Hero Up! Super Hero Squad Online Card Game Discussion

**Night Gremlin** · 05-01-2012, 04:45 AM

I don't agree that that's "the bottom line". I think the bottom line is that the card IS functioning as its supposed to, and the text is incorrect.

The card has NEVER functioned like you say it should. Since its release it has forced the opponent to discard regardless of whether a keeper is in play. It's not an unfair advantage, it's a misprint. Again, compare to other existing cards, Twin Ninjas in particular. The card is weak as printed.

**Zil** · 05-01-2012, 05:19 AM

Originally Posted by Night Gremlin

I don't agree that that's "the bottom line". I think the bottom line is that the card IS functioning as its supposed to, and the text is incorrect.

The card has NEVER functioned like you say it should. Since its release it has forced the opponent to discard regardless of whether a keeper is in play. It's not an unfair advantage, it's a misprint. Again, compare to other existing cards, Twin Ninjas in particular. The card is weak as printed.

It's really not. Twin Ninjas is limited to level 9 cards. If your opponent has no level 9 or above cards, then they don't have to discard a card. BWWQ's special effect doesn't discriminate. You're also glossing over the massive difference between how the card is supposed to function and how it does function. If it functioned properly, the opponent would have the option to scrap the keeper and keep the rest of their hand. Right now you can force them to discard a different card. Do you not understand the difference? If you hit them with it when they have no keeper in play, they come out of it with one less card in hand than they otherwise would. BWWQ is also level 9, so we're talking about an almost guaranteed shot (since it's multi-factor) to mess with card advantage late in the game.

The "if you do" is not a misprint. They frequently screw up the programming on cards. Earlier in the year a ton of keeper and keeper targeting cards just stopped working. Right now BWWQ receives an advantage beyond what the designers intended, so it's perfectly reasonable to deem it unfair. Again, this is especially true given how hard it is to stop multi-factor cards.

**Astral Scythe Gecko** · 05-01-2012, 06:03 AM

Originally Posted by Night Gremlin

That is simply incorrect.

This is ridiculous. Some keepers cause you 4 damage per turn, so even by your own valuation system, preventing 4 damage is better than a card from the opponent's hand.

More often, a keeper is part of a critical combo. It is often better to break that combo than to cause 1 damage to your opponent's hand.

In addition, if the opponent's hand is empty, then the keeper must be discarded.

Remember that the damage is taken either way, it's just sometimes replaced with a Keeper in the hand. Sometimes, knowing that Keeper is coming again makes a lot of difference. Sometimes, seeing what you'd prefer to discard instead of the Keeper gives me valuable info. Always, I know which color block has been returned to your hand.

The card may be better without keepers on the board IN YOUR OPINION, but it is most certainly not "fact", and it is demonstrably not better in certain situations.

Well, you're in luck. The card is currently performing in the way we are discussing (the "broke version" as you put it), and has been since it was released. AND, it comes in Daredevil's Power Quest. So we all have easy access to 4 copies. That's how I got mine! And since it's so broken, I assume you'll be buying it tomorrow and putting 4 copies in all your decks. I look forward to hearing how useful you actually find it.

yes you are right it is awesome if i have iron gardener out or comrade in arms out and you break up the damage potential with BWWQ and learn valuable info. that is a really good thing to do, which the card is intended to do. but the card is better if I never even have a keeper out because any game is better if there are not keepers out against you, then you still get to make me discard and i didnt even play a keeper... you seriously think it is better if an opponent to has out keepers against you? we must be playing different games because i hope to lucky block all keepers my opponent plays unless it's the villains fury keepers such as enraged attack or if i have a card that gains a positive effect for getting rid of one of there keepers such as how BWWQ is suppose to work.

and you think the text could be wrong? if you are going to play the physical card game try explaining "No, the card doesn't do that in the online game so i'm going to play it how it is on the online game, ok?" to your opponent. they are going to be thrilled about that idea.

also i have nothing against you just this card (that is working improperly) being allowed to be played in our tourney. sorry to seem like i'm hating on you, but i feel the games integrity should remain in-tacked. I have nothing but love for everyone on the forums! sorry again NGJ

**stubarnes** · 05-01-2012, 10:03 AM

First look at Electrify the Hammer, and a contest to win loot:

http://squadcards.com/2012/05/01/ele...ing-card-game/

Yon "fluffy unicorn doll"???

**Astral Scythe Gecko** · 05-01-2012, 10:08 AM

Has anyone seen the physical card game in Walmart or somewhere else like that yet?

**stubarnes** · 05-01-2012, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Astral Scythe Gecko

Has anyone seen the physical card game in Walmart or somewhere else like that yet?

It is not scheduled for big retail stores yet. If the local shops sell well, it will expand.

**Bronn1** · 05-01-2012, 11:50 AM

Discarding a card is worth far more than one card, because it also means that you'll have less chance to block future cards, which means it will most likely do more damage over time than Lay Down The Law. I've built an entire deck around emptying a person's hand because of its potential for abuse (bring on the Jean Grey Quests!). While I've never noticed that BWWQ was working incorrectly, I do include it in multiple decks as potential Keeper removal.

With a straight discard, it is more powerful than Twin Ninjas or Lay Down The Law, but that said, I'm not really sure that its worth temporarily banning it since its not a giant glitch. Its certainly not enough to add it to decks if you haven't been using it before, IMO, and the number of times it will actually be game-swinging should be very few and far between. Of course, I would certainly understand someone's frustration if it contributes to a loss, but I just can't believe that BWWQ would be the sole reason for someone losing.

