For references and a comprehensive description of the summoning process, see that section of the Advanced rulebook."
There shouldn't be any doubt as to when effects trigger in order on a card-by-card basis. Effects like Blizzard that have (I don't know if they still do as Blizzard, the company, wasn't exactly clear as to what they actually wanted with respect to the effect of Blizzard, the spell) that clearly say "Deal 2 damage to all enemy minions and Freeze them" but in effect the card acts like "Deal 2 damage to enemy minions. Freeze enemy minions" as the freeze effect is independent of the damage despite the wording clearly indicating they should be linked. The impact is cards like Grim Patron and Piloted Shredder might have their clones/death rattle summons frozen even though they aren't hit by the spell.
Similarly, I've had interactions that seem to defy logic like a 1/0 Silverhand Recruit getting buffed post going to 0 life by Avenge and surviving as a 4/2. What? Sometimes Mad Scientist dying triggers the secret that gets pulled out via his Deathrattle. None of these interactions seem to make sense and none seem to be consistent.
Also, I just posted this, but I think Blizzard should be more aggressive in using keywords for recurring effects. "Can't be the target of spells or Hero Powers" could easily just read "Magic Resistance" and then you've made cards like Wee Spellstopper or even just Faerie Dragon easier to read and open up future cards to have Magic Resistance + other effects without making the card look like an encyclopedia entry. 50% to hit wrong target? "Brutish" (or whatever). There's very little need for fully written out descriptions of these kind of effects. People will say "But new players..." but then why do we have "Taunt" and not "Cannot attack other characters without this effect" ?
Getting on top of these kind of broken windows problems now while the game is still young and not overly expansive is important. Rule consistency is very important for a functional game, and I know I'm sick of not being able to tell "Well how is this going to work in THIS case because it's sort of case by case dependent". At least in HS the language issue can be edited relatively easily as they aren't physical, printed cards, but I think that's something that should be looked into too.
The general rule one must consider with the summoning effects is that if the effect could in theory effect the summoned card, it happens after summoning. Warsong commander by definition cannot give minions charge before they're summoned. So fixing that to work properly would actually be a complete destruction of the card and its text. Whenever was probably an attempt to simplify the card text as 'after' would have been stranger. "Does the card need to be on the board for the effect to trigger in a sensible way?" If yes, after, if not, before. Knives and blasts could in some ways trigger things that kill the minion that got played, so yes. Those happen after. Illidan is actually a really unique card in that respect, as the fact that he interacts with both spells and minions means he has to go before summons, which leads to some crazy knife juggler explosive sheep sylvanas shenanigans where you can give your opponent deathwing to discard their hand, instakill them through playing jaraxxus, or trigger a mind control in a way that puts it in your hand instead of on the board.
Keywords I think they're approaching properly. The magic resist effect is recurring, but it isn't as frequent and specifically interactive as taunt, windfury, divine shield, etc etc. Maybe in a set or two, it will be.
This doesn't seem like a pressing issue, let alone one that needs to be fixed as soon as possible.
I'm not saying it needs to be fixed as soon as possible, but the longer they go unchecked the more of them you have to fix. Rules aren't rules if they apply differently from one instance to another without a stated or expected reason. That seems pressing to me, especially as new cards with new interactions are generated.
When I board wipe a paladin's Muster with something like Consecration versus Knife Juggler killing all 3 recruits off my own Muster, it's not intuitively clear why Avenge should trigger on the KJ interaction but not Consecration. A minion with 0 Health is supposed to be dead and a dead minion can't receive a buff, but that's the way it works.
This isn't a salty rage post, I want to make that clear. It's a "This game could be better and here's how" post. The people who praise MTG's rule design do so for this very reason - even when they make a brand new mechanic/keyword it acts exactly as you would expect every time within the carefully defined general rules. This is a very key point into how WotC can generate new mechanics and keep updating their game to be fresher every 3 months or so with massive infusions of new cards and effects but not bewilder the players or ruin their game (except Treasure Cruise, Skullclamp, JTMS kind of mistakes...). Waiting on defining rules to have an expected universal result will only make it harder to fix in the future and until it is fixed will only make it harder to expand.
Excellent post. I couldn't agree more. There are even some basic inconsistencies in wording even when they don't affect effects that I think need to be cleaned up. There is no reason for Innervate to read "this turn only" when all other "this turn only" cards just read "this turn." There is also a ton of variance between "your" and "friendly." Stablemaster (and others) reads "friendly beast" while King of Beasts reads "each other beast you have" and Tundra Rhino reads "your beasts." These are just a few examples. Not a huge deal, but I think "broken window problems" is the perfect description of them.
