But since the devs are so incredibly reluctant with nerfs in Wild, WHILE being also so eager to release stupidly out-of-place-cards (Arcane Flakmage shouldn't exist at all), a hard-rule would fix the issue now, AND in the future as well, with future flawed cards.
In other words, they release flawed cards and they know it. Things are ok until a synergy abuses the flaw to its full potential. A hard-rule would proactively fix the flaw, by preventing it from becoming real (in Combo with other cards), whenever in time, for any present and future card.
I also dislike hitting Exodia Mage or other OTK with what i proposed, as well as QMage (which is one of my preferred decks ever) but since i have no faith in them applying the right nerfs in Wild, and since i am 100% sure that new flaws would appear not far in the future, because of their inherently flawed design policy, i would go with some brutal hard-rule, and be done with it.
If you think the devs don't care about wild at all, why on earth would they institute a rule-change with wide-ranging consequences for all hearthstone formats on behalf of wild? Why would that be more plausible than targeted nerfs to cards that only exist/see play in wild? That doesn't follow for me at all. I agree that the devs are rather conservative, but that would make them less inclined to go for radical changes, not more so.
With enough nagging from the community, Barnes got nerfed even though Res Priest was not a problem in terms of balance. It was and is vastly overrepresented despite being Tier 2. It might come at a glacial pace, but the devs do, sometimes, make changes for wild.
Sniplock is probably the biggest problem, but Secret Mage (post SoU) and Mechadin (post Crystology-completely-unnecessary-buff) are also broken (not just OP, but broken).
All these three decks are capable of repeated insane spikes of power. Unhealthy for fun purposes.
All of them revolve around discounting specific cards to (0).
Wild needs a new hard-rule: no card can be discounted below (1) mana.
Additionally: make Sap and Beneath the Grounds into reasonable Neutral legendary Battlecry cards ffs.
That couple of things together would fix Wild for a very long while, avoiding spikes, and allowing any deck a tech card against major synergies. No nerf required.
Right now Wild at rank 5 and higher is a complete trashbin. No variety is possible at all (unless you like to suffer), against those meta-warping topdecks.
Isn't the problem really with passive reduction auras (Mechwarper, portal, Sorcerer's Apprentice, etc.) more than one-time cost reductions like Galvaniser, Emperor T and the like? I think that by instituting a hard rule against reducing cards to zero a lot of non-problematic OTK comboes would become collateral damage.
It's not the most elegant solution, but I think adding the line "this cannot reduce a card's cost below (1)" as and when needed is the least invasive fix. For example, I'm not convinced that adding the line to Sorcerer's apprentice is the best solution as the card has been central to just about every mage deck in the game. I think it'd be better to target key cards in the secretmage deck with nerfs than to take out a card that's crucial to cyclonemage, freezemage, Exodia mage, etc.
You cant change it so why whine/debate about it? No one is going to read this thread and feel guilty about playing a tier 1 deck in casual, and you're only reaching a minority of hearthstone players on these forums anyways. So this conversation will have about zero impact.
People will do what they want to do ;)
Sort of the same thing as complaining about netdecking in general.
This is a monumentally dumb argument to make when pressure from the community has resulted in balance and gameplay changes in the past, the most unanimous being the premature rotation of Genn and Baku. While you can't pinpoint that decision to any one complaint or discussion thread, it's asinine to pretend that the cumulative effect of tweets, discussion threads, youtube commentary videos and other forms of feedback didn't influence the decision.
This type of argument from apathy is hardly ever a good argument to make, because it concedes the main point that there is a problem, only to argue that the problem can't be solved and therefore should be ignored. But it's an especially bad argument to make when several counterexamples exist to prove that it's possible to address the problem. Just the other day one of the devs commented on a possible future Mogu Fleshshaper nerf: https://outof.cards/hearthstone/459-mogu-fleshshaper-may-be-too-powerful. Guess what? We had a thread over here discussing Mogu where people were making this same defeatist non-argument.
If you genuinely think words on the internet cannot influence others, why are you putting words on the internet urging others to change their behaviour? Do you not see the contradiction there?
I imagine people who drafted a deck with the class bonus still in place will be at a huge advantage against players with significantly less class cards, given that neutrals tend to be weaker on average.
It's probably good that they didn't announce this oopsie as it seems pretty exploitable.
I could see this turned into a 6 mana 3/3 or an 8 mana 4/4 as an immediate "fix". It doesn't really change anything other than the fact that you won't evolve into the most juicy mana cost.
