Groovy Cat + Hunter

Groovy Cat says: battlecry & death rattle, your hero power gives 1 more attack this game.

at start of game: my hero power gives my hero 0 attack (hunter)

playing groovy cat should lead to using my hero power to give my hero 1 more attack than 0, or 1.

When the cat dies, should lead to using my hero power to give my hero 1 more attack again so 0+ 1 more + 1 more = 2 attack.

Currently it gives 0, at least for my match. Why am I not getting 1 more attack than what I normally get (which is 0) with groovy cat’s battlecry and deathrattle, when I use my hero power afterwards?

bad grammar?

Cat played bottom of turn 2, dies shortly after, hero power used around turn 6, hero does not receive the benefit listed on the card

hsreplay net/replay/7JDpgEBqK9X7JYg6MLMcN2

The hero power has to give attack to your hero.

Since the hero power of the hunter does not give attack power to the hero that means Groovy Cat can not give MORE attack to the hero power.

1 Like

Well that’s not what the card says. If you go to a cookie jar, and use your ability to open the lid to find there are no cookies inside, but get 1 more cookie than what you find, you get one cookie.

It’s basic math, any preschooler can figure that out.

So in other words,

“If you don’t say what you mean, you will never mean what you say.” which is obviously what has occurred here.

I fail to see why, 1 more than nothing is 1, I could explain that in various ways. If you have NOTHING in your hands, then (after the effect of groovy cat is cast) if you use an ability like talk, jump, bend over, you now have 1 more than nothing in your hands.

0 == nothing, and nothing == 0, nothing + 1 more = 1, 0 +1 = 1

even if there was nothing in the multiple universes or singular if your not into that. If I give you one more than that… you have 1. Null + 1 = 1

1 Like

You would be right if the card said: Your Hero Power gives your hero +1 Attack this game.

But it says: Your Hero Power gives your hero 1 MORE Attack this game.

If your hero power does not grant your hero attack power then the effect of Groovy Cat has no effect.

That’s also why it doesn’t work with the rogue. The hero power grants a knife which gives the hero attack power BUT it is the knife which gives the attack power NOT the hero power itself.

1 Like

yes and I expect 1 more than nothing.

Then the card needs to CLEARLY indicate this. It’s grade 3 grammar.

It should also. by the concept of 1 more than nothing is > 0

It’s basic math, any preschooler can figure that out.

Would you please stop giving attitudes to every person trying to help you figure out how the game works ?

Also any preschooler can figure out that you won’t find bananas on an apple tree so even if you had a perk “find 1 more banana when harvesting”, no preschooler would expect to find bananas on an apple tree.

That’s common sens.

But if you think this is how it should work then I’m waiting for you to explain to us how a warrior hero power should mork when it deals additional damage or how a paladin hero power should apply doubled healing and damage, or how a warlock hero power can target minions, or how a shaman hero power can freeze its target

Also you’ll have to accept that Hearthstone willingly words cards in a simple way for them to be quickly read and understood in a majority of cases
This is why english cards respect the 4 lines of text for almost the entire game
They won’t add unnecessary text just to explain niche cases that people will remember after one try if they didn’t figure it out by themselves before playing the card

1 Like

I was thinking about a response but this is an excellent way of putting it. There is nothing more to add to this.

Unfortunately this rational does not hold. If Bananas = attack gain, what are you supposing the apples (or apple tree) represents, armor? Even if you wanted to imply that the apples on an apple tree represent 1 dmg to an enemy hero, and therefore when I harvest the apple tree I obtain 2 apples via harvesting it, I’m still due the 1 banana as per the card.

Secondly, if that’s what the card says… i.e: find 1 more banana when harvesting (with no tree/plant/fungus type indication) then one would expect to find one more than they actually found. if they found zero, but because of the card, found 1 more than that. I dunno you tell me what 0 + 1 more equals? Maybe take that math problem to a Harvard Math professor, or your local elementary school. Record the response of them instructing you on what 1 more than 0 equals and share the link here.

