Talk:Kazakus

Citation needed

Talking about Mystic Wool for 1 mana: "or could be Summon a 1/1 Sheep". Based on what? I'll consider undoing the previous edit, should the source not be given. Blue Banana whotookthisname (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I messed up trying to add "Citation needed" template. Someone please fix. Blue Banana whotookthisname (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: the edit I suspect this is just a guess, so I would be fine with removing it. Data should be available for mining soon which should tell all. Re: the template, the Gamepedia people actually messed up somehow when they imported a standard issue version of the template, which appears to be broken; I've therefore reverted the template to the older, simpler version for now. -- Taohinton (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Question on "Discover mulliganing"

The article's Notes section reads:

• This minion's Battlecry guides the player through a series of Discover-like interfaces, to create a custom spell with two effects:
  • The player is first presented with 3 options to determine the spell's cost: 1, 5, or 10 mana.
  • The player is then presented with 3 of 9 or 10 possible spell effects, and must choose one.
  • Finally, the player is presented with 3 of the remaining possible spell effects, and must choose one. (The first effect is removed from the pool of options once chosen.)

The text in bold implies that the second Discover can reveal the remaining 8/9 possible spell effects, though I think the second Discover can only reveal the remaining 6/7 possible spell effects (the ones different from the first Discover). Can someone verify which is correct? Aegonostic (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Tested on my own, and indeed what happens is that the second Discover can reveal the remaining 8/9 possible spell effects. This has been incorporated into the article. Aegonostic (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Ability tags on choice cards instead of "blank" potion?

It's kinda confusing that when you look at a list like Card draw#Uncollectible you get the completely blank Kazakus Potion, Kazakus Potion, and Kazakus Potion in there, when those potions don't always actually have those effects, and the ability doesn't appear in the card text. True, those are the ones with the artwork and card ID of the spell that is eventually put into your hand, but in this case I think that's less relevant than the card text. Also, it's ugly and weird looking at those card pages and seeing a dozen abilities on each, when they can actually only have 2 of them at a time, and (again) the card text is blank!

So instead I say let's put them on the Choice cards, e.g. Kingsblood, Kingsblood, and Kingsblood. This represents the choice that always has that ability/effect, independent from the others. Those choice card pages link to both Kazakus and the corresponding Kazakus Potion card page, and even are listed at the right mana cost, so no information is lost. This would make them the only Choice cards to "have abilities", be query-able as uncollectible cards, etc, but I think it's worth it for the presentation benefits.

I might have to experiment with the categories a bit to make them show up in queries right, but I'll wait a bit for any feedback. - jerodast (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree with you! Elekim (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The one problem that occurs to me is that if someone were to query for, say, a spell that does damage and also summons minions, they would not find it with the changed tagging even though the final potion is capable of that. On the other hand, if they queried for one that does damage AND summons minions AND grants Armor, they CURRENTLY find it even though no potion is capable of THAT...and those searches seem unlikely anyway :) The biggest drawback is the way their categorization works so they'd appear as both choice cards and uncollectible spells...still thinking on that one. - jerodast (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)