Royal Guard Rework?

"InyakSolomon88;c-2296901" wrote:

"emoore123;c-2296880" wrote:

"HumbleMumble;c-2296719" wrote:

"emoore123;c-2296674" wrote:

"Range1974;c-2296602" wrote:
Who’s health doubles, DV, RG, or another unspecified male allied leader?
Dear CG - I have been reading and writing English for almost 50 years. If I’m not sure what the change means how does it translate to non-native speakers?

"Royal Guard gains Max Health equal to 5% of the allied leader’s Max Health and then doubles his Health until the end of the encounter."

Seems pretty clear to me that "doubles his health" is referring to Royal Guard. No English degree required. ?

Could be referring to leader too, so it’s unclear.

Edit: the rule is that a pronoun belongs to the closest antecedent so the description actually tells us that it’s the leader health that is doubled.

Maybe most of us just don't think too hard about it, but to me it was pretty clear that the subject if the sentence was royal guard and not the leader. It's simply saying royal guard takes 5% of the leaders' max health, then royal guard's total health pool gets doubled. Obviously being the tank of the team, you'd want royal guard to get the extra health ?

We all assumed DRevs was the one inflicting Death Mark on the enemy leader and learned recently that that isn't the case at all so I think we can safely say that with CG, assumptions aren't a good idea.

Revan's deathmark situation isn't a result of faulty descriptions imo, so much as it is bad decisions on the devs part. It worked perfectly fine for all of us until they decided to introduce feats. That's a huge oversight on their part, I agree. This conquest has been a cluster that's exposed the "spaghetti code" we all heard about long ago.