I'm going to go with the assumption that it is an 'immediate stop' type movement. I'm also going to hazard a guess that if it were otherwise, the keyword would have been something like 'sneak' or maybe even 'scamper'. Moving during an attack allows you to make hit & run attacks, I like it! I do have a question though, well more of a clarification request really. I know the article said before attacking you could move, but it also mentioned the possible tactic of using the card to move out of range of an enemy. But doing that would not allows you to make the attack, as you too would be out of range, unless we can attack first and then move? Or do attacks target and then resolve regardless of range from the target?(Doubtful, as this could lead to all sorts of fancy game breaking). But if this were the case, I'm sure that it would have been mentioned by now... Of course that could be another keyword in itself, being able to attack then move in a single card, (like sneak, which the more I think about it sounds rather rogue-ish)
There are a number of similar technicalities. It could be set up such that there are conditions for play: when you select this card, you get an overlay of possible target just like you do when you make normal movement, and then you can only select ones that allow a valid combination of effects. Step, then attack. If you can't do both, you can't play the card. Or it could be that you can ignore either part of the card, and just pretend that you have a "1 movement" card here, where you do not attack afterward. This would be increased versatility, using a card in a sub-optimal way. Goodness me. Are you trying to emphasize the word "rogue" for some reason?
Actually . . . It does look like someone has been touching up the background with rouge. Would you look at that?
So, the exact way this works is that when you play the card, you make the step movement. That movement is made using all the normal movement rules, including stopping next to enemies and so on. Once you've finished that move, you make your attack. There are a couple of little tricks with that attack: If there is a legal target, you must attack it. So if you step somewhere where you can only stab a friend, that friend is getting stabbed. If there are no legal targets, so be it. You just wasted the attack part of your card but you got to move. Note that this is a bit different to regular, non-step, attacks which may not be played if there are no legal targets. Rule (1) above is one we might change. It's that way because that's the way the implementation shook out, but I'm not married to it and could easily see it changing as we do more play-testing.
As for rule #1 it makes for a good penalty but i don't think it should be for every situation. Like this one would be weird or if it's like an axe attack that might be strange. But, if its something like a hook-shot attack where your moving from a long range like 5 steps and but for it to work you need to hit something be it enemy or ally. That would make sense and be quite hilarious for rouges to use on tanks.
Yeah, I'm not super keen on Rule (1). I guess it makes logical sense: you only get the step because you're thrusting your dagger out in a possibly dangerous fashion. Unrelated note: will this week's Dev Diary solve the Nancy Drew Mystery of the Dark Boxes on Maze of the Mind*? * Not to be confused with the forum's other popular title, The Hardy Boys and the Secret of the Lonely Star Icon.
I like the card and the required attack if legal target is avalible, but I don't think we should be allowed to take the step if we can't attack. Also has it been confirmed or denied if we can back out of a card action if for instance we take the step and realize that's not the move we want to make can we back out of the movement and card use? Or is it thecase of once you use the card your forced to take that action?
Rule #1 gives me some insight on why co-op play might benefit from being delayed. Fighter: "You stabbed me!" Rogue: "What? Oh, that--just trying to step behind you, mate." Fighter: "But... you stabbed me! ARRGH!" <monsters watch on as the PCs fight each other>
It could be problematic. Can you normally attack allies? Lots of games don't let you, so if cards like this suddenly change the dynamic, players could be confused and/or annoyed. If you can attack allies, then alright. Maybe you'd even want that feature, like in some videogame RPG's where someone under a "sleep" effect can be woken up by an attack. ("Look, Sabin, this is not the time to be taking a nap!")
I think the rule can have exceptions of working. Example, Wizard shoots AOE Fire spell at a bunch of low health orcs with a low health fighter in the middle. I think then it would be a justifiable pro vs con situation and would be good for making decisions other than saying, "lets have friendly fire off so everyone is invincible. But in terms of physical attacks like simple thrust and being forced to attack any nearby enemies if it's a movement as well as an attack. That should be optional. Unless the attack is again something that needs to hit something to do damage. Ex. Advancing Smash: Hit target and push them 1 square, then move where they once where. (This isn't an actual card but I hope you get what im trying to say.)
I think that's actually a different thing, RisingZan. What would make it comparable is if the Fireball also had a "Step 1" keyword, such that you could use it just for the Step, and be allowed not to use the Fireball component even though there are valid targets nearby. The key is that Simple Thrust has two distinct components - a movement action, and an attack action. I think we all agree that if you play a card with a single action, you must use that action and cannot even play it if there are no legal targets. The question here is in a case of a card with two distinct actions, by using one of them are you required to perform the other if possible? Based on the blog post, it seems the movement action is optional, since Jon uses the words "you can" rather than "you must." Assuming that wasn't just a grammatical error, it would seem strange that you can use this card, choose not to move, and then not perform an attack at all. So for these types of cards, I am leaning towards the idea that you must perform at least one of these actions, but are not required to do both. ~ Funny how a "Simple" Thrust turns up so many possibilities
For real! Personally, I think I'd understand not being able to take the step without also stabbing, because they are one fluid move--but I really can't wrap around the value play-wise of when I would want one character to take a step so bad that he would be willing to stab his ally. Granted, I suppose I should cherish the (potential) option!
Sokolov - I think you got it precisely. In general, you cannot play a card that requires targets without there being a valid target. So you can't, for example, play Chop without actually having a target. Simple Thrust is playable without targets because it's a movement card at heart. However, when you move you can always elect to just move to where you start from. So, if we allowed you to not pick a target for the attack part of the card, you could play Simple Thrust, stay where you are and not attack anyone. Not the end of the world, admittedly, but a little odd. Nevertheless, given the commentary here, I'm leaning towards not requiring you to pick a target for the step cards. It would be an exception to the general rule but they are already a bit different anyway.
Yes, you can target allies. There are some occasions where this is useful and not just when you have area of effect attacks that spill over onto your friends. It's not a major feature of the game, but it is an area where good players can sometimes get an edge by doing creative things.
The problem with not letting you play the card at all if there wouldn't be a legal target after the step is that that is quite a complex position to check. Not that the computer couldn't figure that out, but more that the player would have trouble understanding it. Imagine a Step 4 card (yes, such a thing might exist!). That is a lot of potential move destinations and targets to check. I'm not sure it would be at all obvious to the player why they could or couldn't play the card. With regard to cancelling card plays, we generally try to let you cancel anything up to the point where the opponent has had information revealed to them. In other words, you can't take back a card once it has been shown. Unfortunately, the way our step cards work, this means you can't unwind once you've made the step. It's possible we can fix/tweak this, but it's a rather tricky code issue. Design-wise, as I said, our goal is to let you unwind whenever possible without messing with the opponent.
This cant be avoided by a visual? Say when you decide you want to use the card, the squares light up where its possible for you to move before you make the movement? I'm not sure about the programming side of this, could be more complicated then necessary, but if it only highlighted where you could move based on where the enemy was it would alleviate this problem by giving you a cue of where it is that you can or cannot go based on hitting an enemy and the number of "steps"
Umm. Not to be nit-picky here or anything, but it would be impossible, or at least highly impractical, to perform a thrust the way the dagger is being held in that picture. That's more of an overhand stab. And that's generally how women stab, men tend to stab with a forward thrust, angled slightly up or down depending on their opponent. Keep that last bit of info in mind if you're in the habit of getting involved in knife fights. And who isn't these days?
Whoa, whoa! How did this get past the QA department?! Card Hunter devs, you know what to do once you find the responsible parties. Stab. Stab. Stab.
