Krystenax is described badly

Platform, device version and operating system
Doesn’t matter.

What you were expecting to happen, and what actually happened

“Deal 23 damage to all enemies, boosted by a chosen color and then remove them. Summon a Silver Drakon.”

Something’s grammatically wrong. Commas aren’t salt, they do specific things. It’s not being used to form a compound sentence, because that would require a conjunction. The next most logical choice is it’s introducing “boosted by a chosen color” as a parenthetical expression. But that would mean the pronoun ‘them’ refers to “all enemies”.

I tried Krystenax out and it didn’t remove all enemies as written. I think it was meant to be described:

Choose a gem color. Deal 23 damage (boosted by the number of gems in the chosen color) to all enemies. Remove all gems of the chosen color. Summon a Silver Drakon.

But if you did intend for Krystenax to remove all enemies, I really hope it gets fixed soon!

How often does this happen? When did it begin happening?
It’s probably been like this forever, but I just crafted a Krystenax so I didn’t scrutinize the ability text beforehand. Obviously nothing matters until it happens to me.

Steps to make it happen again

  1. Get a Krystenax.
  2. Use a Krystenax.
  3. It doesn’t remove all enemies.

Your description doesn’t mention that the damage is boosted by the gems removed. In your demonstration of superior intelligence you omitted that detail :wink:

Good catch, sneaky edit added. Parenthesis make better parenthetical expressions than commas anyway.

If I had my druthers, we’d template it:

Deal X damage, where X is (Magic + 4) + (gems removed / 2).

This is a case where I can’t fault the game for not pre-calculating damage, as it doesn’t know the damage number until I’ve chosen a gem.

Fair enough. I think we have some other troops written with some better grammar in their spell descriptions, similar to the suggestion you provided. It can be tricky to continue the tone/style on each description. I’ll pass that on.

I would pay for a troop that removes all enemies.

Where do I sign up?



There’d be more room in Krystenax’s text box to make the spell clearer if the spell lost the summon component, which is completely under-costed and unnecessary on what’s already a high end AoE spell.

For a long time when I saw Krystenax in PVP it removed my whole team so maybe it takes a bit of time to work :joy:


How about:

Remove all gems of a chosen colour. Deal 23 damage (boosted by the number of removed gems) to all enemies. Summon a Silver Drakon.


Not to mention some troops have additional benefits or capacities that are not even mentioned at all. I have long suggested that there be a general description. And then a button to allow us to see a expanded description as well. For example if a troop mentions it hits the front troop, but that troop dies in the middle of the ability. The ability execution is carried over to next troop. But its card description will say to 1 troop. Carried over execution is effectively 2 troops. So either abilities need to halt when the target is dead. Or some cards to need to have better depth. I vote on better depth/expanded explanations panel as there’s a lot of troops that work similarly to doing more than what their description mentions.


Good argument without a single example… shouldn’t be too hard to track one of the 470 odd troops down…

Pretty sure that all these cases are bugs really…

I wouldn’t necessarily call it a bug so much as badly worded description.

This should be reworded in 3.4.

Can we have them fixed instead?

What do you mean by ‘them’ - this is a report about Krystenax’s spell description being misleading/incorrect?

Ah you were replying to the original thread re Krystenax’s text.

I thought you were responding on the off-topic-ish chat just above - re troops that can hit extra targets with secondary effects if their first target dies - Khorvash was a great example of this: if his damage killed one of the first two enemies, he’d mana drain the third enemy - which clearly wasn’t intended.

I actually haven’t checked these in a while so don’t know if they were fixed or not yet. But hey, any chance to moan.

It’s least confusing if you don’t start a new, vague bug report thread in the middle of another bug report thread.

I was following the dialogue started with @NekrosLucem which was a meandering slowly away from the original Krystenax point, but it’s hardly fair to say I started some other report…

As @cyrup’s post was straight after mine I just misread it as if she was answering me…

1 Like

We were trying to reproduce this last week and couldn’t so it should be fixed now :slight_smile:

My apologies, I’ll make it clear what I’m referring to next time