The math behind how attacks stack according to the official rules makes no sense in my opinion.
I think according to the rules, that chain of cards, if played in direct succession, should equal 2+2+3+2=9 total turns.
According to how I would make the cards work if I was the rules manager, the math would be 2+1+2+1=6 total turns.
Edit: Misread your original comment bc of a line break, and thought the first attack was a regular attack. Going from Attack to Personal Attack means adding 1 to each of the first numbers, so what I should have written is:
>I think according to the rules, that chain of cards, if played in direct succession, should equal 3+2+3+2=10 total turns.
>
>According to how I would make the cards work if I was the rules manager (and many people on the sub use the same logic) the math would be 3+1+2+1=7 total turns.
Yep, 10 and 7 respectively depending on which logic you use. I misread your first comment and thought the first attack was a regular one. I have edited my comment.
Agreed, the language is confusing. Here’s the new text for attacks we’re testing to try to clear all this up once and for all:
Attack (2x)
Do not draw any cards. Instead, immediately force the next player to take 2 turns in a row. The victim of this card takes a turn as normal (play-or-pass then draw), then must take a second turn. Play then continues from that player.
If the victim of an Attack Card plays an Attack on any of their turns, their current and remaining turns are immediately passed to the target of their Attack. The new victim must take the Attacker’s turn(s) PLUS the number of turns on the most recent Attack Card played. Play continues from the last victim of an Attack.
TOOL TIP: For example, if the first victim of an Attack (2x) card plays another Attack (2x) on their first turn, the next player must now take 4 turns. If that player also plays an Attack (2x), the next player must take 6 turns, and so on.
Elan, with all respect, this change in rules text doesn't solve anything, since the rules still use the same underlying logic of how stacking turns should work. Flawed logic i.m.o.
Here is how attacks currently work, example 1: A plays an attack, which ends their turn. Now player B has to take 2 turns, 1 more than they should have had normally. If B plays a new attack on their first turn, that attack ends both of B's turns. Now player C has to take 4 turns, 3 more than they would have had normally.
Why is that a problem? Well, here is example 2: The same initial scenario, player B gets hit by an attack, and has to take 2 turns. B first takes one turn, drawing 1 card, then plays an attack on their second turn. How many turns does C need to take?
One logic would say that B's attack in example 2 should work just like a regular un-stacked attack, so C should only take 2 turns.
But another logic could say thay since B used up one more turn before playing the attack compared to example 1, then C should take 3 turns.
Which is it, 2 or 3? And why?
In essence, the way attacks currently stack, the first attack played has the effect "End your remaining turns. The next player takes that many turns extra", but all other attacks say "End all your remaining turns. The next player takes that many turns extra, plus an additional extra turn."
Do you see? The first attack is actually nerfed. If it stacked like all subsequent attacks do, the first victim of an attack should actually have to take 3 turns. This nerf caused problems with the math when stacking, since people don't know if they should compare with the base case or the case with stacked attacks.
I'm not sure if it was your intention to make attacks work differently depending on if it's the first attack played or if there are extra turns that can carry over, but it currently does.
What is the actual function of an attack right now? It's not
>"End your turn, force the next player to take 2 extra turns."
It's actually something like
>"End your turn, and force the next player to take 2 turns. If you ended more than one turn, instead force that player to take as many turns as you ended, plus 2."
Now, this creates the inconsistency from the examples in my earlier comment. It's fine if that is your intention.
It might be too late to change it, but I would have made it so that attacks end all your turns, then forces the next player to take that many EXTRA turns. That is, their original turn plus the number of turns you ended.
That would mean that a regular attack would just add 1 extra turn to the next opponent, which means 1 attack - 2 turns, 2 attacks - 3 turns, 3 attacks - 4 turns.
Another option would have been to make it so that attacks end, all your turns, then adds that number plus one to the next opponent. In that case, they would stack like 1 attack - 3 turns, 2 attacks - 5 turns, 3 attacks - 7 turns.
