I would have to admit though, that the ability isn't just worded badly, it is probably worded incorrectly. In my opionionIt should say:
Battlecry: This minion gains "Summon an exact copy of this minion at the end of the turn." until end of turn.
But that didn't fit on the card and is still really confusing. I guess the design team did the best they could wording this monstrosity.
So I guess you were all right, but I tried to explain what actually DOES happen, while you all tried to explain why what does happen doesn't match up with what the card says will happen.
Hey you should do the wording for blizzard.
No more future bugs, just poor wording!
Haha, that wording was confusing too, as it didn't include the "this abillity doesn't stack" part of the deal, I reworded it AGAIN:
Battlecry: This minion gains split up.
Split up: This minion has a shield that evaporates at the end of turn while summoning an exact copy of this minion.
Or, if making a new keyword for a single card is not done:
Battlecry: This minion gains a shield that evaporates at the end of turn while summoning an exact copy of this minion.
I don't see how the "shield that evaporates" part is relevant to the wording. That's just the animation.
It is not a bug, but based on comments above, it seems I will not be able to explain why to the people questioning the functionality.
This is not a battle cry that buffs. This is an ability. Similar to stealth, taunt and divine shield if you have the ability already, nothing changes if you get it again.
There is no such thing as double taunt, ie silence it twice to get past it. It would be seriously broken if you can get double divine shield meaning you have to attack a minion twice before you can start taking down its health.
It is a battlecry that grants an abillity that doesn't stack. But nowhere on the card does it actually say either of those things. Which is why it cannot be "explained" to people questioning it. I overlooked that the card really doesn't do what it says it will do. Unless I'm missing something, in which case I am really curious what I missed and completely open to being proven wrong.
I would have to admit though, that the ability isn't just worded badly, it is probably worded incorrectly. In my opionionIt should say:
Battlecry: This minion gains "Summon an exact copy of this minion at the end of the turn." until end of turn.
But that didn't fit on the card and is still really confusing. I guess the design team did the best they could wording this monstrosity.
So I guess you were all right, but I tried to explain what actually DOES happen, while you all tried to explain why what does happen doesn't match up with what the card says will happen.
Hey you should do the wording for blizzard.
No more future bugs, just poor wording!
Haha, that wording was confusing too, as it didn't include the "this abillity doesn't stack" part of the deal, I reworded it AGAIN:
Battlecry: This minion gains split up.
Split up: This minion has a shield that evaporates at the end of turn while summoning an exact copy of this minion.
Or, if making a new keyword for a single card is not done:
Battlecry: This minion gains a shield that evaporates at the end of turn while summoning an exact copy of this minion.
I don't see how the "shield that evaporates" part is relevant to the wording. That's just the animation.
It is relevant because if the shield doesn't evaporate (or disappear if you will) at the same time it splits:
1. The copied minion will have the ability too and
2. The original minion (as well as its copies) will split at the end of each turn, instead of just the first.
The shield part itself is vital to indicate that it's not an ability that stacks. You can't have two shields in the same way you can't have double taunt etc.
I would have to admit though, that the ability isn't just worded badly, it is probably worded incorrectly. In my opionionIt should say:
Battlecry: This minion gains "Summon an exact copy of this minion at the end of the turn." until end of turn.
But that didn't fit on the card and is still really confusing. I guess the design team did the best they could wording this monstrosity.
So I guess you were all right, but I tried to explain what actually DOES happen, while you all tried to explain why what does happen doesn't match up with what the card says will happen.
Hey you should do the wording for blizzard.
No more future bugs, just poor wording!
Haha, that wording was confusing too, as it didn't include the "this abillity doesn't stack" part of the deal, I reworded it AGAIN:
Battlecry: This minion gains split up.
Split up: This minion has a shield that evaporates at the end of turn while summoning an exact copy of this minion.
Or, if making a new keyword for a single card is not done:
Battlecry: This minion gains a shield that evaporates at the end of turn while summoning an exact copy of this minion.
I don't see how the "shield that evaporates" part is relevant to the wording. That's just the animation.