I strongly agree that some interactions are annoying. Fire Elemental his Mad Scientist, trigger his Mirror Entity and then he gets a 6/5 in the same turn. I understand why this happens, but I don't agree with it...
If you are a fan of MTGs ruleset many of those interactions should actually not be surprising to you. Just like MTG Hearthstone has an invisible "stack" as well, a specific order in which effects trigger and an order to which effects resolve at what time, the only difference is that Hearthstone does actually have a visual representation of what happens.
Yes a minion with zero health should be dead. But ever hit anything with a removal spell in MTG just to have it go on the stack and be countered there? It's the exact same thing, just that Hearthstone shows you the effect and only then goes to the stack and checks for what effects have to resolve in which order.
And again, this is no inconsistency, these are perfectly fine game mechanics.
Are they obvious to new or even experienced players? No. Are they intuitive? No. Is there a way to know about them other than experience? No.
Still does not make them inconsistent.
You're understanding of the stack in MTG seems wrong. MTG's stack is NOTHING like Hearthstone's and that is the problem I'm presenting.
"Yes a minion with zero health should be dead. But ever hit anything with a removal spell in MTG just to have it go on the stack and be countered there? It's the exact same thing, just that Hearthstone shows you the effect and only then goes to the stack and checks for what effects have to resolve in which order. "
This is exactly the wrong analogy. In MTG a removal spell on the stack has been "cast" but not yet "resolved". The net effect is anything that triggers on the "casting" of the spell trigger and also go onto the stack to be resolved FIRST. If the opponent responds to removal spell with a Counterspell, they have "cast" the counter and again the game checks to see if anything triggers off the "casting" of the counter and if so will put those effects on the stack. What happens is assuming the counterspell resolves, the removal spell doesn't. The creature your removal targeted doesn't die because the removal spell is effectively removed before it happens.
In this situation, let's assume we both have something like Young Pyromancer in play that gives you a 1/1 whenever YOU cast a specific spell. I can tell you that what would happen with the above order is You target my Young Pyro with removal, with the removal on the stack your YP trigger goes on the stack, then I cast Counter on your removal, my YP trigger goes on the stack. Now we have 4 triggers all in limbo on the stack. My YP trigger was the last one put on the stack so it triggers first, I get a 1/1. My counter was the second most recent trigger and removes your removal spell from the stack upon resolving. The stack is now just your YP trigger and you get a 1/1.
This example is far more complicated than I'd suggest HS be because we're talking about "instants" which is a concept far above HS where you can respond to a spell at any point regardless of turn and before other effects resolve; but it still holds true to the point. I know exactly how that series of 2 spells with 2 additional triggers will resolve barring any additional instants being cast (and then I'd still know exactly how that would all resolve). With something like Griffisu's example how would I know that me killing a Mad Scientist with a Battlecry of a minion that is now ALREADY IN PLAY WHEN THE SCIENTIST DIES will grab a secret put it into play and then copy my 6/5? That stack makes no sense based on the wording of anything.
Why do SOME battlecries or deathrattles trigger with priority over other effects while others pass priority? That's not consistent at all. Why does an effect like Emperor Cobra that only triggers on damage as stated not kill a minion with Divine Shield but Blizzard will freeze them (or will freeze minions that weren't even in play when Blizzard was cast) though both cards imply the trigger is tied to damage or happens at least simultaneous to damage? These are inconsistencies plain and simple.
EDIT: Also, a few people who seem to largely be saying the game's rules are consistent have both already used the terms "niche" or "unique" situations - as soon as you say that you HAVE to realize that that means the rules are inconsistent by definition. A rule can't be a rule 99.999% of the time but then inexplicably work differently in that 0.001% instance and be considered a "rule". A rule is absolute and can only be "broken" if explicitly stated by another superseding but defined rule.
On the topic of Blizzard and the two stage function, the inconsistency problem comes when you look at other cards that ostensibly should work the same way. The obvious example here is Swipe which has the exact same text structure (Do x and x) as Blizzard, but does not work the same way in the example you gave (Imp Gang Boss). I think the problem here is with Blizzard. Think of it this way, the "them" in the text of Blizzardshould refer to all the minions currently on the board in both cases (the damage and the freeze effect), but in the case of Imp Gang Boss the second effect refers to a different them than the first, but this is not the case in Swipe. If you look at the text of Imp Gang Boss, it seems like a lot is hanging on how "whenever" is construed. If "whenever" means "at the exact same time" then Blizzard should both kill and freeze the spawned imp AND Swipe should kill the imp, but if "whenever" means "after" then the imp should be unaffected in both cases. This is not how things currently work. This seems inconsistent.
