I've just witnessed a possible glitch. My opponent in arena had Reckoning up, I played Injured Marauder and its battlecry triggered Reckoning and killed it. There's no way this works as intended, right? I mean, the card says "Deal 6 damage to this minion." So the marauder isn't the entity dealing the damage.
I would assume because the Marauder has the Battlecry, the game is treating it as the one dealing the damage. I know it's not super clear, but I would assume this is not a glitch.
I mean, it's more than 3 damage, so I guess working as intended, even if it is your own minion you are hurting.
The triggers for the damage to the minion must be based on the minion doing the damage to itself. From a technical standpoint that makes sense, since the minion itself is the one constant variable when the minion is played and the damage needs to be triggered.
It also makes sense since it's a battlecry when the minion is played. So that also sets the origination to your minion itself.
It gets played, it's battlecry triggers, it does the 6 damage to itself, Reckoning notices more than 3 damage being done and triggers.
It makes sense (even if it doesn't make sense).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you see a bad post on the forum use the report function under it, so I or someone else of the moderation team can take care of it!
Then they screwed up the wording at the very least. In comparison, Injured Blademaster says "Deal 4 damage to himself." That clarifies that the minion itself is the one dealing the damage. I would have no problem with Reckoning triggering on the Blademaster.
Also, flavourwise, Reckoning shouldn't even trigger on damage to my own characters at all. But that is a different story.
Then they screwed up the wording at the very least. In comparison, Injured Blademaster says "Deal 4 damage to himself." That clarifies that the minion itself is the one dealing the damage. I would have no problem with Reckoning triggering on the Blademaster.
Also, flavourwise, Reckoning shouldn't even trigger on damage to my own characters at all. But that is a different story.
every battlecry minion that does damage is always the source of the damage dealt. if the battlecry of reckless apprentice does more than 3 damage for example he also triggers the secret bc he was using your heropower instead of you
So the marauder isn't the entity dealing the damage.
Then who is?
The only difference between the battlecries of the marauder and, say, Fire Elemental is the recipient of the damage. Do you want reckoning not to trigger off of and kill fire elemental?
Then they screwed up the wording at the very least. In comparison, Injured Blademaster says "Deal 4 damage to himself." That clarifies that the minion itself is the one dealing the damage. I would have no problem with Reckoning triggering on the Blademaster.
Also, flavourwise, Reckoning shouldn't even trigger on damage to my own characters at all. But that is a different story.
every battlecry minion that does damage is always the source of the damage dealt. if the battlecry of reckless apprentice does more than 3 damage for example he also triggers the secret bc he was using your heropower instead of you
Actually, I never thought of minion battlecries this way. When it says "deal x damage", I always assume it speaks to the player, so I'm the one dealing the damage. Otherwise I would expect the wording to be "this deals x damage". But what you - and others in this thread as well - suggest makes a lot of sense. HS apperently always sets the minion as the default origin of the battlecry effect, the wording just isn't very clear about this fact. Too bad there isn't a rulebook where you can look such stuff up. Or is there?
Kinda sucks that it triggers on battlecries, but it is fairly consistent across the game. I've lost a few Blood Shard Bristlebacks to reckoning. Would prefer it if the secret were, "after a minion attacks and deals 3 or more damage..."
This is not a bug. The source of the damage is the Marauder, and the damage dealt is 3 or greater. As wacky as it is, it is correct. Works the same with stuff like Flame Imp's Battlecry.
Actually, I never thought of minion battlecries this way. When it says "deal x damage", I always assume it speaks to the player, so I'm the one dealing the damage. Otherwise I would expect the wording to be "this deals x damage". But what you - and others in this thread as well - suggest makes a lot of sense. HS apperently always sets the minion as the default origin of the battlecry effect, the wording just isn't very clear about this fact. Too bad there isn't a rulebook where you can look such stuff up. Or is there?
The main thing I would point to is the animation showing a small fireball, or a beam of light, or a potion, be launched from the minion with the effect. Same as Ragnaros the Firelord. It doesn't say "At the end of your turn, *this* deals 8 damage to a random enemy", it just says "deal damage", and we can see the fireball get thrown from rag to the target. Most of the game is pretty intuitive like this. I would say the most misleading card would be khadgar, and even more so when you have 2. His effect is better described as "Whenever your cards summon a minion, summon a copy"
I think that's different as the card says 'lose one health' and not 'deal X damage'
But that is not how things work. Truth is it doesn't matter what the card says, only what it does. I would be really surprised if Reckoning doesn't trigger after playing Witchwood Grizzly and your opponent having three or more cards in hand.
Witchwood Grizzly doesn't damage itself. Its battlecry lowers its max HP; It can't be healed to full, but it can be silenced to raise its max to 12 again
Witchwood Grizzly doesn't damage itself. Its battlecry lowers its max HP; It can't be healed to full, but it can be silenced to raise its max to 12 again
True, hehe, my bad. SirJohn13 was right. :P
I must mention I searched Witchwood Grizzly in Youtube and first thing that appeared to me was a video of Alliextrasza. Damn, being so cute should be a crime. :P
Actually, I never thought of minion battlecries this way. When it says "deal x damage", I always assume it speaks to the player, so I'm the one dealing the damage. Otherwise I would expect the wording to be "this deals x damage". But what you - and others in this thread as well - suggest makes a lot of sense. HS apperently always sets the minion as the default origin of the battlecry effect, the wording just isn't very clear about this fact. Too bad there isn't a rulebook where you can look such stuff up. Or is there?
