When a scrabbler converts a shell, shouldn't it go to 1 health?

[onealexleft]

the bombshell is a quirky unit in that he has an 'armor' attribute that gets depleted before his health is touched. In reality, the bombshell has a max health of 2 (when boosted) and then +2 armor (when shelled). The scrambler actually depletes his health to 1, but leaves the armor alone (+2).

We'll most likely address this in the next update, as Harti mentioned, it was overlooked.

[xSkeletalx]

A good explanation in my book. I would actually expect it to remain at 3 health due to it's shelled state when Scrambled, (1 HP + Shell Bonus) but as I feel the BS has always been a bit stronger than it needs to be, I would not say no to this change.

[CommandConquerer]

(09-11-2012 06:14 AM)onealexleft Wrote:  the bombshell is a quirky unit in that he has an 'armor' attribute that gets depleted before his health is touched. In reality, the bombshell has a max health of 2 (when boosted) and then +2 armor (when shelled). The scrambler actually depletes his health to 1, but leaves the armor alone (+2).

Ah. That explains a lot.

[worldfamous]

Probably a question for another thread but I'll ask it anyway. Should a scrambler be able to brainwash a teammate in 2v2. Mobi can teleport either team, so why not give scrambler the ability to brainwash teammates? It would certainly be useful but maybe overpowering. Any thoughts?

[QuantumApocalypse]

(09-15-2012 11:04 AM)worldfamous Wrote:  Probably a question for another thread but I'll ask it anyway. Should a scrambler be able to brainwash a teammate in 2v2. Mobi can teleport either team, so why not give scrambler the ability to brainwash teammates? It would certainly be useful but maybe overpowering. Any thoughts?

Possibly unfair?

[bmike]

After playing a few times - the current behavior seems to be correct and it should be called out so that people plan accordingly. (I dislike hidden rules like the fog of war allowing seeing over spaces where you can't move - i like the feature - it just should be in the help section explicitly)

I initially thought that a scrambled shell should be unshelled (movable) with one health needing the taker to spend a wit to shell it up again - but perhaps that isn't fair to both sides.

If I have a shelled shell ready to fire - then that cuts both ways. I should expect return fire if it gets scrambled and unshell it or protect it better. It's not like any other piece isn't as deadly after a scramble as it was before the scramble - but explaining it in the help will go a long way to people knowing how the game works before they experience it.

If you don't read the rules - shame on you. If the rules don't cover the gameplay - especially the edge cases - is that a feature or a bug? I prefer the latter but perhaps people like to be surprised and feel it ads to the gameplay?

[worldfamous]

(09-16-2012 04:32 AM)bmike Wrote:  After playing a few times - the current behavior seems to be correct and it should be called out so that people plan accordingly. (I dislike hidden rules like the fog of war allowing seeing over spaces where you can't move - i like the feature - it just should be in the help section explicitly)

I initially thought that a scrambled shell should be unshelled (movable) with one health needing the taker to spend a wit to shell it up again - but perhaps that isn't fair to both sides.

If I have a shelled shell ready to fire - then that cuts both ways. I should expect return fire if it gets scrambled and unshell it or protect it better. It's not like any other piece isn't as deadly after a scramble as it was before the scramble - but explaining it in the help will go a long way to people knowing how the game works before they experience it.

If you don't read the rules - shame on you. If the rules don't cover the gameplay - especially the edge cases - is that a feature or a bug? I prefer the latter but perhaps people like to be surprised and feel it ads to the gameplay?

Seeing over "pits" as they call them is in the rules, or it's implied in the rules. Sniper - "Can hit any target within 3 spaces, firing over pits and friends, but not through barriers or enemies.". You can't shoot what you can't see.
Not to mention, many maps have prespawned units near "pits" making it apparent that you can see over those spaces. I do understand your point but I think they did a fair enough job of explaining it.

[bmike]

(09-16-2012 10:43 AM)worldfamous Wrote:  

(09-16-2012 04:32 AM)bmike Wrote:  After playing a few times[....] If you don't read the rules - shame on you. If the rules don't cover the gameplay - especially the edge cases - is that a feature or a bug? I prefer the latter but perhaps people like to be surprised and feel it ads to the gameplay?

Seeing over "pits" as they call them is in the rules, or it's implied in the rules. Sniper - "Can hit any target within 3 spaces, firing over pits and friends, but not through barriers or enemies.". You can't shoot what you can't see.
Not to mention, many maps have prespawned units near "pits" making it apparent that you can see over those spaces. I do understand your point but I think they did a fair enough job of explaining it.

I agree with you the starting positions are a good hint and the sniper discussion is spot on. I just like it to be very clear that a sniper/bombshell can or can not fire over a gap or over a post. The spot opposite a shooter adjacent to the posts is three spaces away, but not targetable. Since the bombshell has range 3 it can see that spot but not hit it directly, no?

I'd say something like "you can always see where you can move, but pay attention to gaps in the field as they allow observation of the maximum range of your piece even though it can't actually jump over the gap." would make it much clearer.

A diagram that shows the gap on foundry and how an opposing piece does or doesn't block the view would be even nicer IMO.

[Kamikaze28]

This thread is slowly veering off topic, let me try to bring it back.

(09-17-2012 07:37 AM)bmike Wrote:  I'd say something like "you can always see where you can move, but pay attention to gaps in the field as they allow observation of the maximum range of your piece even though it can't actually jump over the gap." would make it much clearer.

Your statement is contradictory. Either you can always move where you can see or pits limit your movement range but not your vision.

(09-17-2012 07:37 AM)bmike Wrote:  I just like it to be very clear that a sniper/bombshell can or can not fire over a gap or over a post. The spot opposite a shooter adjacent to the posts is three spaces away, but not targetable. Since the bombshell has range 3 it can see that spot but not hit it directly, no?

Here's a Mexican Standoff with Snipers:

They can both see each other but they can not hit the other without moving.

Here's your Bombshell situation:

And you are right - the Bombshell can see the Heavy (but not vice versa) and the Bombshell can only hit the Heavy via splash damage.

---

So far for the off-topic portion of this post.

The way I see it, the current debate relates to ambiguity or incompleteness of the game's help section. To be honest, I don't see a problem here. If you were to write an extensive help section that covers absolutely every situation and edge case (such as the Scrambler brainwashing a Bombshell) you would end up with a huge wall of text that nobody would ever read and you would eventually arrive at exactly the same discussion we are entertaining right now - the only difference would be that there would be someone who (rightfully) points out "this is covered in the help section! Section Foo, subsection Bar, paragraph 23!". You would even have to include absolutely ridiculous things like a Mobi teleporting a shelled Bombshell (yes, that is possible) which will hardly ever occur in competitive gameplay.
Look at the Tips for New Players thread - the vast majority of tips are a logical inference of the game rules plus some practical experience. Because the help section is compact (to have even a remote chance of being read) and because it does not cover everything. At least we have Pass'n'play to empirically test situations for ourselves (which I encourage you to do if you are unsure about something).

[worldfamous]

I recently started playing a fantasy war miniatures game called Warmachine. It has a rule book that's something like 280 pages long. I read it cover to cover and still had no clue how to play. Then I played with some experienced players and picked it up in about 3 games. So I guess I'd agree with Kamikaze on this one. Sure there is a place for detailed rules, but nothing beats good old fashioned experience. Having said that, it would be nice to have a detailed reference. Maybe NathanDetroit will cover all of this in his excellent analysis.