Lord of Terror for example has 0 power yet it can still attack. It doesn’t make sense.
Khalim’s Follower has 0 Attack and needs to attack for its ability. Lord of Terror is an odd one, but an ability like Followers wouldn’t be possible if 0 attack meant a creature couldn’t attack
Khalim’s Follower doesn’t really have 0 attack against a god.
All creatures can attack unless specifically specified (with “can’t attack” or similar), and it would be really bad design to arbitrarily rule that creatures with 0 Atk Power can’t attack, even when there are scenarios they would want to (like a Siege Engine that got hit with Azarai, or a Lord of Terror, or a simple scenario where you need to kill off a 0-attack creature that is being taunted in order to clear its space). It would be like saying that a creature that “can’t gather Faeria” isn’t allowed to move into a space next to a Faeria well - doing so usually isn’t useful for this creature, but there are certainly reasons that you’d want to.
Not being able to attack when a creature has 0 power doesn’t seem like an arbitrary rule. It seems like an intuitive property of having 0 power. Also, the second half of your response is meaningless to this topic as we aren’t discussing movement and how it relates to creatures that can’t gather faeria.
The fact is that in a game with interesting dying wishes, one could hope that his elder forest ermit that got azarai’d could get him a buff. Or just burn the opponent with his lord of terror. These cards have been balanced (magda, LoT, Khalim’s follower) so as to be ok when they can attack. Why then remove that ability ? Because hearthstone does otherwise ? Any good reason, I mean ? We’re gods, if our minions haven’t got any use we can choose to get rid of them, we’re not these merciful humans. So no, I don’t think it counter-intuitive in any way.
It WOULD be an arbitrary rule, as every single response in this topic (except your own) has indicated - the intuitive property is “it is a creature, it has all properties of a creature, such as an attack value, a number of life points, the ability to move, and the ability to attack”. Also, respectfully - the point about “can’t gather Faeria” creatures was a clearly stated analogy - surely you can connect the dots and see how they are similar?
I’d like to point out that “Intuitive” is completely subjective and depends on your background. As an MTG player, I’m used to 0 power creatures being able to attack just fine. Not so much for hearthstone players for example.
I get what you’re saying that a creature with 0 power shouldn’t have the strength to attack, if you tie the ability to attack with the damage that it does, but imagine that 0 Attack represents 1000000 power and each Creature, Structure and God naturally has 1000000 armour, so that 1000000 is subtracted from all of the Attack values.
In short, it isn’t necessarily the most intuitive thing to tie attacking ability with Attack damage and there isn’t anything inherently wrong with the way that it is.
This may sound pointlessly cynical, but the kinds of complaints like “Game is P2W” “X is broken” “This feature shouldn’t exist because I lost to it” " Stop copying X game" are really something I’d expect to see in the Hearthstone Forums, not here. MeltingJava, your specific complaint reminds me a lot of complaints people have for a separate game that I play, called “Age of Chivalry”. That game has existed for 10 years, and there are certain features and bugs that people have learned to use to their advantage. In Faeria, 0 attack creatures being able to attack isn’t a game breaking bug or something that’s unfair, it’s just a feature that makes people annoyed when they encounter it for the first time.