Rabid Bite / Extra Sharp / Darkclaw Bugs [not a bug]

[AnAdolt]

I took a few minutes to mull over the two cards and basically, with the current wording and how they work, I don't think there's any discrepancy.

Darkclaw's current wording is, "When Darkclaw deals combat damage to an ally, the opposing Hero takes 1 damage."

And Infernal Gargoyle's is, "Stoneskin - damage received is reduced by 1"

In IG's case, the wording uses "received" which would normally be deduced as damage is first dealt, and then damage is reduced by 1. Darkclaw's description using "when" would associate the 1 damage dealt to opposing hero to the same time as Darkclaw deals damage to an ally.

Regarding balance for Darkclaw, I haven't even used the new Darkclaw so I'll reserve comments on that topic until I have.

[Hednez]

I took a few minutes to mull over the two cards and basically, with the current wording and how they work, I don't think there's any discrepancy.

Darkclaw's current wording is, "When Darkclaw deals combat damage to an ally, the opposing Hero takes 1 damage."

And Infernal Gargoyle's is, "Stoneskin - damage received is reduced by 1"

In IG's case, the wording uses "received" which would normally be deduced as damage is first dealt, and then damage is reduced by 1. Darkclaw's description using "when" would associate the 1 damage dealt to opposing hero to the same time as Darkclaw deals damage to an ally.

Regarding balance for Darkclaw, I haven't even used the new Darkclaw so I'll reserve comments on that topic until I have.

That actually makes sense!
So, only thing missing is changing "Target ally..." to "Target friendly ally..."

[AnAdolt]

Oh yeah.. I was going to compile a list of these for a certain glasses princess. Hahaha, completely slipped my mind. Lemme write this down and hopefully we can have the cards more standardized once and for all.

[Hednez]

Oh yeah.. I was going to compile a list of these for a certain glasses princess. Hahaha, completely slipped my mind. Lemme write this down and hopefully we can have the cards more standardized once and for all.

Would be awesome!

[AnAdolt]

Yeah.. about that..

I was working on the list soon after that and then I realized two things. One, this was going to be a long list. And second, this is a design issue so I should be leaving it for the Design Team. I don't know what they have planned so it's best to leave this issue in their domain. Or, meh, I got lazy; sue me.

What do you think ? of me now—eat that, poll!

[Negative Zer0]

Yes, Rabid Bite's description would benefit from updating so new players understand how it works explicitly.

There's lots of cards that just say "target" ambiguously and doesn't explicitly say friend or foe. One of these days the cards will be ratified.

How about we ratify the client instead of the cards. Allowing these extra options make for better deeper game play.

Yes some cards for balance reasons will need to have the wording changed but others should remain target and the client should be fixed to allow us to actually play the card as the rules intend.

AnAdolt can you PLEASE poke the dev team with sharp sticks until they give us an answer on this?
So far you are the only one that has officially replied to the many threads on this issue.
The community (for the most part) wants the client changed to match the cards not the other way around.