PDA

View Full Version : Templating Improvements



Phenteo
12-09-2014, 06:33 AM
Corey Burkhart, Systems Designer is here to discuss the Rules and Templating here in HEX. With the upcoming Shattered Destiny patch, we’ve made a number of improvements to our templating rules and guidelines. We’re extending these new guidelines to Shards of Fate cards, so you’ll see updates to the text boxes on some cards in your collection.

Read more: https://hextcg.com/templating-improvements/

mightygerm
12-09-2014, 06:51 AM
So what will the new text of Pterobot be?

Your zones are: your deck, your graveyard, your hand, and your underground, which means Pterobot will cost 7 while in play and on the chain, allowing the duo to work in tandem as intended from the start.

"In play" not being a zone is kind of confusing to me, esp if you think of what cards like Sir Giles will do with that wording, and all of the incantations, etc.

Kami
12-09-2014, 06:53 AM
Nice write-up. Lot of new things to think about. A lot of subtle changes. :)

bootlace
12-09-2014, 06:57 AM
Edit: Ok I see that "in play" is a zone, just not YOUR zone. Got it.

I also thought 'in-play' was one of the zones..

Glae
12-09-2014, 07:02 AM
So all cards are being made less readable and more annoying because of Cosmic Transmog? Ugh.

Is there literally any reason why "this" is used instead of the much more readable "this card?"

Also, "in play" sure seems like a zone...

Kilikaji
12-09-2014, 07:04 AM
So what will the new text of Pterobot be?


"In play" not being a zone is kind of confusing to me, esp if you think of what cards like Sir Giles will do with that wording, and all of the incantations, etc.

I just saw that mentioned in the other faq. In play is still a zone, its just not YOUR zone. So sir giles can still buff other cards in play since it targets all zones.

Sidtz
12-09-2014, 07:05 AM
I also thought 'in-play' was one of the zones..

that is a weird change, i guess giles rowen won't be buffing other troops with the same traits that are already in play then?

edit:


I just saw that mentioned in the other faq. In play is still a zone, its just not YOUR zone. So sir giles can still buff other cards in play since it targets all zones.

oh, i guess that makes sense. in play is considered some kind of neutral zone then that belongs to nobody rather then it belonging to both players?

plaguedealer
12-09-2014, 07:14 AM
The things that I see right off the bat is that vampire king can now become invincible with queen grace, pretty cool.

mightygerm
12-09-2014, 07:21 AM
The zone cost change also seems to make cost reductions on inspire troops less effective.
edit: I might be misunderstanding the change

ossuary
12-09-2014, 07:23 AM
Doesn't this card violate your new templating rules?

https://hextcg.com/wp-content/themes/hex/images/autocard/Rallying%20Banner.png

It says "this artifact." But you're only supposed to be saying "this" now (which I still think is bad). Should you just use "this card" for everything instead of being overly specific (this artifact) or overly vague (this)?

Resand
12-09-2014, 07:25 AM
With "this" being used to refer to a card, in stead of "this troop" or "this artifact", do inspire troops use the fantastic "this's" in stead of "this troop's" now?

N3rd4Christ
12-09-2014, 07:27 AM
Doesn't this card violate your new templating rules?

https://hextcg.com/wp-content/themes/hex/images/autocard/Rallying%20Banner.png

It says "this artifact." But you're only supposed to be saying "this" now (which I still think is bad). Should you just use "this card" for everything instead of being overly specific (this artifact) or overly vague (this)?


New don't really know if that's its final form. Could have been changed.

Sidtz
12-09-2014, 07:27 AM
The zone cost change also seems to make cost reductions on inspire troops less effective.
edit: I might be misunderstanding the change

i think you are. queen grace gives troops a flat -1 cost, with no relation to zones. i can't think of anything else right now but i would assume unless it specifically mentions that a troops gets -cost in all your zones it won't affect the cost when it hits the board.

ossuary
12-09-2014, 07:34 AM
New don't really know if that's its final form. Could have been changed.

This (!) image is from their set 2 spoiler list, just posted this('s) morning. :p

ossuary
12-09-2014, 07:36 AM
i think you are. queen grace gives troops a flat -1 cost, with no relation to zones. i can't think of anything else right now but i would assume unless it specifically mentions that a troops gets -cost in all your zones it won't affect the cost when it hits the board.

Hopefully it also means that pterobot can be inspired by everything, since when it's on the chain and enters play it uses the base cost - it's only in your hand/graveyard/deck that it has the lower cost. Could be pretty cool to drop it as a 1 or 2 cost but have it get inspired with everything up to 7. :)

Of course, that would be a really weird dwarf/human hybrid deck. ;)

Sidtz
12-09-2014, 07:39 AM
Hopefully it also means that pterobot can be inspired by everything, since when it's on the chain and enters play it uses the base cost - it's only in your hand/graveyard/deck that it has the lower cost. Could be pretty cool to drop it as a 1 or 2 cost but have it get inspired with everything up to 7. :)

Of course, that would be a really weird dwarf/human hybrid deck. ;)

rather then dwarf/human i would just do artifact/human with bertram. you could even get draw a card worker bots if you lower the cost of mirror knight once.

Resand
12-09-2014, 07:57 AM
One more thing with the whole "this" thing. Eternal Drifter: 5xthis. Are you sure this is an improvement :)

Vorpal
12-09-2014, 08:30 AM
Good changes. I remember arguing way back when that briar legions text was incorrect. I am happy to see it now states "each TIME a briar legion..."

Incindium
12-09-2014, 08:30 AM
That Pterobot change is not obvious at all in its implementation although I like the intent(I think). Not in this build anyway so guess it still could be changed.

Gwaer
12-09-2014, 09:23 AM
They didn't really address why they chose "This" over "This card" Granted it is a lot of saved words over the course of thousands and thousands of cards, and the word card can just be implied... But I do understand where the anti-this's crowd is coming from, even if it doesn't bother me all that much.

Grimshaw
12-09-2014, 09:50 AM
It looks like the Inspire effects are allowed to keep their "this [card type]" text line.

Jags and Alywn don't share the same template, as Jags contains "this's" and Alwyn states "Alwyn's."

Starfire Totemist calls itself out as a troop, but the ability would be useless as something else.

Right now, these changes seem mostly fueled by Cosmic Transmog, but this is definitely a design space that they should be able to explore more in the future. Cards need to be able to transform seamlessly and keep their readability. I'm just not sure that the current implementation is 100% there yet.

Zomnivore
12-09-2014, 10:04 AM
I believe this is a significant buff to Pterobot and that this sort of thing breaks your rule on buffing and nerfing.

I hope this is the only need for such a change, and that you do not creep into doing this later.

I remember this sort of thing happening in league and it definitely did begin to creep up in terms of frequency and power level of buff/nerf/change being implemented under the guise of being a bug fix...or lining things up with intent of design, and in this case thats much harder to do fairly.

Its not a huge deal atm because of a series of factors including that its a common, but I hope you guys get this sort of stuff correct in the first pass of a set, and the first few waves of correcting implementation.

This is a pretty significant change and its coming pretty late.


I believe you when you state it was your intent for them to work together, but at the end of the day intent doesn't cut it once a cards out in circulation and you guys have had a fair shake at fixing implementation and the sort of first pass jitters have died down.

There are a ton of factors making this one reasonable to let pass, but I don't know about next time, and I really want you guys to put effort into getting stuff right in the first 3 months of implementation.

Xenavire
12-09-2014, 10:09 AM
I believe this is a significant buff to Pterobot and that this sort of thing breaks your rule on buffing and nerfing.

I hope this is the only need for such a change, and that you do not creep into doing this later.

I remember this sort of thing happening in league and it definitely did begin to creep up in terms of frequency and power level of buff/nerf/change being implemented under the guise of being a bug fix.

The effect didn't reflect the intent of the card, and they didn't originally have the tech to implement the version they wanted. I assume these 'buffs' will be confined to cases that couldn't be implemented correctly (note that Relentless Corruption is still bugged but is otherwise functional, same as Angel, and when both are changed to reflect the intent it will have gameplay implications.)

So, rather than this being a buff/nerf or whatever, I see it as a bugfix.

And remember, now that we have a champion that uses traits, a LOT of cards got 'buffs' by having their trait lines updated, yet it is obvious that they are only being brought in line with the design intent. Think of it as errata that is required.

Zomnivore
12-09-2014, 10:17 AM
Eh. maybe

Intent isn't important enough. There's sort of a timeline where its reasonable, and de jure and de facto come in.

Its been treated de facto because of how it was allowed to be implemented. Its been correctly stated that its reduced cost gets affected by transmog and in general people have accessed its value and already been trading on that assessment, and playing based on the reality of the implementation.

I think its generally not terrible this time because of how early the game is, and a ton of reasonable factors, but this sort of reasoning can easily creep into future stuff, and Intent and implementation aren't clearly shown to us players because of the developers desire for our own personal ability to discover cards/decks, so really its tough to accept as being allowable at all.

Its not like I think this breaks the economy, but there are effects on other cards like transmog, and now there are new things to try, and its just a bit late to be doing this.

In general I think the tag system, and the buffs to certain cards there are more allowable, because it seems to be an entire new bit of systems implementation and some foundation work for that to work.

Thoom
12-09-2014, 10:35 AM
I'm not super thrilled with the Shuffle Into -> Put Into change as it relates to Loregoyle and Cosmic Totem. I thought it was a really cool interaction to be able to use those offensively to screw with cards like Captain of the Dragon Guard.

Xenavire
12-09-2014, 10:46 AM
Eh. maybe

Intent isn't important enough. There's sort of a timeline where its reasonable, and de jure and de facto come in.

Its been treated de facto because of how it was allowed to be implemented. Its been correctly stated that its reduced cost gets affected by transmog and in general people have accessed its value and already been trading on that assessment, and playing based on the reality of the implementation.

I think its generally not terrible this time because of how early the game is, and a ton of reasonable factors, but this sort of reasoning can easily creep into future stuff, and Intent and implementation aren't clearly shown to us players because of the developers desire for our own personal ability to discover cards/decks, so really its tough to accept as being allowable at all.

Its not like I think this breaks the economy, but there are effects on other cards like transmog, and now there are new things to try, and its just a bit late to be doing this.

In general I think the tag system, and the buffs to certain cards there are more allowable, because it seems to be an entire new bit of systems implementation and some foundation work for that to work.

Oh, I understand that they shouldn't just retcon stuff whenever they feel like it, but on the odd occasion that they designed a card one way, and it had to be implemented slightly differently... It basically like a bugfix (and those are acceptable.)

Then again, if (for example) in set 6 they 'retcon' gambit to say it creates copies instead of replicas, people would be allowed to rage and scream. There are obvious limits to these things.


I'm not super thrilled with the Shuffle Into -> Put Into change as it relates to Loregoyle and Cosmic Totem. I thought it was a really cool interaction to be able to use those offensively to screw with cards like Captain of the Dragon Guard.

I prefer the new way - it allows for actual interaction with the deck, without things being screwed over. Captain of the Dragon Guard is already fairly overcosted, so I have no objection to this minor indirect buff.

Freebird_Falcon
12-09-2014, 11:07 AM
I believe this is a significant buff to Pterobot and that this sort of thing breaks your rule on buffing and nerfing.

I hope this is the only need for such a change, and that you do not creep into doing this later.

I remember this sort of thing happening in league and it definitely did begin to creep up in terms of frequency and power level of buff/nerf/change being implemented under the guise of being a bug fix...or lining things up with intent of design, and in this case thats much harder to do fairly.

Its not a huge deal atm because of a series of factors including that its a common, but I hope you guys get this sort of stuff correct in the first pass of a set, and the first few waves of correcting implementation.

This is a pretty significant change and its coming pretty late.


I believe you when you state it was your intent for them to work together, but at the end of the day intent doesn't cut it once a cards out in circulation and you guys have had a fair shake at fixing implementation and the sort of first pass jitters have died down.

There are a ton of factors making this one reasonable to let pass, but I don't know about next time, and I really want you guys to put effort into getting stuff right in the first 3 months of implementation.

I can appreciate your concern here as league is a good example of continuous changes dubiously under the belt of design intent. However, I think the intent is pretty clear in this case. I'm actually more concerned that the card's true value cost being displayed on the chain is going to lead to confusion. "Wtf! How did you cast a 7 cost troop with only 3 resources!!"

ossuary
12-09-2014, 11:08 AM
I'm not super thrilled with the Shuffle Into -> Put Into change as it relates to Loregoyle and Cosmic Totem. I thought it was a really cool interaction to be able to use those offensively to screw with cards like Captain of the Dragon Guard.

Note that both effects still exist. Some were changed to be "put into" without shuffling, and some still cause the deck to be shuffled. Going forward, we can get either type, depending on the devs' intent for the card.

Magician
12-09-2014, 01:05 PM
Hey HEXers, I'm going to be tearing through most of this questions for everyone here! If I miss your question, or overlook it, it's likely that it has been answered in response to someone else's question, but if I did miss it please don't hesitate to point me in the direction of your question!



So what will the new text of Pterobot be?


"In play" not being a zone is kind of confusing to me, esp if you think of what cards like Sir Giles will do with that wording, and all of the incantations, etc.

@ Mightygerm:
In play is a shared zone, meaning that both players influence it. It's currently one of the only two shared zones, the other being the chain. "Your zones" are a zone only your champion influences. These include, your graveyard, your void, your deck, your hand, and your underground.

Pterobot's new text will read, "Flight This has cost -[(1)] in all your zones for each Dwarf and/or Robot you control.


@Bootlace

So all cards are being made less readable and more annoying because of Cosmic Transmog? Ugh.


Is there literally any reason why "this" is used instead of the much more readable "this card?"


Also, "in play" sure seems like a zone...

This is not only an issue with Cosmic Transmogrifier. We have a number of cards that transform cards in set 2, the Mentor Cycle, Jovial Pippet, etc. We also have a number of cards granting powers to other cards, Highlands Magus, Jags, the Blademaster, etc. As a team we determined that removing the card type would make the cards read more intuitively and correctly when cards went through transformations or had powers grafted on to them. HEX is a complex game, and complex things occur, we want to make sure our cards read properly to the players.

In play is a zone, it's a shared zone! Thus it's not one of "Your Zones."



I just saw that mentioned in the other faq. In play is still a zone, its just not YOUR zone. So sir giles can still buff other cards in play since it targets all zones.

@Killkaji

Exactly! Sir Giles Rowan will be buffing +1ATK to any one of YOUR troop that shares a trait with the targeted troop.


@ Mightygerm:
In the case of Pterobot it will actually make him better with Inspire. This is because once the Robot Dino leaves your hand and moves to the chain its cost will become 7 (or whatever it's been reduced/increased to by other powers). Thus, As it enters play in the case of Inspire it will check be inspired by any Inspire cards in play with cost 7 or less!


@Ossuary


Doesn't this card violate your new templating rules?

https://hextcg.com/wp-content/themes/hex/images/autocard/Rallying%20Banner.png

It says "this artifact." But you're only supposed to be saying "this" now (which I still think is bad). Should you just use "this card" for everything instead of being overly specific (this artifact) or overly vague (this)?

Inspire includes one of the exceptions to this rule. Whenever we're discussing possession of something, we wanted to state the card type.

Otherwise you would see the Rallying Banner read: "Inspire - As a troop with cost equal to or less than this's cost enters play under your control that troop gets +1ATK/+1DEF.

This's is not even English! We are aware this bug is existing however with a few of the Inspire troops, but it's not because we wanted to start a new trend/word using this's.

@Resand

Good lord no. It's a bug that exists on Unique inspire troops currently (Lord Alexander, the courageous, Alwyn, Jags, the Blademaster, and Princess Victoria). If you read above, I strongly want this bug to get fixed ASAP!


One more thing with the whole "this" thing. Eternal Drifter: 5xthis. Are you sure this is an improvement :)

This is one of the cases I feel like we actually made tougher to read, but not so much so you don't understand what is going on. We knew in removing the card type off of cards in most cases it would be an improvement for clarity, and real estate in the amount of room we had on cards, but this Legendary lost a bit of clarity in this.

What I can say however, is that I remove the card type on this guy does help with the real estate issue. Each card has only so much room in its text box. Not only does there need to be room for its three powers, but there needs to be room for powers added to him.

After we've considered that, we also need to be concerned with the equipment that will come with PvE. Some cards will turn out to have designs changed, new powers, etc, and the cards can get very long with the sweet equipment we have in store.

In all, I would agree, this guy lost some amount in clarity, but as a whole, the removal of card types from cards is a net positive for the future of the game.


@Zomnivore

I believe this is a significant buff to Pterobot and that this sort of thing breaks your rule on buffing and nerfing.

I hope this is the only need for such a change, and that you do not creep into doing this later.

I remember this sort of thing happening in league and it definitely did begin to creep up in terms of frequency and power level of buff/nerf/change being implemented under the guise of being a bug fix...or lining things up with intent of design, and in this case thats much harder to do fairly.

Its not a huge deal atm because of a series of factors including that its a common, but I hope you guys get this sort of stuff correct in the first pass of a set, and the first few waves of correcting implementation.

This is a pretty significant change and its coming pretty late.


I believe you when you state it was your intent for them to work together, but at the end of the day intent doesn't cut it once a cards out in circulation and you guys have had a fair shake at fixing implementation and the sort of first pass jitters have died down.

There are a ton of factors making this one reasonable to let pass, but I don't know about next time, and I really want you guys to put effort into getting stuff right in the first 3 months of implementation.

You're correct this is a huge change to Pterobot, and it's the one we also wanted to make the most from the beginning of the game. I want to make it clear that this is not something we take lightly. It may appear as we've changed Briar Legion, Legionnaire of Gawaine, and Pterobot today, but we wanted to change them to how they should have functioned. It's not. We do not plan to do these things basically ever.

To quote our Lead Designer Ben Stoll he had to say this,


"(reason why we had to make changes)
We realize this is a high volume of changes. We wouldn’t be making them if we didn’t feel this was a significant net upside for our community, and beyond that, a batch of changes that it would be very difficult to be upset about. When set 1 was initially sent off to our player base, there were still a few internal processes, many of them involving multiple departments (creative, engineering, R&D…), that, while pretty well shaped up, were still new to Hex entertainment and still needed some kinks worked out. These changes represent our desire to correct a few things that we feel didn’t go out the door the right way as a result of those kinks.

(types of changes we tried to make)
We do not like the idea of having to create functional errata; when you invest in your collection, you’re investing under the assumption that your cards won’t change. That’s part of the fun of being a collectible game; you can evaluate worth, whether in a personal sense or a larger market sense, and invest accordingly, with an understanding of a reliable and consistent trajectory for the factors that will determine the evolving value of a card. "


I hope this answers this question that we really don't take this lightly, and we really do not plan to be doing this often, if at all. We just wanted to make sure that these changes are the best possible for our player base, and making Pterobot work as designed was a huge deal for us.


Hopefully this answers all the questions currently, keep them coming!

Edswor
12-09-2014, 01:29 PM
Thanks for the answers Magician (http://forums.cryptozoic.com/member.php?u=32474).

Glae
12-09-2014, 04:08 PM
@Magician. Thanks for answering, but I'm still confused why the less readable "this" was chosen over "this card."

Also, if I understand correctly this means if a Mentor gets inspired, then the card it transforms into retains the Inspire effect? So I could, for example, use Princess Victoria to Inspire a Mentor of the Flame, and then the Burn will gain me life?

Which confuses me even more. As I would assume when I transform a card, I transform it into exactly that card.

mudkip
12-09-2014, 04:16 PM
I like this.

My one comment with Fahrny and Pterobot, why don't you change the wording/power of Fahrny to be: "Deal damage to target troop equal to the highest original cost among artifacts you control." The way I read it, I would still assume Fahrny/Pterobot work the same as before? Also would the change to Pterobot affect how it reacts with Cosmic Transmogrifier?

Magician
12-09-2014, 05:09 PM
@Magician. Thanks for answering, but I'm still confused why the less readable "this" was chosen over "this card."

Also, if I understand correctly this means if a Mentor gets inspired, then the card it transforms into retains the Inspire effect? So I could, for example, use Princess Victoria to Inspire a Mentor of the Flame, and then the Burn will gain me life?

Which confuses me even more. As I would assume when I transform a card, I transform it into exactly that card.


It's only less readable in certain circumstances like the aforementioned Eternal Drifter. In the vast majority of cases it's an upgrade for each card's text. We could have done it on a case by case basis, but that could lead to some of the problems we were looking to correct, where we had cards that had the same variety of powers, but different wordings. This just leads to many problems for a number of players.

The Mentor getting inspired is a great catch, and is something that required a great group effort by the team to get working. Most keywords can only appear on troops.

Take lethal for example. Say we had a human that inspired lethal, and it inspired your Mentor of the Flame (or for simplicity say we play Lethal Weapons targeting the Mentor of the Flame). It could transform into a Burn with lethal when it dies, and it could make sense there.

But if we allow lethal to appear on Burn, then we have to allow lethal to appear on something like Oracle Song as well. While that may make sense to the more experienced card player, most folks would ask, "what in the world does lethal on my Oracle Song mean?" We cannot just have keywords on some actions but not others. Therefore, we have some keywords that only work on certain types of cards. I.E lethal on troops, Spellshield on troops, constants, and artifacts. etc.

To add to this point though. cards do not lose the keywords that are added to them in this case, we just don't display them. Thus, that Burn in your hand that has lethal, the lethal is not displayed, but it is still on the burn. Therefore, if that Burn is then transformed into a Savage Raider by a Jovial Pippet, it will be a Savage Raider with Lethal.

These are some really good questions that I hope I cleared up for you.

Magician
12-09-2014, 05:12 PM
I like this.

My one comment with Fahrny and Pterobot, why don't you change the wording/power of Fahrny to be: "Deal damage to target troop equal to the highest original cost among artifacts you control." The way I read it, I would still assume Fahrny/Pterobot work the same as before? Also would the change to Pterobot affect how it reacts with Cosmic Transmogrifier?

Hey Mudkip.

The idea of doing original cost draws up some issues with equipment that we thought could confuse players, and we don't really want to be confusing players with cost and original cost if we can help it.

Imagine an equipment that says, Your Pack Raptors have cost -[(1)]. If you use that equipment, is its original cost now 0 or 1 in a game. The example can be directly used if you put that equipment on something like Volcannon or Pterobot. It's an idea we brainstormed but having two different forms of resources costs on something is just something we don't want to be using if we can help it.

Glae
12-09-2014, 05:52 PM
It's only less readable in certain circumstances like the aforementioned Eternal Drifter. In the vast majority of cases it's an upgrade for each card's text.

I would tend to disagree, but we seem to be at an impasse between our opinions. I think literally every instance looks worse. Maybe that's because I'm used to seeing the sentence with a noun like Troop or Card, so when it doesn't have it, it looks wrong to me.


The Mentor getting inspired is a great catch, and is something that required a great group effort by the team to get working. Most keywords can only appear on troops.

Take lethal for example. Say we had a human that inspired lethal, and it inspired your Mentor of the Flame. It could transform into a Burn with lethal when it dies, and it could make sense there.

But if we allow lethal to appear on Burn, then we have to allow lethal to appear on something like Oracle Song as well. While that may make sense to the more experienced card player, most folks would ask, "what in the world does lethal on my Oracle Song mean?" We cannot just have keywords on some actions but not others. Therefore, we have some keywords that only work on certain types of cards. I.E lethal on troops, Spellshield on troops, constants, and artifacts. etc.

Can we get a list of these somewhere? Lethal on Oracle Song seems like it would work just like Lethal on a 0/X creature. No damage done to a troop, means not converted to lethal damage. Likewise, Lethal on Burn, also seems like it should work. 2 Damage done, means it is converted to lethal damage. Like a Bombsmith with Lethal should kill things with its enter play effect. But like, does Lifedrain work? There are artifacts, constants and actions that deal damage, so... they should heal you, right?


To add to this point though. cards do not lose the keywords that are added to them in this case, we just don't display them. Thus, that Burn in your hand that has lethal, the lethal is not displayed, but it is still on the burn. Therefore, if that Burn is then transformed into a Savage Raider by a Jovial Pippet, it will be a Savage Raider with Lethal.

So if i have a way to pull cards out of my graveyard, or my opponent has ways to pull cards out of my hand, we have no way of knowing which copy of Burn has Lethal? I think I like this even less than I did before. :( I feel you just told me I now need an out of game reference guide to keep track of things, and I'll need to take notes to keep track of which copy of a card has what secret ability.

Again, thank you for your replies. I'm interested in hearing this kind of stuff, even if my opinions may be different. It's refreshing to hear why Hex is doing things.

Magician
12-09-2014, 07:12 PM
I would tend to disagree, but we seem to be at an impasse between our opinions. I think literally every instance looks worse. Maybe that's because I'm used to seeing the sentence with a noun like Troop or Card, so when it doesn't have it, it looks wrong to me.



Can we get a list of these somewhere? Lethal on Oracle Song seems like it would work just like Lethal on a 0/X creature. No damage done to a troop, means not converted to lethal damage. Likewise, Lethal on Burn, also seems like it should work. 2 Damage done, means it is converted to lethal damage. Like a Bombsmith with Lethal should kill things with its enter play effect. But like, does Lifedrain work? There are artifacts, constants and actions that deal damage, so... they should heal you, right?



So if i have a way to pull cards out of my graveyard, or my opponent has ways to pull cards out of my hand, we have no way of knowing which copy of Burn has Lethal? I think I like this even less than I did before. :( I feel you just told me I now need an out of game reference guide to keep track of things, and I'll need to take notes to keep track of which copy of a card has what secret ability.

Again, thank you for your replies. I'm interested in hearing this kind of stuff, even if my opinions may be different. It's refreshing to hear why Hex is doing things.

Hey Gale,

This list of keywords should exist on the FAQ for set 2 which is linked here: https://hextcg.com/patch-notes-shattered-destiny/ (found in the first hyperlinked line).

Each keyword says which kinds of cards can have it. To summarize:

Troops can have: Lethal, Skyguard, Tunneling, Unblockable, Crush, Defensive, Flight, Inspire, Invincible, Lifedrain, Steadfast, Rage X, Speed, Steadfast, Spellshield, and Swiftstrike.

Artifacts can have: Inspire, Invincible, and Spellshield.

Constants can have: Inspire, Invincible, and Spellshield.

Actions can have: None of HEX's current keywords effect actions.

Gwaer
12-09-2014, 07:54 PM
That's highly disappointing, I was looking forward to lifedrain burns, I thought you guys were setting up for that with this keyword change. Ah well. That was definitely one of the most innovative places I thought hex was going.

nickon
12-10-2014, 06:19 AM
I see that opening this up entirely would increase complexity of HEX and it's development, but on the other (imo more important) hand would also open up for some super interesting card interactions (e.g. lifedrain burn being one). It seems like you guys went only halfway with the potential here by restricting keywords to be added only to certain types of cards.

Referring to your quote (see below) a question I have is; are actions not cards then? :) Because the FAQ is mentioning spellshield, invincible and inspire as keyword powers that cards can have, not excluding actions at all!


Artifacts can have: Inspire, Invincible, and Spellshield.
Constants can have: Inspire, Invincible, and Spellshield.
Actions can have: None of HEX's current keywords effect actions.

Xenavire
12-10-2014, 06:45 AM
I see that opening this up entirely would increase complexity of HEX and it's development, but on the other (imo more important) hand would also open up for some super interesting card interactions (e.g. lifedrain burn being one). It seems like you guys went only halfway with the potential here by restricting keywords to be added only to certain types of cards.

Referring to your quote (see below) a question I have is; are actions not cards then? :) Because the FAQ is mentioning spellshield, invincible and inspire as keyword powers that cards can have, not excluding actions at all!

I imagine it works that way because those keywords are meant to exist in play and in the hand, but not on the chain. Then again, I could be wrong and it is just a choice. :p

ossuary
12-10-2014, 06:47 AM
I also have to say I am disappointed by this. I know they are fringe cases, but I want to give my Mentor of the Flames crush, and then have the Burn he turns into kill a Bombsmith and deal the extra damage to the champion. :p

Personally, I would prefer an all-or-none approach to the keywords working on other card types... either those things maintain across transformations categorically, or they don't, rather than cherry picking ones that do and don't and you have to keep a mental list of which ones go where. That seems way more complicated and far less intuitive to me.

Now there would certainly be scenarios where the transformed card can't DO anything with the keyword, but the keyword should still be on it if the method of its transformation allowed it. For example, a swiftstrike Burn wouldn't work any differently than a regular Burn, because it's not combat damage. I'm not sure what the best way to deal with that would be (maybe list the keyword, but have it crossed out in some way to indicate it doesn't actually function on that specific card?), but I feel the game would be better for it as a whole, because of these unique interactions that no other TCG offers.

I agree with nickon... it feels like you guys didn't go quite far enough with the implementation of this, to its logical conclusion.

nickon
12-10-2014, 07:32 AM
I imagine it works that way because those keywords are meant to exist in play and in the hand, but not on the chain. Then again, I could be wrong and it is just a choice. :p

Spellshielded burn sounds cool to me :)

Although it may not align with how they defined the keyword to work (it only has effect while in play).

Gwaer
12-10-2014, 09:59 AM
Hiding keywords because they're inapplicable so you have to guess which cards have the keyword just seems bad. Not allowing cool interactions that do make sense also just seems bad. Having keywords on cards that do nothing for that specific card because it's a lethal Oracle song really doesn't seem that bad. Keep using your jovial pippit on it until you have something that can deal damage to a troop or sack the song for card draw. It's neat and interesting.

Magician
12-10-2014, 11:24 AM
I see that opening this up entirely would increase complexity of HEX and it's development, but on the other (imo more important) hand would also open up for some super interesting card interactions (e.g. lifedrain burn being one). It seems like you guys went only halfway with the potential here by restricting keywords to be added only to certain types of cards.

Referring to your quote (see below) a question I have is; are actions not cards then? :) Because the FAQ is mentioning spellshield, invincible and inspire as keyword powers that cards can have, not excluding actions at all!'

@Nickon
No, that's a very good catch. I messed that up, I'll see if I can get Will to help me out getting an updated FAQ up there. In each of these instances it should say, "that artifacts, constants, and troops can have." Thanks for pointing this out!



I imagine it works that way because those keywords are meant to exist in play and in the hand, but not on the chain. Then again, I could be wrong and it is just a choice. :p

@Xenavire

Hex is already an incredibly complex game with tons of depth. It was moreover to reduce more complex moments like having Spellshield or Crush on your actions. We determined that limiting these keywords to only affecting the cards that exist in play (Artifacts, Constants, and Troops for Spellshield, and just troops in the case of Crush) created the best experience for our users.



I also have to say I am disappointed by this. I know they are fringe cases, but I want to give my Mentor of the Flames crush, and then have the Burn he turns into kill a Bombsmith and deal the extra damage to the champion. :p

Personally, I would prefer an all-or-none approach to the keywords working on other card types... either those things maintain across transformations categorically, or they don't, rather than cherry picking ones that do and don't and you have to keep a mental list of which ones go where. That seems way more complicated and far less intuitive to me.

Now there would certainly be scenarios where the transformed card can't DO anything with the keyword, but the keyword should still be on it if the method of its transformation allowed it. For example, a swiftstrike Burn wouldn't work any differently than a regular Burn, because it's not combat damage. I'm not sure what the best way to deal with that would be (maybe list the keyword, but have it crossed out in some way to indicate it doesn't actually function on that specific card?), but I feel the game would be better for it as a whole, because of these unique interactions that no other TCG offers.

I agree with nickon... it feels like you guys didn't go quite far enough with the implementation of this, to its logical conclusion.


@ Ossuary

Developer Phil Cape brought up a good example we discussed about the crossed out method you described here Ossuary, that we discussed before.

Imagine a constant we made that has the text, "Whenever you play a card with Flight, do some sort of thing (We'll say for the sake of simplicity troops you control get +1[ATK]/+1[DEF].)

If I play my artifact with Flight (the would be crossed out because Flight does not effect the way the card functions) will my troops get +1[ATK]/+1[DEF]. You can argue both ways and have some fair points, and both sides have same arguments that hurt the other's case. That's why we didn't go down this path while it is something we did discuss.

Yoss
12-10-2014, 11:57 AM
These are my views as well:


I also have to say I am disappointed by this. I know they are fringe cases, but I want to give my Mentor of the Flames crush, and then have the Burn he turns into kill a Bombsmith and deal the extra damage to the champion. :p

Personally, I would prefer an all-or-none approach to the keywords working on other card types... either those things maintain across transformations categorically, or they don't, rather than cherry picking ones that do and don't and you have to keep a mental list of which ones go where. That seems way more complicated and far less intuitive to me.

Now there would certainly be scenarios where the transformed card can't DO anything with the keyword, but the keyword should still be on it if the method of its transformation allowed it. For example, a swiftstrike Burn wouldn't work any differently than a regular Burn, because it's not combat damage. I'm not sure what the best way to deal with that would be (maybe list the keyword, but have it crossed out in some way to indicate it doesn't actually function on that specific card?), but I feel the game would be better for it as a whole, because of these unique interactions that no other TCG offers.

I agree with nickon... it feels like you guys didn't go quite far enough with the implementation of this, to its logical conclusion.


Hiding keywords because they're inapplicable so you have to guess which cards have the keyword just seems bad. Not allowing cool interactions that do make sense also just seems bad. Having keywords on cards that do nothing for that specific card because it's a lethal Oracle song really doesn't seem that bad. Keep using your jovial pippit on it until you have something that can deal damage to a troop or sack the song for card draw. It's neat and interesting.

@Magician's response to ossuary:

Seems simple and obvious that the card has Flight therefore triggers things that look for Flight. Crossed out doesn't mean it's not there (I mean, duh, it's THERE), just that the card is not expected to gain any benefit from the keyword. Note that I say "expected to" because there could be cases where the keyword does actually matter, as you pointed out.

This sort of thing seems super awesome. Not sure why you all are avoiding it. BE DIGITAL!!!

Glae
12-10-2014, 01:07 PM
@Magician

Thanks for your reply. I have now read the full FAQ front to back, and now at least understand how things will resolve in game. I must have missed the FAQ earlier, so I didn't realize the declarations were already in there. Though in finding answers I have only more questions...

A question: Can you speak to "Permanent" vs "implied Permanant" with regards to reverting? Page 10 of the FAQ. It reads as permanent changes are not permanent and can be reverted off, while "implied permanent" (ie: changes that last permanently but don't specify permanent) actually are permanent and can not be reverted off.

This seems backwards to me. Any chance we can have an elaboration on why this phrasing was chosen?

Glae
12-10-2014, 01:08 PM
Also: I think I'd prefer nonrelevant keywords to be struck through instead of invisible.

Zomnivore
12-10-2014, 01:42 PM
I'm of a different mind when I think about the change to "this"

I think applying the limitation of the card type and the applicable buffs a card can utilize was fairly clear when a buff stated "troop gets permanent" The troop indicates a status when the buff would be applicable. Maybe there was another piece of design space that they could've done.

I for one am a fan of tabs. I think a tab system on the card sort of like a token would've worked. [tab]->"this troop has x" so you'd remember that the card still has that status buff and could potentially be transformed and have that buff apply again.

Unfortunately I don't know enough about implementation and costs/benefits of either system to really weigh something I think is more about clear communication, and how to balance too little/too much text, and how it affects card balance and understanding a card's status.

Voormas
12-10-2014, 02:29 PM
I think everything makes a lot of sense, good work!

Now make "Must attack each turn" into a proper keyword like Savage (after Savage Raider) :p It already has an icon and everything!

Magician
12-10-2014, 03:23 PM
@Magician

Thanks for your reply. I have now read the full FAQ front to back, and now at least understand how things will resolve in game. I must have missed the FAQ earlier, so I didn't realize the declarations were already in there. Though in finding answers I have only more questions...

A question: Can you speak to "Permanent" vs "implied Permanant" with regards to reverting? Page 10 of the FAQ. It reads as permanent changes are not permanent and can be reverted off, while "implied permanent" (ie: changes that last permanently but don't specify permanent) actually are permanent and can not be reverted off.

This seems backwards to me. Any chance we can have an elaboration on why this phrasing was chosen?

@Gale

Looking back at it now, I'm not a fan of this wording any longer considering each instance of these has been updated. I should have updated them to the way I described it in the article to referring to them as has and have versus get and gets.

For example, reverting a Honeycap will turn it back into a 0[ATK]/0[DEF] troop because it "gets" +1[ATK]/+1[DEF] for each Wild threshold you have. Briar Legion when reverted however will remain the current stats because it "has" +2[ATK]/+2[DEF] for each Briar Legion that entered play under your control this game.

I'll update the FAQ to reflect that, removing the wordy terminology, some of which is outdated to reflect the use of has/have and get/gets.



I think everything makes a lot of sense, good work!

Now make "Must attack each turn" into a proper keyword like Savage (after Savage Raider) :p It already has an icon and everything!


@Voormas

The reason for not keywording "must attack," and why we have "must attack" and not "must attack each turn" is two different reasons.

First off, we don't like to make negative keywords. It afflicts the design space of "random keyowrds." If we keyword "must attack," it takes away from the awesomeness of these cards because you want them to get the awesome keywords that play well with them, but in reality they can get negative things that risk them dying like "must attack."

