Wording errors

[MistahBoweh]

Since I was asked in PM to go over this and put in my two cents, I will:

First on the issue of the damage type keywords from the op: LotrTCG provides a good way of explaining this- loaded and unloaded keywords.

In short, a loaded keyword has rules associated with it, like haste, ambush, etc.

An unloaded keyword means nothing by itself. IE Artifact, Wulven (as an ally type), and most recently fire/ice/electric.

Loaded keywords are emphasized in bold text because they are IMPORTANT, because they always matter, because attention needs drawing to them. Unloaded keywords, on the other hand, matter only in rare situations. They have no rules associated, they don't affect the gamestate, and are insignificant. Check WoWTCG, they use the same system.

The Holy Shield issue: The term 'harmful effects' REALLY needs to not exist in the game simply because it's hard to define. Here's some examples:

If I play a card that deals with harmful effects on my opponent's ally and that ally has a damage buff, is the buff a harmful effect because I, the player checking for harmful effects, deem that the buff is harmful toward me?

Is the static health reduction of Shard of Power count as a harmful effect? If so, would preventing the harmful effect increase only the mhp or would that reset the ally's attack as well?

What about freezes and disables? Sure, they hinder actions, but they aren't actually harming the target.

HS should read: Target friendly hero or ally is unaffected by all special conditions, can't be destroyed, and is unaffected by enemy abilities until the start of your next turn. During this time, prevent all damage dealt to the target.

On Killing: While in DT, a certain someone that was not me pushed for ADDING to this, so we'd have both killing AND dying in addition to destroy. I managed to shut that down and I want to shut this down too.

Flavor is important for most aspects of the game, but when it leaks into comprehensive rules and syntax there's a HUGE problem. Keywords NEED to remain generic, and the same is said for regular game terms as well.

Compare the two:

Destroy all cards in play.

Kill all allies and destroy all items, attachments and support abilities.

It should be obvious which is better for the game. The shorter, the sweeter, the better.

On fitting card text: your proposal, last I heard, is already a planned feature. Expanding keywords, scrolling textboxes, the works. You can relax on that front.

Keyword Generalization: I already said this is important. However, I can vouch for hidden.

Why?

Don't think of it like flavor. Think of it like a physical card. You can't target what you can't see.

As an example, look at Shroud in Magic. Creatures, artifacts, etc. have the keyword. Look at the art for these cards. Do you see any shrouds, any magical barriers? Usually, no. Shroud refers to the physical aspect of the game first and foremost, that the player literally can't target what is shrouded from view, and THEN flavor concerns were worked in. So it's okay for hidden to be a keyword because it's actually not about the act of those on the cards hiding but from the player hiding the physical cards.

Max HP display: Not important on the physical cards, since printed hp and max hp are always equal, and changes can be noted without having the extra number displayed. If there are ever plans in the future to have an ally come down with damage on it, then that's possible through card text and there's no reason to clutter up all cards in the foreseeable future just for the one possibility.

All this really needs is a set of parens displaying the max hp whenever max and current are not equal. Ant to make the game less cluttered, have it only display when the player zooms in on the card.

Health Gain: Health gain is defined as "increase the target's mhp by X". That's why there's a difference between healing and health gain.

Item durability and destruction: WBT needs text on it that says 'this card can't be destroyed for having 0 or less durability.' Otherwise, it should be destroyed as soon as it's played for having 0 dur.

BDB: When a card 'becomes' something, that replaces what it used to be if the two are contradictory. Like in Magic, without the 'in addition to its other types' or 'it's still a land' clauses, the effects would replace whatever is on the printed card.

BDB can't count as an item any longer. Items are in the support row, where BDB is not. Weapons have to have durability to stay in play, which BDB does not have. The hero can attack with a bow, but it can't attack with BDB. and BDB would be destroyed when another weapon is played, but it is not.

Just from the context clues, you should have been able to figure this one out yourself.

Keyword paren consistency: Generally for tcgs, keyword explanations aren't bothered with on higher than common/uncommon rarities, depending on how common the keyword is at the lower rarity levels. Also, how cluttered the text box is matters as well as how deeply imbedded the keyword is in a line of text, to the point where inserting parens in the middle would hurt the flow of the text in question. This is actually a matter that needs handling on a case by case basis and NOT with a general rule or two.

[Sean61616]

-Dependencies "inside" cards:

There are several cards that first do something, and then do something else. Although some cards already use a "When(-Then)"-dependency (at least they're worded that way), there's still a notable amount that just does two or more things "at the same time" or "one after another" without a dependecy between the former and the latter, even when such a dependency should probably exist.

I had a similar issue when I was playing a game on the test server involving my Dagger of Unmaking, Jasmine Rosecult, my opponents Mind Control, and later involving my Armored Sandworm.

My opponent used Mind Control on my Jasmine Rosecult, she dealt her damage to my hero but then returned to my hand thanks to Dagger of Unmaking. Later in the game he used Mind Control on my Armored Sandworm and while my Dagger of Unmaking was still in play, the Sandworm was killed.

Eventually I understood it after I read my Dagger of Unmaking again, though at first I thought this was a bug. It seemed to me Mind Control's wording should of included something to indicate that the dying part was able to be interrupted. I couldn't think of anything though on how to fix this other then "Target ally attacks enemy Hero and unless interupted is then killed." That't not an elegant wording at all though.

[GustCM2]

I don't know if that has been said before, but there's any way to allow Cobra Demon to deal Poison Damage with her ability? (for future expansions combos)

Today> 1SE: Target Opposing ally takes 1 damage
What I propose> 1SE: Target Opposing ally takes 1 poison damage

[MistahBoweh]

I don't know if that has been said before, but there's any way to allow Cobra Demon to deal Poison Damage with her ability? (for future expansions combos)

Today> 1SE: Target Opposing ally takes 1 damage
What I propose> 1SE: Target Opposing ally takes 1 poison damage

I'd rather not see this, mostly because the damage that causes poison shouldn't work off things that are designed to work off the DoT.

Also the idea about CD is that his fangs are administering the poison, that 1 damage poke is the result of his fangs and not a result of poison.

[Awer]

To dndfreak: Massive thanks for accepting my PM request to review my post.

I have just a couple of small remarks to make, though they are so trivial that in the end, they probably make no difference at all:

The Holy Shield issue: The term 'harmful effects' REALLY needs to not exist in the game simply because it's hard to define.

-At the time I wrote my big post, the wording of Holy Shield was, in the test server version: "Target friendly hero or ally takes no damage until the start of your next turn". Everything I've written about Holy Shield is based on that wording, so just to clarify that the term "harm" was no longer around. (But that probably doesn't change anything that anybody's said here, so it's a kind of triviality.)

BDB: When a card 'becomes' something, that replaces what it used to be if the two are contradictory.
BDB can't count as an item any longer. Items are in the support row, where BDB is not. Weapons have to have durability to stay in play, which BDB does not have. The hero can attack with a bow, but it can't attack with BDB. and BDB would be destroyed when another weapon is played, but it is not.

-BDB: I was aware of how the term "become" works with the card, but asked the questions about it anyway just to point out that it needs to be explained somewhere in the rules exactly like dndreak described. In the unlikely situation that two beginner players would be playing the physical card game without ever having played the digital one (or other TCGs), they really might have trouble figuring BDB out without clarification from somewhere. As a side note, if Shadow Era ever incorporates allies that can be other types (like items) simultaneously, they probably need special rules on how to handle them (to address the contradictions that would otherwise arise, as dndfreak pointed out).

Max HP display: Not important on the physical cards, since printed hp and max hp are always equal, and changes can be noted without having the extra number displayed. If there are ever plans in the future to have an ally come down with damage on it, then that's possible through card text and there's no reason to clutter up all cards in the foreseeable future just for the one possibility.

-Max hp: Like dndfreak said. Just to clarify further: Only digital version needs to show an additional number for the max hp. When that number is shown, in whatever way chosen, both current hp and max hp numbers might not fit inside the artistic icon of the "drop of blood" (assuming they don't reduce the font size of the said numbers). If that is not an problem, then everything's ok. If it is a problem, then they have to alter the art somehow, like make that drop of blood bigger in size, so that there's enough room inside it to encompass both numbers. If they want to keep the art consistent with digital and physical cards, the alteration to the digital version art might need to be matched to the physical cards too, so that the drop of blood is bigger there too, even though only the max hp needs to be shown there.

If the art needs to be altered, changing the size of the icon isn't the only (neither necessarily the "best") way to do it of course. Both heroes and allies need to use the same notation, so with heroes, that's four digits, like '29/30' or '29(30)'. (Assuming nobody's health tops 99 at any situation...) In any case, showing the max hp in the digital version is such a huge benefit to players that devs shouldn't leave it undone just because they might have to deal with possible aesthetic concerns in the process. Every player would probably vote for showing it even if it might "interfere with the looks" a little.

So, once again huge thanks to dndfreak for his feedback. The things that I pointed above are rather trivial issues, but I'm explaining them in detail just to make sure there's no room left for misunderstandings.

Other things I'd like to mention:

-Sean61616 has a good point at his post (#42). It all goes according to rules and wordings, but can still be confusing. Also, it has to be made sure that any possible wording "fixes" themselves don't end up sounding confusing.

-The issue with 'dependencies "inside" cards' I mentioned in my big post:

I proposed creating dependencies inside cards so that it would avoid situations like using Sacrificial Lamb several times on the same ally with Holy Shield. (The ally isn't killed, but you get extra cards anyway.) Another approach to this would be to sidestep the issue by adding logic into the Sac. Lamb (and other cards relevant to the issue) that says about the first effect that "this effect can't be prevented". MTG does roughly the same by using the keyword "sacrifice". So the killing effect couldn't be prevented, even with Holy Shield. This doesn't add dependency, but makes the card function more "sensibly" than it currently does. It's however, sidestepping the real issue, and might backfire in unforeseeable future situations, so it's a "worse" way to address the issue than to add the proper dependencies.

And then of course, there's the option to do nothing about it and just contend that "that's just how the game works". Without dependencies, some things in some situations might go against "common sense", but still work perfectly according to mechanics, rules and wordings. If the devs don't have enough time or resources to make changes here, or the "benefit-vs-workload"-ratio for this issue is deemed too low, then this is the situation where we'll end up.

-Is there any way to see what modifications are already planned to the UI? I've been thinking about writing suggestions on the feedback-section of the forum to improve several UI aspects, but many of them are probably already "coming soon", so I'm not sure if there's point to write any more of them at this time...?

[Gondorian]

I'd rather not see this, mostly because the damage that causes poison shouldn't work off things that are designed to work off the DoT.

Also the idea about CD is that his fangs are administering the poison, that 1 damage poke is the result of his fangs and not a result of poison.

Yes, the 1 damage is fang damage. And each ally damaged by attack or this ability is poisoned via CD's passive ability.

[Awer]

The test server version 1.500 got out, and I'm glad to notice that dependency issues and Holy Shield have been addressed.


(So I'm assuming that with the new Sacrificial Lamb, it either can't target a Holy Shielded ally in the first place, or if it can, nothing happens as a result except the spell is cast and "wasted".)


-If the devs want to prepare for a situation in the future where, say, an item could have an effect on it that would prevent it from being destroyed, there's two ways that I can think of that could address this possibility:


a) Melt Down (and (future) such cards) could be modified in the same fashion like Lamb to say something like "Target item you control that can be destroyed is destroyed, and draw 2 cards."


b) The future effect that grants an item "destruction prevention" could have functionality in the vein of: "Target item can't be destroyed, and can't be targeted by a card or effect that would destroy it."


With either way, Melt Down couldn't be "abused" in the future like Lamb could've been abused without addressing the dependency with it.


-If showing max hp is of importance to devs, it could be accomplished with a button somewhere that would toggle showing it "on" or "off".


-Like somebody else mentioned, Lamb still has a typo saying "chosing" instead of "choosing" the flavor text.

[ahmet476]

Not sure if this is pointed out before but why is Twice-Enchanted Robes is plural? I mean she isn't wearing multiple robes right? Or does she change her robe every time she gets hit?

[Preybird]

Yes, the 1 damage is fang damage. And each ally damaged by attack or this ability is poisoned via CD's passive ability.

This confused me, because Cobra Demon stated any allies suffering combat damage are poisoned. I always thought abilities did not count as combat damage. Suddenly Cobra Demon seems more useful to me.

[ahmet476]

This confused me, because Cobra Demon stated any allies suffering combat damage are poisoned. I always thought abilities did not count as combat damage. Suddenly Cobra Demon seems more useful to me.

Huh? I thought if you for example ping CD with DMT, you wouldn't get poisoned. Isn't that the case? Does using abilities on it get you posioned too?