It's consistent with previous mechanics, but in no way intuitive.
I agree that it's very unintuitive. Also, I'd argue that it's mostly consistent with other buff effects, but the capitalized "ANYWHERE" in the description could easily be interpreted as a keyword which makes the buff persistent.
Edit: Thanks on the additional pointers on multi-champion summoning. So, more accurately, it can be achieved by summoning the extra champion(s) from anywhere but your hand (because you duplicate champion cards in hand get auto-converted).
I will agree with most other posters above in that I don't see the card as problematic. Sure, in the right situation, it offers incredible value. But its express purpose is to punish players who overcommit to the board. It's kind of a crucial catch-up mechanic for control decks, which need tools to come back from an early deficit during the late game.
I'd also like to point out that, with its 9-mana cost, The Ruination severely limits what else its user can play during the rest of the round. So assuming that you, as their opponent, don't spend all your mana early that round, you should be able to grow back a decent foothold on the board. And if you've already emptied your hand by that point, you're probably playing an aggressive deck that should've sealed the deal before it got that far.
I think last week is done--there was a timer on it, implying everyone rolls over at the same second.
Can confirm, I tested this when I started playing Tuesday night. Won 1 match against AI, and the game showed the XP flowing into my (unopened) level 12 vault. However, when I actually went to open the vault, those 50 XP were not included; instead, after receiving my rewards, the new vault was now at 50 XP. So you definitely can't keep leveling your vault past the Tuesday deadline. On the bright side, you don't get penalized in case you forget to open your vault right away; any XP you accrue will already be counted for the new week's vault.
This is actually not true. There are several ways to get duplicate Champions on the board at the same time.
So you're only forbidden from playing duplicates from your hand (as they turn into signature spells), but you can create copies of ones that are already on the field?
The thing about a digital card game is that regardless of what the card says, it can be programmed to do whatever the programmer wants.
I agree with this. However, this doesn't absolve the developer from having to make sure the text on the cards is accurate - otherwise, things gets unintuitive and confusing, which will inevitably alienate players.
Anyway, we've basically worked out 3 scenarios in this thread:
the current interaction in the game, which favors Overwhelm
the interaction proposed by FortyDust, which favors Divine Shield
the interaction I endorse, which is somewhere in the middle.
I'm curious to see whether Riot addresses the issue in the future, whether for clarity's sake or for balancing reasons.
Personally, I do not think this mechanic is working as intended. The comparison to recalled blockers, which Lightspoon brought up, is skewed in my opinion: If there's no blocker at the time damage is dealt, it should effectively be treated as 0 health. Hence all damage goes directly to the nexus.
However, a barrier unit has a set amount of health, which is the exact amount of damage an Overwhelm unit should deal to it before the rest of the damage spills over to the nexus. The barrier then negates the entirety of said damage. I can't access the game right now to check, but unless I'm mistaken, the Barrier description says it prevents the next instance of damage being dealt, not that it makes the unit invulnerable (in which case you could make a case for treating it as a 0-health unit). I think that's a significant difference.
I haven't played with or against enough Barrier cards to make a proper judgment as to which rule interpretation would serve overall game balance better. But I think keeping things as intuitive as possible should always be the prime directive. Buffs and nerfs should take care of balance.
Also, If there was no cap, people would do join-surrender abuse which will lead another problems. Cap is a need. I'm not a fan of caps either but I know that people would abuse the system. Also there is a fact that you can gain experiences from friendly challenges. It would take just 1 hour to complete all region rewards with a friend if there was no cap.
That's a very good point you're raising. I actually saw a YouTube video yesterday of someone advertising this XP-farming method. Guess he didn't know about the cap.
Personally, even though I've been playing the game a lot over the weekend, it's unlikely I'll ever hit any of those caps by playing normally. So it doesn't bother me at all. I say good on Riot for finding a decent compromise to reduce exploit potential.
In general: the champions' Level Up effects are instantaneous--i.e., "faster than burst".
I already figured as much, but thanks for explaining it in detail. I have experienced a weird situation at least twice where my Braum leveled up in combat and immediately summoned a Mighty Poro. No idea what was up with that; I can say for sure it wasn't an enemy with Doube Strike.
