the dark gift that puts a card on the top of your deck removes all of the other gifts that were on him if he was in your hand when choosing the “put” gift … this is beyond infuriating especially when trying to do the achievement
1 Like
so far this is in line with the rule that sending a minion back into your deck will remove its enchantments
except it retains the buff just played – it’s a new mechanic and specifies that it retains buffs from both hand and deck … it’s a bug
Because it adds it after it sends it back to the deck…
So it sends to the deck first, which wipes all the enchantments. Then it gives it a new enchantment.
This still isn’t a bug.
Where does it specify that ?
It only reads that it gains dark gifts, not that it permanently keeps them
WHILE THIS IS IN YOUR HAND OR DECK, IT GAINS A COPY OF EVERY DARK GIFT GIVEN TO YOUR MINIONS
i shouldn’t have to type this out … it’s bugged
I think you’re misinterpreting that.
It is not a continuous effect that constantly re-applies all of your dark gifts to Wallow while it is in your hand/deck.
It means that when you give a dark gift to any of your minions, also give that gift to Wallow as a one-time effect (if it is in your hand/deck.)
If Wallow loses the gifts, they are not automatically regained simply because Wallow is in your hand or deck.
Writting in full capslock will not make words appear from nowhere
“Gaining” is a one time effect, once the ehnchantment has been gained, it can be removed
Wallow receives dark gift whenever you discover some, but after that it’s just a normal minion bound to the rules of the game
As any other minion not made an exception to that rule, if Wallow is in your hand and you send it back to your deck, he will lose any enchantments applied to him, following the intended rules of the game
1 Like
it would be great if you two stopped trolling threads with unhelpful excuses for the devs not to do their jobs … read the dark gift text:
sweet dreams: “+4/+5. place this card on top of your deck.”
go look up “place” in the card manager … you can’t find it except for “replace” … this is a different keyword … this is not a “shuffle” … it’s not a “trade” … it’s not a “put” … it’s “place” … it is a new effect … and the buff on the sub-card text has a period, meaning it happens first, and THEN it is … AS PART OF THE “BUFF” … “PLACED” on the top of the deck … there is no world in which this does or ought to imply the removal of other buffs … especially as there exists the strategic use of blocking other cards your opponent might send into your deck … to buff this card and then lose all the buffs to a poorly qa’d interaction is absurd … to claim this is intended is moreso
furthermore, there ARE some other buffs that get retained in niche cases when cards go back into the deck from in hand, so to say there is no precedent is also absurd … i flagged both of you for trolling … once again, stop harassing my threads … this is a bug
1 Like
The card itself does not say that, you are correct.
But it doesn’t need to.
Because it is a basic game rule that cards which are returned to hand/deck lose their buffs.
And yes of course there are exceptions to that rule. In those cases the card will specifically say so.
1 Like
Yes, because it is bound to the dark gift mechanic. A mechanic that is primarily aimed toward cards that you are discovering (whichs means that they are not in your hand). It is worded to be best understood from the discover screen.
Even though wordding is important, you also have to understand what the card is meant to do initially, as sometimes the wording will not be representing it.
As for example, Bonelord Frostwhisper is the only card in the game with a “in X turns” that will fulfil its final effect at the end of your X-1 turn instead of during your X turn, because it has been decided that there was no point in keeping you alive during your opponent’s turn only to kill you when it goes back to you.
That card breaks an unwritten rule because it makes sens.
Just has that specific dark gift “break” the rule because it wouldn’t make sens to buff a minion to instantly remove the buff you just gave it.
yes it is extremely anty-synergistic, yes they could make it an exception, but so far they have not, and they have not talked about it, despite it being reported multiple times and the fact that we currently have an active staff member on the forum, which means that, so far, it respects the established game rules
If your point is to say that, since it’s a new effect, it should have different rules than any other effect, then congrats on proving yourself wrong, since trade does keep enchantments. So you just said that it should be a different effect form one that retains buffs when going back into the deck.
You want implied ? I’ll give you explicit. Official Game rule from Blizzard.
If a card moves backwards in zones (Play → Hand, Hand → Deck, Play → Deck, Play/Hand/Deck → Graveyard and Graveyard → Play/Hand/Deck), it loses enchantments.