But if you told a preschooler you’d give them 1 banana regardless of what they found on the tree, how many bananas do you think they would expect?

Heck, any way you cut it, even algebraically it’s the same

Let:
z = result x = dmg to enemy, y = hero attack gain

Case 1: on ability use with no cat

z = x +x (on the premise that y is not even present)
x = 2, y = null/zero
z = x

Case 2: on ability use WITH CAT

z = x + x + y (y becomes present due to the cat)
x = 2, y = null/zero + 1
x = 2, y = 1
z = (x + x) + y
z = 2x + y

Did no one ever teach that the numeral ZERO is simply a place holder to represent the absence of everything/anything (that would be a NULL)? As soon as you add ANYTHING to that absence it becomes Greater than 0, and specifically in this case ONE.

Yes, IF it would be added.

If it WOULD be added.

But it is not.

The hero power does not add attack to the hero.

Therefore no effect because the hero power does not fit the preconditions of the ability of the cat.

The cat does NOT grant attack power. It raises an existing ATTACK granting hero power by +1.

If the hero power does not grant attack power directly to the hero then no effect.

Groovy Cat (and other similar cards that adjust your hero power) just don’t work that way.

They only work on hero powers that already do something (deal damage, heal, grant armor, etc), and they make it do MORE of that thing.

They have no effect on hero powers that don’t already do that thing.

You’re right that technically, the wording could be interpreted a different way.

But that’s how Blizzard decided these cards should work. End of story.

1 Like

I’m sorry but in this universe “one more” constitutes addition.

If I give you a cookie, and then give you one more…

I agree, it adds attack power granted by the hero power. the current attack power granted in this case is 0 or null, it adds one to that, there by the place holder for null (zero) now becomes 1.

Correct. The existing is 0, plus 1 equals…

That may be the current mechanics, but in any mathematical system that I am aware of (other than chaos theory math) the math is wrong. Also the card indicates something other than how it performs based on the universal laws of math. Either the Dev’s should understand the laws of mathematics in the universe better, or the group/team/persons responsible for deriving a linguistic description of how the card mechanics work in relation to the math used by the dev’s need to brush up on said linguistics. Implicitly the description of the card, does not match the mechanics you are implying are used.

Like how about: Battlecry & Deathrattle, Your hero power grants one additional attack power to your hero, if it grants one or more attack power normally."

Man the $150K I saved on a Harvard math & English class to come up with that.

Edit:

According to a recent study conducted by the U.S. Department of Education, 32 million of American adults are illiterate, 21 percent read below a 5th grade level, and 19 percent of high school graduates are functionally illiterate, which means they can’t read well enough to manage daily living and perform tasks required.

Take those percentages and apply them to the total number of employee’s residing in the U.S, that work for Blizzard/Activision

Blizzard (2012) 4,700
Activision (2023) 17,000

Wrong.

The existing is NOT 0. That is the whole point and the core of your mistake.

The “0” does not exist in the hunter hero power. The hero power can not add attack power to the hero to begin with.

Not because the value of the attack granting part of the hunter hero power is 0 but because the hero power is unable to do this to begin with.

You are trying to add a “1” to an equation that does not exist to begin with.

Math in this universe states that lack of anything and everything can be represented by the place holder of zero.

If Blizzard dev’s wish to imply a different system of mathematics than what is a constant in our universe, fine, but ensure the people writing the card descriptions, proof reading it, and the project manager that OK’s it all, can linguistically describe the altered mathematical constants.

Again, since you replied before my edit was finished…

I genuinely can’t tell if you are trolling at this point.

I’m not wasting anymore time on this.

Yeah it’s hard to refute someone else, when third party statistics and universal constants support them.

No Trolling. Either fix the card description to match the math used, or fix the card so that the math matches universal constants.

duke is a troll, just dont respond to them

If I got +1 dmg to Murlocs, but didnt hit a murloc, by your logic, I should therefore still get the +1 dmg to what I hit despite it not being a murloc.

If +1 does indeed always mean +1 without context to clue one into what is going on.

1 Like

Inccorrect. The +1 is not being applied to something I do not have. a) I have a hero, b) the hero has potential for attack, c) it grants one more attack to the hero than he would have gotten with out it when he uses his ability. d) the ability was used.

Math in this universe states that lack of anything and everything can be represented by the place holder of zero.

Insanely wrong
0 is not a thing that exists in the unvierse it is 100% artificial and only exists for convenience
It’s hard to pin point when humanity started using 0 as sources vary but you can google it and find out in 10 seconds that every source agree that 0 has not been used in history for a long time.

0 == nothing, and nothing == 0, nothing + 1 more = 1, 0 +1 = 1

even if there was nothing in the multiple universes or singular if your not into that. If I give you one more than that… you have 1. Null + 1 = 1

And if you really want the technical stuff that is also an absolute non sens
Programmation languages have all different thinkings about what null is
For some languages, null will default to 0 for numbers, a blank space for characters, and true for booleans
But in other languages null is its own thing where null+1 either stays null or even return an error as it doesn’t make sens to add value to an entity that doesn’t exist in the first place

Fun fact for you if you want to start yet another infuriated thread : did you know that in non battelground hearthstone, when a value goes over 2147483647 it is reset to 0 ? What a shame that programming restrictions have an impact on gameplay right ?

Yeah it’s hard to refute someone else, when third party statistics and universal constants support them.

No Trolling. Either fix the card description to match the math used, or fix the card so that the math matches universal constants.

All you are doing here is assuming the world should follow your rules, and it is not.
Nothing isn’t 0
0 doesn’t exist in the universe
0 doesn’t represent nothingness
0 represents what we want it to

What temperature system are you using ? Celsius or Farenheit ?
0° Celsius is the point of solidification of water/melting of ice
100°C is the poit of boiling of water/liquefaction of steam

0°F is the point of solidification of some mixture
100°F is about the temperature of the human body

But 0°C=32°F and 0°F~=-17.78°C
So what is the nothingness of 0 here ? Because those 2 scales are talking about the exact same thing

What is temperature ? It’s how we measure the movements of atoms, the energy they have. So a nothingness of temperature should represent a lack of any energy. 0 Should always be used to talk about temperatures where atoms are perfectly still.
Well this is the Kelvin scale, the absolute zero.

Btw 0°K=-273,15°C=-459,67°F

So are you saying that Celsius and Farenheit, the most used temperatures scales in the world, are used even though they are not following the universal constants you talk about ? I hope that you are sticking with your thoughts and are only using the Kelvin scale in your life when you talk about temperature. Imagine not being consistant.

But if you think this is how it should work then I’m waiting for you to explain to us how a warrior hero power should mork when it deals additional damage or how a paladin hero power should apply doubled healing and damage, or how a warlock hero power can target minions, or how a shaman hero power can freeze its target

Btw I’m still waiting

And I have new ones for you that I don’t understand how they should work according to you :
Razorfen Rockstar
-Should 2 Razorfen Rockstar loop infinitely ? The card text doesn’t say otherwise
-Should you gain 2 armor everytime you do anything in the game ? Cause very action gives 0 armor to my hero so they should get 0+2 every time right ?

MC Blingtron and Voidtouched Attendant
-If my hero has divine shield and take damage they take -0, should they take 1 instead ?
-What if my hero gets healed ? Should they take 1 damage ? Because a heal is just a 0 damage effect right ?

2 Likes

Only if you try to imply a meaning that I was not trying to convey.

I’m glad you agree with me on that.

Rather irrelevant and I was not trying to assert that the use of 0 has always been present, rather that since it’s conception and use,
it is used to represent the lack of everything. Hopefully you can agree with that.

Really. Ok then the answers to these questions should prove it.

