Think like a business. Why spend money and development time (these are finite resources, even to large companies) to try and linguistically cover every edge case, especially when the card is working as intended?
This isn’t like opening up a doc in Word on your computer and changing some text and hitting “Save”. Software development isn’t that simple.
Explain how changing card text is more complicated than editing text in a document.
That you have to ask makes me doubt you’d understand, but let’s start with: that document on your computer doesn’t have to then be transmitted to millions of people.
They’ve got to make sure the card text still fits properly in the text box, they might have to update the image of the card, they need devs to build this new patch, people to test that it didn’t mess anything up, people to deploy the changes across the different platforms.
Your post is obviously a huge reach.
Have to make sure the card text fits properly; LOL. So much more complex than editing text in a document. Might have to change image, uh…why? Patches are routinely released; a card text change should be about the simplest thing to include. Why do we need to do special testing for card text?
The multiple languages is probably the hardest aspect; but let’s act like changing card text is a complex process.
If a sentence intends to apply 2 verbs to one object, then you indeed can (and probably should) separate the verbs with a comma. That is my point. The resulting example would be:
“Cleo will sing, and play, the banjo.”
Clearly it makes zero sense in the above, but that is precisely because the sentence is not intended to attach 2 verbs to one object. What about the following?
(1) is usually interpreted to mean the same as (3), but it’s ambiguous: it could easily be interpreted to mean (2). (Meaning he is preparing to eat his salad, for some reason. Maybe it’s a huge salad.)
For example, I could just as easily write:
James will juggle and eat a salad.
Most would interpret “juggle” to apply to something other than the salad. That is, he will be performing a leisure activity, and also eating, but not likely at the same time.
The only wordings that are not ambiguous are (2) and (3).
I personally agree that “attacks, and kills a minion” is the most natural interpretation, but I can’t fault anyone for thinking the opposite. And I’m sure we both agree that the wording should be fixed.
I can’t say that I’ve ever seen a sentence constructed like number 3. Not that I can’t understand what you mean, but James will prepare and eat a meal seems like bad English. Is he preparing and eating at the same time? Shouldn’t it just be James will prepare a meal, then eat it. I don’t know. I’m not going to look it up, but I don’t think that’s the correct usage of commas.
The previous verbiage on “attack and kill” may have been adequate in the past. New cards change things, and since it’s digital; either the text or interaction should be changed to more accurately describe the interaction.
It’s not that the process is especially complex, but it takes up resources (time and money). Resources that could be used for other things that actually improve the game (thus making it more money).
I work for one of the largest companies in the US testing software changes for a living. Trust me when I say that making changes, even what seem like simple ones, is not something companies undergo without good reason. In this case, a negligible increase in the understanding of how the card works is not going to be worth the time and effort required to make the change.
Basically, the 2/1 wasn’t the target. It was merely collateral damage.
I’m in full agreement that something should change to clarify circumstances that can’t be reasoned out solely based on the card text. This has been an issue since the beginning of the game, and the list of cards impacted just gets larger.
They even have a decent place to stick this, since “hover” text already exists (it’s just only used for keywords at the moment).
The double commas are certainly rare, but not incorrect. It is the only way to completely specify that both verbs are applying to the same object, without any potential ambiguity. It is seen in legal-ese all the time.
“Prepare and eat” may not be a common phrase, but “prepare and serve” is very common. And the idea is the same: “prepare” and “serve” are 2 verbs being applied to the same object.
Without the commas, the true meaning needs to be derived from context. That is often doable, but in this case (the case of the card text) there is definitely ambiguity, because “attack” can be applied to the same minion that is killed, or it can just be the action “to attack” without needing to be applied to the same object (minion).
I think this one in particular is a bug.
I don’t know the situation regarding this bug in particular, but I’ve used Batterhead for a while and it should have worked.
Somebody has been reading “Eats, Shoots and Leaves”
If you read sweeping strike carefully it does not say it also attacks the minions on the side it just deals its damage to the side. So while the main minion was attacked the ones on sides are not attacked and since main minion dint die batter cant attack again.
People seem to be confused about Cleave. Cleave is not the same as attacking. Do you get extra attacks if you kill a minion with a spell after you attack with Batterhead NO. Cleave is like spell damage it happens after the attack is done. Batterhead is not attack adjacent minions it just deal cleave damage with Sweeping Strikes after the attack is done.
I can’t wait for the next generation of card games that contain excessive amounts of “legal-ese”.
BATTERHEAD, ARTICLE 1: SECTION 2
Whenever this minion (henceforth, ‘The Attacker’) attacks (‘Attack’ being the action performed against the specified ‘Target’) and kills (‘Kills’ being the resultant destruction of the same specified ‘Target’) a minion (‘The Target’ or ‘Target’), ‘The Attacker’ may ‘Attack’ again.
I laughed way too hard at this.
The point was that the wording is ambiguous, and either interpretation is justifiable.
Batterhead did attack, and it did kill a minion; it just didn’t “attack and kill” a minion. And whether “attack” is directed at the same object as “kill”, or if it’s just the action of attacking (verb with no object) is not specified by the current wording/punctuation.
Punctuation saves lives. Err, games.
Bug, and probably, lol. It seems like the cleave effect hotfix didn’t account for the txt on Batterhead and possibly other less common effects a minion might have.