Glad I am not the only one who sees it that way.
Absolutely dumb.
1 Like
I was going to throw a fit on reddit about how it doesn’t work as it seems like it should where it just summons a saronite, but the developer said battlecries and deathrattles work differently when referring to “this”. So a deathrattle that says summon “this” refers to the original card, while a battlecry that says “this” copied refers to itself. It’s inconsistent on purpose, apparently. Or it’s the other way around. Either way, it doesn’t make sense but it is what it is.
1 Like
but it isnt inconsistent
you said yourself is a rule aplying to all battlecries not just saronite
The inconsistency is how the word “this” is applied to battlecries and deathrattles. They admitted it was inconsistent and said battlecries and deathrattles are treated different in terms of copying the “this” word.
To give you an example,
Play Saronite Chain Gang
Play Adaptive Amalgam.
Play Velen.
Velen dies.
Triggers Saronite Chain Gang “summon a copy of this”. It summons another Velen.
Triggers Adaptive Amalgam “shuffle this into your deck”. It shuffles in an Adaptive Amalgam.
See the inconsistency?
1 Like
but those are different mechanics with differnet rules
there isnt a single battle cry using the deathrattle rule or a deathrattle card using battlecry rule
and this been working like this for years not just now
its been working like this probably since xyrella the devout was released
So if a minion has the deathrattle of another minion, does the THIS refer to the original minion with the deathrattle or the current minion?
I think it’s obviously unintended design so the Devs would be dumb to not change it. The game should be intuitive, and seeing “summon this” should refer obviously to the card that has it originally in both deathrattles and battlecries.
The technical reason is probably related to battlecries being a “from hand” mechanic; it does nothing if you indirectly summon a minion for example; Velen broke that tradition and the Devs forgot battlecries aren’t tied to a card.
RidiculousHat addessed the Velen+Gang combo issue in a twitter reply but he didn’t say anything conclusive other than “it’s weird and I don’t know what we’ll do”.
You need the updated version. They confirmed it’s intended.
I was asking the question above just to make sure we’re all on the same page.
I understand how it works, I understand it’s intended, but I think it’s confusing for people who aren’t aware because “this” means something completely different on a deathrattle minion and a battlecry minion and I don’t think “this” should mean something different for both.
That’s my only argument.
A deathrattle “this” and a battlecry “this” mean 2 different things.
why would they be “dumb” not to change an intended rule we had for years just because you dont like it ?
if the saronite interaction becomes a problem they can nerf saronite to summon saronites
they never did only players do this
unless cards that resurrect or replay batlecry cards trigger battlecries too now
which i know it isnt true
going by the players posting bug reports about sasquawk not triggering battlecries of minions it replays players are still the only ones forgetting how battlecry works
velen has the word TRIGGER for a reason
It’s not intended. RidiculousHat asked the Devs and they didn’t expect that Velen interaction to happen. They obviously forgot Battlecries aren’t tied to a card.
It’s easy to miss, because battecries were always “lost” when you summon Battlecry minions indirectly and Velen broke that tradition.
Do you want me to show you where they say it is intended?
https://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/1gnab5o/comment/lw9gean/
I know their weasel wording. They mean it satisfies the code that already exists in the game. I know the code of the game works like that.
I’m saying they didn’t intend Velen to work that way this expansion, since RidiculousHat asked them and they were confused.
So saying “it’s intended” is weasel wording?
it is
this card follows the rules of cards that replay deathrattlees and batlecries of cards we had for years
It’s intended only if we call indented what the coder intended for Battlecry in 2013. They dun goofed in 2024, since they didn’t intend Velen to work that way.
Please go read the thread I linked to you for crying out loud.
The software engineer literally said this is the confirmed intended design since Xyrella was introduced. My god man, the denial is ridiculous here. Just because RidiculousHat wasn’t sure it was intended, he touched based with the Software Engineers and this is literally intended.
1 Like
I don’t care about your angry credentialism. By the way what you linked confirms their initial confusion.
The Dev’s post ends with a contradiction with Velen-like mechanics “because it makes no functional sense”.
You’re using this argument again when it doesn’t even apply. Is this your go to?
The. Software. Engineer. Of. Hearthstone. Said. It’s. Intended.
He literally designs the mechanics.
And you’re over here arguing saying he’s basically lying and then use this ridiculous “angry credentialism” argument as some sort of comeback.
I’m showing you where the designer himself says it’s intended. The argument ends there.
[ClayByte]
Software Engineer
This is how it was designed to work. Partially, I think it’s due to how Xyrella, the Devout works, and the precedent she set. Perhaps this design will change one day. But, at the moment, this is the intended design.
1 Like
As I said I don’t care about credentialism or their weasel wording. They obviously forgot the intention of “the.software.engineer.of” the 2013 game. They dun goofed and Velen does a nonsensical interaction.
That person there explains what happens, not in a minion years I’m going to believe they intended to design it that way in 2024.
So your argument against “it’s intended, they said it’s intended” is “they are lying”.
Crazy.