Amazon Fire 10
i moved the wildcard gem down to make a brown T and yellow upside down L and did not get the extra and the bottom 2 wild gems did not disappear, it removed the brown and yellow gems as match 3s
it is the first time ive noticed this bug specifically but i dont usually pay attention i just thought it was cool to use 4 wild gems at once but ive heard alot of people say this happens to them alot
use several wild cards in and L or T shape
Donāt worry it was fixed in 6.0ā¦ 
I assume youāre talking about the top wildcard moving down, the one in the second row from the top. If thatās the case then I believe this is working as indended and not a bug. And āworking as intendedā in this instance is not mocking or sarcastic.
Wildcards match colours in a straight line, the yellow and brown do not get carried round the corner onto the vertical wildcards. So moving the wildcard down creates a 3-yellow and a 3-brown, both horizontal. Vertically, there are 3 wildcards together with a skull above and a doomskull below, these do not resolve to a match.
If either of the two wildcards in the fifth column between the skull and doomskull were initially brown or yellow, then there would be a vertical 3-brown or 3-yellow too when the top wildcard is moved down resulting in a 5-match from a brown āTā or yellow āLā.
Hello all,
In the thread @Tabu shared, Gman updated that thread to let everyone know that we have been able to reproduce that issue and have reopened the investigation as to why players are experiencing this.
Although what Gman is referencing in that thread most recently, is related to Lycanthropy Gems and Burning Gems specifically interacting with Wildcard Gems.
In regards to what is occurring here, in the example given by @Dank this is correct, this is working as it should.
As there is the skull and an uberdoom skull now above and below the bottom two Wildcard gems, these are not resolving the lower Wildcard Gems as part of the horizontal yellow and brown gem matches.
Had one of those lower wildcard gems been a yellow or brown gem, then these would of resolved as apart of the initial match.
Had a play around replicating your board as well, both as it appears in your screenshot and tested if one of the lower Wildcards had been a matching coloured gem.
Jeto - Support Human 
there has not been stated when this was released that this situation should not resolve unless it is considering this as 2 seperated matches and im pretty sure i am not the first nor will i be the last to attempt this or is it just so rare that there are 3 wild cards in a row in an L/T no one cares? people think oh look mana i actually need then lose their turn
Dankās response details precisely what is happening, so I would suggest reading it more carefully to clarify any confusion you might have.
So they are not always wild cards. Yet are called such. I cannot say I am surprised.
it is not meant to be a 4 it is meant to be 5 brown in a T
They are certainly always wildcards.
As Dank has mentioned already,
You can argue that this situation is an edge case whose precise treatment has not been explicitly stated, but then there is no reason to expect that it should resolve the way you want it to over the way that Dank has described.
Edit: Thank you for posting your observation as a bug report, which has now made it clear how such an edge case is treated for future reference.
If they only go in straight lines then they arenāt always wildcards.
If they were always wild cards, the shape of the match wouldnāt matter.
This is just another convoluted system that is most likely the cause of the skull issue.
Really? Its a stretch to expect them to work as every other gem in the game does? Profoundā¦
I donāt understand your rationale for this assertion.
By their very nature they are unlike any other gem in the game, so of course there are edge cases that need to be considered carefully. What is vital here is that these edge cases are consistently and clearly interpreted, as has been established by other posts in this thread. While your belief in how wildcards should work is plausible, it is not more or less so than the official interpretation.
Thank you.
They work in straight lines, but do not work in L shapes or T shapes, therefore they are not always acting as wildcards.
Insanely simple.
Edit: Also this is probably what is causing the same issue with mismatching skulls. That was considered a bug and āfixed.ā
They certainly work in an L- or T-orientation, as long as there is consistent coloring along both straight-line matches. For example, I would expect
W W B
W
B
to give a blue 5-match given the information that has been presented in this thread.
You seem to be saying that, because these wildcards do not behave according to your preconceived notion of wildcards, that they are not truly wildcards.
I am saying that there is no reason for the implementation of these wildcards to agree with your preconceived notion.
Would the match resolve as Tabu (and I think many) expect if the prongs were all the same color?
ā - Wild - ā
Red - Blue - Red
Green - Wild - Green
ā - Red - ā
Ieā does this only resolve against expectation when the wildcards are on the edges of a shape, or in all cases wherein they are present in said shape?
Because I sort of agree that wildcards should/would basically never be allowed to compound if they acted like normal gems, as any two next to each other would always resolve with an adjacent gem.
But in my case above, that wild should be red. If it becomes green instead, thatās weird and I donāt like it anymore than if it just stays put while the horizontal red above it resolves.
To clarify, you are asking about the following configuration
X W X
R B R
G W G
X R X
right? In this case the G W G should instantly resolve, so we probably want to consider something like
X W X
R B R
G W B
X R X
If you were to bring the top wildcard down, then I would agree that this should produce a red 5-match. (Does it? I would hope so, but to confirm this would require actually testing it out in-game.) This differs from the scenario considered in the original post because the original arrangement of gems does not āsetā a color for the vertical match as it would in this arrangement, because of the presence of the red gem at the bottom.
So in my example, those greens automatically resolve because a 3 is formed.
So why donāt adjacent wildcards always form a 3 (thus resolving the āsameā way as other gems, and removing OPās confusion by precluding the possibility of that board?)
It does seem weird that by taking the wildcard down to two other wildcards, that these two did not resolve. Even if they resolved as a null value, it seems it would behave more like ānormalā (ieā less like heroic gems follow their own playbook, which in every introduction has caused bugs/confusions from players, so best to leave off it, imo, or else explicitly and exactly describe all expected interactions and behaviors upon release [but with such vague patch notes, keep dreaming, me])
Usually, they do, but this is really a very extreme case in which all the wildcards are capped off by skulls. Wildcards donāt match with skulls, so the OP was able to preserve this unusual arrangement.
On the OPās board, the move the OP made would result vertically in three wildcards capped off by skulls, which would (by themselves) not form a match because there is no colored gem involved to set a color for the match. The match in the OPās video results from the Y W W Br arrangement, which generates a yellow 3-match and a brown 3-match. The OPās contention that this should āspreadā down to the remaining vertical wildcards is the source of all this dispute.
Edit:
Hey it looks like some experts are here.
What happens actually in a T or L case
G X X X G X
G X X and X G X
W G G G W G
Lets say W is x2 gem
Do these configurations resolve as a five match and yield 10 mana or they resolve as 2 3 matches and yield 11 mana?
BTW from the screenshot in OP I expected a 5 brown match in a T shape and no other colors.
I have read the official release post and do not remember to this straight line restriction.
I would expect that these would both result in a 5-match, giving 10 mana and an extra turn each.
Instead of viewing this as a restriction, itās more like a feature of the implementation. Here is one possible way to think about it:
We can view all matches as straight-line matches. For example, the L- or T-arrangements in your example result from two straight-line matches which have a single gem in common. In the OPās video, there is a horizontal match but no vertical match because three wildcards do not match with themselves. Thus, there is no T-match.
On the other hand, I do expect something like the following to result in a 5-brown match.
W B W
X W X
X W X
Why not, it is a simple T-5 match? This configuration can happen only when the B was a skull before the swap. It should be a 5-match or at least a horizontal and a vertical brown 3-match which resolves into a T-5 match.