X-Magica attacker tactic

JayPafJayPaf Member Posts: 6 ★
edited March 2 in General Discussion



I don’t know if I am the only one or it is because english isn’t my first language but the description feels like it is missing some words. In this sentence I feel like it is just not grammatically correct.

“ When a #Magic Thief Defender activates an Indestructible Passive, it and 1 Prowess Passive from this Tactic is instantly removed. “

This “ it and 1 Prowess Passive from this Tactic is instantly removed.“

I know what they mean by it, that if defender activates indestructible it then removes one prowess to remove the indestructible but in that sentence it just says “ it and “ which I can’t wrap my head around lmao

Comments

  • mmartin5817mmartin5817 Member Posts: 93 ★
    It is a confusing sentence. The “it” I assume is referring to the indestructible. They make things so wordy. Essentially if you use a x- magica attacker you can ignore this node on magic theif champs.
  • JayPafJayPaf Member Posts: 6 ★
    edited March 2
    mmartin5817 said:

    It is a confusing sentence. The “it” I assume is referring to the indestructible. They make things so wordy. Essentially if you use a x- magica attacker you can ignore this node on magic theif champs.

    Well I mean I got that part about the tactic. I am just pointing out it looks odd to me. If it was something like

    When a #Magic Thief Defender activates an Indestructible Passive, it THEN REMOVES 1 Prowess Passive from Tactic ATTACKER TO INSTANTLY REMOVE THAT INDESTRUCTIBLE.

    Would make much more sense to me…
  • Deder80Deder80 Member Posts: 710 ★★★
    The wording and sentence are correct. They wrote it funny but correct. Honestly, they could have explained it in a more simplified way.
  • Wakandas_FinestWakandas_Finest Member Posts: 856 ★★★★
    Doesn’t matter since the attack tactic isn’t working as intended. When the defender activates an indestructible it does not remove a prowess or an indestructible passive. Currently the only way to remove a passive is with a well timed block which oddly enough isn’t always a parry even though it should be.
Sign In or Register to comment.