Are you looking at an old version of the card? I thought they replaced all mentions of "Ready your attack" with the keyword "Rally," with fairly good helptext: "If you don't have one, gain the attack token. You can attack this round."
Removing Fearsome doesn't make blocking interesting, it makes it obvious. If Ledros didn't have Fearsome, you'd always chump block him to ensure he takes very little damage over time. This would be the best play every time to delay the inevitable bounce back to your opponent's hand.
On a surface-level analysis, sure. The inverse (as is currently on live) is that you're shoved into an automatic lose-lose situation in which you either take eight to the dome or bounce him back in two turns max while losing a chunk of your board. It's hard to make something an interesting decision when either result is atrocious for you.
By contrast, removing restrictions opens up decision-making options. Entirely anecdotal example - I had a game last night in which I purposefully blocked a Ledros with a 6/5 spider rather than a 4/1spiderling, killing it intentionally. My reasoning was that my opponent had burned all mana for the turn and didn't have lethal, so I had the opportunity for counter-lethal if I could bait the Ledros play. Following round, he did indeed drop the Ledros - giving me 100% security that he couldn't then stop my play for lethal which would otherwise have been risky and depended on him not having counter-buffs.
Obviously, as I say, anecdotal (and something I was able to do with Ledros having Fearsome already, obviously). Point is, though, opening more options makes for a more involved decision.
There's a real irony in dropping an anecdote shortly after saying "When it comes to analysis, 'practical examples' are better known as 'anecdotal evidence' and are generally worthless." It's quite possible that your opponent played Ledros specifically because he or she had no counter-buffs, so Ledros was the only play left, and that your anecdote could just as easily have played out in your favor with a chump block instead. There's no way to know.
To be clear on this, I'm not against removing Fearsome - in fact, I think it's a good idea - but the idea that it will make blocking "more interesting" seems ridiculous. Giving your opponent more burn tools/card advantage in almost universally bad in card games. The trade you described in your anecdote only works when that burn can't kill you, or when you can attack back for lethal before your opponent does anything, so if anything it's the exception rather than the rule.
Perhaps removing the Fearsome tag is enough to rebalance Ledros' impact on the metagame, but the infinite burn is part of an overall massively OP package that suppresses even the strongest control strategies.
He should really return to the top of the deck instead, that way you can’t play him the turn he dies (and he doesn’t give you “card draw” when he dies
That was actually a thought bouncing around my head after revisiting the Ledros thread this morning. Wouldn't be a bad idea as a change, though I wonder if it would make him unplayable.
Re: rest of OP's list:
- My main point - we're not going to see any sweeping changes at this point. For all that I rip on Rito's revolving door balance strategy, they have at least shown via TFT that they're capable of patience when a meta is still in heavy flux. At release (not all that long ago, really) we had a lot of Elusive complaints and they were flooding the meta - nerf calls abound. Fast forward to now, the meta has responded; Elusive isn't top of the pile because other things have risen up to counter them.
- Major disagreement with any Lux changes. She's fine at doing what she does, as what she is - which is a lower-risk lower-reward Heimer.
- Major disagreement with basically the entire bottom half of your post. Elusives don't need nerfing at this stage as meta shifts show they're clearly counterable. Elise nerf would render her wholly unplayable as she'd lose far too much in the mirror - if time suggests spiders need a nerf they can be hit in other ways. I could maybe get behind nerfs to Rhasa and Cursed Keeper, but that's about it.
Overall, my view is that your list is basically saying 'nerf every popular deck in half a dozen ways so that they're wholly unplayable' - which really doesn't chime with your claim to be salt-free. That is not balancing - that's see-sawing.
I am not salty I just see that those decks are way too dominant, and Elise is too good of a 2 drop, I play fearsome/spiders/hecarim for a while so I am asking to nerf the deck I am playing cause I feel it's too strong, losing stuff in the mirror.. well Elise is part of the mirror lol.
I prefer to predict more nerfs that not also I don't claim ALL card should be nerfed just predicting what Riot might do.
In league balance when Riot nerfs something they nerf a lot of aspects of that something, also sometimes buff other aspects in the same time (see: aatrox and akali nerfs).
I don't believe it would make the decks unplayable, currently fearsome decks are over represented in the meta (Around 40% pick in masters according to swim), if you nerf 3 cards in the deck the deck is still really powerful.
Agree with basically everything in the OP. Would also add that I'd like for Play mode to remember whether I last played Ranked or Casual when clicking it rather than defaulting to Casual every time, because I can see myself accidentally queueing Casual and spending an hour being very pleased with myself before realising my error (this has happened on HS ¬.¬).
When making a deck, number of card copies displayed is inconsistent - if you have one or two copies it'll show the number you have (or the number you have left), while if you have three copies it won't display a number at all. I realise that's because if you have three copies you have functionally infinite copies (since you can only run three), but it's inconsistent to not display the number (and can make it slightly more difficult to tell how many of a given card you have in the deck at a glance).
In general: for spells and effects that do multiple things, the game tends to err on the side of doing what it can and NOT fizzling--e.g., if I play an Augmented Experimenter to deal 3, discard, and draw, but then my opponent interrupts with a Glimpse Beyond on the damage target, I still discard and draw.
The exceptions I know about are Vile Feast (no healing or spiderling if target dies first) and Glimpse Beyond (no cards if target dies first), and I think that's because the concept is that the target is specifically fueling the other results.
In the SI cards' cases, it's because of the word 'to' in the text. You have to do the former to trigger the latter.
I hadn't really thought about this up to this point, but it's a valid consideration. It does seem like an odd inconsistency given Shadowshift's use in battle (and thematic feel). If I had to give a technical answer I'd argue that the original target leaves the field before the Shadow replaces it, leaving a gap during which time the targeted spell has no target and fizzles... but I have difficulty convincing myself to agree with it.
Given the choice of which to change for consistency, though, I'd lean towards changing Stand United to align with Shadowshift. It's already horribly expensive for such a niche card, I don't see why it couldn't be given an additional use-case.
Agreed that it should be visible to the player - the main difficulty (I'd assume) is the way of creating visual clarity. At a glance, it'd be easy to miss the negative number there - and it'd be usually more impactful to mistake a negative number for a positive one than to see a buff/nerf interaction like this one.
I'd say put the negative number in but give negatives a unique colour palette (say, white text on black background? Not sure how that is for visually impaired people) to make it clear there's something going on.
In general, you want more third copies of the better cards instead of so many doubles.
I know. Extreme loss aversion: I HATE opening 4th copies from vaults/rewards when I'm still missing so much, which makes me really anxious about crafting a third copy of anything. And it doesn't help that, as you said, this isn't the best meta for a knockoff/budget Jinx deck to begin with. :-P
I'll probably take a more serious look at my options after this week's vault. And probably something around Braum, since he's been performing a lot better for me lately--either buffing my Braum/Garen control deck or taking a leap and experimenting with Braum/Vlad.
Prior warning - due to every Elusive deck having Braum crowbarred into it in the opening weeks, a lot of decks are running Rimefang Wolf lately which shuts down Braum hard.
Eh, it's arguably underwhelming, but for something we didn't really expect and we paid nothing for it's fine. Custom VOs would probably have a disproportionate cost-benefit given they'd need to get the VA talent back in for it (I presume aren't all Blizzard employees).
Guess why anivia was nerfed to 7 mana from 6? yep this combo.
it's too memey because dusk and dawn only works with high mana cost comboes otherwise it's not that great, and it's a slow spell so Deny exists.. when Deny gets nerfed maybe it will be used more.
We need a peper thread for LoR.
I mean... it wasn't this combo, because 6 -> 7 doesn't stop you doing it, just shifts it back a turn. And it was part of an overall rework rather than just a nerf.
Bystekhilcar has a point in that we're kind of moving away from the original intention of the thread. However, I think examining the card as a whole has merit.
I really like a suggestion that I've read in a different thread (the patch predictions, I believe): Make Ledros bounce to the top of its owner's deck instead of their hand. Boom, suddenly the immense card advantage Ledros generates is gone. If your opponent keeps playing him turn after turn, they at least won't accumulate additional cards. He might still be a bit too strong and need some tweaking from there, but I think it'd be a great start to balancing Ledros while preserving his identity.
He should really return to the top of the deck instead, that way you can’t play him the turn he dies (and he doesn’t give you “card draw” when he dies
That was actually a thought bouncing around my head after revisiting the Ledros thread this morning. Wouldn't be a bad idea as a change, though I wonder if it would make him unplayable.
Re: rest of OP's list:
- My main point - we're not going to see any sweeping changes at this point. For all that I rip on Rito's revolving door balance strategy, they have at least shown via TFT that they're capable of patience when a meta is still in heavy flux. At release (not all that long ago, really) we had a lot of Elusive complaints and they were flooding the meta - nerf calls abound. Fast forward to now, the meta has responded; Elusive isn't top of the pile because other things have risen up to counter them.
- Major disagreement with any Lux changes. She's fine at doing what she does, as what she is - which is a lower-risk lower-reward Heimer.
- Major disagreement with basically the entire bottom half of your post. Elusives don't need nerfing at this stage as meta shifts show they're clearly counterable. Elise nerf would render her wholly unplayable as she'd lose far too much in the mirror - if time suggests spiders need a nerf they can be hit in other ways. I could maybe get behind nerfs to Rhasa and Cursed Keeper, but that's about it.
Overall, my view is that your list is basically saying 'nerf every popular deck in half a dozen ways so that they're wholly unplayable' - which really doesn't chime with your claim to be salt-free. That is not balancing - that's see-sawing.
There are a lot of battlecry minions in the meta at the moment. A deck that generates lackeys for example can often play multiple per turn. So building/selecting a deck with a lot of battlecries is not that hard. But still, 50 minions is a lot for 50 gold; I agree that 30 would have been more in line with the other quest goals.
does united stand negates spells?
thanks guys, it would be cool if it negates but atleast now i know not to use it against recall it will be good against challangers trough.
What is the story behind your username?
1000 wins hero rewards
Oooh... I didn't even notice :o
Too entranced by all the fire everywhere
Also, here the awesome zoomed out version
Relenless pursuit
Are you looking at an old version of the card? I thought they replaced all mentions of "Ready your attack" with the keyword "Rally," with fairly good helptext: "If you don't have one, gain the attack token. You can attack this round."
Commander Ledros ought to round down
There's a real irony in dropping an anecdote shortly after saying "When it comes to analysis, 'practical examples' are better known as 'anecdotal evidence' and are generally worthless." It's quite possible that your opponent played Ledros specifically because he or she had no counter-buffs, so Ledros was the only play left, and that your anecdote could just as easily have played out in your favor with a chump block instead. There's no way to know.
To be clear on this, I'm not against removing Fearsome - in fact, I think it's a good idea - but the idea that it will make blocking "more interesting" seems ridiculous. Giving your opponent more burn tools/card advantage in almost universally bad in card games. The trade you described in your anecdote only works when that burn can't kill you, or when you can attack back for lethal before your opponent does anything, so if anything it's the exception rather than the rule.
Perhaps removing the Fearsome tag is enough to rebalance Ledros' impact on the metagame, but the infinite burn is part of an overall massively OP package that suppresses even the strongest control strategies.
Relenless pursuit
Get an attack token, you may declare attack when it's your turn.
Relenless pursuit
It gives you the attack token
My predictions for changes we are going to see this Tuesday
I am not salty I just see that those decks are way too dominant, and Elise is too good of a 2 drop, I play fearsome/spiders/hecarim for a while so I am asking to nerf the deck I am playing cause I feel it's too strong, losing stuff in the mirror.. well Elise is part of the mirror lol.
I prefer to predict more nerfs that not also I don't claim ALL card should be nerfed just predicting what Riot might do.
In league balance when Riot nerfs something they nerf a lot of aspects of that something, also sometimes buff other aspects in the same time (see: aatrox and akali nerfs).
I don't believe it would make the decks unplayable, currently fearsome decks are over represented in the meta (Around 40% pick in masters according to swim), if you nerf 3 cards in the deck the deck is still really powerful.
Relenless pursuit
what is the meaning of "ready your attack" ? tks
I present you, true sadness
Yeah, had already exhausted most of my removal, only having very few cards left in deck :
User Interface Wishlist
Agree with basically everything in the OP. Would also add that I'd like for Play mode to remember whether I last played Ranked or Casual when clicking it rather than defaulting to Casual every time, because I can see myself accidentally queueing Casual and spending an hour being very pleased with myself before realising my error (this has happened on HS ¬.¬).
When making a deck, number of card copies displayed is inconsistent - if you have one or two copies it'll show the number you have (or the number you have left), while if you have three copies it won't display a number at all. I realise that's because if you have three copies you have functionally infinite copies (since you can only run three), but it's inconsistent to not display the number (and can make it slightly more difficult to tell how many of a given card you have in the deck at a glance).
does united stand negates spells?
In the SI cards' cases, it's because of the word 'to' in the text. You have to do the former to trigger the latter.
Shadowshift Cancelling Targeted Spells
I hadn't really thought about this up to this point, but it's a valid consideration. It does seem like an odd inconsistency given Shadowshift's use in battle (and thematic feel). If I had to give a technical answer I'd argue that the original target leaves the field before the Shadow replaces it, leaving a gap during which time the targeted spell has no target and fizzles... but I have difficulty convincing myself to agree with it.
Given the choice of which to change for consistency, though, I'd lean towards changing Stand United to align with Shadowshift. It's already horribly expensive for such a niche card, I don't see why it couldn't be given an additional use-case.
Attack power can go negative :-(
Agreed that it should be visible to the player - the main difficulty (I'd assume) is the way of creating visual clarity. At a glance, it'd be easy to miss the negative number there - and it'd be usually more impactful to mistake a negative number for a positive one than to see a buff/nerf interaction like this one.
I'd say put the negative number in but give negatives a unique colour palette (say, white text on black background? Not sure how that is for visually impaired people) to make it clear there's something going on.
Doomed game
The bait post is real.
I present you, true sadness
F
When deck building defies logic
Prior warning - due to every Elusive deck having Braum crowbarred into it in the opening weeks, a lot of decks are running Rimefang Wolf lately which shuts down Braum hard.
1000 wins hero rewards
Eh, it's arguably underwhelming, but for something we didn't really expect and we paid nothing for it's fine. Custom VOs would probably have a disproportionate cost-benefit given they'd need to get the VA talent back in for it (I presume aren't all Blizzard employees).
Aggro Dragon Hunter [Muzzy / Orange]
or Big Ol' Whelp
Dusk and Dawn OOPPPP
I mean... it wasn't this combo, because 6 -> 7 doesn't stop you doing it, just shifts it back a turn. And it was part of an overall rework rather than just a nerf.
Commander Ledros ought to round down
Bystekhilcar has a point in that we're kind of moving away from the original intention of the thread. However, I think examining the card as a whole has merit.
I really like a suggestion that I've read in a different thread (the patch predictions, I believe): Make Ledros bounce to the top of its owner's deck instead of their hand. Boom, suddenly the immense card advantage Ledros generates is gone. If your opponent keeps playing him turn after turn, they at least won't accumulate additional cards. He might still be a bit too strong and need some tweaking from there, but I think it'd be a great start to balancing Ledros while preserving his identity.
My predictions for changes we are going to see this Tuesday
That was actually a thought bouncing around my head after revisiting the Ledros thread this morning. Wouldn't be a bad idea as a change, though I wonder if it would make him unplayable.
Re: rest of OP's list:
- My main point - we're not going to see any sweeping changes at this point. For all that I rip on Rito's revolving door balance strategy, they have at least shown via TFT that they're capable of patience when a meta is still in heavy flux. At release (not all that long ago, really) we had a lot of Elusive complaints and they were flooding the meta - nerf calls abound. Fast forward to now, the meta has responded; Elusive isn't top of the pile because other things have risen up to counter them.
- Major disagreement with any Lux changes. She's fine at doing what she does, as what she is - which is a lower-risk lower-reward Heimer.
- Major disagreement with basically the entire bottom half of your post. Elusives don't need nerfing at this stage as meta shifts show they're clearly counterable. Elise nerf would render her wholly unplayable as she'd lose far too much in the mirror - if time suggests spiders need a nerf they can be hit in other ways. I could maybe get behind nerfs to Rhasa and Cursed Keeper, but that's about it.
Overall, my view is that your list is basically saying 'nerf every popular deck in half a dozen ways so that they're wholly unplayable' - which really doesn't chime with your claim to be salt-free. That is not balancing - that's see-sawing.
Play 50 Battlecry minions to get 50 gold?!?!
There are a lot of battlecry minions in the meta at the moment. A deck that generates lackeys for example can often play multiple per turn. So building/selecting a deck with a lot of battlecries is not that hard. But still, 50 minions is a lot for 50 gold; I agree that 30 would have been more in line with the other quest goals.
Why isn't Scuttlegeist a Spider?
To be fair to the OP, I made that same mistake initially. It feels like it should be a Spider, though it's clearly not. *shrug*
Aggro Hunter cards.
So I've been trying some more things.
1) Added Frenzied Felwing -> removed 1x Timber Wolf and 1x Unleash the Hounds
2) Added Blazing Battlemage -> removed Leper Gnome
3) Added Waterboy -> Removed Kobold Sandtrooper
4) Added second Tracking -> Removed Snake Trap
These changes make the deck a whole lot faster and I feel it has increased my winrate. Thoughts?