This might be a bug, or it might be “working as intended;” all I know is that Kruarg the Dread (and maybe other old cards with the same immunity trait(s) can be cursed.
It’s easy to reproduce by delving in the Dark Pits.
1 Like
Working as intended.
Cursed is meant as a status debuff to defeat Impervious, or any other trait that gives immunity to an attack of some type (such as Indigestible or Fortitude).
1 Like
All troops can be cursed except those with invulnerable trait
1 Like
That’s what l figured, which is why l didn’t file a bug report.
Consider this thread officially another plea for text that reflects actual in-game effects.
If new players can’t trust the text as-written to be accurate they won’t stick around for long.
1 Like
Right, but for the new player who only has a troop with the trait this would come as quite an unpleasant surprise since that particular vulnerability isn’t suggested by “all status effects.”
A new player might just assume the description on Impervious lied to them—in fact, it sort of did.
What do you mean by that? The cursed text box shows up for every troop that applies cursed as part of it’s spell or trait and when you get cursed the text box comes up when clicking on your own troop.
I mean for a player who pulls the troop, gets excited to have an invulnerable card, traits that card and then gets cursed and regrets being excited and spending resources.
I don’t really have a horse in the race—for me, it’s better to have a way to soften Kruarg up, because I don’t use him myself and I have to face him often while delving.
I just think it would be better for the text to read “all negative status effects besides curse,” for clarity’s sake.
I side with Magnusimus. This isn’t exactly a huge problem, but heck even in the screenshots we see the English translation of the game isn’t quite up to snuff.
The problem is you have to read two different things to understand what’s happening. Impervious makes a blanket ‘immune to everything’ statement, but Curse applies a further “Impervious isn’t immune to this”. It’s just… awkward. There’s not a good way to change the Impervious text to indicate this. Maybe “Immune to NOT ALL status effects”?
2 Likes
Doesn’t Luther pop up to specifically explain Cursed the first time it applies to you? Perhaps the text just needs to be more prominent or require explicit dismissal.
Cursed is a Status effect. So 100% Impervious text needs to be updated to reflect that.
Additionally, Invulnerable needs to be updated to include that Curse won’t effect it. Just like it does with Transforms.
Too many changes happen to the top layer of the game and the bottom gets neglected or forgotten when it does.
6 Likes
Titan in the latest Dark Pits Delves somehow got Deathmark applied, and I am not sure if I saw the curse effect in the last room - Boss.
Also, Irongut got silenced and after that immediately lost the negative effect, because I could fill up the mana for the Irongut. I wonder if the effect only lasted for one turn, or is the regeneration actually removing the Silence debuff effect?
Also, I am not sure if the enemy Deathmark works immediately after it’s cast (instant death) or it will activate during your turn?
I side with @Magnusimus (and @Slypenslyde/ @awryan)! 
I agree and get that the Cursed status effect is explained both by tutorial and the tool-tip - but for those who forget, which is easy to do as a new player (or old!) with the information overload, the Impervious trait description could mislead; and aside from concerns around fitting it all on to the card (Tower/Boss Invulnerable descriptions are currently longer), I can’t see how more guidance around this would do anything but help 
.
Maybe change the title/initial post?
1 Like
I answered one of your posts 4 months ago. Can you tell me exactly what I said? I mean, verbatim. Luther explains the status effect in detail, so if you miss a single word you’re wrong. No using forums search, you can’t re-invoke in-game tutorials.
In-game tutorials suck as a tool, this isn’t a GoW-specific thing. The stuff that’s sort of half-written in the Zendesk tutorial should be part of an in-game help. Minecraft does it, and it’s sometimes nicer to use than the dang wikis. Which, to that extent, there’s really no encouragement for the community to participate in the GoW wiki, either.
So everything ends up being secret knowledge, I don’t know why the hell anyone starts playing this game.
Yikes. That’s a bit harsh, though I suppose if the lack of specificity in tooltips is the breaking point for you, that’s your prerogative.
I don’t disagree that explaining this in the tooltip would be better. GoW doesn’t do a great job of text consistency throughout; they’re clearly relying on the community to do this for them, and it appears to be a viable strategy.
1 Like
Yeah, ultimately it’s a text consistency issue. Like Scepter of Anu, the word “all” seems to mean something different than what a normal person would interpret here.
The easiest thing is to reciprocate. If we create a new status effect that says, “can affect Impervious”, then the description for Impervious needs to be updated to say, “…all status effects except { the set }.” I get that localization’s expensive. That doesn’t justify letting text be incorrect.
2 Likes
It’s consistent with the English language to list the exception only with the exception and not with the rule. Magic the Gathering along with every other rule / exception based game works like this.
Otherwise text will start to sound real dumb, “immune to burning unless spell bypasses immune to burning”
1 Like
What MtG does is way, way, way more complicated and there’s a key difference.
Main point: they have extensive written rules that are updated every time new features are released. Players are expected to read and understand them. Part of a set’s change notes highlights every change to the rules made by the set. The end result is if you ask two judges if something should happen, it is extremely unlikely you will get different rulings.
GoW does not have a set of rules with that intent. We do have some FAQ articles that define how things work, but they’re updated when they’re updated, and aren’t intended to be the be-all last word in how things are implemented. If you ask two people whether a certain ability should cause Barrier to be removed, you’re probably going to get three answers.
But MtG doesn’t have to be as complicated as you make it out. Most cards with Indestructible don’t even explain it. They merely use the text “Indestructible.” They don’t have to say, “Cannot be destroyed, except by…” because there’s already somewhere to go to ask, “Well, what does ‘destroyed’ mean?” A better definition suggested by the main rules entry is, “Cannot be moved from the battlefield to the graveyard because of incurred damage.” Are there ways to move a card to the graveyard without doing damage? Yes! Are there non-graveyard places to move a card? Yes! Do we have to have a special notice on the card that they work? No!
That’s the point of having your rules externally. They can be so complex it takes pages to explain them, but the card need only have one word.
The next step is “the devs have to make it behave like the rules say”. I’m still waiting on Scepter of Anu to do that.
MTG does in fact do this, but MTG also plays "top of the stack ", which we know gow does not always.