Let's talk wording

There are a handful of very unclear gameplay concepts which I feel could be explained better fairly easily by changing how some descriptions are worded. I’ll outline these below.

  1. One-shot spells. Currently, this says something like “Can only be cast once per battle”. Most troops will also say “Can only be cast once” in the spell description. This is unclear, though - does it mean once per battle, period? Can I deny my opponent’s casting of this same spell by casting it first? Or does it mean once per troop? Can I have four of the same troop and have them each cast the same spell once? Through gameplay experimentation, I’ve discovered that neither of the above options are true; it turns out that a one-shot spell can be cast once per battle per side, regardless of any duplicate troops on a single side.

Therefore, to make this more readily apparent, I’d like to suggest a change to how the tool-tip is worded. I think a wording that would satisfy even the most pedantic linguists would be: “One-shot spell: This spell may only be cast once per battle, per side (NOT per troop).”

  1. “If I or a target is damaged/wounded” spell effects. There are many spells which have an additional effect if the caster or target is damaged or wounded. The terms seem to be used interchangeably, though, and it’s not clear what “being damaged” actually means. Does it mean if the target has taken any sort of damage at all? If a troop took damage, but then regained its health or armor, is it still damaged? If a troop starts off with 10 armor, gets buffed to 15 armor, and then takes 3 armor damage, is it considered damaged? This is all very confusing.

Through experimentation, I’ve discovered that both “damaged” and “wounded” mean, basically, “if the troop is below its starting life value.” As far as I can tell. My suggested fix for this is: rather than just merely changing the wording, I think the two different words should be fleshed-out into separate gameplay concepts. It’d also make it much easier to understand when an additional effect will activate. Here’s my suggestion: “Damaged: If the troop’s armor value is yellow;” “Wounded: If the troop’s health value is yellow.” This would add some interesting gameplay variation, allowing troops with a “wounded” additional spell effect to be effective against enemies which deal true damage, for example. Forcing the spell effects to look at just the starting value, and whether it’s below that (in the yellow) would also clear up the confusion.

  1. The “Order and Chaos” weapon. Currently its spell description is: “Deal X damage to the last 2 enemies. Deal double damage if the target is a dragon.” Clearly, this is supposed to be “if either target is a dragon.”

  2. “Barrier: Protects against a single source of damage.” This is fine, except that it isn’t clear that barrier protects against Devour. Devour isn’t explicitly stated as a source of damage, and it would make sense, in-universe, to be able to devour a unit, barrier and all. Perhaps if the wording of Devour was changed to “Deal lethal damage to a troop, and add its current stats to your own”?

  3. “A Frozen troop’s spells and mana will no longer give extra turns.” This is fine, except that it isn’t clear that matching four skulls will also not give an extra turn if (as far as my experimentation has shown) it’s the first troop which is frozen. Perhaps change the wording to include, “spells, mana, and attacks will no longer give extra turns”?

I may add more if I think of them later.


So these are actually some good ideas, but the problem with the additional wording and clarification is the limiting factor space. Which i think would be a good idea to add like a codex that has each effect, and anything else that needs explained, listed and fully explained, and potentially even gives examples. I mean this codex would be another menu, but i think it would help a lot more than the small sometimes confusing side descriptions.

I think adding a codex would probably be more effort than it’s worth. I don’t think the space is too small. If it is, they might be able to make the tool-tip selectable, to pop out a bigger help thing, or maybe make the tool-tip text scrollable, like its own little window or something.

That would also be a good fix for this issue, but the main thing is something should be done about it, even when it comes to just standardizing the wording used across all spells that have the same type of ability.

1 Like

There’s already a Wiki for GoW… link at the top of this screen!

I hadn’t checked it in a long time because it was extremely incomplete and seemed abandoned but I just had another look and it appears there are several people currently editing it.

How far they’ve gotten IDK, no time to check right now…

1 Like

Oh yeah, that would be useful as well, but its biggest problem is the fact that its outside the game, not to say it doesn’t have it use, which if it does have good info than it certainly is useful, the problem is for those that don’t use the forums and don’t know there’s also a wiki.

1 Like

You’re opening a massive can of worms here… there’s no end to these points…

I agree with @namick that space in the text boxes will limit getting these 100% unambiguous sometimes. I think the game’s succeeded for long enough that these clear irritations aren’t doing any major damage.

Now all I do is mention the ‘do X / kill X when attacking / dealing damage / matching skulls’ effects and mention @gouki @Shimrra @mithran, and go open some popcorn… :popcorn:


I skimmed it before. I’ve gotta be all or nothing on things like this… either I ignore it like I’ve been doing or I go on the warpath lol.

Frozen is unclear in general. I quit trying to predict it. As far as I know, the full definition is you won’t get the extra turn if:

  • The match involves a color used by ANY frozen troop on your side.
  • It is a skull and the FIRST troop on your side is frozen.
  • The game decides you shouldn’t get an extra turn.
1 Like

Here’s another: Emperina’s spell is: “Give an ally X Life and Attack, then Cleanse and Heal them.” The then in that description implies that the stat buffs are given first, followed by the cleansing and healing. But if this is true, then giving the Life first is pointless, unless the troop is already near full health. If a troop is at 10/40 Life, and Emperina gives them 10 life, then heals them, they’ll go from 20/40 to 40/40. If the healing comes first, then the troop will go from 10/40 to 40/40, to 50/50 - clearly a more desirable outcome.

Through experimentation, it appears as if the Life gain is given after the healing - as it should be - but I’m not 100% sure on this. But this raises another issue. If the healing is done before the life gain, is the cleansing done before the attack gain? It should be, because if an ally is entangled, they wouldn’t receive the attack boost unless they were first cleansed.

The order of operations is important, here. I think the spell effects and description should be as follows: “Cleanse and Heal an ally, then give them X Life and Attack.”

As I understand it, “give Life” actually changes both the current as well as the “maximum” Life for that troop. So in your example, if the troop is at 10/40 Life, the “give Life” step puts the troop at 20/50, as both values are increased. Then the Heal puts the troop at 50/50.

Understandable? Sure, given enough exposition. Intuitive? Not really.

However, I believe there are worse inconsistencies, particularly around use of the terms “weakest” and “if I am damaged.”

Two cards with the exact same wording do two different things, I just tested it to see if it had been changed recently, but it’s still happening.

Knight Coronet says “deal x damage to the first and last enemies.” So does Pandaska Guard.

But when there’s only one enemy remaining, Knight Coronet will do its damage twice, counting the enemy as both ‘first’ and ‘last’. Pandaska Guard only does it once.

1 Like

The team are aware that there are a few wording and concepts that are no clear, or which have multiple words to describe the same situation. They are considering doing an overhaul of Spell descriptions. Unfortunately this is actually a much bigger task than it seems, but it is on the cards for the future.

1 Like

It should be noted that even today’s new troop exacerbates the problem with another synonym for “lethal damage,” “execute.” We now have something like 5 synonyms for this, and it’s really not clear as a player if there are differences between each synonym.


But you’re releasing yet another troop with a new word for an already established effect in just a few hours. I get that bigger overhauls take time, but why increase the mess meanwhile?


Are you counting AI Zuul’Goth’s “kill” (which goes through barriers) and Ubastet’s “kill” (which is stopped by barriers) as two different entries in the list?


i’d like to apologize up front for my dry sense of humor, but when has any issue that people obviously care about been answered with “this will be an easy fix. thanks for the feedback.”

Zuul always kill on cast, but Uba only does so if one of the two dies. If one had a barrier and the other dies both are dead because the barrier is removed by the actual damage. If both have a barrier none of them die.

Or do I miss something or do you meant this just for an example?

There is a hero talent that creates a random barrier when an ally dies. If the barrier is applied to the second troop targeted by Ubastet, the “kill” effect fizzles.

I suspect that forged Zuul’Goth will also be stopped by barrier, but I am roughly 8 Orbs of Power short of crafting it. Thank you, @TheIdleOne, for the correction.


Player Zuul’Goth doesn’t get stopped by barrier.