Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Faction Symbol convolutions

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,852

    Default Faction Symbol convolutions

    The more I thought about Faction Symbols, the more I realized the concept is not elegant as currently ruled to work. There are some inconsistent/wrong/unintuitive interactions and definitions.

    1. Inconsistent definitions of Alliance units

    A non-alliance faction symbol is not considered to be its corresponding Alliance Faction Symbol for the purposes of "shared the Faction Symbol of an opponent's Summoner." And vice versa. So a Unit with a Tundra Orc Faction Symbol is not considered to be a Unit with the Tundra Guild Faction Symbol. One result is an Invader cannot be summoned next to a Smasher when you're playing against Hogar.

    This is confusing because for the purposes of deckbuilding, alliance units are considered to be units of each faction comprising that faction. For example, a Tundra Guild Ice Golem is considered to be both Tundra Orc and Guild Dwarf. (Tangentially, it's even more complicated because the Smasher is not considered to be Tundra Guild for purposes of deckbuilding so that Smasher can't be deckbuilt into Guild Dwarves, but the Smasher is considered to be Tundra Guild for card effects).

    This also means for Farrah that if she plays Ice Golem against Hogar, Invaders can be summoned adjacent to Hogar and Ice Golems can be used for Undercover Agent and Inside Information...But Invaders would not be able to be summoned adjacent to a Smasher and Smashers couldn't be used for Undercover Agent and Inside Information. Thematically, this Smasher part makes no sense--if Smashers are considered a part of Hogar's army (they are because they can be deckbuilt into Tundra Guild), why can the Smasher not be crafty enough to fool Hogar but the Ice Golem is? It's stupid.

    I find it unintuitive that an Ice Golem is both Tundra Orc and Guild Dwarf for the purposes of card effects, is both Tundra Orc and Guild Dwarf for the purposes of deckbuilding, but is not both Tundra Orc and Guild Dwarf for the purposes of Faction Symbol.

    There's some little more reason why the Smasher is not both Tundra Orc and Tundra Guild for the purpose of Faction Symbol, but it's also convoluted. After all, it is a Tundra Guild for the purpose of Tundra Guild card effects, but is not Tundra Guild for the purposes of deckbuilding although it may be included in Tundra Guild.


    2.Inconsistent definitions of Faction Symbol
    Mercenary Units without a Faction Symbol are considered to not have Faction Symbols, with two huge exceptions. A Mercenary without a Faction Symbol is considered to "share the Faction Symbol" of Farrah or Rallul.

    So this means when you play against a non-Mercenary, Kogar (or Stone Golems, etc.) without Disguise does not have a Faction Symbol. But if you play Kogar against Rallul or Farrah, Kogar shares the Faction Symbol of Farrah or Rallul.

    This is weird in and of itself, but especially weird when you consider further implications. It means that Farrah without Disguise playing against Farrah or Rallul is all of a sudden considered to have their Faction Symbol. But now, this means that she gains a faction symbol under units she controls, which means she gets +1 AV for a Merc without a Faction Symbol, which she does not get in any other matchup! What the heck?!

    Either Mercenaries without Faction Symbols should never have Faction Symbols or they should always have Faction Symbols.


    3. Recap
    Here's a tidy recap of my above points:

    Non-alliance unit example:
    Smasher
    - TG for purposes of card effects.
    - Not TG for purposes of deckbuilding, such that cannot be included in GD.
    - Not TG for purposes of Faction Symbol.

    Alliance unit example:
    Ice Golem
    - TG for purposes of card effects, such that it's affected by GD and TO card effects.
    - TG for purposes of deckbuilding, such that can be included in TO or GD.
    - TG for purposes of Faction Symbol, but not considered to "share" TO or GD faction symbol.

    When Mercenary Units with not Faction Symbols have Faction Symbols
    - Mercenaries without Faction Symbols don't have Faction Symbols.
    - Exception: Mercenaries without Faction Symbols have Faction Symbols when playing against Rallul or Farrah (not Glurblub).


    4. Solutions
    It's probably correct to leave Smashers, etc. as not sharing TG, etc. Faction Symbol. After all, the relationship between TO and TG is not fully reciprocal. TG are fully TO, but TO are not fully TG as they cannot be included in a GD deck like TG can. Therefore, it makes sense to treat the TG as sharing both TO and GD faction symbols, but not to treat TO the same way. This is no solution to this problem, but it's probably just best to leave this one, as it seems dictated by the weird relationship, non-reciprocal relationship between non-alliance factions and their respective alliances.

    It seems correct to consider Alliance Unit should be considered to be both TO and GD for all purposes, including sharing Faction Symbols with both TO and GD. "TG" shouldn't just include the names of "GD" and "TO" but everything else, too, including Faction Symbol.

    It seems correct to say that Mercenaries with no faction symbol never have a faction symbol, even if playing against Farrah or Rallul. This screws Farrah in a matchup against Rallul, but it's far and away the correct ruling, as there's no justified "legal" grounds to say Mercenaries with not Faction Symbols do not have Faction Symbols except when playing against Farrah or Rallul. Besides, there are equally lopsided matchups in SW...Not ideal, but it's dictated by logic and rules.

    The first solut
    Last edited by commandercool; 07-10-2018 at 01:30 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by commandercool View Post

    4. Solutions
    It's probably correct to leave Smashers, etc. as not sharing TG, etc. Faction Symbol. After all, the relationship between TO and TG is not fully reciprocal. TG are fully TO, but TO are not fully TG as they cannot be included in a GD deck like TG can. Therefore, it makes sense to treat the TG as sharing both TO and GD faction symbols, but not to treat TO the same way. This is no solution to this problem, but it's probably just best to leave this one, as it seems dictated by the weird relationship, non-reciprocal relationship between non-alliance factions and their respective alliances.

    It seems correct to consider Alliance Unit should be considered to be both TO and GD for all purposes, including sharing Faction Symbols with both TO and GD. "TG" shouldn't just include the names of "GD" and "TO" but everything else, too, including Faction Symbol.

    It seems correct to say that Mercenaries with no faction symbol never have a faction symbol, even if playing against Farrah or Rallul. This screws Farrah in a matchup against Rallul, but it's far and away the correct ruling, as there's no justified "legal" grounds to say Mercenaries with not Faction Symbols do not have Faction Symbols except when playing against Farrah or Rallul. Besides, there are equally lopsided matchups in SW...Not ideal, but it's dictated by logic and rules.

    The first solut
    I agree, but the last one seems a bit clunky. The more elengant solution would be to treat Mercenaries Units as to have Mercenaries faction symbol (the one on th back), its's easier and straightforward. I don't know if this create problems, though.

    Anyway, as a side note, I think tht the general idea behind the faction symbol mechanic is good. I mean, if all mercenaries units were designed to be included in mercs and a specific faction maybe a lot of the broken combo we see around would be avoided.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    688

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fing80 View Post
    I agree, but the last one seems a bit clunky. The more elengant solution would be to treat Mercenaries Units as to have Mercenaries faction symbol (the one on th back), its's easier and straightforward. I don't know if this create problems, though.

    Anyway, as a side note, I think tht the general idea behind the faction symbol mechanic is good. I mean, if all mercenaries units were designed to be included in mercs and a specific faction maybe a lot of the broken combo we see around would be avoided.
    Agreed. I was also a fan of the project to give all mercenary common units specific faction symbols.

    Would the alliance symbol mean that a disguised unit would effectively have 2 faction symbols instead of 1? Or am I misinterpreting you (long day, sorry )
    Shard the Void Mutant in The Dance of Devils
    Nicholas the Honor Guard in Light's Corruption
    Talu the REAL TWIN in The Ice Wedding

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Gwangju, South Korea
    Posts
    622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syurtpiutha View Post
    Agreed. I was also a fan of the project to give all mercenary common units specific faction symbols.

    Would the alliance symbol mean that a disguised unit would effectively have 2 faction symbols instead of 1? Or am I misinterpreting you (long day, sorry )
    Only commons?

    It has long irked me (and sometimes slipped my mind) that an Illusionary Warrior can't spawn off Duggle.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    688

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gojaejin View Post
    Only commons?

    It has long irked me (and sometimes slipped my mind) that an Illusionary Warrior can't spawn off Duggle.
    If the battle over which summoner needs Bodyguard ever gets resolved I'd love to hear it (probably Sirian, though). Since some merc champs help out several underpowered summoners immensely taking that tool away from some of them could stink.
    Shard the Void Mutant in The Dance of Devils
    Nicholas the Honor Guard in Light's Corruption
    Talu the REAL TWIN in The Ice Wedding

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,852

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fing80 View Post
    I agree, but the last one seems a bit clunky. The more elengant solution would be to treat Mercenaries Units as to have Mercenaries faction symbol (the one on th back), its's easier and straightforward. I don't know if this create problems, though.
    I don't see it as clunky, but just that it is somewhat of a problem for Farrah. The alternative you suggest means Merc Units without faction symbols wouldn't be able to be deckbuild into non Merc units unless you make an exception that Merc Units with no Faction Symbols can be deckbuilt anywhere.

