Energy and Damaging Evasive Moves

Frosty

Frosty

=_=
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top Community Contributor Alumnus
dogfish44 said:
Can we open a discussion on the EN Cost for Suspended Damaging Evasive moves? And, heck, D/E moves in general. They're roughly as clear as mud, especially with regards to Cons EN Cost, and how we split the EN Costs (Including interactions with STAB EN in both there as well).
Click to expand...

Points to discuss:
1) Should the energy used be divided on the evasive part and the damaging part? Or should it be spent only on one of those phases?
2) How should Consecutive Energy Cost interact with the above?
3) If the D/E move is suspended on one action for the damage to happen on the following one, does consecutive energy cost apply?
4) other related stuff I forgot.

Discuss.
 
1: I always reffed it as using EN on the damaging part. I don't know if this is correct, but its how ive reffed it for the 8 months ive been here and ive never been corrected on it so......
2: I always slapped on the consecutive EN cost on the damaging part as well, see #1
3: Once again, I always slapped on consecutive EN cost on as well even for suspended, I always assumed this was correct ._.
4: nothing is springing to my head atm
 
The two topics I brought this up for in particular are;

Current split EN on Evade and Strike

Right now we split move EN Costs to be 50% on the Evade, and 50% on the Strike. The thing is, this has bugger all codification when it comes to Dig (Suspend) etc. - do we pay for the Suspend, then pay just 50% EN on the strike, or does suspending the strike mean you use 100% EN on the strike? We also have bugger all codification when it comes to STAB EN Reduction even in standard scenarios - when is it applied in this 50% cut?

Consecutive EN between Suspend and Strike

Does the penalty apply? This is simple enough.
 
Evasive Damaging Moves cost 6 EN to suspend and if suspended further, costs 6+4(x-1) EN. Though the latter needs to be codified. If there is a last ditch before faint dig, it is 6 EN for the evade, 4 EN or whatever for the hit. For STAB, it reduces the cost of the evasive part of the description.

For consecutive EN penalty, its 6+4(x-1) EN for suspending and there is no consecutive penalty on the hit. If you go to use Dig/Fly/Dive again the next action, then the hit will have consecutive EN penalty applied (x+4 EN) while the suspend would not on the first suspend action.

It seems crystal clear to me what the mechanics are though it may or may not be completely codified. Though I admit it is not crystal clear to everyone so this is just me stating the mechanics pretty much.

==============

Though why Phantom Force costs 12 EN while Fly costs 11 EN despite the former having similarities to Bounce and both having 9 BAP is beyond me. But that is more pedantry than anything.
 
This is hardly relevant to the major point of this topic, but I'm okay with Phantom Force remaining at 1 EN higher cost than Fly due to the fact that nothing hits through Phantom Force while a decent lot of things can hit through Fly.
 
deadfox081 said:
This is hardly relevant to the major point of this topic, but I'm okay with Phantom Force remaining at 1 EN higher cost than Fly due to the fact that nothing hits through Phantom Force while a decent lot of things can hit through Fly.
Click to expand...

Phantom Force also hits through p/e moves, which makes it even better.
 
Right now we split move EN Costs to be 50% on the Evade, and 50% on the Strike.
Click to expand...

Just for the record, we don't do that. Or at least that is not even close to be uniformed. I, for one, only deduct energy on the attacking part and I know many other people that do the same. This point was brought up more than once, but we never decided anything about it.
 
Handbook said:
Damaging Evasive moves consume half of the energy cost on the evasive part and half on the damaging part. Charge moves consume all of the energy cost on the damaging part. Focus Punch consumes all of its energy on the charge part.
Click to expand...

I just follow this para from the handbook. And apply all modifiers before the moves energy cost is divided into half.
 
....I don't remember that decision being made. And the biggest proof that this change wasn't decided is how people do the old-fashioned way -_-.

I don't care either way, but I am inclined to put that matter on discussion and voting simply because it would be better if a change like this is done in a more official manner.
 
Frosty said:
....I don't remember that decision being made. And the biggest proof that this change wasn't decided is how people do the old-fashioned way -_-.

I don't care either way, but I am inclined to put that matter on discussion and voting simply because it would be better if a change like this is done in a more official manner.
Click to expand...
I do recall that decision being made through policy. It was just a somewhat controversial and somewhat convoluted one so a lot of people couldn't be bothered to split it up in the calcs.
 
It was discussed yeah. I remember that. I even remember splitting the calcs for a small while after that discussion.

But the discussion didn't result in a voting and in a decision. It was just a discussion. There weren't any official result of it. Which is why I eventually returned to putting all EN on the attacking phase, even though I feel spliting makes sense.
 
That is because the policy change pre-dated the ASB Council and was fiated by Deck/SDS/Alch??? (Well I do not remember it being brought up during the council era, correct me if I am wrong)

Though the policy change is only relevant for the last-ditch situation. Though I thought it was 6 or five/x as opposed to half/half.

That said, that is the only real issue I see that needs to be looked at.
 
Its_A_Random said:
Evasive Damaging Moves cost 6 EN to suspend and if suspended further, costs 6+4(x-1) EN. Though the latter needs to be codified. If there is a last ditch before faint dig, it is 6 EN for the evade, 4 EN or whatever for the hit. For STAB, it reduces the cost of the evasive part of the description.

For consecutive EN penalty, its 6+4(x-1) EN for suspending and there is no consecutive penalty on the hit. If you go to use Dig/Fly/Dive again the next action, then the hit will have consecutive EN penalty applied (x+4 EN) while the suspend would not on the first suspend action.

It seems crystal clear to me what the mechanics are though it may or may not be completely codified. Though I admit it is not crystal clear to everyone so this is just me stating the mechanics pretty much.
Click to expand...
So we are basically doing this and calling it a day?

Well apart from the whole half/half or 6/4 shebang and even then all that needs is just a simple agreement.
 
Its_A_Random said:
So we are basically doing this and calling it a day?

Well apart from the whole half/half or 6/4 shebang and even then all that needs is just a simple agreement.
Click to expand...

This has been implemented into the NDA as a clarification, following some justifiable confusion on the matter. And that I've had the same question in my inbox 3 times.

Do we need to formally vote on 6/4|5 (Fly is 6/5 by fiat of 'because I said so for it's 11 EN') or half/half, just out of interest? Or can we leave this as is and wrap it up.
 
Its_A_Random said:
Evasive Damaging Moves cost 6 EN to suspend and if suspended further, costs 6+4(x-1) EN. Though the latter needs to be codified. If there is a last ditch before faint dig, it is 6 EN for the evade, 4 EN or whatever for the hit. For STAB, it reduces the cost of the evasive part of the description.

For consecutive EN penalty, its 6+4(x-1) EN for suspending and there is no consecutive penalty on the hit. If you go to use Dig/Fly/Dive again the next action, then the hit will have consecutive EN penalty applied (x+4 EN) while the suspend would not on the first suspend action.

It seems crystal clear to me what the mechanics are though it may or may not be completely codified. Though I admit it is not crystal clear to everyone so this is just me stating the mechanics pretty much.
Click to expand...

How does this work with combinations?
eg, Dig -> Quick Attack+Dig
or Tackle -> Dig+Dig

Thread necro because I'm edgy af
 
Wow rude.

Uh, as for rulings - there are a few options?

- Calculate the total EN cost, then the suspend costs 6 EN, and the end costs the rest
- Calculate the total EN cost, then the suspend costs 9 EN, and the end costs the rest
- Calculate the total EN cost, then the suspend costs 60% of the EN, and the end costs the rest

Honestly we should just split them all to be 50/50 on EN and then apply that logic. But w/e, ideas.
 
I think we should go with:
- Calculate the total EN cost, then the suspend costs 60% of the EN, and the end costs the rest

This is for sheer consistency with the rule in the handbook: "Damaging Evasive moves consume half of the energy cost on the evasive part and half on the damaging part, unless otherwise stated in the move description."
Since Dig says something different for how the cost of the attack is split, a combination involving it should also split the cost with the same percentages.

Alternately making all D/E moves 50/50 on EN consumption just ultimately makes all of our lives easier.
 
Alright, following IAR's clarification last year isn't that hard. I'm honest.
Cut > Dig + Dig said:
Cut = 3 EN
Dig + Dig = 6 EN for suspend, 36 EN for hitting
Click to expand...
Dig (suspend) > Quick Attack + Dig (hit) said:
Dig (suspend) = 6 EN
Quick Attack + Dig = 19.5 EN for hitting
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top