The main thing I would point to is the animation showing a small fireball, or a beam of light, or a potion, be launched from the minion with the effect. Same as Ragnaros the Firelord. It doesn't say "At the end of your turn, *this* deals 8 damage to a random enemy", it just says "deal damage", and we can see the fireball get thrown from rag to the target. Most of the game is pretty intuitive like this. I would say the most misleading card would be khadgar, and even more so when you have 2. His effect is better described as "Whenever your cards summon a minion, summon a copy"
I get your point. But what is intuitive differs from person to person, based on their experiences, education and so on. In my line of work, I'm used to read premises thoroughly and literally and don't overvalue cosmetic stuff like animations. So for me, a card text like that is extremely counter-intuitive, even when used consistently throughout the game.
Anyway, I get that that's probably a problem only a small minority of players has, so I will just accept it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ceterum censeo classum magi esse delendam.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've just witnessed a possible glitch. My opponent in arena had Reckoning up, I played Injured Marauder and its battlecry triggered Reckoning and killed it. There's no way this works as intended, right? I mean, the card says "Deal 6 damage to this minion." So the marauder isn't the entity dealing the damage.
Ceterum censeo classum magi esse delendam.
I would assume because the Marauder has the Battlecry, the game is treating it as the one dealing the damage. I know it's not super clear, but I would assume this is not a glitch.
That sucks. I think Reckoning worked properly, though.
lol
I mean, it's more than 3 damage, so I guess working as intended, even if it is your own minion you are hurting.
The triggers for the damage to the minion must be based on the minion doing the damage to itself. From a technical standpoint that makes sense, since the minion itself is the one constant variable when the minion is played and the damage needs to be triggered.
It also makes sense since it's a battlecry when the minion is played. So that also sets the origination to your minion itself.
It gets played, it's battlecry triggers, it does the 6 damage to itself, Reckoning notices more than 3 damage being done and triggers.
It makes sense (even if it doesn't make sense).
If you see a bad post on the forum use the report function under it, so I or someone else of the moderation team can take care of it!
Then they screwed up the wording at the very least. In comparison, Injured Blademaster says "Deal 4 damage to himself." That clarifies that the minion itself is the one dealing the damage. I would have no problem with Reckoning triggering on the Blademaster.
Also, flavourwise, Reckoning shouldn't even trigger on damage to my own characters at all. But that is a different story.
Ceterum censeo classum magi esse delendam.
From a flavor side of the thing, why does injured marauder hurt himself though? lol
"Minion to minion the basic of all combats, only a fool trusts his win to an OTK"
every battlecry minion that does damage is always the source of the damage dealt. if the battlecry of reckless apprentice does more than 3 damage for example he also triggers the secret bc he was using your heropower instead of you
Then who is?
The only difference between the battlecries of the marauder and, say, Fire Elemental is the recipient of the damage. Do you want reckoning not to trigger off of and kill fire elemental?
Actually, I never thought of minion battlecries this way. When it says "deal x damage", I always assume it speaks to the player, so I'm the one dealing the damage. Otherwise I would expect the wording to be "this deals x damage". But what you - and others in this thread as well - suggest makes a lot of sense. HS apperently always sets the minion as the default origin of the battlecry effect, the wording just isn't very clear about this fact. Too bad there isn't a rulebook where you can look such stuff up. Or is there?
Ceterum censeo classum magi esse delendam.
Kinda sucks that it triggers on battlecries, but it is fairly consistent across the game. I've lost a few Blood Shard Bristlebacks to reckoning. Would prefer it if the secret were, "after a minion attacks and deals 3 or more damage..."
This is not a bug. The source of the damage is the Marauder, and the damage dealt is 3 or greater. As wacky as it is, it is correct. Works the same with stuff like Flame Imp's Battlecry.
The main thing I would point to is the animation showing a small fireball, or a beam of light, or a potion, be launched from the minion with the effect. Same as Ragnaros the Firelord. It doesn't say "At the end of your turn, *this* deals 8 damage to a random enemy", it just says "deal damage", and we can see the fireball get thrown from rag to the target. Most of the game is pretty intuitive like this. I would say the most misleading card would be khadgar, and even more so when you have 2. His effect is better described as "Whenever your cards summon a minion, summon a copy"
So would that kill the Whichwood grizzly too? Or is his damage different?
I think that's different as the card says 'lose one health' and not 'deal X damage'
But that is not how things work. Truth is it doesn't matter what the card says, only what it does. I would be really surprised if Reckoning doesn't trigger after playing Witchwood Grizzly and your opponent having three or more cards in hand.
Witchwood Grizzly doesn't damage itself. Its battlecry lowers its max HP; It can't be healed to full, but it can be silenced to raise its max to 12 again
True, hehe, my bad. SirJohn13 was right. :P
I must mention I searched Witchwood Grizzly in Youtube and first thing that appeared to me was a video of Alliextrasza. Damn, being so cute should be a crime. :P
I get your point. But what is intuitive differs from person to person, based on their experiences, education and so on. In my line of work, I'm used to read premises thoroughly and literally and don't overvalue cosmetic stuff like animations. So for me, a card text like that is extremely counter-intuitive, even when used consistently throughout the game.
Anyway, I get that that's probably a problem only a small minority of players has, so I will just accept it.
Ceterum censeo classum magi esse delendam.