MArcomage

I've just noticed - if you have like 13b 12g 13r

it will give you +4 gems and will not take away those 3, because you do not have a highest resource

Is it working like intended? I think it's cool as it is now, and if you have all resources equal it will also not give you those +4

Or everyone else knew this?

By the first look on the code, the behaviour you described should be impossible. In case of stock 13B 12G 13R it would go like this:

1 - Card price is payed
-> stock is 11B 12G 13R

2 - highest resource is determined (Recruits) and decreased by 3
-> stock is 11B 12G 10R

3 - lowest resource is determined (Recruits) and increased by 4
-> stock is 11B 12G 14R

I can run some tests when I get back home from work.

We could change it to determine highest and lowest resources before the increase/decrease, but would that be more intuitive?

This is the turn in question
http://arcomage.net/?location=Replays_details&CurrentReplay=246969&PlayerView=1&Turn=4

I've just checked.

it takes away 3 recruits and gives back 4 recruits, and shows +3+3+4 istead of +3+3+1

that's the puzzling part

yes it's showing +3, +3, +4 because you get +3 standard gain, +4 imp cache gain, -3 imp cache loss.
Which should not happen. Lowest resource is either gems (before card cost subtracted), or bricks (after card cost subtracted)

edit: Oh wait i see now. -3 recruits is subtracted, which makes it the lowest resource. Then +4 are added again. mystery solved. Basically what mojko said.

But the question still stands: should the highest and lowest resource be determined before resource manipulation or not? If we compare it to White shrine, it works now the same way as Imp cache.

after painful 40 turns of experimentation
http://arcomage.net/?location=Replays_details&CurrentReplay=246981&PlayerView=1&Turn=43

i had 16b 6g 14r and got 16b 12g 13r

16/6/14 -cost = 14/6/14 +facilities(2/2/2) =16/8/16

and he chose recruits as highest

That's ok. You forgot to subtract the card cost which is 2 bricks. This makes bricks and recruits to be equal.

Leave the order of calculations as it is, or else several other cards will be affected. It's intuitive as it is now so long as you're aware that ALL cards perform the calculation after the cost is subtracted, just as it says in the instructions.

The reason we don't see this kind of question come up is that most cards that compare resource values are zero-cost cards or comparing resource totals against the opponent's. Making this card mixed cost, such as 1/1/1, would abate the confusion, but doing so might change the dynamic and make it less appealing in many cases. This could be offset somewhat by then also changing the -3 to a -2.