Bug List - 2.86

[dejvo]

Not a bug in play, however if you search in merchant for flameforged gauntlets you don't find them (searched flame). You can find them when you search for cloak of phasing

[Gondorian]

loest exiled blood frenzy, but still drew two cards and lost health every turn.
A1 jayceemp vs AP jacelkos

Also had a strange bug: a1 flibber v blackbolt
Used Loests ability to exile blood frenzy- but he kept drawing as normal anyway and taking the 1 damage.

A1 flibber v TKDAYA (who was a complete gentleman and offered draw).
Loest exiled crippling blow from POTL- POTL was still at 0 attack.

Confirmed. The exiling of attachments by Loest is not removing their effects.

[tafkad]

Just stole Reserve Weapon with Serena and played it making my Cutlass +1 and 3 attack always but does not trigger the steal after that as it should (no replay AI vs custom Amber deck) I killed an ally and Amber discarded to the grave instead of to my hand.

Also was unable to test it by returning a cutlass from grave with a perma 3 attack since the game was either kill or die the next turn - you may want to check that as well

Update: stole a Reserve Weapon again, this time used it's ability to return Cutlass to play as a 3 attack weapon, used it to kill an ally without buffing further and result was the same, opponent did draw (had no cards) then discarded to grave and not to my hand. So both variations checked and exhibit same behavior with Cutlass + RW (RW in play or used to resurrect TC)

[Gondorian]

Update: stole a Reserve Weapon again, this time used it's ability to return Cutlass to play as a 3 attack weapon, used it to kill an ally without buffing further and result was the same, opponent did draw (had no cards) then discarded to grave and not to my hand. So both variations checked and exhibit same behavior with Cutlass + RW (RW in play or used to resurrect TC)

Thanks for the further investigation. Turns out that somewhere during the playtesting of the revised Cutlass, we decided that the condition needed to be attack of 4, but it was announced as attack of 3. The disparity is entirely my fault, as I did not keep the implementation and wording and preview post in sync.

Given that this card is pretty strong, I'm inclined to think that being conditional on 4 is the right condition and we will be revising the wording accordingly to match. This makes Raikka's ability somewhat of a neutraliser, right?

[Gondorian]

Hi all. Just wanted to say thanks for the reports raised so far and to give you a heads-up that I'll be moving non-bugs and discussion from this thread out to their own threads today, in a bid to keep this cleaner. But please please do keep raising the bugs here for me to investigate and then confirm (or not).

UPDATE: Clean-up now done.

[Gondorian]

Please keep the bug reports coming. I think I'll be done with all the known reproduceable ones by Monday. (I just fixed and tested Disciple of Aldmor to be immune to all the right things, which will go into 2.87.)

[Khamya9]

Deleted... Pebkac, not bug.

[Skurai]

incendiary curse doesn't work with Zailen crusader it should according to wording

[Gondorian]

incendiary curse doesn't work with Zailen crusader it should according to wording

Oh nice spot! Aimed Shot probably should as well then, from that wording.

HOWEVER ...

It's actually meant to say "The first ally attachment you summon each turn that can't attach to a hero costs 2 less resources to summon."

You have no idea how long we spent trying to word that card and have the game do what we wanted. It was originally just something about ally attachments on Templars. The trouble is that the cost of the card when in hand needs to be definitive, but you can't know in advance what the player will want to put it on. We thought about giving a resource renew after playing it, but that just wasn't as good.

Then I came up with "The first ally attachment you summon each turn costs 2 less resources to summon." That meant a definitive cost for the attachment. Except there's one card that can go on ally and hero.....

Can you guess?

Yes, it's Holy Shield. We now had a situation where the card would be one cost on hero and another on ally. Sure, we could just make all attachments cheaper by 2, except then Zailen is OP and in every deck known to man!

So we went with the new wording to cover that (the one on the card now) and "ally" got missed off.

I'll get the wording fixed up for next update. Thanks for reporting!

[marundal]

Android:

In a AI battle Ter Adun destroyed his own item.

Following situation:
I had a War Banner in play and my AI opponent Ter Adun had also an War Banner in play. The AI decided to destroy his own War Banner.
I couldn't recognize a reason for this action by my AI opponent.