It is relevant because if the shield doesn't evaporate (or disappear if you will) at the same time it splits:
1. The copied minion will have the ability too and
2. The original minion (as well as its copies) will split at the end of each turn, instead of just the first.
The shield part itself is vital to indicate that it's not an ability that stacks. You can't have two shields in the same way you can't have double taunt etc.
Meh, okay I guess, but I don't know why you would call it a "shield", as it in no way protects the minion.
I would have to admit though, that the ability isn't just worded badly, it is probably worded incorrectly. In my opionionIt should say:
Battlecry: This minion gains "Summon an exact copy of this minion at the end of the turn." until end of turn.
But that didn't fit on the card and is still really confusing. I guess the design team did the best they could wording this monstrosity.
So I guess you were all right, but I tried to explain what actually DOES happen, while you all tried to explain why what does happen doesn't match up with what the card says will happen.
Hey you should do the wording for blizzard.
No more future bugs, just poor wording!
Haha, that wording was confusing too, as it didn't include the "this abillity doesn't stack" part of the deal, I reworded it AGAIN:
Battlecry: This minion gains split up.
Split up: This minion has a shield that evaporates at the end of turn while summoning an exact copy of this minion.
Or, if making a new keyword for a single card is not done:
Battlecry: This minion gains a shield that evaporates at the end of turn while summoning an exact copy of this minion.
I don't see how the "shield that evaporates" part is relevant to the wording. That's just the animation.
It is relevant because if the shield doesn't evaporate (or disappear if you will) at the same time it splits:
1. The copied minion will have the ability too and
2. The original minion (as well as its copies) will split at the end of each turn, instead of just the first.
The shield part itself is vital to indicate that it's not an ability that stacks. You can't have two shields in the same way you can't have double taunt etc.
Meh, okay I guess, but I don't know why you would call it a "shield", as it in no way protects the minion.
It's fun nitpicking over minor details but maybe an actual suggestion on what word to use instead would be a nice addition?
So to help clarify why it isn't working. Basially Ooze is coded in a way similar Shade of Nax. At turn's end do a thing. But unlike the Shade the Ooze has a no-repeat clause tagged on So when you have Bron and you play a BCry card, he basically tells the card, when possible, to the thing twice in a single instance, ( you cant double target with BGH because of this), but since the Ooze technically triggers itself at the end of the turn, which is a separate instance, Bron doesn't have coverage.
I would have to admit though, that the ability isn't just worded badly, it is probably worded incorrectly. In my opionionIt should say:
Battlecry: This minion gains "Summon an exact copy of this minion at the end of the turn." until end of turn.
But that didn't fit on the card and is still really confusing. I guess the design team did the best they could wording this monstrosity.
So I guess you were all right, but I tried to explain what actually DOES happen, while you all tried to explain why what does happen doesn't match up with what the card says will happen.
Hey you should do the wording for blizzard.
No more future bugs, just poor wording!
Haha, that wording was confusing too, as it didn't include the "this abillity doesn't stack" part of the deal, I reworded it AGAIN:
Battlecry: This minion gains split up.
Split up: This minion has a shield that evaporates at the end of turn while summoning an exact copy of this minion.
Or, if making a new keyword for a single card is not done:
Battlecry: This minion gains a shield that evaporates at the end of turn while summoning an exact copy of this minion.
I don't see how the "shield that evaporates" part is relevant to the wording. That's just the animation.
It is relevant because if the shield doesn't evaporate (or disappear if you will) at the same time it splits:
1. The copied minion will have the ability too and
2. The original minion (as well as its copies) will split at the end of each turn, instead of just the first.
The shield part itself is vital to indicate that it's not an ability that stacks. You can't have two shields in the same way you can't have double taunt etc.
Meh, okay I guess, but I don't know why you would call it a "shield", as it in no way protects the minion.
It's fun nitpicking over minor details but maybe an actual suggestion on what word to use instead would be a nice addition?
Well, it's not minor at all. "Shield" implies some sort of protection, as in "Divine Shield". It's important because Ooze CAN die the turn it's played, due to Explosive Trap or something along those lines, and in those cases, the Ooze doesn't replicate itself. Your wording would probably cause more confusion than there is currently.
My solution would be to fix the interaction with Brann, which clearly seems to be a bug, and that doesn't require any wording changes. I'd possibly change Oozes wording to "... at the end of THIS turn." rather than "... at the end of THE turn.", but honestly, Ooze's current wording seems reasonable enough to me.
So I was thinking about this one... and I think I have a reasonable explanation as to why this is happening.
Basically, Echoing Ooze's "shield" can be thought of as a two-part buff.
1. Summons an exact copy. (What card text says) 2. Remove itself from Echoing Ooze. (This is more or less implied by "at the end of the turn", not "at the end of ever turn")
The bug in this case could be that when first buff resolves, it might be removing not only itself but also a yet-to-be-resolved 2nd buff inadvertently.
So I was thinking about this one... and I think I have a reasonable explanation as to why this is happening.
Basically, Echoing Ooze's "shield" can be thought of as a two-part buff.
1. Summons an exact copy. (What card text says) 2. Remove itself from Echoing Ooze. (This is more or less implied by "at the end of the turn", not "at the end of ever turn")
The bug in this case could be that when first buff resolves, it might be removing not only itself but also a yet-to-be-resolved 2nd buff inadvertently.
Its either that, or the Echoing Ooze effect overwrites itself (similar to Divine Shield) when the second Battlecry triggers. Your description sounds more plausible from a programming perspective.
You do realise that fixing the "interaction with brann" by making the card do what it says changes the functionality of the card entirely? Not just for Brann, but also possible future cards. If the card does what it says, there will no longer be a buff on the minion of any kind and it won't add an ability to the card, the way it does now. There might even be current interactions it would change, though I don't think there are. Sure, you can do that. It's a lot more drastic and time consuming than changing the words on the card, but that's fine.
But that's just not how the designers intended the card to function. I would like some cards to do different things too, but I'm not designing this game. I wish I did sometimes. I would nerf shredder in an instant. The battlecry adds an ability to the card that can't stack. That's what the card DOES. That's what it was made to do. How is that a bug then? How is the functionality not fine as it is?
EDIT: Backpedal time!! It would be a lot more user-friendly to just change the functionality, even if it is more time consuming. Though I do keep my position that they should have use different wording in the first place. But now that we have had this wording for so long, they should keep it.
Have we had any confirmation from Blizz that this is working as intended?
Not that I know of, but the visualisation of the effect does strongly suggest it to me. Instead of adding a buff to the list of buffs on the minion, it shows a green oozy bubble that you couldn't show multiples of. But possibly they just used a workaround when they made the ooze, thinking there would never be a card that conflicted with it.
But somehow I don't think they ever wanted the ooze to split more than just once. So I really think it works the way it was intended. But yes, in the end that's just speculation.
I posted a similar thread about how the new paladin secret, sacred trial, has some inconsistencies as well (not to mention all the issues I've heard about with unearthed raptor). I think they weren't able to test all the possibilities with these cards so that they would be ready for Blizzcon.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I'm the tower of power, too sweet to be sour, funky like a monkey, the sky is the limit...OH YEAH!" -"Macho Man" Randy Savage
It sucks but it probably is not a bug. This card is probably programmed in a unique way that somehow does not technically have the interaction you are expecting it to, and the card description is just sloppy. They went ahead and made Brann, but they did not go back and actually look at every battlecry card to see if they actually made sense or had a logical function. Some of the interactions you just can't understand by reading the card. Which i think is disappointing, because i don't really want to have to go an build a deck and play a game and hope i get the ideal draw to test it out and find the answer.
Specifically i don't think anyone is wrong to believe it is not working as they expected. The battlecry is a weird one. Personally i think they should change it whether or not it is a bug. They don't even have to change the card just make it work... if we can use Unearthed Raptor to stack deathrattles, then why can't we stack battlecries!?
I don't get why this thread is still alive. You can't get double divine shield. Why would you get double ooze effect ? Not a bug. Nothing weird with that. Period.