Given how I was a passionate Janna main during my time playing League of Legends, I'd naturally love for her to be included in the game. I can't really picture a fitting ability for her, though... Maybe a global heal when she's attacking or blocking along with 3 damaged allies?
Regarding your Lissandra, I think it's a pretty neat design idea. However, I'm a bit concerned about introducing the concept of "adjacent" units into Runeterra. My experience with the same mechanic in Hearthstone is a bad one: Either I take twice as long whenever I want to play an ally, taking into account any possible cards my opponent's regions offer that are affected by my unit order; or I just sigh, ignore it all, and possibly get screwed over when my opponent later takes advantage of my units' positioning.
Of course, this is assuming Riot would actually implement the option of placing a played ally where I want to (whereas currently, it's always added to the right of your existing bench).
1. She Who Wanders only obliterates followers, not champions
Dammit, this has tripped me up several times already. I really should remember by now that it doesn't affect champions.
Quote From GerritDeMan
Do you remember what the last card was? Maybe it was another Jinx. :p
That actually sounds like a plausible explanation. Either that or my 10% margin of error might have gotten the best of me and my opponent actually played their final card during combat. But as I said, I'm pretty sure I remember Jinx being killed, battle animation and all.
... and now comes the hard part in figuring out how this would work mechanically ;).
I'm not a fan of the idea, personally. An extra mode with more players in a CCG inevitably messes with balancing and all kinds of rule-related questions.
Plus, as in any game with matchmaking, it divides the playerbase. This may not be much of an issue if we can trust Legends of Runeterra to thrive (which I do), but ideally, I'd rather have as many players as possible in the queue for the main gameplay mode so we can get matched even better with similarly skilled opponents and minimum waiting times.
Don't get me wrong, it's not that I think it wouldn't be fun. But I do think the cons outweigh the pros in this case.
To throw in my 2 cents, I've been playing Legends of Runeterra since Thursday and having an absolute blast. I've played both Magic and PvP Hearthstone a decent amount, though nowhere near competitively. This game, I've been filling hours with on just this one weekend. To me, Riot's statement that they've "taken the best elements from popular CCGs, honed them, and added our own spin to it" (This is me paraphrasing, not an actual quote) rings 100% true.
I've always found Hearthstone a bit too simplistic to take super seriously, while Magic (which I know from my childhood, plus I've recently played a bit of MTG Arena) feels way too daunting with its hundreds of different keywords and thousands of cards. Runeterra strikes the ideal middle ground, giving me opportunities to outsmart my opponent (or be outsmarted by them) while staying reasonably easy to grasp. The shared-round-alternating-turns system feels completely distinct from any other CCG I've played and works just great. Not to mentioned the F2P-friendly progression system.
One thing I disagree on with the OP is the wording on the cards using the 1st person. I don't find it makes the text harder to comprehend at all. It's a neat immersive touch, and in some cases, I'd argue it makes the text more easily digestible: "I've seen 3 allies die" sounds way less convoluted than "After 3 allies have died while this card is in play".
I've been having a blast playing for the past 4 days. Wrapping my head around the timing of spells and skills in this game has been a process, but I think I've got it figured out pretty well by now.
One exception that I don't quite grasp is exactly how Jinx's level-up timing works. There were 2 scenarios that ran completely counter to what I had anticipated would happen:
1. Opponent had a 4-attack Jinx on the board and 1 card in hand. I play She Who Wanders, obliterating both Jinx and the card in hand (which emptied the opponent's hand). I'm pretty sure the skill animation showed Jinx being taken out. Yet upon resolution of the skill, Jinx leveled up and returned to the field - now with 5 attack, obviously. What's the deal? Removal of all cards from both players' boards and hands should occur at the same time, so after the skill resolves, Jinx should be out of play and thus unable to level up. If there is a fixed order in which cards are being removed, it should be board first, hand second (because that's the order it's worded in on the card).
