I am sure this is not the first thread on the subject, but I am talking about the interaction with spell damage. When you have 1 spell damage on board and you Fandral+Wrath it does 5 damage instead of 6 ((3+1)+(1+1)). Maybe Brode or Blizzard has commented as to whether this is intended but it just seems to me that the way Fandral is worded this is an inconsistency. It doesn't change wrath into a new 4 damage draw a card spell, it does both effects, first 3 damage then 1 and draw a card. It is fine this is in one animation but in my opinion there are two spells being cast so the spell damage should apply to both ends.
It turns it into a spell that does four damage and draws a card. Why would +1 spell damage add twice, its only one card, the effects are merged not consecutive.
It even reads "both effects combined" not both effects in a row. Where did you get the idea that it is worded otherwise.
I agree. As someone who has tinkered with writing an HS simulator, I'm very surprised if it works this way naturally, I would expect the engine to treat these as two transactions, adding spell damage to each one. It makes me think they went out of their way to code in only 1 spell damage, which would be very interesting as a deliberate though very subtle nerf of Fandral.
Spell Damage is factored in very late. Admittedly I fell for this one, because it's so natural for your brain to want to add 4 + 2 = 6 when looking at the card text, but the effect follows the game rules.
Exactly, it's like they have an entirely new card definition in the background that executes instead of Wrath, which is basically "Deal 4 damage and draw a card". At least, knowing this is how they want it, that's how I'd do it. Also explains why there's only one proc on Acolyte.
Nerf may be strong language but I still think it was a deliberate decision by Blizzard which way to handle it, and they opted for the generally less powerful one.
Exactly, it's like they have an entirely new card definition in the background that executes instead of Wrath, which is basically "Deal 4 damage and draw a card". At least, knowing this is how they want it, that's how I'd do it. Also explains why there's only one proc on Acolyte.
Nerf may be strong language but I still think it was a deliberate decision by Blizzard which way to handle it, and they opted for the generally less powerful one.
Given that players would be reading "Deal *4* damage" and "Deal *2* damage" on the card, I feel it's a mistake to have it deal 5 in that situation. So by your logic, couldn't they background-replace the Wrath effect with 4 damage, draw a card, double Spell Damage benefit (a la Arcane Blast)?
Is that really how Wrath reads with +1 Spell Damage and Fandral on the board? Because yeah, that's a very unfortunate loophole.
I know if I was going to code it my first instinct would be to attach three "transactions" to the card, passing the same "target" from one damage transaction to the next, but adding all Spell Damage to both (and then of course a draw transaction at the end). It's not like they don't have cards with multiple, individually resolving transactions, the engine has to be built that way, but they went a different direction with Fandral.
To answer the question, I wouldn't put special code on top of these shadow Fandral card versions to then add back in more Spell Damage that got lost in the way they wrote the code. That would be some pretty gnarly code to maintain.
Basically I conclude this works exactly the way they want it to, but with unfortunate scenarios with misleading card text -- hardly new for this game.
Wrath is a single spell with an option of two outcomes. Fandral enables you to use both outcomes, but it is still just one spell. The only difference is that it does both options. It is one card and therefore one spell. One card can not be two spells. You get one spell damage per spell. Therefore, it results in 5 damage.
They also do not cast separately. It is one cast for 4 damage + 1 card draw.
I honestly don't get how people get confused over things like this. You cast 1 Wrath, so you get +1 Spell Damage. You combine both modes of your Wrath into one spell. Like, I really don't understand how anyone could interpret that in a way that it would give you +2 damage with only +1 spell damage on board. I don't understand that thought process.
I honestly don't get how people get confused over things like this. You cast 1 Wrath, so you get +1 Spell Damage. You combine both modes of your Wrath into one spell. Like, I really don't understand how anyone could interpret that in a way that it would give you +2 damage with only +1 spell damage on board. I don't understand that thought process.
Maybe because of Blizzards inconsistency with cards and their rules. And other choose one effects, like Wisps of the Old Gods, are triggered depending on which effect comes first on the card text. (1.: Summon 7 Wisps 2.: Buff all Minions)
This is why I expected Wrath to do 6 instead of 5 damage, but the "It's only one card" explanation makes sense, so thanks for explaining (sry too lazy to scroll up and look up who explained it)
Given that players would be reading "Deal *4* damage" and "Deal *2* damage" on the card, I feel it's a mistake to have it deal 5 in that situation. So by your logic, couldn't they background-replace the Wrath effect with 4 damage, draw a card, double Spell Damage benefit (a la Arcane Blast)?
Is that really how Wrath reads with +1 Spell Damage and Fandral on the board? Because yeah, that's a very unfortunate loophole.
Simple solution: change the way the card looks in your hand while you've got Fandral Staghelm in play. Do it for all Choose cards. That would remove all ambiguity.
Plenty of other cards affect the way things look in your hand. (For example, Pint-Sized Summoner makes all the minions in your hand show as costing 1 less.) As soon as the in-play effect dies, the cards in your hand revert back to their original state. So we already have the technology for it, all that's needed is a bit of graphic design to make the Frandralised in-hand versions.
Why does the op say there is an inconsistency with Wrath ? While all choose one cards work the same ?
As far as I know Fandral doesn't summon both tokens when you play Druid of the Claw. It's obvious that it merges both effects into one card and there is no reason wrath should be different, close this silly thread.
Druid of the Claw is a bad example because both options are buffs applied to the same minion so it is logical that there would only be one card. A better example would be something more along the lines of Druid of the Flame.
