different terrains

[Elvish_Pillager]

I'm afraid I don't even really understand this 'multi hex targetting' thing. Do you choose which hexes to 'target'? Do you choose one hex and other hexes are targetted automagically? Do units on the targetted hexes get to hit back?

David

When the multi-target mage attacks something, every other enemy adjacent to the attacker gets attacked for half the damage. Unfortunately, this would mean they get to fight back. Their attacks only do half damage, though.

This doesn't happen on the defensive, of course. It would get ridiculous.

P.S.: The extra attacks don't have to do less damage, but otherwise it would be kind of silly.

[turin]

You implied it by saying I was wrong, then using you as an example. I didn't say everyone would say that, I was saying someone would say that.

Elvish Pillager, Turin, I think you both need to calm down for a second. I don't want this topic to degrade into a flame war. Lets discuss the merits of abilities rationally instead of making personal attacks.

I never though i was getting mad... so i don't get what you mean. I am arguing rationally, i think.

Elvish pillager: OK, i think i get what you are saying. It still makes little sense to me, though.

And i think the system of counterattacking the multi-hex targetting would be too complicated. It seems like it would be really hard to understand who would attack who with what damage.

[Dave]

One way to see how 'simple' and idea is is to consider how detailed the in-game explanation has to be (the tooltip when you mouse-over the ability).

For skirmish: "this unit ignores enemy zones of control."

For teleport: "this unit may teleport between any two friendly villages instantly"

Even the 'complex' ambush is fairly simple: "Enemy units cannot see or attack this unit when it is in forest, except for any turn immediately after this unit has attacked, or if there are enemy units next to this unit."

For this ability, something more complicated would be required: "When this unit attacks, all other adjacent enemy units are also attacked with half normal damage immediately after the attack ends. The adjacent enemy units that are attacked may also counter-attack as normal, inflicting half the damage they would normally." Ugh.

David

[Elvish_Pillager]

"When this unit attacks on your turn, it also attacks all other adjacent enemy units for half as much damage. Those units can attack back for half their normal damage." would suffice.

For ambush, I just noticed something odd:
"Enemy units cannot see or attack this unit when it is in forest, except for any turn immediately after this unit has attacked, or if there are enemy units next to this unit."

Can't attack unless they're next to the invisible unit?

[turin]

IMHO, just because a specialty can be easily defined does not make it a simple. Your idea does not seem simple at all to me, and just because you can summarize it in one sentence does not change that. For example, what would the order of combat be? Does the unit with the spec. attack the main target first, and finish that battle, before dealing damage to the other units? If the unit with the specialty kills one of the 3 units it is attacking, and then has enough XP to advance, what happens?

To me, although maybe not to you, just having these questions exist proves the spec. is not anywhere near simple.

[Elvish_Pillager]

I think the same way about Ambush. Even after testing, I have a few questions left, one of which has an answer that seems unreasonable.

I never though i was getting mad... so i don't get what you mean. I am arguing rationally, i think.

I think that way about me, too.

[Dacyn]

implementability in WML is not a good test of simplicity, imo.

I didn't realize so few abilities could be defined in WML..
I guess the reason is that WML is very complicated itself, and whether something can be defined in it is a property that is somewhat random.

I still think many of these abilities are complicated... Many of them add new rules to the game.

About your reason Skirmisher is complicated: I disagree. IMO the complexity of the UI interpretation of an ability isn't really a property of the complexity of the ability itself.

[Dave]

implementability in WML is not a good test of simplicity, imo.

I didn't realize so few abilities could be defined in WML..
I guess the reason is that WML is very complicated itself, and whether something can be defined in it is a property that is somewhat random.

WML is designed far more for implementing interesting scenarios than implementing interesting units.

About your reason Skirmisher is complicated: I disagree. IMO the complexity of the UI interpretation of an ability isn't really a property of the complexity of the ability itself.

I never said 'Skirmisher' is complicated, if it's me you're addressing here. I think skirmisher is very very simple from a user point of view, and moderate from a programming/implementation point of view.

David