I'd mentioned elsewhere that I think the destination overlay should just not show you squares where you are forced to attack an ally. A player could instead control-click on the card to open those options. (The latter is the same as in normal play, where you can use any old attack card on an ally with control-click.) The destination overlay coding would be potentially difficult, though. It would be an entire new conditional to apply for just one type of card.
Here's one time we discussed this in depth: http://www.cardhunter.com/forum/threads/step-cards.496/#post-5871 Here are some choice quotes: And I can't find the other thread (or ONE other thread, as there are a number), but I believe it's been pointed out that you can use a Step card to just stand still and attack anyway: as with any Move card, you just click on the same square where you started. This, again, seems to be contrary to the spirit of the action: try to explain to a new player how it is ANY DIFFERENT from Bludgeon or whatever. How about this: These cards have the keyword "Step," and, as far as I can tell, no other card like Team Shift uses it. How about the designers ramp up the "intuitiveness" at the cost of a little utility? Step currently says "When you play this card, immediately move X"; consider if it were "When you play this card, immediately move X. Character may not remain in the same square." At a minimum, it would make it more obvious that the character is "committed," as Jon said. Then, if it were also possible to code my suggestion about "don't show destinations where you will be forced to attack an ally unless the player uses control-click," a Step card would feel very distinct from how it does now. It would also be weaker, I acknowledge.
I think forcing the step would definitely remove some of the ambiguity. I'll have to think about whether I'd want that change or not ^_^ My brain may then explode trying to figure out what encumber would do (intuition would say allow the card to be played, as the reduction in movement is applied afterwards).
This is true. But having the reduction apply too late to affect the card sure seems like a bug, doesn't it? Edit: Oh, wait, that's not what you meant. Yes, I could see someone playing the card and being PROPERLY Encumbered, and thus unable to lunge at all. This would require, as Jon said, some consideration. Should you still be able to use the Attack part in such a case?
Yes, what you mentioned in the edit (I should have been more specific); like you said, needs some face-scrunching thinking about the whether the Attack part can fire or not.
There's quite a difference in the level of "crazy" between lunging around fencing with thin air and jumping in front of your friend and stabbing him in the face with your rapier. Since we're working around the artificial limitations of a game system, when forced to do something crazy, it at least makes sense to do the more "sane" crazy thing. If we could Shift/Alt/Ctrl-click an empty space to "waste" an attack, this topic would be a non-issue. Forced friendly-fire behavior might be expected on a "Berserker Rage" sort of card that explicitly states that you MUST attack the closest thing; however, there is nothing on these cards that indicates that you MUST attack a friendly if they're the only thing in range (RAWR, I am in such a fury from moving a single step that I must attack SOMETHING (that's not thin air)). As you get more experience (read: are burned by these cards), you learn how these cards are broken and you keep in mind to be more careful when using them. The person most hurt by this counter-intuitive behavior is the new player. Without either a proper explanation of in-game mechanics or at least behavior that seems to make sense, you're going to end up reducing your new player retention rate (which may actually be important to the bean counters who are trying to make a profit from this product). Edit: removed line about cancelling an attack card with no enemies in range, since you can't even play those cards with no enemies in range. I should drink all my coffee before replying.
Rather frustrated by this issue as all I wanted to do was view the card, not play it, and now I'm stabbing my wizard.
For that specific situation, don't forget you can right-click on the card (or the equivalent on Mac) to view it safely.
I actually registered just so I could come and see if this was a known issue. Upon reading a bit, it seems to "make sense" that this card should force you to attack an ally, but I wonder if there is not some way to make it clear on the card text itself.
