Bug with Svalblod cultist

[Gen_Liu]

Hi everybody,

I encountered, a weird bug with the Svalblod cultist.
First, let make things clear, her ability says and I quote "at the end of every allied turn, heal the unit to the left by 1 and damage the unit to the right by 1"

What happened is that, my opponent damaged my Haeymey protector by 1, so I played her on his right with the idea of healing him back up...Except it didn't happen.
For some reason the cultist felt lazy this time and didn't heal anything.

After that moment of forgetting her task however, she was back to working normally (I played other cards on her left and right and everything went according to plan), except for the last turn I played and this is where it gets weird.

I did whatever for my turn (I don't remember but it's not important with what I'm explaining here) and at the end of my turn, she damaged Blueboy Lugos by 1, killing him in the process.
The problem, however is that, I didn't get the trigger of Lugos dying. He took 1 damage and didn't translate it into 2 damage on a random opponent as he should.
I know it looks more like a bug with Lugos this time but I'm blaming the Cultist because she were the one who damaged him and since she already fail to her task earlier...

And of course, Lugos was not locked. Just in case you were wondering. In fact my opponent didn't play any lock effect anyway.

Anyone had issue with this card?

 

[thersthol]

Lugos only damages enemies when he is still alive. Therefore, his ability will not be triggered when he goes from 1 to dead. That is my experience with him. Think that he is working as he should.

The other part seems strange.

 

[Gen_Liu]

Lugos only damages enemies when he is still alive. Therefore, his ability will not be triggered when he goes from 1 to dead. That is my experience with him. Think that he is working as he should.

The other part seems strange.

Really?
It doesn't make any sense but okay, we've got that part solve I guess.
CDPR should seriously mention this on the card though, because damage that kills someone is still damage in my book.

 

[Iuliandrei]

The description for Blueboy and Shieldmaiden has been inaccurate for some time now, it should be "whenever this unit survives damage", instead of "takes damage".

 

[Payus]

Lugos has been that way since homecoming day 1, I can atest to that. I always found it akward but logical that he died without attacking. Imho he'd be good enough if he did attack after dying, but that would be a deathwish. I love the card btw.

 

[Gen_Liu]

Lugos has been that way since homecoming day 1, I can atest to that. I always found it akward but logical that he died without attacking. Imho he'd be good enough if he did attack after dying, but that would be a deathwish. I love the card btw.

Well, logic doesn't have the same meaning in a card game where the rule of each card is accurately explained on the card itself (I mean, that's the way it should be, at the very least).
So, while not dealing damage after dying would be logical in real life comparison, it's completely the opposite in a card game where the text box specifiy says "Whenever this unit take damage, deal 2 damage to a random enemy unit"

As long as nothing is mentioned about said unit dying, nothing different should happen when it dies.
The correct wording should be "Whenever this unit take damage and survive, deal 2 damage to a random enemy unit".

It's not even complicated to word, I don't understand why they didn't change the text box instead of making up random rules that players have to figure out on their own based on nothing at all.

 

[Payus]

Well, logic doesn't have the same meaning in a card game where the rule of each card is accurately explained on the card itself (I mean, that's the way it should be, at the very least).
So, while not dealing damage after dying would be logical in real life comparison, it's completely the opposite in a card game where the text box specifiy says "Whenever this unit take damage, deal 2 damage to a random enemy unit"

As long as nothing is mentioned about said unit dying, nothing different should happen when it dies.
The correct wording should be "Whenever this unit take damage and survive, deal 2 damage to a random enemy unit".

It's not even complicated to word, I don't understand why they didn't change the text box instead of making up random rules that players have to figure out on their own based on nothing at all.

I agree. Btw, one can find something logical even if it is incorrect. It does follow a logic, which I think it's a flawed one.

 

[Raziel_888]

I guess the logic would be that if you destroy the card, it's no longer in play so the text no longer applies. Same with exposed or other effects. Otherwise imagine the boat that boosts itself when no armor. You inflict damage to bring it to 0, it looses armor, boosts self back to 1?

It's also a technique to get rid of those cards without triggering their effects and, as payus said, to differentiate from deathwish

 

[Gen_Liu]

I guess the logic would be that if you destroy the card, it's no longer in play so the text no longer applies. Same with exposed or other effects. Otherwise imagine the boat that boosts itself when no armor. You inflict damage to bring it to 0, it looses armor, boosts self back to 1?

Except it doesn't work that way in the game.
A unit is destroyed when its str reaches zero (or while affected by a destroy effect, obviously) but what causes the unit to reach o str are the damage it took.
What I'm trying to explain here is that, everything in card games is about priority. When a unit dies from damage, first the damage happen and then the unit dies.

The same stands for the interraction you explain with the boat. It can't bring itself back from o to 1 because the unit is immediately removed from the game when its str reaches o anyway.

Also, about Deathwish and damage triggered from the last point of str.
Multiple effects can lead to what looks like to be a similar situation but it doesn't mean they need to be separated from a rule stand point.
For example, a row locked unit that's moved on another row can't use it's ability, just as if it has been locked...It was not though, it's just two different interractions that leads to the same result, which isn't a problem in the least, there's no reason to change things so damage can't give an illusion of being a deathwish.

Especially when it's just an illusion. When a unit taking lethal damage trigger an ability, the order is first, damage happens, trigger, then the unit dies.
If it's a deathwish, however, the trigger happens after the unit dies (I know it's subtle and rarely matter but still).

 

[Iuliandrei]

What I'm trying to explain here is that, everything in card games is about priority. When a unit dies from damage, first the damage happen and then the unit dies.

Not really. Gwent lacks many small mechanical things you typically find in other card games, like treating Deploy as a single event even when it performs multiple actions, see the Morkvarg vs Turtle interactions, or having different triggers for "whenever" and "after".
In this situation Blueboy is treated as an "after" effect, but all such unit triggers use "whenever".

 

[Raziel_888]

I understand the wording is confusing but in gwent, an effect completely resolves before another one kicks in. For example with the greatswords, if you inflict 6x1 damage, it'll do all the damage first and then boost 6x1 times.
If a card inflicts damage, the order would then be : damage card inflicts damage, if damage > strength, damaged unit is removed. Then the other 'whenever i take damage' card triggers if it's still in play.
It is different than a lot of other card games, but not illogical. And for a game like gwent when it's one card at a time and card advantage is primordial, it allows a response from the opponent without necessarily triggering the effect. Otherwise, you would never attack this kind of unit

Post automatically merged: Jan 4, 2020

The same stands for the interraction you explain with the boat. It can't bring itself back from o to 1 because the unit is immediately removed from the game when its str reaches o anyway.

So same for Lugos, it doesn't trigger the 2 damage since it's immediately removed from the game reaching 0

It's all or nothing. If not, the boat with armor should trigger its 'exposed' effect in between the damage when the armor is gone no?

Post automatically merged: Jan 4, 2020

Same goes for Vran warrior, for kaedweni cavalery and tourney joust, for 1 unit power played against longships, for mardroeme and berserk, etc

 

[Gen_Liu]

Not really. Gwent lacks many small mechanical things you typically find in other card games, like treating Deploy as a single event even when it performs multiple actions, see the Morkvarg vs Turtle interactions, or having different triggers for "whenever" and "after".
In this situation Blueboy is treated as an "after" effect, but all such unit triggers use "whenever".

It's actually the problem, priority is a mess in this game and more importantly, they should explain how it works in the tutorial, otherwise.....

I understand the wording is confusing but in gwent, an effect completely resolves before another one kicks in. For example with the greatswords, if you inflict 6x1 damage, it'll do all the damage first and then boost 6x1 times.
If a card inflicts damage, the order would then be : damage card inflicts damage, if damage > strength, damaged unit is removed. Then the other 'whenever i take damage' card triggers if it's still in play.
It is different than a lot of other card games, but not illogical. And for a game like gwent when it's one card at a time and card advantage is primordial, it allows a response from the opponent without necessarily triggering the effect. Otherwise, you would never attack this kind of unit

Post automatically merged: Jan 4, 2020

So same for Lugos, it doesn't trigger the 2 damage since it's immediately removed from the game reaching 0

It's all or nothing. If not, the boat with armor should trigger its 'exposed' effect in between the damage when the armor is gone no?

Post automatically merged: Jan 4, 2020

Same goes for Vran warrior, for kaedweni cavalery and tourney joust, for 1 unit power played against longships, for mardroeme and berserk, etc

.......That happens.
Okay, it makes a lot more sense now, that was a great explaination of how priority works in this particular case, thanks Raziel.
And the funny thing being, I'm okay with that, it's different to MTG which I play since ages but fair enough, Gwent is Gwent, they have their own rules and I'm more than okay with that (I mean, the point of playing different card games is to have different experiences) BUT they should really explain that stuff somewhere, otherwise it's really confusing.

Okay, one down, now what happened with my cultist? (It was a bug was it not?).

 

[Raziel_888]

That sounds like a bug XD haha
No but you are welcome, i actually lost a lot of games/rounds/points, getting used to this exact thing before getting it

 

[Payus]

It also happens with bombardement. If you have let's say Lugos and a priest and let's say Lugos is at 4 health and gets 4 of the bombardment pings. In this case he will die before attacking once, even after receiving 4 consecutive pings.