Welcome to the Legends of Runeterra realm!
I have a hard time thinking how Final Spark, which needs to target a unit getting casted after said unit is dead. I guess has something to do with overwhelm. It is w weird interaction casting multiples final sparks and oneshotting an oponent.
// join_the_conversation
Sign in to share your thoughts, vote on comments, and connect with the community.
I have a hard time thinking how Final Spark, which needs to target a unit getting casted after said unit is dead. I guess has something to do with overwhelm. It is w weird interaction casting multiples final sparks and oneshotting an oponent.
I assume it's overwhelm that does the thing. It's kind of weird because it's not usually a keyword found on spells so the interactions don't seem as straightforward
(I haven't seen the interaction myself yet so I assume that with this post you mean that the second Final Spark cast by Karma deals 4 damage to the nexus when the targeted unit has already died because of the first Final Spark)
It's certainly not a completely obvious interaction but think it does makes sense when you look into it. In LoR, attacking units initially target the enemy nexus, but once they are blocked, they target their blocker instead and will not attack the nexus even if their blocker dies before they attack. Units with overwhelm act differently because when their blocker is removed they deal full damage to the nexus, so you could say that overwhelm actually means "When I attack/target a unit, excess damage is dealt to the enemy nexus". The exact same thing happens with Final Spark. When it is cast on a unit, it targets that unit like a unit with overwhelm targets its blocker, and when the targeted unit dies before the damage is dealt, it will deal all of the excess damage to the enemy nexus.
I hope this explanation makes sense but I can understand if it doesn't. :p
I would argue that this interaction is definitely, but intentionally, wrong.
Typically, if a spell would kill a unit, any other spells that target that unit below it in the stack simply fizzle. In that way, the second Final Spark ought to just fizzle, as it no longer has a valid target.
That said, I think it's intentionally designed this way because:
Because it's currently the only burn spell in the game with Overwhelm, I don't think it's correct to say the interaction is wrong. It just proves that Overwhelm takes precedence over fizzle, that's all. It's not like the fizzle rules are written down anywhere. If they were written down, they might say, "If a spell's target no longer exists when it's time for the spell to resolve, the spell will fizzle unless it has Overwhelm, in which case it will affect the enemy Nexus if possible."
As long as any future Overwhelm burn spells behave the same, it's totally fine.
Quote From FortyDust Because it's currently the only burn spell in the game with Overwhelm, I don't think it's correct to say the interaction is wrong. It just proves that Overwhelm takes precedence over fizzle, that's all. It's not like the fizzle rules are written down anywhere. If they were written down, they might say, "If a spell's target no longer exists when it's time for the spell to resolve, the spell will fizzle unless it has Overwhelm, in which case it will affect the enemy Nexus if possible."
As long as any future Overwhelm burn spells behave the same, it's totally fine.
I think there's a real problem here with respect to the Overwhelm keyword. It's clearly intended to match the Trample keyword in MTG, but there's a reason the Trample keyword doesn't show up on burn spells in MTG - its behavior simply doesn't map to how instant and sorcery spells target their damage.
LoR is clearly trying to strike the same paradigm with spells by having them fizzle when they lose their stated targets, and with Overwhelm only triggering during offensive combat. So, if Riot wants a spell like Final Spark to make sense, it shouldn't use a combat keyword, it should explicitly state its targets and/or behavior. Some potential changes that would make this work:
Admittedly, that last one changes the behavior of the spell, but it enables the damage to carry on to other targets despite the death of the original target.
Quote From meisterz39 I think there's a real problem here with respect to the Overwhelm keyword. It's clearly intended to match the Trample keyword in MTG,
That's actually a pretty big assumption, considering how many other aspects of the game fail to map exactly to their Magic or Hearthstone counterparts. Maybe it's better to just let Runeterra be Runeterra and discard expectations that are based on other games.
In the end, once you know how Final Spark works, you're not likely to forget it, so maybe this isn't a great hill to die on? I don't think we're likely to see a lot of Overwhelm spells in the future, so it's probably a moot point.
Quote From FortyDust Quote From meisterz39 I think there's a real problem here with respect to the Overwhelm keyword. It's clearly intended to match the Trample keyword in MTG,
That's actually a pretty big assumption, considering how many other aspects of the game fail to map exactly to their Magic or Hearthstone counterparts. Maybe it's better to just let Runeterra be Runeterra and discard expectations that are based on other games.
In the end, once you know how Final Spark works, you're not likely to forget it, so maybe this isn't a great hill to die on? I don't think we're likely to see a lot of Overwhelm spells in the future, so it's probably a moot point.
