Talk: Quest (ability)

Quest?

The term chosen here puts us in a difficult position. 'Quest' has been the term for, well, quests, since 2013. However, the new keyword is going to be a big focus and a lot of players and readers will be wanting to learn about it.

For now, I've left 'Quest' where it is and placed the ability on 'Quest (ability)' (and adjusted the infobox to automatically redirect). This is reasonable, but I thought I'd flag the issue for feedback or ideas. -- Taohinton (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I put a hand up for Quest card or Quest (card), or both. Aegonostic (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the "old" quest should remain primary since it's likely to be part of the game forever, whereas Quest cards are part of this expansion specifically and will probably cycle out in 2 years. A disambiguation page would not be a crazy alternative. Side note, I feel like the language we tend to use to talk about Quests treats them as objects, not abilities, so perhaps all the content here could've been put on Quest card instead, with this page essentially or actually a redirect to that one. But it's probably not worth the trouble now that the page is well-established. - jerodast (talk) 08:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I actually now think that Quest (ability) works quite nicely in this wiki. However, I'm not entirely opposed to Quest card as well, and I can see it working too. "Quest (ability)" puts more emphasis on defining 'Quest' as an ability, which it sort of is. Aegonostic (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Terminologically "Quest" is a lot like "Secret", it's both a special spell card type and an ability on those spells. (The Secret page has a 1-sentence note in the top section clarifying that "Secret is also the name of the ability" and for the rest of the article uses the term to refer to cards.) I think in both cases we naturally tend to refer to the "larger" whole card rather than the "smaller" ability on that card - we "play a Secret" or "finish a Quest" more often than "we trigger the Secret ability on that card". That way of speaking is just more useful when it's already understood that those cards have the relevant ability. But again, this is a very minor reflection on nomenclature that I don't think calls for any action. The current setup is working just fine. - jerodast (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Available in Arena?

Are quest cards available in Arena? This should be documented in the article. Aegonostic (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Availability to be Discovered "at all"?

Would Shadow Visions work to be able to discover a quest card? Since it is a semi-non-random discover. Even though Ethereal Peddler can't? Remains to be seen. Aegonostic (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you can: Mike Donais on reddit --DeludedTroll (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! Aegonostic (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Tagging cards with "Quest-related"

Right now, this article does not list quest-generated cards, or cards associated with quests. A new tag should be created defining all cards generated from / associated with quests, but not the quests themselves. This tag could be written as "Quest-related" (preferred) or "Quest-generated". Aegonostic (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It feels a little odd to tag cards based on what they were generated by, and this isn't something we've done before. However, given the behaviour of Quests (do X and get Y) I suppose it might make sense. It would probably make more sense to use "Quest-generated", though, in order to keep "Reward" cards like Amara separate from "If you have an active Quest, gain +1/+1" type synergy cards (assuming they eventually make some). This also means we can present the rewarded cards as specifically being such. -- Taohinton (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

This didn't get actioned so I've added something. The exact details could go a couple of ways, though. I've added a "Quest-generated" tag, but it could be "Quest reward" (I considered "Reward" but that seemed a little cryptic, especially for newer players). Likewise I set the page section up as "Rewards" since this matches the keyword on the Quest card itself (with an explanation beneath), but it could be changed back to simply "Cards generated" or similar. One question is whether we want to include cards generated by the cards generated by Quests (Raptors, Nether Portal minion, Imps) - if so, this would require a broader tag and section title. For the most part this doesn't seem necessary, but it's a matter of taste. -- Taohinton (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Awesome, yea, I don't know about the idea of tagging cards generated by cards generated by quests either. It seems like a good idea, but it could get complicated with multiple recursions. The current tags are great, it's best keep it simple, because players probably just want to really know and look at the Quest reward cards, and from there they can browse all the other cards that stem off it. If, however, there's a pressing need for further tagging of these cards, further discussion can be held. Aegonostic (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I definitely agree we shouldn't list the rewards generated by the rewards - in terms of functionality those cards are generated just like any other uncollectible ones, whereas the actual rewards are generated by a specific identifiable mechanic. Current setup looks good! - jerodast (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Split between Quest and reward pages

I'm wondering about how we should organize information between Quest and reward pages. There are precedents in other cards with important/complex Uncollectible generated cards like Ysera, Gelbin Mekkatorque, and especially Elise Starseeker, but those are inconsistent. Some have notes at the top saying "for more info see the main card", others don't. Some have Lore in one place and Notes in the other. Some have it in both places. It might be beneficial to adopt some kind of guideline for info on Uncollectibles as a whole, but for now we should at least aim for Quests to be consistent. Options...

Duplicate reward info on both pages:

• Pros: No need for awkward "for notes/strategies/trivia/lore/etc on X, see Y" message.
• Cons: Hard to maintain - editors will tend to add to one page and not the other. Information will diverge.

All info on Quest page:

• Pros: Players tend to associate the Quest and reward; this provides a one-stop-shop. Reward page can remain very simple, making it easier to spot message directing readers to Quest page.
• Cons: Information might be overwhelming or become cluttered. Every piece of info now needs to name which card it's talking about or be in a section that does so. Feels odd to be looking for lore about Time Warp and be directed to the page about Waygates.

Keep reward info on its own page:

• Pros: Cleanly organized. Matches the idea that the reward is its own card with play considerations just like any other. Artwork section really only belongs on the page for the card itself. Mostly matches the precedent set by Golden Monkey, which is perhaps the closest ancestor to a reward card.
• Cons: Editors may tend to add reward info to Quest page; readers may assume there are no notes on rewards; messages directing them to other page are more awkward and may be missed because of large amount of content.

Mix and match by section, e.g. gameplay info is on Quest pages while trivial info is on whichever page it directly applies to:

• Pros: Balances other pros and cons more carefully based on type of info. Existing uncollectible cards tend to do this and the world hasn't exploded.
• Cons: Even more confusing for readers to find the right place for info.

I really have no idea what would be best. I personally tend to incline toward putting info on the page the info is most directly related to, so I guess I feel the same way here, but not that strongly. In any case we should definitely make use of comments to help direct editors to the right places. - jerodast (talk) 09:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's my thinking in two parts: The first thing is that right now all the strategies for the actual Quests are only a few sentences. They can be summed up as "build your deck like this to finish the Quest." It's not much information. The reason Elise is split into three pages is because Elise, The Map, and the Golden Monkey all have fairly long strategy notes that would clutter up the main Elise page.

For the second point, which you did touch on but I want to stress; people, especially newer players, looking for information on how to use the reward could come to a dead stop. It might not be immediately obvious that they have to check the reward page. You don't want to be sending people down rabbit holes to just find basic stuff.

Also, this is a lesser point but it's consistent with the majority of tokens. Strategy and notes go on the source, while trivia and art is split by specific card. That's because people looking for general strategy go to the overview while the card details are organized in smaller parts for people searching for them. I know the rewards aren't just any old tokens, but the collectible card part of the Quests don't have enough strategic depth to carry a page, and they're the first thing outside sources will link to.

Unless the Quests all get in depth deck-building guides (if that's even needed), then it's just splitting up an already comparatively small pool of information. TheMurlocAggroB (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, looks like nobody else wanted to think about it :) Your points are well taken and it seems to have been working out. I will say I can easily see several of the quests getting MUCH more strategy discussion, seeing how they were deliberately designed to have a meta built around them, so I was somewhat trying to look ahead to that. As to new players, I think we have the problem either way - if I keep hearing about "Galvadon" and want to know what that's all about, I'm probably searching for Galvadon first. But as I say it seems to be working. I guess if the sections get long and unwieldy we might think about it some more. - jerodast (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Quest Reward timing discussion

"Quests give rewards after any Battlecry effect resolves, and because of this, it's not possible to discard Nether Portal by any Battlecry which discards cards (e.g. Darkshire Librarian, Doomguard).[7]"

This quote is often used in discussions on reddit, however it should be made clear to what extent this applies.

In general it's true that quests don't give the reward immeadiately, but at the end of the phase in which they are completed. For Warlock it's completely correct, that for example if you're at 5/6 discarded cards and play Doomguard, discarding 2x Silverware Golem, the quest will trigger and complete to 6/6 before the second Silverware triggers and is summoned, however the reward is still added only after all the discard triggers resolved. So it's possible that you play Doomguard with 2x GOlem and 7 other cards in hand and 2x Malchezars Imp on board, discard Golem #1, it's summoned, you draw 2 cards ending uo with 9 cards, quest goes to 6/6 (while you have 9 cards!), 2nd Golem i summoned, Imps trigger, you end up with 10 cards an miss your quest.

However, this does NOT apply directly to the Warrior quest for example, as was often claimed on reddit, linking to or quoting the earlier mentioned statement. It's also true that the Warrior quest waits for the quest to end until it gives you reward, but the phase in which it triggers is NOT the Battlecry Phase, but the On-Play phase (together with Questing Adventurer, Illidan etc). That means the Warrior quest reward will always be added to your hand after Illidan's effect (and all subsequent triggers) resolved.

The same thing is true for the Druid Quest.

The Shaman and Priest quests (After Summon triggers) are even more ambigious. If you have a Shaman quest at 9/10 for example and play Murloc Tidehunter, the quest will already be completed in the Battlecry Phase (by the 1/1 spawning, to be exact in the After Summon Phase of the 1/1 within the Battlecry Phase). Therefore you will get the quest after the Battlecry phase, before any After Play effects (secrets) or After Summon triggers trigger on the Tidehunter. However, if you're at 8/10 before Tidehunter, the quest will only be completed in the After Summon Phase and therefore be rewarded at the end of the After Summon Phase.

So scenario: You have a Shaman quest, Rumlbing Elemental and Acolyte. Your opponent has Imp Gang Boss and Knife Juggler. You play Murloc Tidehunter. Could it be that Rumbling hits Imp Gang Boss which triggers Juggler, which hits Acolyte, which brings you to 10 cards? => Answer: If your quest is at 8/10 - yes. If it's at 9/10 - no.

And to make it even worse: If you do some Illidan + Knife Juggler Shenanigans to kill an opponent's Deathlord before the Battlecry phase, which pulls a Murloc, you could even get the quest completed and rewarded after the On-Play Phase, before the Battlecry.

To summarize what's wrong with the statement: "Quests give rewards after any Battlecry effect resolves" is simply wrong. Quests give after rewards the phase in which they were completed. For the Warlock one this is necessarily the Battlecry phase, but that's not the case for other quests.

What would be correct: "Quests give rewards after the phase in which they were completed."

• For the Warlock quest, this is the Battlecry phase (at least until we get some cards that discard cards in another phase than the Battlecry Phase)
• For Hunter, Rogue and Mage this is the After Play/After Spell Phase, which is after the Battlecry/Spell Text Phase, which means those quests can be milled if they were completed by a card with a draw/discover Battlecry/Spell.
• For Warrior and Druid this is the On-Play Phse before the Battlecry Phase. This means the rewards can't be milled with a draw/discover battlecry.
• For Priest and Shaman this can be any phase in which a Murloc/DR minion can be summoned. On play phase, Battlecry Phase, After Summon Phase, End of turn Phase, Combat Preperation Phase, Death Phase, Inspire Phase etc. Almost everything is possible and it heavily depends on the circumstance.
• For Paladin I have to admit I don't know myself. I'd guess it's an After Spell trigger (also from the animations), but I'm not 100% sure. If that's the case, it behaves just like the Mage quest. One easy test would be to complete it with PW:S (play with a friend and let Cho transfer PW:S to the Pally) and see whether the draw or the quest reward happens first.

I did not edit this yet, as I'm familiar with most HS mechanics and the Advanced Rulebook. However, all wiki sites that are not the Advanced Rulebook should be understandable for anyone with a basic understanding of the game, so I'm not sure how well those explanations are and how clear/necessary the examples are. So I'd appreciate any feedback. :)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PattuX (talk • contribs) 22:09, 21 April 2017‎

I think the current writeup on this page is okay now in that it's very general and directs people to the individual pages, but if it still seems to imply anything inaccurate definitely edit it. You listed a number of good conclusions & examples for the various quests, and it'd be great if you want to add them to their individual quest page notes, especially the ones that can only occur at one phase, like the Warrior quest for instance. You can look at what I did on the Lakkari Sacrifice page as an example of style - we've recently started using this ::''Example: If you do this then blah blah... format for examples which I think is pretty effective at making them readable yet distinct from the more generally-stated rules.

In terms of complexity, try to use the simplest example possible to illustrate the effect you want, but don't hesitate to put it in if you think people would want to know that interaction. In terms of how much advanced rules terminology to use, I always try to describe the phases without necessarily relying on anyone knowing the names, so for instance "This Quest is completed in the On-Play phase of the summoning sequence, before Battlecries." would be comprehensible to anyone who knows that summoning has different steps and what a Battlecry is :) We can always edit it after a while if we decide it's hard to understand. (I also tend not to say "mill" and just say "cannot be generated" but if that feels awkward, whatever works.)

If there are crazy edge cases from those classic Illidan/KJ/exploding combos, it's debatable whether it's necessary to put them in, but as long as the more common examples are listed first, I have no problem with it :)

I don't think you have much to worry about "doing it wrong" on the card pages since you're putting thought into it and it's just a first draft anyway, so go for it! - jerodast (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the first sentence is wrong now, namely "Quests give rewards after any Battlecry effect resolves", due to this video timestamp on Thijs playing Gloop Sprayer and having its Battlecry effect activate on the quest reward (video clip link). Aegonostic (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, looking at the content from 2017, I think "Quests give rewards after the phase in which they were completed." would still be correct. Strength in Numbers is a trigger based on paying mana, which happens well before the Battlecry. Cactusisawesome (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I just read what was actually written in this section, ok yea that should be correct: "Quests give rewards after the phase in which they were completed." I'm going to change the wording in the article slightly for "It is therefore impossible for an effect that completes a Quest to directly affect the reward" I think. Aegonostic (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, well that may be confusing, as it is quite ambiguous what counts as one effect or two different effects. Like the example you gave above, spending mana completed the quest, while the same minion that completed the quest also affected the reward. You could also give the example of playing Grizzled Wizard to complete Corrupt the Waters, which would result in giving the hero power to the opponent, i.e. affecting the reward. This may be a little bit nit-picky but I still think it's something worth bringing up.Cactusisawesome (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The Gloop Sprayer + Strength in Numbers example and your Grizzled Wizard + Corrupt the Waters example could be good for including in the article, but yes after re-reading again for a second time what PattuX wrote above, this most definitely can get confusing for the average player. I think it would be better to just get rid of the wording "It is therefore impossible for an effect that completes a Quest to directly affect the reward" and keep the wording of what really happens "Quests give rewards after the phase in which they were completed" while listing some examples, but then those examples would need explanation and I don't think I'm going to be capable of explaining the phases in which things happen. So, this is actually a weird problem, hm. I'm just going to get rid of the wording in the article that's confusing me for now. I'll think about this some more though before I do that. Aegonostic (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)