lusty dust
Since Madness gains ult even when it fails to destroy a joker, Ceremonial Dagger should as well when you place it to the left of an Eternal Joker, for consistency's sake.
I mean, the other way to make it consistent would be to nerf Madness, but I'd prefer to change Dagger to match Madness than the other way around. 🙂
velvet python
i'm pretty sure it's intentional
lusty dust
i'm pretty sure it's intentional
it's intentional for two cards that say "do X and Y" to not work the same way?
That's not impossible, but I sure hope it's not deliberately inconsistent 
slender ingot
It's not inconsistent at all, it's the difference in their design
One always procs but indiscrimately destroys your joker deck, one will only proc if it kills a joker, adding that joker's sell value to its mult
lusty dust
It's not inconsistent at all, it's the difference in their design
They both say "do X and Y", but one of the Jokers has a dependency/conditional relationship between them and the other doesn't, completely arbitrarily
"gain mult and destroy joker" and "destroy joker and gain mult" should not ever produce different results
the order the effects are written in changes nothing; they're separated by nothing but "and"
I mean, if Madness was written "When Blind is selected, destroy a random Joker and gain X0.5 Mult", would you expect it to work differently than it presently does?
lavish heron
oh so if a joker cant be destroyed madness will still get the mult ?
lusty dust
It sure will, hence my argument
whether the reason is that there are no other jokers, or because all other jokers are eternal
(also it's coded to only destroy other jokers, never itself, it should read "a random other Joker")
lusty dust
oh so if a joker cant be destroyed madness will still get the mult ?
meant the above to be a reply to you, whoops 🙂
but that makes perfect sense to me because the way Madness is written. As I said, the wording does not imply that one action depends on the other's success, it just lists two things for the Joker to do.
That's why I consider this a bug and not a suggestion. Madness works that way and it makes sense to me that it does, so Ceremonial Dagger should also use the same logic (that is "do X and Y", either of which could fail depending on the circumstances, but neither of which prevents the other from even being attempted), to be consistent.
quasi scroll
I think it completely makes sense that it works this way, ceremonials proc is dependant on destroying the joker where madnesses mult proc is independant on destroying a joker
lusty dust
I think it completely makes sense that it works this way, ceremonials proc is de...
"ceremonials proc is dependant on destroying the joker" <-- you're assuming this dependency though, there's nothing in the wording that actually states this
both cards just say "do X and do Y"
quasi scroll
the order matters of the wording
madness the mult is gained, then a random card is destroyed if it isn't destroyed the mults been gained
lusty dust
the order matters of the wording
Why? Both cards just say "do X and do Y". if Madness was written "When Blind is selected, destroy a random Joker and gain X0.5 Mult", I would expect it to work exactly the same as it does now
quasi scroll
sacrificial there is no gain if a card is not destroyed
nope, I would say then it would work like ceremonial
lusty dust
This is like saying that if you were told to go to the store and "buy bread and buy eggs", if they don't have bread, would you not buy eggs?
quasi scroll
condition and reward vs reward and condition
lusty dust
There is no dependency inherent to "and"
That's just being assumed arbitrarily--there is no other situation where "do this and do that" intrinsically contains the logic "don't do that if you're not able to do this"
quasi scroll
its more like
have $5 taken from your bank account and get eggs
vs
get eggs and have $5 taken from your bank account
in second option you've already gotten your eggs what happens if theres no money in your bank account?
you've got the eggs, run buddy
lusty dust
you've got the eggs, run buddy
this isn't a proper analogy to the game because you're overextending it so that it's no longer 1:1 with what the game says. The game says "do X and do Y", nothing more.
You're assuming the X in "do X and do Y" is a condition, that leads to effect Y. But X is not a condition. X is an effect. The card isn't checking 1 condition to do 1 thing, it's doing 2 things.
"you've got the eggs, run buddy" <-- This carries the implication that there is any element of "optional" in the game's Joker effects. There's not, so this is a meaningless comparison, and another 'overextension' of the analogy.
quasi scroll
they are seperate exactly and thats why they function differently
the and in madness seperates two seperate functions, the and in ceremonial is in the condition leading to a result
lusty dust
the and in madness seperates two seperate functions, the and in ceremonial is in...
"the and in madness seperates two seperate functions, the and in ceremonial is in the condition leading to a result" <-- I mean, you're just declaring "and" has a different meaning in the two cards, based on nothing.
Re: "the and in ceremonial is in the condition"
quasi scroll
🤷♂️ Guess you can wait for a dev to respond, seems pretty clear to everyone whose responded to you.
it makes sense that they work differently from a gameplay sense outside of the wording too. Madness is random so you're gaining X mult where you can work around ceremonial due to it being positional so you're only getting + mult
lusty dust
🤷♂️ Guess you can wait for a dev to respond, seems pretty clear to everyone wh...
Okay, I found the root of our difference. It's actually not the word "and", it's the word "its". I posted a screencap of the exact wording of the card, to be as clear as possible.
Dagger's mult gain is defined/measured by looking at "its sell value". So, what is the noun that the pronoun "it" represents in that phrase?
Well, obviously, "it" is the particular Joker defined previously (the one immediately to the right). The assumption you're making is that if the Joker is not destroyed, the word "it" no longer refers to that, or any, Joker (and therefore can't make a calculation based on a Joker's sell value).
But what's that assumption based on? In other words, why, exactly, would the word "it" ever 'forget' what Joker it was referring to?
That's the million dollar question, and there's no point going on until it gets an answer that makes sense.
ocean beacon
It’s about the order - madness gains mult and destroys (the mult is independent of any property of the destroyed joker) - dagger destroys and then and only then gains a multiplier which is dependent on an attribute of the destroyed joker
I agree they are very similar but that the wording is not identical should be a telltale sign they function differently by design