Voodoo Doll | Voodoo Doll

[BluePriest]

Why fix what isnt broken?  Like the wording of the card. And seriously people, this was OBVIOUSLY AN INTENDED EFFECT OF THE CARD! It would have been changed immediately if it wasnt, then zanz wouldnt have let it get past the beta stage. If zanz wanted you to be able to know everything about the card by looking at its description then it would have put in something, and it would have been changed by now. Since none of those things have happened, did anyone take a moment to think that maybe, just maybe, zanz enjoys players having to figure stuff out. btw

it doesn't say "If this creature is TU'ed, damage is not redone to your opponent."

 

qft

Im against the wording for the whole reason Zanz probablyleft it how it is in the first place. Because this game isnt all about being spoonfed everything.

Now, if Zanz thinks it is about that, and decides to change the description, then thats fine, however, Im all for figuring stuff out on my own in a game. If this was a regular board card game, then I may have a problem, because unless someone told me, I wouldnt know, however, since this is a flash game, when I TU the doll, the effect is carried out regardless of whether im aware of its existance, I have no problem with it.

[QuantumT]

it doesn't say "If this creature is TU'ed, damage is not redone to your opponent."

 

qft

It actually kind of does. When you TU it, this new creature appears. It says that it deals damage that's specifically dealt to it, but the damage it has wasn't dealt to the new doll, it was dealt to the old one. Therefore the new doll shouldn't deal any new damage, because it was never dealt damage.

Are you really arguing that the wording is clear? Because the very next part of your post talks about how you like it when things are vague.

Whenever a choice is available in cards, clear is ALWAYS better than vague. My response to seeing a mechanic should never be "But that's not what the card says it does." This isn't some adventure game where I'm exploring, it a game that needs clear rules so that I can know what to expect when I'm building decks.

[BluePriest]

This is not a regular card game. It is a flash game. It should be treated like one. Mario isnt an adventure game. Not the original,  its a platformer. Every genre of games you will find things that are not clear cut, and you have to experiment with. There is no genre that is an exception. Card games included.

It actually kind of does. When you TU it, this new creature appears. It says that it deals damage that's specifically dealt to it, but the damage it has wasn't dealt to the new doll, it was dealt to the old one. Therefore the new doll shouldn't deal any new damage, because it was never dealt damage.

We have been through this before.
Fact 1)
The Doll IS damaged.
Fact 2)
The doll hasnt done its damage to the player yet.

Assumption 1)
Spells are a type of attack.

for ex
Gravity pull. If you are using it on one of your creatures, do you really consider it attacking that creature? What about liquid shadow? Is it attacking a creature? If you use it on your own, you may think no, but if you use it on an opponents you may say yes. What about vampirism?


Here is my question to you, if liquid shadow didnt poison or remove abilities, and just gave vampirsm would you consider it an attack?

[Uppercut]

I wouldn't consider that an attack. We know that a weapon can have the same traits as vampirism (vampire dagger) but LSing a Doll doesn't pass vampirism on.

[Krahhl]

An attack is usually given some sort of negative aspect. Therefore, it makes sense that only the negative effects that are applied to a doll are passed on to the opponent. Vampire is positive, so liquid shadow does not give it to your opponent. However, it does poison your opponent. A similar idea is seen with basilisk blood. Your opponent's max health does not increase, but his weapon is delayed. Statuses such as frozen are inflicted on your opponent, while adrenaline is not.

My point is, only the negative things should be applied with the voodoo effect.

The following paragraph is likely to contain bullshit and may or may not believable.It then makes sense that TU counts as an attack because it has a negative effect. Not on the existing doll, but on the new one that is created. It has damage already taken. Damage is negative. The doll sees that it was created damaged and in poor condition, rather than new and whole. It interprets this as a personal attack. It releases its anger at not being treated with the same manufacturing care as normal dolls by redirecting the damage it has taken onto your opponent.

What I'm trying to get at is that the TU isn't attacking the target doll, but the copied doll. The attack happens when it is created, by creating it damaged.

[jmizzle7]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am perfectly content calling Voodoo Doll's interaction with Parallel Universe an Easter Egg.

Discussion topic merged into the Voodoo Doll card discussion thread.

[gavsword]

The way I see it, the TU is copying all if of the things that happened to the voodoo doll, including the damage. As that doll existed it may have been BB'd, gravity pulled, frozen, etc and some of those effects have worn off or have been nullified. So when the new doll comes in the damage and other effects hitting the doll all come into play at the current state of the doll. So if the old doll had had X damage to it, well then it's replicated again. This is a wording issue in my opinion and that is all.

[BluePriest]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am perfectly content calling Voodoo Doll's interaction with Parallel Universe an Easter Egg.

JMizzle7 said it. It must be true.

[Uppercut]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am perfectly content calling Voodoo Doll's interaction with Parallel Universe an Easter Egg.

I don't think misleading rules can be classified as an easter egg. That'd be like if you were playing a platformer and the camera got caught on a wall and you said "Oh its supposed to do that, its just an easter egg".

[Krahhl]

I really still don't think they're misleading. They're just not... leading. Like I said, the text doesn't really say anything that forces you to believe that TU'ing wouldn't copy the damage as well.

[OldTrees]

May I redirect constructive assistance here: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,19120.msg260151#msg260151

[rohlfo]

does quint do anything? like make other player immune to spells?