Cascade | Inertial Cascade

[OldTrees]

1) Lack of control seems weird in the element of orderly control of motion (Momentum)
2 & 3) As far as I understand, doesn't each event in a cascade (or at least a few events) directly cause the next events in the chain? Aka a cascade is a singular complicated event rather than 5 independent events.

1) True. I could also say that each creature is taking "aim" at a specific permanent of their own choice - you are simply giving them a general "order" that they must follow.
2-3) I initially interpreted each consecutive impact causing the destruction of another permanent and thus further limiting the opponent, but a reaction could be something like this:
You order creature to destroy a permanent -> Creature aims at a permanent of their choice and rams through it/sends it flying into opponent -> Opponent loses permanent and has less opportunities next turn.

1) Meh. You are using order in a different manner than it is used to describe Gravity. Alphabets, Cubes, Sorted and Determinism are good examples of order as pertaining to Gravity.
2-3) So the cascade is separate for each creature?

1) Different interpretations result in different ideas.
However, Gravity is implied to also have an organized military system that is partially represented by Graviton Mercenary and has been expanded upon by cards like Graviton Captain (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=19066.0) , Training (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,16966.msg304254#msg304254), and Graviton Lieutenant (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=19781.0). Interpreting this card as a military 'order' or 'command' in an army shouldn't be too farfetched.
2-3) Yes.
Note : Even though the actual Cascade could be a tactical maneuver, it could be seen from the point of view of other elementals as a physical cascade of creatures crashing one after the other into permanents.

1) How would that favor an interpretation of a command for x damage vs formational bonuses and penalties?

[ZephyrPhantom]

1) Lack of control seems weird in the element of orderly control of motion (Momentum)
2 & 3) As far as I understand, doesn't each event in a cascade (or at least a few events) directly cause the next events in the chain? Aka a cascade is a singular complicated event rather than 5 independent events.

1) True. I could also say that each creature is taking "aim" at a specific permanent of their own choice - you are simply giving them a general "order" that they must follow.
2-3) I initially interpreted each consecutive impact causing the destruction of another permanent and thus further limiting the opponent, but a reaction could be something like this:
You order creature to destroy a permanent -> Creature aims at a permanent of their choice and rams through it/sends it flying into opponent -> Opponent loses permanent and has less opportunities next turn.

1) Meh. You are using order in a different manner than it is used to describe Gravity. Alphabets, Cubes, Sorted and Determinism are good examples of order as pertaining to Gravity.
2-3) So the cascade is separate for each creature?

1) Different interpretations result in different ideas.
However, Gravity is implied to also have an organized military system that is partially represented by Graviton Mercenary and has been expanded upon by cards like Graviton Captain (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=19066.0) , Training (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,16966.msg304254#msg304254), and Graviton Lieutenant (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=19781.0). Interpreting this card as a military 'order' or 'command' in an army shouldn't be too farfetched.
2-3) Yes.
Note : Even though the actual Cascade could be a tactical maneuver, it could be seen from the point of view of other elementals as a physical cascade of creatures crashing one after the other into permanents.

1) How would that favor an interpretation of a command for x damage vs formational bonuses and penalties?

I'm not sure I completely understand what you're saying, but:
1) As a tactical manuever, the process would only favor the theme of damage if additional damage was added on for each creature attack (Increased velocity = harder impact).
However there is already such a card. (Sky Blitz)
In terms of formation, I'm not sure if that's the correct term here - "manuever" or "action" seems more accurate. The card favors manuevering as creatures will strike through permanents before attacking the opponent or instead "knock" the permanents into the opponent as a sort of substitute to their regular attack for the turn.

[OldTrees]

1) Lack of control seems weird in the element of orderly control of motion (Momentum)
2 & 3) As far as I understand, doesn't each event in a cascade (or at least a few events) directly cause the next events in the chain? Aka a cascade is a singular complicated event rather than 5 independent events.

1) True. I could also say that each creature is taking "aim" at a specific permanent of their own choice - you are simply giving them a general "order" that they must follow.
2-3) I initially interpreted each consecutive impact causing the destruction of another permanent and thus further limiting the opponent, but a reaction could be something like this:
You order creature to destroy a permanent -> Creature aims at a permanent of their choice and rams through it/sends it flying into opponent -> Opponent loses permanent and has less opportunities next turn.

1) Meh. You are using order in a different manner than it is used to describe Gravity. Alphabets, Cubes, Sorted and Determinism are good examples of order as pertaining to Gravity.
2-3) So the cascade is separate for each creature?

1) Different interpretations result in different ideas.
However, Gravity is implied to also have an organized military system that is partially represented by Graviton Mercenary and has been expanded upon by cards like Graviton Captain (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=19066.0) , Training (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,16966.msg304254#msg304254), and Graviton Lieutenant (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=19781.0). Interpreting this card as a military 'order' or 'command' in an army shouldn't be too farfetched.
2-3) Yes.
Note : Even though the actual Cascade could be a tactical maneuver, it could be seen from the point of view of other elementals as a physical cascade of creatures crashing one after the other into permanents.

1) How would that favor an interpretation of a command for x damage vs formational bonuses and penalties?

I'm not sure I completely understand what you're saying, but:
1) As a tactical manuever, the process would only favor the theme of damage if additional damage was added on for each creature attack (Increased velocity = harder impact).
However there is already such a card. (Sky Blitz)
In terms of formation, I'm not sure if that's the correct term here - "manuever" or "action" seems more accurate. The card favors manuevering as creatures will strike through permanents before attacking the opponent or instead "knock" the permanents into the opponent as a sort of substitute to their regular attack for the turn.

