Shouldn't Backstab negate Firststrike?

[Ken_Oh]

No, Jetryl was also right, in this case it would also add a significant amount of complexity.

Using the same check backstab=yes/no as in [damage] wouldn't help here since this check doesn't check for the presence of the backstack ability, but rather checks for the presence of a enemy unit on the opposite side of the target.

If the silent firststrike is only in [attack]s that also contain backstab, the only time it will activate is when the backstab ability is also active.

EDIT: Just remembered, active_on=offense should also be in the silent firststrike. Also, I guess there's a potential problem -if- the devs somehow decide, against Wesnoth philosophy, to add an anti-backstab ability. But, in this case, I think the best thing to do would be to make that ability turn backstab=yes to backstab=no.

Not that I think this really merits anything, in either case.

[Leo]

I think that one of Wesnoth Mainline balance principles is:

There is SHOULD not be any ability which negates another ability

[Noy]

Pretty well.

Ken you know better than this... this does not a happy noy make.

[Ken_Oh]

I think that one of Wesnoth Mainline balance principles is:

There is SHOULD not be any ability which negates another ability

Of course. And this is why Undead negates Poison, firststrike negates firststrike (no, it doesn't necessarily have to), Ambush negates Skirmisher and so on.

Noy, I have already deferred to you in just about every way possible, beyond direct A-to-B logic.

[Noy]

Me ken? lets look back here. When, not one, not two, but THREE developers show up (not including me) and give you a series of reasons why it wouldn't happen, I'd expect you at this point of your time in being involved in this project to realize whats the outcome going to be.

But keep arguing. We'll see where it gets you.

[Jetrel]

I think that one of Wesnoth Mainline balance principles is:

Of course. And this is why Undead negates Poison, firststrike negates firststrike (no, it doesn't necessarily have to), Ambush negates Skirmisher and so on.

Noy, I have already deferred to you in just about every way possible, beyond direct A-to-B logic.

Honestly, if you wrote a nice patch for it and got heavily involved in the programming surrounding these things, it would likely get grandfathered in.

We're hypocrites that way.

Yes, it's a minor issue in our development politics; however the best way to get something in is always DIY, because it's hard to motivate people to work on nitpicky issues like this unless the nit is actually bugging them personally.

[irrevenant]

IMO, Jetryl's answer wraps it all up nicely.

Consider this thread soft locked. Only post to it if you have something genuinely new to add.

Thanks.

[St Stux]

IRL if a spearman was surrounded, he would be able to stab whoever tried to attack him first, due to that big ol' spear he's carring.But he's still going to get stabbed in the back a few times.( And this isn't real life but it would be horribly complicated to programme anyways.)

[irrevenant]

St Stux,

As a new member, you may not be aware: A soft lock means "This thread looks like it's done its dash, but someone might surprise us. Please only post in it if you have something radically new to add".

Your post above is fine for a normal thread, but since it's essentially a recap, isn't really appropriate for a soft-locked thread.

FYI.

[Noyga]

Well since apparently this thread is supposed to be soft-locked abd has been enforced, and nothing new has been added since 24h, let's clearly lock this topic.
If you feel that it is really necessary to unlock it you can pm me.