Scorch and Morkvarg ['Destroy' or 'Banish']

[LadyAly]

Scorch and Morkvarg ['Destroy' or 'Banish']

There is something definitive wrong.

Scorch is supposed to DESTROY a card - not moving to the graveyard.
Morkvarg on the other hand is always coming back - with 2 point smaller - but he isn't supposed to come back. Scorch means DESTROY.

Not sure if it happens to other cards like Olgierd in this way, too.

So either make a proper text - or let it work like the description says.

 

[Madras_Pfeffer]

There is 'destroy' - that moves the unit to the graveyard.
And there is 'banish' - that takes the card out of the game. Scorch has always been moving units to the graveyard. If you really wanna get rid of him for good there are only few ways. Leto of course, you could seduce him with the succubus or spore him to death.

 

[NlelithZ44]

Well, Destroy = Move to graveyard. If you want to delete the card from the game, you're going to have to Banish it, which is fairly limited mechanic.

Ninja'd

 

[LadyAly]

This is what I mean - Destroy is the wrong word. Maybe its my lack of grammar in english - but destroy means absolutely killed away right ? Then name Scorch - it burns to graveyard

 

[NlelithZ44]

I'm fine with 'Destroy'. In fact, it's probably the right word for the effect.

 

[Tamacountry13]

Destroy is the correct wording otherwise it'll need to say "send to the graveyard" which is a lot longer

 

[LadyAly]

okay - since I am not a native english speaker its my probably wrong understanding of the word destroy

 

[InvisibleArrow]

This is what I mean - Destroy is the wrong word. Maybe its my lack of grammar in english - but destroy means absolutely killed away right ? Then name Scorch - it burns to graveyard

Have you played Witcher 3? There's a reason why Morkvarg keeps coming back, no matter who or how he's killed

 

[LadyAly]

Sure I did - but well - the Card Game has not really a lot to do with the lore in most of the times
And it was just about my personal meaning about the description of both cards.

 

[4RM3D]

okay - since I am not a native english speaker its my probably wrong understanding of the word destroy

That's only half of it. The devs haven't fully explained the mechanics of the game, which can be confusing for some players, because of the ambiguity of certain explanations (or the lack thereof). The only way to find out now is to learn through experience (or ask on the forum).

 

[Lexandre]

actually if scorch could banish units it killed it would make mechanics related to overbuffing a single unit that can return a lot less cheesy, starting from old Roach/Olgierd buff/promote NR decks and ending with more recent PFI and now Morkvarg

 

[265feral]

I'm with the OP; for a native English speaker (which I am) 'destroy' has a general definition of "end the existence of, obliterate, defeat utterly" or (according to the Cambridge Dictionary) "to damage something so badly that it cannot be used". To my mind that means the card is removed permanently. I understand that Morkvarg is all about resurrecting each turn which is fine (if annoying when his base strength can be repeatedly buffed) so I suppose the real problem here is with the mechanics behind the card itself rather than the scorch card per se (or indeed the epidemic card or any locking card such as Ithlinne or Cleaver, etc). I believe that each card should have a card that can counter it - at the moment the only real counter to Morkvarg is Letho or Succubus and those are only available to two specific factions. There is no counter to Morkvarg if you're playing NR, ST or SK. I'd suggest that Morkvarg should be lockable so that he can't resurrect; he can still be buffed like any other card but his resurrecting effect can then be countered with someone with the right deck. I suppose this would also have to apply to Olgierd too.

 

[265feral]

That's only half of it. The devs haven't fully explained the mechanics of the game, which can be confusing for some players, because of the ambiguity of certain explanations (or the lack thereof). The only way to find out now is to learn through experience (or ask on the forum).

Good point, and raises the question: when will a game manual become available? That would help explain all the specific terminology used, etc.

 

[Draconifors]

If Scorch "kill"ed rather than "destroy"ed, would that be less confusing? It would still make it clear what the card does - and it's also what the Scorch card's description says in W3 Gwent.

 

[ArianeGrosmont]

actually if scorch could banish units it killed it would make mechanics related to overbuffing a single unit that can return a lot less cheesy, starting from old Roach/Olgierd buff/promote NR decks and ending with more recent PFI and now Morkvarg

There are many cards that can only truely be banished by lowering their base strength to 0. There's a reason they nerfed mutagen/spores to 3 instead of 4: it adds/removes BASE strength.
I think making scorch BANISH the strongest unit is beyond OP.
In my opinion, if you really want a card that banishes the strongest unit, it should be a gold legendary.

 

[ArianeGrosmont]

This is what I mean - Destroy is the wrong word. Maybe its my lack of grammar in english - but destroy means absolutely killed away right ? Then name Scorch - it burns to graveyard

This is really one of those things that aren't about the meaning of the word, but the meaning of the word *in the game*. When I first started playing, I didn't understand the difference between *redraw* and *discard*, or between *strength* and *base strength*.
So it's through trial and error that we learn these things... Hey, we're gonna have quite an advantage over new players when the close beta ends

 

[Lexandre]

There are many cards that can only truely be banished by lowering their base strength to 0. There's a reason they nerfed mutagen/spores to 3 instead of 4: it adds/removes BASE strength.
I think making scorch BANISH the strongest unit is beyond OP.
In my opinion, if you really want a card that banishes the strongest unit, it should be a gold legendary.

golden legendary? like Letho who banishes multiple cards of the user's choice? scorch just removes 1 card most of the time and only the strongest

banishing the strongest unit with scorch would simply add more depth to the game, in every patch emerge some cheesy decks with the same rotation of overbuffing a resurrectable unit and every time CDPR target these decks in patch notes

if they just made scorch banish from the very start it would solve the issue of such cheesy decks altogether

 

[ArianeGrosmont]

golden legendary? like Letho who banishes multiple cards of the user's choice? scorch just removes 1 card most of the time and only the strongest

point taken. how 'bout silver legendary or gold epic?

in every patch emerge some cheesy decks with the same rotation of overbuffing a resurrectable unit and every time CDPR target these decks in patch notes

I agree. But I think making scorch banish would create new problems. just look how the FL nerf created so many complaints, and led to nerfs that made most weather cards obsulete, which in turn caused even more whinning.
No doubt, the issue should be addressed, but I'm not sure changing scorch is the way to go. Maybe a neutral card that reduces a unit's base to 1, or maybe even a whole row's base to 1? that way, you could really f**k with an overbuffed unit, and still keep the game leveled, because: a.you would need more than 1 card to destroy it, and b. the other player would have a turn to counter and try to save their units. I think that would make it so that only a good player - one who thinks and plans would be able to win this kind of game.

 

[RickMelethron]

I'm with the OP; for a native English speaker (which I am) 'destroy' has a general definition of "end the existence of, obliterate, defeat utterly"

no it doesn't...

 

[RickMelethron]

when will a game manual become available?

this is why more people should play dark souls...