And if you want more , there’s the only known (at least to me) exception to that rule :
- After drawing, the Tradeable card is shuffled into your deck (DOES keep enchantments, unlike normal.)
(emphasis on “unlike normal”)
https://x.com/Celestalon/status/1410701163108859905
Care to share a few examples ? Because so far you accuse us of trolling but you are not giving much fuel to your claims
Talking to people you consider trolling is also trolling, in case you were not aligned with your opinion. And if that’s not what you consider, then congrats on expliciting your abuse of the report system.
If Heracles can keep using the forum after insulting half the userbase, I think we’re safe when we try to help people understand the game’s behavior.
1 Like
Derkan is clearly correct but this is extremely anti synergistic. It’s not immediately obvious to the player because of the nature of the mechanic and the card. This is poor design that needs to be rectified by preferably a rule exception and maybe card text change, or some sort of UI warning…
Adaptive Amalgam, Immortal Prelate, and by extension Da Undatakah are the obvious examples, but it is limited to their deathrattle effects. which specifically say they keep all enchantments.
In this case, it feels like it’s technically working as expected, but possibly not as the devs intended, and we’ll only know one way or the other if they make a statement about it
These examples are incorrect since, as you wrotte, they explicitely tell that they keep enchantments
I’m asking for other examples of cards that break that rule without explicitely telling you, like tradeable do, but without the dev team having explicited that it was intended
1 Like
this is a complete non-sequitur and the reason why i will continue to flag your posts … JUST … STOP … REPLYING … TO … ME
it isn’t that hard … when i report buggy behavior i am 100% earnest in calling out interactions that seem like bugs and a lot of the time i will say something like “idk if this is a bug” because a lot of times they boarder on things that might be intended but seem off or like they need clarification … what my posts don’t need are trolls like you naysaying just to be right especially when you say dumb stuff like this that shows how inconsistent YOU are … you challenge me on “oh what keeps enchantments” but then you admit trade keeps enchantments?? just stop dude … if the devs want to ignore my posts, or respond to say “no we want it to work that way” great, i’ll argue with them … unless you are a dev, or some paid bliz person vetting posts on the forums, i don’t need your input, period … so just stop … if you don’t come into my threads with a “yeah, i agree that should be considered a bug” attitude, i don’t care to hear from you, period, and the topic doesn’t need your opinion
This is a public forum so you’ll have to accept that people will reply to your posts when you are asking for unjustified changes
You not being able to understand sentences doesn’t make me inconsistent
there’s 1 explicit and official general rule, the rule being that a minion sent back to the deck will lose enchantments unless explicitely specified otherwise
that rule has 1 explicit and official exception of tradeable keeping enchantments without it being explicited on the card
YOU are claiming that Wallow not keeping buffs while not specifying that it would is a bug BECAUSE there ARE some other buffs that get retained, yet you are unable to provide examples of buffs being kept while not being explicited either in-game or by devs.
So far you’re the only one reacting emotional and not rational, which doesn’t prove a gameplay intent.
You are even lying about what is written on the card, as nowhere does it “specifies that it retains buffs”. And you’re the one yelling in bold and capslock when corrected about what is actually written.
don’t post then read replies on a public media if you don’t want to see contradicting opinions
Not muting people you consider trolling removes any credit you can have when trying to discredit said people
Even more so when you don’t respect the basic behavior of forum users to verify that what you’re going to post has not already been posted.
A single search would have lead you to a 5 days-old report with my reply “Wouldn’t be surprised that they’d make an exception for the dark gift keyword as they did for tradeable”.
you’ll notice that I’m way more inclined to acknowledge the illogic behavior when the user is not lying about game mechanics
But rather than making your research first, you had the urge to be the one ranting about it
And again
If a card moves backwards in zones (Play → Hand, Hand → Deck, Play → Deck, Play/Hand/Deck → Graveyard and Graveyard → Play/Hand/Deck), it loses enchantments.
If you really want to report a bug, report that the dark gift wording breaks the official rule given by the devs themselves and that it should be reworded to avoid confusion
1 Like
this is an entirely semantic discussion. even if the behavior is entirely consistent with game rules it obviously wasnt an intended result that one of the dark gift options would completely wipe wallow clean. its a bug insofar as the behavior is counter to how the card is meant to be played.