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

Side effects of the Mab nerf

Ok, everyone will agree that Mab needed an urgent nerf.

Now, did these also needed it :
Winter Wolf
Dire Wolf

They all had effects that did extra stuff when there was 10 gems of a certain color. With Mab’s nerf, they all also were nerfed in that they now also need 13 gems of that certain color to have their additionnal effect proc’.

I don’t really think that was intended, and it cripples cards that were barely niche cards.
Maybe it’s time to have a look at the coding of those spells so that modifying one won’t affect all 6 of these cards.

Note : It might not be an exhaustive list : I only tipped “13 or more” in the in game search box after realizing Thrall had been affected by Mab’s change and realized these guys were affected too.


It’s not a coding error, it’s intentional.

It’s designed to provide consistentcy throughout the Extra Turn provision.

1 Like

I saw where the devs mentioned this. However, I think Zelarith’s point is Consistency != Balance.

1 Like

I agree, however 10 Gems is easy to get, even unintentionally. 13 isn’t much more difficult, especially if you build around it.

None of listed Troops are really effected. They all are rarely used and, when used, used in niche teams with transformers/generators usually.

13 is a LOT more difficult. If you happen to have 12 up, chances are there will be at least one spot to make a 4+ match, so you have to either take the match, making it that much longer before you can reach 13, or let the computer take the match.

I detest the change. While 10 was too easy, 13 is pure luck of the draw after using a color changer making an already luck based game more dependent on luck and less on strategy. At this point, I just ignore the extra turn on Mab and cast whenever I can.


I didn’t know it was intentional (didn’t even see any post on Mab, I’ve been less active these days…), but indeed, I’m less concerned by consistency, but more by balance.

I was almost sure it was intentional though (I don’t have any recent version of a decrypted World.json, but if I remember correctly, “10” wasn’t a parameter in World.json, so it is hard coded in the game’s code, meaning it’s hard coded in the game text too, so, since the spell’s description was correctly modified, I knew they had to hand modify it).

Besides, only 2 (3 when counting mab) of these troops allow an extra turn, so it’s not really about extra turn consistency, but I think it really was just easier to code it like that because of how things are geared internally.

Each of the troop is affected, and, no, they are not really played at the moment, but I don’t think that’s a good reason to oversee it. Especially when that means that the more card there will be, the more of these kind of cards there will be. A time will come when at least 2 of them will be meta and need to be balanced independantly.

And it’s not only about these cards, they are not the only one with hard coded values, and I think each value should be a different parameter in World.json so that devs aren’t forced to drastically change all troops with the same kind of effect at once, but each one individually.

Basically, this side effect just flashed to me as a warning of something that was done wrong and could be done in a better way in the code. And it’s not the kind of thing one should just let go with “oh, well, let’s drastically change all units, they aren’t used anyway, and it makes less work for me”. I’m concerned that when the time comes to adapt the code in a more flexible way, and it will eventually come, it will be harder to do so because of the choices made now.


Fair point. But there are 2 numbers between 10 and 13. :slight_smile:

I usually run the Maw/Sooth/Valk/Mab combo and agree 10 is too easy. They said something about 80% of the time there’s still at least 13 – I find that incredibly inaccurate. More often than not, I have 12 Blues. In other scenarios, let’s say I have 10 Blues and I’m looking to make 3 more and keep my turn. So, I identify some colors I could turn Blue and get a 4/5-of-a-kind, figure out which color is more likely to be useful… and great, now I have 6 Blues. Guess I’ll be Mab-ing without an extra turn.

Yeah, yeah, recall bias… I know the 80% claim is hogwash though.


What I hate most about the change is that you actually have to count the number of gems now to make sure it’s 13+. When it was at 10 gems, you could just ‘see’ if it was enough, and didnt have to actually count them.


“Did I count that one already? … Ugh… Did I count that one? … Ugh.”

Restarting counting twice for one move because you’re trying to be quick… the worst.

1 Like

Poor you, having to use basic counting skills…

All you have to do is use the transformer/generator a little more carefully.

This change made it so you have to be more strategic, and can’t blindly win at will. No sympathy here, it’s a STRATEGY game.

1 Like

Strategy games don’t have to be tedious. Better UX would go a long way.


It’s not tedious to count to 13…

1 Like

Yeah… counting to 13 is super fun… I once did that all night long with friends and it was HUGE -.-

It’s not about whether I dont need any strategy and simply steamroll anyting. I just said that I found it aggravating that I need to actually count them now, instead of just seeing that it’s enough. Counting… instead of not having to count.

It wasnt about strategy or anything… no need for a passive-aggressive reply dude.

EDIT: [quote=“AnalSwordfish, post:9, topic:9864, full:true”]
“Did I count that one already? … Ugh… Did I count that one? … Ugh.”

Restarting counting twice for one move because you’re trying to be quick… the worst.

@AnalSwordfish apparently got what I meant


I’m trying not to be a dick, but it’s hard in this situation.

It’s an 8x8 grid, not hard.

1 Like

It’s an inconvenience… and it is because of strategy. Mab is not an insta-win button, so you sometimes need to be certain to get an extra turn if you cast, cause that also means that you sometimes cant collect all match4s/5s first, cause that would further reduce the amount of necessary gems.

If you needed 5 gems on the board for the extra turn, you would see it at a glance. Needing 10 makes it harder to simply “see” the amount. But 13 makes it a necessity to count the gems. That’s all I said.

And please dont tell me you simply see if it’s 12 or 13 blue gems without counting them, cause the human eye cant do that.

The counting debate is needless noise, children :stuck_out_tongue:

I find myself wondering if 13 was the right number for the Mab nerf… it actually seems rather hard to pull off now - was that the intention? A well-placed Valkyrie cast can charge up a Mab or two, but matching all those blues tends to not leave many on the board…

If the intention was to make the extra turn a rare occurrence, then the nerf is harder than advertised - but perhaps merited, it’s still one of the hardest hitting spells in the game for the cost.

If the intention was to ‘slow Mab down’ by making it a bit harder to get the extra turn, then it perhaps went too far.

12 is a nice number between 10 and 13, for instance.

@sirrian did say (unless I misread it, someone please get me the quote or correct me) that 80% of times you had 10 blue gems you’d have 13… I do not believe that for a second. I suspect that one is in there with the well-known 73.6% of statistics… Or it could have been one of @sirrian’s puns…

As to the main point of the OP: I agree that the collateral damage on the 13 gem chance has set those troops all back to largely useless… Consistent? yes… Necessary? really? for aid of coding? Hmm, I am too dim to get why that matters, surely it’s just another variable…

1 Like

Does that involve taking off your shoes? :laughing:

No, gotta take off my tinfoil hat though.


I think the main (side)effect of the Mab nerf is that (obviously with good reason) people are using Mab less.

From the (admittedly limited number of) matches I played since the patch a lot of people seem to have changed their defense if it contained Mab. And the majority of them went (back?) to a Great Maw based defense.

Before the patch my “hard” option opponents were like 40% Maw teams, 40% Mab teams and 20% other teams.
Now it’s more like 70% Maw teams and 30% other teams (mainly goblins, Mab, Gorgotha or dragons)…


Queen Mab = 13 Gems, seems fair to me. A little extra counting is worth the overall speed of her spell.
Aziris = Take that down to 11. He generates 1 skull, not nukes the entire team.
Marid = This troop should probably be knocked down to 10 or even 9. Very unpopular.
Winter Wolf = Make it 12 max. It would also offer a better promise of the generated gems actually matching.
Thrall = Take it back down to 10. Only people that use him are people who use Dark Master anyways.
Dire Wolf = Back to 10. 10 was the perfect number for an effect that was otherwise useless.

Consistency really shouldn’t matter for effects like these, I originally thought they were different amounts until the update informed me otherwise. It’s a natural assumption to make, that there are differing levels of the same perk. It’s more confusing now to see a 13 gem requirement on a freakin’ Dire Wolf of all troops! (And he just started seeing use, too!)

If were going to go to this extreme for all extra turn troops, I’m gonna start wondering why Goblins get the free ride. Then there’s Satyr and Skeleton which there’s no excuse for! I’m fine with a requirement for extra effects, but don’t punish all requirement-based troops for Mab’s general brokenness.