I was playing a wild game today and played Loatheb on turn 5.
My opponent used Forbidden Words and managed to kill it, is it intentional? Does the mana cost of Forbidden cards do not count towards the mana spent afterward? Does it work the same way with other forbidden cards?
Sounds about right. That effect is in solo adventure.
I had Wondrous Wisdomball active and it changed the cost of Forbidden Shaping to 9 mana. Casting that spell gave me a 1-mana minion because it cost me 9-mana to cast and the spell itself consumes your remaining mana for the minion generation. I had 1-mana left over, so I got a Leper Gnome.
Since the "forbidden" mechanic is based on 0-cost cards, you "spend" 0-mana and the remaining mana is consumed to equate the value of the outcome (like summoning a minion with value equal to the mana your spell consumed, for example).
All that to say if they had 10 mana when they played Forbidden Words, it makes perfect sense that they'd clear Loatheb; the spell costs 5-mana now, and the remaining 5-mana would allow the spell to destroy Loatheb.
That was still a very effective play, btw. you made them spend all 10-mana on removing a single 5/5. idk your board state, but that's a small victory.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rage quitting: the best way to ensure your opponent knows they beat a giant baby.
I think it's a bug, the forbidden 1/1 that gains 1/1 for each mana spent doesn't include the 1 cost of the card.
Likewise, you should be paying for the spell first, then spending the remaining mana on the effect.
Nop it's not. You declare a valid target, where attack is lower or equal to your current unused mana (5) and then it just kills a minion. See Shadow Word: Death and Spellbender interaction.
Sounds about right. That effect is in solo adventure.
I had Wondrous Wisdomball active and it changed the cost of Forbidden Shaping to 9 mana. Casting that spell gave me a 1-mana minion because it cost me 9-mana to cast and the spell itself consumes your remaining mana for the minion generation. I had 1-mana left over, so I got a Leper Gnome.
Since the "forbidden" mechanic is based on 0-cost cards, you "spend" 0-mana and the remaining mana is consumed to equate the value of the outcome (like summoning a minion with value equal to the mana your spell consumed, for example).
All that to say if they had 10 mana when they played Forbidden Words, it makes perfect sense that they'd clear Loatheb; the spell costs 5-mana now, and the remaining 5-mana would allow the spell to destroy Loatheb.
That was still a very effective play, btw. you made them spend all 10-mana on removing a single 5/5. idk your board state, but that's a small victory.
Point is it was turn 5, I now understood how the card works, but at heart it doesn't seem right that with an increase cost he still managed to kill my Loatheb on turn 5.
It is not right compared to the other forbidden cards. They all carry out their effect after paying the mana costs. I.e. Forbidden Shaping will summon a 5 mana minion when you are at 10 mana and the opponent played Loatheb . Forbidden Flame will only deal 10 damage.
However, the issue with Forbidden Words is that you need to target a minion before the mana costs are payed and you can target a minion according to your mana. Only then the costs are paid and the effect is carried out (the rest of the mana is emptied and the targeted minion is killed).
This is clearly a wrong interaction, although mechanically consistent. But in my opinion they should change it.
I think it's a bug, the forbidden 1/1 that gains 1/1 for each mana spent doesn't include the 1 cost of the card.
Likewise, you should be paying for the spell first, then spending the remaining mana on the effect.
Nop it's not. You declare a valid target, where attack is lower or equal to your current unused mana (5) and then it just kills a minion. See Shadow Word: Death and Spellbender interaction.
It's not the same thing, though. That's an effect that changes the target after the spell is cast. This is an interaction that changes the cost of the spell before it's cast.
There's no reason Forbidden Words shouldn't figure its own cost into the equation during targeting. It's pretty obvious they just didn't consider effects that increase spell costs when coding the card.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
Forbidden Words first let's you target a minion and checks whether it is legal or not (counting your free mana). If you actually cast the spell, you lock in the target, then pay the additional cost which would actually make the target illegal, but since it is already locked in, the destroy effect upon resolution is dominant. The dilemma is that casting the spell, changes the spell's viable targets (because you first target and then pay). So you can either argue from the casting or resolving perspective. But the game cannot peek into the future, so it assumes the casting perspective, making the current scenario correct.
The game does not need to 'peek into the future', it is a simple calculation and Loatheb should not have been targetable in that scenario. It's just a bug.
You first choose a legal target according to your current available mana, the spell starts to resolve, after the target is chosen, you pay the cost of the card (upper right corner) but no additional cost yet (written in the textbox). Just afterwards you do everything written on the card possible. The card only checks for any restricting conditions while choosing a target, not upon resolution. So you empty your mana, and destroy the target - which was legal while checking for viability.
If the game could peek into the future, it would be able to see that you would not have enough mana upon resolution of the spell, but neither does it check for this condition, nor does it care about it after the initial targeting.
You first choose a legal target according to your current available mana, the spell starts to resolve, after the target is chosen, you pay the cost of the card (upper right corner) but no additional cost yet (written in the textbox). Just afterwards you do everything written on the card possible. The card only checks for any restricting conditions while choosing a target, not upon resolution. So you empty your mana, and destroy the target - which was legal while checking for viability.
If the game could peek into the future, it would be able to see that you would not have enough mana upon resolution of the spell, but neither does it check for this condition, nor does it care about it after the initial targeting.
We know why hearthstone is carrying out the spell wrongly. And we think the wrong application of the effect should be changed. The game should check what you call "into the future" because of the wording of Forbidden Words . The effect states: "Spend all your mana. Destroy a minion with that much attack or less". Thus, it is clearly intended to kill minions with an attack value equal or less to the spent mana. And the spent mana is 5 less due to Loatheb 's effect. Therefore, I don't think the present interaction is intended since the card does not do what it says.
