Skill and Fast Spells

I'm new to LoR, but I found it really confusing for the interaction of skills and fast spells. I think, intuitively, if the fast spell kills the unit with the skill, the skill shouldn't trigger. Obviously that's not true in LoR. Once in Expedition game 7, I held on to a Vengeance hoping to surprise kill opponent's Vladimir when he attacks with his Crimson crew. However, even though he was killed that way, his skill still triggered which killed me exactly to 0 health. This interaction makes skill simply a fast spell attached to a unit but somehow can still trigger after the unit is dead.

Anyone else wish they can change the interaction to be: "skills won't trigger if the unit is dead before the skill is cast" ?

this would make a number of units way too weak, for instance Chempunk Shredder,

Not to mention, if you already had Vengeance, why wouldn't you have used it earlier? It's not like a Vladimir deck has access to Deny (not any that I know of at least) so there's no reason to wait that long to actually kill the guy

Quote From YourPrivateNightmare

this would make a number of units way too weak, for instance Chempunk Shredder,

 

Not to mention, if you already had Vengeance, why wouldn't you have used it earlier? It's not like a Vladimir deck has access to Deny (not any that I know of at least) so there's no reason to wait that long to actually kill the guy

Yes, but balance can always be adjusted (think Rhasa the Sunderer. If you can kill/capture him to prevent him from triggering his skill, it might not need a nerf), my concern is about intuitiveness of the interaction. How can a unit do stuffs when it's dead?

About not using Vengeance the turn before: first I have other slow stuffs to spend my mana on, second if opponent doesn't know I have it and open attacks, my units can trade favorably to their units, so there're certainly value for baiting open attack.

There was a similar recommendation around Karma's spell duplication in the balance predictions thread. At the end of the day, lots of CCGs use stacks to resolve spells and spell-like abilities, and once something goes on the stack, the only way to remove it is with something else on the stack that explicitly removes it (e.g. Deny in LoR). However, you could imagine a case where, when its turn comes up to resolve, a skill fizzles based on the condition you described. Ultimately I think that is a worse way to handle skills.

First, this would be inconsistent with similar CCGs, and hewing close to the behavior of other games makes it easier for players familiar with the genre to ramp onto a game.

Second, and more importantly, I think this version makes sense in the context of the fantasy of the game. The skill was triggered, and stopping its source shouldn't necessarily stop the effect of the skill. Let's take Avarosan Marksman as an example. The Marksman enters the battlefield and fires off his arrow. You kill him with Blade's Edge. Should that stop the arrow that's already been fired? Anyone imaging this playing out in physical space would agree that it shouldn't. The game may not play out in physical space, but the fantasy of the game, of these clashing armies and their Champions, should translate cleanly into the rules of the game.

Quote From meisterz39

There was a similar recommendation around Karma's spell duplication in the balance predictions thread. At the end of the day, lots of CCGs use stacks to resolve spells and spell-like abilities, and once something goes on the stack, the only way to remove it is with something else on the stack that explicitly removes it (e.g. Deny in LoR). However, you could imagine a case where, when its turn comes up to resolve, a skill fizzles based on the condition you described. Ultimately I think that is a worse way to handle skills.

First, this would be inconsistent with similar CCGs, and hewing close to the behavior of other games makes it easier for players familiar with the genre to ramp onto a game.

Second, and more importantly, I think this version makes sense in the context of the fantasy of the game. The skill was triggered, and stopping its source shouldn't necessarily stop the effect of the skill. Let's take Avarosan Marksman as an example. The Marksman enters the battlefield and fires off his arrow. You kill him with Blade's Edge. Should that stop the arrow that's already been fired? Anyone imaging this playing out in physical space would agree that it shouldn't. The game may not play out in physical space, but the fantasy of the game, of these clashing armies and their Champions, should translate cleanly into the rules of the game.

Yeah in the Marksman case it makes sense that he can fire the arrow right away. In the Vladimir case I was imagining him draining blood from his battlemates and cast magic when he attacks. I guess another thing I should understand is that "attack" in LoR means more like "decide to attack," even if the unit doesn't get to strike.

The confusion is only in your mind. Just think skills as fast spells and you are good. 
In any case, this is how it works in 3 steps:

1- Activation:
When activated (by either playing, summoning or attacking), the skill goes right away to the priority list at the center to be carried away. The activation step cannot be negated.

2- Reaction:
Once there, for all game purpouses, its treated exactly as a fast spell, and as such, IT DOESN'T CARE for the source from where it came from. 
The oponnent now will be given a chance to react, and this step continues until both players confirm there is nothing else to be done. 

3- Resolve:
Once both players pass their turn without doing any action, the list resolves from left to right order.

Bonus: The only way to deny skills is to play the Ionian spell "DENY" OR to make the Skill TARGET invalid (not the source).

I can empathize with your confusion to an extent, but to me, this is very much how I'm used to things working in other CCGs. I agree with YouPrivateNightmare that it would make skill-triggering units far too weak overall (especially ones with low health).

To be clear - the reason 'skill' exists is simply because it's an effect they want to be Deny-able but which is not a spell. Don't read anything further into it than that.

You're not alone in your confusion -- anyone who is new to card games with a stack will need a moment to get used to it.

But as you've probably gathered from the vibe in this thread, changing the way it works would be an extremely unpopular move.