But as a more substantive fix, I wouldn't mind seeing minions remember how much mana they were actually played for rather than their printed-on manacost, at least while they remain in play. This gets rid of the most degenerate exploits involving discountable minions(Mountain Giant, Mogu, and friends) without touching the individual power level of those cards, only the ability to do yucky comboes like evolve or conjuring.
Necroing this thread just to gloat and feel vindicated:
"I think with Shaman currently, there's some gameplay patterns that we aren't the most happy with, I think when you do have an eight-Mana minion that you evolved [from] a Mogu Fleshshaper on turn four, that's not a healthy gameplay pattern. I think that's going to be a card going into Descent of Dragons that we're definitely going to keep an eye on.
I think when it comes to some of these effects that cheat Mana and do things like that early on, that's something that we're looking at as a team and we're making sure that these effects aren't ruining your gameplay experience. So, we are definitely aware of it, and we're definitely going to be keeping our eye on a few cards going into the next expansion to see how their power level shakes out." - Alec Dawson
Even if they end up not nerfing Mogu, it's just mighty ironic to hear game devs echo the kinds arguments that get you dismissed as a whiny loser by a certain section of the community.
Been playing a bit of OTK Paladin now that Sathrovarr has been released and I have to say I'm impressed. I thought it would feel like a win-more card but it really isn't: it adds a huge spike/recovery turn that would otherwise cost you half of your combo damage to pull off before you empty your deck. Not only that, the sheer value of the card gives you some amount of lategame reach beyond the combo itself.
What did you cut for it?
I'm not running Emperor T which I see some people playing, and only one Flash of Light. It's probably easier to just post my own little homegrown list because there's a lot of ways you can tweak the deck. I'm by no means claiming that this is an optimised decklist by the way; I've only really started playing OTK pally now that Sathrovarr has made it OP.
Been playing a bit of OTK Paladin now that Sathrovarr has been released and I have to say I'm impressed. I thought it would feel like a win-more card but it really isn't: it adds a huge spike/recovery turn that would otherwise cost you half of your combo damage to pull off before you empty your deck. Not only that, the sheer value of the card gives you some amount of lategame reach beyond the combo itself.
The fact that you can summon 14/21 points of rushing, lifestealing damage and still have Shirvallahs left over for your bankers to copy makes this guy a must in OTK paladin and might make it the deck to beat, at least until the full set releases.
Edit: Sathrovarr might also make a pretty good card for quest druid as long as [Hearthstone Card (Kun, the Forgotten King) Not Found] remains in standard. Not only is it great tempo and value to clone your Kun, the extra armor allows you to get out of reach of OTK paladin's burn, which can be pretty tricky if you're relying only on Hidden Oasis and Ferocious Howl.
I find it funny that this would probably be a better card if it just dealt 6 damage to face instead of summoning leper gnomes. At the stage of the game where' you're using hero power turn after turn to close out the game, you typically can't afford to wait one extra turn to cash in the leper deathrattles. I get what the designers were going for but this is just too slow and gimmicky to be playable as a 'nuke'.
For me simply opening and closing the deck got rid of the error for most golden cards. Oddly I had to open and close the decks twice to get the game to register a golden Sea Giant, but I haven't had to actually take cards out of decks to fix the glitch.
If you open your decks in the deck editor the missing card error should disappear. Although for me for whatever reason I had to do this twice before the game recognised my golden Sea Giant (oddly enough, the plain Giant was recognised the first time around).
Oh well, I assume these things will be sorted out soon either way.
I don't know about you guys but I'm seeing this message at the bottom of the battlenet app: "We are aware of an issue affecting our authentication servers, which may result in slow or failed login attempts. We are currently investigating the cause and will provide updates as they are available. Please follow @BlizzardCSEU_EN on Twitter for further updates."
Presumably since quests are tied to accounts, they're bugging out as well. I assume things will get fixed soon.
Very few decks can deal with a turn 2 fairie dragon. It's been in and out of the deck for months, but Rogue hasn't been in the best spot lately so it hasn't shown up that much.
The way I read how the candles work is they trigger and summon waxxadred once drawn. Then they draw the next card. Just like the 4/4 spiders from KnC. So in the end you always draw a card after Myras. So this play wouldn't be fatigue proof imo.
If you fill your hand to ten before adding the candles you burn them one at a time instead of drawing through the lot.
But that's a very fringe scenario, hardly something worth pursuing as a win condition. Sometimes relevant against bomb warrior though.
