Question regarding "working as intended" for Deathrattle returning to full hand

Play Mode Discussion
04/21/2017 05:09 PMPosted by Vizionarius
04/21/2017 05:04 PMPosted by KnightSaber

But it can never be back in hand, it doesn't ever reach that zone again.
How can it be destroyed from hand if it's not in hand?


Yeah, I get that the game is coded such that it never reaches hand. I say it should, and then it should be checked if adding it causes it to "overflow," and if so, then it should destroyed. I'm aware of how it functions, I just disagree. And I still haven't seen a good enough explanation as to why this particular design was chosen. The closest is the rationale that Mill would be strong against Deathrattle decks, but even that one seems like a twisted way of explaining away unforseen design flaws.


You're really arguing for a third zone to be created, between the 'on board' and 'in hand' which would not be used in any other interaction except for this one. Unique interactions seem like a much bigger design concern, especially when they deal with something as trivial as this.
04/21/2017 05:09 PMPosted by Vizionarius
Yeah, I get that the game is coded such that it never reaches hand. I say it should


This is your problem. It's not a logic or programming issue, it's a game balance issue.

Making the change you suggest would make sap effects unnecessarily strong. Instead of playing by normal destroy rules, it would play by it's own made up rules that are tipped in favor of the sapper for no apparent reason.

The sap is already in the sapper's favor because it gets a free upgrade to outright destruction. what reason do you have to make it even stronger than that?
04/21/2017 05:07 PMPosted by SquidLips
How exactly does destroying a minion and canceling it's deathrattle make more sense?

Currently it works fine. Minion gets bounced, no room in hand, minion is destroyed instead, normal death/destruction mechanics.


I guess I can't think of minions as being separate entities from the cards that they are when they are in hand. I think of them as being the same object, just with different properties when in different zones. A minion that is in the "in play" zone can be destroyed, which causes the deathrattle to trigger. I think of "destroy" to be applicable to a card while it is in any zone. If a card is "returned to hand," it is no longer a card in the "in play" zone, so when it is destroyed, it shouldn't trigger the deathrattle.

I feel like the major disagreement I have with the way Hearthstone is designed (and the reason why I'm dissatisfied with the way this particular interaction behaves) is that they do not seem to think of a card in hand and a card in play as the same entity. Rather, they seem to create new objects. So, if a new object cannot be created in hand upon "returning" the minion to hand, the minion itself is destroyed. With this mindset, what everyone is saying is reasonable.

But because I do not feel that this way of thinking about cards and minions makes sense (that is, I don't think that playing a minion card should result in the creation of a new object, but just a change in the state of the card object), I do not feel that a card that is returned to the hand makes sense to trigger deathrattle effects.
04/21/2017 05:18 PMPosted by SquidLips

Making the change you suggest would make sap effects unnecessarily strong. Instead of playing by normal destroy rules, it would play by it's own made up rules that are tipped in favor of the sapper for no apparent reason.

The sap is already in the sapper's favor because it gets a free upgrade to outright destruction. what reason do you have to make it even stronger than that?


Cards are designed to play within the overall game rules. "Returning" of cards to hand doesn't actually exist in Hearthstone because the Monster objects in play and their representations as cards in hand seem to be separate. Creating cards that "return" cards to hand are a design fault of Hearthstone that needed to be patched by the inconsistent behavior of having to destroy cards from play that would go into hand. Saying that Sap and others would be too powerful doesn't really carry much weight because both those cards and the game itself are designed together. To me, the rule to have to "destroy" cards from in play that are supposed to be returned to hand is a patchwork in attempt to fix a broken system.
04/21/2017 05:15 PMPosted by Frozenwind

You're really arguing for a third zone to be created, between the 'on board' and 'in hand' which would not be used in any other interaction except for this one. Unique interactions seem like a much bigger design concern, especially when they deal with something as trivial as this.


Not really. I'm arguing that a card should be treated as being in the zone that it is supposed to go into, not the zone that it was in when it became the target of an effect. I'm not advocating for the creation of anything new.
04/21/2017 05:03 PMPosted by Vizionarius
My point is that the cards that say "return to hand" do NOT say "destroy," yet behave as such. That is not logical.


Not if you conveniently excise another rule, that minions trying to get returned to a full hand are instead destroyed.

You can dislike the rule, but you can't say it's not logical.
04/21/2017 05:20 PMPosted by Vizionarius
I guess I can't think of minions as being separate entities from the cards that they are when they are in hand. I think of them as being the same object, just with different properties when in different zones.


The problem with this line of thinking is exemplified with the Weasel Tunneler. The card has bizarre interactions simply because it always stays the same entity instead of creating clean copies.

04/21/2017 05:20 PMPosted by Vizionarius
So, if a new object cannot be created in hand upon "returning" the minion to hand, the minion itself is destroyed. With this mindset, what everyone is saying is reasonable.


We can rearrange this to use your logic. If an entity cannot be MOVED to the hand, it is destroyed instead. No copies involved.

