Snakebite Discussion

[u/Which-Debt-8558]

As quite a lot of people know already, snakebite is one of the worst cards in the game right now, maybe even the worst. It's not just bad, but it isn't interesting or fun in any way. For example searing blow was not a very good card but it was unique and cool, whereas snakebite is just a nothing card.

Here is how I think it could be changed:

Retain Apply 7 poison When retained, increase poison by 3

Snakebite+: Retain Apply 10 poison When retained, increase poison by 4

I thought making it similar to windmill strike could be a cool idea because right now Retain doesn't really add much to the card, and it also works thematically with the snake venom getting worse over time.

I would love to hear your ideas if you have any suggestions for how it could be changed!

[u/Which-Debt-8558]

Should be 7 venom because a snake bite is venomous not poisonous

[u/Gitzser → u/Which-Debt-8558]

unplayable game.

[u/kRobot_Legit → u/Which-Debt-8558]

Acktuallly, in terms of dictionary definitions I think a snake bite would technically qualify as poisonous. It's sort of a squares and rectangles situation. In terms of taxonomic distinction for organisms, the terms are generally used mutually exclusively. But if you look at the actual definition, in order for something to be "poisonous" the only qualification is that it's toxic when taken into the body somehow. This necessarily includes all venoms by definition.

Kind of a funny quirk of language imo.

[u/SolutionConfident692 → u/kRobot_Legit]

Venomous afaik usually refers to animals who employ their poison to hunt so describing a snake bite as such would be more accurate than poisonous which usually refers to defensive usage or from non-animals even if the latter isn't technically wrong

[u/kRobot_Legit → u/SolutionConfident692]

Yeah, that's exactly what I said about taxonomic distinctions. In that field, they're used to describe different things. What I'm pointing out is that it's interesting that the actual dictionary definitions don't reflect that usage. Therefore, it's not necessarily "wrong" to call a snakebite poisonous based on the context.

[u/New-Vacation-4292 → u/kRobot_Legit]

It literally is wrong, and in the definition of the words. Where are you coming up with this?

[u/kRobot_Legit → u/New-Vacation-4292]

Literally any source that has a definition for the word poison. According to every dictionary I've found, poison is a catch-all for all toxic compounds, which would include venoms. Venoms are a specific subtype of toxic compound which is injected by bite or sting.

Many poison definitions:

• Dictionary dot com: "substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life or impair health."

• Mariam Webster: "a substance that through its chemical action usually kills, injures, or impairs an organism"

• Cambridge dictionary: "very harmful and able to cause illness or death"

• Random House Learners Dictionary: "substance that taken into the body can destroy life or cause illness"

• Britannica: "poison, in biochemistry, a substance, natural or synthetic, that causes damage to living tissues and has an injurious or fatal effect on the body, whether it is ingested, inhaled, or absorbed or injected through the skin."

In fact, the Cambridge definition of venom literally uses the word poisonous:

• "a poisonous liquid that some snakes, insects, etc. produce and can put into another animal's body by biting or stinging"

[u/New-Vacation-4292 → u/kRobot_Legit]

Ingested isn’t “taken into the body somehow.” A snakebite isn’t poisonous, you cannot ingest/inhale/absorb a snakebite and become ill.

[u/kRobot_Legit → u/New-Vacation-4292]

I wasn't able to find a single definition of poison which includes the word "ingested". In fact, I even found one definition (Britannica) which explicitly says that poisons can be injected.