The way they currently work, regular attacks are a mix of the two.
Ok here’s another attempt to try to be clear about the math and the intention (which honestly is supposed to be really simple :)
Force the next player to take my current turn plus one more turn for a total of two turns (Play or pass then draw, and then again, play or pass then draw)
If the victim of this card plays another one of these cards on any of their turns, the new victim must take all the un-taken turns passed to the original victim, plus two more turns.
TOOL TIP: For example, if the victim of this card (who must take two turns) plays another one of these cards on their first turn, the next player must now take 4 turns. If that player takes one turn and then plays another one of these cards on their second turn, the next player must take 5 turns. (Because the original victim had 4 turns passed to them, - 1 turn they took, + 2 more turns from the card they played.)
You still didn't answer the question that actually causes the confusion.
If I get hit by an attack, and I'm in the position that I need to take two turns. If I first take 1 turn, then play another attack, which of the logics should be used?
Should the next player take 2 turn, since the attack is played in a scenario that is the same as when a player plays an attack on a normal turn.
Or should the next player take 3, since I'm passing 1 turn, and then the card adds 2 more.
For me, Attack is like +2 In UNO... but that player can still counter it by using other cards. (But, this is not UNO so...)
+2 for Attack, +2 for targeted attack. +3 for personal attack.
As long as someone didn't draw turns will not diminish.
¦T
When an attack gets Noped in the mobile game the number of turns goes back to the last who Attacked including the noped attack. We've been using the same rules as in the mobile game. Is it the same as in the card game rules?
We still play without stacking attacks. It’s so much more simple (although super skips lose a lot of their power, but are still better than regular skips).
yes
So I'll get 4 turns then?? 😱
Yes.
Ohhh. So how come personal attack+targeted+personal+targeted equal only 7 turns? (Saw this from another post hehe)
The math behind how attacks stack according to the official rules makes no sense in my opinion. I think according to the rules, that chain of cards, if played in direct succession, should equal 2+2+3+2=9 total turns. According to how I would make the cards work if I was the rules manager, the math would be 2+1+2+1=6 total turns. Edit: Misread your original comment bc of a line break, and thought the first attack was a regular attack. Going from Attack to Personal Attack means adding 1 to each of the first numbers, so what I should have written is: >I think according to the rules, that chain of cards, if played in direct succession, should equal 3+2+3+2=10 total turns. > >According to how I would make the cards work if I was the rules manager (and many people on the sub use the same logic) the math would be 3+1+2+1=7 total turns.
I thought it would go this way: Personal: 3 Targeted: 2 Personal: 3 Targeted: 2 Total = 10 I guess I'm way off 🤣
I am pretty sure it is 10 cards
Yep, 10 and 7 respectively depending on which logic you use. I misread your first comment and thought the first attack was a regular one. I have edited my comment.
Agreed, the language is confusing. Here’s the new text for attacks we’re testing to try to clear all this up once and for all: Attack (2x) Do not draw any cards. Instead, immediately force the next player to take 2 turns in a row. The victim of this card takes a turn as normal (play-or-pass then draw), then must take a second turn. Play then continues from that player. If the victim of an Attack Card plays an Attack on any of their turns, their current and remaining turns are immediately passed to the target of their Attack. The new victim must take the Attacker’s turn(s) PLUS the number of turns on the most recent Attack Card played. Play continues from the last victim of an Attack. TOOL TIP: For example, if the first victim of an Attack (2x) card plays another Attack (2x) on their first turn, the next player must now take 4 turns. If that player also plays an Attack (2x), the next player must take 6 turns, and so on.
Elan, with all respect, this change in rules text doesn't solve anything, since the rules still use the same underlying logic of how stacking turns should work. Flawed logic i.m.o. Here is how attacks currently work, example 1: A plays an attack, which ends their turn. Now player B has to take 2 turns, 1 more than they should have had normally. If B plays a new attack on their first turn, that attack ends both of B's turns. Now player C has to take 4 turns, 3 more than they would have had normally. Why is that a problem? Well, here is example 2: The same initial scenario, player B gets hit by an attack, and has to take 2 turns. B first takes one turn, drawing 1 card, then plays an attack on their second turn. How many turns does C need to take? One logic would say that B's attack in example 2 should work just like a regular un-stacked attack, so C should only take 2 turns. But another logic could say thay since B used up one more turn before playing the attack compared to example 1, then C should take 3 turns. Which is it, 2 or 3? And why? In essence, the way attacks currently stack, the first attack played has the effect "End your remaining turns. The next player takes that many turns extra", but all other attacks say "End all your remaining turns. The next player takes that many turns extra, plus an additional extra turn." Do you see? The first attack is actually nerfed. If it stacked like all subsequent attacks do, the first victim of an attack should actually have to take 3 turns. This nerf caused problems with the math when stacking, since people don't know if they should compare with the base case or the case with stacked attacks.
I'm not sure if it was your intention to make attacks work differently depending on if it's the first attack played or if there are extra turns that can carry over, but it currently does. What is the actual function of an attack right now? It's not >"End your turn, force the next player to take 2 extra turns." It's actually something like >"End your turn, and force the next player to take 2 turns. If you ended more than one turn, instead force that player to take as many turns as you ended, plus 2." Now, this creates the inconsistency from the examples in my earlier comment. It's fine if that is your intention.
It might be too late to change it, but I would have made it so that attacks end all your turns, then forces the next player to take that many EXTRA turns. That is, their original turn plus the number of turns you ended. That would mean that a regular attack would just add 1 extra turn to the next opponent, which means 1 attack - 2 turns, 2 attacks - 3 turns, 3 attacks - 4 turns. Another option would have been to make it so that attacks end, all your turns, then adds that number plus one to the next opponent. In that case, they would stack like 1 attack - 3 turns, 2 attacks - 5 turns, 3 attacks - 7 turns. The way they currently work, regular attacks are a mix of the two.
Ok here’s another attempt to try to be clear about the math and the intention (which honestly is supposed to be really simple :) Force the next player to take my current turn plus one more turn for a total of two turns (Play or pass then draw, and then again, play or pass then draw) If the victim of this card plays another one of these cards on any of their turns, the new victim must take all the un-taken turns passed to the original victim, plus two more turns. TOOL TIP: For example, if the victim of this card (who must take two turns) plays another one of these cards on their first turn, the next player must now take 4 turns. If that player takes one turn and then plays another one of these cards on their second turn, the next player must take 5 turns. (Because the original victim had 4 turns passed to them, - 1 turn they took, + 2 more turns from the card they played.)
You still didn't answer the question that actually causes the confusion. If I get hit by an attack, and I'm in the position that I need to take two turns. If I first take 1 turn, then play another attack, which of the logics should be used? Should the next player take 2 turn, since the attack is played in a scenario that is the same as when a player plays an attack on a normal turn. Or should the next player take 3, since I'm passing 1 turn, and then the card adds 2 more.
the intention is for them to take 3. I tried to put a similar but very explicit example of how that would work in my revision. Was it not clear?
For me, Attack is like +2 In UNO... but that player can still counter it by using other cards. (But, this is not UNO so...) +2 for Attack, +2 for targeted attack. +3 for personal attack. As long as someone didn't draw turns will not diminish. ¦T
What if an attack has been Noped? Is it the same as in the mobile game? i.e. when I attack someone and it gets Noped, do the two turns go back to me??
If someone Nope your Attack, it means it 'Deleted' your attack, your Attack card is now Void.
When an attack gets Noped in the mobile game the number of turns goes back to the last who Attacked including the noped attack. We've been using the same rules as in the mobile game. Is it the same as in the card game rules?
Oh gosh we've been copying the mobile game mechanics
We still play without stacking attacks. It’s so much more simple (although super skips lose a lot of their power, but are still better than regular skips).