The second reason for this are we don't want the players to have to remember a large number of keywords. We already have 16 keywords two sets into our game, and that doesn't include all concepts like race/class etc. that players will occasionally need to know about.

The third major reason is that we don't use "must attack" very often. It's a power that will be used about 1-2 times per set on average, and thus we don't want it to be a keyword in the back of everyone's mind.

As to why we use "must attack" and not "must attack each turn" I'll use the example of Gore Feast of Kog'tepetl. If Savage raider said "must attack each turn" it would only automatically attack in the first attack phase. In the second attack phase, the Savage Raider would not have to attack, and instead must be selected to attack.

This is not very intuitive to this Orc that wants to be savagely beating its enemy into submission, leads to problems where people don't understand why their Savage Raider didn't attack automatically, and to weird cases where people are looking for ways to not get their "must attack this turn" troop that was designed to attack, to not attack.

Hopefully this answered your questions =D.

Glae
12-10-2014, 03:41 PM
@Magician

Thanks! The has/gets distinction made a lot of sense to me. It was the distinction between (as an example) "this gets Flight" vs "this gets permanent Flight." The permanent bonus is not permanent and can be reverted off, while the nonpermenant bonus is permanent and will remain if reverted. (I think the example works the same with other cards granting "has flight" and "has permanent flight?")

At least, that's how I read p10. I know it would be a lot of work to change literally every instance of permanent effects vs implied permanent effects on all cards and also swap the FAQ, but the terms just made more sense the opposite way. Permanent = permanent, and not permanent = not permanent.

I look forward to seeing a revised version, as it sounds like I may have just misunderstood, or the FAQ was only partially updated? (Holdover language from has/get being mixed into permanent/not permanent?)

I know this is a question that's come up quite a bit with set 2 and revisions to set 1. Lots of people asking if things don't specify as permanent do they just last until end of turn and vice versa, as well as what the difference between "permanent" effects and effects that don't have a listed duration.

ossuary
12-10-2014, 04:12 PM
Magician,

I do appreciate you responding to this thread in such detail. Even if I disagree with some of the conclusions you guys came to, I recognize that it's your game and your house. :)

I hope to continue to push for changes that I feel would better serve the game as a whole (or that would just be too cool not to play around with!). In light of that, is this the place to bring up the whole when to assign double damage thing again? ;)

ossuary
12-10-2014, 04:15 PM
Oh, by the way, I forgot to say earlier, I really like the change to using "gets" and "has." Those are very clear identifiers that should make the whole reversion thing easier for new players to groc going forward. So kudos on that one. :)

Yoss
12-10-2014, 05:08 PM
I will also add that I pretty much like all the other changes. It's so easy to rush past all the good stuff and find the stuff to complain about. :)

Magician
12-10-2014, 05:16 PM
@Magician

Thanks! The has/gets distinction made a lot of sense to me. It was the distinction between (as an example) "this gets Flight" vs "this gets permanent Flight." The permanent bonus is not permanent and can be reverted off, while the nonpermenant bonus is permanent and will remain if reverted. (I think the example works the same with other cards granting "has flight" and "has permanent flight?")

At least, that's how I read p10. I know it would be a lot of work to change literally every instance of permanent effects vs implied permanent effects on all cards and also swap the FAQ, but the terms just made more sense the opposite way. Permanent = permanent, and not permanent = not permanent.

I look forward to seeing a revised version, as it sounds like I may have just misunderstood, or the FAQ was only partially updated? (Holdover language from has/get being mixed into permanent/not permanent?)

I know this is a question that's come up quite a bit with set 2 and revisions to set 1. Lots of people asking if things don't specify as permanent do they just last until end of turn and vice versa, as well as what the difference between "permanent" effects and effects that don't have a listed duration.

@ Gale

The FAQ was updated, the line however about permanent should have been omitted and changed entirely. As a sneak peak the definition of a definite modifier is now, "Modifiers with a listed duration (cards with “get” or “gets” in relation to duration) are considered definite modifiers, and will be removed by reversion."

I believe this clears up that confusion, the indefinite modifiers applies to the has/have.

Awesome catch and question though!



Magician,

I do appreciate you responding to this thread in such detail. Even if I disagree with some of the conclusions you guys came to, I recognize that it's your game and your house. :)

I hope to continue to push for changes that I feel would better serve the game as a whole (or that would just be too cool not to play around with!). In light of that, is this the place to bring up the whole when to assign double damage thing again? ;)


@Ossuary

Players are always more than welcome to discuss anything about the game on the forums but in their respective homes. We actively we read these discussions and take the player's feedback regarding the game. This is meant to be about the templating changes we made in regards to sets 1 and 2, I just don't want to derail this thread.

Glae
12-10-2014, 07:02 PM
Ah. Much clearer! Thanks again for the replies.

So just to clarify, "this gets X" and "this gets permanent X" are identical as far as how they work?

Magician
12-10-2014, 07:34 PM
Ah. Much clearer! Thanks again for the replies.

So just to clarify, "this gets X" and "this gets permanent X" are identical as far as how they work?

Exactly, we should have all instances of the old "permanent" removed from the game at this point though.

Voormas
12-10-2014, 07:52 PM
Thanks for the response Magician, even if things like Defensive kinda don't fit the logic of wanting keywords to be positive it definitely makes sense that there would be way more cards with that ability than Savage (I will still call it that :p also how do we use the icon in general chat? we can do [SKYGUARD] and similar but because it's not a keyword I can't get cool teeth next to stuff I say :p)

Glae
12-10-2014, 08:01 PM
Gotcha. Thanks Magician!