It's not really possible to know whether this will see play until we see the full set of invoke cards as well as all the different Galakrond hero power/invoke effects. Bear in mind that the invoke effect only has to generate 2 mana worth of stuff to make this card cost effective, which is incidentally how much hero powers cost, and upgraded hero powers actually tend to be worth about 2 mana.
Four mana for a 2/2 rush, 2 1/1 Imps and a tick on my Galakrond counter doesn't sound like a horrible deal, for example.
I see how you did the math but the galakrond hero powers are not really worth the full 2 mana, it's still an hero power..
add random priest card to your hand is similar to the 1 mana classic rng cards.
add a random lackey to your hand is a 1 mana effect (Sinister Deal)
so I can assume this card is just not cost efficient but as I said if you really want more invokers this is probably the last one you add as a 2/2 rush is QUITE garbage.. but maybe the warrior one has synergy with rush cards so it might be worthwhile in warrior
or maybe shaman gets really expensive ones and you want to use this in quest shaman for the double battlecry (depends on how strong galakrond is you might want quest for mid game and galakrond as finisher, remember the galakrond effect is a battlecry, 9 mana double galakrond might be game winnning if it deals face damage or something).
Or maybe you want ALL the invokers in the deck for some reason, I mean if the payoff for invoking twice is as good as the 2 cards we saw that do that maybe you really just want all of them no matter how mediocre they are.
Cards that combine more than one effect tend to cost an extra 0.5-1 mana relative to what the effects would be worth if they were printed on individual cards. For example, take novice engineer: 'Draw 1' is worth 1 mana, a 1/1 is worth less than one, but combine the two together and 1/1: draw a card for 2 is fair. On top of that power per mana and power per card tend to be negatively correlated: the more value-per-card, the less power-per-mana and vice versa. Holy smite has a 2:1 damage to mana ratio, Fireball is 3:2, Pyroblast is 1:1. This is because card economy matters: you have a limited deck size and limited draws. If you have only cheap, efficient cards in your deck you will run out of value in long games, that's a fundamental balancing principle in games like Hearthstone.
Lost in The Jungle costs one mana and a card slot in your deck/hand.1/1s generated from invokes are "free".
you do get the 2 1/1 imps I am not sure if the 1/1 becomes 3/1 at least and if you summon 2/1 imps on the spell it makes sense they do trigger at the same time since then the cards have synergy with themselves and MAKE SENSE but such effects were removed from the game when kobolds came out (example: when you Call to Arms a Wild Pyromancer it doesn't trigger it's effect).
every "invoke galakarond" reads "use galakarond's hero power" as well so every card gets a bonus..
that means rogue got a way to generate waaay more lackeys.
priest gets a lot of random priest minions (goes well with Princess Talanji)
and warlock gets a ton of imps.. guess Rafaam's Scheme was indeed imp focused after all.
Minions with 'Battlecry: invoke' will be summoned onto the field before their battlecry, thus invoke effect, is triggered. That's not analogous to the interaction between Call to arms and Pyro at all. Dragonblight Cultist should become a 3/1 if you play him in a Galakrond (warlock) deck.
As for spells, the invoke should occur simultaneously unless the card specifically states otherwise. I assume the designers were smart enough to design around this though, given that these are all cards from the same set. I doubt they'd print something as obviously counter-synergistic as a hellfire with Invoke for warlock, say.
This is a Value card, as most Sidequests will be by design.
However minor, it requires setup, so it does nothing the turn it is played (poor Tempo), EXCEPT from turn-9 and later, which can still be considered as a Value move, within the economy of HS.
All in all, these cards can only fit Midrange or Control decks.
To be seen if worthy of the slot tho. Probably only specific Midrange/Control will benefit from them, despite the condition being quite generic.
UNLESS an efficient tutor is printed.
Learn Draconic might not be a tempo play, but the turn it activates it's a huge tempo swing, effectively a zero mana 6/6. In that sense it can be compared to cards like Arcane Tyrant and Anubisath Sentinel. Now I happen to think that 8 mana is just a pinch too much to make this card good in tempo mage decks(at 7 it'd be a LOT easier to complete with 2 spells by turn 4), not to mention the fact that that deck lacks a certain Flamewaker at the moment, but it's a mistake to look at Learn Draconic as just value. The fact that you can "pay" for your dragon over a number of turns while using that mana to draw cards, kill minions, deal damage, etc. makes this side-quest a very powerful tempo-swing.
This could be pretty good to set up an AoE swing turn with Flamestrike or Blizzard. Sticking a 6/6 on an empty board is a lot more threatening than playing it into enemy minions, even if you're playing control.
It should be in the post right above yours. Is it not showing on your end
If you think the devs don't care about wild at all, why on earth would they institute a rule-change with wide-ranging consequences for all hearthstone formats on behalf of wild? Why would that be more plausible than targeted nerfs to cards that only exist/see play in wild? That doesn't follow for me at all. I agree that the devs are rather conservative, but that would make them less inclined to go for radical changes, not more so.
With enough nagging from the community, Barnes got nerfed even though Res Priest was not a problem in terms of balance. It was and is vastly overrepresented despite being Tier 2. It might come at a glacial pace, but the devs do, sometimes, make changes for wild.
Isn't the problem really with passive reduction auras (Mechwarper, portal, Sorcerer's Apprentice, etc.) more than one-time cost reductions like Galvaniser, Emperor T and the like? I think that by instituting a hard rule against reducing cards to zero a lot of non-problematic OTK comboes would become collateral damage.
It's not the most elegant solution, but I think adding the line "this cannot reduce a card's cost below (1)" as and when needed is the least invasive fix. For example, I'm not convinced that adding the line to Sorcerer's apprentice is the best solution as the card has been central to just about every mage deck in the game. I think it'd be better to target key cards in the secretmage deck with nerfs than to take out a card that's crucial to cyclonemage, freezemage, Exodia mage, etc.
This is a monumentally dumb argument to make when pressure from the community has resulted in balance and gameplay changes in the past, the most unanimous being the premature rotation of Genn and Baku. While you can't pinpoint that decision to any one complaint or discussion thread, it's asinine to pretend that the cumulative effect of tweets, discussion threads, youtube commentary videos and other forms of feedback didn't influence the decision.
This type of argument from apathy is hardly ever a good argument to make, because it concedes the main point that there is a problem, only to argue that the problem can't be solved and therefore should be ignored. But it's an especially bad argument to make when several counterexamples exist to prove that it's possible to address the problem. Just the other day one of the devs commented on a possible future Mogu Fleshshaper nerf: https://outof.cards/hearthstone/459-mogu-fleshshaper-may-be-too-powerful. Guess what? We had a thread over here discussing Mogu where people were making this same defeatist non-argument.
If you genuinely think words on the internet cannot influence others, why are you putting words on the internet urging others to change their behaviour? Do you not see the contradiction there?
I imagine people who drafted a deck with the class bonus still in place will be at a huge advantage against players with significantly less class cards, given that neutrals tend to be weaker on average.
It's probably good that they didn't announce this oopsie as it seems pretty exploitable.
I could see this turned into a 6 mana 3/3 or an 8 mana 4/4 as an immediate "fix". It doesn't really change anything other than the fact that you won't evolve into the most juicy mana cost.
But as a more substantive fix, I wouldn't mind seeing minions remember how much mana they were actually played for rather than their printed-on manacost, at least while they remain in play. This gets rid of the most degenerate exploits involving discountable minions(Mountain Giant, Mogu, and friends) without touching the individual power level of those cards, only the ability to do yucky comboes like evolve or conjuring.
Necroing this thread just to gloat and feel vindicated:
"I think with Shaman currently, there's some gameplay patterns that we aren't the most happy with, I think when you do have an eight-Mana minion that you evolved [from] a Mogu Fleshshaper on turn four, that's not a healthy gameplay pattern. I think that's going to be a card going into Descent of Dragons that we're definitely going to keep an eye on.
I think when it comes to some of these effects that cheat Mana and do things like that early on, that's something that we're looking at as a team and we're making sure that these effects aren't ruining your gameplay experience. So, we are definitely aware of it, and we're definitely going to be keeping our eye on a few cards going into the next expansion to see how their power level shakes out." - Alec Dawson
https://outof.cards/hearthstone/459-mogu-fleshshaper-may-be-too-powerful
Even if they end up not nerfing Mogu, it's just mighty ironic to hear game devs echo the kinds arguments that get you dismissed as a whiny loser by a certain section of the community.
I'm not running Emperor T which I see some people playing, and only one Flash of Light. It's probably easier to just post my own little homegrown list because there's a lot of ways you can tweak the deck. I'm by no means claiming that this is an optimised decklist by the way; I've only really started playing OTK pally now that Sathrovarr has made it OP.