Why do SOME battlecries or deathrattles trigger with priority over other effects while others pass priority? That's not consistent at all. Why does an effect like Emperor Cobra that only triggers on damage as stated not kill a minion withDivine Shield but Blizzard will freeze them (or will freeze minions that weren't even in play when Blizzard was cast) though both cards imply the trigger is tied to damage or happens at least simultaneous to damage? These are inconsistencies plain and simple.
We certainly will not get on the same page in this discussion basically because we have a different understanding of how "resolve" should work in Hearthstone but i will glady answer those questions.
Emperor Cobra does not kill a minion with divine shield because no damage was dealt. If no damage was dealt nothing is destroyed. It's a simple case of the effect not triggering because it's condition was not met.
Blizzard simply has two stages which resolve seperately. First it deals 2 damage to all enemy minions. That damage resolves and effects that are potentially in play may trigger after it. Then the second part, the freeze comes into effect and resolves. It's again Hearthstones version of the stack. Damage resolves -> Effects resolve (i.e. Imp Gang Boss) -> Freeze resolves.
But you can't simply say "well that card has two stages because I know it does" when the card itself does not imply it has two separate stages but actually reads as one effect. That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Your argument is "Well I know from experience how certain cards work" but that's not how rules are supposed to work. The way Blizzard reads specifically states Deal 2 damage to all enemy minions and freeze THEM. That language specifically means the minions that are being hit by the 2 damage are the ones getting frozen. I can agree Divine Shield is less of an appropriate example as you can read Blizzard as being applied regardless of whether the 2 damage lands or not, but there's no logical reason your mech's pilot should get frozen when Blizzard kills it as worded. That's simple English.
Why does a card like Earth Shock need the specific qualifier "then" if cards like Blizzard imply it? It's inconsistent. Blizzard should read "Deal 2 damage to all enemy minions, then freeze all enemy minions." but they got sloppy with taking a language short cut and put two separate and distinct effects in one continuous rule line.
But I don't think the mechanics are consistent in the example I gave of Blizzard and Swipe. That's not just an example of unclear wording. The structure of the effects is exactly the same, but the effects are different. That's inconsistent.
I could settle for the fact that mechanics are consistent [...snip]
[Snip...]as long as the mechanic itself works as i would expect it to but i do see how someone could be bothered by this since it's a rather important part of a TCG. [...Snip]
But this: ""However, 'whenever you summon' effects vary depending on the card:
For references and a comprehensive description of the summoning process, see that section of the Advanced rulebook.""
How is ^^^^^^ this consistent? There is literally nothing about those cards themselves that indicate when what triggers with priority and they are different. This isn't even the comprehensive list. If such a huge mechanic as "Battlecry" currently has more priority than some triggers and less priority than others with no reasonable expectation one way or the other how can you claim that the mechanic is consistent?
There's a number of inconsistencies in the game in terms of what triggers when AND there are a number of inconsistencies in language/rules text. They're two separate issues rooted in the same problem: Blizzard hasn't formalized a specific rules format the way MTG had to (painstakingly).
There was a time when MTG was also wildly inconsistent in terms of both wording and in terms of understanding as to the ordering of effects. They had to go back and re-work everything they had already done to fix it for the kind of compendium you're talking about (it's called "Oracle" and you can look it up on WotC's card database: The Gatherer) where they had to go back and fix a tremendous amount of cards to fit current rules. If you want an example of this check out a card like this: http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=4671 - you can see the original text on the card pic and the updated Oracle text in the panel. They realized they needed more general, defined terms like "exiled" and "sacrifice" than "put aside" and "put in a graveyard" as other cards' rules care about specifically where a card is at any given time or how a card ends up in a graveyard. They also had to change the three effects to have commas rather than periods separating them because under the general way MTG effects trigger they wanted these 3 effects to be simultaneous rather than 3 separate interactions.
Living Death is just the off-the-top-of-my-head example of a card that needed to be "fixed" for both language consistency with the addition of mechanics like Exiling and Sacrificing AND ordering with the change of periods to commas. Simple things like this tell the player "No, 'Indestructible' won't save my creature from Living Death because it's being 'sacrificed' not 'destroyed'" and also "No, I can't respond in the middle of these effects happening as they are one single effect with 3 steps rather than 3 separate effects on 1 card."
As for the mobile format issue that's why I'm suggesting they start using keywords more frequently. There's no reason the joust mechanic needed to spell out on every card "Reveal a minion in each deck, if it costs more do X" when they could've just written "Joust: [X]" - if they REALLY wanted it to be tied to Battlecry I think they still could've done the same - "Battlecry: Joust; if you win, [X]." There's no reason spell immunity, ogre stupidity, joust, etc. all need to be full sentence rule boxes for the same reason Taunt or Windfury doesn't.
I completely agree with this post, and it has been bothering me for quite some time. I don't think it's game ruining or anything, but if you are going to have rules and print them on cards, they need to do what they say. Being a full time programmer, I can honestly say that it appears some of the problems that arise are just due to crappy code.
A great example is Tracking. It says "draw" as part of its text, but it is not coded as a draw. The way it is coded is it puts the selected card directly in your hand, bypassing any draw effects/triggers.
By far the most egregious example of this, however, is The Mistcaller. It reads "give all minions in your hand and deck +1/+1". In reality, however, they way it is coded is "give all minions in your hand +1/+1. Whenever you draw a card give it +1/+1" This is why if death lord pulls a card out of your deck after you drop mistcaller, it doesn't get the buff because it wasn't drawn.
Simply put, blizzard should actually code their game according to the rules they print on the cards, or they should stop making ridiculous stuff like The Mistcaller with completely misleading text.
As the OP mentioned, the problem with inconsistencies like this is they lead you to logically expect a given result, when in reality you get a completely different one. Sure you can learn by experience how the card actually works, but the whole point of having rules and printing card text is to prevent that from being necessary.
Blizzard may argue that they want to keep card text simple and easy to understand. But you know what's worse than long/complicated card text? INACURATE and MISSLEADING card text, that's what's worse. Unfortunately, I feel like this may be at the heart of the issue here, blizzard trading accuracy and precision of language for minimal text and "readability".
Disguised Toast has some great videos on caed text inconsistency/descrepancies. Here they are:
All of these interactions are either buggs or work as intended, but the common denominator is you would have NO way of predicting them based on the game rules and card text.
Why do SOME battlecries or deathrattles trigger with priority over other effects while others pass priority? That's not consistent at all. Why does an effect like Emperor Cobra that only triggers on damage as stated not kill a minion withDivine Shield but Blizzard will freeze them (or will freeze minions that weren't even in play when Blizzard was cast) though both cards imply the trigger is tied to damage or happens at least simultaneous to damage? These are inconsistencies plain and simple.
We certainly will not get on the same page in this discussion basically because we have a different understanding of how "resolve" should work in Hearthstone but i will glady answer those questions.
Emperor Cobra does not kill a minion with divine shield because no damage was dealt. If no damage was dealt nothing is destroyed. It's a simple case of the effect not triggering because it's condition was not met.
Blizzard simply has two stages which resolve seperately. First it deals 2 damage to all enemy minions. That damage resolves and effects that are potentially in play may trigger after it. Then the second part, the freeze comes into effect and resolves. It's again Hearthstones version of the stack. Damage resolves -> Effects resolve (i.e. Imp Gang Boss) -> Freeze resolves.
But you can't simply say "well that card has two stages because I know it does" when the card itself does not imply it has two separate stages but actually reads as one effect. That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Your argument is "Well I know from experience how certain cards work" but that's not how rules are supposed to work. The way Blizzard reads specifically states Deal 2 damage to all enemy minions and freeze THEM. That language specifically means the minions that are being hit by the 2 damage are the ones getting frozen. I can agree Divine Shield is less of an appropriate example as you can read Blizzard as being applied regardless of whether the 2 damage lands or not, but there's no logical reason your mech's pilot should get frozen when Blizzard kills it as worded. That's simple English.
Why does a card like Earth Shock need the specific qualifier "then" if cards like Blizzard imply it? It's inconsistent. Blizzard should read "Deal 2 damage to all enemy minions, then freeze all enemy minions." but they got sloppy with taking a language short cut and put two separate and distinct effects in one continuous rule line.
I always assumed that the "them" in Blizzard referred to the "enemy minions" part, since "them" is a pronoun that refers back to the last named or otherwise indicated participants in the sentence. In this case, the only named participants are the "enemy minions" so it makes sense that anything that falls under that category is frozen. If it said "Deal two damage to all enemy minions and freeze any minion that took damage this way." then I could understand the confusion, but as English works "them just refers to enemy minions.
That said, it does feel counter intuitive since it seems like only minions actually hit by the blizzard should be frozen, but the wording makes sense. It could be clearer, but it makes sense.
As others have said, while interactions are annoying, they are fairly consistent. Using the example of Blizzard while the card text is not 100% the clearest it could be, it is still fairly clear when you compare it to similar cards like Water Elemental or Snowchugger which both say that only when a character is damaged by the card does it get frozen. Since Blizzard does not indicate a need for the minion to have been damaged by the spell it is then assumed that it is frozen regardless of damage.
As for the Silver Hand Recruit example, this simply comes down to understanding the advanced rules that come into play in rare situations. The way that these interactions work go like this damage is dealt causing a character's health to hit 0 > Any effects such as deathrattles or secretes are then activated (that character that hit 0 is still in the death phase and as such is still considered to be in play) > The effects are carried out in the order that the cards entered play until all effects are complete > The resolution is then checked (resolution being checking what characters are now considered to be a 0 health following the attack and effects) > characters that are at or below 0 health are now removed from play. One of the best ways to see this work is if you use Hellfire while at 3 or less health while your opponent has Zombie Chowon the field. Hellfiredeals 3 damage to all characters causing your hero's health to go to 0 or below as well as causing Zombie Chow's health to hit 0, The deathrattle then triggers healing you for 5 and thus healthing you back above 0, the game then checks the resolution and concludes that Zombie Chow has died but you are still alive
How do you know if your game's rules are too confusing and/or poorly worded? When one of the most well known pros/streamers can't even get above a C grade on a rules quiz.
So, who wants to get together and create an Oracle-style database of all Hearthstone cards with corrected, completely foolproof mechanical text that we can then submit to Blizzard?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I looked at this card originally and I thought, you know, it's a card, and you play this card. The card will be that card that you play so you're playing a card. So, it is one thing to play a card. If you're opponent doesn't really have any cards, the card will screw up the card pretty hard, and that means it's a pretty good card.
I have found that when there are two Sylvanass on the board they dont resolve consistently to a number of cards, like Brawl. I think the Sylvannas from the player which is playing his turn resolves first, but it's not always the case.
Does anyone else think it's time for Blizzard to really crack down on rule inconsistencies and start streamlining mechanic language?
I feel like things like this are relatively absurd: "However, 'whenever you summon' effects vary depending on the card:
There shouldn't be any doubt as to when effects trigger in order on a card-by-card basis. Effects like Blizzard that have (I don't know if they still do as Blizzard, the company, wasn't exactly clear as to what they actually wanted with respect to the effect of Blizzard, the spell) that clearly say "Deal 2 damage to all enemy minions and Freeze them" but in effect the card acts like "Deal 2 damage to enemy minions. Freeze enemy minions" as the freeze effect is independent of the damage despite the wording clearly indicating they should be linked. The impact is cards like Grim Patron and Piloted Shredder might have their clones/death rattle summons frozen even though they aren't hit by the spell.
Similarly, I've had interactions that seem to defy logic like a 1/0 Silverhand Recruit getting buffed post going to 0 life by Avenge and surviving as a 4/2. What? Sometimes Mad Scientist dying triggers the secret that gets pulled out via his Deathrattle. None of these interactions seem to make sense and none seem to be consistent.
Also, I just posted this, but I think Blizzard should be more aggressive in using keywords for recurring effects. "Can't be the target of spells or Hero Powers" could easily just read "Magic Resistance" and then you've made cards like Wee Spellstopper or even just Faerie Dragon easier to read and open up future cards to have Magic Resistance + other effects without making the card look like an encyclopedia entry. 50% to hit wrong target? "Brutish" (or whatever). There's very little need for fully written out descriptions of these kind of effects. People will say "But new players..." but then why do we have "Taunt" and not "Cannot attack other characters without this effect" ?
Getting on top of these kind of broken windows problems now while the game is still young and not overly expansive is important. Rule consistency is very important for a functional game, and I know I'm sick of not being able to tell "Well how is this going to work in THIS case because it's sort of case by case dependent". At least in HS the language issue can be edited relatively easily as they aren't physical, printed cards, but I think that's something that should be looked into too.
Balancing busted cards version 1.0.
This doesn't seem like a pressing issue, let alone one that needs to be fixed as soon as possible.
I returned to this game much like how a recovering alcoholic can relapse.
The general rule one must consider with the summoning effects is that if the effect could in theory effect the summoned card, it happens after summoning. Warsong commander by definition cannot give minions charge before they're summoned. So fixing that to work properly would actually be a complete destruction of the card and its text. Whenever was probably an attempt to simplify the card text as 'after' would have been stranger. "Does the card need to be on the board for the effect to trigger in a sensible way?" If yes, after, if not, before. Knives and blasts could in some ways trigger things that kill the minion that got played, so yes. Those happen after.
Illidan is actually a really unique card in that respect, as the fact that he interacts with both spells and minions means he has to go before summons, which leads to some crazy knife juggler explosive sheep sylvanas shenanigans where you can give your opponent deathwing to discard their hand, instakill them through playing jaraxxus, or trigger a mind control in a way that puts it in your hand instead of on the board.
Keywords I think they're approaching properly. The magic resist effect is recurring, but it isn't as frequent and specifically interactive as taunt, windfury, divine shield, etc etc. Maybe in a set or two, it will be.
I'm not saying it needs to be fixed as soon as possible, but the longer they go unchecked the more of them you have to fix. Rules aren't rules if they apply differently from one instance to another without a stated or expected reason. That seems pressing to me, especially as new cards with new interactions are generated.
When I board wipe a paladin's Muster with something like Consecration versus Knife Juggler killing all 3 recruits off my own Muster, it's not intuitively clear why Avenge should trigger on the KJ interaction but not Consecration. A minion with 0 Health is supposed to be dead and a dead minion can't receive a buff, but that's the way it works.
This isn't a salty rage post, I want to make that clear. It's a "This game could be better and here's how" post. The people who praise MTG's rule design do so for this very reason - even when they make a brand new mechanic/keyword it acts exactly as you would expect every time within the carefully defined general rules. This is a very key point into how WotC can generate new mechanics and keep updating their game to be fresher every 3 months or so with massive infusions of new cards and effects but not bewilder the players or ruin their game (except Treasure Cruise, Skullclamp, JTMS kind of mistakes...). Waiting on defining rules to have an expected universal result will only make it harder to fix in the future and until it is fixed will only make it harder to expand.
Balancing busted cards version 1.0.
Excellent post. I couldn't agree more. There are even some basic inconsistencies in wording even when they don't affect effects that I think need to be cleaned up. There is no reason for Innervate to read "this turn only" when all other "this turn only" cards just read "this turn." There is also a ton of variance between "your" and "friendly." Stablemaster (and others) reads "friendly beast" while King of Beasts reads "each other beast you have" and Tundra Rhino reads "your beasts." These are just a few examples. Not a huge deal, but I think "broken window problems" is the perfect description of them.
I strongly agree that some interactions are annoying. Fire Elemental his Mad Scientist, trigger his Mirror Entity and then he gets a 6/5 in the same turn. I understand why this happens, but I don't agree with it...
"In this world some people born are like keys that move the world and exist having no connection to the social hierarchy established by man."
Feel free to PM me for help or advice.
You're understanding of the stack in MTG seems wrong. MTG's stack is NOTHING like Hearthstone's and that is the problem I'm presenting.
"Yes a minion with zero health should be dead. But ever hit anything with a removal spell in MTG just to have it go on the stack and be countered there? It's the exact same thing, just that Hearthstone shows you the effect and only then goes to the stack and checks for what effects have to resolve in which order. "
This is exactly the wrong analogy. In MTG a removal spell on the stack has been "cast" but not yet "resolved". The net effect is anything that triggers on the "casting" of the spell trigger and also go onto the stack to be resolved FIRST. If the opponent responds to removal spell with a Counterspell, they have "cast" the counter and again the game checks to see if anything triggers off the "casting" of the counter and if so will put those effects on the stack. What happens is assuming the counterspell resolves, the removal spell doesn't. The creature your removal targeted doesn't die because the removal spell is effectively removed before it happens.
In this situation, let's assume we both have something like Young Pyromancer in play that gives you a 1/1 whenever YOU cast a specific spell. I can tell you that what would happen with the above order is You target my Young Pyro with removal, with the removal on the stack your YP trigger goes on the stack, then I cast Counter on your removal, my YP trigger goes on the stack. Now we have 4 triggers all in limbo on the stack. My YP trigger was the last one put on the stack so it triggers first, I get a 1/1. My counter was the second most recent trigger and removes your removal spell from the stack upon resolving. The stack is now just your YP trigger and you get a 1/1.
This example is far more complicated than I'd suggest HS be because we're talking about "instants" which is a concept far above HS where you can respond to a spell at any point regardless of turn and before other effects resolve; but it still holds true to the point. I know exactly how that series of 2 spells with 2 additional triggers will resolve barring any additional instants being cast (and then I'd still know exactly how that would all resolve). With something like Griffisu's example how would I know that me killing a Mad Scientist with a Battlecry of a minion that is now ALREADY IN PLAY WHEN THE SCIENTIST DIES will grab a secret put it into play and then copy my 6/5? That stack makes no sense based on the wording of anything.
Why do SOME battlecries or deathrattles trigger with priority over other effects while others pass priority? That's not consistent at all. Why does an effect like Emperor Cobra that only triggers on damage as stated not kill a minion with Divine Shield but Blizzard will freeze them (or will freeze minions that weren't even in play when Blizzard was cast) though both cards imply the trigger is tied to damage or happens at least simultaneous to damage? These are inconsistencies plain and simple.
EDIT: Also, a few people who seem to largely be saying the game's rules are consistent have both already used the terms "niche" or "unique" situations - as soon as you say that you HAVE to realize that that means the rules are inconsistent by definition. A rule can't be a rule 99.999% of the time but then inexplicably work differently in that 0.001% instance and be considered a "rule". A rule is absolute and can only be "broken" if explicitly stated by another superseding but defined rule.
Balancing busted cards version 1.0.
On the topic of Blizzard and the two stage function, the inconsistency problem comes when you look at other cards that ostensibly should work the same way. The obvious example here is Swipe which has the exact same text structure (Do x and x) as Blizzard, but does not work the same way in the example you gave (Imp Gang Boss). I think the problem here is with Blizzard. Think of it this way, the "them" in the text of Blizzard should refer to all the minions currently on the board in both cases (the damage and the freeze effect), but in the case of Imp Gang Boss the second effect refers to a different them than the first, but this is not the case in Swipe. If you look at the text of Imp Gang Boss, it seems like a lot is hanging on how "whenever" is construed. If "whenever" means "at the exact same time" then Blizzard should both kill and freeze the spawned imp AND Swipe should kill the imp, but if "whenever" means "after" then the imp should be unaffected in both cases. This is not how things currently work. This seems inconsistent.
But you can't simply say "well that card has two stages because I know it does" when the card itself does not imply it has two separate stages but actually reads as one effect. That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Your argument is "Well I know from experience how certain cards work" but that's not how rules are supposed to work. The way Blizzard reads specifically states Deal 2 damage to all enemy minions and freeze THEM. That language specifically means the minions that are being hit by the 2 damage are the ones getting frozen. I can agree Divine Shield is less of an appropriate example as you can read Blizzard as being applied regardless of whether the 2 damage lands or not, but there's no logical reason your mech's pilot should get frozen when Blizzard kills it as worded. That's simple English.
Why does a card like Earth Shock need the specific qualifier "then" if cards like Blizzard imply it? It's inconsistent. Blizzard should read "Deal 2 damage to all enemy minions, then freeze all enemy minions." but they got sloppy with taking a language short cut and put two separate and distinct effects in one continuous rule line.
Balancing busted cards version 1.0.
But I don't think the mechanics are consistent in the example I gave of Blizzard and Swipe. That's not just an example of unclear wording. The structure of the effects is exactly the same, but the effects are different. That's inconsistent.
But this: ""However, 'whenever you summon' effects vary depending on the card:
How is ^^^^^^ this consistent? There is literally nothing about those cards themselves that indicate when what triggers with priority and they are different. This isn't even the comprehensive list. If such a huge mechanic as "Battlecry" currently has more priority than some triggers and less priority than others with no reasonable expectation one way or the other how can you claim that the mechanic is consistent?
There's a number of inconsistencies in the game in terms of what triggers when AND there are a number of inconsistencies in language/rules text. They're two separate issues rooted in the same problem: Blizzard hasn't formalized a specific rules format the way MTG had to (painstakingly).
There was a time when MTG was also wildly inconsistent in terms of both wording and in terms of understanding as to the ordering of effects. They had to go back and re-work everything they had already done to fix it for the kind of compendium you're talking about (it's called "Oracle" and you can look it up on WotC's card database: The Gatherer) where they had to go back and fix a tremendous amount of cards to fit current rules. If you want an example of this check out a card like this: http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=4671 - you can see the original text on the card pic and the updated Oracle text in the panel. They realized they needed more general, defined terms like "exiled" and "sacrifice" than "put aside" and "put in a graveyard" as other cards' rules care about specifically where a card is at any given time or how a card ends up in a graveyard. They also had to change the three effects to have commas rather than periods separating them because under the general way MTG effects trigger they wanted these 3 effects to be simultaneous rather than 3 separate interactions.
Living Death is just the off-the-top-of-my-head example of a card that needed to be "fixed" for both language consistency with the addition of mechanics like Exiling and Sacrificing AND ordering with the change of periods to commas. Simple things like this tell the player "No, 'Indestructible' won't save my creature from Living Death because it's being 'sacrificed' not 'destroyed'" and also "No, I can't respond in the middle of these effects happening as they are one single effect with 3 steps rather than 3 separate effects on 1 card."
As for the mobile format issue that's why I'm suggesting they start using keywords more frequently. There's no reason the joust mechanic needed to spell out on every card "Reveal a minion in each deck, if it costs more do X" when they could've just written "Joust: [X]" - if they REALLY wanted it to be tied to Battlecry I think they still could've done the same - "Battlecry: Joust; if you win, [X]." There's no reason spell immunity, ogre stupidity, joust, etc. all need to be full sentence rule boxes for the same reason Taunt or Windfury doesn't.
Balancing busted cards version 1.0.
I completely agree with this post, and it has been bothering me for quite some time. I don't think it's game ruining or anything, but if you are going to have rules and print them on cards, they need to do what they say. Being a full time programmer, I can honestly say that it appears some of the problems that arise are just due to crappy code.
