Rule consistency : Attacking creatures

[guy_fawkes]

Hi,
I still have some doubts about attacking creatures.
We know that a creature that deals >1 damage (all shields considered) "attacks" the opponent
We know that a creature that deals exactly 0 damage (all shields considered) to the opponent "does not attack" the opponent
We know that a creature with attack <1 (ignoring shields) "attacks" the opponent and heals him.
We also know that a "vampiric" creature with attack <1 "attacks" the opponent and damages the owner.

This seems a bit confusing to me...

1) why only the creatures who deal exactly 0 damage does not attack? virtually gaining a GREAT advantage against shields like permafrost, fire buckler and thorn...
2) why creatures with NEGATIVE attack ignore opponent shields? It's an "attacking creature" like the others, there's no reason for them to be "special" and avoid fire buckler damage
3)why vampiric creatures with negative attack damage their owner? the wording on the card is :"The damage dealt is returned to you as healing", first of all there is no damage dealt... a negative damage is called healing... second it's absurd that a healing to the opponent is translated to damage to the owner..

I suggest that every creature is considered "attacking" at the end of the turn , exception made for frozen and  delayed creatures
Every attacking creature faces the opponent's shield effects (as stated on the shields wording) (even creatures with negative attack and 0 attack)
Vampiric creatures that don't deal DAMAGE (harm the opponent) don't trigger the vampiric ability.

I hope the goal here is to create a set of general rules , taking out all the unnecessary exceptions.

Thanks for your time

[BluePriest]

1)if a creature has 0 attack, then they dont attack. Thats because they just dont have any power, so they dont even try. Why would you attack if you do no damage?
2)Because, the creatures attack, and you know it is going to heal you, so you take down your shield for that attack
3)You attack with a creature that has (-5) attack. So you attacl me for (-5). And then after that, you heal for the amount of damage taken (-5).

[guy_fawkes]

1)if a creature has 0 attack, then they dont attack. Thats because they just dont have any power, so they dont even try. Why would you attack if you do no damage?

and why the creature attacks if it has NEGATIVE attack?
would you attack if you know you are healing your opponent?

2)Because, the creatures attack, and you know it is going to heal you, so you take down your shield for that attack

that's the point, but the rule on the card should be set in stone, there should be no exceptions like "oh he's healing me, let's change the wording on the card".
for example MY eclipse should not give +1+1 to enemy creatures, because it's me giving an advantage to my opponent's creatures? no way!!

3)You attack with a creature that has (-5) attack. So you attacl me for (-5). And then after that, you heal for the amount of damage taken (-5).

i don't think that my creature is dealing ANY damage, (dealing damage means take down opponent's hp) so why should the vampiric effect trigger?

[BluePriest]

1)Creatures ALWAYS attack. That is a general rule. Otherwise those cards would have no use, so that HAS to be a rule. Not a very good defense.
2)Why would you block an attack if its going to heal you?
2b)ACTUALLY, eclipse SHOULD. Thats how it was designed on purpose, and it says ALL, not just yours. Not a real good defense
3)Actually, its dealing (-) damage. Thats all there is to say to that. This is something we will have to agree to disagree on though.

[guy_fawkes]

1) it seems that you contradicted yourself and made my point. EVERY creature should attack, but this is not the way it works NOW. Creatures who deals 0 damage DON'T attack!!!
2)because the card says :"deal 1 damage to attacking creature" , and that should be the effect, there's no such thing as "is the effect going to harm me or do good to me?" it should be applied in ALL cases
2b)i know ELCIPSE works this way, i put the example as paradox, showing you that an effect should always be applied even if it harms you or HELP your opponent.
3) yeah on this one i think there should be an agreement, imho a creature with negative attack HEALS the opponent, and a creature with POSITIVE attack DAMAGES the opponent.

[Wisemage]

like BluePriest has said.  The monster is not dealing out healing.  it is dealing Negative damage.  From one stand point they are the same thing, but from a technical stand point they are different, which is why a vampiric negative attack monster heals your enemy and damages you.

Ninja Edit: 1.) 0 attack monsters DO attack, but since they deal no damage the shields dont kick it.  its the same thing if a 1 attack monster attacks an upgraded thorn shield.  the monster will act as if it didn't attack and it will not be poisoned.

2.) we can't really argue the fact negative monsters dont get blocked.  It was Zanz's choice when he made antimatter so we get no say in it.

3.) and ive already talked about three above here.

[smuglapse]

Shields definitely need to be more precise in language.  As referenced in  this topic (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,7834.msg95666#msg95666) attacking creatures sometimes include weapons in the weapon slot.

Another example is

If that description were true a creature with -4 attack woud heal for 5, and 0 attack creatures would heal for 1.

A correct description would be "Positive physical damage is reduced by 1"

For a shield like Permafrost the description would be "Positive physical damage is reduced by 2.  Creatures causing positive damage might freeze."  Of course, adding 'positive' to everything might confuse newer players.

EDIT: Additionally, Vampires could read "The damage dealt is returned to you and negated."

SECOND EDIT: Vampires: "The damage dealt is returned to you and inverted."
This would match antimatter's description.

[BluePriest]

1) it seems that you contradicted yourself and made my point. EVERY creature should attack, but this is not the way it works NOW. Creatures who deals 0 damage DON'T attack!!!
2)because the card says :"deal 1 damage to attacking creature" , and that should be the effect, there's no such thing as "is the effect going to harm me or do good to me?" it should be applied in ALL cases
2b)i know ELCIPSE works this way, i put the example as paradox, showing you that an effect should always be applied even if it harms you or HELP your opponent.
3) yeah on this one i think there should be an agreement, imho a creature with negative attack HEALS the opponent, and a creature with POSITIVE attack DAMAGES the opponent.

Well, I suppose you are right there. You set me up for that, and I fell right into it lol. So I will agree with you that the wording SHOULD be changed. I think the wording should say that creatures that damage you take 1 damage. I do not agree though that all creatures should be damaged.


Pretend I have a minor vampire on the field named steve. When steve deals damage, this is what happens.
Turn 1
Steve attacks bob by sucking his blood.
Bob uses a spine/thorn (forget which one is the upped version) to  to stop steve for 1 damage. Since the minor vampire did damage, its ability activates. Lucky for me, steve didnt get poisoned.
Since steve sucked some blood, he is at 104/100 blood level.
When he comes back to me, he heals me for the 4 extra, so he is back to 100/100 and he has a regulated blood level.
Bobs turn.
Bob uses Antimatter on steve
Turn 2
Steve attacks (-) damage, so instead of sucking blood, he gives blood.
Bob uses a spine carpace to block. Since I didnt do more damage than the shield, the effect doesnt activate.
Since steve gave some blood, he has 96/100 blood level.
When he comes back to me, I regulate his blood level and loose 4 health doing so.
______________________
Yeah, I know its a bad example, but still. You get my point. right?

[guy_fawkes]

yes we probably just need a better wording on the cards,
because it's really important to have a consistent set of rules, leaving no room for personal interpretation.

shields need some adjustments in this regard.

[sSethia]

The anti-matter effect is with the coding. It is basically just an attack, but with negative power. That's all there is to it. Everything else works the same way.

[guy_fawkes]

The anti-matter effect is with the coding. It is basically just an attack, but with negative power. That's all there is to it. Everything else works the same way.

apparently not,
because shield effects are ignored...

[BluePriest]

The anti-matter effect is with the coding. It is basically just an attack, but with negative power. That's all there is to it. Everything else works the same way.

apparently not,
because shield effects are ignored...

Not technically, because it works just like creatures that would do less damage that what the shield blocks, I think thats what he was saying.
Antimattered creatures have <0 attack, thorn carpace doesnt trigger unless the creature damages the you. and since an antimattered creature doesnt, then it doesnt trigger, so it really does work just like other attacks