Batterhead + sweeping strikes?

Hey today i played an arena and i wanted to clear board with Batterhead (Whenever it attacks and kills a minion, it may attack again) but there was 5/9 Taunt on board which i couldnt kill… next to it was 2/1 so i played Batterhead and used Sweeping Strikes (Also damages minions next to)… so i attacked the 5/9 taunt and killed the 2/1 minion, but i couldnt attack again… is it all right?

1 Like

no idea. even when HS is some oversimplified game there are situation where its logical to expect A or maybe B but in the end C is the results

This sounds like a bug, just like poisonous didn’t trigger from Cave Hydra if the main target had divine shield.
You should submit it to the bug report section.

I think it fits in the same category like these changes:

In this case the main target prevents the kill criteria, just like the main target with divine shield prevented Lifesteal and Poison on side-minions.


The key is the “attacks a minion” part of the “attacks and kills a minion” trigger. The side minions weren’t attacked.

Overkill effects like Akali and Oondasta trigger because it just takes damage to trigger Overkill (see Blastwave), but specifically attacking triggers like Darius Crowley don’t.

It’s unintuitive as hell, but it is what the text says.


From my pov the “Attacks and kills a minion” is met:

Attack performed? Check
Minion killed? Check

Though maybe my mind work in a different way or the wording is again not 100% clear like on other cards


I don’t think thats it. The wording on it just says it has to attack and kill a minion. In this case both those criterias are met.
Batterhead attacks + a minion dies. It doesn’t say the targeted minion has to die.


The key word here is “and”. It implies that if it attacks and kills what it attacked it can attack again. The 5/9 was attacked but the 5/9 wasn’t killed.
5/9 attacked? Check
5/9 Killed? Nope
2/1 attacked? Nope
Minion attacked wasn’t killed no extra attack.

1 Like

Nowhere in the text is something like that mentioned, though I understand that.

Just as I said - another unclear wording


I would still report that as a bug. People may be able to explain why it doesn’t work but it still should work

Intuitively it should function as you describe, and I’m not sure why it doesn’t. I just assumed this was meant the function as an Overkill but without the excess damage requirement.

Sweeping Strikes reads:
Give a minion “Also damages minions next to whomever this attacks.” As you can see, the adjacent minions aren’t being attacked, they’re taking damage as a consequence of being next to a minion that is being attacked.

I don’t think it’s the same. A Cave Hydra with Poisonous is still dealing its damage to adjacent minions even if the center one has divine shield and Poisonous triggers off damage dealt by the card; any damage. That’s why if you were to give a Wild Pyromancer Poisonous and then triggered its ability, the aoe damage would kill everything on board that took damage regardless of what it attacked.

“After this attacks and kills a minion, it may attack again.”

Seems like a bug, Batterhead is both attacking a minion and killing a minion, so it should be able to attack again.

The wording should be “After this attacks a minion and kills it, this may attack again.” If the intent is that the attacked minion must die.

A Batterhead with Sweeping Strikes is not attacking multiple times. It attacks once and minions adjacent to the attacked target are taking a secondary source of damage.

Think about it this way: when 1 minion attacks another, they both deal their attack damage to each other. If a Batterhead with Sweeping Strikes was attacking both the the target and adjacent minions, those adjacent minions would be dealing their attack damage to Batterhead. That doesn’t happen with any of the “cleave” effects they’ve had in game.

Since the actual target that was attacked didn’t die in this scenario, Batterhead’s effect does not trigger. The minion being attacked is the one that has to die to trigger the effect.

1 Like

Both sides are somewhat right because its very easy to give multiple explanations of a single sentence.

Example in how wording can play bs sometimes:

Attacks and kills a minion”: both actions should be done on the same minion . If the attacked minion won’t die, requirements aren’t met.

“Attacks , and kills a minion”: Now we have a coma, and the actions doesn’t have to be done on the same minion. You have to 1) Attack and 2) Kill a minion. Now it is possible to kill an adjacent minion for this to work.

So yeah, its very logical for people to get confused on this.

Why is the minion being attacked the one that has to die based on the wording?

Batterhead is attacking a minion and killing a minion. “After this (Batterhead) attacks and kills a minion, it may attack again” since Batterhead both attacks and kills a minion, it follows that he should be allowed to attack again. Nothing specified that the attacked minion is the one that has to die. If that is the intent, then the wording should be changed to specify that the attacked minion is the one that has to die.

The keyword here is “word” with “and” being descriptive and “the” being the subject.
I hope that cleared things up.

1 Like

Because Batterhead only attacks one minion at a time. Sweeping Strikes is not making Batterhead attack multiple times, it’s making Batterhead deal its attack power to minions adjacent the one that was attacked. That’s why those adjacent minions don’t deal their attack damage back to Batterhead: they weren’t attacked in the first place.

There’s a two part condition to Batterhead’s effect: attack AND kill a minion. For it to work the way you’re thinking, they would word it as “After this kills a minion, it may attack again.” That would then break up the requirements such that he no longer has to kill the minion he attacked for his effect to trigger.

Disagree. That’s just hindsight bias. Not very logical at all. It can definitely also mean attack a minion and kill a minion.

Blizzard can clarify though if they want this specific wording to mean that.

1 Like

Exactly this. The wording is ambiguous. It can be interpreted as either

“Attacks, and kills, a minion”,


“attacks, and kills a minion”.

Those 2 are both valid potential meanings of the “comma-less” wording.

Yet another case where “hover-text” should be added to a card to help with something that is not intuitive from the text in the card itself.

There’s nothing in the sentence that means the attacked minion is the one that has to die. And if that’s the intent, the wording should be changed to “attacks a minion and kills it.”