A great example is Tracking. It says "draw" as part of its text, but it is not coded as a draw. The way it is coded is it puts the selected card directly in your hand, bypassing any draw effects/triggers.
By far the most egregious example of this, however, is The Mistcaller. It reads "give all minions in your hand and deck +1/+1". In reality, however, they way it is coded is "give all minions in your hand +1/+1. Whenever you draw a card give it +1/+1" This is why if death lord pulls a card out of your deck after you drop mistcaller, it doesn't get the buff because it wasn't drawn.
Simply put, blizzard should actually code their game according to the rules they print on the cards, or they should stop making ridiculous stuff like The Mistcaller with completely misleading text.
As the OP mentioned, the problem with inconsistencies like this is they lead you to logically expect a given result, when in reality you get a completely different one. Sure you can learn by experience how the card actually works, but the whole point of having rules and printing card text is to prevent that from being necessary.
Blizzard may argue that they want to keep card text simple and easy to understand. But you know what's worse than long/complicated card text? INACURATE and MISSLEADING card text, that's what's worse. Unfortunately, I feel like this may be at the heart of the issue here, blizzard trading accuracy and precision of language for minimal text and "readability".
Disguised Toast has some great videos on caed text inconsistency/descrepancies. Here they are:
General Discrepancies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r66qdxHnAb8
The Mistcaller Discrepancies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB85s2S0-lM
[card]Varian Wrynn[/card] and Some Draw Related Discrepancies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsaTDv1hhgE
Some TGT Related Discrepancies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iloAZS7LmMI and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax4U6dDIlws
All of these interactions are either buggs or work as intended, but the common denominator is you would have NO way of predicting them based on the game rules and card text.
For those still not convinced, even a professional hearthstone streamer cant get above a C rating on a rules quiz:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CkBjUuW_qI
Video resources now added ^
Blizzard is avoiding being clear about the rules so that players won't know when there is a bug.
Players: "Hey, this trigger sequence seems wrong!"
Blizzard: "It's working as intended."
"Put your face in the light!" - Tirion Fordring
I always assumed that the "them" in Blizzard referred to the "enemy minions" part, since "them" is a pronoun that refers back to the last named or otherwise indicated participants in the sentence. In this case, the only named participants are the "enemy minions" so it makes sense that anything that falls under that category is frozen. If it said "Deal two damage to all enemy minions and freeze any minion that took damage this way." then I could understand the confusion, but as English works "them just refers to enemy minions.
That said, it does feel counter intuitive since it seems like only minions actually hit by the blizzard should be frozen, but the wording makes sense. It could be clearer, but it makes sense.
Nothing doing, traveler.
As others have said, while interactions are annoying, they are fairly consistent. Using the example of Blizzard while the card text is not 100% the clearest it could be, it is still fairly clear when you compare it to similar cards like Water Elemental or Snowchugger which both say that only when a character is damaged by the card does it get frozen. Since Blizzard does not indicate a need for the minion to have been damaged by the spell it is then assumed that it is frozen regardless of damage.
As for the Silver Hand Recruit example, this simply comes down to understanding the advanced rules that come into play in rare situations. The way that these interactions work go like this damage is dealt causing a character's health to hit 0 > Any effects such as deathrattles or secretes are then activated (that character that hit 0 is still in the death phase and as such is still considered to be in play) > The effects are carried out in the order that the cards entered play until all effects are complete > The resolution is then checked (resolution being checking what characters are now considered to be a 0 health following the attack and effects) > characters that are at or below 0 health are now removed from play. One of the best ways to see this work is if you use Hellfire while at 3 or less health while your opponent has Zombie Chowon the field. Hellfiredeals 3 damage to all characters causing your hero's health to go to 0 or below as well as causing Zombie Chow's health to hit 0, The deathrattle then triggers healing you for 5 and thus healthing you back above 0, the game then checks the resolution and concludes that Zombie Chow has died but you are still alive
How do you know if your game's rules are too confusing and/or poorly worded? When one of the most well known pros/streamers can't even get above a C grade on a rules quiz.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CkBjUuW_qI
So, who wants to get together and create an Oracle-style database of all Hearthstone cards with corrected, completely foolproof mechanical text that we can then submit to Blizzard?
I looked at this card originally and I thought, you know, it's a card, and you play this card. The card will be that card that you play so you're playing a card. So, it is one thing to play a card. If you're opponent doesn't really have any cards, the card will screw up the card pretty hard, and that means it's a pretty good card.
I have found that when there are two Sylvanass on the board they dont resolve consistently to a number of cards, like Brawl. I think the Sylvannas from the player which is playing his turn resolves first, but it's not always the case.
Sideshow Spelleater - If they only intend for it to copy basic hero powers why not state it on the card?
Galavant Animation