Robotic Claw - Custom Hearthstone Card

Robotic Claw

18th June, 2021 (RR)

keyvnn9 (3.9)1 month ago
Again, people shouldnt use “didnt see much play” as justification for *anything*. Or at least do any amount of research.

Bomb Warrior: A defining card in the best deck in late AoO, which continued to be a dominant archetype in the superpowered Year of the Phoenix until it rotated. This was *last year*.

Pirate Warrior: Every aggressive Warrior deck has weapons like Arcanite Reaper or more recenly Sword Eater and 1 mana to gain 6+ damage is insane. The only reason it isnt in the current Wild lists is because they often have Ancharr and 2 copies Sword Eater and Outrider’s Axe and N’zoth’s First Mate, and Bloodsail Cultist (which casts Upgrade), so there arent enough turns.
nutter666 1 month ago
Idk.. Upgrade! didn't see much play and that was 1 mana. This is giving 1 durability more (when magnetized to an existing weapon) or 1 durability less (as a weapon) for 1 extra mana. It's definitely strong, and the idea of it magnetizing to a self sharpening blade or a gorehowl is a little concerning, but I think in the right expansion it would be okay (and would actually see play). I don't think it's really anymore broken than something like swinetusk shank.
keyvnn9 (3.9)1 month ago
Anyone else going to mention this is still way way too good
nutter666 1 month ago
1. You are wrong about the order of operations during a weapon being equipped, the advanced rulebook page of the hearthstone fandom wiki has an entire section which breaks it down step by step. I tried to link it directly for you but my comment got nuked for it.

2. That being the case, look at the actual wording of the card from the perspective of a new player. Right now, even if you understand what the Magnetic keyword is and how it works, there is still no clear way how to activate it here (there is no left space to play this next to a weapon), so there is no way of knowing whether or not it will combine when you play it or not (you just have to do it and find out). Whereas by making it a battlecry, with the wording about already controlling a weapon. The new player knows how the effect triggers and that it will be after they play the card, and it also makes it clear that they also need to already have a weapon active to trigger the magnetize/magnetic effect.

Now with that wording, even if they don't understand what Magnetic does, they know that *something* special will happen when they play this weapon whilst already controlling a weapon and when they see the two weapons combine, and the old weapon gains +1/+2 instead of being replaced it helps to teach them a little bit about what the keyword does.

That's a much better way of introducing a new concept to a player than the current wording is.
DustenStein (4.1)1 month ago
@nutter I completely disagree and think that especially order of cards being played, is one of the most basic rules that should stay the same ALWAYS. You can't just bend rules that much.
It doesn't teach new players the way to play cards, it breaks the image of what the rules are, causing misunderstandings later due to a bad foundation. Bending rules should only be done in the most extreme cases where the game breaks if those rules are not broken. Design isn't "actually about" making the player understand what are you talking about??

Even your changed battlecry wouldn't fix it. You still kill the weapon. Your weapon first replaces your old one, then the Battlecry triggers. Basic rules
keyvnn9 (3.9)1 month ago
Because that spell would be too powerful? Probably. But so is this
keyvnn9 (3.9)1 month ago
Could also just be a spell like Upgrade, but then you would probably never use it on its own. But youd probably never use this on its own anyways since 2 mana 1/2 weapon is *awful*. Also this is half Rogue.
Why isnt this just a spell that gives weapon +1/+2?
nutter666 1 month ago
The order of things is often changed to whatever order benefits the player the most. Combine that with the fact that making it a battlecry and mentioning "if you already control a weapon..." teaches a new player how to actually use the card properly, and it's pretty obvious that if this card was printed you could "bend the rules" a bit in terms of the order it actually triggered for the sake of player read-ability, which is what good design is actually about.

That being said:
"Battlecry: If you already controlled a weapon, magnetize this to it instead of replacing it." solves the problem since it specifies that you are checking the controlling a weapon condition before you destroy/replace it.
DustenStein (4.1)1 month ago
If anything, it would have to be a passive effect such as "This give Weapons this weapon's stats instead of replacing them" which imo is ugly and could just be rewritten as Magnetic. And technically, with some animation shenanigans, you could somehow make it look like you play a weapon to the left of your other one :tinyfin:
DustenStein (4.1)1 month ago
Cards are played before their Battlecries trigger. This would mean that your weapon is first replaced and then the battlecry would do absolutely nothing
Turba 1 month ago
The problem with this is that you cant exactly play your weapon to the left of your old one xd
This should just be "Battlecry: If you already have a weapon, give it this weapon's stats instead of equipping it."
DustenStein (4.1)1 month ago
I think the current one is better than a Battlecry. The order would be wrong
nutter666 1 month ago
"Battlecry: If you already control a weapon, magnetize this to it instead."
FriendlyShadow (4.1)1 month ago
Cool.