HearthSim / hs-bugs

Unofficial Hearthstone issue tracker
https://hearthsim.info
65 stars 3 forks source link

Celestial Dreamer does not trigger Jungle Giants #826

Open troggnostupidhs opened 7 years ago

troggnostupidhs commented 7 years ago

From #761

But a new bug seems to be introduced: Celestial Dreamer (buffed to 5/5 through its Battlecry) is also not counted in. Forbidden Ancient cannot either. 1 2 3

Another test to find whether Jungle Giants is changed to a SRS trigger: it doesn't count twice for Faceless Manipulator (Grimestreet buffed to 5/5) transforming into Malorne.


One idea: The interaction with Celestial Dreamer might result from the new official mechanics:

In order for a trigger to activate from a sequence, it needs to be present and valid at the time the sequence began.

At the start of this sequence it has not reached 5 Attack, so it cannot be counted in. But I think this interaction is really irrational.


Here are two more tests about Jungle Giants: Test 1: I have a Dire Wolf Alpha and play a Chillwind Yeti adjacent to it. This is counted for Jungle Giants. Test 2: I have two Hobgoblins and play a Leper Gnome. This is also counted for Jungle Giants.

And I think Celestial Dreamer should behave identically with the two examples above.

Kybxd commented 6 years ago

If you have no weapon and use Rogue's hero power, Orgrimmar Aspirant will not give your weapon +1 attack. I'm not sure whether these should be called bugs, for they're related to the mechanical changes in Patch 9.2. The mechanics now work like this: A trigger's ALL validities are checked at an earlier timing. But in my view, only its validity of position and controller shall be checked at this time.

troggnostupidhs commented 6 years ago

https://youtu.be/vepI07VZE1Y?t=310

Potion of Polymorph interaction

troggnostupidhs commented 6 years ago

https://playhearthstone.com/en-us/blog/21802981

  • Summon and Play triggers are now evaluated using their in-hand stats before they are affected by board modifiers and their Battlecry.

    • Ex. Playing Faceless Manipulator targeting a 5-attack minion will no longer advance Jungle Giants. It will be considered a 3/3.
  • Minions that enter the battlefield without being played from hand will have any (Whenever or After) summon triggers evaluated before board modifiers are applied.

    • Ex. If Azure Drake is pulled onto the battlefield adjacent to Dire Wolf Alpha it will no longer advance Jungle Giants.
  • Choose One minions that Transform now consider their transformation effects before entering play.

    • Ex. Playing Shellshifter and selecting the 5/3 option will count as a 5-attack minion and advance Jungle Giants.
troggnostupidhs commented 6 years ago

Can anyone test?

Kybxd commented 6 years ago
  1. Celestial Deramer battlecry +2+2 doesn't advance Jungle Giants.
  2. Playing Yeti adjacent to Dire Wolf Alpha doesn't advance Jungle Giants.
  3. Playing a 1-Attack when you have 2 Hobgoblins doesn't advance Jungle Giants.
  4. 3/3 Faceless targeting a 5-Attack doesn't advance Jungle Giants.
  5. 5/5 Faceless targeting a less-than-5-Attack doesn't advance Jungle Giants.
  6. 5/5 Faceless targeting a 5-Attack advances Jungle Giants.
  7. Recruiting The Darkness advances Jungle Giants.
troggnostupidhs commented 6 years ago

These are all correct? This can be closed?

riQQ commented 6 years ago

Isn't 5. wrong or am I missing something?

troggnostupidhs commented 6 years ago

I read Faceless, but didn't check the stats.

Summon and Play triggers are now evaluated using their in-hand stats before they are affected by board modifiers and their Battlecry. Ex. Playing Faceless Manipulator targeting a 5-attack minion will no longer advance Jungle Giants. It will be considered a 3/3.

5 does seem wrong.

Kybxd commented 6 years ago

qq 20180607091751 qq 20180607091755

5/5 Faceless 1/1. Jungle Giants is still 0/5.

Jetz72 commented 5 years ago

Can anyone verify the 5/5 Faceless Manipulator behavior is still happening? Considering closing this and opening a separate post for that, if it is. The original issue behind this thread became the intended behavior. Meanwhile the new issue was intended behavior at the time this was posted, and now it is not. Seems confusing from an archival sense to have this post represent two separate and opposite issues across two points in time.