You can get multiple of: deathrattle, stat boosts, spell power. Divine Shield is the exception here, so why should this effect also be an exception?
The wording may be confusing, but think of it similar to how warsong commander used to work. It gave the ability of charge to minions with less than three attack. However if a minion already had the charge ability it did not become double charge aka windfury. Or like enhance-o mechano, it gives ability randomly and if that minion already had the ability nothing changes for that card.
For this ability to stack it has to be stackable. The card's battle cry would have to say something like: Add +1 ability to summon an exact copy of this card. That way if played with Brann it would have +1 and another +1 to trigger its summon ability twice.
The wording may be confusing, but think of it similar to how warsong commander used to work. It gave the ability of charge to minions with less than three attack. However if a minion already had the charge ability it did not become double charge aka windfury. Or like enhance-o mechano, it gives ability randomly and if that minion already had the ability nothing changes for that card.
For this ability to stack it has to be stackable. The card's battle cry would have to say something like: Add +1 ability to summon an exact copy of this card. That way if played with Brann it would have +1 and another +1 to trigger its summon ability twice.
Charge is not stackable, because of its nature. Charge means ignore summoning sickness. You can be told to ignore summoning sickness twice, but one is enough. It is nothing like windfury. Taunt is the same as charge. Divine shield is really the only exception.
So to help clarify why it isn't working. Basially Ooze is coded in a way similar Shade of Nax. At turn's end do a thing. But unlike the Shade the Ooze has a no-repeat clause tagged on So when you have Bron and you play a BCry card, he basically tells the card, when possible, to the thing twice in a single instance, ( you cant double target with BGH because of this), but since the Ooze technically triggers itself at the end of the turn, which is a separate instance, Bron doesn't have coverage.
There once was a man from Nantucket...
So I was thinking about this one... and I think I have a reasonable explanation as to why this is happening.
Basically, Echoing Ooze's "shield" can be thought of as a two-part buff.
1. Summons an exact copy. (What card text says)
2. Remove itself from Echoing Ooze. (This is more or less implied by "at the end of the turn", not "at the end of ever turn")
The bug in this case could be that when first buff resolves, it might be removing not only itself but also a yet-to-be-resolved 2nd buff inadvertently.
Yup
I posted a similar thread about how the new paladin secret, sacred trial, has some inconsistencies as well (not to mention all the issues I've heard about with unearthed raptor). I think they weren't able to test all the possibilities with these cards so that they would be ready for Blizzcon.
"I'm the tower of power, too sweet to be sour, funky like a monkey, the sky is the limit...OH YEAH!" -"Macho Man" Randy Savage
It sucks but it probably is not a bug. This card is probably programmed in a unique way that somehow does not technically have the interaction you are expecting it to, and the card description is just sloppy. They went ahead and made Brann, but they did not go back and actually look at every battlecry card to see if they actually made sense or had a logical function. Some of the interactions you just can't understand by reading the card. Which i think is disappointing, because i don't really want to have to go an build a deck and play a game and hope i get the ideal draw to test it out and find the answer.
Specifically i don't think anyone is wrong to believe it is not working as they expected. The battlecry is a weird one. Personally i think they should change it whether or not it is a bug. They don't even have to change the card just make it work... if we can use Unearthed Raptor to stack deathrattles, then why can't we stack battlecries!?
The wording may be confusing, but think of it similar to how warsong commander used to work. It gave the ability of charge to minions with less than three attack. However if a minion already had the charge ability it did not become double charge aka windfury. Or like enhance-o mechano, it gives ability randomly and if that minion already had the ability nothing changes for that card.
For this ability to stack it has to be stackable. The card's battle cry would have to say something like: Add +1 ability to summon an exact copy of this card. That way if played with Brann it would have +1 and another +1 to trigger its summon ability twice.
"Battlecry: Summon an exact copy of this minion at the end of the turn"
Should have read
"Summon an exact copy of this minion at the end of the turn it is played
Anger is the punishment we give ourselves for someone else's mistake.