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.
