Title says it all. I don’t know how consistently the card doesn’t work, I assume it is possible tied to specific interactions, but my opponent was able to play a 0 cost The Garden’s Grace from their hand while Razorscale was on the board.
This is a common problem from the past , the fact is how to manage cost reducing effects and their priority.
What to put on top of the priority list , and what can temporary update it or not.
So is true that “cards can’t cost less than 2” but what if a minion is played with " next spell cost 0 " or " outcast this cost 1 " they can’t be all true at the same time.
edit: so is possible “The Garden’s Grace” was put to 2 cost , but after enemy used an holy spell that turn , the cost was recalculated to 0 and this bypassed the razorscale
It seems you are automatically assuming that Razorscale’s effect will “win” over Garden’s Grace effect.
Why would you assume that? Are you basing that assumption on some actual written rule?
The card clarifies that cards can’t cost below 2 no matter what.
It doesn’t make them cost more like Resistance Aura does, but definitively declares that while this is on the field cards should be completely unable to cost less than (2) no matter the situation.
It’s a bug, don’t try to antagonize OP when he is literally right.
But Garden’s Grace also definitively says that it costs 1 less for each mana I have spent on holy spells this game.
So again, it seems that you are assuming the “cannot cost less than 2” effect automatically wins over the cost reduction effect.
Why would you assume that the Razorscale effect wins? Is there some written rule that says a minimum cost effect always wins over a cost reduction effect?
seems like patch 27.2 will fix this
[Hearthstone] Fixed a bug where cards that reduce their own Cost were able to cost less than 2 when Razorscale was in play.
Razorscale is meant to be a tech card against cards that reduce their cost such as Garden’s Grace.
It only makes sense for it to overwrite it, otherwise what does the card actually do if it doesn’t?
At the very least, I would expect it to increase the cost of cards that naturally cost 0 or 1.
So it certainly has applications beyond teching against cost reductions.
Futile conversation.
If you can’t understand why Razorscale should overwrite Garden’s Grace you are completely clueless.
So point me to the actual rule which states this, instead of falling back on ad hominem.
How can i point you to a rule as if there is a rule book for every card interaction in Hearthstone. One can only use his intuition when it comes to “rules” in Hearthstone, and mine and i’m sure of the mass majority says that Razorscale always overwrites Garden’s Grace.
The card is literally meant to be a tech card against cards that have their cost lowered or low cost combo pieces. If it can’t even do that, what is its purpose?
the problem is not always cards do the best way for the player using them , some examples .
Like Flare is a card to counter enemy secrets , but fails to counterspell
All minions lose **Stealth** . Destroy all enemy **Secrets** . Draw a card.
Eye Beam is made to coste less on outcast position , but if the actual cost is 0 having the card in the outcast postions brings card back to 1 mana and thats worst
**Lifesteal** . Deal 3 damage to a minion. **Outcast:** This costs (1).
Dun Baldar Bunker ( At the end of your turn, draw a **Secret** and set its Cost to (1). Lasts 3 turns. ) at start was creating different problems with Cloaked Huntress in play ( Your **Secrets** cost (0). ) later they fixed it to always cost 0.
I agree but what shuteye doesn’t understand is that Razorscale sets while Garden’s Grace reduces.
I think it goes without saying, that Razorscale should always overwrite Garden’s Grace, because setting a cost is more dominant than reducing one.
The card indirectly says set cards that cost 1 or lower to 2.
So it sounds like you’re assuming that a specific rule should win over a general rule of the same type.
In this case, the general rule is “cards can have reduced cost” (and Garden’s Grace has text explaining how this general rule applies), and the more specific rule is “cards can’t cost less than 2”.
That’s a reasonable assumption to make, and (based on Cece’s quote from the patch notes) perhaps Blizzard even intended it to work that way, and this is indeed a bug.
I was just trying to get people to either admit that it was indeed an assumption, or to quote an actual rule.
1 Like
You’re actually insane
Rubber, glue, etc etc.