Descriptions in Need of Rewording

[Chemist]

I think that several cards in Elements should have their description reworded. Consider the cards A, B and C.

Card A: Deal 5 damage to target creature.
Card B: Decrease target creature's attack.
Card C: Deal 3 damage to target creature.

Card A carries a perfect description of what it does. That's good. Card B is imprecise: it doesn't tell us by how much the attack is decreased because there isn't enough space to describe the algorithm. I don't mind card B... but what really bothers me is card C. That description looks fine - until you hear that the card also stuns the target for two turns. Why isn't that written on the card? It should be. The description not only fails to tell us what exactly the card does - it does so in such a way that we don't even realize it.

I imagine the people who played Rain of Fire against my immaterial creatures found it strange that said creatures were immune to it. The descriptions on my cards failed to mention that little fact. Once they found out that some cards don't do what they say (follow a different set of rules) they probably found that stupid. And they probably didn't like the game any better because of it.

You say there's not enough space on card C either? Well with some rewording one can change a type C description into a type B or even type A description. There are quite a few type C descriptions in Elements, and I feel that there shouldn't be any in the game. I've made a list of such cards along with suggested rewordings.

Immortal / Elite Immortal and Phase Dragon / Elite Phase Dragon

Immaterial:
Phase Dragon can not
be targeted.
->->->->->->->->->->->->
Immaterial:
Can not be targeted.
Immune to all
destructive area effects.

Which of the following would you say have "destructive area effects"? Unstable Gas, Plague, Flooding, Fire Shield, Eclipse. If you'd say the first three then the description should be OK. Or would "harmful area effects" fit better? Aside from including that odd term I've removed the card's name from the description. All creature cards currently refer to themselves by name. The weapons don't (presumably because there isn't enough space). So if we need a bit more space to describe the effect I suppose removing the name shouldn't cause problems.

Quintessence / Quintessence

Grant immortality to the
target creature. The target
creature can not be targeted.
->->->->->->->->->->->->
Target creature becomes
immaterial: it can't be
targeted and is immune
to destructive area effects.

Anubis / Elite Anubis and Turquoise Nymph / Aether Nymph

: Immortality
Target creature is now
immortal (untargetable).
->->->->->->->->->->->->
: Immortality
Target creature is now
immaterial (ignores most
spells and skills).

The part in brackets could also be omitted altogether.

Antlion / Elite Antlion and Shrieker / Elite Shrieker

: Burrow
The antlion can not be
targeted, but its damage is
halved.
->->->->->->->->->->->->
: Burrow
Can not be targeted and
ignores most area effects,
but its damage is halved.

Aside from having less space here burrowed creatures are affected by Flooding, so I just put "most".

Adrenaline/Epinephrine

The target creature attacks
multiple times per turn.
Smaller creatures gain more
extra attacks.
->->->->->->->->->->->->
The target creature acts
up to four times each turn.
The effect is weaker the
stronger the creature.

I mention "strength" instead of attack here in part because a "stronger" passive ability (like venom) also "weakens" the effect, albeit in a different manner.

Green Nymph / Life Nymph

: Adrenaline
The target creature attacks
multiple times per turn.
->->->->->->->->->->->->
: Adrenaline
The target creature acts up
to three more times each
turn, but may do so weaker. 

Alternatively we could just say "Target creature gains adrenaline status."

Lobotomizer / Electrocutor

: remove any skill from
the target creature.
->->->->->->->->->->->->
: target creature loses
most skills and "momentum"

Changed "any" to "most" - may seem more confusing, but while all regular skills can be removed most passive ones can not.

Emerald Shield / Jade Shield and Reflective Shield / Mirror Shield

Shield: reduce damage by 1.
Spells are reflected against
your opponent. Can not be
destroyed or stolen.
->->->->->->->->->->->->
Shield: reduce damage by 1.
Targeting spells and direct
damage effects are reflected
at the opponent. Immaterial.

Deja Vu / Elite Deja Vu and Lyncanthrope / Werewolf

: Deja Vu
Deja Vu creates a copy of
itself
->->->->->->->->->->->->
: Deja Vu
Deja Vu creates a copy of
itself. Single use.

Nightfall / Eclipse

All the death or darkness
creatures gain +1/+1
->->->->->->->->->->->->
All the death or darkness
creatures gain +1/+1.
This effect doesn't stack.

Nymph Queen / Water Nymph and Nymph Tears / Nymph Tears

: Nymph's Tears
Turn one of your pillars into
a Nymph
->->->->->->->->->->->->
: Nymph's Tears
Turn target pillar into a
nymph.

Enchant Artifact / Protect Artifact

The target permanent can
not be target of any skill. It
does not work on creatures.
->->->->->->->->->->->->
The target permanent can
no longer be targeted
(immaterial).

This is the only card here that actually does what it says it does, but I put it on the list because it implies that creatures are permanents - something that is true in MtG but not in Elements.

Holy Light / Holy Flash

Heal the target for up to 10
HP's. If the target's element is
death or darkness, damage is
dealt instead.
->->->->->->->->->->->->
Heal the target for up to 10
HPs. If the target is a death or
darkness creature, damage
is dealt instead.

If anyone has any other cards to point out (please not simple misspellings/typos) or a better wording for one of the cards above don't hesitate to tell.

Edit: added Holy Light, changed Lobotomizer.

[Wisemage]

First, its been agreed that area effects (liek RoF) while they shouldnt, actualyl target monsters individualy, which is why immortals arent hit.

The only 2 things i agree with you are lobotomizer and Adrenaline.

Also, your new form of Emerald/Jade shield is wrong, because it will  reflect healing too, like if you dont realise you have it out and cast miracle, your opponent will be healed to full.

[xdude]

First, its been agreed that area effects (liek RoF) while they shouldnt, actualyl target monsters individualy, which is why immortals arent hit.

The only 2 things i agree with you are lobotomizer and Adrenaline.

Also, your new form of Emerald/Jade shield is wrong, because it will  reflect healing too, like if you dont realise you have it out and cast miracle, your opponent will be healed to full.

No, Miracle doesn't target. The text says targeting spells. And I think RoF is coded like that just so it doesn't kill immaterial creatures.

[Chemist]

I know that Rain of Fire targets creatures in the code, but you can't know that unless you're told. We want players, new ones included, to understand the cards, don't we? Several people have used RoF against my immaterial creatures in PvP, which to me shows that they didn't think of RoF as targeting anything. To me targeting spells would be the ones where a target is selected by the player (unlike Animate Weapon, for instance).

[Reefa]

Burrow: maybe add, that the damage halved is rounded down (nothing special, but I think one should add *all* the facts).

Immaterial: Shield affects (f.e. freeze, time freeze, poison, fire damage) still apply.

Adrenaline: issue with power 20+ creatures should be removed, or described.

Lobo: should be fixed, that this removes truly all the abilities.

Deja Vu: the copy doesn't have the active copy skill. Is it a copy this way?

Nymphs Tears: target pillar should under control of target player, should also stand there in some way.

Regards, Reefa.

[jmizzle7]

First of all, thanks for doing what I had been planning on doing for a while now. I just haven't had the time lately to put this together. Having said that, I have some issues with some of your card descriptions.

Your wording of immaterial status is still clunky, doesn't account for shields, and uses CCG jargon that some new players may not know. All it really needs to say is, "Cannot be targeted. Immune to all effects except shields." Burrow should reflect this change in wording as well.

Adrenaline is still awkward. "Weaker effect"? You can't use a qualitative adjective with a quantitative effect. Instead, have the card read as, "Target creature acts up to four times each turn. Stronger creatures gain fewer attacks, or none at all." I included the word "act" in the first sentence to encompass the entire creature action, but I reverted to "attacks" in the second to avoid confusion with the phrase, "gain fewer actions," which, to a new player, can appear as though activated abilities are affected. Life Nymph should just say, "Target creature gains adrenaline status."

Lobotomizer's ability is far less complicated than this, and is incorrect. There is a difference between an ability and a status. While lobo removes all abilities from a target creature, there is only one status that lobotomize actually can remove - momentum. Yes, lobo removes every single ability from a creature, including all passives. So change your wording to, "target creature loses all abilities and momentum."

Emerald Shield and Reflective Shield actually have different wording, but the same effect. Zanz changed the wording on Reflective Shield, but not Emerald Shield (I'm assuming this is because he just plain forgot). I believe the wording on both needs to be the same, but it should be more specific. Unfortunately, there is one spell behavior that needs to be fixed/confirmed before a better wording can be made - Holy Light. There are inconsistencies with the interaction between HL and any type of reflective shield, so this needs to be fixed before a wording can be reached.

[Chemist]

Burrow: maybe add, that the damage halved is rounded down (nothing special, but I think one should add *all* the facts).

If I there was the space for such specifics...

Immaterial: Shield affects (f.e. freeze, time freeze, poison, fire damage) still apply.

My description doesn't say that they don't. You don't select targets with shields (they act by themselves) and they don't affect an area - they affect attacking creatures.

Adrenaline: issue with power 20+ creatures should be removed, or described.

At 20 attack the effect already weakens to the extent that it doesn't affect the target creature at all. My description already tells you that the effect becomes weaker the stronger the target creature is, it just doesn't delve in the specifics of in what way and how much.

Lobo: should be fixed, that this removes truly all the abilities.

I just changed it into that because Lobotomizer doesn't remove "mummy" and "swarm".

Deja Vu: the copy doesn't have the active copy skill. Is it a copy this way?

The skill is removed just before the creature is copied - it's part of the skill activation cost. It would be clearer if this were included in the cost, but it isn't strictly wrong the way I propose it either.

Nymphs Tears: target pillar should under control of target player, should also stand there in some way.

I beg your pardon? Target player? You mean I should mention that the nymph enters play under the control of the pillar's owner? Well the description doesn't say that the nymph enters play on the side of Nymph's Tears' user. It says that the pillar changes into a nymph, not that it also changes ownership.

@jmizzle7: I'll reply in a few minutes...

[jmizzle7]

I overlooked swarm and mummy, apparently. Pest's passive ability is removed, however (more inconsistency). My description is still better, because it leaves no room for interpretation. There should be as few questions as possible regarding the effect of a spell or ability, and the word 'most' begs the question, "Which abilities does it not remove?" Making a small change to accommodate two passive abilities that, quite frankly, don't make much of a difference anyway, isn't necessary and creates more confusion than it eliminates.

[Rastafla]

Ever since the first week of playing Ive said this in the chat on several early occasions and people come in now and then and say it too. I've, and others, been bashed every time and that its "not as important as other updates" and "new players will learn eventually" another thing that will count as bashing so i wont repeat it and "its a free game don't, expect anything" etc etc.
And these comment were all from older players/moderators and/or higher.

Its not out of any bitterness that I reply this now its just that since newer and newer cards are appearing more and more slight changes and special cases that doesn't work or works will pile up and later create a jungle of rules that will be nasty to sort out.

I am slightly pedantic and this is bothering me ALOT, I'm reminded everyday I play too.

Ive been holding of such a post as OP too but I wish for better terminology to tell different kinds of buffs/effects/statuses/debuffs/sheild effects etc separate so there is no confusion.

EDIT below
As I spend most time in the chat several of us knows there are LOTS of people who never go to the forum or chat or the trainer because they simply don't know of it. They come into chat (sometimes if they sees the button) and asks questions about the cards shown above (or others) which in their eyes are errors at first until one of the regulars explains it.

[Chemist]

Your wording of immaterial status is still clunky, doesn't account for shields, and uses CCG jargon that some new players may not know. All it really needs to say is, "Cannot be targeted. Immune to all effects except shields." Burrow should reflect this change in wording as well.

It'll be hard to fit everything on the cards without using some jargon like "targeting".

If you say immune to all effects you don't really need the "can't be targeted" part. But remember that they can be affected by other non-targeting effects (not just shields) like Eclipse, Animate Weapon, grow, blaze, hatch, dive, etc. + Flooding in the case of burrowed creatures. And my description takes care of shields by not mentioning them: there is nothing special about how shields affect immaterial creatures.

Adrenaline is still awkward. "Weaker effect"? You can't use a qualitative adjective with a quantitative effect. Instead, have the card read as, "Target creature acts up to four times each turn. Stronger creatures gain fewer attacks, or none at all." I included the word "act" in the first sentence to encompass the entire creature action, but I reverted to "attacks" in the second to avoid confusion with the phrase, "gain fewer actions," which, to a new player, can appear as though activated abilities are affected. Life Nymph should just say, "Target creature gains adrenaline status."

Fewer attacks, yes, but additionally for the higher attack creatures (more than 3 attack) attacks after the first are also not performed at full power, and for some skills the skill may only be performed twice per turn even if the creature gets to act four times. But I agree "acts" could be confusing - it would probably only become apparent that it applies to what the creature does by itself (as in "it acts") after one turn. It's the best solutioun I can see right now, though. I also agree that the "target creature gains adrenaline status" would likely be better for the nymph as we need consistency in the descriptions.

Lobotomizer's ability is far less complicated than this, and is incorrect. There is a difference between an ability and a status. While lobo removes all abilities from a target creature, there is only one status that lobotomize actually can remove - momentum. Yes, lobo removes every single ability from a creature, including all passives. So change your wording to, "target creature loses all abilities and momentum."

I overlooked swarm and mummy, apparently. Pest's passive ability is removed, however (more inconsistency). My description is still better, because it leaves no room for interpretation. There should be as few questions as possible regarding the effect of a spell or ability, and the word 'most' begs the question, "Which abilities does it not remove?" Making a small change to accommodate two passive abilities that, quite frankly, don't make much of a difference anyway, isn't necessary and creates more confusion than it eliminates.

However in my case the description is vague whereas in your case it's wrong. It's hard to say which is the lesser evil... though my logic is that if it's vague it'll be looked up. If it's wrong it'll be misunderstood. I would have squeezed devour on there instead if there was the space for that (and it doesn't help that there are two abilities with that name).

Emerald Shield and Reflective Shield actually have different wording, but the same effect. Zanz changed the wording on Reflective Shield, but not Emerald Shield (I'm assuming this is because he just plain forgot). I believe the wording on both needs to be the same, but it should be more specific. Unfortunately, there is one spell behavior that needs to be fixed/confirmed before a better wording can be made - Holy Light. There are inconsistencies with the interaction between HL and any type of reflective shield, so this needs to be fixed before a wording can be reached.

I hadn't noticed that, thanks for pointing it out. It's on Mirror Shield only:

Shield: reduce damage by 1.
Any damage from spells is
reflected. Can not be
destroyed or stolen.
->->->->->->->->->->->->
Shield: reduce damage by 1.
Any direct damage effect is
reflected. Can not be
destroyed or stolen.

(There I go with the CCG jargon again...) anyway if Holy Light being reflected is indeed a bug then Mirror shield would be correct - except for how Unstable Gas isn't a spell yet its effect still gets reflected.

Its not out of any bitterness that I reply this now its just that since newer and newer cards are appearing more and more slight changes and special cases that doesn't work or works will pile up and later create a jungle of rules that will be nasty to sort out.

Everything doesn't fit on the cards as it is. So I'd just update the card text as the game develops so the short descriptions aren't plain wrong. With the introduction of that extra panel in 1.22 I was thinking something like that could be done for card descriptions as well. Just teach the players that mouseover + Ctrl shows the detailed description. Or have that open a new tab with the relevant article in the Wiki. The short description should still give a general idea of what the card does, though.

[jmizzle7]

Did you misunderstand what I meant by the word "jargon," or were you being sarcastic? I was talking about the phrase, "destructive area effects." If I had zero CCG experience, that would confuse me. Even with CCG experience, the phrase is awkward.

About Adrenaline.... We are talking about a card with more errata subtext than pretty much all others combined. It needs to be as simple as possible while providing the vital information to the card's effect. The residual nerfs that have been added (Pest, Pufferfish) don't need to be included on the card.

My point about mummy/swarm/devourer is that those three abilities perform inconsistently with regard to lobotomize. As those two cards have seen little to no playing time since they came out (Scarab in 1.13, Mummy about a week or two ago), there has been no discussion over the passive abilities of each with regard to lobotomize. You and I are both right - you are right in that lobo removes all abilities save two negligible passives that nobody cares about, and I am right in that it removes all active abilities and should remove all passives because of the precedent set by lobo+pest.

I guess I forgot to mention my suggestion for the wording for all things reflect: "Damage from spells and abilities is reflected to your opponent. Immaterial."

[Chemist]

Did you misunderstand what I meant by the word "jargon," or were you being sarcastic? I was talking about the phrase, "destructive area effects." If I had zero CCG experience, that would confuse me. Even with CCG experience, the phrase is awkward.

I didn't know which part (or parts) you thought of as being heavy jargon.

Which of the following would you say have "destructive area effects"? Unstable Gas, Plague, Flooding, Fire Shield, Eclipse. If you'd say the first three then the description should be OK. Or would "harmful area effects" fit better? Aside from including that odd term [...]

I'm still open for a better suggestion on a term which encompasses: Rain of Fire, Thunderstorm, Plague, Flooding and ignite (Unstable Gas), while excluding Eclipse, shield effects and other non-targeting effects. I was trying for one which would be understood without too much confusion, but this is the best I've come up with. We could argue that all the cards immaterials are immune too (the non-targeting ones) affect an area, and that they are harmful. This will no longer hold true the moment we get an anti-eclipse which reduces stats and affects immaterial creatures, but I suppose for now "harmful" is better than "destructive" for I fear Plague doesn't sound "destructive".

About Adrenaline.... We are talking about a card with more errata subtext than pretty much all others combined. It needs to be as simple as possible while providing the vital information to the card's effect. The residual nerfs that have been added (Pest, Pufferfish) don't need to be included on the card.

I think my description sounds simple enough. The only nod it even gives towards abilities not working as often is by saying "strength" rather then "attack power".

My point about mummy/swarm/devourer is that those three abilities perform inconsistently with regard to lobotomize. As those two cards have seen little to no playing time since they came out (Scarab in 1.13, Mummy about a week or two ago), there has been no discussion over the passive abilities of each with regard to lobotomize. You and I are both right - you are right in that lobo removes all abilities save two negligible passives that nobody cares about, and I am right in that it removes all active abilities and should remove all passives because of the precedent set by lobo+pest.

I assume mummy not being removable isn't a bug, though. Otherwise there would be no reason to make it a passive skill when nothing else (including scavanger, bioluminescence and phoenix) is.

I guess I forgot to mention my suggestion for the wording for all things reflect: "Damage from spells and skills is reflected to your opponent. Immaterial."

(fixed - while we say ability all the time in the forums it's still "skill" in the game)
Yes, if Holy Light is buggy then this sounds fine.