Haha, Final Spark is certainly not a hill worth dying on, but I think it highlights a misuse of a keyword, and Riot ought not to do that. CCGs are full of keywords designed to make games comprehensible while still ensuring economy of text. Keywords should describe rules which are entirely consistent in their application - if they're not, then ultimately the keyword makes things less clear, not more clear. Final Spark is perhaps the only example of this today in LoR, but it's still a very clear case of using a keyword to mean something that only kind of fits it.
To your second point, don't think it's really possible to just let Runeterra be Runeterra. It exists in a highly saturated CCG marketplace, with lots of people coming to it after years of playing games like Hearthstone and MTG. These kinds of preconceived understandings and comparisons exist for a reason, and I think Riot knows they're operating within them. In fact, I think they said they were highly inspired by those games, and so these comparisons are in many ways built in.
When I say Overwhelm is the problem because it doesn't work like Trample, I don't mean that it has to be like Trample. I just mean that everything (with one very odd exception) in the game points to it being exactly like Trample. The help text reads "Excess damage I deal to my blocker is dealt to the enemy Nexus," and when its attached to a unit it triggers exclusively on attacks (i.e. not from "unit fights another unit" type spells, and not from blocking). It's fine if they want to change it to mean something broader than Trample, but they should only use it when it actually applies.
EDIT: Just one follow-up here - LoR is a game that has been under wraps and in development for years. While it's certainly nitpicky to complain about mildly counter-intuitive wording on one card or another, particularly since it's the kind of thing you learn once and remember, I don't think it's fair to give Riot a pass on bad templating after so much time to get it right. This is a huge part of card games, and Hearthstone got caught up with a lot of problems around their "whenever" vs "after" trigger orders a while back, and then had to issue some bug fixes with mixed results to improve consistency. It's better now, but it was pretty messy at the time.
but lets analyze this for a sec: to do that you need to be at least in round 10 control lux and karma , use at least 6 mana on spells to get { if the spell wasnt dawn and dusk} a extra shot on final spark . dont you think after all these loops [ and the opponent didnt have removal for them after all this time] you should get something else instead of a fizzle? besides if riot do more overwhelm spells in the future this interaction would be the rule, and if they dont this will be inconsistent with other spells but will be such a fringe case that i dont think they would see it as a problem, its not like final spark karma is dominating the ladder and is a fun combo that take time and effort to do so they should let it slide :D also why dont we ask riot if is intended? they made the game after all they should know the answer and we would be more in peace with a confirmation.
Quote From greenhatjynx78 but lets analyze this for a sec: to do that you need to be at least in round 10 control lux and karma , use at least 6 mana on spells to get { if the spell wasnt dawn and dusk} a extra shot on final spark . dont you think after all these loops [ and the opponent didnt have removal for them after all this time] you should get something else instead of a fizzle? besides if riot do more overwhelm spells in the future this interaction would be the rule, and if they dont this will be inconsistent with other spells but will be such a fringe case that i dont think they would see it as a problem, its not like final spark karma is dominating the ladder and is a fun combo that take time and effort to do so they should let it slide :D also why dont we ask riot if is intended? they made the game after all they should know the answer and we would be more in peace with a confirmation.
Just to make my position entirely clear - I absolutely believe that the Lux/Karma Final Spark interaction is intentional on the part of Riot, and an entirely positive interaction that makes playing such a deck fun and rewarding. I just think they are wrong to use the Overwhelm keyword, which very plainly doesn't apply to spells and makes this interaction less clear. Quick summary of why:
It's certainly possible that they could create more Overwhelm burn spells in the future, and that they could modify the help text to properly explain how Overwhelm is intended to behave on units vs. spells, but today all indications are that it is designed to be a keyword that uniquely applies to attacking units and has no business on a spell. And frankly, I think if they do choose to make some official alternative meaning for Overwhelm, that meaning will be better encapsulated by some other keyword that is unique to spells.
To help illustrate my point, consider this example. Imagine if they didn't include the Burst speed keyword for spells, but instead had spells with the Quick Attack keyword as stand-ins for the Burst keyword. That would be very confusing for players because they'd be using one keyword to define two loosely related things, and the help text for Quick Attack today doesn't mean anything for spells. Those players would quickly learn that alternative meaning for Quick Attack, but it's very clear that having two keywords is better for clarity.
if they do new spells that work this way i can see them doing a new keyword to clarify better but with final spark as the only case i dont see a point, besides HS is so inconsistent with keywords that i think your point about the other card games is only half right if it was so important HS team would make it right for the get go, i think you are being a little hard on riot on this it is a beta and a keyword just for one spell would feel superfolus IMO.
