Force 0-strength creatures to attack

[Uncle Jellyfish]

Currently, any creature that does no damage is declared as an unattacker. That means, if you have a shield that stops two damage, then all creatures with two attack power will not attack.

If this were changed to what you suggested, it would ruin some of the strategies for those creatures.

[zzz123]

currently, 0-strength creatures do nothing (e.g. Chryasora, un-fed Otys, etc)
it would have been nice if they were forced to attack as well (and so be affected by Ice Shield, Fire Shield, Procrastination, etc)

[Forfeit]

And I kinda see the benifit in keeping the Chryasora un-upgraded so it doesn't attack and injure itself in that way. Personally, I've never used that card but I've had it kill me tons, and I still the the stratagy involved in using cards with zero attack and like the layer of depth it adds to the game.

[Forfeit]

^^ I didn't even think about the bonewalls. I thought it was just a good stratagy, now i see it's balanced as well! Cool, and also adding attck to creatures like that, while it doesn't apply to anything i can think of yet could also make maxwells demon overpowered.

[thearchduke]

I'm with the herd on this one.  It cuts both ways, anyway.  My chrysaoras (sp?)  don't take down bone shields but they don't get burned by fire shields.  Seems pretty balanced.

[Delreich]

However, I think that creatures that had damage prevented by an ice shield, (1 str blocked by ice shield,) should still have a chance to freezing.  It makes no sense to me that they tried to attack, the shield engaged and prevented it, but there is no chance they will get frozen.

The shield is there for all to see. Why would they bother with attacking when they know their damage will be blocked? Makes perfect sense to me.

[Delreich]

Wouldn't a 1 health creature see the fire shield and not bumble to it's death also?  Opinions of the logical action of a creature in a given situation are fine, but I am talking more about current game mechanics.

Well, they still get to do their damage, but you're right; logic doesn't (and shouldn't) have much to do with this.

There is no way for a player or creature to decide not to attack.  Therefore, I would assume that the 1 str creature did attack and the damage was blocked, thus the 1 str creature bounced off of the shield yet did not freeze.

And I would rather that, with the current lack of player control, creatures don't go off getting themselves frozen for no reason whatsoever.

[Forfeit]

But really, if we had control over our creatures attacking, that would make the fire shield (fire already has weak defenses too) useless, and really nerf a few others as well.

[Forfeit]

I do agree with the one attack point creature thing, that's bugged me too, and i see no reason it should be that way.

[Forfeit]

Zakal, great point. While it would be good if all are creatures had logic and didn't attack a fire shield with only one health left, even if they already attacked it before, then that would be great. And if we could control creature logic even better.

But, I like your point that this is game mechanics better, and that by the logic we see of evey 1 attack or greater creature attcking when there's not a shield, that same creature would attack when there was a shield and therefore have the shield affect it.

[thearchduke]

In

And if we could control creature logic even better.

Something like in Magic: The Gathering where you have to tap a creature in order for it to attack, here you could just click the creature to have it attack.

[thearchduke]

However, I think that creatures that had damage prevented by an ice shield, (1 str blocked by ice shield,) should still have a chance to freezing.  It makes no sense to me that they tried to attack, the shield engaged and prevented it, but there is no chance they will get frozen.

The shield is there for all to see. Why would they bother with attacking when they know their damage will be blocked? Makes perfect sense to me.

Because skeletons are very stupid.  And angry.