Hearthpwn

This doesn't make any sense.  The negative stats should be a buff same as positive stats, and transfer to the golden just the same.  There's no reason to add a "but it can't reduce below minimum of the golden" complication that will only confuse people.

*Affects or “its effect on”

Affect=verb

Effect=noun

*Usually

'Effect' as a verb means 'create' or 'produce', 'affect' as a noun is an attitude, a mien. So if you start behaving markedly differently, you are effecting an affect.

You could even effect an effect that affects an affect, if you produce something that has the result that it changes a behavior -- or affect an effect that effects an affect, if you change something that has the result that it produces a new behavior.

Grammar is fun!

And affect can be a noun :-)

But in this case, it should definitely be "affects" as a verb, so icejordan is correct, and everyone else can stop flexing now.

As my AP English teacher used to say, people who think they're smart will try to correct you on the usage of effect and affect, but in truth they're interchangeable since you can always justify either's definition in applying to what you said.

Props to your teacher, that's well said!

This is the company that used to claim that players would find a second page of deck slots "too confusing."

This is also the company that has changed a lot of the years, and escpecially with B. Brode leaving, has deviated from their once extremly conservative design approach. Let them change :) It`s for the better.

It was a joke, not a serious comment on the direction of anything.

This is still a laughably simplistic CCG compared to any of its competition so I'm not sure where this complex design is at.

Weird, but okay.