SpellweaverTCG Forums

That is fine. I just mentioned what was my first impression, but since I use the english version, I am not used to the conventions/styles used in the german version.
Just out of curiosity do you consider creature cards in any other zone than the battle field (btw what is here the correct SW term?) as a creature? I think this might lead to some issues, because there might some effects be applied for creatures, which now would affect those cards in the libary, graveyard, or hand.

Cards are only considered creatures if they are on the field.

However, no one it likely to be confused if a card instructs him to "return a creature from his graveyard". Contemporary card games tend to simplify the wordings, even if that makes less strict. After all you will most likely understand what the card does when you play it. A prime example for that is Hearthstone.

So, I do like MTG way more than Hearthstone, in particualr the perfectly defined rules (maybe there is some connection to me being a mathematican), even if they are 221 pages. I like, that I can clearly see what a card does, when reading it; but in Hearthstone, that is not the case like summon two Boom-Bots (What are they?).
So what I meant for example is the following: If there are stat modifying effect like altering attack or some other value of all creatures and some card that might return a creature with some threshold on this value to the batllefield (or let search for it, or let it be played under Ka'ainu, etc.), this might then lead to confusion.So at some point, I think, you will need the complexcity.
Either you have to put on all value modifying effects clauses, that this effect only applies for creatures in play (this might affect many cards, which will became more complex).
Or you could do it like in MTG where they allways use the term cards like in e.g. Zombify "Return target creature card from your graveyard to the battlefield.".
Personally I like at Spellweaver, that it is not as dumb as HS, and I also think that probably only those players, who like more comlex games, will play SW for long time, but I think you have probably investigated on this.

Thanks Lord-PCX for sniffing out my mistake with Flüchtige Fee. Edit added and marked as such.

As ivko noted, I mostly tried to fix grammar issues while sticking to the main style used for the cards. The majority of creature types are referred to by their names (Soldaten, Goblins, etc.), although there are other exceptions, like "Engelstempel" (Engelskreatur). It seems a number of different translators have worked on this without matching their styles, and I have a difficult time guessing which style is the dominant one.

I think "aktivierbar" is slightly better, as it refers to an ability that can be activated, while "aktivierte" implies the ability has already been activated earlier. Plus, there is the matter of consistency.

And then there is the eternal issue about ziehe/beschwöre/etc VS zieh/beschwör/etc. I did some research, but it seems that both versions are perfectly correct, and I have even seen famous-people-quotes using both in one same sentence. That being said, as a former MTG fan, I also prefer ziehe/beschwöre/etc.

I'll take a look at another aspect in the next few days.

I'm responsible for a lot of the translation of the main game. With the expansion a translation studio took over, that's where the inconsistencies come from. I've been wanting to do an overhaul, but haven't found the time and motivation until now as that's obviously quite a lot of work.

WIth more people interested in and invested in improving the german version I would really like to join the project again. You'll definitely hear from me again during the next week.
And thanks a lot Maraut and Lord-PCX!


On the issue of "zieh" vs "ziehe": It's pretty much been settled that it should be the formal imperative "ziehe", but it seems the translation studio didn't get the memo or simply forgot.

So, I do not have the time to look at all card in the game, but If you post something here in the forum, I'll most probably look at it and comment.

Lord-PCX wrote:As long it does not get fancy (i.e. there are no elf spells, or elf artifacts), I'm fine with that.

Well actually... I just noticed that we have an orc artifact in the Totem of Rogn'okh. Maybe his concern is justified after all.

Here are some mistakes among rage cards:

Priester des Opferplatzes
"... legst du für jedes Totem, die du kontrollierst..."
"... legst du für jedes Totem, das du kontrollierst..."

Flammenrunenkrieger
"Am Ende deines Zuges Flammenrunenkrieger teilt 1 Schaden an jede Kreatur mit einem Ziel-Emblem aus."
"Am Ende deines Zuges fügt Flammenrunenkrieger jeder Kreatur mit einem Ziel-Emblem 1 Schaden zu."

Khar die Todesflamme
"Von Khar geschädigte Helden erhalte keine Gesundheit..."
"Von Khar geschädigte Helden erhalten keine Gesundheit..."

Ogre-Gefangener
Gefangener Oger

Schwarzmarkt
"... nicht-Schwarzmarkt-Karten mit einem Manakosten von..."
"... nicht-Schwarzmarkt-Karten mit Manakosten von..."

Die Apokalypse
"... verteilt der Held bis zu X Schaden auf Kreaturen unter seiner Kontrolle..."
"... verteilt der Held bis zu X Schaden unter Kreaturen, die er kontrolliert..."

Führer der Urahnen
"... hat er +1 ANG..."
"... erhält er +1 ANG..."

Großangriff
"... haben +1 ANG."
"... erhalten +1 ANG."

Flammengeborene Inkarnation
"... hat +1 ANG..."
"... erhält +1 ANG..."

ALL TOTEMS
"Am Ende deines Zuges, falls [Totem] keine Energie hat, zerstöre es."
"Falls [Totem] am Ende deines Zuges keine Energie hat, zerstöre es."

I agree on almost all points.

Maraut wrote:Die Apokalypse
"... verteilt der Held bis zu X Schaden auf Kreaturen unter seiner Kontrolle..."
"... verteilt der Held bis zu X Schaden unter Kreaturen, die er kontrolliert..."

Here I'd suggest an other tiny modification:
"... verteilt der Held bis zu X Schaden auf Kreaturen, die er kontrolliert..."

Maraut wrote:Führer der Urahnen
"... hat er +1 ANG..."
"... erhält er +1 ANG..."

Großangriff
"... haben +1 ANG."
"... erhalten +1 ANG."

Flammengeborene Inkarnation
"... hat +1 ANG..."
"... erhält +1 ANG..."

For those I have no strong opinion, I think "erhalten" is probably nicer, but the most important thing is consistency, and since I play the english version, I can not tell what is consistent. While writing I think "erhalten" is realy better and if this would not be consistent it should be changed on all cards to this formulation.

I'm unsure about a creature, it's named Saluxio or so(O/W angel with ability to disable enemy heroe's abilities). Is it a he or she? I guess it's a her, but the german text indicates it's a he.

Yes, should be a "she". We can easily fix it in one of the next updates, especially if you give me the correct text here