Quote From greenhatjynx78 if they do new spells that work this way i can see them doing a new keyword to clarify better but with final spark as the only case i dont see a point, besides HS is so inconsistent with keywords that i think your point about the other card games is only half right if it was so important HS team would make it right for the get go, i think you are being a little hard on riot on this it is a beta and a keyword just for one spell would feel superfolus IMO.
I don't think they need to do a new keyword - in fact it would be pretty over-the-top to make a keyword for one card. What I think they need to do is change the text of Final Spark so that it doesn't use a keyword. Keywords are for common interactions, and this is very plainly a one-off interaction. To BlueSpark's point, if it just explicitly mentioned that the Nexus is an automatic secondary target for the spell, it wouldn't need Overwhelm and the lack of fizzle would be entirely consistent with other spells (e.g. "Deal 4 damage to a unit. If that unit dies, deal excess damage to the enemy Nexus").
I certainly don't mean to be overly harsh to Riot, and it's true that this is in beta. However, Legends of Runeterra has been in development for years and years (see https://www.pcgamesn.com/legends-of-runeterra/nine-year-development), and this kind of consistency is really important for helping new and experienced players learn the game. There's a reason that modern MTG cards are so well-templated - their years and years of experience have made them very good at it. Riot should be able to take some of the learnings from these other games and their inconsistency snafus and apply them to LoR.
With respect to your criticism of Hearthstone, I actually think their keyword consistency is very good lately, and they've made major strides in retroactively fixing inconsistencies in old cards (e.g. Druid of the Claw's former lack of a transform keyword). I did mention above some of the problems they faced with inconsistent "whenever" vs "after" triggers, but they've laid out clear rules for how those should work, and tried very hard to fix any inconsistencies there. Moreover, there are clear expectations for what they should do, so players can easily know whether a card's behavior is intended or a bug.
Ultimately I don't mean to sound angry about any of this. I don't expect Riot's work to be perfect - there are examples across all CCGs of inconsistencies that make the game harder for players. But the framework/point of view I set forth is what I think they should be trying to do/striving for, and Final Spark is a clear example of where they can improve on this.
Quote From meisterz39 "Deal 4 damage to a unit. If that unit dies, deal excess damage to the enemy Nexus"
Sorry if this sounds nitpicky, but I'd like to point out that "If that unit dies" is a problematic way of wording it; after all, the excess damage applies to the nexus in full if the unit is removed (e.g. recalled) by other means before Final Spark resolves.
In general, however, I think your idea is sound.
Quote From BlueSpark Quote From meisterz39 "Deal 4 damage to a unit. If that unit dies, deal excess damage to the enemy Nexus"Sorry if this sounds nitpicky, but I'd like to point out that "If that unit dies" is a problematic way of wording it; after all, the excess damage applies to the nexus in full if the unit is removed (e.g. recalled) by other means before Final Spark resolves.
In general, however, I think your idea is sound.
That's a good callout. I've played a little Lux/Karma, but I haven't seen this interaction with Final Spark and recall.
Perhaps something like "Deal 4 damage to an enemy unit. All excess damage targets the enemy Nexus." This will inevitably have a lot of the same confusion that some folks have had around how Overwhelm works when blockers are removed from combat (i.e. removing the blocker just means all damage goes through, even though there's still a "blocker"), but at least it will behave consistently with Overwhelm, and now the enemy Nexus is an explicit target in the text.
Quote From BlueSpark Quote From meisterz39 "Deal 4 damage to a unit. If that unit dies, deal excess damage to the enemy Nexus"Sorry if this sounds nitpicky, but I'd like to point out that "If that unit dies" is a problematic way of wording it; after all, the excess damage applies to the nexus in full if the unit is removed (e.g. recalled) by other means before Final Spark resolves.
In general, however, I think your idea is sound.
I respect the intent, but the proposed change does nothing to circumvent the perceived problem with fizzle (a perception I still do not share).
At issue is the fact that, upon Karma's second casting of the spell, there is no unit at all. At that point, you're not talking about "excess damage"; you're talking about all the damage, from a targeted spell that lacks a target.
Accepting a novel definition of Overwhelm fixes this, but "if that unit dies/is removed" does not, because the unit is already gone before the spell is cast, and this wording says nothing about not fizzling when the spell lacks a target.
If one honestly accepts fizzle consistency as a problem here, one cannot honestly accept this wording as a solution. The real solution to that "problem" would be a much wordier card requiring a far pickier level of rules detail than any card should ever have.
FortyDust, I'm interesting what you think of the version I proposed after BlueSpark's comment. Specifically, "Deal 4 damage to an enemy unit. All excess damage targets the enemy Nexus."
I think this is fairly concise, uses the same notion of excess damage that exists for Overwhelm (i.e. it goes through whether or not a blocker remains alive/in play/in combat prior to damage), and specifically mentions the Nexus as a target for damage to help the player understand that the unit is not the unique target of the spell.
That last part is a little tricky because you don't specifically tell the spell to target the nexus, and I think you're right that if you wanted to get very precise and clear, you'd end up very wordy (e.g. "Target a unit and the enemy Nexus, and deal 4 damage to the unit, with excess damage hitting the enemy Nexus.")
Quote From meisterz39 That last part is a little tricky because you don't specifically tell the spell to target the nexus, and I think you're right that if you wanted to get very precise and clear, you'd end up very wordy (e.g. "Target a unit and the enemy Nexus, and deal 4 damage to the unit, with excess damage hitting the enemy Nexus.")
Your last paragraph sums up my feelings.
All you've really done is write out the definition of Overwhelm without addressing the fizzle component that was the original complaint.
In fact, the more we talk about it, the more I admire the wisdom of putting the Overwhelm keyword on the card. Final Spark does exactly what Overwhelm does, and Karma's extra casting (which is basically Double Attack for spells) works exactly the way a Double Attack unit's damage works if it has Overwhelm -- all the damage of the second attack against a dead unit goes to the Nexus.
Quote From OldManSanns It just sounds cooler. How is it pronounced? fin-aal-is fun-keln ?
It's a bit tricky trying to replicate German pronunciation in English with just the regular Latin alphabet. As a linguist with a Master's degree, though, I will try my best ;).
fee-nah-less foo-nk(e)ln
is the closest I can come up with. Caveats: nah as in the British pronunciation of "dance." foo with the "oo" pronounced as a short vowel instead of a long one. The e can be pronounced weakly or completely omitted.
Quote From FortyDust At issue is the fact that, upon Karma's second casting of the spell, there is no unit at all.
I don't see it. When you play Final Spark, you pick a unit as the target. Karma duplicates the spell including its target (it even says so on the card). So you've got 2 Final Sparks queued up aiming at the same unit.
If the unit is then recalled, both Final Sparks resolve without a target; if the first Spark kills the unit, only the 2nd one resolves without a target. I see no systematic difference there.
first off i wanna say i like so much to discuss this with you are so articulated and calm is like talking with a pillow { i sorry if you are against pillows is the most comfy thing my mind could think } on this modern world discussion on internet always becoming flame wars it feels so good to have a healthy discussion, i missed it so much well back to the topic, i agree with your point but, HS had MTG as a template so it should be more consistent from the start, right now it is pretty good but it take a long time to get there , runeterra had a bigger development time but if HS take so much time to make thing right and still make mistakes { like not using echo on witch brew or unstable evolution, that make me so mad it is so hard to put a keyword on a new card?} i think runeterra will take some time to iron those details and that okay. thank you very much for being so nice:D
Quote From meisterz39 To your second point, don't think it's really possible to just let Runeterra be Runeterra. It exists in a highly saturated CCG marketplace, with lots of people coming to it after years of playing games like Hearthstone and MTG. These kinds of preconceived understandings and comparisons exist for a reason, and I think Riot knows they're operating within them. In fact, I think they said they were highly inspired by those games, and so these comparisons are in many ways built in.
But that raises the question of keywords that are already inconsistent across different games. Is there a consensus about which is the "master" game, whose template other games are expected to follow? You might be tempted to say that should obviously be Magic, but there are plenty of players who have never played that, particularly in the PC and mobile markets.
Quote From FortyDust Quote From meisterz39 To your second point, don't think it's really possible to just let Runeterra be Runeterra. It exists in a highly saturated CCG marketplace, with lots of people coming to it after years of playing games like Hearthstone and MTG. These kinds of preconceived understandings and comparisons exist for a reason, and I think Riot knows they're operating within them. In fact, I think they said they were highly inspired by those games, and so these comparisons are in many ways built in.But that raises the question of keywords that are already inconsistent across different games. Is there a consensus about which is the "master" game, whose template other games are expected to follow? You might be tempted to say that should obviously be Magic, but there are plenty of players who have never played that, particularly in the PC and mobile markets.
