I want to add to Kafka’s explanation of “legacy code”, which is true.
What she means is the first way troops were implemented this is how they behaved. Later, it came out that some newer troops that were supposed to be exciting (and potentially power creep) were NOT exciting because of it. So they implemented a new bit of code for that kind of attack logic to make those specific troops more powerful. This segues into the thing I want to add.
Strategically speaking, both are interesting. A troop that retargets is “worth” more than a troop that doesn’t since it’s more flexible. So having both options opens up a little design space: a troop can get a more powerful ability than its mana cost or traits might suggest but have the downside of sometimes not getting its second hit.
Also, I think their intent for not just updating the targeting behavior in general includes two assumptions:
- There’s probably some ability where this targeting is better.
- They didn’t want to risk breaking older troops not part of their current balance discussion.
(“breaking” above has the sense of “making the troop broken”, not necessarily ruining the logic.)