On the topic of broken cards, I would argue that many of them are just inherently problematic cards that should be nerfed anyway, for the sake of Wild balance. For the examples brought up, one of them (Bloodbloom) has already been nerfed for being too broken, and the other (Animated Armor) is also a card that has no competitive viability outside of some broken combo, and so should also probably be reworked.
@Angry Shuckie
Your point on Dual-class taking away from the point of playing a class, I do feel that it is valid for some players, but other players care more about playing specific cards rather than a specific class. For example, I enjoy playing Thief rogue cards, and I don't particularly care about having Dagger Mastery as my Hero Power or playing the other Rogue cards. Also, some archetypes (like Gonk Druid or Heal Druid) have cards dedicated to those specific archetypes that will never see play because the archetype was never supported again. The only way for me to play a card like Crystal Stag or Lucentbark would be by either combining it with a class like Priest that has the necessary heal cards to make the archetype work, or by combining the heal cards with a class like Warlock that can guarantee that I'll take damage.
I definitely agree that it should be a Tavern Brawl first before it could become a game mode, but I don't think that it would be an inherently degenerate game mode. Sure, there would be a lot more annoying combos, but wild also has a lot of powerful combos and it still manages to be a somewhat balanced format. Even though there might be some amazing combos, aggro players would also have access to more powerful aggro tools, so the meta would stabilize at a higher power level (similar to wild).
On the point of it not feeling like you're really playing a "Control Hunter" deck if you're using mostly cards from another class, that is a valid point, but given that dual-class would be an additional game mode on top of normal Hearthstone, you could just play normal Standard and make a Control Hunter deck with just Hunter cards. Adding this mode would just be giving players additional options, so I think it could only be counted as a mistake if it were to be an unfun game mode that only splits the player base. To combat this, I think maybe only Standard dual-class Hearthstone could be introduced, to keep the player base large and prevent some of the more insanely broken combo decks (like secret mage with Hanar).
From reading Fizz’s text you can see that it triggers whenever you cast a spell and stops spells currently targeting him, and doesn’t grant Fizz spell-protection
Fizz only counters spells currently targeting him. Every time your opponent tries to remove it, you have to cast another spell, even if you already cast on that turn.
This would create 36 different two class combinations (or 72 if you count choosing a Hero Power as making it a different combination), which creates a lot more possibilities and allows for cards that would otherwise never see play to potentially become part of an amazing deck. Also, this would allow players to play with their favorite class, even if it’s not the best at the time, because they could combine it with a class with better cards. For example, during times in which Priest is awful, you could play a control warrior deck with some of your favorite priest cards included.
I think that in order for Hearthstone to be more fun and have higher deck diversity, they need to introduce a dual-class mode. A dual-class mode allows for cards that would otherwise see absolutely no play to become a part of a viable deck. For example, the quest “The Last Kaleidosaur” was never viable, because Paladin simply didn’t possess enough buff cards. However, if Paladins were able to choose priest as a second class, they could add more buff cards and complete the quest earlier. The same goes for other archetypes like no-spell mage or or Deathrattle rogue, which could have been a lot better with access to tools from another class.
Secondly, dual-class allows for the player to choose which of the two Hero Powers they want, allowing for the creation of archetypes like Control Hunter or Aggro Priest that are limited by their Hero Power.
The Main issue with a dual-class mode is that it would remove some class identity, but as a separate optional mode I think it would open up a lot of deckbuilding possibilities and create 2 more metas for players to solve (standard and wild dual-class) which would make the game feel a lot more fresh and varied.
I redesigned this so that it was more consistent yet still interactive. Basically, you would play minions with high health (or heal/buff minions) so that on your opponent's turn they have to kill it or damage it enough so that it won't hit them for huge amounts of damage. Because this Hero Power could be very bad in certain game states, the Alchemist also adds an 'Experiment complete!" spell to your hand, so that you can switch back if necessary.
I think you should remove the ability to turn it off. It's a very powerful effect, andif you somehow get trapped in a bad situation because of your choices you shouldn't be able to bail out of it for free: you should be punished appropriately.
