![]() It seems like a preconceived notion of how you think the card should operate versus how the developers have already said they want it to operate. What I don't get it why you think this card would be better without it. I know it may cause you to interact with situations differently, such as banes that react to this trait. ![]() I know that removing the Attack trait means certain characters don't get to use certain powers, while others do. I don't need a description of how traits interact with powers. ![]() If I add the "Foo" trait to the Longsword, and have a power that utilizes that trait, is the card better or worse? (Note that I didn't mention what that power does.) There are many situations that crop up that prevent a player from playing spells with the attack trait.īy that same logic, adding/removing any trait(s) would make any card better. I still don't think it should have the trait though, whether that makes it better or not. Still, I feel these are all more situational and that on the whole a spell is better without the attack trait.īut I guess it's more opinion based than I thought. Valendron can't ever recharge Illuminate, and Seltyiel shouldn't be grabbing one, but I'll concede that there are more than I realized for sure. Valendron can get a power to automatically succeed at recharges on Attack spells. Lini can get a power to recharge Attack spells to the top of her deck. He can also get a power to discard Attack spells to get bonus d6 to defeat barriers & ships. Seltyiel needs spells with the Attack trait to use his +xd6 power. If I missed anything, let me know, but I think that's it.Īlahazra can get a +2/+4 to recharge Attack spells. Also, there is at least one character (Damiel) who can only cast spells without the attack trait (and have the Divine skill for the spell, anyway).Ĭompared to all that, there is one solitary upside to it having the attack trait: IF the caster is Zarlova, she can place it on top of her deck instead of on the bottom when she recharges it. Regardless, I cannot think of a single instance where attack spells are allowed and non-attack spells are not. The attack trait is how the game lumps these spells together, saving space in card text over saying something like "you cannot play spells that determine the skill you use for your combat check." Furthermore, these cards are not exactly uncommon - most cards (to the best of my knowledge I haven't counted, maybe I just encounter these more) that prevent spell-casting actually only prevent attack spell casting. These situations are nearly all designed to prevent the player from using her spell to determine her combat check, forcing her to rely on weapons or some other form of combat. There are many situations that crop up that prevent a player from playing spells with the attack trait. In an utter vacuum, it woudn't be any better or worse, but that's not how cards are intelligently evaluated. It is better or worse because of what keys off of this trait. Why would this card be better if it did not the Attack trait? (Why are the developers wrong?) I understand that certain characters/powers/monsters key off of this trait that's not my question.Ĭhad said that some spells (like this one, specifically) were given the Attack trait by design and others were not. That explains how it's different, but now why it's better.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |