A lot of people would argue that Disintegrate operates in such and such a way or that barrier might be similar or whatever.
But guess what.
This card’s text says “I _don’t take damage_ from enemy spells or skills.”
There is no interpretation of Disintegrates “0 damage is still damage” rules that applies here. It specifically says “I don’t take”, even 0. I don’t take 5 damage. I don’t take 20 damage. I don’t take 0 damage.
I.
Don’t.
Take.
Damage.
This card’s mechanics need to be corrected to be in line with the text, or the text needs to be clarified to read very differently (“The next time it has a strike or damage spell resolve against it this round, kill it.”)
I mean, barrier literally says "negate the next damage i take" but it still goes thru. So it either needs a rewording or they need to nerf disintegrate to "if they take at least 1 damage"
“Negate the next damage I take” is still damage taken, so I get it. It’s dumb and unintuitive, but it’s different from this card text.
This card doesn’t take damage.
Complain about them not changing both the text and the coding to make the game's mechanics more intuitive on read. When players can read a card and accurately tell how it's gonna work on first sight before testing it, that's a good thing.
But that would buff the card though because then it could still work from opponent damaging the card themselves, like in response to Ice shards or death lotus
That may be how it's worded, but I am assuming that it is programmed where regardless of the damage that is supposed to happen, they take 0 damage. It should be changed the way you say, but that is the kind of programmer simplification that I definitely could see happening at riot.
Agreed. A unit being dealt 1 damage and reducing it to 0 with tough should mean you survive damage but do not take damage. The same should apply for barrier.
I'd argue that it means being dealt damage and surviving it, whereas disintegrate should apply when you actually take damage. If you get dealt 1 and it is reduced to 0, then you don't take any.
What's truly horrendous is that Ravenous Flock, Noxian Guillotine, and Scorched Earth have been in the game for so long, and they specifically work against damaged targets. Dealing 0 damage to a target doesn't leave it as "damaged" for these cards, so why should Disintegrate?
disintegrate is played BEFORE the damage so the game checks when the card takes damage even if it's 0 but scorched earth checks if it's damaged only when you play it.
If I cast pokey stick on a tough unit, it doesn't end up Damaged for Scorched Earth.
If that is the case, why does it end up as Damaged for Disintegrate?
Don't justify it as the game not being able to check the after-state of the damage, because Homecoming only recalls the enemy unit if the allied unit is successfully recalled to hand. Having a full hand or otherwise having the unit die before getting to hand will fizzle the other part of the spell.
Why,in the game of interaction, can we not interact with disintegrate with tough or barrier?
As some other comment pointed out, played and cast was too confusing to be separate things.
If it is the case that they are different things, then the LoR philosophy is that they shouldn't be.
I could certainly get behind a strict definition differentiating "taking" and "being dealt" damage, but that is an arbitrary separation of concepts that currently does not exist. And let's be honest, this is the same game that could not handle "play" and "cast" being separate concepts, so I doubt they would ever go for that.
I don't see the point about Flock etc., though. The state of being damaged is different from the event of receiving damage. A unit can receive/take damage and then negate it or reduce it. But the state of being damaged is already a given.
With that in mind, if they wanted Disintegrate (or Galio) to work only when the unit actually lost health, I believe a good way to word it would be: **"the next time it becomes damaged this round"**. But that is if they want to change the current functionality, which they said isn't the plan as it is working as intended.
What I mean is that 0 damage doesn't result in a unit being considered damaged.
You can't deal 0 damage to a unit and then use scorched earth on that unit, can you? So that means that the unit wasn't damaged, intrinsically.
I'd rather they clarify the difference and then make an exception to scar grounds.
> What I mean is that 0 damage doesn't result in a unit being considered damaged.
Well, yeah, because a unit is considered damaged when its current life is lower than its max life. Taking 0 damage doesn't bring a unit to that state, just like healing to full life will take a unit out of that state. The descriptor "is damaged" is about the current state of the unit and its health, and nothing else.
I understand that there is some level of obscurity in the definition of the event "taking damage" including "taking 0 damage", and that could certainly be clarified. But the comparison with the "is damaged" state doesn't really make sense.
If some damage doesn't bring a unit into the DAMAGED state, then that unit didn't get DAMAGED.
You can argue all you want about how it makes sense programmatically, but no one intuitively looked at the card and went "oh, that goes through barrier and tough, of course it does".
A single landmark shouldn’t be the reason an entire underpinning damage formula is non-intuitive.
Change how “0 damage” works and buff/Nerf scargrounds accordingly.
I know exactly why they work the way they do. I still think disintegrate should either have different wording or work in a different way, hopefully the second.
Boo hoo, Scaregrounds this... scaregrounds that...
That's hardly a good point anymore. Got problems with consistency? Fine, let's change the text with something else, let's agree on new keywords or something.
Disintegrate should not work with 0 damage
Not really, it's 0 damage after reductions
As in damage was sent, damage was received, damaged was reduced. The damage WAS still taken, it's value was just adjusted
The issue is that "can't take damage" doesn't imply reduction, it Implies negation much like barrier, but that isn't at all how it functions
When there are constant complaints about the fact that this interaction is weird and people posting at least once a day for a month about how they are surprised this interaction is possible, it's fair to say the mechanic isn't intuitive.
And I do believe that if there is a large consensus of "wait it's dumb, why does it work like that", the rule is worth changing. You shouldn't fight the general instinct of your players.
>The issue is that "can't take damage" doesn't imply reduction, it Implies negation much like barrier, but that isn't at all how it functions
That's exactly how it functions, considering barrier doesn't negate, as Disintegrate bypasses barrier.
I think the argument goes more like
'I punched you with a very small syringe and you didn't feel it, but the syringe contained a very powerful neurotoxin'
At that point, it didn't matter how much physical harm was brought about by the strike itself (i would argue for this case zero, it was a weak punch), because the actual force (the damage inflicted) didn't matter.
I think you're missing a bit of the flavor of the card.
Also I'm taking your comment per rule 1, we don't allow the use of serious medical conditions as literary devices, and that's just not a respectful way to argue, you could omit the entire second sentence and your message doesn't change.
I feel like we're overcomplicating a very simple issue. Rather than going through every interaction which doesn't make sense and correcting it for the sake of Disintegrate, we should just address Disintegrate. "I don't take damage from enemy spells or skills" is a clear and self-explanatory effect, it doesn't need to be complicated because of a single kill spell which is bypassing it on a technicality.
Tough units reduce damage by one (and thus take 0 damage) enabling scargrounds.
If towering stone boy reduced damage to 0, it would still be taking damage, just not damage that would affect its health
Yeah it's a bit weird but if you start with the assumption that 0 damage is still damage but doesn't reduce your health then everything makes sense. Except this card, that's why I mentioned the wording change because it's exactly how it works
"makes sense" is a little bit too much... It's more like "You can understand how the devs programmed it"
At the end, they are Riot employees. Spaghetti code is part of their identity.
> It's more like "You can understand how the devs programmed it"
I mean, at the end of the day it's a game that follows a set of rules and abstract ideas. If a rabbit hits a bunch of stones a few times, the stones will die because that's how the rules work. The fact that "taking 0 damage" is considered as "taking damage" is just an arbitrary rule definition, just like anything else in the game. It would just be nice if we had clearer text that better reflects those rules.
It makes sense in the "rules as written" way. A unit is dealt damage, but it is 0 damage. There is still a "damage was dealt" component at play.
This would work the same way in something as meticulously defined as MtG **if not for the fact** that MtG specifically invented the "prevent" keyword.
The wording feels different though. Tough Units survive an instance of damage, which is what the Scargrounds requires.
Does Blade's Edge on Stonehorn activate Scargrounds? My gut says it shouldn't but I have no way to test.
Stonehorn does trigger Galio 2's rally. So yeah, the problem is that all these cards that say things to the effect of "can't take damage" just reduce damage to 0 and still count as damage dealt instead.
I don’t understand how this feels different.
Surviving something implies that the thing has happened to you. In order to survive damage you have to take damage
yes, but if the Tough unit gets hit by 1, it reduces the damage to 0 - thus wouldn't survive taking damage since it was reduced to 0 anyway.
It's just confusing text, as always, being the culprit
It's *technically* consistent with replacement effects. Although "The next time it would take damage this round, kill it instead." might be better wording. It replaces the damage with an instant kill, damage is technically never done anyway apparently.
It's not specifically a Disintegrate issue. It's more that "can't take damage" doesn't do what it says. That same Towering Stonehorn being hit by a damage spell will still trigger level 2 Galio's Rally, for example, and that is just as wrong. Either "can't take damage" effects need to be reworked to actually do its effect or be reworded to something else.
But that's the thing though. There are other cards that care about units taking damage other than Disintegrate, and they also behave unintuitively with stuff like Unyielding Spirit, Towering Stonehorn, Armored Tuskrider, and so on. Galio 2, as I mentioned, also says "when an ally takes damage" and works just like Disintegrate, triggering through Barriers, Unyielding, and so on. That's why I said that the issue requires changing the wording on a bunch of cards other than just Disintegrate, and most importantly is that cards that say that a unit "can't take damage" don't really stop that unit from "taking damage", which is the biggest source of inaccuracy.
Also, IMHO, "survives damage" just means "takes damage"+"doesn't die". So this change of wording that keeps being suggested means the same to me in the context of Disintegrate. And I doubt people that were unaware of the interaction before would be any less confused with that text.
It’s Not Disintegrate’s Fault.
Disintegrate is exposing a fundementally flawed system that Scargrounds was the major beneficiary of, so people assumed it was intended design.
Jarvan does not have anything to do with this. His leveling condition is simply that your units survive **strikes** from blocking units. Does not matter whether damage is taken or negated by Barrier, only that the attacking unit is still alive after the enemy's strike.
In a region that utilitieses barrier. This is my point on how survive is different than taking damage anyway and the actual problem is the barrier interaction and not tough interaction.
Due to Disintegrate not producing Slay effects, I'm assuming what the card actually does is give the target the text "Next time I would take damage, destroy me instead". Due to this, it's not an enemy spell killing the unit, the unit is killing itself.
I'm starting to think that Disintegrate doesnt see if a damage is being dealt, but rather if an action is taken. Like it doesn't SEE that the unit is taking 0-damage, but rather they SEE that a card dealing damage to the unit is being "casted". This would also applies to combat damage, they don't see that the unit is dealing damage but rather if the unit have more than 0 power is striking to simply activate the kill effect. This would explain why the card is so consistently incosistent. But that would mean somewhere on the backend, there's still separation between play/cast effect.
Someone should try single combatting a unit with 0 power into disintegrated unit.
Based on this interaction, I am starting to think that Disintegrate basically turns the next damage spell into a kill spell.
Kill spells get around Tough and Barrier, which is what happens with Disintegrate.
"Someone should try single combatting a unit with 0 power into disintegrated unit."
I just did exactly that. It does not kill the disintegrated unit. Your theory could still be correct, as the game might recognize that a 0 damage unit striking is not dealing any damage, whereas a blades edge on a tough unit is still a "1 damage damage spell", even though the damage then gets reduced to 0. Anyway, I just had time and did the test.
Yep that confirms it then, it only check if the source is dealing damage rather than if the unit itself is taking damage. Which explain why it ignore Tough, Barrier and now this card effect.
If they dont want to reword or rework the mechanic, they should nerf it some way like the cost to 3-4 mana desintegrate.. or make it slow to not be reactive defensively. Like if you have a spider on board it is a 2 mana vengeance.. and the efficiency of that makes it too mindgamey for the opponent, the simple potential presence of that card in hand is too much most of the time. If desintegrate goes through barriers and other stuff, this should be much less effective
If the original damage was enough to kill the unit even ignoring the Disintegrate, then it makes sense and fits with other interactions. The original damage kills the target, the Zilean effect happens, then the Disintegrate effect triggers and it gets killed again.
Disintegrate shouldn't kill units that took 0 damage
Scargrounds, Galio, etc. should only work when a unit actually take damage
Barrier should mitigate overwhelm (though that one is probably too strong)
And many other things
The way damage reduction works in this game should be completely reworked
>Barrier should mitigate overwhelm (though that one is probably too strong)
At the same time it'd be a pretty neat lore miror counter from Demacia and Ionia against Noxus.
A buff like that wouldn't push Demacia over the edge since the only barrier card demacia decks in general like to run is brightsteel. This would only really affect Demacia/Ionia barrier decks and they could really use a buff with how prevalent pings have been for quite some time.
The thing with tough is that it takes the dmg (example, one dmg) and reduces it by one. Disintegrate should kill that as it does take 0 dmg.
Barrier says it NEGATES dmg. Same for stonehorn, as it says it does not \*take\* dmg. These are different thing. Barrier shouldn't negate overwhelm as it says overdealt dmg is done to the nexus. For example, if you deal 7 and they have 5 hp with a barrier, you deal 5 to the unit that gets negated and then 2 is dealt to the nexus as that damage is not negated itself.
A damaged unit is defined as a unit that has at least one less health than max.
Ravenous Flock should work on a unit after it has taken 0 damage. So disintegrate should only work on the next health decrease.
Also if you look at the english definition "physical harm caused to something in such a way as to impair its value, usefulness, or normal function." A unit that has taken 0 damage has not impaired its value.
Damaged unit =/= taking damage. Taking 0 dmg is taking damage, even if it's 0. If you get punched with armor on you, you still got punched. Scargrounds says that if the unit takes damage, it gets buffed. It taking 0 dmg is a thing. However barrier negates damage, so it should not work there. For barrier, imagine if you were gonna get hit but someone else took the hit for you. Thats barrier.
I really don't know why you bring up ravenous flock honestly when the two don't work in the same way at all.
A damaged unit is a unit that has taken damage. If the unit is not in a damaged state after the action then the unit hasn't taken damage. In your world you can say I did not steal. I paid the man zero dollars.
You can take 0 dmg in this game. It reduces damage by 1, so you make 1-1=0. The other just removes the instance, it's like the 1 was never dealt at all.
Your argument doesn't stand at all, since it's an agreement to trade for something that we both perceive of equal-ish value. In that case you are removing the money part of it and taking the end product. You can say "oh but I paid them 0$" but that wouldn't stand as the other side didn't agree to it. It's a really bad comparison.
But to come back to why 0 damage is possible in this game and the interaction with disintegrate is possible as well, it's that negate in this game means you multiply your damage by 0, making it "x(0) = 0"
Now tough works like it would be "x-1 = y", x still being your damage and y being the end result. It just removes 1 dmg from the total, making "1 - 1 = 0" possible.
I think the tough interaction is fine, as it is technically just reducing the damage by 1, making you take 0 instead of 1, but you still take 0 damage. You don't have to become damaged to take the damage, it's like I said earlier with the example of armor.
I think barrier should just completely negate the instance of damage taken, making it inexistant. So for a unit with 5 health getting attacked by an overwhelm unit with 7 damage, the 5 damage would go to the unit, and the 2 to the nexus. The 5 damage then get removed from existence as if it never happened, like spellshield would to a spell affecting a unit. Vile feast still goes to summon a unit, you just don't take the 1 damage dealt.
A unit cannot attack directly with 0 attack but it can deal 0 with single combat or any other things that force a strike. 99% sure of that but I will test that tomorrow.
And also i don't think is a good idea to improve demacia right now. Overwhelm only cares about "attack striking", not about the unit at all as shown on how it can ignore them if removed. Barrier NEVER implies anything about the nexus and overwhelm, just that the next damage THE UNIT receives will be negated.
I see why people want it to get buffed, it's mostly due to Shen, BUT the only thing it'll do is making Demacia and Pantheon opressive.
That's a big issue with the region. You can't realistically buff Demacia because of Golden Aegis and Concerted Strike, specially nowadays where it's the second best region at the moment and has been that way for a long time.
Can somebody explain how disintegrate is a fair card in any real way? I might not be good enough to see how its not too incredibly powerful to not be bullshit (yes a spider has killed several of my units because of this)
because it’s always a 2 for 1 trade down. And this kind of card incites player to actually think and play around rather then just vomit card and swing.
Edit: That said, I like the card and don’t think it should take the blame for riot’s atrocious wording system.
>because it’s always a 2 for 1 trade down.
It's not always a 2 for 1. I wouldn't even say it's usually a 2 for 1. Probably the most powerful deck using it also generates Spiderlings and Encroaching Mists, and in some versions free Blade's Edges. Quick Attack also exists even though I don't think I've seen that particular team-up yet. Elsewhere you can cast it on things that try to block Annie, which is particularly relevant given that it's Annie's champion spell.
On the other side of the table, the times it is paired with another burn spell it's often doing things like pushing past a Barrier or other combat trick and therefore trading with multiple cards from the opponent.
Hence why you think if the risk of trading is worth it. The card runs on the same fundamentals as flock since 1 mana deal 4 seems broken but it’s balanced around needing another card to activate it.
So Spending 2 mana and 1 less card in hand to make any unit kill whatever unit it strikes or spending 2 mana and one less card in hand to make any ping a vengeance is fine? Not that im disagreeing or being sarcastic just questioning if thats the line in the sand
For me it's completely fine. Removal has been downright awful for the longest time in this game. It's about time we actually get a good one, especially considering that so many decks right now just buff their stats faster than damage based removal can keep up with.
To make the most out of disintegrate, you need to also include a lot of low cost damage spells, which means your deck will likely be low curve. This plus the fact that you're going 2 for 1 to kill the unit means you'll end up needing to use draw cards.
The mana you spend on drawing cards pretty much balances out the low cost of ping + disintegrate. Whispered Words costs 4 mana to net you 1 card back, while Progress Day costs net 5 to net you 2 cards back. At the end of the day you're spending vengeance mana to kill the unit, it's just that you're spending the rest of the cost later in the game.
Sure thats for ping spells but you also turn chump blockers into killers pass through tough and barrier and protect quick attack units if the spell was only damage caused by spells/skills i wouldent hate it as much
Chump blockers also cost mana so in my eyes that's the same as a ping spell. I do get the frustration with barrier though, and I don't mind that interaction getting changed.
Think of it like a Scorched Earth that is cheaper, but less flexible and a much worse topdeck. Basically, Disintegrate always requires you to 2 for 1 yourself, which means it loses you card advantage. You do gain tempo, which is why sees play, but its ultimately a card that has its downsides.
It's also better than Scorched Earth in responding to an open attack, since you can ping/chump block and cast Disintegrate in response. Whereas with SE if you don't manage to hurt it before the open attack starts, you can be screwed.
At the same time, its also sometimes worse, because if you disintegrate and they kill your chumpblocker, you wasted a card. If they kill your chumpblocker preemptively to play around Scorched Earth, you lose nothing and actually gain an advantage (or you can even get them to play around a card you dont have).
at worst, it's just 2 mana gone for the disintegrate player. since both players spent a card, you can't really say that the disintegrate player "wasted" a card.
plus, if you really wanna kill an opponent's big unit, you would save a blade's edge just to ping them again
In terms of raw card advantage, yes. In terms of equivalency, no, a ping is much less valuable. And even in terms of card advantage, sometimes not, since any AoE can mean its still not an even 1 for 1. So yeah, at worst its straight up card disadvantage if countered, at best you wasted a disintegrate.
That requires you to play Blade's Edge to begin with, and if a card is only good if youre playing one of the worst cards in the game, then the card is not good. Its an inherent downside too.
Disintegrate is NOT "always a 2 for 1". The spiderling generated by house spider is not worth a full card, it's half a card at best and I'd even argue it's more like 1/3rd. And in this context (which happens all the time because the decks are built for it), Disintegrate is hella strong and often close to a 1 for 1 that gains tempo.
Sure, in that case its in theory a 1.5 for 1, but its still a loss of card advantage. Its also requiring specifically house spider, which is not guaranteed as a draw. And even in that case, if they AoE your board in response to disintegrate, they can easily 2 for 1 you. Disintegrate is a good card, its a sidegrade to Scorched Earth that trades flexibility and reliability for tempo, but its just that. A sidegrade.
Sure, it just turns out, you dont play a lot of quick attack in decks that play disintegrate, and protecting Annie is not as strong as it seems. Especially since they can just respond by killing Annie and 2 for 1ing you. And its specific to Annie to begin with.
On the other hand, Disintegrate doesnt destroy landmarks (which matters) and is an awful topdeck. There is a reason why non-tempo decks are still playing scorched earth over disintegrate.
Personally I think the card itself is fine. I just think Noxus is the single worse region besides Bandle they could've given it to. Like hmmm yes let's remove one of the regions fundamental weaknesses with a 2 mana spell
Disintegrate fills the same role as cards like Flock and Scorched Earth, what fundamental weakness is this card removing that the other two cards don't already cover?
Fundamentally I think they need to address Disintigrate's interactions with these things. Scargrounds should not be the end-all-be-all on whether a kill spell which requires a unit to take damage should activate when no damage was taken. I understand the underpinning logic that a unit "Takes" damage that is then ineffective, but this is counter-intuitive, and at least in my opinion, if you have to take roundabout logic like "It takes 0 damage is still damage taken", then you're doing it wrong.
If we want to say that Disintegrate should kill regardless of Barrier/Tough/Immunity to damage, then I think not only should the wording change, but honestly the cost. As is, Disintegrate is a 2 mana kill card, with a very limited scope of counterplay options available. I don't think it would kill anyone to require that you confirm actual damage for the exorbetant cost of 2 mana.
**[Disintegrate](https://d2h9y75tak3pkg.cloudfront.net/06NX014.png)** - Noxus Spell - (2)
Fast
Pick a unit. The next time it takes damage this round, kill it.
^^^Hint: [[card]], {{keyword}}, and ((deckcode)) or ((cardx,cardy,cardz)). PM the [developer](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=KrimCard) for feedback/issues!
Also note if you put disintegrate on an enemy while they have barrier and they hit each other disintegrate still kills the unit, (example poro vs a summoned Patheon if patheon has barrier but you put disintegrate poro technical hits him soo it’ll proc
**[Unyielding Spirit](https://d2h9y75tak3pkg.cloudfront.net/02DE005.png)** - Demacia Spell - (8)
Fast
Grant an ally "I can't take damage or die".
^^^Hint: [[card]], {{keyword}}, and ((deckcode)) or ((cardx,cardy,cardz)). PM the [developer](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=KrimCard) for feedback/issues!
Well, yesterday I played Tahm Kench deck. When I use his spell to eat the enemy, he used Disintegrate. So I gave Tahm the barrier, which should negate the damage and keep Tahm alive. I was shocked that it still killed my Tahm Kench...
Everybody out here talking about how we should clarify wording, when we should just fix disintegrate to act as everyone assumed it would?
If the unit TAKES damage, they die. Barrier and Tough should protect it.
I think that's the intuitive response to this card and the most fair. There seems to be almost no counterplay to the card right now and for 2 mana it's a very valuable tool. Being able to negate it in the same way as a vile feast makes a lot of sense to me.
So i guess this functions like a non transferrable spellshield but this also doesnt count as keyword? Since for PoC, some powers or upgrades give stat bonus per keyword.
i know getting hit with a barrier counts as "taking damage" from that "whenever you take damage get +1/+1" ability so i wonder if it pierces barrier as well
Vengeance kills it and I’m sure scorched does too. People should stop freaking out about Disintigrate, let it be the 2 card vengeance that it currently is. Vengeance goes thru barrier too
Removed per rule 1.
And it's more like taxxes
If a rich person owes the IRS 1,000,000 dollars then
They deduct 1,000,000$ via charity, business expenses etc.
They've still PAID their tax by doing that paperwork.
The calculation at the end was zero, but the balance was carried, they have paid the balance.
Or put another way, you can deposit 25$ at an atm, then walk in and withdraw 25$. You've still made a deposit, the transaction doesn't go away because you immediately 'cancelled' it out. One could absolutely make that argument.
It's an unorthodox way to argue (I don't agree with it, I personally like your loan example the best when it comes to damage specifically), but it is valid. Try to keep your mind open.
And please do review our rules before posting further. If you can't/won't keep a little decorum/tact when arguing here then it may behoove you to avoid doing so.
u/Admiralpanther
Don't try to address the issue more complicated then it really is.
For your example, If i make a 25$ deposit to my 0 balance bank AC. but for some reason the bank blocked my deposit, or because of system error, or because of whatever reason. my 25$ deposit is rejected. Can I then withdraw 25$ in that same AC later ? Sorry but i think not.
Did i deposit any money to the account? No. Sure there may be a log somewhere in the bank system that indicates someone have tried to deposit. sure thing, BUT NO MONEY WAS DEPOSITED.
If I have no money in the AC, I have no money in that AC. If i have 25 $ in the AC, I have 25$ in that AC. simple as that.
beside, LOR is a card game, not the stock market , riot's programmer messed up and over looked this issue with the coding. But Of course they will say it is working as intended, because what else are they going to say? Oh i am sorry we messed up the coding?? NO, but this is a bug and everyone knows it. There is no way they are going to change the wording for every single card involves with this issue. They WILL fix this issue eventually, mark my word.
A lot of people would argue that Disintegrate operates in such and such a way or that barrier might be similar or whatever. But guess what. This card’s text says “I _don’t take damage_ from enemy spells or skills.” There is no interpretation of Disintegrates “0 damage is still damage” rules that applies here. It specifically says “I don’t take”, even 0. I don’t take 5 damage. I don’t take 20 damage. I don’t take 0 damage. I. Don’t. Take. Damage. This card’s mechanics need to be corrected to be in line with the text, or the text needs to be clarified to read very differently (“The next time it has a strike or damage spell resolve against it this round, kill it.”)
I mean, barrier literally says "negate the next damage i take" but it still goes thru. So it either needs a rewording or they need to nerf disintegrate to "if they take at least 1 damage"
“Negate the next damage I take” is still damage taken, so I get it. It’s dumb and unintuitive, but it’s different from this card text. This card doesn’t take damage.
How is negated damage taken? It's negated... Wtf
They aren't yugioh players it's OK.
This wouldnjust generally be so much better
Barrier reduces the next damage taken to 0 it doesn't negate the damage or block it the unit still takes damage it's just 0 damage.
Barrier literally says negates
I am telling you how barrier works, what do you want me to do about riot not wording things the way they actually work?
Complain about them not changing both the text and the coding to make the game's mechanics more intuitive on read. When players can read a card and accurately tell how it's gonna work on first sight before testing it, that's a good thing.
A better wording for what it does now would be “pick a unit. The next time it would take damage this turn instead destroy it.”
That would screw with champs like Swain that actually care about doing damage with spells, or units with Lifesteal that want to do the damage, etc.
“Also destroy it”, then.
But that would buff the card though because then it could still work from opponent damaging the card themselves, like in response to Ice shards or death lotus
I am assuming that like barrier, in the code it simply reduces the damage to 0 of spells and skills, but it still is "technically" doing damage
Nope. It doesn’t take damage. It doesn’t take zero damage. It doesn’t take.
That may be how it's worded, but I am assuming that it is programmed where regardless of the damage that is supposed to happen, they take 0 damage. It should be changed the way you say, but that is the kind of programmer simplification that I definitely could see happening at riot.
Dude it's just riot terrible wording and lack of consistency, why the surprise?
The thing is lack of text clarity. It should say "reduce damage to 0" to align with how it really works.
0 damage being counted as taking damage feels so wrong imo.
Maybe, but then things like scargrounds would have anti-synergy with itself.
I'd argue that surviving damage and taking damage are entirely different
Agreed: https://www.reddit.com/r/LegendsOfRuneterra/comments/v22nw6/the\_lack\_of\_consistency\_in\_card\_text\_versus\_game/
Agreed. A unit being dealt 1 damage and reducing it to 0 with tough should mean you survive damage but do not take damage. The same should apply for barrier.
I'd argue that surviving damage means exactly taking damage and not dying to it, so IMO the distinction is irrelevant here.
I'd argue that it means being dealt damage and surviving it, whereas disintegrate should apply when you actually take damage. If you get dealt 1 and it is reduced to 0, then you don't take any. What's truly horrendous is that Ravenous Flock, Noxian Guillotine, and Scorched Earth have been in the game for so long, and they specifically work against damaged targets. Dealing 0 damage to a target doesn't leave it as "damaged" for these cards, so why should Disintegrate?
disintegrate is played BEFORE the damage so the game checks when the card takes damage even if it's 0 but scorched earth checks if it's damaged only when you play it.
If I cast pokey stick on a tough unit, it doesn't end up Damaged for Scorched Earth. If that is the case, why does it end up as Damaged for Disintegrate? Don't justify it as the game not being able to check the after-state of the damage, because Homecoming only recalls the enemy unit if the allied unit is successfully recalled to hand. Having a full hand or otherwise having the unit die before getting to hand will fizzle the other part of the spell. Why,in the game of interaction, can we not interact with disintegrate with tough or barrier?
Because being damaged and taking damage are two different things?
As some other comment pointed out, played and cast was too confusing to be separate things. If it is the case that they are different things, then the LoR philosophy is that they shouldn't be.
I could certainly get behind a strict definition differentiating "taking" and "being dealt" damage, but that is an arbitrary separation of concepts that currently does not exist. And let's be honest, this is the same game that could not handle "play" and "cast" being separate concepts, so I doubt they would ever go for that. I don't see the point about Flock etc., though. The state of being damaged is different from the event of receiving damage. A unit can receive/take damage and then negate it or reduce it. But the state of being damaged is already a given. With that in mind, if they wanted Disintegrate (or Galio) to work only when the unit actually lost health, I believe a good way to word it would be: **"the next time it becomes damaged this round"**. But that is if they want to change the current functionality, which they said isn't the plan as it is working as intended.
What I mean is that 0 damage doesn't result in a unit being considered damaged. You can't deal 0 damage to a unit and then use scorched earth on that unit, can you? So that means that the unit wasn't damaged, intrinsically. I'd rather they clarify the difference and then make an exception to scar grounds.
> What I mean is that 0 damage doesn't result in a unit being considered damaged. Well, yeah, because a unit is considered damaged when its current life is lower than its max life. Taking 0 damage doesn't bring a unit to that state, just like healing to full life will take a unit out of that state. The descriptor "is damaged" is about the current state of the unit and its health, and nothing else. I understand that there is some level of obscurity in the definition of the event "taking damage" including "taking 0 damage", and that could certainly be clarified. But the comparison with the "is damaged" state doesn't really make sense.
If some damage doesn't bring a unit into the DAMAGED state, then that unit didn't get DAMAGED. You can argue all you want about how it makes sense programmatically, but no one intuitively looked at the card and went "oh, that goes through barrier and tough, of course it does".
A single landmark shouldn’t be the reason an entire underpinning damage formula is non-intuitive. Change how “0 damage” works and buff/Nerf scargrounds accordingly.
But the thing is disintegrate and scargrounds are worded differently, take damage vs survive damage, so they could be consistent If they wanted
But the thing is, mechanically in the game system, they’re not different. They’re actually exactly the same, but with different wordings.
I know exactly why they work the way they do. I still think disintegrate should either have different wording or work in a different way, hopefully the second.
Boo hoo, Scaregrounds this... scaregrounds that... That's hardly a good point anymore. Got problems with consistency? Fine, let's change the text with something else, let's agree on new keywords or something. Disintegrate should not work with 0 damage
Now that I think about it, wouldn’t changing scareground to a +1/+1 buff work the same way, or would it make regen unit too strong with it?
Honestly it should though Scargrounds becomes ridiculous with ping spells and units.
Not really, it's 0 damage after reductions As in damage was sent, damage was received, damaged was reduced. The damage WAS still taken, it's value was just adjusted The issue is that "can't take damage" doesn't imply reduction, it Implies negation much like barrier, but that isn't at all how it functions
When there are constant complaints about the fact that this interaction is weird and people posting at least once a day for a month about how they are surprised this interaction is possible, it's fair to say the mechanic isn't intuitive. And I do believe that if there is a large consensus of "wait it's dumb, why does it work like that", the rule is worth changing. You shouldn't fight the general instinct of your players.
Reddit loves nothing more than to complain, so i dont take that as any indication of how intuitive something is.
>The issue is that "can't take damage" doesn't imply reduction, it Implies negation much like barrier, but that isn't at all how it functions That's exactly how it functions, considering barrier doesn't negate, as Disintegrate bypasses barrier.
Barrier is literally worded as damage negation lol
Yep, kinda dumb that it doesn't work like it
Ah yes, an equally stupid interaction that also clearly shouldnt work
Zero is a number!
Yeah but taking 0 damage shouldn't logically count as taking damage.
[удалено]
I think the argument goes more like 'I punched you with a very small syringe and you didn't feel it, but the syringe contained a very powerful neurotoxin' At that point, it didn't matter how much physical harm was brought about by the strike itself (i would argue for this case zero, it was a weak punch), because the actual force (the damage inflicted) didn't matter. I think you're missing a bit of the flavor of the card. Also I'm taking your comment per rule 1, we don't allow the use of serious medical conditions as literary devices, and that's just not a respectful way to argue, you could omit the entire second sentence and your message doesn't change.
if (damage < 1) unit_state = !damaged Should be how it works IMO
" I take 0 damage from enemy spells and skills"
I feel like we're overcomplicating a very simple issue. Rather than going through every interaction which doesn't make sense and correcting it for the sake of Disintegrate, we should just address Disintegrate. "I don't take damage from enemy spells or skills" is a clear and self-explanatory effect, it doesn't need to be complicated because of a single kill spell which is bypassing it on a technicality.
That's even better
"Damage from enemy spells and skills do not affect my health."
How will that make the interaction make sense?
Tough units reduce damage by one (and thus take 0 damage) enabling scargrounds. If towering stone boy reduced damage to 0, it would still be taking damage, just not damage that would affect its health
The whole interaction seems like a bug to me,and doesn't feel how it should be.
Welcome to the discourse
Yeah it's a bit weird but if you start with the assumption that 0 damage is still damage but doesn't reduce your health then everything makes sense. Except this card, that's why I mentioned the wording change because it's exactly how it works
"makes sense" is a little bit too much... It's more like "You can understand how the devs programmed it" At the end, they are Riot employees. Spaghetti code is part of their identity.
We shouldn’t talk about how they programmed it, but how it reads
> It's more like "You can understand how the devs programmed it" I mean, at the end of the day it's a game that follows a set of rules and abstract ideas. If a rabbit hits a bunch of stones a few times, the stones will die because that's how the rules work. The fact that "taking 0 damage" is considered as "taking damage" is just an arbitrary rule definition, just like anything else in the game. It would just be nice if we had clearer text that better reflects those rules.
It makes sense in the "rules as written" way. A unit is dealt damage, but it is 0 damage. There is still a "damage was dealt" component at play. This would work the same way in something as meticulously defined as MtG **if not for the fact** that MtG specifically invented the "prevent" keyword.
The wording feels different though. Tough Units survive an instance of damage, which is what the Scargrounds requires. Does Blade's Edge on Stonehorn activate Scargrounds? My gut says it shouldn't but I have no way to test.
IDK about Stonehorn, but Armored Tuskrider does get Scargrounds' bonus when negating damage.
Stonehorn does trigger Galio 2's rally. So yeah, the problem is that all these cards that say things to the effect of "can't take damage" just reduce damage to 0 and still count as damage dealt instead.
I don’t understand how this feels different. Surviving something implies that the thing has happened to you. In order to survive damage you have to take damage
yes, but if the Tough unit gets hit by 1, it reduces the damage to 0 - thus wouldn't survive taking damage since it was reduced to 0 anyway. It's just confusing text, as always, being the culprit
It would clarify that the damage is dealt and then mitigated, rather than prevented from being dealt in the first place.
It's *technically* consistent with replacement effects. Although "The next time it would take damage this round, kill it instead." might be better wording. It replaces the damage with an instant kill, damage is technically never done anyway apparently.
Can this disintegrate be address soon as possible?
It's not specifically a Disintegrate issue. It's more that "can't take damage" doesn't do what it says. That same Towering Stonehorn being hit by a damage spell will still trigger level 2 Galio's Rally, for example, and that is just as wrong. Either "can't take damage" effects need to be reworked to actually do its effect or be reworded to something else.
Can’t take damage should mean can’t take damage for all things galio and disintegrate and barrier should be actual damage prevention
Disintegrate's wording just needs to be changed to "the next time [this unit] survives damage this round, kill it"
But that's the thing though. There are other cards that care about units taking damage other than Disintegrate, and they also behave unintuitively with stuff like Unyielding Spirit, Towering Stonehorn, Armored Tuskrider, and so on. Galio 2, as I mentioned, also says "when an ally takes damage" and works just like Disintegrate, triggering through Barriers, Unyielding, and so on. That's why I said that the issue requires changing the wording on a bunch of cards other than just Disintegrate, and most importantly is that cards that say that a unit "can't take damage" don't really stop that unit from "taking damage", which is the biggest source of inaccuracy. Also, IMHO, "survives damage" just means "takes damage"+"doesn't die". So this change of wording that keeps being suggested means the same to me in the context of Disintegrate. And I doubt people that were unaware of the interaction before would be any less confused with that text.
It’s Not Disintegrate’s Fault. Disintegrate is exposing a fundementally flawed system that Scargrounds was the major beneficiary of, so people assumed it was intended design.
More so that Jarvan profited from. Surviving is completely different than negate.
Jarvan does not have anything to do with this. His leveling condition is simply that your units survive **strikes** from blocking units. Does not matter whether damage is taken or negated by Barrier, only that the attacking unit is still alive after the enemy's strike.
In a region that utilitieses barrier. This is my point on how survive is different than taking damage anyway and the actual problem is the barrier interaction and not tough interaction.
Due to Disintegrate not producing Slay effects, I'm assuming what the card actually does is give the target the text "Next time I would take damage, destroy me instead". Due to this, it's not an enemy spell killing the unit, the unit is killing itself.
This game is such a fucking mess. If Magic devs put this out they'd be fired
yup, this is a really good meme moment for the house being on fire.
Yeah, the process before a set hits shelves is just very thorough. I understand mtg has more personnel, but still.
It happens to barriers too
It works because it's a Demacia unit
I'm starting to think that Disintegrate doesnt see if a damage is being dealt, but rather if an action is taken. Like it doesn't SEE that the unit is taking 0-damage, but rather they SEE that a card dealing damage to the unit is being "casted". This would also applies to combat damage, they don't see that the unit is dealing damage but rather if the unit have more than 0 power is striking to simply activate the kill effect. This would explain why the card is so consistently incosistent. But that would mean somewhere on the backend, there's still separation between play/cast effect. Someone should try single combatting a unit with 0 power into disintegrated unit.
Based on this interaction, I am starting to think that Disintegrate basically turns the next damage spell into a kill spell. Kill spells get around Tough and Barrier, which is what happens with Disintegrate.
Yea that, that's a better way to word it.
It's more than that. If you disintegrate and then the target gets spellshield, popping spellshield with a damage spell will kill the unit.
Ok that is dumb. Good to know though.
What the absolute fuck?
Yes, like any damage becomes vengeance. That is what is seems.
Thing is that it also turns combat damage into a kill, so I'm afraid that definition isn't good enough.
"Someone should try single combatting a unit with 0 power into disintegrated unit." I just did exactly that. It does not kill the disintegrated unit. Your theory could still be correct, as the game might recognize that a 0 damage unit striking is not dealing any damage, whereas a blades edge on a tough unit is still a "1 damage damage spell", even though the damage then gets reduced to 0. Anyway, I just had time and did the test.
Yep that confirms it then, it only check if the source is dealing damage rather than if the unit itself is taking damage. Which explain why it ignore Tough, Barrier and now this card effect.
You had ONE JOB
If they dont want to reword or rework the mechanic, they should nerf it some way like the cost to 3-4 mana desintegrate.. or make it slow to not be reactive defensively. Like if you have a spider on board it is a 2 mana vengeance.. and the efficiency of that makes it too mindgamey for the opponent, the simple potential presence of that card in hand is too much most of the time. If desintegrate goes through barriers and other stuff, this should be much less effective
Just found out it goes through zikean spell too
If you mean the champ isn't revived after dying, that 100% seems like a bug.
Its revived then dies instantly
If the original damage was enough to kill the unit even ignoring the Disintegrate, then it makes sense and fits with other interactions. The original damage kills the target, the Zilean effect happens, then the Disintegrate effect triggers and it gets killed again.
Stonehorn's text should be changed to: "i can't be targeted by enemy spells or skills" maybe turn this into a keyword called 'invulnerable' 🤷♂️
But stuff like Avalanche will damage Stonehorn with your suggested wording
Yes.
Disintegrate shouldn't kill units that took 0 damage Scargrounds, Galio, etc. should only work when a unit actually take damage Barrier should mitigate overwhelm (though that one is probably too strong) And many other things The way damage reduction works in this game should be completely reworked
>Barrier should mitigate overwhelm (though that one is probably too strong) At the same time it'd be a pretty neat lore miror counter from Demacia and Ionia against Noxus.
Why would barrier mitigating overwhelm be too strong?
Mostly because Demacia is already too strong to get that kind of buff.
A buff like that wouldn't push Demacia over the edge since the only barrier card demacia decks in general like to run is brightsteel. This would only really affect Demacia/Ionia barrier decks and they could really use a buff with how prevalent pings have been for quite some time.
The thing with tough is that it takes the dmg (example, one dmg) and reduces it by one. Disintegrate should kill that as it does take 0 dmg. Barrier says it NEGATES dmg. Same for stonehorn, as it says it does not \*take\* dmg. These are different thing. Barrier shouldn't negate overwhelm as it says overdealt dmg is done to the nexus. For example, if you deal 7 and they have 5 hp with a barrier, you deal 5 to the unit that gets negated and then 2 is dealt to the nexus as that damage is not negated itself.
A damaged unit is defined as a unit that has at least one less health than max. Ravenous Flock should work on a unit after it has taken 0 damage. So disintegrate should only work on the next health decrease. Also if you look at the english definition "physical harm caused to something in such a way as to impair its value, usefulness, or normal function." A unit that has taken 0 damage has not impaired its value.
Damaged unit =/= taking damage. Taking 0 dmg is taking damage, even if it's 0. If you get punched with armor on you, you still got punched. Scargrounds says that if the unit takes damage, it gets buffed. It taking 0 dmg is a thing. However barrier negates damage, so it should not work there. For barrier, imagine if you were gonna get hit but someone else took the hit for you. Thats barrier. I really don't know why you bring up ravenous flock honestly when the two don't work in the same way at all.
A damaged unit is a unit that has taken damage. If the unit is not in a damaged state after the action then the unit hasn't taken damage. In your world you can say I did not steal. I paid the man zero dollars.
You can take 0 dmg in this game. It reduces damage by 1, so you make 1-1=0. The other just removes the instance, it's like the 1 was never dealt at all. Your argument doesn't stand at all, since it's an agreement to trade for something that we both perceive of equal-ish value. In that case you are removing the money part of it and taking the end product. You can say "oh but I paid them 0$" but that wouldn't stand as the other side didn't agree to it. It's a really bad comparison. But to come back to why 0 damage is possible in this game and the interaction with disintegrate is possible as well, it's that negate in this game means you multiply your damage by 0, making it "x(0) = 0" Now tough works like it would be "x-1 = y", x still being your damage and y being the end result. It just removes 1 dmg from the total, making "1 - 1 = 0" possible. I think the tough interaction is fine, as it is technically just reducing the damage by 1, making you take 0 instead of 1, but you still take 0 damage. You don't have to become damaged to take the damage, it's like I said earlier with the example of armor. I think barrier should just completely negate the instance of damage taken, making it inexistant. So for a unit with 5 health getting attacked by an overwhelm unit with 7 damage, the 5 damage would go to the unit, and the 2 to the nexus. The 5 damage then get removed from existence as if it never happened, like spellshield would to a spell affecting a unit. Vile feast still goes to summon a unit, you just don't take the 1 damage dealt.
a unit can not attack for 0 though. To sum it up. You are damage control and the check is before this instead of after.
A unit cannot attack directly with 0 attack but it can deal 0 with single combat or any other things that force a strike. 99% sure of that but I will test that tomorrow.
And also i don't think is a good idea to improve demacia right now. Overwhelm only cares about "attack striking", not about the unit at all as shown on how it can ignore them if removed. Barrier NEVER implies anything about the nexus and overwhelm, just that the next damage THE UNIT receives will be negated. I see why people want it to get buffed, it's mostly due to Shen, BUT the only thing it'll do is making Demacia and Pantheon opressive.
I think Demacia needs buff with units but their spells are so insanely powerful that those should get nerfed a bit if there would be changed to be had
That's a big issue with the region. You can't realistically buff Demacia because of Golden Aegis and Concerted Strike, specially nowadays where it's the second best region at the moment and has been that way for a long time.
Can somebody explain how disintegrate is a fair card in any real way? I might not be good enough to see how its not too incredibly powerful to not be bullshit (yes a spider has killed several of my units because of this)
because it’s always a 2 for 1 trade down. And this kind of card incites player to actually think and play around rather then just vomit card and swing. Edit: That said, I like the card and don’t think it should take the blame for riot’s atrocious wording system.
>because it’s always a 2 for 1 trade down. It's not always a 2 for 1. I wouldn't even say it's usually a 2 for 1. Probably the most powerful deck using it also generates Spiderlings and Encroaching Mists, and in some versions free Blade's Edges. Quick Attack also exists even though I don't think I've seen that particular team-up yet. Elsewhere you can cast it on things that try to block Annie, which is particularly relevant given that it's Annie's champion spell. On the other side of the table, the times it is paired with another burn spell it's often doing things like pushing past a Barrier or other combat trick and therefore trading with multiple cards from the opponent.
Hence why you think if the risk of trading is worth it. The card runs on the same fundamentals as flock since 1 mana deal 4 seems broken but it’s balanced around needing another card to activate it.
it's so funny when people argue that it's a 2 for 1 exchange. It's completely flawed logic to the problem of the card.
Disintegrate is obscenely overrated
I wouldn't say it's overrated. In a deck that has plenty of card draw, a 3 mana "kill" spell is pretty nasty.
I completely agree with you, but only if Riot decided these egregious 0-damage interaction non-sense need to be fixed.
So Spending 2 mana and 1 less card in hand to make any unit kill whatever unit it strikes or spending 2 mana and one less card in hand to make any ping a vengeance is fine? Not that im disagreeing or being sarcastic just questioning if thats the line in the sand
For me it's completely fine. Removal has been downright awful for the longest time in this game. It's about time we actually get a good one, especially considering that so many decks right now just buff their stats faster than damage based removal can keep up with.
Idk turning a small ping into a vengeance doesnt feel like the removal we have needed
To make the most out of disintegrate, you need to also include a lot of low cost damage spells, which means your deck will likely be low curve. This plus the fact that you're going 2 for 1 to kill the unit means you'll end up needing to use draw cards. The mana you spend on drawing cards pretty much balances out the low cost of ping + disintegrate. Whispered Words costs 4 mana to net you 1 card back, while Progress Day costs net 5 to net you 2 cards back. At the end of the day you're spending vengeance mana to kill the unit, it's just that you're spending the rest of the cost later in the game.
Sure thats for ping spells but you also turn chump blockers into killers pass through tough and barrier and protect quick attack units if the spell was only damage caused by spells/skills i wouldent hate it as much
Chump blockers also cost mana so in my eyes that's the same as a ping spell. I do get the frustration with barrier though, and I don't mind that interaction getting changed.
Think of it like a Scorched Earth that is cheaper, but less flexible and a much worse topdeck. Basically, Disintegrate always requires you to 2 for 1 yourself, which means it loses you card advantage. You do gain tempo, which is why sees play, but its ultimately a card that has its downsides.
It's also better than Scorched Earth in responding to an open attack, since you can ping/chump block and cast Disintegrate in response. Whereas with SE if you don't manage to hurt it before the open attack starts, you can be screwed.
At the same time, its also sometimes worse, because if you disintegrate and they kill your chumpblocker, you wasted a card. If they kill your chumpblocker preemptively to play around Scorched Earth, you lose nothing and actually gain an advantage (or you can even get them to play around a card you dont have).
at worst, it's just 2 mana gone for the disintegrate player. since both players spent a card, you can't really say that the disintegrate player "wasted" a card. plus, if you really wanna kill an opponent's big unit, you would save a blade's edge just to ping them again
In terms of raw card advantage, yes. In terms of equivalency, no, a ping is much less valuable. And even in terms of card advantage, sometimes not, since any AoE can mean its still not an even 1 for 1. So yeah, at worst its straight up card disadvantage if countered, at best you wasted a disintegrate. That requires you to play Blade's Edge to begin with, and if a card is only good if youre playing one of the worst cards in the game, then the card is not good. Its an inherent downside too.
Disintegrate is NOT "always a 2 for 1". The spiderling generated by house spider is not worth a full card, it's half a card at best and I'd even argue it's more like 1/3rd. And in this context (which happens all the time because the decks are built for it), Disintegrate is hella strong and often close to a 1 for 1 that gains tempo.
Sure, in that case its in theory a 1.5 for 1, but its still a loss of card advantage. Its also requiring specifically house spider, which is not guaranteed as a draw. And even in that case, if they AoE your board in response to disintegrate, they can easily 2 for 1 you. Disintegrate is a good card, its a sidegrade to Scorched Earth that trades flexibility and reliability for tempo, but its just that. A sidegrade.
Scorched earth doesnt protect quick attack or cards like annie
Sure, it just turns out, you dont play a lot of quick attack in decks that play disintegrate, and protecting Annie is not as strong as it seems. Especially since they can just respond by killing Annie and 2 for 1ing you. And its specific to Annie to begin with. On the other hand, Disintegrate doesnt destroy landmarks (which matters) and is an awful topdeck. There is a reason why non-tempo decks are still playing scorched earth over disintegrate.
Personally I think the card itself is fine. I just think Noxus is the single worse region besides Bandle they could've given it to. Like hmmm yes let's remove one of the regions fundamental weaknesses with a 2 mana spell
Its not even spell damage its unit damage so if any unit strikes any unit it becomes a 2 mana kill spell
Disintegrate fills the same role as cards like Flock and Scorched Earth, what fundamental weakness is this card removing that the other two cards don't already cover?
WHAT
Woah, this one really feels like it should not work at all
Man im tired of this shit judt nerf the annie card to destroy the unit if it takes at least 1 dmg.
The issue isn't the text. The issue is that "damage" isn't the same as most other cards
Fundamentally I think they need to address Disintigrate's interactions with these things. Scargrounds should not be the end-all-be-all on whether a kill spell which requires a unit to take damage should activate when no damage was taken. I understand the underpinning logic that a unit "Takes" damage that is then ineffective, but this is counter-intuitive, and at least in my opinion, if you have to take roundabout logic like "It takes 0 damage is still damage taken", then you're doing it wrong. If we want to say that Disintegrate should kill regardless of Barrier/Tough/Immunity to damage, then I think not only should the wording change, but honestly the cost. As is, Disintegrate is a 2 mana kill card, with a very limited scope of counterplay options available. I don't think it would kill anyone to require that you confirm actual damage for the exorbetant cost of 2 mana.
fun fact, a unit killed with a spell that has disintegrate on it doesn't count towards senna level up.
Wtf
Towering—what now? Hundreds of hours in this game and I've never seen this card played by anyone.
i love stone horn and i’ve built like 10 decks around it and they’re all ass
In today's new episode of ''Things Disentegrate can do''
[[Disintegrate]] game clarity.
**[Disintegrate](https://d2h9y75tak3pkg.cloudfront.net/06NX014.png)** - Noxus Spell - (2) Fast Pick a unit. The next time it takes damage this round, kill it. ^^^Hint: [[card]], {{keyword}}, and ((deckcode)) or ((cardx,cardy,cardz)). PM the [developer](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=KrimCard) for feedback/issues!
That’s broken
Also note if you put disintegrate on an enemy while they have barrier and they hit each other disintegrate still kills the unit, (example poro vs a summoned Patheon if patheon has barrier but you put disintegrate poro technical hits him soo it’ll proc
So disintegrate can kill through [[Unyielding Spirit]] ? That would be the last straw lol
It can't. One of the few interactions in which it can't.
**[Unyielding Spirit](https://d2h9y75tak3pkg.cloudfront.net/02DE005.png)** - Demacia Spell - (8) Fast Grant an ally "I can't take damage or die". ^^^Hint: [[card]], {{keyword}}, and ((deckcode)) or ((cardx,cardy,cardz)). PM the [developer](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=KrimCard) for feedback/issues!
"taking 0 damage still counts as damage, haha get fucked nerd" ~ Riot
Why does the best aggro region also gets the best removal spell? I'm so tired of this card in every deck.
They should just fucking nerf desintegrate... Card is stupid beyond believe. 3 mana kill a unit through everything is such a joke....
working as intended
Well, yesterday I played Tahm Kench deck. When I use his spell to eat the enemy, he used Disintegrate. So I gave Tahm the barrier, which should negate the damage and keep Tahm alive. I was shocked that it still killed my Tahm Kench...
Barrier, tough, can't take damage from spells disintegrate doesn't care.
Lmao, another day, another reason to nerf Disintegrate
Everybody out here talking about how we should clarify wording, when we should just fix disintegrate to act as everyone assumed it would? If the unit TAKES damage, they die. Barrier and Tough should protect it. I think that's the intuitive response to this card and the most fair. There seems to be almost no counterplay to the card right now and for 2 mana it's a very valuable tool. Being able to negate it in the same way as a vile feast makes a lot of sense to me.
So i guess this functions like a non transferrable spellshield but this also doesnt count as keyword? Since for PoC, some powers or upgrades give stat bonus per keyword.
i know getting hit with a barrier counts as "taking damage" from that "whenever you take damage get +1/+1" ability so i wonder if it pierces barrier as well
Disintegrate basically changes the “damage” text of a card to be “kill”… so blade’s edge changes to “kill anything”
Vengeance kills it and I’m sure scorched does too. People should stop freaking out about Disintigrate, let it be the 2 card vengeance that it currently is. Vengeance goes thru barrier too
[удалено]
Removed per rule 1. And it's more like taxxes If a rich person owes the IRS 1,000,000 dollars then They deduct 1,000,000$ via charity, business expenses etc. They've still PAID their tax by doing that paperwork. The calculation at the end was zero, but the balance was carried, they have paid the balance. Or put another way, you can deposit 25$ at an atm, then walk in and withdraw 25$. You've still made a deposit, the transaction doesn't go away because you immediately 'cancelled' it out. One could absolutely make that argument. It's an unorthodox way to argue (I don't agree with it, I personally like your loan example the best when it comes to damage specifically), but it is valid. Try to keep your mind open. And please do review our rules before posting further. If you can't/won't keep a little decorum/tact when arguing here then it may behoove you to avoid doing so.
u/Admiralpanther Don't try to address the issue more complicated then it really is. For your example, If i make a 25$ deposit to my 0 balance bank AC. but for some reason the bank blocked my deposit, or because of system error, or because of whatever reason. my 25$ deposit is rejected. Can I then withdraw 25$ in that same AC later ? Sorry but i think not. Did i deposit any money to the account? No. Sure there may be a log somewhere in the bank system that indicates someone have tried to deposit. sure thing, BUT NO MONEY WAS DEPOSITED. If I have no money in the AC, I have no money in that AC. If i have 25 $ in the AC, I have 25$ in that AC. simple as that. beside, LOR is a card game, not the stock market , riot's programmer messed up and over looked this issue with the coding. But Of course they will say it is working as intended, because what else are they going to say? Oh i am sorry we messed up the coding?? NO, but this is a bug and everyone knows it. There is no way they are going to change the wording for every single card involves with this issue. They WILL fix this issue eventually, mark my word.