I think, perhaps, I've done a bad job of explaining my point of view. Here it is at a high level:
Quote From FortyDust Quote From meisterz39 I think there's a real problem here with respect to the Overwhelm keyword. It's clearly intended to match the Trample keyword in MTG,
That's actually a pretty big assumption, considering how many other aspects of the game fail to map exactly to their Magic or Hearthstone counterparts. Maybe it's better to just let Runeterra be Runeterra and discard expectations that are based on other games.
In the end, once you know how Final Spark works, you're not likely to forget it, so maybe this isn't a great hill to die on? I don't think we're likely to see a lot of Overwhelm spells in the future, so it's probably a moot point.
Elder Scrolls Legends has a legendary that gives spells Breakthrough (same thing as Overwhelm/Trample), but they don't have a spell stack so we can't really compare.
Yes
Considering both views, I'd say the interaction does seem inappropriate. Meisterz39's consideration of targeting is the sticking point for me.
- Overwhelm minion declares an attack, is blocked, can deal damage to Nexus
- Overwhelm minion forced to Strike another minion via spell, cannot deal damage to Nexus
- Typical spell targeting minion will fizzle if it loses target
- Noting that spell-based draining effects will also fizzle if they lose target - not directly relevant, but an argument could be made for them being analogous to Overwhelm on spells (inasmuch as they deal damage to a unit and then have a corresponding effect on Nexus health)
A minion attack will go straight through to Nexus if its blocker is removed and it has Overwhelm, certainly - but that's a minion attack, not a spell. All spells bar this one will fizzle if their target is removed prior to resolution, irrespective of their effect on Nexus health.
Given the above, I would say that there are two answers to the question:
1. Overwhelm, in the single unique case of Finales Funkeln Final Spark, has intended functionality entirely separate to every other spell in the game, resulting in a lack of general clarity/consistency
2. It's the only spell in the game which has Overwhelm, so it was easier to code it as an unsourced minion attack with Overwhelm than to build the code bespoke
Gotta say, option #2 seems far more likely to me.
Quote From Bystekhilcar All spells bar this one will fizzle if their target is removed prior to resolution, irrespective of their effect on Nexus health.
As it just came to mind, I want to add that this only applies to single-target spells. A Trueshot Barrage will continue to resolve if 1 (or 2) of its targets is removed beforehand. One could construe an argument where Final Spark always has the enemy Nexus as its secondary target by default. I know it's a bit of stretch, but worth thinking about in my opinion.
Generally I agree with Meisterz' logic on this one, as noted above. However, I would say there's nothing wrong with giving Finales Funkeln Final Spark a different keyword so long as that design space is subsequently used - the main issue with it right now is honestly just that it's unique and using what feels like a borrowed keyword.
Because of such interaction Lux/Karma have an otk combo, though not sure how viable, since it's hard to pull off.
Incidentally.. I've been poking fun at it, but it would be pretty sweet if levelled Lux generated Finales Funkeln instead of Final Spark :3
Quote From Bystekhilcar Incidentally.. I've been poking fun at it, but it would be pretty sweet if levelled Lux generated Finales Funkeln instead of Final Spark :3
My native language holds many sweet alliterations ;). Although, just in case you're interested: The meaning of "funkeln" is somewhat different from "spark." It's a verb which roughly means "glitter" or "sparkle".
Quote From BlueSpark Quote From Bystekhilcar Incidentally.. I've been poking fun at it, but it would be pretty sweet if levelled Lux generated Finales Funkeln instead of Final Spark :3
My native language holds many sweet alliterations ;). Although, just in case you're interested: The meaning of "funkeln" is somewhat different from "spark." It's a verb which roughly means "glitter" or "sparkle".
I have no grasp of German (at least I assume it's German? Purely a guess) - I'm just an old school League player who remembers when that was the ability's actual name before Rito decided to change it to pander to those among us who get confused when reminded other languages exist :P
Quote From BlueSpark Quote From Bystekhilcar Incidentally.. I've been poking fun at it, but it would be pretty sweet if levelled Lux generated Finales Funkeln instead of Final Spark :3
My native language holds many sweet alliterations ;). Although, just in case you're interested: The meaning of "funkeln" is somewhat different from "spark." It's a verb which roughly means "glitter" or "sparkle".
It just sounds cooler. How is it pronounced? fin-aal-is fun-keln ?
Yeah, it's German. I had no idea that Riot originally used that term as her ultimate spell's name in the English version - that's kind of crazy :P. I just checked to confirm, and it's indeed still the name of the German ability (When I played League, I installed the game in English, so I never found out about any German names).
Sorry for the off-topic, by the way.
Leave a Comment