    To be fair, the rule could be framed a couple ways:
    1. Merc Units without Faction Symbols are considered to have a Mercenary Faction Symbol. (slightly weird because they don't have a Faction Symbol)

    And it could just be left at that but it would mean that they can't be included in other decks per Faction Symbol rules. Or, you can add an additional part:

    2. Merc Units without Faction Symbols can be included in a deckbuild of any summoner. (slightly weird bc it's an exception to the Faction Symbol rules).

    Whether you take 1. alone or 1. and 2., both options are slightly weird. Personally I prefer that Farrah gets shafted over that weirdness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fing80 View Post
    Anyway, as a side note, I think tht the general idea behind the faction symbol mechanic is good. I mean, if all mercenaries units were designed to be included in mercs and a specific faction maybe a lot of the broken combo we see around would be avoided.
    I agree a lot of broken combos would be avoided. If Plaid Hat could redo it, I'd prefer that all Mercs have a faction symbol of some kind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syurtpiutha View Post
    Would the alliance symbol mean that a disguised unit would effectively have 2 faction symbols instead of 1? Or am I misinterpreting you (long day, sorry )
    Good question.
    Last edited by commandercool; 07-12-2018 at 01:01 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by commandercool View Post
    Whether you take 1. alone or 1. and 2., both options are slightly weird. Personally I prefer that Farrah gets shafted over that weirdness.
    A third way to put it down could be:
    Merc Units without Faction Symbols are considered to have a Mercenary Faction Symbol for the purpose of resolving card effects.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    128

    Default

    Hmmm...
    But with this rules you can kill Lurkers out of Farrah.
    In my all "cave" decks I build him cause of cave flith symbol (taskmaster- Frick, prisoner- Sneeks, Warden himself).
    With this rules my Lurkers would be useless... I could pack Smeege or work on full magic spend befor summoning them, but huh... I would rather take them out....
    Ow... Ow... Owlord!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by owlord View Post
    Hmmm...
    But with this rules you can kill Lurkers out of Farrah.
    In my all "cave" decks I build him cause of cave flith symbol (taskmaster- Frick, prisoner- Sneeks, Warden himself).
    With this rules my Lurkers would be useless... I could pack Smeege or work on full magic spend befor summoning them, but huh... I would rather take them out....
    Forgive me, Owlord, but I'm not sure I get your objection. By "this rulse" you refer to the ones proposed by commandercool or me?
    However, in both cases I don't see how they change Lurkers use outside Farrah: we are talking about mercenaries with no faction symbol and Lurkers have one.

  10. #10
    killercactus is offline SW App Champion Summer 2015, but still do what he says.
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,309

    Default

    Since I haven't been around for a while and checked up on the forums today, I thought it was fitting to weigh in on this, even if its a month after the fact.

    While I appreciate the comments here, I think you guys are simply overthinking it. When we talk about matching faction symbols, the symbol is either the same or it isn't. That was the mentality I had when designing this deck. I knew it was already pretty complicated, so I wanted this part to be as simple as possible. If the symbol is the same, it matches. If its not, then it doesn't. The fact that alliance units are considered part of their related factions for other effects simply has no bearing on the symbol. Farrah is strong enough as she is - I don't think she needs to have this added flexibility.

    As far as Mercenaries with no symbol go, they don't give Farrah a +1 boost when she's against herself or Rallul. Again, the symbols "match" because they each have the same one - none in this case. The fact that Rallul and a regular Merc both have no symbol doesn't magically give them a symbol for Farrah's ability. That ruling was just made so that her events aren't useless in a mirror or against Rallul.

    And as for Lurkers, I designed them specifically with the fact in mind that they'd get their benefit when there was a Cave Filth symbol on the board. A bit of incentive to toss a couple of CF units into Sneeks or Frick if there wasn't already some.
    Latest Customs - KC's Customs

    I need to update this signature. While I do that, go listen to A Doug's Guide to Summoner Wars - the podcast!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •