Talk:Damage

More damage-related
It seems like cards that trigger on damage being dealt should be listed here, just as cards that trigger on healing are "healing-related", etc. In addition to Poison cards (which we can list as a subset), there are quite a few more: Acidmaw, Bolf Ramshield, Gahz'rilla, Hallazeal the Ascended, Hogger, Doom of Elwynn, Crazed Worshipper, Armorsmith, Dragon Egg, Frothing Berserker, Grim Patron, Mech-Bear-Cat, Mistress of Pain, Acolyte of Pain, Axe Flinger, Floating Watcher, Gurubashi Berserker, Imp Gang Boss, Wrathguard should be a complete list.

Technically Molten Giant is damage-related too, albeit in a different sense, not health-related (since 5/15 health makes him cost the same as 20/30 health), but I'm not super picky about that one :) &#32;- jerodast (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me :) I think it might be good to add a triggered effects subsection though. By using |hiddentags we can separate out the effects which directly affect damage dealt (like Cursed Blade and Animated Armor) from the many effects which are simply triggered by damage. Using a hiddentag means we don't need to come up with terms like 'damage-modifying' or 'damage dealt-related' or 'damage-triggered', we can just tag them all as damage-related and then specify to our hearts' content using invisible hiddentags. This approach might be useful/desirable on a few other pages, too. The only thing is to pick a hiddentag that's specific without being too specific, and pretty straightforward ;) Maybe something like 'damage-related - modify damage' and 'damage-related - triggered effect' ?


 * Molten Giant is a tricky one. It seems damage-related going by the card text, but this is misleading: taking damage without losing Health (eg due to Armor) will not lower the cost of the Giant. Meanwhile healing doesn't strictly-speaking change the amount of damage your hero has taken, but does alter the card's cost. Playing Alexstrasza at 5 Health will likewise increase the cost of the Giant by 25, despite only increasing the hero's current Health by 10. The underlying equation is basically  so ultimately it seems to be Health-related, albeit in a peculiar way. -- Taohinton (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Aha, hidden tags, I have not used such things before! Last year I did consider suggesting "damage-triggered" and similar tags but a) I figured y'all thought I was too tag-happy already anyway, and b) I figured it might be redundant since anything with "Triggered effect" and "Damage-related" is uuuusually triggered by damage. I suppose that's why these new tags are hidden, huh. I'll tag my list...sometime.


 * It looks like we're simply defining the words defining health and damage differently wrt Health loss. In my eyes a 20/30 hero "has" 10 damage even if he "has taken" 30 damage to Health, Armor, or a combination. After all someone can "be undamaged" even if they've taken damage in the past, so it makes sense to say someone "has damage" that is possibly unequal to the amount they've received total. I see where you're coming from though, it's clearer to just say they're currently missing X Health. As I said, not important really. &#32;- jerodast (talk) 06:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, hidden tags were a very handy idea, although they haven't gotten used much yet! They mean we can be very specific without causing problems, although we do still have to make decisions about how much we want to show in the infobox. In terms of Molten Giant, yeah, damage conceptualisation is tricky - similar perspective issues with how increasing max Health can heal minions by also increasing current Health, or Equality on a damaged minion - does it 'lose' the damage? Re: "has damage", I might agree, except the card text for Molten Giant is "for each damage your hero has taken.", not "for each damage your hero has." :P So the card text is quite inaccurate, which is probably why there were so many players confused about the card in 2013/14. -- Taohinton (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and added tags to all the related pages, since it wasn't a very big job, and was a good idea :) I was going to add hiddentags as suggested above, but on closer inspection (eg Animated Armor is actually a triggered effect too) this seemed a bit pointless. We could arguably add a whole bunch of hiddentags to recreate the sections on Triggered effect, but that would just mean more (and hard to remember) work every time a card was added or the triggered effect list got changed. The current list seems fine, and I've added a link to the triggered effect breakdown. -- Taohinton (talk) 12:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Advanced rules
I am really digging the new advanced rules sections! TBH I think it's much more readable in these focused article contexts than in one giant document :) I sadly have mostly given up on helping out around here, but one idea that occurred to me (that I expect other people to follow up on not me :P) is a small banner you could insert at the top of these sections to briefly mention what the advanced rules are about (in-depth, not strictly required to play, behind the scenes, algorithm-oriented). Could make it seem more friendly, establish it as part of a network of related sections, etc. One day if you do full page articles for advanced topics you could use a larger version for that too. Oh, and preferably it'd have an icon of a mage thoughtfully stroking their chin, of course... Wowpedia seems to have a number of such banners but I assume the lower contributor counts here make that less easy. &#32;- jerodast (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)