Sweeping Strikes does not make it attack the other minions, it makes it damage the other minions. Exact card text.
The text says what it does.
You would never separate attacks and kills with a comma.
From Grammerly:
“Comma Between Two Verbs in a Compound Predicate
You get a compound predicate when the subject of a sentence is doing more than one thing. In a compound predicate that contains two verbs, don’t separate them with a comma.
Cleo will sing, and play the banjo. Incorrect
Cleo will sing and play the banjo. Correct”
The second sentence doesn’t mean Cleo is singing the Banjo.
I’ll go a step further and say that Batterhead shouldn’t even have to attack a minion. If Batterhead attacks the enemy hero and it results in Bolf Ramshield being killed, Batterhead should be allowed to attack again based on the sentence written.
You’re saying that it’s impossible to construct a compound verb which both act on a single direct object?
The intent of the card seems pretty clear when you just consider it as a stand alone concept, with no other cards modifying it. The concept of the card is this ogre dude smushing minions one after another. It’s the same idea as Giant Sand Worm, with nearly the exact same wording.
Could they change the wording? Maybe, but I think it’s definitely doing what they intended it to do and to change it the way you suggest makes the sentence a bit more awkward with two "it"s back to back: “After this attacks a minion and kills it, it may attack again.” And then grammatically it becomes confusing who is “it”, since in the first clause it’s the minion being attacked and in the second it’s Batterhead.
After this attacks a minion and kills it, this may attack again.
Simple. I already worded it that way above. It should probably be this instead of it on the current card anyways.
1 Like
What about Crowley? How many buffs should he get, one or three?
He gets one, because “attack and kill a minion” requires both parts.
Just going to point out that “attacks and kills a minion” is text that is on a lot of cards:
Finja
Lotus Assassin
The Boogeymonster
Giant Sand Worm
Darius Crowley
Spirit of the Raptor
Gonk, the Raptor
Batterhead
If they have to change the wording on Batterhead, they’d need to change it for all those other cards as well. If all of those cards are already working the way they intend, then they’re not really gaining anything by making the change since the game handles the rules.
For Crowley, for a sinlgle attack that kills multiple minions, he should get one buff, otherwise it should read +2/+2 for each minion killed.
Or they could change the interaction, to allow those minions to proc their action, if they attack and kill a minion.
Or they could change the wording on those handful of cards.
I’m just saying the card as written should allow Batterhead to attack again if his attack results in a minion being killed.
And we’re saying that it’s a misinterpretation on your part. You can’t try to read Batterhead’s text as if it already has Sweeping Strikes. Attack and kill a minion is a very specific, straightforward trigger. Sweeping Strikes does not make it attack the other minions. That’s enough.
You can choose this grammatical hill to die on, but it is an accurate parsing of the words on the cards.
I’ve provided the grammatical rules and demonstrated how the sentence could be modified (note the lack of comma in my compound predicate), so if you want to continue being ignorant, that’s your choice.
Actually its not that one sided ![:wink:](https://dacy5cilkxabf.cloudfront.net/en/hearthstone/images/emoji/twitter/wink.png?v=6" ":wink:")
Based on unlear wording its possible to interpret it both ways.
Its easy to check similar cards to see how its actually working, though it kinda doesnt mean he is wrong be being confused by unclear text on the card
Just saying
Because that’s the basics of how attacking works, and how ANY of the attack-and-kill procs work.
Sweeping Strikes is the exception, and it does not say that it causes the minion to also attack adjacent minions.
It does not say “Attack a minion and possibly kill any minion somewhere.” Both attack and kill apply to the direct object, the minion. If it attacked face, it doesn’t trigger the proc even if somehow it causes a minion it didn’t attack to die.
Since you’re harping on grammar so much, can you explain why you think it’s impossible to have a compound verb have both halves act on the same direct object? Your entire position is that “sing and play the banjo” is the only possible construction, when “lift and throw the rock” is entirely acceptable with the same lack of commas.
Sing is an intransitive verb in your sentence. Attack is a transitive verb. You NEED a direct object, a thing that you’re attacking. That’s the difference you’re not seeing.
Attacks doesn’t need a subject that is being attacked. Take Wretched Tiller for example, “Whenever this minion attacks, deal 2 damage to the enemy hero.” It doesn’t matter what it attacks, the act of attacking triggers the damage,
Same with Batterhead, it shouldn’t matter what he attacks, the act of attacking should trigger the resulting action provided the “kills a minion” part is also met.
Anyways, it’s simple to modify. Simply adding 3 characters (2 letter and a space) would sufficient to clarify that the attacked minion is the minion that must die.
Yes, they are capable of doing those things, but it costs money to do those things. And if the concept is working as intended, then they spend a bunch of money to do a new build and code push just so that a sliver of people maybe understand the card text better.
Literally, 3 characters to less than a dozen cards. How can Blizzard afford it?
1 Like
Attack is a transitive verb. Only. That they wrote Wretched Tiller using shorthand and eliminated the object from the sentence does not mean that it becomes an intransitive verb. They would otherwise have written “a hero or a minion” but that’s just useless extra words on a tight patch of real estate. It doesn’t change the grammar of the verb “attack.”
Attack is commonly used an intransitive verb. Now, you’re really just being ignorant for the sake of argument.
Stop with the personal insults.