Talk:Mad Scientist

Triggers note phrasing

 * Mad Scientist's put into battlefield effect will not activate triggered effects which specifically trigger from cards, spells or Secrets being 'cast' or 'played', such as Mana Wyrm, Secretkeeper or Fel Reaver.

If I understand 87.63.133.118's reasoning for removing the word "cards" from that note, I believe the overall issue here is that secrets and spells are subsets of cards. (And, secrets are even a subset of spells.) Viewed in that light, the phrase "playing cards, spells or secrets" sounds redundant and confusing, as it implies that spells and secrets weren't already included by the term "cards".

I also understand the other perspective which is that mentioning all three wordings reflects the three different specific triggers on various cards.

My opinion is that we can rely on readers understanding that spells and secrets are types of cards, and simply say "...which specifically trigger from cards being 'played' or 'cast', such as..." The quotation marks identify that the "played"/"cast" terminology is at issue here, not the "cards"/"spells"/"secrets" terminology. Therefore there's no need to list all 3 overlapping terms (especially since we give examples anyway).

Since this wording has gone back and forth several times now, I'd rather not change again it without discussion; let's agree on a consensus.- jerodast (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I would agree with changing it to "...which trigger from secrets being 'played' or 'cast', such as...". Stating only 'cards' could be taken to mean that effects which do not trigger from cards in general but only spells or secrets, would not activate, so 'secrets' should be clearer. 'specifically' also becomes confusing once you remove the specific listings. If you agree, feel free to make the change.
 * With regard to the general point that "we can rely on readers understanding", I would say that there is a balance to be struck with regard to how much we spell things out, and I agree we don't need to be infinitely explicit on every point. For the record though, there will always be some who don't get the point which was being made, and someone who posts a message on the talk page asking a question the answer to which you thought was perfectly clear from what you'd written ;) -- Taohinton (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah that works. You're basically taking the mirror of my approach: We can say "secrets" and expect readers to understand that the same logic extends to its supersets - spells & cards. I don't think either way is any more or less prone to confusion, but since Scientists does deal with secrets that's fine with me. By the way when I say "we can expect readers to understand", I don't mean that I think NO reader will ever be confused, just that it is a fair expectation to make in general :) Anyway I'll put in that change.&#32;- jerodast (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I think being exhaustively explicit would be less prone to confusion, but it's a trade-off with ease and speed of comprehension for most people which would surely be a bad one. I would agree with "expect", as in a reasonable expectation; what I said was in response to "rely on", hence my reply! -- Taohinton (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Known Issues forum
As I just added to the Known bugs section, the issue with a minion killing MS with its battlecry and then getting mirrored by the fetched secret, may or may not be a bug. Since that list is prone to being edited in-place, here's the relevant bullet point as a permanent record: I'm not sure when it was added or if it still reflects the thinking of the devs.&#32;- jerodast (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A secret that is fetched by Mad Scientist can trigger if the Mad Scientist is killed by a minion’s come into play effect.


 * I agree, it's very unclear at the moment. Ben Brode sounded very unhappy with how unintuitive the interaction was, so it's possible it's currently being reconsidered, or even that a change is planned, and they've therefore flagged it as a bug for clarity. -- Taohinton (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Re-reading my comment, I wasn't very clear: The bullet point I quoted above is from the Known Issues sticky on the official bug report forum. So, it describes behavior that is considered UNintended by Blizzard. That Known Issues list is the one I was referring to as getting "edited in place" and therefore being an unreliable reference.


 * (I'm not proposing more changes to our entry, just wanted to clarify my meaning for anyone coming across this thread.)&#32;- jerodast (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)