04/21/2017 05:20 PMPosted by Vizionarius
I think of "destroy" to be applicable to a card while it is in any zone. If a card is "returned to hand," it is no longer a card in the "in play" zone, so when it is destroyed, it shouldn't trigger the deathrattle.


Indeed a card can be destroyed in any zone, including the deck. It is simply destroyed while still in play.

04/21/2017 05:31 PMPosted by Vizionarius
Saying that Sap and others would be too powerful doesn't really carry much weight because both those cards and the game itself are designed together. To me, the rule to have to "destroy" cards from in play that are supposed to be returned to hand is a patchwork in attempt to fix a broken system.


It is BECAUSE they are designed together that saying it would be too powerful carries weight. More to the point, it is because the game is made of many mechanics, and they must all be in balance. Silence, destroy, and minions would all lose some amount of power, though small, because of the sap change

ultimately this whole topic boils down to Blizzard's stalwart refusal to so much as address the inconsistencies and nuances to the game. Even things like play order can make a big deal when it comes to very specific interactions. These interactions are not listed on any card, nor any official Blizzard resource.

That being said, Blizzard has no official posting on how the game is supposed to work, we as players can merely dictate how it currently work and then argue whether or not how it currently works and how it is supposed to work are the same thing
04/21/2017 05:39 PMPosted by Mand

You can dislike the rule, but you can't say it's not logical.


You can however say that the rule isn't listed in game, nor any official Blizzard resource
Going to just have to 'agree to disagree' with OP on this one.

If you accept all arguments, but are going purely on an opinion that fundamental game design needs to changed, then I can't argue against opinion.

It kind of kills the thread to any objective discussion though.
04/21/2017 05:39 PMPosted by Mand

Not if you conveniently excise another rule, that minions trying to get returned to a full hand are instead destroyed.

You can dislike the rule, but you can't say it's not logical.


Sure. Then let's say that I find it to be a sub-optimal patch to fix an issue that would never have arisen if the design of strictly enforcing hand sizes was never combined with the design of cards that allow for the returning of cards to hand. Essentially, there is a conflict of design where some cards do not work naturally within the bounds of the greater system's design, and neither the hand size enforcement, nor the cards that return things to hand were let go or changed, forcing the creation of a fairly arbitrary rule that feels very much like an afterthought. So while it's not illogical, it definitely does not feel like good design.

Anyway, I get it. I'll just live with it.
04/21/2017 06:00 PMPosted by Vizionarius
Essentially, there is a conflict of design where some cards do not work naturally within the bounds of the greater system's design


...Huh?

On what basis do you make such an epic pronouncement?
04/21/2017 06:12 PMPosted by Mand
On what basis do you make such an epic pronouncement?

on the basis that once a minion is played, it ceases to be a card and begins to be a minion. At this point, it makes no logical sense for it ever to be "returned to hand"

The systems at war are return to hand and hand size. The minion was returned to hand, so it cannot remain on the board. The hand is full, so it cannot return to hand. Thus we arrive at our paradox.

Instead sorting out the logic and rules of their own game, Blizzard simply chooses to destroy the minion.

The only schism remaining is WHERE the minion should be destroyed? It can't exist in play or in the hand, so maybe it should be violently jettisoned to some other dimension where no one can hear it scream
I surprisingly agree with a lot of what you write here!

04/21/2017 05:20 PMPosted by Vizionarius
I guess I can't think of minions as being separate entities from the cards that they are when they are in hand. I think of them as being the same object, just with different properties when in different zones.


The problem with this line of thinking is exemplified with the Weasel Tunneler. The card has bizarre interactions simply because it always stays the same entity instead of creating clean copies.


Yeah, the Tunneler is strange, mostly because of the game's way of dealing with timestamps, which cause it to run through each effect in order. But yeah, you are right that it does remain the same object. However, a lot of the Tunneler's behavior, while "working as intended by the code," is not working as it probably should (definition of "weird" is that it's not normal).

04/21/2017 05:20 PMPosted by Vizionarius
So, if a new object cannot be created in hand upon "returning" the minion to hand, the minion itself is destroyed. With this mindset, what everyone is saying is reasonable.


We can rearrange this to use your logic. If an entity cannot be MOVED to the hand, it is destroyed instead. No copies involved.


Yeah, it can be written like that. But it still remains a patchwork solution to the simultaneous existence of the hand size limit and the return-to-hand cards.

04/21/2017 05:44 PMPosted by SquidLips
ultimately this whole topic boils down to Blizzard's stalwart refusal to so much as address the inconsistencies and nuances to the game. Even things like play order can make a big deal when it comes to very specific interactions. These interactions are not listed on any card, nor any official Blizzard resource.

That being said, Blizzard has no official posting on how the game is supposed to work, we as players can merely dictate how it currently work and then argue whether or not how it currently works and how it is supposed to work are the same thing


What I tried to do with this thread is exactly point an inconsistency/design flaw out. I figured that I would be hitting a wall because it is specifically listed as "working as intended." I tried to make the case that while it does seem to work with how it needs to in order for the game to try and reconcile conflicting design choices, it does not feel "correct." I guess I failed to get people to think outside of Hearthstone's "design box."
04/21/2017 06:22 PMPosted by SquidLips
04/21/2017 06:12 PMPosted by Mand
On what basis do you make such an epic pronouncement?

on the basis that once a minion is played, it ceases to be a card and begins to be a minion. At this point, it makes no logical sense for it ever to be "returned to hand"

The systems at war are return to hand and hand size. The minion was returned to hand, so it cannot remain on the board. The hand is full, so it cannot return to hand. Thus we arrive at our paradox.

Instead sorting out the logic and rules of their own game, Blizzard simply chooses to destroy the minion.

The only schism remaining is WHERE the minion should be destroyed? It can't exist in play or in the hand, so maybe it should be violently jettisoned to some other dimension where no one can hear it scream


Thank you! You write so clearly what I've been trying to get at. Yeah, that's basically what I'm trying to say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OChXBy_nZrQ
Frozenwind said it best to me I believe. It could function in many different ways that could all make sense.
Just happens to work that way in this game, and that's fine. Agree or disagree, its just part of learning the game.

I've heard other confusions similar to this, like how buffed damaged minions don't keep all the damage received after they lose their buffs. That got me when I first started, but quickly learned that's how this works in this game.

The only thing I actually do wish for though is a decently thorough list of all the interesting interactions this game possesses, as there are many!
:-)
more than code seems TC doesnt like this game rule but doesnt want to say it

so he just calls it "bad coding"
04/21/2017 06:27 PMPosted by Vizionarius
04/21/2017 06:22 PMPosted by SquidLips
...
on the basis that once a minion is played, it ceases to be a card and begins to be a minion. At this point, it makes no logical sense for it ever to be "returned to hand"

The systems at war are return to hand and hand size. The minion was returned to hand, so it cannot remain on the board. The hand is full, so it cannot return to hand. Thus we arrive at our paradox.

Instead sorting out the logic and rules of their own game, Blizzard simply chooses to destroy the minion.

The only schism remaining is WHERE the minion should be destroyed? It can't exist in play or in the hand, so maybe it should be violently jettisoned to some other dimension where no one can hear it scream


Thank you! You write so clearly what I've been trying to get at. Yeah, that's basically what I'm trying to say.


Except...you made that up. Cards are still cards, whether they've been played or not.

I get that the game is not matching your expectations, but your expectations are not automatically valid.
It's a total straw man to claim deathrattles shouldn't trigger because they should have entered hand first before being destroyed 'as cards' to satisfy the hand size rule.

The game doesn't work like that.

Hand size limit prohibits cards from entering your hand once you've reached that limit, PERIOD. They don't enter your hand first and then get destroyed second, under some unnecessary 2-step process.

There is no such thing as an 11 card hand, ever. Not even as some unique event to satisfy your desire to persecute the game because an interaction was unintuitive to you specifically.

If you have 10 cards in your hand and you try to add another to it, that card is destroyed. It is destroyed as a card if it was drawn from your deck, but if it's a minion trying to leave the battlefield, it has nowhere to go, therefore it is destroyed as a minion, and all events available associated with minions dying will trigger, including deathrattle.

This is 100% your arbitrary desire to want minion returning effects to first transform those minions into cards before attempting to return to hand and not an objective debate about what is and isn't logical. There is no reason you have given compelling enough to necessitate this change.

Minions tying to enter a full hand never turn into cards because the game first checks if there is a place for them to go as cards to begin with. When it finds there is not, the minion is destroyed, instead.

This is neither more or less valid an order of operations than turning them into cards first before checking hand size — but it's been this way since day 1 of the game, and if you want to say you don't like it, you're free to do so, but don't do it under the pretense of fixing the illogical, because there is nothing illogical about the current behavior.
04/21/2017 09:47 PMPosted by Mand
Except...you made that up. Cards are still cards, whether they've been played or not.

I get that the game is not matching your expectations, but your expectations are not automatically valid.


That still doesn't solve the problem with Blizzard not having an official rulebook anywhere. How is your observation that "cards are still cards" any more valid than mine?

I get that Blizzard is fully capable of making cards and minions the same entity, but the pretty deliberately avoid doing so. For example, why does a sapped minion lose all it's data? Sap doesn't say silence or reset, so logically a sapped minion should retain all buffs, damage, etc when it is returned because "a card is still a card"

Also, a game that doesn't match my expectations(with how things interact) would definitely be considered a design bug by most companies. Saying it is the way it is... it's basically like the Blizzard is god issue that seems to be going around the forums regarding the game's price

I would also like to clarify that I DO think this interaction is working as intended. I only wish that sap effects didn't work at all when there is no room in hand so that you don't just get a discount destroy.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum