Not a Bug, Okay, how about this?

[russianspy1234]

Not buying it - there's no gameplay reason why adrenaline is a different kind of ability than momentum.  So one is passive and one is active - that's the bug.  They should both be the same type of ability since they both are cast on the card and passively influence how the creature attacks.  Note that lobotomizer doesn't mention anything about "passive" or "active."

You could go into incredible detail on the internal function of the entire program and claim that nothing is a bug because you can trace through the code to see why it happened.  But that's not what bugs are.  Just because you understand why it happens doesn't make it not a bug.

not exactly, you can claim its not a bug and is working as intended, but then the mistake is in the language/visual representation.  both adrenaline and momentum are cards that put a token onto a card that changes how the creature attacks.  of course players who see momentum get lobotomized are going to expect it to work on adrenaline.  if the card is working as intended (which is a valid response) then the visual representation should be changed, ie have adrenaline not give a token.  its kind of like the bone wall "bug"  there is nothing wrong with the way it works now, its more balanced that way, but the language of the card implies that it should add 7 bone shields to however many it has now as opposed to just setting the number at 7.

the burrow bug is reasonable, and really doesnt even come up that often, and the fix for it is complicated enough (the variable holding the attack is probably an int) that it is not worth fixing

[Higurashi]

I dunno what you think you're not buying, as I've only presented a platform for discussion, but.. what spy said. I can do exactly that. If it's intended, it's not a bug. What you're referring to is just a lack of visual explanation, really. The fact that you mention the lack of distinction on Lobo cements this fact.

You want two cards that affect attacking to have the same visual effects. That's not necessarily a discussion about consistency, since they're pretty different in actual gameplay effect, and rather just confirms that there are always exceptions that make the rules. In this case, we have three unique cards, but they can all be understood by using categories.

[russianspy1234]

is there a reason for adreniline being passive?  since momentum can be a second active ability, presumably it is not due to space or card structure (changing 1 to more than one can be tricky depending on programming structure, changing 2 to 3 or more should be trivial)

[Higurashi]

We as players can only guess, but since it does prevent it from being lobotomised, I've assumed two reasons. One, it makes it a wee bit stronger. Two, the card Adrenaline simply triggers an inherent process that's inside all creatures. You cannot remove this ability any more than you can remove its ability to breathe on its own. You'd have to kill it instead.

(The discussion on what lobotomization is actually capable of doing isn't all that relevant to this game, since lobo clearly doesn't do the same thing it does in real life to begin with. It's a game after all, and as such uses thematically strong words to make things more awesome.)

[EvaRia]

I'm gonna say this:

Bug: An effect that occurs which either makes no sense whatsoever or goes in direct contrast to the general game mechanics.

Not-a-Bug: An intended effect that was added to the game for a specific reason.

Pseudo Bug: An effect that simply occurs because of the way the game is coded. It isn't really a bug because it can make sense, but can be improved upon to make the game more consistent. These do not occurs because of mistakes in the game's coding, they just occur because they are an overlooked issue.

So... things like the burrow thing and lobotomizer not removing adrenaline are pseudo bugs. They aren't really unintended, but they aren't really intended either. The expected reaction just hasn't shown up in the game code and requires more coding to change, which is why it hasn't happened yet.

[gumbeh]

Are mirror shields supposed to reflect Purify? In a PVP match, it seemed that my opponent was receiving the healing, though he did not get the visual effect. Not sure if WAI, bug, or unexpected but acceptable behavior that needs VFX added to make what's going on clear... or maybe just a minor desynch.

Edit: to clarify, I had reflective shield, I cast purify, my opponent appeared to start healing with no other sources of healing visible. He did not get the blue visual icon for purify.

[furballdn]

Are mirror shields supposed to reflect Purify? In a PVP match, it seemed that my opponent was receiving the healing, though he did not get the visual effect. Not sure if WAI, bug, or unexpected but acceptable behavior that needs VFX added to make what's going on clear... or maybe just a minor desynch.

Edit: to clarify, I had reflective shield, I cast purify, my opponent appeared to start healing with no other sources of healing visible. He did not get the blue visual icon for purify.

Purify+reflective shields are quite glitchy and will cause desynchs. There was a thread on it but I can't find it.

[drolly]

Purify+reflective shields are quite glitchy and will cause desynchs. There was a thread on it but I can't find it.

Here you are. Reading through the card descriptions again, I noticed that Emerald Shield says that "spells are reflected" and Reflective Shield says that "any damage from spells is reflected". It's clear that this is due to the longer text on Emerald Shield but strictly speaking, one would expect Emerald to reflect Purify and Reflective not to reflect it. Well, this is something that urgently needs fixing and clarification. Look at the details in the bug report thread; I expect every Purify cast against such a shield to result in a desync.

[Wizy]

I post it here because it is likely not a bug or rather a pseudo bug as EvaRia described.
When SoP is in effect, newly generated malignant cells through infect do attack the turn they come into play. I wonder if that is intended.

[shadow303]

Don't know where to post this, since it's not really an ingame bug, but rather a website issue I'll post it here (just to mention it):

The "Elements Wiki" link directly under the game area seems to be broken.
It points to "http://elementswiki.co.cc", but that page gives a "server not found" error.
Since here in the forum the wiki link points to "http://elementscommunity.org/wiki/Main_Page" I presume the other one is wrong.

[furballdn]

Don't know where to post this, since it's not really an ingame bug, but rather a website issue I'll post it here (just to mention it):

The "Elements Wiki" link directly under the game area seems to be broken.
It points to "http://elementswiki.co.cc", but that page gives a "server not found" error.
Since here in the forum the wiki link points to "http://elementscommunity.org/wiki/Main_Page" I presume the other one is wrong.

Zanz has not updated the link.

[Arwulf]

So, I am aware that most players do not consider it a bug and that it is OP anyway,

but it is counter-intuitive that if you try to play around a



by not having ANY permanents on the board at all, the opponent can still make it grow HP without having to kill a permanent of him/herself.

I have read elsewhere about the abuse-prevention (abilities cannot be canceled, costs are subtracted from your quantum pool wether you use the ability or not), but the wording/parsing on the card does not seem to support the actual working as far as this principleis concerned: it says "destroy a permanent AND gain +0/+15" for a cost of '0'.

Yes, this card has probably been discussed many times; however it seems strange that an effect (get +0/+15) is considered to be part of the cost (which seems to be '0') .

So, is SoF OP because of parsing 'error' or is this intentional?