**Hobbkito** · 05-01-2012, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by stubarnes

First look at Electrify the Hammer, and a contest to win loot:

http://squadcards.com/2012/05/01/ele...ing-card-game/

Yon "fluffy unicorn doll"???

I'm just glad we get three weeks to say I am really gonna look through the list... most of them I know what they are some I have never seen and don't know what they do.

Gonna start looking at list now but not gonna post til I really have a favorite.

EDIT: Speaking of which on the wiki as far as cards we haven't seen on game yet... are they gonna be posted? I have a couple common ones. Call for Backup and Lead the Charge (I think I have this one, technically Uncommon)

**Night Gremlin** · 05-01-2012, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by Zil

The "if you do" is not a misprint. Right now BWWQ receives an advantage beyond what the designers intended, so it's perfectly reasonable to deem it unfair.

Unless you have some information that I don't, then I'm just going to let this rest, because it's just your opinion, which differs from mine. Thanks for the discussion!

**Night Gremlin** · 05-01-2012, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by Astral Scythe Gecko

and you think the text could be wrong? if you are going to play the physical card game try explaining "No, the card doesn't do that in the online game so i'm going to play it how it is on the online game, ok?" to your opponent. they are going to be thrilled about that idea.

Sure I think it could be wrong. I worked as a technical writer for the online card game "Eredan", and cards often didn't work as they were printed. Those were almost ALWAYS translation errors and misprints, and very seldom programming errors. And if you've ever played a physical CCG, even one as basic as Magic, you'll know it happens often there as well. I am an avid Game of Thrones LCG player, and errata is released every month. You have to play a card differently than it's printed because the text is giving players instructions that are unclear, or cause them to play in a way other than the designers of the card intended.

We'll just have to wait and see if this is a misprint or a programming error. It could certainly be either.

also i have nothing against you just this card (that is working improperly) being allowed to be played in our tourney. sorry to seem like i'm hating on you, but i feel the games integrity should remain in-tacked. I have nothing but love for everyone on the forums! sorry again NGJ

Agreed, we're all here because we love the game, and this is just discussion about the card. Nothing personal against any user regardless of their opinion!

**Astral Scythe Gecko** · 05-01-2012, 04:01 PM

I win against the tyrannical mason 2-0. great games, much love for the mason. our second game i just drew perfect blocks sorry for the bad luck on your side. still good games.

**Zil** · 05-01-2012, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by Night Gremlin

Unless you have some information that I don't, then I'm just going to let this rest, because it's just your opinion, which differs from mine. Thanks for the discussion!

Originally Posted by Night Gremlin

Sure I think it could be wrong. I worked as a technical writer for the online card game "Eredan", and cards often didn't work as they were printed. Those were almost ALWAYS translation errors and misprints, and very seldom programming errors. And if you've ever played a physical CCG, even one as basic as Magic, you'll know it happens often there as well. I am an avid Game of Thrones LCG player, and errata is released every month. You have to play a card differently than it's printed because the text is giving players instructions that are unclear, or cause them to play in a way other than the designers of the card intended.

We'll just have to wait and see if this is a misprint or a programming error. It could certainly be either.

Agreed, we're all here because we love the game, and this is just discussion about the card. Nothing personal against any user regardless of their opinion!

My proof is circumstantial, but:
1) The game is designed and programmed in the US, so the cards aren't being translated.

2) Misprints happen in physical card games all the time (including SHSO), but this is the online version of the game.

3) Misprints usually make no sense whatsoever. For example, in the physical game we've seen cards come in the wrong factor and cards that aren't keepers (like Little Surpise) saying keeper on them. In contrast BWWQ makes perfect sense as written. There are no spelling, punctuation, or capitalization errors. The "If you do" is perfectly logical because it forces your opponent to make a choice (scrap the keeper or a different card they were saving). Notice that neither BWWQ or Twin Ninjas straight up says your opponent must discard a card from their hand. They both come with caveats. We have yet to see a multi-factor card that simply reads "4-> Your opponent discards a card from their hand." I find it highly unlikely that the caveat on BWWQ (that you must return an opponent's keeper to their hand for the effect to trigger) is a misprint.

**Astral Tornado Mariner** · 05-01-2012, 04:41 PM

I am glad to say that when i went to my local TRU they said that the cards will be INSTOCK sometime this week :D

**spidavenger** · 05-01-2012, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by Zil

My proof is circumstantial, but:
1) The game is designed and programmed in the US, so the cards aren't being translated.

2) Misprints happen in physical card games all the time (including SHSO), but this is the online version of the game.

3) Misprints usually make no sense whatsoever. For example, in the physical game we've seen cards come in the wrong factor and cards that aren't keepers (like Little Surpise) saying keeper on them. In contrast BWWQ makes perfect sense as written. There are no spelling, punctuation, or capitalization errors. The "If you do" is perfectly logical because it forces your opponent to make a choice (scrap the keeper or a different card they were saving). Notice that neither BWWQ or Twin Ninjas straight up says your opponent must discard a card from their hand. They both come with caveats. We have yet to see a multi-factor card that simply reads "4-> Your opponent discards a card from their hand." I find it highly unlikely that the caveat on BWWQ (that you must return an opponent's keeper to their hand for the effect to trigger) is a misprint.

Zil, I'm on now if you want to play our match, CUG!