(I know that the effects of druid of the claw are not treated as buffs and instead just summon a new minion with the chosen buff, but the wording on the card is not consistent with its own behavior when compared to something like ancient of war)
What ? Both effects summon a different minion, they don't buff anything at all, it's exactly the same as druid of the flame.
The wording on the cards is not. It is a well known fact that druid of the claw's text is not consistent with its own behavior when compared to ancient of war. That's what makes it a bad example. Druid of the claw shouldn't work as it does now according to its own card text. Not even a noob would think that you would get two card according to its wording, whereas something like druid of the flame might not be as clear.
I'm not talking about the text here, i'm talking about what it actually does in game. it is a well known fact that druid of the claw summons different tokens and doesn't buff itself, i'm not sure why you even talk about the text inconsistency of druid of the claw here, it's not the point, I highly doubt a new player that has never seen druid of the claw in game is reading this thread right now.
DotC doesn't summon tokens, it transforms itself into one of the two options. That's why it's not directly comparable with Wrath.
I'm not talking about the text here, i'm talking about what it actually does in game. it is a well known fact that druid of the claw summons different tokens and doesn't buff itself, i'm not sure why you even talk about the text inconsistency of druid of the claw here, it's not the point, I highly doubt a new player that has never seen druid of the claw in game is reading this thread right now.
I just pointed out the fact that it was a bad example. No reason to get angry about it. You were talking about what people might expect the card to do, and in that case the card text is absolutely relevant to what a person might expect the card to do with fandral on the board.
I'm not talking about the text here, i'm talking about what it actually does in game. it is a well known fact that druid of the claw summons different tokens and doesn't buff itself, i'm not sure why you even talk about the text inconsistency of druid of the claw here, it's not the point, I highly doubt a new player that has never seen druid of the claw in game is reading this thread right now.
DotC doesn't summon tokens, it transforms itself into one of the two options. That's why it's not directly comparable with Wrath.
Okay, my bad, but it's still exactly like ancient of war and druid of the flame.
Those two cards act completely differently outside of their fandral interaction, it cannot be exactly like both of them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am sure this is not the first thread on the subject, but I am talking about the interaction with spell damage. When you have 1 spell damage on board and you Fandral+Wrath it does 5 damage instead of 6 ((3+1)+(1+1)). Maybe Brode or Blizzard has commented as to whether this is intended but it just seems to me that the way Fandral is worded this is an inconsistency. It doesn't change wrath into a new 4 damage draw a card spell, it does both effects, first 3 damage then 1 and draw a card. It is fine this is in one animation but in my opinion there are two spells being cast so the spell damage should apply to both ends.
It turns it into a spell that does four damage and draws a card. Why would +1 spell damage add twice, its only one card, the effects are merged not consecutive.
It even reads "both effects combined" not both effects in a row. Where did you get the idea that it is worded otherwise.
I agree. As someone who has tinkered with writing an HS simulator, I'm very surprised if it works this way naturally, I would expect the engine to treat these as two transactions, adding spell damage to each one. It makes me think they went out of their way to code in only 1 spell damage, which would be very interesting as a deliberate though very subtle nerf of Fandral.
You should learn to read the text of the cards before making a post about them.
Spell Damage is factored in very late. Admittedly I fell for this one, because it's so natural for your brain to want to add 4 + 2 = 6 when looking at the card text, but the effect follows the game rules.
Hearthpwn's #1 Resident Shadowform Advocate
Exactly, it's like they have an entirely new card definition in the background that executes instead of Wrath, which is basically "Deal 4 damage and draw a card". At least, knowing this is how they want it, that's how I'd do it. Also explains why there's only one proc on Acolyte.
Nerf may be strong language but I still think it was a deliberate decision by Blizzard which way to handle it, and they opted for the generally less powerful one.
Is that really how Wrath reads with +1 Spell Damage and Fandral on the board? Because yeah, that's a very unfortunate loophole.
I know if I was going to code it my first instinct would be to attach three "transactions" to the card, passing the same "target" from one damage transaction to the next, but adding all Spell Damage to both (and then of course a draw transaction at the end). It's not like they don't have cards with multiple, individually resolving transactions, the engine has to be built that way, but they went a different direction with Fandral.
To answer the question, I wouldn't put special code on top of these shadow Fandral card versions to then add back in more Spell Damage that got lost in the way they wrote the code. That would be some pretty gnarly code to maintain.
Basically I conclude this works exactly the way they want it to, but with unfortunate scenarios with misleading card text -- hardly new for this game.
Wrath is a single spell with an option of two outcomes. Fandral enables you to use both outcomes, but it is still just one spell. The only difference is that it does both options. It is one card and therefore one spell. One card can not be two spells. You get one spell damage per spell. Therefore, it results in 5 damage.
They also do not cast separately. It is one cast for 4 damage + 1 card draw.
Also moved to Card Discussion.
I honestly don't get how people get confused over things like this. You cast 1 Wrath, so you get +1 Spell Damage. You combine both modes of your Wrath into one spell. Like, I really don't understand how anyone could interpret that in a way that it would give you +2 damage with only +1 spell damage on board. I don't understand that thought process.
Your logic would make arcane missiles do 6 damage instead of 4. One spell, one additional damage!
This is why I expected Wrath to do 6 instead of 5 damage, but the "It's only one card" explanation makes sense, so thanks for explaining (sry too lazy to scroll up and look up who explained it)
If Fandral wrath could be split between 2 targets, then the spell damage for each would make more sense.
Works exactly as it should. It's one spell, not two.