I am fine with other interactions which kills non legal targets (like the above mentioned Spellbender and Shadow Word: Death because the initial target is a legal one. Here the target should not be legal from the beginning. It is surely not hard to fix (checking the mana that will be emptied) since a fix would only affect the card itself. And there are more cards than just loatheb that lose their value like Doomed ApprenticeRebuke or Nerubian Unraveler .
I was playing a wild game today and played Loatheb on turn 5.
My opponent used Forbidden Words and managed to kill it, is it intentional? Does the mana cost of Forbidden cards do not count towards the mana spent afterward? Does it work the same way with other forbidden cards?
Read it again. It says "Spend all your mana". He used 5 mana to kill off your 5 attack minion.
much like how spell discounts don't impact forbidden effects, the card text trumps the card cost.
I think it's a bug, the forbidden 1/1 that gains 1/1 for each mana spent doesn't include the 1 cost of the card.
Likewise, you should be paying for the spell first, then spending the remaining mana on the effect.
S39 Legend - Quest Rogue, S38 Legend - Murloc Paladin, S37 Legend - Miracle Rogue, S36 Top 200 Legend - Aggro Shaman, S35 - Finished Rank 51 Legend - Aggro Shaman, S34 Legend - Aggro Shaman
Sounds about right. That effect is in solo adventure.
I had Wondrous Wisdomball active and it changed the cost of Forbidden Shaping to 9 mana. Casting that spell gave me a 1-mana minion because it cost me 9-mana to cast and the spell itself consumes your remaining mana for the minion generation. I had 1-mana left over, so I got a Leper Gnome.
Since the "forbidden" mechanic is based on 0-cost cards, you "spend" 0-mana and the remaining mana is consumed to equate the value of the outcome (like summoning a minion with value equal to the mana your spell consumed, for example).
All that to say if they had 10 mana when they played Forbidden Words, it makes perfect sense that they'd clear Loatheb; the spell costs 5-mana now, and the remaining 5-mana would allow the spell to destroy Loatheb.
That was still a very effective play, btw. you made them spend all 10-mana on removing a single 5/5. idk your board state, but that's a small victory.
Rage quitting: the best way to ensure your opponent knows they beat a giant baby.
Nop it's not. You declare a valid target, where attack is lower or equal to your current unused mana (5) and then it just kills a minion. See Shadow Word: Death and Spellbender interaction.
I will crush you!
Point is it was turn 5, I now understood how the card works, but at heart it doesn't seem right that with an increase cost he still managed to kill my Loatheb on turn 5.
It is not right compared to the other forbidden cards. They all carry out their effect after paying the mana costs. I.e. Forbidden Shaping will summon a 5 mana minion when you are at 10 mana and the opponent played Loatheb . Forbidden Flame will only deal 10 damage.
However, the issue with Forbidden Words is that you need to target a minion before the mana costs are payed and you can target a minion according to your mana. Only then the costs are paid and the effect is carried out (the rest of the mana is emptied and the targeted minion is killed).
This is clearly a wrong interaction, although mechanically consistent. But in my opinion they should change it.
It's not the same thing, though. That's an effect that changes the target after the spell is cast. This is an interaction that changes the cost of the spell before it's cast.
There's no reason Forbidden Words shouldn't figure its own cost into the equation during targeting. It's pretty obvious they just didn't consider effects that increase spell costs when coding the card.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
Forbidden Words first let's you target a minion and checks whether it is legal or not (counting your free mana). If you actually cast the spell, you lock in the target, then pay the additional cost which would actually make the target illegal, but since it is already locked in, the destroy effect upon resolution is dominant. The dilemma is that casting the spell, changes the spell's viable targets (because you first target and then pay). So you can either argue from the casting or resolving perspective. But the game cannot peek into the future, so it assumes the casting perspective, making the current scenario correct.
The game does not need to 'peek into the future', it is a simple calculation and Loatheb should not have been targetable in that scenario. It's just a bug.
It's not rng if you call - Amaz
You first choose a legal target according to your current available mana, the spell starts to resolve, after the target is chosen, you pay the cost of the card (upper right corner) but no additional cost yet (written in the textbox). Just afterwards you do everything written on the card possible. The card only checks for any restricting conditions while choosing a target, not upon resolution. So you empty your mana, and destroy the target - which was legal while checking for viability.
If the game could peek into the future, it would be able to see that you would not have enough mana upon resolution of the spell, but neither does it check for this condition, nor does it care about it after the initial targeting.
We know why hearthstone is carrying out the spell wrongly. And we think the wrong application of the effect should be changed. The game should check what you call "into the future" because of the wording of Forbidden Words . The effect states: "Spend all your mana. Destroy a minion with that much attack or less". Thus, it is clearly intended to kill minions with an attack value equal or less to the spent mana. And the spent mana is 5 less due to Loatheb 's effect. Therefore, I don't think the present interaction is intended since the card does not do what it says.
I am fine with other interactions which kills non legal targets (like the above mentioned Spellbender and Shadow Word: Death because the initial target is a legal one. Here the target should not be legal from the beginning. It is surely not hard to fix (checking the mana that will be emptied) since a fix would only affect the card itself. And there are more cards than just loatheb that lose their value like Doomed Apprentice Rebuke or Nerubian Unraveler .
It's amazing when people argue that a card should NOT do what its text says it does, with the reasoning being "that's how Hearthstone is."
If that were a valid reason, no bug in the game would ever get fixed. We'd all just shrug and say, "That's how Hearthstone is!"
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland