Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, elit eget consectetuer adipiscing aenean dolor

Continuity (it really shouldn't be this difficult)




PS thanks @noob I knew I was forgetting one. But at least with this one:

I figured “the” was just randomly added and QA didn’t catch it. During that time QA wasn’t exactly the pinnacle of performance. However, the latest example is just showing lack of knowledge about the game with zero over sight to check continuity prior to release.


The way I read it, if a troop has a 50% start than this should add 50% on top of that if it’s a rogue.
No point in changing the wording if it works exactly the same as all the others.

The inconsistency is embearassing


I think this is the perfect example of why the devs shouldn’t move so “fast”.


Lost track of how many times I asked for them to just turn me loose on this stuff.


Add this troop to the list if you want:

Future Spoilers


…and they were so close too.

You’d think they’d just use a pre-made template for this trait…

They could fix it in time, but they probably won’t bother.


Add the Shaman class to the list too. That one blended in well though, so nicely done, I guess.

That’s the same as Maraji Queen, not a new variation.

check the wording on The Maraji Queen and the new troop again, if we’re counting Urskula in all of this

Plus, with so many empowered troops and 50pc mana start boosters, what’s the point of anu medals which do not stack? The others do but 1 or 3 anus gives 20pc. Practically worthless other than to help with “Geoff wars”.


The game absolutely needs spell text to be standardized as the current state prevents searching for similar effects without resorting to an external resource like TaransWorld.

Consider gem conversion.

A search for “brown gems to red” or “brown to red” won’t turn up one or the other result.

Splash damage is also a huge offender here, especially with older troops, which usually say something to the effect of dealing damage to adjacent enemies but nothing about splash damage.


Macaw: Give 50% Mana to all Rogue Allies when battle begins.
Urskula: All Urska start the battle with 50% Mana.
Maraji: All Elementals start battle with 50% Mana.
Quentin: All Knight Allies start battle with 50% Mana.
Yes, Quentin mentions Allies, but the relevant part is the bold part which makes the filter include or exclude this troop. Since (currently) there is no troop which grants mana to allies like this Quentin and Maraji would be processed the same by a (smart) search string. Urskula is different because it includes “the
( :+1: to Ignitice, although I find the Allied/Allies part less relevant, it does show the inconsistency)

the the doesn’t even matter as you’d still pull up the search for those 50% team mana troops with battle with except Captain Macaw.

I just want pure uniformality on all of these traits. If its going to be half assed, then it may as well just be left as is.


And now we have
Torben: Give 2 Attack and Armor to Beast Allies when matching 4 or more Gems.
Willow: All Beast allies gain 2 Attack and Life on 4 or 5 Gem matches.
All Beast allies ------------- Beast Allies
Give [stats] ------------------ gain [stats]
When matching Gems — on Gem matches
4 or more gems ------------ 4 or 5 gems matches
(unless someone has confirmed that 5+ gem matches don’t work for Willow)

How in the glorious blazes can you cram so many different wordings in such simple traits which are almost (and before release were even exactly) identical?


They are working on it! (Or that’s what it sounds like)

They’ve been claiming to be working on it for quite some time now: meanwhile, new inconsistencies (e.g. Captain Macaw above) continue to be released.


1 Like

Consistency is important to us and we are working on it as a long term project.
Bearing in mind that the game is longer than War and Peace and written in 7 languages which all need to be consistent too.

I’ve brought this particular case up with the localisation team, thanks for pointing it out.

1 Like

Can you edit the text if we told you what to change it to?
It’d be simpler for everyone if a few players just made a list of ‘suggested’ changes. and gave it to you for entry.


If scope is the issue, it does sound like there are plenty of forum users willing to contribute :slight_smile: