At any rate, the card text now is wrong. It says "each gains a deathrattle" when that does not happen.
Dude, try to be more open minded, why do you want to be right at all cost? I fully accepted the text can be read either way, just as Moonunit001 suggested, you should do the same.
Do you think the human brain is that simple? Do you think things are black or white all the time? The only thing that is certain is that nothing is certain!
Maybe this famous drawing will convince you same way. You can see two different persons (a young lady and an old woman) if you look at it from different angles/perspectives, try it:
I wonder if this borrowed code under the hood from resurrect effects. If only one minion has died, a "resurrect two minions" effect wouldn't bring them back.
Overall, I think the "Oh, it's so obvious how could you have possibly mistaken the card" crew are pretty wrong here. This is certainly a card which could be read two ways. But that's a big benefit of Hearthstone over conventional card games: you don't have to figure out the right interpretation. The devs already did, and the game does it automatically.
There's plenty of stuff in this game which has pretty ambiguous wordings. Rattlegore, for example, isn't really "summon a copy with -1/-1" but "summon an 8/8 copy of this minion" and they didn't want to have to write the nesting every time. While the OP is more right than their detractors, I just don't think it's something worth getting worked up about it. Particularly on non-official forums.
I wonder if this borrowed code under the hood from resurrect effects. If only one minion has died, a "resurrect two minions" effect wouldn't bring them back.
Overall, I think the "Oh, it's so obvious how could you have possibly mistaken the card" crew are pretty wrong here. This is certainly a card which could be read two ways. But that's a big benefit of Hearthstone over conventional card games: you don't have to figure out the right interpretation. The devs already did, and the game does it automatically.
There's plenty of stuff in this game which has pretty ambiguous wordings. Rattlegore, for example, isn't really "summon a copy with -1/-1" but "summon an 8/8 copy of this minion" and they didn't want to have to write the nesting every time. While the OP is more right than their detractors, I just don't think it's something worth getting worked up about it. Particularly on non-official forums.
Not sure why you felt the need to post all this, when some of us obviously addressed all those points already. At least give others some credit, just as I did.
Each should definitely mean both get a deathrattle, no matter how many deathrattle minions died, unless of course there are none. There is no indicator that if one whelp takes a deathrattle, it is removed from the pool of deathrattles. If by chance you ShadowstepVectus and replay him, is that deathrattle still available? I would assume it is, so both whelps should be able to fish for and find that single deathrattle.
The card in question for the people out there who are not familiar with it yet:
I read the card as "each Whelp gets a dearthrattle from previous dead minion/s. Meaning if one one deathrattle minion had die before playing Vectus, the two whelps both get the same deathrattle. If multiple minions have died, what the Whelps get is randomized."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The world outside is so big, but it's safe in my domain Because to you I'm just a number and a clever screen name..."
I THINK FOR MYSELF, THEREFORE.... I'M AN ATHEIST !!!
The card in question for the people out there who are not familiar with it yet:
I read the card as "each Whelp gets a dearthrattle from previous dead minion/s. Meaning if one one deathrattle minion had die before playing Vectus, the two whelps both get the same deathrattle. If multiple minions have died, what the Whelps get is randomized."
Yeah, and some of us read it differently for reasons already explained. Don't know what you are trying to prove now, but ok.
It's actually an easy fix - just change it to say "Each (whelp) gains a Deathrattle from a friendly minion that died this game."
The issue is the "a" and the plurality of minion(s) is throwing people for a loop. What I proposed helps keep the subject in agreement with the article.
Ah but the beauty of a digital game is that the card just does what it does, you don't need to bother with what the text actually says.
You misinterpreted the card when you first read it. But now you know how it works, you have learned the interaction, and can play accordingly.
Hearthstone is well known for inconsistencies and misleading text, but its not really a problem because all you have to do is play the card a few times to figure it out.
This is true in theory when you can practice with all the cards before you "buy" them, but that's not how hearthstone works. So in order to know how the card words you need to have it and play it. I actually created a post about this (whether there should be a blizzard published rule book) and used this specific card and the way it resolves as an example. Fortunately I didn't craft him - I just got him in packs, but I don't think it's as clear as some people are making out.
