it's all good reasoning. I disagree that there 'should' be one undefendable attack in the game. When you pick up an attack card, you will generally use it several times in a game. There are several attack cards. There are a limited number of defence cards. There are loads of times, even if you have tried your best to build a number of defence cards into your deck, when they just won't be there when you need them. And the SS attack is quite a nasty attack, too.
There is another thing - when you put cards together, normal shuffling won't always break them apart. So unless you house rule that someone else in the game thoroughly shuffles the deck after the SS attack is used, it is likely to turn up again next time through the deck. (It has happened to us).
I have enjoyed this discussion, although my question wasn't about justifying the attack, just whether it was intended to be an "attack" in the sense of game rules. We hardly ever use house-rules because we trust the game creators skills as being better than ours (house rules can imbalance a game in ways we didn't expect). But we just might house-rule this one. At least when playing with younger players.
There is another thing - when you put cards together, normal shuffling won't always break them apart. So unless you house rule that someone else in the game thoroughly shuffles the deck after the SS attack is used, it is likely to turn up again next time through the deck. (It has happened to us).
I have enjoyed this discussion, although my question wasn't about justifying the attack, just whether it was intended to be an "attack" in the sense of game rules. We hardly ever use house-rules because we trust the game creators skills as being better than ours (house rules can imbalance a game in ways we didn't expect). But we just might house-rule this one. At least when playing with younger players.