Ludia Forums

Revisiting Instant Invincibility

If we compare Instant Invincibility (II) to Instant distraction (ID) and Instant charge (IC) , it’s remarkable that how II has a much lower power level, but having the longest cooldown among all of them (3 turns), as well as a 1 turn delay.

I want to bring this move up to the same level, as least at ID, because IC is just busted and IMO should be reworked. No move should have the same power level as IC.

I understand that some creatures possess both II and ID - Trykosaurus, Ankyntrosaurus and Dioraja. Hence I suggest 2 way to solve the problem.

  1. For the above 3 creatures, we keep the exact same move, but rename it to Instant Invulnerability.
  • it’s really straight forward. Nothing will change for these 3 creatures except the name of the move. It is for the sake of distinguishing this move with the reworked (buffed) Instant Invincibility.
  1. For other creatures, II will be different as listed as follows :
    i . II is no longer a 100% shield - that would be Instant Invulnerability as stated in point 1.
    ii. Instead, it is now a self-buff which grants the creature :
  • Invulnerable to direct damage for 1 turn.
  • Cleanse, and Immunity for 1 turn (Ignore all debuff effects)
  • No delay. Cooldown becomes 2 turns.

Furthermore, it possesses the following traits :

  • As it is no longer a shield, the creature will not be harmed by Defense Shattering moves.
  • As it is a self-buff, it can still be cancelled and damaged by Nulllifying moves.
  • Definite moves will also cancel and deal normal damage.

Comparing to ID :

  • The new II will be stronger versus self-buffs and cleanse moves, but weaker versus Nullify moves and Definite moves.
  • Has the advantage of cleansing self and immunity, which ID does not provide.
  • Has 1 turn more cooldown to ID to compensate.

Since I think IC is busted, I will not make a comparison for it. It still remain the strongest moves among them.

Besides, I think swap-in invincibility should also get this buff to make those creatures move relevant than being just a niche counter to specific creatures.
However, Long invincibility should not be changed and would be renamed as Long Invulnerability for obvious reasons.

I hope this change will make more creatures become stronger, while not making Trykosaurus, Ankyntrosaurus and Dioraja a pain to deal with.

If I missed some creatures which might be problematic for this change, please don’t hesitate to point out !

1 Like

Dioraja also has II and ID after 1.7 update.

Interesting concept, but I think, making two similar effects II and IV would cause lots of chaos.

Thanks. In this case, Dioraja will also be treated like Tryko and Ankyn.

I think after all the mess of 1.7, this kind of adaptation would be much easier to handle for players.

What about instant rampage, immobilise and instant pinning strike then ?
Anyway, the implementation of two new status effects for one existing move seems rather implausible, but it is an interesting idea. It sounds like a blend of the status effect “dodge” and the move defensive stance; invincible stance, if you will.
It also interferes with the IRL parallels behind the concepts for the moves themselves: armour is self-explanatory, while shields could represent a creature’s physical or tactical defences, enabling unarmoured creatures to last more turns. Then came evasion and dodge, which can completely ignore direct damage, and are also self explanatory, but it seems they may never feature in the movesets of any of the creatures on the slower side of the scale. “Invincibility” is kinda hard to explain in a similar manner, since it can be nullified like dodge, and is not a defensive trait, since defense-shattering moves are ineffective. Of course, this isn’t exactly a hard-and-fast rule, anything’s possible I guess.
But I do think that 2-turn cooldown might make it kinda OP.

I only compare II, ID and IC, because they possess similar traits as to prevents receiving damage for a turn. Immobilize also has this traits, but I have forgot about this move.

But anyway, since Immobilize deals no damage, it is basically a stall move that trap the target in, giving yourself 1 more turn for the cooldowns. But if you compare the cooldown of it with the current instant invincibility, Immobilize still has 1 turn less cooldown.

Instant Rampage is an offensive move, which is obviously very different. The same goes for Instant pinning strike, it’s an offensive move plus a function that is countering attack and run move, very specifically. Hence, most of the time it is just an instant strike.

The reason why I include IC, is because it basically do the same thing as II and ID, but also deal 1X damage. Actually if you compare this with all the instant moves, you would find that it is absurd : it is a priority 1X attack that prevents you from getting any harm for 1 turn. It has a 1 turn delay but only a 2 turns cooldown. Comparing it with the current II, you will notice how horribly underpower II is : it has much more counters, the longest cooldown as well as 1 turn delay, and it deals no damage.

You are right about the nature of the proposed change. I specifically mention that it will not be a shield, because being a shield means that it will share the same traits to shields. Since I want to buff this move, it can no longer be a shield but a new kind of self buff and status. I keep Definite moves as a counter because I feel like that is what Definite moves should be able to do.

I personally think 2 turns cooldown is alright. ID only has 1 turn cooldown. The 2 moves both have similar number of strengths and weaknesses. The proposed new II has the benefit of cleanse and immunity. Hence a 1 more turn cooldown justifies it IMO.

Okay, it makes sense that you chose those three, but it is important that there is a level of uncertainty when using IC, while you know exactly what effect the other two will have.
ID is also easily countered, with Superiority strike, Immune creatures as well as cleansing moves or self-buffs like ferocious strike (to some extent), while II would only be counterable by nullifying or definite moves, which aren’t particularly common.
But that’s just me nitpicking. It’s not a bad idea either way.
Also, Darwezopteryx and Stigydaryx have II, but it seems all Stigydaryx users want it to be buffed anyway, so…

1 Like

Tbh, I think I would rather my Diorajasaur have the reworked invincibility buff than keep the shield, in this case. Not only would that make it different from the Ankyntro and Tryko, it would help her out against all the big chompers running around these days, including Tryko.

I specifically mentioned those 3 because they have both II and ID. I think the proposed new II might make them a pain to deal with, that’s why I excluded them out.

But if there are other ways to work around, it would be great to just apply the new II to all concerning creatures so that it is less confusing as mentioned by Qaw.