LW not count as a piece?

[Shaman]

In a battle 2 seconds away that ended up with my pieces in line separated by one space.

a LW (no turn wait) and a Golem
My opponent moves his frost golem (13hp) into range of my LW and para my golem. He wins.

Why does he win when my LW could have been used to kill his Frost Golem? The LW has no turn wait, and my enemy was within range to be killed. Since I had a valid move for damage, and killing the frost golem would have released my other piece (not in wait) the game should not have been ended.

[~zedd~]

you've got to be kidding right??? You are a gold member and u don't know the rule of the game??? rules state if all of your moveable units are dead or paralyzed YOU LOSE

[Shaman]

Its more of a questioning of the current rules and less of a lack of knowledge. Maybe it should go into the discussion forum than the bug forum. But, whatever.

It seems inappropriate that even a stationary piece with offensive power and the ability to kill an opponent thereby freeing another would cause a game to be called. My second piece that would have been unfrozen by the death of the frost golem was not stationary. It just seems that if a piece has tha ability to perform a function that it should be allowed to do so, stationary or not.

As for my 'color', there is no entrance exam for Gold Account status. It cost 5USD/mo regardless of whether or not you choose to read a FAQ.

[dakar]

If the LW had to be killed then you would lose the second you lost your magi/paralysers. A person could have 10 knights and technicly lose to a single LW.

Thus the LW doesn't count, no matter the cercumstances. It's a risk to using the most damaging and (in a way) hardest unit to kill in the game.

Somewhat similar to using a dragon: you give up a unit, thus putting you one step closer to losing from the start.

As for not reading the full instructions: no it's not required, but it's a bother when a person asks or complains about something that another has spent the time to write down.

[Shaman]

The person who beat me used the current game mechanics correctly. However, I object to those game mechanics. The game seems to treat the LW as a paralyzed piece, it should not. It should treat the piece as a non-moveable active piece, which it is.

If you read my explanation you would see that NO WHERE did I say that I felt the LW had to be killed. I SAID that a piece with a valid move should be allowed to make that move. The circumstance that I listed had a target within the LW's reach, therefore it had a valid attack. That valid attack would have freed a secondary piece, therefore I would have had a still active piece on the board who was in turn.

Originally posted by dakar
If the LW had to be killed then you would lose the second you lost your magi/paralysers. A person could have 10 knights and technicly lose to a single LW.

Again, no where did I say the LW had to be killed. Even with my observance above, if there were no pieces within reach of the LW, then the LW would not have had a move and therefore the game would be surrendered. A person could have 10 knights and still win vs the LW if the LW could not reach the knights and therefore had no valid attack.

[Snork]

That might be a good idea.
If the LW can actually attack somebody, you don't lose. But if it can't hit anybody, it's the same rule, it doesn't count and you lose.

It would be interesting anyway.

[kyrios24]

Definitely... the same thing happened to me. All the rest of you should stop flaming him. It's a good idea, he knows the rules, and maybe you should be a bit more open-minded. Just shut up.

[Aro23r]

That should not be allowed and here is why. Let's say that we have a man wiht a knight/LW. The opponent has only an enchantress. If the LW counted as a piece, it would be impossibe for the man with only an enchantress to win.

The idea is to always give both sides a chance to win the game. LW counting as a piece would give an advantage to all players who use it.

It will stay as it is.

[kyrios24]

Aro, I don't think anyone is suggesting that (LW as a piece). And nobody is saying that it should necessarily happen. Just a little complaint. My take on it was that maybe something should be done about this general scenario. We can use yours:

Player A: Knight + LW
Player B: Enchantress
Nah, let's make the chantress a frosty. So anyway, assume that the frosty para's the knight, but it can be hit by the LW. Player B wins, but should that be the case? After all, the LW could hit the frosty pretty hard, and the knight could probably finish it off. So is it really fair? So what's being proposed here (I think) is for paralyzing to win UNLESS the paralyzer is in range of the LW.

Now... your situation is a bit flawed, I believe. The enchantress would beat the knight and LW, since it can paralyze both at the same time. And of course, if the knight separates from the LW, then it just dies. That's assuming the chantress can catch it in the first place, which it can't. But that wasn't what you were talking about when you said the chantress player couldn't win...

[Shaman]

Originally posted by Aro23r
That should not be allowed and here is why. Let's say that we have a man wiht a knight/LW. The opponent has only an enchantress. If the LW counted as a piece, it would be impossibe for the man with only an enchantress to win.

The idea is to always give both sides a chance to win the game. LW counting as a piece would give an advantage to all players who use it.

It will stay as it is.

Did you read the whole thread?
I seems not.

In my suggestion the The enchantress can win in multiple ways.
It can para both the LW AND Knight.
It can para just the knight if the LW is in turn wait.
It can para just the knight if the enchantress is out of range of the LW.

People accuse me of not understanding the mechanics of the game, when in fact it appears that the majority of others do not.
I understand exactly what the current mechanics are, and my proposal is absolutely valid. It breaks none of the current mechanics and would make the game more appropriate. A piece with a valid move to make should be able to make that move. A piece should not be treated other than it truely is.

