What’s the catch? Pay to progress — reported by 66 users.
Analyzed automatically from 3 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.
This analysis describes version 38.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 38.0, updated 2026-09-30.
What the analysis found
The catch list 1
Charges we publish at a strength we stand behind: measured from an artefact, agreed by independent sources, or reported by enough users to clear that charge's own published bar.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 2
A single kind of evidence. We publish these because withholding them would be the bigger distortion, and we do not treat any of them as a finding we stand behind.
What reviewers said
Verbatim excerpts from public store reviews, shown as corroborating user reports. They are not Appworthy audit evidence, and a quotation is not proof of the finding it sits under.
Pay to progress
Don’t waste your time — The game is like every typical game no one makes games for the love of it anymore just money! Once you reach 6k trophies it’s straight pay to win ! I have been playing this game on and off for 6 years! I always end…
Pay to Win — I’ve had this gave since the beginning. There is no reason to grind the game. You have to pay ungodly amounts of money to progress. Sad to see it
Balance kinda sucks — Game is super cool, fun. Balance sucks, why all these cool 12+ lvl units players matched with me on my lvl 9 units battling in league 3 and less? Also orb is extremely hard to get in free to play. Totally pay to win
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
False Advertising — This game falsely tells you it has multiple features that are never shown, not to mention they completely copied clash royales system this game is actual trash.
Nothing like the ads or the App store video — In the game you build a deck of 5 cards and you spawn in a random card using mana ( recourse you get from killing ) you can only merge 2 of the same card and it gives bonus damage or attack…
Add be lying 😭 — Nothing like the adds but a solid game
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. Three independent signals are read — user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure — and each candidate finding is filed under the sources that support it.
No charge stands on one kind of evidence — with one published exception. A finding is either a measured fact that anyone can reproduce (an ad SDK is in the package; every subscription bills weekly; the privacy label omits a tracker we can see), or it is an interpretation — and an interpretation needs independent sources to agree before it reaches the catch list. The exception is a harm only users can see: a charge may publish from reviews alone, as “Reported by N users”, once enough reviewers raise it to clear that charge’s own published bar. That agreement rule is what replaced the human reviewer, not a model’s confidence.
There is no overall score, on purpose. A 0–99 number was published here until 2026-09-15. It was withdrawn because it discriminated too weakly to be the instrument — 44.7% of every pair of apps tied — and because a single number is a verdict where a count is an observation. What publishes instead is a row of measurements, each of which says what was counted and, where we could not look, says that instead.
Findings under One source only are real reports we do not stand behind as findings. They are shown because withholding them entirely would hide a genuine complaint, and labelled because publishing them as charges would be an accusation off a single source.
Several measurements above say “Not assessed” because no artefact we hold can answer them. A human review is what resolves those — and it can remove a favourable band as easily as add one.
Hands-on inspections are not yet open.