From my experience I'm fairly confident that a significant number of the 'play X champions from Y/Z regions' quests are bugged and actually increment from playing against those champions. Either the quests are broken or someone misssed a word or two when writing the descriptions.
Now this I agree with, as it's consistent with the Overwhelm treatment. The wording states that the damage is negated, and if the damage is negated then it isn't dealt. If damage isn't dealt, no draining is done. It's also consistent with Lifesteal, because a Lifesteal follower hitting a Barrier will not heal the Nexus.
Logically, the opposite of the bold part would be true: In order to negate something, that thing has to exist in the first place. "Negate" doesn't mean "erase from existence." It means "cause to be ineffective or invalid." Barrier takes damage that does exist and renders it ineffective -- it makes it so that damage is not subtracted from the unit's health.
If this is inconsistent with Lifesteal, however, that does feel like a bug one way or the other.
I really don't know about that. I don't think the answer to the question lies with drilling down into exact wording definitions (as it might in a physical card game). I think simplifying the question works far better - 'is damage dealt Y/N' - if barrier then N, so no healing.
I would also note that unless I'm wholly incorrect, I'm fairly sure Tough does in fact reduce healing from Drain (pretty sure that came up in an Expedition the other night).
When burst cards are played in battle phase, you DO get another turn to counter-play. You just can't stop them from resolving with deny.
I think the point is more that you can't remove before the Burst happens. So in the specified example, Stand Alone will trigger before you can remove with (say) Mystic Shot
did you know that if the egg get destroyed she doesnt come back ?
Yeah. I've never actually seen an Anivia egg get destroyed (neither my own nor my opponent's), but I've always assumed that's how she was designed. Hence my comment that she's "very hard to take out permanently" - your opponent either has to eliminate her in battle and then hit her with a damage spell, or they need to use 2 removal spells in the same turn. But making her fully indestructable surely would've been too much.
Never? :o
Aside from removal, Rally with Challengers works fine as well. Popped an egg last night thanks to Fiora with a Relentless Pursuit.
On topic : At this point I've gotten to 7 wins with most strategies at one time or another (not bragging - I play a LOT of expeditions, it's going to happen sooner or later). My pointers:
- Demacia and Freljord tend towards the most splashable followers that can fit into any deck archetype, so picking one of those regions' champions early is wise
- Fiora win conditions almost never work unless they're Judgment-reliant, but what they do do is force your opponent into extended spell trades which is often beneficial to the Demacia player, who will typically have better follower statlines
- Certain champions are really good if you can put together a deck emphasizing their effects, but this is very hard to do early on; look to build a solid foundation with your starting deck and transition to supporting those champions properly over time. Notable examples are Ezreal and Yasuo
- Heimer decks are actually surprisingly strong in Expedition. I wasn't expecting it to be the case, but so long as you either bait early removal or run cards that can deny the kill (or revive him after the fact) you can ride all the way to value town.
- Hecarim is honestly pretty crazy even as a generalist in Expedition. Belonging to the region that gets Rekindler means you can freely revive him over and over while flinging him at face Nexus with reckless abandon. Add a Shark Chariot or two and he becomes pretty obnoxious.
My top five champions to pick - Tryndamere, Hecarim, Garen, Katarina, Braum
My worst five champions to pick - Ezreal, Teemo, Darius, Draven, Shen
Without details I can't easily comment, but on Jinx specifically, she's a really sketchy strategy to run to be honest. She's fun to play when she works, but your entire deck revolves around finding her, playing her and keeping her alive. The second one of those three things fails, the entire deck falls apart because you're playing a deck designed to burn cards without the tools that sustain that strategy. So, it's possible you're losing games because you're going all-in on a really unreliable strategy.
Can't really comment on the Braum/Garen deck without details, beyond confirming that Braum is on the strong side at the moment in general and so may be carrying you :P
Read the wording on Barrier. It specifically states that it prevents the next damage that would be dealt to this minion. That qualifier is in there for a reason. If a 5-attack Overwhelm hits an ally with 3 health, that ally will take 3 damage and the Nexus will take 2. Logically, from the wording of Barrier, the 3 damage will be prevented but not the 2. I must apologise to Riot on this score, as I had previously suggested that the wording should be updated to prevent this confusion, but on checking realised the wording was already correct.
If, on the other hand, you're suggesting that this should be implemented as a balance change rather than a gameplay clarity one, I would disagree. There's nothing to suggest either Keyword needs balancing work right now.
Quote From Author
Drain should not heal if hitting a Barrier
Now this I agree with, as it's consistent with the Overwhelm treatment. The wording states that the damage is negated, and if the damage is negated then it isn't dealt. If damage isn't dealt, no draining is done. It's also consistent with Lifesteal, because a Lifesteal follower hitting a Barrier will not heal the Nexus.
The one caveat I'll say to the above is I don't actually recall seeing this interaction in game yet, so I'm not 100% convinced that actually is how Drain is working right now - it wouldn't be the first time someone posted convinced they saw an interaction they didn't. But assuming it works as posted, that feels inconsistent.
Quote From Author
Killing Barrier cards
I can't really tell what you're trying to say on this point. If you're saying 'this is the incorrect interaction', then no, you're wrong. Barrier wording negates damage, wheras kill effects remove without dealing damage. Rules working perfectly as written.
If you're saying it should be different then all I can really say is I wholly disagree. I'm not seeing any reason right now to wholesale buff Barrier cards without data.
I'm not suggesting you remove him. I'm suggesting that when your opponent is running an extremely inefficient 8-drop onto the board, your corresponding board play should be stronger. If it isn't, the burn effect is doing little beyond clocking you one turn faster - you're still going to lose to the board. Similarly, if you're losing because you're both down to topdecks and he can bounce Ledros as well as play off his deck, you're again not losing to the burn - you're losing to the bounce. In either circumstance, the burn is entirely incidental - it's the other parts of the follower that are causing you problems, but you're targeting the burn as the part to be concerned about.
Keywords aren't an issue, necessarily. As noted by others, Elusive is something that needs watching, Deny is something that needs watching. None of the other things you list are even things to think about in terms of busted stuff, let alone worry about.
It's a ridiculous endgame win condition that's barely counterable. Outside of purifying or freeze/stun stalling you can't really deal with him.
And ofc he has fearsome so you can't even chump block him.
He's basically a champion with an epic tag
The counter, at that point, is that your opponent is spending eight mana on a burn effect and an 8/6 fearsome.
If you're still losing the board when they're doing that with their turns, you'd be losing either way. 6+ mana effects are phenomenally powerful in this game, and this one is entirely a burn win condition. As to the thread title - as above, really. If you're at 1 HP, literally any burn will kill you. Who cares if it's an 8-drop, you're dead to a stiff breeze.
Honestly, in a meta where aggression and Elusive are strong, to be complaining about a phenomenally slow, inefficient burn mechanism is endlessly confusing to me.
It's a pretty strong card in and of itself. Honestly it's strong just as a 3/3 that nerfs opponents' cards for a turn, the +1/+0 is a sidenote which isn't particularly necessary. It really messes with Demacia in particular due to its reliance on value trading.
Was making a trash account somewhere, needed a name, let my mind wander. For some reason recalled a daycare I passed on the way to my workplace at the time, 'Step By Step Childcare'. Removed some letters, moved things around a little... there y'go.
Coming off the back of a 7/7 double win (which, admittedly, is not the norm), I can't say I've ever really had issues with Noxian aggro decks in Expedition. I have struggled with Lucian-centric Demacian variants, though, which play similarly - just dependent on keywords rather than stats. I would actually say that early game is something you need only so much of and no more - I find aggro decks don't make it very deep in.
