Voiced complaint freezing trap

Posts: 10
Something that happens probably pretty rarely but sure infuriated me when it did.

Setting up a freezing trap to go off on a Mind Controlled minion.

Can this game please define owner better? In any other TCG owner implies and defined as the actual owner of the card. If I freezing trap and MC'd minion, I see no reason as to why it should go back into the priests hand. The priest does not OWN the card, I do, he is just controlling it. I understand the rules and why the game did that, but I think there should be better wording behind either freezing trap or mind control to avoid confusion. If someone is driving a stole car, the driver does not OWN the car.

This is mostly just me venting about a crappy situation, but there really should be a little bit more definition around this interaction if it is going to play out the way that it does.
Edited by Noslodamus on 10/28/2013 1:18 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 17
Rogue Kidnapper and Sap does the same thing, returning the card to the controllers hand, not the "owner".

It comes down to the wording of the cards, really. In Magic: The Gathering, returning a card to its owners hand, returns it to the owners hand regardless of who controls it. Blizz should look into re-wording the "bounce" effect cards to reflect what really happens, or look into those specific interactions with mind control (which states it takes "control" but really takes "ownership" of the card for the remainder of the game).
Reply Quote
Posts: 9
I've just run into this issue as well with a Priest using shadow madness on my tinkmaster overspark and attacking with it. particularly in this case it was infuriating because the effect which put it on the opponents side of the board was temporary. if this is resolved the easiest way would be to change the wording on the bounce cards and freezing trap. although I would be happier if the actual effect of these cards was changed to match their text specifically because it adds a strategic counter to things like MC, shadow madness and MC tech which are all very interesting cards that are quite powerful if not universally applicable.
Reply Quote
Posts: 20,464
In HS, there is no concept of "owner vs controller", they mean the same thing, and it is based on which side of the board the minion is on.

That is all. Yes its quirky coming from a MtG backward where that distinction was important. But unlike MtG, there are no...."logistic" concerns regarding your cards going into your opponent's hand or deck for the lifespan of the game.

There is no need for the distinction. Personally, controller would have been the better word choice though.
Reply Quote
Posts: 241
Pretty sure if you steal someones car, you now own the freaking car. Does society want you to give it back? Yes, by force if necessary. Still yours until then though. If you put new tires on your stolen car without actually taking the car back, the thief gets a new set of tires.
Reply Quote
Posts: 253
Not having played any other card game I find what Hearthstone is doing the intuitively expected thing to do.

Mind Control means your card now belongs to the Priest as much as any other of his cards. If any other card would go back to his hand on a freezing trap why shouldn't the mind controlled one?

If I was the priest and FT gave the card back to my opponent I would find that much more confusing and unreasonable.
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)

Reported!

[Close]