Legends of Runeterra realm avatar Legends of Runeterra realm home

Legends of Runeterra

1 Characters Joined
Create Thread
Legends of Runeterra | Posted by | 6 years, 1 month ago
Discussion

Shadowshift Cancelling Targeted Spells

So, I'm curious how you guys feel about this. When you Shadowshift a unit that's currently in battle, the Living Shadow will battle the enemy unit instead. However, if you Shadowshift one of your units that's currently targeted by a spell, e.g. Mystic Shot, the spell fizzles out after Shadowshift resolves.

I feel this is inconsistent and the spell should hit the Living Shadow. The phrasing "in its place" suggests to me that, for all intents and purposes, the shadow should completely replace the recalled unit.

This is also (sort of) backed by a somewhat similar question asked about Stand United in this thread. Stand United uses the term "swap," which has the same gist, and apparently in its case, the spell hits the swapped-in unit instead of fizzling (I haven't tested it, myself, but this seems be true based in the thread replies).

12 Share

// join_the_conversation

Sign in to share your thoughts, vote on comments, and connect with the community.

Sign in Create account

Comments

Sort by:
Oldest Newest Top

  • So, I'm curious how you guys feel about this. When you Shadowshift a unit that's currently in battle, the Living Shadow will battle the enemy unit instead. However, if you Shadowshift one of your units that's currently targeted by a spell, e.g. Mystic Shot, the spell fizzles out after Shadowshift resolves.

    I feel this is inconsistent and the spell should hit the Living Shadow. The phrasing "in its place" suggests to me that, for all intents and purposes, the shadow should completely replace the recalled unit.

    This is also (sort of) backed by a somewhat similar question asked about Stand United in this thread. Stand United uses the term "swap," which has the same gist, and apparently in its case, the spell hits the swapped-in unit instead of fizzling (I haven't tested it, myself, but this seems be true based in the thread replies).

    • I hadn't really thought about this up to this point, but it's a valid consideration. It does seem like an odd inconsistency given Shadowshift's use in battle (and thematic feel). If I had to give a technical answer I'd argue that the original target leaves the field before the Shadow replaces it, leaving a gap during which time the targeted spell has no target and fizzles... but I have difficulty convincing myself to agree with it.

      Given the choice of which to change for consistency, though, I'd lean towards changing Stand United to align with Shadowshift. It's already horribly expensive for such a niche card, I don't see why it couldn't be given an additional use-case.

    • The card works as intended. The summoned unit has the properties of a unit, whereas the spell has properties of any other fast spell. Whatever spell gets played last activates first (outside of burst). The summoned living shadow plays like any other summon unit card. 

  • it would be cool if stand united negates the spell but i agree with ya logically shadowshift should work like SU it would make more sense to me, but i guess the shadow is battle only right now.

  • Kinda agree. Either both spells should cancel out targeted effects OR apply to the new swapped-in target.

  • In combat, you are blocking a position.

    On the other hand, a spell targets a specific unit at that position.

    At least that's how I think about it.

    A similar question came up in D&D regarding why some spells require that the caster be able to see the target. (You can't just shoot polymorph magic an an area and hope it hits something.) The lead rules designer explained that part of the spellcasting process involves connecting with the life force of a specific creature, often by visual means. If that connection is interrupted or can't be made in the first place, the spell fizzles.

    That's all well and good for Mystic Shot, but some Runeterra spells like Culling Strike represent physical combat maneuvers. For those, I just imagine that the Living Shadow appears in general area just far enough out of position to mess up the "caster's" aim, but not so far that the other unit can't fight it.

    I suppose this latter explanation work for pew-pew spells, too, but whatever.

    • Quote From FortyDust

      In combat, you are blocking a position.

      On the other hand, a spell targets a specific unit at that position.

      While I agree that that works as a way of thinking about it, I still think it's inconsistent with Stand United's design. You probably couldn't resolve it with card text without horribly bloating one or both of them, so personally I think a change is in order.

  • I think the main reason is that with Stand United, the targets never actually leave combat, aka, the "space" where the spell was aimed at was always filled.

    With Shadowshift the actual target disappears and there is a moment of an empty board beefore the Shadow is summoned,  in which the spell will fizzle (as all spells that lack a target do)

    it'S not the most intuitive, but it's consistent with how the game works

    • Quote From YourPrivateNightmare

      I think the main reason is that with Stand United, the targets never actually leave combat, aka, the "space" where the spell was aimed at was always filled.

      With Shadowshift the actual target disappears and there is a moment of an empty board beefore the Shadow is summoned,  in which the spell will fizzle (as all spells that lack a target do)

      it'S not the most intuitive, but it's consistent with how the game works

      Stand United targets don't both have to be in (or out of ) combat, but I think the moment of empty space is still a relevant aspect of Shadowshift. Good call.

      • Quote From FortyDust

        I think the moment of empty space is still a relevant aspect of Shadowshift.

        Now that you guys have been bringing up some arguments, I guess the fact that Shadowshift summons a new creature sets it apart from Stand United, which merely affects 2 units that are already out on the board. I still would like to see targeted spells hitting the Shadow, and I think there's sold justification for it from a game-mechanics point of view, but I can see good reasons for the opposite side, too.

  • Thematically, I'd prefer it if the living shadow DIDN'T count as a summon effect and DIDN'T fizzle existing spells.  The attacking unit should be transforming into an animated shadow golem the instant Shadowshift resolves, subject to all the physical and magical attacks that were previously aimed at it.

    It's like in Naruto when they throw a dagger at someone, but then *poof* they're a log and the dagger impales into the log, right?

    • Quote From OldManSanns

      Thematically, I'd prefer it if the living shadow DIDN'T count as a summon effect and DIDN'T fizzle existing spells.  The attacking unit should be transforming into an animated shadow golem the instant Shadowshift resolves, subject to all the physical and magical attacks that were previously aimed at it.

      It's like in Naruto when they throw a dagger at someone, but then *poof* they're a log and the dagger impales into the log, right?

      Lore-wise, no. Not 100% sure on the exact lore-mechanics of it, but looking at League, Shadowshift is essentially Zed's W (Living Shadow) - Zed creates a Shadow a moderate distance away from him (phrased in-game as 'Zed's shadow dashes in target direction'). He can then re-activate it to swap places with the Shadow.

      Given that, the mechanic of swapping places does line up.