Been playing a bit of OTK Paladin now that Sathrovarr has been released and I have to say I'm impressed. I thought it would feel like a win-more card but it really isn't: it adds a huge spike/recovery turn that would otherwise cost you half of your combo damage to pull off before you empty your deck. Not only that, the sheer value of the card gives you some amount of lategame reach beyond the combo itself.
The fact that you can summon 14/21 points of rushing, lifestealing damage and still have Shirvallahs left over for your bankers to copy makes this guy a must in OTK paladin and might make it the deck to beat, at least until the full set releases.
Edit: Sathrovarr might also make a pretty good card for quest druid as long as [Hearthstone Card (Kun, the Forgotten King) Not Found] remains in standard. Not only is it great tempo and value to clone your Kun, the extra armor allows you to get out of reach of OTK paladin's burn, which can be pretty tricky if you're relying only on Hidden Oasis and Ferocious Howl.
I find it funny that this would probably be a better card if it just dealt 6 damage to face instead of summoning leper gnomes. At the stage of the game where' you're using hero power turn after turn to close out the game, you typically can't afford to wait one extra turn to cash in the leper deathrattles. I get what the designers were going for but this is just too slow and gimmicky to be playable as a 'nuke'.
My quests are up now.
For me simply opening and closing the deck got rid of the error for most golden cards. Oddly I had to open and close the decks twice to get the game to register a golden Sea Giant, but I haven't had to actually take cards out of decks to fix the glitch.
If you open your decks in the deck editor the missing card error should disappear. Although for me for whatever reason I had to do this twice before the game recognised my golden Sea Giant (oddly enough, the plain Giant was recognised the first time around).
Oh well, I assume these things will be sorted out soon either way.
I don't know about you guys but I'm seeing this message at the bottom of the battlenet app: "We are aware of an issue affecting our authentication servers, which may result in slow or failed login attempts. We are currently investigating the cause and will provide updates as they are available. Please follow @BlizzardCSEU_EN on Twitter for further updates."
Presumably since quests are tied to accounts, they're bugging out as well. I assume things will get fixed soon.
Very few decks can deal with a turn 2 fairie dragon. It's been in and out of the deck for months, but Rogue hasn't been in the best spot lately so it hasn't shown up that much.
If you fill your hand to ten before adding the candles you burn them one at a time instead of drawing through the lot.
But that's a very fringe scenario, hardly something worth pursuing as a win condition. Sometimes relevant against bomb warrior though.
Cards that combine more than one effect tend to cost an extra 0.5-1 mana relative to what the effects would be worth if they were printed on individual cards. For example, take novice engineer: 'Draw 1' is worth 1 mana, a 1/1 is worth less than one, but combine the two together and 1/1: draw a card for 2 is fair. On top of that power per mana and power per card tend to be negatively correlated: the more value-per-card, the less power-per-mana and vice versa. Holy smite has a 2:1 damage to mana ratio, Fireball is 3:2, Pyroblast is 1:1. This is because card economy matters: you have a limited deck size and limited draws. If you have only cheap, efficient cards in your deck you will run out of value in long games, that's a fundamental balancing principle in games like Hearthstone.
Lost in The Jungle costs one mana and a card slot in your deck/hand.1/1s generated from invokes are "free".
Minions with 'Battlecry: invoke' will be summoned onto the field before their battlecry, thus invoke effect, is triggered. That's not analogous to the interaction between Call to arms and Pyro at all. Dragonblight Cultist should become a 3/1 if you play him in a Galakrond (warlock) deck.
As for spells, the invoke should occur simultaneously unless the card specifically states otherwise. I assume the designers were smart enough to design around this though, given that these are all cards from the same set. I doubt they'd print something as obviously counter-synergistic as a hellfire with Invoke for warlock, say.
Learn Draconic might not be a tempo play, but the turn it activates it's a huge tempo swing, effectively a zero mana 6/6. In that sense it can be compared to cards like Arcane Tyrant and Anubisath Sentinel. Now I happen to think that 8 mana is just a pinch too much to make this card good in tempo mage decks(at 7 it'd be a LOT easier to complete with 2 spells by turn 4), not to mention the fact that that deck lacks a certain Flamewaker at the moment, but it's a mistake to look at Learn Draconic as just value. The fact that you can "pay" for your dragon over a number of turns while using that mana to draw cards, kill minions, deal damage, etc. makes this side-quest a very powerful tempo-swing.
This could be pretty good to set up an AoE swing turn with Flamestrike or Blizzard. Sticking a 6/6 on an empty board is a lot more threatening than playing it into enemy minions, even if you're playing control.