[yapperface]

what if you wind up with two LW only, one on each side, out of each other's range? A draw right?

[GeneralBenedict]

Impossible for that to happen with the current units.

[Serge]

This is technically possible actually (having only two LW's left) but it would never happen. There would have be only a pyro a side left and the guy kills his pyro and the other at the same time. see technially possibly just not likely to ever happen.

P.S. this is Serge not Shaman.

[A.F.I.]

i will quote the tao website

Win - by destroying or paralyzing all of your opponent's mobile units, OR if your opponent Surrenders

all of you opponents mobile units.... else a barrier ward could just barrier itself for infinate victories

[Shaman]

OK, one last time.
I KNOW what the faq says. I dont agree with it and proposed an alternative solution.

If a barrier ward where your last piece then the barrier ward could NOT just barrier itself indefinately for a win because once it barriered itself it would be in TURN WAIT as a non-offensive piece. As a non-movable piece in turn wait it would force your surrender.

For those that have trouble understanding.

A piece with a valid move should be allowed to execute that move rather than be surrendered. Wards should not be treated as paralyzed pieces. They should be treated as active non-mobile pieces. If said action does not create a secondary valid move then your game is forfeit, due to the fact that your sole immobile piece is now in turn wait.

Example #1:
I have LW (not in wait) and scout (in turn wait).
You move in with your only piece, a 50hp knight and kill my scout.
I now use my LW on your knight but it does not die.
The game is lost for me. My last immobile piece is now out of turn and you have moveable piece with an option prior to the end of my turn wait.

Example #2:
I have LW (not in wait) and scout (in turn wait).
You move in with your only piece, a frost golem with max hp and kill my freeze my scout.
I now use my LW on your frost but it does not die.
If your scout is now in turn, you can attack the frost and move, continuing the fight.
If your scout is out of turns, the game is lost for me. My last immobile piece is now out of turn and you have moveable piece with an option prior to the end of my turn wait.

Example #3:
I have a barrier ward and you have a knight.
I use the barrier ward.
I lose since I have no mobile pieces and my immobile piece is now in turn wait.

get it?
I am not arguing about the CURRENT rules.
Could a MOD please move this thread to the suggestions area?
People see it in the bug forum, read some lines and then just respond that I dont know what i am talking about.

My mistake for placing this thread here. Please move it.

[AzN_GuY]

I'm gonna have to side with Dakar on this one. You use the piece knowing full well that it's not going to win the game for you as the last piece. It's one of the intentional drawbacks of the piece and a part of the unit's balance.

I understand what you mean and what you want, but I still argue that it's a part of the unit and should be taken into tactical account, not changed.

[Shaman]

Thanks for your input.
The difference between your response and others is that you took the time to try and understand my discussion point, THEN disagree. Too many others simply respond that it is how it is supposed to be, therefor it is. Maybe a condition of it being in the bugs area, maybe not.

[meletus]

Shaman post makes complete sense though. It is a piece with a valid move, so it should be allowed to execute. It would be one thing if on the other side of the board or just out of range. But when in range it should have the ability to hit. Even if the Frosty had a full 60 hp it should be able to attack. It would break the focus and that is enough. It might not be a mobile unit, but in this case it is a usable unit. It has a valid attack available and I think that should be considered and looked into.

How often will this happen in the future? Who knows but the fact that it could change the tide for those it does happen to make a huge difference.

[dakar]

I see what you're suggesting: if the LW can attack then it should be able to. If not then game ends. The opponent can still win by either not being in range of the LW or being able to take a 30 damage blow. It's feasable, though it adds more power to the "run to the LW" mindset.


I still say that it's simply a penalty for using LWs (like how dragons have a penalty of taking up two units, or that ending up with a cleric alone might as well be a loss). It feels more balanced that way.

[A.F.I.]

um... not a good idea shaman.... to many draw will happen this way when they should be wins

i realize your point of view... but if urs was the way... ppl would just hide by their ward all too much

[dakar]

That reminds me. You should go speak to the one who started the "Hiding behind the LW" thread and talk about about the role of LWs.

[ultraexactzz]

First off, the LW always has a move while not recovering - it can strike any empty square, or itself. Not having an opponent in range is no criteria for victory.

Second, if it were changed to having a unit with a move, then you could lose the game with as many as four units still viable.

Example:

I have a Cleric, a dragon, and two Witches. All full health.

The Cleric Heals and Moves. 5 turn wait.
The Dragon moves and attacks. Now has a 3 turn with the cleric at 4.
The First witch moves and attacks. Now has a 3 turn wait, with the dragon at 2 and the cleric at 3.
The second witch moves and attacks. Now has a 3 turn wait, with the first witch at 2 turns, the dragon at 1 turn, and the cleric at 2 turns.

By your proposed criteria, even though I have half my force remaining (becuase the dragon counts as 2), I LOSE. That's no good.