Talk:Game terms

Minion casts the spell

When I have time I'm going to rant about why "oh it's the MINION" that casts a spell" is bull...oney. But it's the designers I'm taking issue with, not anyone here, don't worry :P - jerodast (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't have minded if it had been done consistently. But since it isn't, I agree that this is ... let's just call it "not the best design choice ever".

But we're describing the game here, so we'll have to make do with what we get. (And I still love the game!) -- BigHugger (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

As promised, a rant for your enjoyment - "'cast a spell' works different because the minion casts the spell" is not an explanation worth repeating. First, compare the phrasing:

• Yogg-Saron, Hope's End: "Battlecry: Cast a random spell for each spell you've cast..."
• Servant of Yogg-Saron: "Battlecry: Cast a random spell that costs..."
• Tortollan Primalist: "Battlecry: Discover a random spell and cast it..."
• The Voraxx: "...summon a 1/1 Plant and cast a copy on it."
• Djinni of Zephyrs: "...cast a copy of it on this one."

...to other abilities:

• Razorfen Hunter: "Battlecry: Summon a 1/1 Boar."
• Piloted Shredder: Deathrattle: Summon a random 2-cost minion."
• Leeroy Jenkins: "Battlecry: Summon two 1/1 Whelps for your opponent."
• Arathi Weaponsmith: "Battlecry: Equip a 2/2 weapon."
• Blingtron 3000: "Battlecry: Equip a random weapon for each player."

The phrasing is the same: all are in the second person imperative with an implied "you". "YOU summon a Boar." "YOU equip a weapon." The cast spell cards are no different - it's not "Yogg-Saron casts a random spell...", it's "YOU cast a random spell...". Heck, The Voraxx illustrates both abilities on the same card. When The Voraxx summons a plant, it's "you" summoning a plant, so your "when you summon..." triggers go off. Yet when that same ability casts a spell, it's not "you" casting it, and your triggers don't go off. Based on what is actually in the game, written in the card text, this has nothing to do with "who" did what. It has everything to do with which ability it was. Most abilities have one set of rules. Cast spell has a different set. That's just the way the game works.

We see how meaningless the "who took the action" explanation is even without looking at "cast spell". Leeroy and Blingtron both "do stuff" for the opponent. No matter how you read those cards, it's definitely NOT the opponent summoning their own Whelps or equipping that weapon, it's either "you" or your card. Yet the opponent's triggers will still go off. Again, it is crystal clear that it is the specific action that determines the triggers. The actor is just an illusion, a quirk of templating, an after-the-fact piece of flavor that has nothing to do with game mechanics.

There's a few reasons "cast spell" was done this way. With Djinni, it would cause an infinite loop if two Djinnis could trigger each other. You don't ever see a "when you summon, summon..." ability for a reason. Now, they could've hardcoded it to avoid that. But then we get to Yogg, which is already crazy enough that they don't want to add a few dozen triggered effects in there. So they just coded "cast spell" to not trigger anything as a rule. And now it's inconsistent.

When they explain "why" it works this way on Twitter after the fact, they give a made-up, deceptive explanation for three reasons: a) They know "it's written the same but it works different because it had to be done that way" sounds bad. 2) They think "oh, Yogg's the one casting it" gives confused people something to latch onto that helps them remember what happens. And D) Twitter is an evil format that is destroying the ability to communicate and think clearly across the globe.

Here's why the explanation is so wrong: It completely misrepresents what is actually in the game's text and mechanics. It genuinely makes it more difficult for someone to learn the rules deeply and correctly. It gives newcomers something they have to unlearn later when they learn more about triggers and different interactions, such as Leeroy + summon triggers. It's an answer that demands more questions, like "then why doesn't Yogg say 'this minion casts a spell...'"? It forces designers into re-clarifying it with every new "cast spell" ability because the text will always say something different from the "explanation". This is not a true explanation. In terms of learning the game it is intellectual "candy", something that sounds sweet and satisfying but turns out to have no nutritional value or ability to help you grow.

I say this not to bash the designers but to explain why this after-the-fact explanation should not be in the mechanics notes. To repeat "the minion casts it" tells people to look for when it's "the minion" doing the abilities or "the player". They will find nothing on this matter, because this concept is not in the game. We should instead simply say: Most abilities work one way. Cast spell works another. No extra made-up fake concepts. Because that's the truth.

- jerodast (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm tempted to start with "Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel". ;)

But I'll also play Devil's advocate here, because I think there's another way to look at it.

The comparison between casting and summoning makes absolute sense. However, I personally believe that the odd one out in there is the summon activity, not the cast activity. When my opponent plays Leeroy, I am not summoning anything. As a new player, having read the card's text, I would be pretty mad at seeing my Unlicensed Apothecary go off when I wasn't summoning anything at all. Boom, there goes my creative "2 apothecaries and 28 spells" deck idea.

I don't expect it to ever happen, but I really believe that EVERY card text that reads "whenever you summon..." or "whenever your opponent summons..." should be changed to "whenever a minion is summoned on your/your opponent's side...". (And the equivalent change for other phrasings that relate to summoning, like on some of the new quest cards). That would clarify a lot of things that now take new players by surprise.

Bottom line: For summoning, it is totally irrelevant who does the summoning, the only thing that matters is the side of the battlefield.

And that brings me back to your argument of an implied "you" on the card text. I disagree with that. When I play Leeroy, neither I nor my opponent summons Whelps. It's Leeroy who summons. When my Piloted Shredder dies, it's the Shredder that summons. Etc.

Very strictly speaking, the card text can be interpreted as telling you that it's the minion that does the work. The tooltip for a battlecry is "does something when you play this from your hand". Who "does" something - well, not you, because than "does" would be grammatically incorrect. So it has to be the card/minion itself. And then you can read the card for the details: "Battlecry: Summon 2 Whelps for your opponent". Who does something? Leeroy. What does Leeroy do? He summons Whelps.

Same can be applied to e.g. Yogg-Saron: "Battlecry: Cast a bunch of spells". Who does something? Yogg. What does Yogg do? He casts spells.

Unfortunately, inconsistencies appear to be the rule rather than the exception. I must admit that, until reading your response, I had never given muich thought to equipping in this context. Now there are not that many cards that equip a weapon for a player, nor are there many cards with a "whenever you equip" trigger. However, they do exist and interactions can occur. I do not know what happens if I have a Buccaneer in play, and then play Muster for Battle, Arathi Weaponsmith, Malkorok; or I or my opponent plays Blingtron 3000. If it works like casting, my new weapon should not be buffed. It it works like summoning, it will be buffed. Have you by chance ever seen any of these interactions?

-- BigHugger (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)