Recently I was running through the campaign levels and in one peculiar instance I managed to get hit with taunt by one of the Gnomes. I'd had the card on my characters occasionally, but while the theory of the card in and of itself made sense, a few playthroughs against the gnomes quickly revealed a few puzzling moments. First, if these creatures are taunting me into attacking them and only them...why am I unable to target other things, such as healing on anyone else but them? Am I so angry at a gnome for taunting me that I'm going to angrily heal him? I'd buy that there was some sort of magic involved with the taunts, but at the same time, the creatures in Melvin's campaign (Melvelous the Magnificent) also use taunt and are distinctly non-magical in nature. Second, why oh why does taunt stick around even after I've killed the person who taunted me? It was incredibly strange to kill the taunter immediately after he taunted me, only for my priest to simply sit there with a glazed expression and a handfull of cards she couldn't use on anyone or anything since, well, the target who had taunted her was dead and taunt lasted for two turns. Third, if the first point about everything needing to target the enemy was intentional, including the heals and non-attack cards, why am I still allowed to use cards such as Mass Frenzy and Team Heal? After all, those cards aren't including the taunter in the target after all, so why are they exempt, yet the single target healing spells not? I don't really have any suggestions for correcting this as I'm not sure of the limitations of your program. I agree with the theory of the card, but perhaps the taunt should only affect red cards, and disappear once the creature who had done the taunting has died.
I totally support this feeling. I appreciate the spirit in which this card was designed, but in practice it seems to both unfairly punish the player and do it in a way that feels extremely unintuitive. Sure I can figure out how it really works counter to what I'd have thought, and sure I can deal with it afterwards; it's not game breaking. That doesn't counter the fact that it feels a bit hamfisted, and leads to these (frequent) situations where gameplay is reduced to frustrating and boring rounds where one character simply has nothing to do. It might as well be a stun that lasts 3 turns in about 75% of my encounters that hit me with this card. That can't possibly be the opinion the devs wanted me to have of this effect.
I don't really have an issue with the first point, you're so enraged at the taunt that you forget that maybe it would be better to heal your friends. You're completely focused on the enemy, so can you heal them? Yes. Do you have to? Of course not. I agree with the second and third points. Taunt should discard after you kill the enemy that taunted you / the last member of the group that played taunt depending on how the devs want to handle it. And I'd prefer that Mass Frenzy and Team Heal were forbidden from being played while you have taunt attached.
Here's my idea: Add a keyword called "Owned" or "Maintained" or something, and if an attachment has this keyword the attachment's owner is displayed when you zoom in (and maybe highlight them on the board) and when the owner dies the attachment is immediately discarded. There may be other cards that would benefit from this.
I agree that it should drop off when the taunter dies. Not only does it seem more logical, but it creates a strategy for dealing with Taunt, i.e. everyone goes all out to kill that mob, and release his victim(s) from their thrall.
The taunter is identified individually, not by its mob, and the trait should drop off when the taunter is killed. The current version is very poorly done, and glaringly out of place in a very good game. Perhaps if a 'blob' was left on the screen to replace the dead taunter and the taunted was able to mutilate the corpse, eat its liver, burn it, etc., it would provide a meager excuse for the continued obsession. This would be an option 'not in keeping with the spirit of the game' and I don't seriously recommend it, but a character as obsessed as this trait makes them might do just about anything.
I agree with the sentiment behind this thread. There's nothing worse than having my priest taunted and unable to act (read 'heal my damaged warrior') for a few turns even when I kill the taunter. At the very least let me attack other mobs in the group. If it was just that and she couldn't heal, but still attack other member of the group it would be better, not the best, but better.
If you want the card to be discarded together with a taunter, within current mechanics it could be changed in the following way: 1. It is a Trait now - attached to taunter instead of the opponent 2. Works only on cards that do damage 3a. Taunts nearest enemy character, halt, or 3b. Taunts all characters in range of X squares The text could be something like this: a. "Trait. Halt. Whenever the closest enemy plays a card that does damage, that enemy must target owner of this card or other ally if that ally is taunting him too. Duration 2." b. "Trait. Whenever any enemy within range of X squares plays a card that does damage, that enemy must target any character with Taunt attached. Duration 1." In case of 3a, it is a bit different taunt - you taunt nearest character, so the target may change when characters move. Halt would be a balance and justified because if you move or flee you loose your focus and taunting would not work well. Closest character is a bit tricky this time because he can be taunted by more enemies at the same time. So he should be able to target any of them too. This needs a bit of different coding. In case of 3b, range should be lowered from 10 to 1-4 probably. It stands to reason to taunt more than one character a time (football "fans" come to mind) but also the further away, the less efficient it is. Plus it would be too powerful if the range were too big. Additionally duration could be lowered to 1 because of this. If there are more taunters, you can attack any of them.
