MArcomage

This card is bugged currently. The damage does not happen to both players.

Spoon wrote:
This card is bugged currently. The damage does not happen to both players.

Replay? Both players receive damage only when both players lost stock, so if they have the same number of burning cards...

Firestorm is a burning card, don't forget that.

http://arcomage.netvor.sk/?location=Replays_details&CurrentReplay=157603&PlayerView=1&Turn=14

As I understand it, the card does -10 stock for the player with the least Burning cards and up to 30 damage to BOTH players? Have I misunderstood?

Damage occurs only if player loses stock. That means if both players lose stock, they both get damage. If only one player loses stock, he is the only one getting damaged.

The whole effect applies only to player with least Burning cards in hand.

Generally, you're only going to play this when the opponent has fewer Burning than you do. In that case, only the opponent suffers the full card effect. However, if you both have the same number of Burning, it will happen to both of you. That's why the card is phrased as it is. Each player takes damage equal to the resources HE lost. Anyone who loses zero resources takes zero damage.

I wonder if this card should ignore itself when counting Burning cards. Maybe it would be less confusing or maybe more?

I think it would be more confusing, and I'm not even sure how you'd word it. More significantly though, it would dynamically change the card. Right now, you can put it into a deck without any other Burning cards and more often than not still trigger the effect only for the opponent.

I see. I do think the card could do with a rephrase.
"Player(s) with fewest Burning cards gets
Stock: -10
Each player suffers 1 damage for each resource he lost"
Implies that even if only one player loses stock, each player suffers damage based on how much HE lost.
It's not a bug, just a slightly ambiguous description.
"Each player suffers 1 damage for each resource THEY lost" seems to me to clarify this a little better :)

Spoon wrote:
I see. I do think the card could do with a rephrase.
"Player(s) with fewest Burning cards gets
Stock: -10
Each player suffers 1 damage for each resource he lost"
Implies that even if only one player loses stock, each player suffers damage based on how much HE lost.
It's not a bug, just a slightly ambiguous description.
"Each player suffers 1 damage for each resource THEY lost" seems to me to clarify this a little better :)

that would imply if it hits both players you take 60 damage?

Spoon wrote:
I see. I do think the card could do with a rephrase.
"Player(s) with fewest Burning cards gets
Stock: -10
Each player suffers 1 damage for each resource he lost"
Implies that even if only one player loses stock, each player suffers damage based on how much HE lost.
It's not a bug, just a slightly ambiguous description.
"Each player suffers 1 damage for each resource THEY lost" seems to me to clarify this a little better :)

your proposal will be absolutely confusing...

Fair enough, but I still think the original is a bit ambiguous.

"Player(s) with fewest Burning cards gets:
Stock: -10
1 damage for each resource he lost"
How about this one, then? It's more concise and (in my opinion) eliminates any doubt as to what the card is meant to do.

Yes, I think that one makes a lot sense.