Descriptions in Need of Rewording

[jmizzle7]

Looks like we agree about the mummy ability. I don't see why mummy's ability should be immune to removal, but at the same time, it's not a big deal if it can't be removed. The opponent could just wait until it turns into a Pharaoh, then lobo the Pharaoh. It really doesn't make sense as a non-removable passive, because it really isn't a passive ability at all. Eclipse is passive, but mummy is a triggered ability ("skill"), just like phoenix and scavenger. But those are removable, and mummy is not. Yet another inconsistency...

I say that there are three different solutions to this problem.

• Lobo removes all abilities and momentum
• Lobo removes only non-passive abilities and momentum
• Leave it as is, with Lobo removing all non-passive, the devourer passive, and momentum status

[Reefa]

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.

Yes I think one should mention this (and so every little detail ...).

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.

Thats not correct, because it affects the target creature. The target creature gains ~2 bonus attacks after all, but does the same damage with them, because the total damage of the creature is split between the attacks. So it is actually weaker against most shields (stronger against a bonewall ...) without becoming stronger (a diamond shield would absorb much more damage). And as posted above, all the specifics should be named. To search in a Wiki for a clear description of a card is a little strange in my eyes.

Regards, Reefa.

[jmizzle7]

Not that it matters, because it shouldn't be on the card anyway, but the cap on Adrenaline is not 20, it's 15. The end.

[Chemist]

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.

Yes I think one should mention this (and so every little detail ...).

I suppose you could add "under the control of the pillar's owner.", but like I just said the description isn't wrong... any additional explanaition is actually unnecessary. Or would people misunderstand without this?

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.

Thats not correct, because it affects the target creature. The target creature gains ~2 bonus attacks after all, but does the same damage with them, because the total damage of the creature is split between the attacks. So it is actually weaker against most shields (stronger against a bonewall ...) without becoming stronger (a diamond shield would absorb much more damage).

Just tried it in the trainer. A 22 attack creature deals a single attack at full power, just like the wiki says - it isn't affected by Adrenaline. And Adrenaline never decreases a creature's first (original) attack, so I don't see where you're going with this.

And as posted above, all the specifics should be named. To search in a Wiki for a clear description of a card is a little strange in my eyes.

What alternative would you suggest? You do realize that you can't fit a precise description of what Mutation does on the card itself?

[Reefa]

Maybe the adrenaline issue is fixed in the newer version of the game at the trainer.

For mutation one could write "Mutate the target creature to get a random attack, defense and the chance of a new ability. Can kill target creature."

Sure, this shouldn't stand at *every* card (f.e. creatures, because a pest doesn't have a description of burrow and it's fine) but at least on the spells.

Regards, Reefa.

[Kamietsu]

Maybe the adrenaline issue is fixed in the newer version of the game at the trainer.

For mutation one could write "Mutate the target creature to get a random attack, defense and the chance of a new ability. Can kill target creature."

Sure, this shouldn't stand at *every* card (f.e. creatures, because a pest doesn't have a description of burrow and it's fine) but at least on the spells.

Regards, Reefa.

There is no mechanic issue with Adrenaline. How you thought it works isn't how it actually works. Creatures whose attack is higher than 15 do not get any extra attack/turns. It is not divided up into two weaker attacks that equal the same result damage.

[Reefa]

After all I trust my eyes, so there was and now is not. Anyway, saying big creatures gaining no extra attacks is a difference to the card text that clearly indicates creatures gaining at least one extra attack "The target creature attacks multiple times per turn."

Regards, Reefa

[Reefa]

Just another one from the scarab:
Defense is X, where X is the number of scarabs the owner controls and X is applied at the end of the owner's turn. Just to name the known facts.
But if a scarab devours a creature, it gets +1/+1 during the turn the devour takes place (because it's not a counter / mark / whatever stacking on the creature, like poison). So at the end of turn, when X is applied again according to the number of scarabs, the scarab must lose the one point of defense.

Regards, Reefa.

[Chemist]

Just another one from the scarab:
Defense is X, where X is the number of scarabs the owner controls and X is applied at the end of the owner's turn. Just to name the known facts.
But if a scarab devours a creature, it gets +1/+1 during the turn the devour takes place (because it's not a counter / mark / whatever stacking on the creature, like poison). So at the end of turn, when X is applied again according to the number of scarabs, the scarab must lose the one point of defense.

Regards, Reefa.

That shouldn't happen according to the description nor does it happen in practice, so there isn't a problem. Note that N is the number of base HP. The number of current HP can be changed to be higher or lower than that (through the application of buffs or by dealing damage to the creature, respectively).

[Reefa]

Sure, as it should be. But defense is calculated new after each turn, because defense is N and N is the number of scarabs. Otherwise there should stand a defense of 0+N (to apply buffs and debuffs more correctly). And yes, maybe I see this a little *to* accurate, but its my point of view.

Regards, Reefa.

[Chemist]

Sure, as it should be. But defense is calculated new after each turn, because defense is N and N is the number of scarabs.

Since N = the number of Scarabs you have at the end of your turn that does mean the value changes at the end of each of your turns (except when the number of Scarabs doesn't).

Otherwise there should stand a defense of 0+N (to apply buffs and debuffs more correctly).

See the v1.22 development notes.