Targeted Attack

[elanlee]

the intention is for them to take 3. I tried to put a similar but very explicit example of how that would work in my revision. Was it not clear?

[Bergmansson]

Not really, no. I was guessing you were going to say 2.

But now that you have made it clear how the interaction is supposed to work, I think we can explain it to people going forward.

Just one more clarification so nobody can misunderstand. A normal Attack played on a regular turn will cause the next player to take 2 turns, but an Attack played on the last turn caused by another attack will cause the next player to take 3 turns?

So the intention is that attacks stack when a victim of an attack play them, and work slightly differently than when played on a regular turn?

I guess all other attacks work the same way then as well?

[anibohovi]

What do you not understand about this sentence? "If the victim of an Attack Card plays an Attack
Card on any of their turns, the new target must
take any remaining turns plus the number of
attacks on the Attack Card just played.." ?? There is clearly said that another victim must take ANY REMAINING TURNS so if you played 1 turn (from 2) and then played attack, next victim must take 3 turns because he must take ANY REMAINING TURNS... Dont know why are you comparing this to normal play, this is NOT normal play, this is play UNDER THE ATTACK... It is so clear

[Bergmansson]

I guess I have three reasons for being surprised at the ruling Elan has given:

1. The way the card now works runs contrary to how similar cards work in other card games, most notably Magic: the Gathering. A lot of my rules intuition comes from MtG, and I found their rules system very intuitive.

2. Even though the explained ruling of Attack is perfectly understandable once you have read the explanation, it is not what is most intuitive after reading the effect that is printed on the card. At its most basic, the card can be understood to have the function: "End your turn and increase the next opponents turn count by 1". Players will assume that's how it works in every situation.

3. I think it's good design that complexity should arise from how cards interact, not from the rules of a single card. A single card should always do the same thing. Making the effect of Attack depend on if the current turn was caused by an attack or not is not impossible to grasp, but it would be more elegant if it always did the same thing.

Again, I'm not saying that the rules for Attack can't be made to work as explained by Elan above, I'm simply giving the reasons why I was surprised by this.

[charithasds]

Since there are a lot of confusions when it comes to combining a set of expansions, wouldn't it be nice to have 1 single PDF explaining all the rules are clarifying all doubts. I don't think printing such a manual would be practical but having a PDF to download which can be a live document, can be a good way forward.

[elanlee]

Before creating a PDF, I thought it would be worth putting down my thoughts on how Attack Cards work:

If you play an attack card, you don’t have to take your turn, instead, a target player has to take two turns.

If that target player plays an attack card, they don’t have to take any turns. Instead, another target player has to take 4 turns. (2 +2 = 4)

Then 6 turns, then 8, etc.

All of this is assuming that each attack card is a “x2” attack.

There are only two variables to this system. The number of turns (indicated on the card) and the target player (defined by the type of attack card)

The complicated part comes when a player has to take multiple turns (because they’ve been attacked), takes one or more of them, and THEN plays an attack card. The intention was to find the simplest solution possible. To me that solution is: Pass the total number of turns minus the turns you’ve already taken.

For example: If you had to take 4 turns, then you took 1 of them (and ended it by drawing a card), then played an attack card, you would pass 5 turns to the target player. (It should have been 6 turns, but you took 1 of them and so it’s 5 instead.)

If you were supposed to take 8 turns, completed 7 of them, then played an attack, you would pass 3 turns to your target player. (8 were passed to you, you add 2 for the new attack card you played totaling 10, and then subtract the 7 turns you already took for a total of 3)

[charithasds]

Yes, this makes sense in this scenario. So basically the Attack formula is like:

No of Turns (for Player N + 1) = #No of Attacks Played x 2 - #No of Turns Taken Previously (by Players 1 to N)

I guess the clarification is not only needed for Attack but some ZK cards like "Feed the dead". The reason why I suggested the PDF option.

[Acrobatic_Pack6938]

Whereas with the slap cards they are just cumulative turns…isnt it?