Spells Need a "Cancel" Button.

[ouri.maler]

So, while playing yesterday, I cast Mesmerism to steal an opponent's companion. But after clicking it, I forgot which opponent had the companion I wanted to steal. Pretty much had to select one randomly, since there was no way to go back.
I think having a "cancel" button between the moment you select to cast a spell and the moment you finish specifying all the spell's details would be a plus.

[dogfacedboyuk1]

Agree totally!! Much needed button!!!

[Peter B]

+1 That is annoying.

[Umbrella Incorporated]

Even after you cast Mesmerism and Acquisition, you can still bring up the inventory screen to see who has what.
And no, no cancellation button is warrented because as soon as you declare you are casting a spell, it goes off.

[elminster the red]

+1 umbrella ! totally agree

[Lagoon]

Summary (TL;DR)

• The ability to cancel a spell "plan" is reasonable and consistent with how the physical board game is played.
  
• The in-game process of selecting your spell and targets is like asking a neutral expert for advice and consistency with the rules.
  
• Declaration occurs once all details are finalized.

Discussion

A cancellation button or back-out feature is entirely reasonable if we put the spell-casting action in the proper context.

Up until the actual spell declaration (spell chosen, target(s) chosen, and action confirmed), the player is, essentially, planning. No formal declaration has been made. In terms of the game flow, spell declaration occurs immediately prior to the ability of players to Counter the spell.

The "spell-planning-phase" is a bit like asking an out-of-game expert if what you are trying to do makes sense. For example, at the start of your turn you might show the expert your Immobilize card and say "Hey, Jane - would I be able to cast this spell on that player right now?". Jane would say "No - only at the start of that player's turn". The spell is neither cast nor revealed to other players when you ask Jane that question.

The lack of a cancellation or back-out feature in DE currently changes Jane's response like so: "No, you can't use it on another player. However, since you talked to me about using it on a player when it was your turn, you now have to use it on yourself." And, yes, that is consistent with implementation as of Rev. 11096.

Once the game confirms that the player is "doing it right" (which UI only partially handles - still need the ability to cancel or back-out of a potential spell-cast) with the player's consent, the spell is declared. Selecting a card, the targets, etc. is just part of asking your local, neutral expert for advice.

Yes, it would be improper for a player to take-back or cancel a spell *once the Counter phase begins*.

Spell-Cast Flow
Planning/Ask-An-Expert Phase Starts
1. Select spell
Cancellation Available
2. Select target(s) if applicable
3. Confirm action
Planning Ends / Cancellation Unavailable (Point of No Return)
Cast Declaration
4. Counter phase starts
5. ( continue like normal )

[VPR]

Agree with OP. Cancel button needed.

[Artaterxes]

Lagoon, I think I understand the gist (and I agree). I think the way Nomad has done it is a nice, slow, methodical approach where everyone can see each card and target as it is selected. That way, people can get ready to counterspell quickly. Two problems:
1) Each step is irreversible, and
2) Sometimes it's unclear who is casting what (black bar on top helps, but not perfect).

Sadly, I think although the slow and open approach used currently is quite fluid and mostly clear, the lack of reversibility is a problem.

[1lzone]

I wanted to immobilize the person before me, but used it too late and immobilized myself. Is that dumb enough to warrant a cancel button?

[sirvaun]

I like this, as well. In addition, many spells that you try to queue are often forgotten and you end up casting it on yourself, instead. Having Cancel would cure this issue, as well.
Dev team, can you please consider this a high level "quality of life" enhancement to the game?

[maverral]

Disagree. Just think and watch what you are doing during the game - that is enough. Besides, in board version if you are casting a spell, then you are casting it - you can't tell "oh wait, maybe not". So why digital version shall be different in this matter?

[ToothlessNightFury]

I agee with maverral on this matter, even though he is getting slaughtered shortly...

[Cruor]

@maverral although in the boardgame you would never accidentally cast shatter on yourself. Easiest way to solve this would be to add a confirm casting button when a typically negative spell is cast on your turn by queue.

That way it won't slow down the game with a bunch of backtracking or cheating by undoing a spell cast or having to confirm each spell cast. Just when you cast negative spells on yourself you get (confirm/cancel) nothing is shown to the other players.

So I advocate we don't need a CANCEL/UNDO spell cast button (because that could be easily exploited) but rather a CONFIRM button for any "negative" spells cast on your own turn. Cause that's what usually will break a game, if you queued a spell, someone misses a turn and bam you get the fallout.

[Ianbyrne76]

I asked about the Spell cancel feature possibility a few months ago and got a very detailed and valid reply from Jaxon as follows -

Cancelling spells is something we've thought about in the past, but there are many problems with it.
The main problem from our point of view is that the code that handles spell-casting is very complicated and changing it to allow stepping back through the spell-casting steps really isn't easy. There are so many things that could go wrong and problems introduced by implementing it.

The other problem is with the flow of the game and the secrecy of spells. How would it work? Would you be able to see the spell that's being cast, even if it's then cancelled? If so, the caster has then given away to the other players which spell they have. If not, then there's the chance that online games would have to pause whilst players start, but then cancel, casting a spell. This could be very disruptive.

I totally understand why you would want this functionality, but it really is a very difficult thing to change and very risky from our point of view. It would take a week or two to code this and then another week or two to test it, which I'm not sure is worth it when I've only seen a small number of people asking for it.

The best thing to do is play some games against AI players whilst you get used to how the spell-casting works and read each spell card carefully. Also, the spell-casting guide here on steam is very useful.

A good tip for spells cast at the start of other character's turns is to queue them up during the previous character's turn.
So, if you want to cast Immobility on player 3, you should double-click the spell when it ISN'T glowing during player 2's turn. Then it's ready to cast at the start of player 3's turn and will do so. If player 3 is missing their turn, or has the Amulet, then it will cast on the next available player.


I agreed with him when he made his point and since then I have had no issues with spells, I remember to check each character before I cast Mesmerism, Aquisition etc. and those I don't fully quite "get" like Weakness, I practise with until I do get them - easy!

[QUAZ]

+1 totally Agree. Especially with broken spells like Weakness or accidental spell queues and such.

[Nibbins]

+1

Cancel needed