Duelyst Forums

Lavalasher VS Backstab

Inquiry addressing Lavalasher and its interaction with Backstab units. I recently encountered an instance in which my opponent was foolish enough to play the Magmar 5-drop directly behind a Kaido assassin, yet the Golem did not take 3 damage. Is this intended? If so, might I request a change of wording, as ‘fights’ implies that the unit behaves as a normal unit, similar to one with Rush, or one that has already been on the board. As is, it appears as though the game reads Lavalasher to deal 4 damage to the targeted unit, and receive damage equal to its attack value, regardless of positioning. In my opinion, this should not be the case, but I am quite open to discussion on the matter.

n.b. I do not wish this to turn into a Lavalasher hate-fest, as I am aware the card is in a controversial state at best (and I have my own doubts about its strength), and equally aware that this is very much an edge case in term of applicability (the only competitive case I can think of being when your opponent has no other open tiles available, and MUST position the card directly behind a backstab unit). I would simply like to know if we can increase clarity on the card itself, and/or punish players who do not position their units correctly.

1 Like

I believe it is just another one of those things in this game where the devs have decided to code interactions in a certain way, and leave us to discover the results. Defining every edge case of quirky card design must be tedious, I guess. Whether something is a bug (or not) can be easily determined; sometimes simply by stating that they are standing by their decision either way (and who knows if it really was a bug unless they tell us).
Some things can slip through the cracks, sure, but there is an alarming amount of interactions in this game that, unless discovered and classified by other experienced players, are stumbled upon by novice players at the least opportune times. That can lead to some not-so-happy people.
As far as I know, there is no exhaustive list of every possible card interaction, beyond the simple collective memory of player experience, reading, or sharing that information on social platforms. Maybe someone, or many, could fix that problem.

MTG has its Comprehensive Rules. Anyone want to tackle that for Duelyst?

1 Like

For some reason, the “fight a nearby minion” is not implemented as a standard fight. This is only one of a few weird interactions, I think they have been discussed on Reddit for a while. This should obviously be considered a bug, but I don’t know if it will ever be fixed.

Edit: I found some concrete examples of unexpected behaviours. Attacking a Bonechill Barrier does not stun and Provoke minions can be ignored.

1 Like

I think the text means “this minion deals his atk value to the target, the target deals his atk value to this one”

Probably they put “fight” due to the text limitation or to avoid misunderstanding (like this lol).

To make an example: if lavaslasher had frenzy too, it would not activate on his opening gambit.

Those above are only assumptions of course.

The inconsistency is actually with backstab… :wink:

Frenzy: “When attacking in melee range, simultaneously strike all other nearby enemies”

Minions with frenzy only hit the attacking unit when counterattacking.

Daywatcher: “Whenever a friendly minion attacks, restore 1 health to your general”.

Only triggers on attacks, not counterattacks.

Sunstone Templar: Whenever this attacks or counterattacks (…).

Sooo… we know that “attack” and “counterattack” are different actions.

Backstab: “When attacking from behind, this deals extra damage and can’t be counterattacked.”

Backstab should therefore only trigger when the BS minion attacks, not when it is attacked from behind. We know, though, that it also triggers on counterattacks when the BSer is behind the attacker.

Lavalasher now introduces “fight” - which appears to be yet another action (anyone know whether it triggers Daywatcher ? I’d guess it won’t.) that’s neither an attack nor a counterattack.

Duelyst pettifoggery :stuck_out_tongue:

7 Likes

That may be…but no less annoying.:stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Excellent catch, this explanation satisfies me immeasurably. I suppose we can consider the matter closed, and the thread can die peacefully (unless people still wish to discuss keywords/interactions). Obligatory @Ryvirath ping