I am trying to draw a distinction between Military organization (order) and Military commands (orders). One is an example of the opposite of entropy (aka Gravity). The other is more general and not distinctly tied to Gravity IMHO.
Thus I think that "Maneuver or Action" as a theme is not a sufficient connection to Gravity. I do think that organization as a theme is connected to Gravity inversely proportional to the amount of entropy involved.

[Naesala]

If the problem of random permanent destruction remains a theme problem, a possible fix would be to have it destroy permanents in a certain order (either by slot of by the AI's targetting preferences). A specific plan of destruction such as that would fit closer to the order theme. Otherwise I really like this card and what it's trying to do.

[OldTrees]

If the problem of random permanent destruction remains a theme problem, a possible fix would be to have it destroy permanents in a certain order (either by slot of by the AI's targetting preferences). A specific plan of destruction such as that would fit closer to the order theme. Otherwise I really like this card and what it's trying to do.

The plan does fit Gravity much better than the RNG. Either of those orders would be an interesting improvement IMHO.

[Trollinator]

I like the idea for the card, but then I look at the physical aspect of it.  We are ordering our creatures to slam/ram/charge hard physical objects.  Picture poor Mr. Shrodinger's Cat flung into a tower, Cat-a-Pult style.  There should be some chance the creature dies, based on HP of said creature.  Bigger the creature, better chance it has to live through the round.  So let's talk percentages...The largest actual, playable, creature cards in the game are upped Armagio and upped Colossal dragon, if memory serves me, and they both have 30 health.  Just tossing numbers around, maybe a 4% chance to survive impact per current health point of each individual creature.  So that way, the game's 2 toughest creatures will always live, and the horde of graveyard skellies have a very small chance to survive.   Makes sense to me...

OR,

Simply assign random damage to each monster colliding with an object, maybe, I dunno, 0-5 damage, which gives even the weenies a lucky shot to survive, and the tougher ones would still most likely be hurt.

[RRQJ]

If the problem of random permanent destruction remains a theme problem, a possible fix would be to have it destroy permanents in a certain order (either by slot of by the AI's targetting preferences). A specific plan of destruction such as that would fit closer to the order theme. Otherwise I really like this card and what it's trying to do.

The plan does fit Gravity much better than the RNG. Either of those orders would be an interesting improvement IMHO.

The first idea wouldn't be that good, since that would mean mostly destroying towers.  The second idea is better, but that means against a rainbow with tons of SoGs, sancs, hourglasses, etc., towers will never be destroyed while the important permanents are.  Not saying that's a bad thing, but it's something to think about.

As for the current idea, I personally don't find anything wrong with it.  Thorn carapace poisons creatures, a 'death' effect, but it belongs to life, the opposite element of death.

[OldTrees]

If the problem of random permanent destruction remains a theme problem, a possible fix would be to have it destroy permanents in a certain order (either by slot of by the AI's targetting preferences). A specific plan of destruction such as that would fit closer to the order theme. Otherwise I really like this card and what it's trying to do.

The plan does fit Gravity much better than the RNG. Either of those orders would be an interesting improvement IMHO.

The first idea wouldn't be that good, since that would mean mostly destroying towers.  The second idea is better, but that means against a rainbow with tons of SoGs, sancs, hourglasses, etc., towers will never be destroyed while the important permanents are.  Not saying that's a bad thing, but it's something to think about.

As for the current idea, I personally don't find anything wrong with it.  Thorn carapace poisons creatures, a 'death' effect, but it belongs to life, the opposite element of death.

The first idea either starts at the highest or lowest.
Lowest would be pillars first.
Highest would be the last miscellaneous permanents (8+ or !W & 4+) or the Weapon (W & 7-) or the Shield (!W & 3-)

[ZephyrPhantom]

As for the current idea, I personally don't find anything wrong with it.  Thorn carapace poisons creatures, a 'death' effect, but it belongs to life, the opposite element of death.

To be fair, Thorn Carapace also seems to have a reasonable link to life in theme - forest-type creatures have been known to make themselves poisonous as a form of defense against Predators. The theme of Poison is also present in Scorpion, while Cascade's random destruction did have a theme conflict with Momentum (control of movement to bypass shields).

If the problem of random permanent destruction remains a theme problem, a possible fix would be to have it destroy permanents in a certain order (either by slot of by the AI's targetting preferences). A specific plan of destruction such as that would fit closer to the order theme. Otherwise I really like this card and what it's trying to do.

The plan does fit Gravity much better than the RNG. Either of those orders would be an interesting improvement IMHO.

I like this idea a lot.
Many thanks for the suggestion, Naesala, I've switched the order of destruction to the highest slot first (phrased as "newest permanent" to fit on the card.) I also have an interesting interaction with Cascade's tweaked 'targeting' that I'd like to hear others' thoughts on :

Weapons and Shields could be treated one of two ways:
[1] Be always be the 10th and 4th on the priority list given their slot placement.
[2] Be the "exceptions" and have the latest permanent your opponent played by destroyed  by each attack instead of basing it on the slot number.

Coding-wise, I favor the the 1st option as it might be somewhat clumsy to track exactly what permanent was played last given weapons and shields. I'd like to hear what you think about these two options as well.

[Naesala]

Happy to help!