2. I'm can't recall the exact setup of this one, but same as above, the opponent had a Jinx on the field and 1 card in hand. I attacked and challenged Jinx with my buffed Braum, killing her. I'm around 90% sure that the opponent didn't play the card from his hand when he confirmed blockers. My Braum killed Jinx, and again, I'm 90% sure the opponent then (i.e. after the battle had concluded) played the card from their hand, and suddenly, boom - Jinx level-up animation, and she returns to the field as a level 2.
Can anybody enlighten me as to how her level-up timing works in detail? On a side note, I've already read the tip to check the all-seeing eye more often to see how chains will resolve. I definitely should've used this feature in case 1 at least.
I agree that it's very unintuitive. Also, I'd argue that it's mostly consistent with other buff effects, but the capitalized "ANYWHERE" in the description could easily be interpreted as a keyword which makes the buff persistent.
Edit: Thanks on the additional pointers on multi-champion summoning. So, more accurately, it can be achieved by summoning the extra champion(s) from anywhere but your hand (because you duplicate champion cards in hand get auto-converted).
I will agree with most other posters above in that I don't see the card as problematic. Sure, in the right situation, it offers incredible value. But its express purpose is to punish players who overcommit to the board. It's kind of a crucial catch-up mechanic for control decks, which need tools to come back from an early deficit during the late game.
I'd also like to point out that, with its 9-mana cost, The Ruination severely limits what else its user can play during the rest of the round. So assuming that you, as their opponent, don't spend all your mana early that round, you should be able to grow back a decent foothold on the board. And if you've already emptied your hand by that point, you're probably playing an aggressive deck that should've sealed the deal before it got that far.
Can confirm, I tested this when I started playing Tuesday night. Won 1 match against AI, and the game showed the XP flowing into my (unopened) level 12 vault. However, when I actually went to open the vault, those 50 XP were not included; instead, after receiving my rewards, the new vault was now at 50 XP. So you definitely can't keep leveling your vault past the Tuesday deadline. On the bright side, you don't get penalized in case you forget to open your vault right away; any XP you accrue will already be counted for the new week's vault.
So you're only forbidden from playing duplicates from your hand (as they turn into signature spells), but you can create copies of ones that are already on the field?
I agree with this. However, this doesn't absolve the developer from having to make sure the text on the cards is accurate - otherwise, things gets unintuitive and confusing, which will inevitably alienate players.
Anyway, we've basically worked out 3 scenarios in this thread:
I'm curious to see whether Riot addresses the issue in the future, whether for clarity's sake or for balancing reasons.
Personally, I do not think this mechanic is working as intended. The comparison to recalled blockers, which Lightspoon brought up, is skewed in my opinion: If there's no blocker at the time damage is dealt, it should effectively be treated as 0 health. Hence all damage goes directly to the nexus.
However, a barrier unit has a set amount of health, which is the exact amount of damage an Overwhelm unit should deal to it before the rest of the damage spills over to the nexus. The barrier then negates the entirety of said damage. I can't access the game right now to check, but unless I'm mistaken, the Barrier description says it prevents the next instance of damage being dealt, not that it makes the unit invulnerable (in which case you could make a case for treating it as a 0-health unit). I think that's a significant difference.
I haven't played with or against enough Barrier cards to make a proper judgment as to which rule interpretation would serve overall game balance better. But I think keeping things as intuitive as possible should always be the prime directive. Buffs and nerfs should take care of balance.
That's a very good point you're raising. I actually saw a YouTube video yesterday of someone advertising this XP-farming method. Guess he didn't know about the cap.
Personally, even though I've been playing the game a lot over the weekend, it's unlikely I'll ever hit any of those caps by playing normally. So it doesn't bother me at all. I say good on Riot for finding a decent compromise to reduce exploit potential.
I already figured as much, but thanks for explaining it in detail. I have experienced a weird situation at least twice where my Braum leveled up in combat and immediately summoned a Mighty Poro. No idea what was up with that; I can say for sure it wasn't an enemy with Doube Strike.
Given how I was a passionate Janna main during my time playing League of Legends, I'd naturally love for her to be included in the game. I can't really picture a fitting ability for her, though... Maybe a global heal when she's attacking or blocking along with 3 damaged allies?