Agreed

Well since the card description and the mechanic are implying one more as a number, and not implying I have one more for blank space,
or implying a change to a boolean condition and switching it to true, though it could be argued that before the cat the boolean of attack power is 0
and the boolean value gets one more, thereby one, making attack power true.

The only nonsense there is trying to assert a clear mathematical calculation, could be intended as a boolean or programatic
string structure writing or parsing.

This is true also, but since it appears that the card description is not displayed in a programming language syntax and structure,
It’s safe to believe it is written (in my case) English, and all the rules about said language would apply. Such as word meanings,
sentence structure, etc.

As I said before, either the card mechanic is wrong, or the description on the card about the mechanic is either wrong, inaccurate, or inconsise.

Well yes and no. Yes I know that all programming is bound to some restriction or another or even multiple. Albeit the most common is memory constraints,
variable limits both in their value and quanity of them, and even concurrent routines, though alot are influenced by the specific platform and/or machine it is run on.

Did I know the specific number that any derived or calculated value within the HS code resulted in would cause it to reset to zero? No never really thought about it.

Wrong. I am expecting an English linguistic description of how something works, to match what is actually happening.
If there is a mismatch between the two, either a) the description needs to be adjusted to match, or b) the function needs to be changed to match the description

You’re playing the symantec game now.

you can look at that in two ways

a) that fact that you write 0, means it exists, even if it’s just photons of light emitting from a screen forming the shape of 0 (yeah symantecs are fun)

b) 1. The universe is expanding. What is in the area it has not expanded to? Or, prior to the big bang when everything was smushed in to a singularity and there was no universe,
where was the singularity or what was the stuff (?) that was not the singularity?

Whole different debate there, and frankly trying to envision nothing or infinity, is usually beyond most peoples psyche.

Symantecs again. If you have one more than nothingness, how much do you have?

Sure, I suppose in programming I can make it be anything using a series of variables one of which contains either 0 as an integer, or 0 as a string.
I suppose if you wanted you could have 0 represent anything you want to, say a pink elephant, and when you go to buy your coffee, and it’s listed as
$1.00 you read it as 1.pink elephant pink elephant. Not sure how you’d actually pay for the coffee, and if they would accept your payment even if you
could produce a ‘point pink elephant pink elephant’ to along with your $1.

Simply put it’s being silly. Below are the generally accepted meanings of the words on the card. They do not match the mechanics of the card (I provided
a proper example of how the description should be worded to match the mechanics of the card) If that’s how the card works, fine. Fix the description.

one
/wən/
number
the lowest cardinal number; half of two; 1.
“there’s only room for one person”

more
/mĂ´r/
determiner
a greater or additional amount or degree of.
“she poured herself more coffee”

You’re being silly again. We all know how 0 in temperature came about.

Pick any temperature, from any scale, now apply the term “one more” to that value.

However unreal the result would (if you picked the highest possible) what would that imaginary temperature number be?

Card is worded and functions correctly. Card says “gain 2 more” not “gain 2 armor” big difference linguistically, and implied mechanic. you’d only need 1 for an infinite loop.

This is probably the only reasonable argument put forth this far. And yes by my reasoning for the above situation, it should apply to this also, which does seem very unreasonable.

Well, divine shield does not have a hard number of damage reduction, but it’s mechanic is basically prevents ∞ damage once.
You also have to take the damage for it to trigger Blingtron. Since it’s prevented it was never taken, and hence 1 more is not done.
This is the same with the attendant, the requirement is that it has to be taken. when it’s prevented, it’s not taken etc.

No a heal is not damage. Damage by it’s meaning, implies a reduction, whereas heal implies restoration.
The most notable reason they are two different things, is that we have two different words to represent them.
Albeit they have an effect on the same thing notably health pool.

You have a better time arguing about a card I haven’t seen in a long time Auchenai Soulpriest.
“Your cards and powers that restore Health now deal damage instead.”

But again there is a clear indication that damage and heal/restore are two seperate things.

ps. not gonna spell/grammar check this due to length. Grammar police need to deal with it.