confusing for people expecting the phrase to mean something else. [Base damage in tabletop games (or games based on them like DDO) means a base damage value that's completely unadulterated by outside boosts.] Though co-op is pretty swiftly explained to new players; After 10 months of playing, I still didn't know that bit about how Lifesaving worked [and probably is part of the reason it always felt weird in functionality to me.] :X You could change the phrasing to 'primary damage', since 'primary damage' and 'secondary damage' have distinct meanings appropriate for the matter.. But even then, I doubt as many people are familiar with that phrasing, and the game's approach to it is still a bit erratic. So really, the only way of 'fixing' the confusion I see is, to include references in the appropriate cards. EG: Frenzy Aura: Increases Base Damage by 3. Punishing Strike: Deals 2 extra Secondary Damage per card in opponent's hand. Pretty simple, and I imagine tweaking a few card descriptions is easier than changing around any mechanics In any case, however that turns out, I really gotta emphasize Obernoob's point. Homogenizing content never works well for a game. It's the weird quirks, the exceptions, the special interactions, that really make a game shine. Definitely have to firmly oppose completely removing effects that bypass Lifesaving block :X That's just hella boring. -.- It's right in line with wanting Purge to be a perfect dispel. Things don't have to be perfect. It's in the imperfection that we find tactical cleverness and creativity.
While having your own opinion is valid, unless you offer a premise to the consideration [Why?], it doesn't make for a proper counter-point :X Is there something about the descriptions that would bug you then? Is there an alternative approach to making Lifesaving clearer you have in mind? What's your actual consideration here?
To be fair, this probably doesn't affect only Lifesaving Block, but also things like Flimsy_Block, Desperate_Block, and Subtle_Parry, right? (and, somewhat orthogonal, Reflect_Missile performs reflection in the block phase, so a reflected 'punishing' attack will do damage based on the caster's hand size, not the that of the intended target?)
This always bugged me somewhat. I don't know why this whole issue got so contrived. If a card is specifically triggering depending on "Base Damage", then only the damage being listed on the card should be considered (i.e. no buffs, no additional effects, no erratic damage, nothing). If a card is specifically triggering on "Damage", then all damage should be considered (buffs, additional effects, everything). Ofc, I do get why things might need to be implemented in such a way that damage is added in stages but, when it comes to the actual way cards are supposed to work, implementation details should be put aside in order to make the game-mechanics clearer and hence the game as a whole more enjoyable. I think the many "gotcha" moments you get with the more complex cards are quite rewarding, makes you actually love learning how the different cards interact with each others. That's assuming the rules are consistent and work in the same way across the board though. When the exact same rule bears wildly different results depending on obscure implementation details which are both hard to know about and to remember? Not so much!
^That's actually better than my post. The above post is now my post. #Plagiarism In retrospect, no, there really doesn't seem to be any need to add in any bonuses to cards before they're compared, so while not as easy mechanically as just changing card descriptions as I suggested, changing things to meet current player expectations is definitely a lot easier to comprehend on the player-side of things. And Lifesaving Block is already a really good card, I'm not sure why we'd need to boost the things it works on, so definitely no need to go in the opposite direction of making more boosts register for it. Besides, even in PvE, it's really fun slipping a damage card past one of the mobs that regularly has Lifesaving Block. Interesting idea, making Flimsy, Weak, and Desperate blocks work off of base damage as well- With all the focus on high damage attacks and damage boosts, these blocks are, as far as I can tell, essentially considered near-useless. Even in PvE I don't generally see anyone intentionally slot them [especially in comparison to Jarring Block], and that's when we KNOW when we'll be fighting control spells and unbuffed low-damage spells. And standardizing how damage-related blocks work definitely has merit.
For the record I can remember (which is at best flimsy evidence) having a LS block fail due to Mass Frenzy (over a year ago) and with the proliferation of MF at the time it made me abandon LS Block as a card worth having since it would only save you sometimes. Recently I had the reverse experience of LS Block succeeding against my expectations (it was a revealed card so I was attacking based on trying to avoid triggering) with an Invig. Touch (7) + Frenzy Aura (3) on an elf w/ 8HPs. I had assumed (guessed?) it wouldn't trigger but indeed it did. So I thought I had a gotcha moment (which would have won the game for me) instead I watched the Elf run off and wound up losing. I don think there needs to be a big effort or any changes just a single clarification, because really I have one of the new shields that have a Life Save and I haven't used it because I felt LS was unreliable. If it is something that is only vulnerable to on-card boost mechanisms (which only calculate once there is a hit) that would be clear enough to me, but I would advise a clarifying statement. From Jarmos's Post: Here's the complete list of attacks from the wiki Lifesaving Block will not work against if the base damage is not enough to kill you: Anvil Strike Backbiting Strike Cowardly Attack Devastating Blow Mob Attack Swarming Attack Touch Of Death Tree Limb Smash Zombie Mob I didn't include the ally damage or terrain damage since these are outside of any block triggering. But it seems to be missing a few that I would (currently) expect to potentially avoid triggering LS while still killing you the 4 Punishing Attacks Punishing Bolt/ Beam/ Strike/ Bludgeon I would also assume that Backbiting would only be an issue for self damage which again we all know doesn't affect blocks triggering. It seems that Flax convinced Jon to have Major/Minor Erratic Damage to calculate before blocks so these would not be a Gotcha, but I'd love to see confirmation. Finally I would ask about Flaring Laser, my guess would be that if the 3 damage triggered the LS block it would still deal the 6 and get the kill. BUT if it was blocked by another block card (e.g. Block) and the damage was flared to 6 I would assume that LS still wouldn't trigger (even if 6 was a fatal amount of damage) since it was after the blocking phase, but I am less sure about that (although this is really a very rare possibility). So I would summarize this as all damage is considered except damage boosts on the attack itself.
Do you see a lot of others builds in PvE? I guess you play a lot of co-op. I know some in PvP keep flimsy block as they are very good anti-control/fire blocks as they won't trigger on 95% of attacks, but most of control/fire cards.
I PUG a few times a week and I've got about 20 short-list PvE partners, about 9 of which I run with regularly (and 4 of which I run near-daily with <3) I also discuss builds regularly with several PvP players. And no, it's not that we won't slot it, if it's on an otherwise convenient item; It's that in PvE, you basically always want reliable blocks [eg Jarring] over very unreliable blocks [not to be confused with, but including, Unreliable Block ;P]: All the more unreliable blocks tend to just be a discard-from-hand-at-end-of-turn deck filler in PvE, except in certain maps, where you can usually get by better results by focusing on other cards anyway- versus, say, how Parry is definitively better on melee maps than other blocks; there's no distinct advantage to using unreliable blocks in the few circumstances they'd work well. And yeah, I've heard that PvP sentiment before, I didn't realize it was that commonly used. But even if it is used for such, I don't see why applying Base Damage/no-boosts to those cards is a negative. It's not like they're 100% block chance, so making them work even with Savage Curse-d 1 damage spells is certainly useful [in making them more desirable to slot for counter-control] But, well, if my as far as I can tell, essentially considered near-useless [in pvp] is inaccurate, and they do have a common usage, then you can disregard the point I just personally feel it'd help keep them balanced more to other blocks, make them feel more accessible to slot, and add consistency to how damage-based block cards work I couldn't say for PvP, but for PvE, Lifesaving is an amazing card that's often very desirable to slot. It usually sucks a bit to pull it early, but by later on, it can let you be a lot more reckless with your tactics, which can be convenient- and make winning that much easier and faster Sounds like a job for @Scarponi ! Yeah, but that's a bit of a different concept Secondary damage always bypasses blocks [Source: Extensive use of Pulverizing Bludgeon ]. (Though I'm fairly sure I've never tested it against a mob with LS in hand, so.. can't say I'm completely certain.) I like that this interaction happens as it does. And yeah, it's a bit weird not having the 'secondary damage' keyword, or similar. In other CCGs I've played with absorption/blocking mechanics, it's fairly common. [Especially in regards to on-death 'explosion' or 'poison' effects.] It's a convenient way of knowing at a glance what bypasses counters and what doesn't, and what damage boosts do and don't apply to.
Thanks for the Pulverizing example this matches my expectations and experience. To be clear, I am neither happy nor unhappy with any particular card or effect. I just want to be able to play MP matches without surprises. I don't play much but I have been playing since since late 2013 and while I am not the most active community member, but after about 1,800 MP ranked matches (and hundreds of league games) I should be able to know how a base edition card works. Last thought I believe AoA is calculated before blocks as well, but I can't remember if this ever came up.
Agreed, the game could use a lot of clarifications on certain things. And AFAIK, it goes: Attachment Boosts, left to right Boosts in hand, left to right (Block) Secondary effects. Pretty straightforward, in that sense; Just the phrasing on cards that ends up really confusing it, imo.