Regarding your Lissandra, I think it's a pretty neat design idea. However, I'm a bit concerned about introducing the concept of "adjacent" units into Runeterra. My experience with the same mechanic in Hearthstone is a bad one: Either I take twice as long whenever I want to play an ally, taking into account any possible cards my opponent's regions offer that are affected by my unit order; or I just sigh, ignore it all, and possibly get screwed over when my opponent later takes advantage of my units' positioning.
Of course, this is assuming Riot would actually implement the option of placing a played ally where I want to (whereas currently, it's always added to the right of your existing bench).
Thanks for the replies, guys!
Dammit, this has tripped me up several times already. I really should remember by now that it doesn't affect champions.
That actually sounds like a plausible explanation. Either that or my 10% margin of error might have gotten the best of me and my opponent actually played their final card during combat. But as I said, I'm pretty sure I remember Jinx being killed, battle animation and all.... and now comes the hard part in figuring out how this would work mechanically ;).
I'm not a fan of the idea, personally. An extra mode with more players in a CCG inevitably messes with balancing and all kinds of rule-related questions.
Plus, as in any game with matchmaking, it divides the playerbase. This may not be much of an issue if we can trust Legends of Runeterra to thrive (which I do), but ideally, I'd rather have as many players as possible in the queue for the main gameplay mode so we can get matched even better with similarly skilled opponents and minimum waiting times.
Don't get me wrong, it's not that I think it wouldn't be fun. But I do think the cons outweigh the pros in this case.
To throw in my 2 cents, I've been playing Legends of Runeterra since Thursday and having an absolute blast. I've played both Magic and PvP Hearthstone a decent amount, though nowhere near competitively. This game, I've been filling hours with on just this one weekend. To me, Riot's statement that they've "taken the best elements from popular CCGs, honed them, and added our own spin to it" (This is me paraphrasing, not an actual quote) rings 100% true.
I've always found Hearthstone a bit too simplistic to take super seriously, while Magic (which I know from my childhood, plus I've recently played a bit of MTG Arena) feels way too daunting with its hundreds of different keywords and thousands of cards. Runeterra strikes the ideal middle ground, giving me opportunities to outsmart my opponent (or be outsmarted by them) while staying reasonably easy to grasp. The shared-round-alternating-turns system feels completely distinct from any other CCG I've played and works just great. Not to mentioned the F2P-friendly progression system.
One thing I disagree on with the OP is the wording on the cards using the 1st person. I don't find it makes the text harder to comprehend at all. It's a neat immersive touch, and in some cases, I'd argue it makes the text more easily digestible: "I've seen 3 allies die" sounds way less convoluted than "After 3 allies have died while this card is in play".
I've been having a blast playing for the past 4 days. Wrapping my head around the timing of spells and skills in this game has been a process, but I think I've got it figured out pretty well by now.
One exception that I don't quite grasp is exactly how Jinx's level-up timing works. There were 2 scenarios that ran completely counter to what I had anticipated would happen:
1. Opponent had a 4-attack Jinx on the board and 1 card in hand. I play She Who Wanders, obliterating both Jinx and the card in hand (which emptied the opponent's hand). I'm pretty sure the skill animation showed Jinx being taken out. Yet upon resolution of the skill, Jinx leveled up and returned to the field - now with 5 attack, obviously. What's the deal? Removal of all cards from both players' boards and hands should occur at the same time, so after the skill resolves, Jinx should be out of play and thus unable to level up. If there is a fixed order in which cards are being removed, it should be board first, hand second (because that's the order it's worded in on the card).
2. I'm can't recall the exact setup of this one, but same as above, the opponent had a Jinx on the field and 1 card in hand. I attacked and challenged Jinx with my buffed Braum, killing her. I'm around 90% sure that the opponent didn't play the card from his hand when he confirmed blockers. My Braum killed Jinx, and again, I'm 90% sure the opponent then (i.e. after the battle had concluded) played the card from their hand, and suddenly, boom - Jinx level-up animation, and she returns to the field as a level 2.
Can anybody enlighten me as to how her level-up timing works in detail? On a side note, I've already read the tip to check the all-seeing eye more often to see how chains will resolve. I definitely should've used this feature in case 1 at least.