And I genuinely think there's a degree of ambibuity about the wording on this card.
It could mean "your minions" to specify that they're excluding the oponents minions. Or it could mean "minions" plural to imply each whelp can get a different deathrattle (but doesn't need to) or it could mean what it means (i.e. each whelp gets a deathrattle from a unique minion that died). There are probably other interpretations too.
I think the catch here is with the word FROM. The deathrattle is gotten FROM the minions that died this game.
Ex: One Loot Hoarder dies. Then the first whelp gets the deathrattle FROM the loot hoarder. Now, his deathrattle is already taken. The second whelp then gets nothing, because there are no more deathrattles who are NOT taken.
I agree it's not quite obvious, tho. Also, sorry if this was alrady pointed out.
There's no really elegant way to word this card's effect. The card's text is ambiguous enough that it makes sense the way it's worded tbh. It just ALSO could mean what you think it means.
Like it's really not that complicated, and changing the effect to what you think it should do would be a significant buff.
Having it do what it says instead of what it currently does would clearly be a buff; I'm not sure how significant it would be. I crafted it after being misled by the wording because I wanted to seed two more primes into my deck. How much of a buff is the extra prime? Not much. I recognized it as a super slow strategy that would rarely pay off. You'd need a fatigue deck for it to be worthwhile, and fatigue is pretty rare these days.
I guess the biggest buff would be in a deathrattle deck when you draw Vectus after losing one deathrattle minion but not two. Not an OP strategy at all. Perhaps it would be better in future expansions with better deathrattle options.
When I thought the card did what it claims to do, I figured Vectus was a strong, fun legendary in the right deck...certainly not an overpowered card. Now that we know it doesn't do what it claims to do, we see that it's a pretty weak card. It's super early in the expansion, but the card is in less than 1.3% of decks with a 46.7% win rate (bronze through gold on hsreplay).
They should rather state the card text of Murozond more precisely. It is not really „playing“ the cards. Battlecries for example are completely ignored (Not even activated with random targets).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Control is like Chess - using your given resources wisely.
Aggro is like Russian Roulette - Hope to topdeck the right card/ hope for the opponent to topdeck the wrong card.
Parallels to the IQ of the players of both games are, of course, coincidental ;)
Having it do what it says instead of what it currently does would clearly be a buff; I'm not sure how significant it would be. I crafted it after being misled by the wording because I wanted to seed two more primes into my deck. How much of a buff is the extra prime? Not much. I recognized it as a super slow strategy that would rarely pay off. You'd need a fatigue deck for it to be worthwhile, and fatigue is pretty rare these days.
Depends on the prime, but it's just a huge improvement to it's consistency. Vectus is one of those cards that will be really good in the right deck, which doesn't really exist atm.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Dude, try to be more open minded, why do you want to be right at all cost? I fully accepted the text can be read either way, just as Moonunit001 suggested, you should do the same.
Do you think the human brain is that simple? Do you think things are black or white all the time? The only thing that is certain is that nothing is certain!
Maybe this famous drawing will convince you same way. You can see two different persons (a young lady and an old woman) if you look at it from different angles/perspectives, try it:
I wonder if this borrowed code under the hood from resurrect effects. If only one minion has died, a "resurrect two minions" effect wouldn't bring them back.
Overall, I think the "Oh, it's so obvious how could you have possibly mistaken the card" crew are pretty wrong here. This is certainly a card which could be read two ways. But that's a big benefit of Hearthstone over conventional card games: you don't have to figure out the right interpretation. The devs already did, and the game does it automatically.
There's plenty of stuff in this game which has pretty ambiguous wordings. Rattlegore, for example, isn't really "summon a copy with -1/-1" but "summon an 8/8 copy of this minion" and they didn't want to have to write the nesting every time. While the OP is more right than their detractors, I just don't think it's something worth getting worked up about it. Particularly on non-official forums.
Not sure why you felt the need to post all this, when some of us obviously addressed all those points already. At least give others some credit, just as I did.
It apparently can be read in two different ways, which is reason to clarify it.
Yeah, and we did that already, thank you!
Each should definitely mean both get a deathrattle, no matter how many deathrattle minions died, unless of course there are none. There is no indicator that if one whelp takes a deathrattle, it is removed from the pool of deathrattles. If by chance you Shadowstep Vectus and replay him, is that deathrattle still available? I would assume it is, so both whelps should be able to fish for and find that single deathrattle.
I read the card as "each Whelp gets a dearthrattle from previous dead minion/s. Meaning if one one deathrattle minion had die before playing Vectus, the two whelps both get the same deathrattle. If multiple minions have died, what the Whelps get is randomized."
"The world outside is so big, but it's safe in my domain
Because to you I'm just a number and a clever screen name..."
I THINK FOR MYSELF, THEREFORE.... I'M AN ATHEIST !!!
Yeah, and some of us read it differently for reasons already explained. Don't know what you are trying to prove now, but ok.
It's actually an easy fix - just change it to say "Each (whelp) gains a Deathrattle from a friendly minion that died this game."
The issue is the "a" and the plurality of minion(s) is throwing people for a loop. What I proposed helps keep the subject in agreement with the article.
This is true in theory when you can practice with all the cards before you "buy" them, but that's not how hearthstone works. So in order to know how the card words you need to have it and play it. I actually created a post about this (whether there should be a blizzard published rule book) and used this specific card and the way it resolves as an example. Fortunately I didn't craft him - I just got him in packs, but I don't think it's as clear as some people are making out.
And I genuinely think there's a degree of ambibuity about the wording on this card.
It could mean "your minions" to specify that they're excluding the oponents minions. Or it could mean "minions" plural to imply each whelp can get a different deathrattle (but doesn't need to) or it could mean what it means (i.e. each whelp gets a deathrattle from a unique minion that died). There are probably other interpretations too.
Well, the easiest fix is to change the card to do what it says it does.
alternatively, you could change the language, but I haven’t seen a suggestion for that yet that is both clear And succinct
I think the catch here is with the word FROM. The deathrattle is gotten FROM the minions that died this game.
Ex: One Loot Hoarder dies. Then the first whelp gets the deathrattle FROM the loot hoarder. Now, his deathrattle is already taken. The second whelp then gets nothing, because there are no more deathrattles who are NOT taken.
I agree it's not quite obvious, tho. Also, sorry if this was alrady pointed out.
There's no really elegant way to word this card's effect. The card's text is ambiguous enough that it makes sense the way it's worded tbh. It just ALSO could mean what you think it means.
Like it's really not that complicated, and changing the effect to what you think it should do would be a significant buff.
Having it do what it says instead of what it currently does would clearly be a buff; I'm not sure how significant it would be. I crafted it after being misled by the wording because I wanted to seed two more primes into my deck. How much of a buff is the extra prime? Not much. I recognized it as a super slow strategy that would rarely pay off. You'd need a fatigue deck for it to be worthwhile, and fatigue is pretty rare these days.
I guess the biggest buff would be in a deathrattle deck when you draw Vectus after losing one deathrattle minion but not two. Not an OP strategy at all. Perhaps it would be better in future expansions with better deathrattle options.
When I thought the card did what it claims to do, I figured Vectus was a strong, fun legendary in the right deck...certainly not an overpowered card. Now that we know it doesn't do what it claims to do, we see that it's a pretty weak card. It's super early in the expansion, but the card is in less than 1.3% of decks with a 46.7% win rate (bronze through gold on hsreplay).
Free Vectus!
They should rather state the card text of Murozond more precisely. It is not really „playing“ the cards. Battlecries for example are completely ignored (Not even activated with random targets).
Control is like Chess - using your given resources wisely.
Aggro is like Russian Roulette - Hope to topdeck the right card/ hope for the opponent to topdeck the wrong card.
Parallels to the IQ of the players of both games are, of course, coincidental ;)
I wish they would change the flavor text of Dark Magician. He was not the ultimate wizard in terms of attack and defense.
As a long time YGO fan, I enjoyed this reference!
Yeah, made my day! XD
Depends on the prime, but it's just a huge improvement to it's consistency. Vectus is one of those cards that will be really good in the right deck, which doesn't really exist atm.