In my experience lately, the vast majority of decks wind up roughly in the 'midrange' camp, so you need a couple firm late-game win conditions or just sheer superior value to carry through.
(Also, if Riot makes a habit of nerfing cards into unplayability or letting a broken meta fester, the problem is bigger than some silly refund can solve.)
They do certainly have a history of doing that on League... just ask Evelynn or Olaf :P
Personally I don't rate the card. It's removal which punishes a lack of removal, and which is, in turn, punished by removal. Running an expensive Deny target which is also ruined by the opponent including cards which they really should be including in their deck is just disrepectful, in my opinion, and asking to be punished. There's also the issue of it shifting your own prioritisation with the Capture target - putting the enemy follower under one of your better allies simply makes them a bigger removal target. Putting them under a weaker ally makes it easier to negate the Capture (as generally a lower value unit will have lower health), and also stop you using them as chaff (or indeed, ever attacking with them, really).
I'm not saying it's unplayable, and if it's what you've got, sure. But in a hypothetical world where you have every card, it's never making it into a deck for me.
I continue to be firmly confident in the meta resolving itself without balance changes. Probably in the form of Hecarim-centric Ephemeral decks steamrolling the Elusives.
I feel like you are making a pretty big assumption here -- namely that Riot achieved the uncanny feat of getting the balance exactly right after exactly one balance patch following a very limited pre-beta event.
The whole point of beta is to fix bugs and address balance problems that come to light when large numbers of players start playing your game.
Riot's stated goal is to have about 10 different decks showing strong representation in the meta at any given time. We are obviously not there yet, and I don't think the meta is going to self-correct enough to get us there unless Elusive takes a hit.
I would argue that the biggest assumption of all is that balance really exists. I'm not saying that the meta will resolve into a floating 50/50 winrate state for everything across the board. What I am saying is that if you fast forward to three months from now, if no changes were made, I don't believe Elusive decks would still be top of the meta.
In my view, gamers - across all games, not just this one - are far too quick to scream for nerfs instead of exploring counters.
1. That is not what non-interactive means. Spider decks are the opposite of non-interactive because they block your attacks with chaff, level Elise to get Challenger, then use that to force you to interact with them.
2. They're not particularly dangerous since they tend to run out of steam pretty hard.
3. Losing to a deck doesn't mean it needs nerfing.
I continue to be firmly confident in the meta resolving itself without balance changes. Probably in the form of Hecarim-centric Ephemeral decks steamrolling the Elusives.
It amuses me greatly to see nerfs line up for demons given that over the past couple months they've had to delete one archetype and nerf all the others before they got to this state.
Sure, they're geographically co-located. But geography isn't really something you will, or indeed can really notice in the context of a card game. The point of the post I'm replying to is indicating that they're similar-but-opposites in exactly the same way Demacia and Noxus are, with geography not coming into it at all - so yeah, my post remains valid.
The Thresh's expression certainly seems more exasperated or questioning rather than threatening. Much more of a 'CLICK THE LANTERN YOU FOOL' than a 'this is where you're going' image. Which makes zero sense in a LoR context, of course.
From my experience I'm fairly confident that a significant number of the 'play X champions from Y/Z regions' quests are bugged and actually increment from playing against those champions. Either the quests are broken or someone misssed a word or two when writing the descriptions.
I really don't know about that. I don't think the answer to the question lies with drilling down into exact wording definitions (as it might in a physical card game). I think simplifying the question works far better - 'is damage dealt Y/N' - if barrier then N, so no healing.
I would also note that unless I'm wholly incorrect, I'm fairly sure Tough does in fact reduce healing from Drain (pretty sure that came up in an Expedition the other night).
I think the point is more that you can't remove before the Burst happens. So in the specified example, Stand Alone will trigger before you can remove with (say) Mystic Shot
Never? :o
Aside from removal, Rally with Challengers works fine as well. Popped an egg last night thanks to Fiora with a Relentless Pursuit.
On topic : At this point I've gotten to 7 wins with most strategies at one time or another (not bragging - I play a LOT of expeditions, it's going to happen sooner or later). My pointers:
- Demacia and Freljord tend towards the most splashable followers that can fit into any deck archetype, so picking one of those regions' champions early is wise
- Fiora win conditions almost never work unless they're Judgment-reliant, but what they do do is force your opponent into extended spell trades which is often beneficial to the Demacia player, who will typically have better follower statlines
- Certain champions are really good if you can put together a deck emphasizing their effects, but this is very hard to do early on; look to build a solid foundation with your starting deck and transition to supporting those champions properly over time. Notable examples are Ezreal and Yasuo
- Heimer decks are actually surprisingly strong in Expedition. I wasn't expecting it to be the case, but so long as you either bait early removal or run cards that can deny the kill (or revive him after the fact) you can ride all the way to value town.
- Hecarim is honestly pretty crazy even as a generalist in Expedition. Belonging to the region that gets Rekindler means you can freely revive him over and over while flinging him at face Nexus with reckless abandon. Add a Shark Chariot or two and he becomes pretty obnoxious.
My top five champions to pick - Tryndamere, Hecarim, Garen, Katarina, Braum
My worst five champions to pick - Ezreal, Teemo, Darius, Draven, Shen
Without details I can't easily comment, but on Jinx specifically, she's a really sketchy strategy to run to be honest. She's fun to play when she works, but your entire deck revolves around finding her, playing her and keeping her alive. The second one of those three things fails, the entire deck falls apart because you're playing a deck designed to burn cards without the tools that sustain that strategy. So, it's possible you're losing games because you're going all-in on a really unreliable strategy.
Can't really comment on the Braum/Garen deck without details, beyond confirming that Braum is on the strong side at the moment in general and so may be carrying you :P
Summarising so as to save space:
Read the wording on Barrier. It specifically states that it prevents the next damage that would be dealt to this minion. That qualifier is in there for a reason. If a 5-attack Overwhelm hits an ally with 3 health, that ally will take 3 damage and the Nexus will take 2. Logically, from the wording of Barrier, the 3 damage will be prevented but not the 2. I must apologise to Riot on this score, as I had previously suggested that the wording should be updated to prevent this confusion, but on checking realised the wording was already correct.
If, on the other hand, you're suggesting that this should be implemented as a balance change rather than a gameplay clarity one, I would disagree. There's nothing to suggest either Keyword needs balancing work right now.
Now this I agree with, as it's consistent with the Overwhelm treatment. The wording states that the damage is negated, and if the damage is negated then it isn't dealt. If damage isn't dealt, no draining is done. It's also consistent with Lifesteal, because a Lifesteal follower hitting a Barrier will not heal the Nexus.
The one caveat I'll say to the above is I don't actually recall seeing this interaction in game yet, so I'm not 100% convinced that actually is how Drain is working right now - it wouldn't be the first time someone posted convinced they saw an interaction they didn't. But assuming it works as posted, that feels inconsistent.
I can't really tell what you're trying to say on this point. If you're saying 'this is the incorrect interaction', then no, you're wrong. Barrier wording negates damage, wheras kill effects remove without dealing damage. Rules working perfectly as written.
If you're saying it should be different then all I can really say is I wholly disagree. I'm not seeing any reason right now to wholesale buff Barrier cards without data.
I'm not suggesting you remove him. I'm suggesting that when your opponent is running an extremely inefficient 8-drop onto the board, your corresponding board play should be stronger. If it isn't, the burn effect is doing little beyond clocking you one turn faster - you're still going to lose to the board. Similarly, if you're losing because you're both down to topdecks and he can bounce Ledros as well as play off his deck, you're again not losing to the burn - you're losing to the bounce. In either circumstance, the burn is entirely incidental - it's the other parts of the follower that are causing you problems, but you're targeting the burn as the part to be concerned about.
Keywords aren't an issue, necessarily. As noted by others, Elusive is something that needs watching, Deny is something that needs watching. None of the other things you list are even things to think about in terms of busted stuff, let alone worry about.
The counter, at that point, is that your opponent is spending eight mana on a burn effect and an 8/6 fearsome.
If you're still losing the board when they're doing that with their turns, you'd be losing either way. 6+ mana effects are phenomenally powerful in this game, and this one is entirely a burn win condition. As to the thread title - as above, really. If you're at 1 HP, literally any burn will kill you. Who cares if it's an 8-drop, you're dead to a stiff breeze.
Honestly, in a meta where aggression and Elusive are strong, to be complaining about a phenomenally slow, inefficient burn mechanism is endlessly confusing to me.
It's a pretty strong card in and of itself. Honestly it's strong just as a 3/3 that nerfs opponents' cards for a turn, the +1/+0 is a sidenote which isn't particularly necessary. It really messes with Demacia in particular due to its reliance on value trading.
Was making a trash account somewhere, needed a name, let my mind wander. For some reason recalled a daycare I passed on the way to my workplace at the time, 'Step By Step Childcare'. Removed some letters, moved things around a little... there y'go.
Coming off the back of a 7/7 double win (which, admittedly, is not the norm), I can't say I've ever really had issues with Noxian aggro decks in Expedition. I have struggled with Lucian-centric Demacian variants, though, which play similarly - just dependent on keywords rather than stats. I would actually say that early game is something you need only so much of and no more - I find aggro decks don't make it very deep in.
In my experience lately, the vast majority of decks wind up roughly in the 'midrange' camp, so you need a couple firm late-game win conditions or just sheer superior value to carry through.
They do certainly have a history of doing that on League... just ask Evelynn or Olaf :P
Personally I don't rate the card. It's removal which punishes a lack of removal, and which is, in turn, punished by removal. Running an expensive Deny target which is also ruined by the opponent including cards which they really should be including in their deck is just disrepectful, in my opinion, and asking to be punished. There's also the issue of it shifting your own prioritisation with the Capture target - putting the enemy follower under one of your better allies simply makes them a bigger removal target. Putting them under a weaker ally makes it easier to negate the Capture (as generally a lower value unit will have lower health), and also stop you using them as chaff (or indeed, ever attacking with them, really).
I'm not saying it's unplayable, and if it's what you've got, sure. But in a hypothetical world where you have every card, it's never making it into a deck for me.
I would argue that the biggest assumption of all is that balance really exists. I'm not saying that the meta will resolve into a floating 50/50 winrate state for everything across the board. What I am saying is that if you fast forward to three months from now, if no changes were made, I don't believe Elusive decks would still be top of the meta.
In my view, gamers - across all games, not just this one - are far too quick to scream for nerfs instead of exploring counters.
1. That is not what non-interactive means. Spider decks are the opposite of non-interactive because they block your attacks with chaff, level Elise to get Challenger, then use that to force you to interact with them.
2. They're not particularly dangerous since they tend to run out of steam pretty hard.
3. Losing to a deck doesn't mean it needs nerfing.
I continue to be firmly confident in the meta resolving itself without balance changes. Probably in the form of Hecarim-centric Ephemeral decks steamrolling the Elusives.
It amuses me greatly to see nerfs line up for demons given that over the past couple months they've had to delete one archetype and nerf all the others before they got to this state.
Sure, they're geographically co-located. But geography isn't really something you will, or indeed can really notice in the context of a card game. The point of the post I'm replying to is indicating that they're similar-but-opposites in exactly the same way Demacia and Noxus are, with geography not coming into it at all - so yeah, my post remains valid.
The Thresh's expression certainly seems more exasperated or questioning rather than threatening. Much more of a 'CLICK THE LANTERN YOU FOOL' than a 'this is where you're going' image. Which makes zero sense in a LoR context, of course.