At least, that's my two cents. I made this card for my Lich class, and the common thread of feedback was that it was too strong if it had an Attack stat, in-part because you can then get out of the effect when things stop going your way:
I'm learning from that and trying to pass it along, I guess lol.
Thanks for the advice! I think I will remove the way to switch back, I already felt the card might be too good so that’s a nice change I can make. Also, this way the opponent can counter the alchemist by removing your board and then leaving you without a Hero Power.
I redesigned this so that it was more consistent yet still interactive. Basically, you would play minions with high health (or heal/buff minions) so that on your opponent's turn they have to kill it or damage it enough so that it won't hit them for huge amounts of damage. Because this Hero Power could be very bad in certain game states, the Alchemist also adds an 'Experiment complete!" spell to your hand, so that you can switch back if necessary.
A deck using this would be similar to a Lady in White deck, but because the Hero Power effect only happens at the start of your turn, the opponent would be able to react to it by damaging the minion, and it couldn't be used to OTK someone. Should it cost 0 or is 1 good enough?
Im about 90% certain that it still counts as a Spider, given that Purify specifies “Text and Keywords” and does NOT include faction. I’m also pretty sure that if you silence a Spider while Elise on the the board the spider should also keep its Fearsome and challenger, so if “Everywhere” is intended to work like an aura from a spell, purify really shouldn’t remove the buff.
Given that Freljord isn't a key part of any meta deck (endure spiders doesn't really count as Frelyord) I thought of some buffs that might the region more playable
Catalyst of Aeons becomes 5 Mana "Gain an empty mana gem and heal your Nexus 5. Enlightened: Draw a unit with 5+ Power"
-This change would make Catalyst a lot better once you've reached 10 mana crystals, at which point the current Catalyst becomes "5 Mana Heal 3", which is awful and game-losing. The additional heal would help Freljord stabilize against aggro better without having to run Shadow Isles.
Troop of Elnuks becomes a 4 Mana 3/3 with "Play: Draw 2 Elnuks in the top 10 cards in your deck. Give all other Elnuks everywhere +1/+1.
-This change would make Elnuk shuffle decks a possibility, because it would give them access to more card draw and would make playing a ton of Elnuks a viable strategy, as they would grow bigger and bigger. I think this version would not be able to be run without shuffle support, but if it were proven too powerful, it could be changed to draw from the top 6 cards instead.
Kindly Tavernkeeper becomes a 3 Mana 2/4 with "Play: Heal an ally or your Nexus 4."
-This would make the tavernkeeper a consideration in Freljord decks, and would help make Freljord one of the Healing Regions, which could lead to it being incorporated in some decks that would have otherwise used Shadow Isles for healing.
Entreat becomes 2 Mana "Draw a Champion. Enlightened: Give it +1|+1"
-This change buffs up Entreat just a little bit, and contributes more to the buffing and Enlightenment archetypes, which do not currently seem to be working.
This change would make it easier to enable Unscarred Reaver, and make her more powerful when she actually does get damaged. This is helpful because without Challenger Unscarred reaver can stay as a 0/3 for a really long time, and even when she does get damaged she can get killed by a 2/1, making it almost impossible to successfully attack with her. With this buff, the Scars deck could become potentially viable. This could make her too good against 1/1s, in which case her health could be reduced to 2
-This change would make Tarkaz better by requiring your opponent to actually block him instead of just using a 1/1. This change could possibly make him too good though, in which case his health could be lowered to 7.
So what do you all think about these changes? Would it be enough to make Freljord viable, or did I miss some key cards that need to be buffed?
I had another Idea for a Druid card that could help both quests:
For the old quest it would provide two 5 Attack minions, and for the new quest it would provide a lot of value, since it would essentially draw 3 cards.
I agreed with your comment that it doesn't really help Untapped Potential decks, so I made this version that could act as a finisher with cards like Oasis Surger in Untapped Potential Druid, and maybe even motivate them to run more Choose One minions instead of mainly Spells. I kept this version as a 5/3 because it seems a lot better. Do you think I should change the design to fit with Untapped Potential, or is it okay if it mainly synergizes with just one quest?
Based on your suggestion I made this new version of the card. Now it can be used offensively to let your 5+ Attack minions rush down your opponent's board (but with the downside of potentially letting them hit back with 5+ Attack minions of their own) or it can be used defensively to give your big minions Taunt, with the downside that it might block you from attacking their face. Since it's an aura, you can choose when to kill it off to stop the effect, and your opponent can kill it with a spell to potentially get through your taunts.
Do you think it's too weak and should have 4 Health, or would that be too much?
Maybe pilfered goods should be 4 Mana “draw 2 non-champions from the bottom of the enemy deck. Plunder: They cost 1 less”? That way it’s more like a smaller Progress day that draws worse cards.
Also, I think the reason that Pilfer cards take cards from the enemy deck is that it’s meant to make a combo with Maokai.
The idea behind this card is that you could use it in Jungle Giants Druid to draw a lot of Cards (which is especially good when you've completed the quest and your minions cost 0) or you could use it in Untapped Potential Druid as a 4 mana 5/4 that can potentially draw you a few cards (notably, it does not trigger off of itself, since it specifies "other minions", but it does trigger off of enemy minions)
Just to respond to your point on Riot’s Wilcard purchasing cap being removed, I’m pretty sure that it’s safe to say that they did not remove the cap in order to make more money. Actually, LoR initially had no way to buy wildcards, until playtesters told Riot that they wanted to be able to buy wildcards to skip Progression. Without wildcards, newer players, especially ones coming to the game in a few years, would have absolutely no way to catch up with older players. Buying cards is a necessary part of any card game, so Riot was forced to add that ability.
Now on to removing the wildcard cap. The reason Riot removed the cap was that it did not actually serve to limit how much someone could spend on the game. Players could just buy the max wildcards each week, then save them up to buy the entire next expansion when it released. The wildcard cap only limits how fast newer players can buy cards, so it fails at its job and only causes frustration and harms new players. Riot could have done something like limit how many wildcards you can purchase over the course of an expansion or something, but they ultimately decided to allow players to decide for themselves how much they want to spend. Because you can get the entire expansion just through playing the game, wildcards serve to hasten Progression in LoR, instead of being the only way to play the expansion, like in HS. Overall, I thought you brought up some good points, but Riot’s monetization scheme is not exploitative, and HS could learn a lot from them, if Blizzard ever decided to try to build and retain a fan base instead of seeking short term profit.
In terms of playing against Ruination, the best thing to do is to force your opponent to play Ruination by threatening lethal while still keeping some powerful units in hand. Since most SI decks will run a maximum of 1, maybe 2 Ruinations, once you've managed to bait out one you should be able to develop the board again and kill them without being punished. Open-attacking without playing a unit on your attack turn is also good if you suspect a ruination. You can also play a deck that wins through methods other than units, such as an Ezreal-Karma deck or Corina Control. You could also play shadow isles decks that run cards like Ledros that aren't punished by Ruination.
On the topic of broken cards, I would argue that many of them are just inherently problematic cards that should be nerfed anyway, for the sake of Wild balance. For the examples brought up, one of them (Bloodbloom) has already been nerfed for being too broken, and the other (Animated Armor) is also a card that has no competitive viability outside of some broken combo, and so should also probably be reworked.
@Angry Shuckie
Your point on Dual-class taking away from the point of playing a class, I do feel that it is valid for some players, but other players care more about playing specific cards rather than a specific class. For example, I enjoy playing Thief rogue cards, and I don't particularly care about having Dagger Mastery as my Hero Power or playing the other Rogue cards. Also, some archetypes (like Gonk Druid or Heal Druid) have cards dedicated to those specific archetypes that will never see play because the archetype was never supported again. The only way for me to play a card like Crystal Stag or Lucentbark would be by either combining it with a class like Priest that has the necessary heal cards to make the archetype work, or by combining the heal cards with a class like Warlock that can guarantee that I'll take damage.
I definitely agree that it should be a Tavern Brawl first before it could become a game mode, but I don't think that it would be an inherently degenerate game mode. Sure, there would be a lot more annoying combos, but wild also has a lot of powerful combos and it still manages to be a somewhat balanced format. Even though there might be some amazing combos, aggro players would also have access to more powerful aggro tools, so the meta would stabilize at a higher power level (similar to wild).
On the point of it not feeling like you're really playing a "Control Hunter" deck if you're using mostly cards from another class, that is a valid point, but given that dual-class would be an additional game mode on top of normal Hearthstone, you could just play normal Standard and make a Control Hunter deck with just Hunter cards. Adding this mode would just be giving players additional options, so I think it could only be counted as a mistake if it were to be an unfun game mode that only splits the player base. To combat this, I think maybe only Standard dual-class Hearthstone could be introduced, to keep the player base large and prevent some of the more insanely broken combo decks (like secret mage with Hanar).
From reading Fizz’s text you can see that it triggers whenever you cast a spell and stops spells currently targeting him, and doesn’t grant Fizz spell-protection
Fizz only counters spells currently targeting him. Every time your opponent tries to remove it, you have to cast another spell, even if you already cast on that turn.
This would create 36 different two class combinations (or 72 if you count choosing a Hero Power as making it a different combination), which creates a lot more possibilities and allows for cards that would otherwise never see play to potentially become part of an amazing deck. Also, this would allow players to play with their favorite class, even if it’s not the best at the time, because they could combine it with a class with better cards. For example, during times in which Priest is awful, you could play a control warrior deck with some of your favorite priest cards included.
I think that in order for Hearthstone to be more fun and have higher deck diversity, they need to introduce a dual-class mode. A dual-class mode allows for cards that would otherwise see absolutely no play to become a part of a viable deck. For example, the quest “The Last Kaleidosaur” was never viable, because Paladin simply didn’t possess enough buff cards. However, if Paladins were able to choose priest as a second class, they could add more buff cards and complete the quest earlier. The same goes for other archetypes like no-spell mage or or Deathrattle rogue, which could have been a lot better with access to tools from another class.
Secondly, dual-class allows for the player to choose which of the two Hero Powers they want, allowing for the creation of archetypes like Control Hunter or Aggro Priest that are limited by their Hero Power.
The Main issue with a dual-class mode is that it would remove some class identity, but as a separate optional mode I think it would open up a lot of deckbuilding possibilities and create 2 more metas for players to solve (standard and wild dual-class) which would make the game feel a lot more fresh and varied.
Thanks for the advice! I think I will remove the way to switch back, I already felt the card might be too good so that’s a nice change I can make. Also, this way the opponent can counter the alchemist by removing your board and then leaving you without a Hero Power.
I redesigned this so that it was more consistent yet still interactive. Basically, you would play minions with high health (or heal/buff minions) so that on your opponent's turn they have to kill it or damage it enough so that it won't hit them for huge amounts of damage. Because this Hero Power could be very bad in certain game states, the Alchemist also adds an 'Experiment complete!" spell to your hand, so that you can switch back if necessary.
A deck using this would be similar to a Lady in White deck, but because the Hero Power effect only happens at the start of your turn, the opponent would be able to react to it by damaging the minion, and it couldn't be used to OTK someone. Should it cost 0 or is 1 good enough?
Im about 90% certain that it still counts as a Spider, given that Purify specifies “Text and Keywords” and does NOT include faction. I’m also pretty sure that if you silence a Spider while Elise on the the board the spider should also keep its Fearsome and challenger, so if “Everywhere” is intended to work like an aura from a spell, purify really shouldn’t remove the buff.
Given that Freljord isn't a key part of any meta deck (endure spiders doesn't really count as Frelyord) I thought of some buffs that might the region more playable
Catalyst of Aeons becomes 5 Mana "Gain an empty mana gem and heal your Nexus 5. Enlightened: Draw a unit with 5+ Power"
-This change would make Catalyst a lot better once you've reached 10 mana crystals, at which point the current Catalyst becomes "5 Mana Heal 3", which is awful and game-losing. The additional heal would help Freljord stabilize against aggro better without having to run Shadow Isles.
Troop of Elnuks becomes a 4 Mana 3/3 with "Play: Draw 2 Elnuks in the top 10 cards in your deck. Give all other Elnuks everywhere +1/+1.
-This change would make Elnuk shuffle decks a possibility, because it would give them access to more card draw and would make playing a ton of Elnuks a viable strategy, as they would grow bigger and bigger. I think this version would not be able to be run without shuffle support, but if it were proven too powerful, it could be changed to draw from the top 6 cards instead.
Kindly Tavernkeeper becomes a 3 Mana 2/4 with "Play: Heal an ally or your Nexus 4."
-This would make the tavernkeeper a consideration in Freljord decks, and would help make Freljord one of the Healing Regions, which could lead to it being incorporated in some decks that would have otherwise used Shadow Isles for healing.
Entreat becomes 2 Mana "Draw a Champion. Enlightened: Give it +1|+1"
-This change buffs up Entreat just a little bit, and contributes more to the buffing and Enlightenment archetypes, which do not currently seem to be working.
Unscarred Reaver gains Challenger
This change would make it easier to enable Unscarred Reaver, and make her more powerful when she actually does get damaged. This is helpful because without Challenger Unscarred reaver can stay as a 0/3 for a really long time, and even when she does get damaged she can get killed by a 2/1, making it almost impossible to successfully attack with her. With this buff, the Scars deck could become potentially viable. This could make her too good against 1/1s, in which case her health could be reduced to 2
Tarkaz the Tribeless gains Overwhelm
-This change would make Tarkaz better by requiring your opponent to actually block him instead of just using a 1/1. This change could possibly make him too good though, in which case his health could be lowered to 7.
So what do you all think about these changes? Would it be enough to make Freljord viable, or did I miss some key cards that need to be buffed?
I had another Idea for a Druid card that could help both quests:
For the old quest it would provide two 5 Attack minions, and for the new quest it would provide a lot of value, since it would essentially draw 3 cards.
I agreed with your comment that it doesn't really help Untapped Potential decks, so I made this version that could act as a finisher with cards like Oasis Surger in Untapped Potential Druid, and maybe even motivate them to run more Choose One minions instead of mainly Spells. I kept this version as a 5/3 because it seems a lot better. Do you think I should change the design to fit with Untapped Potential, or is it okay if it mainly synergizes with just one quest?
Based on your suggestion I made this new version of the card. Now it can be used offensively to let your 5+ Attack minions rush down your opponent's board (but with the downside of potentially letting them hit back with 5+ Attack minions of their own) or it can be used defensively to give your big minions Taunt, with the downside that it might block you from attacking their face. Since it's an aura, you can choose when to kill it off to stop the effect, and your opponent can kill it with a spell to potentially get through your taunts.
Do you think it's too weak and should have 4 Health, or would that be too much?
Maybe pilfered goods should be 4 Mana “draw 2 non-champions from the bottom of the enemy deck. Plunder: They cost 1 less”? That way it’s more like a smaller Progress day that draws worse cards.
Also, I think the reason that Pilfer cards take cards from the enemy deck is that it’s meant to make a combo with Maokai.
The idea behind this card is that you could use it in Jungle Giants Druid to draw a lot of Cards (which is especially good when you've completed the quest and your minions cost 0) or you could use it in Untapped Potential Druid as a 4 mana 5/4 that can potentially draw you a few cards (notably, it does not trigger off of itself, since it specifies "other minions", but it does trigger off of enemy minions)
Just to respond to your point on Riot’s Wilcard purchasing cap being removed, I’m pretty sure that it’s safe to say that they did not remove the cap in order to make more money. Actually, LoR initially had no way to buy wildcards, until playtesters told Riot that they wanted to be able to buy wildcards to skip Progression. Without wildcards, newer players, especially ones coming to the game in a few years, would have absolutely no way to catch up with older players. Buying cards is a necessary part of any card game, so Riot was forced to add that ability.
Now on to removing the wildcard cap. The reason Riot removed the cap was that it did not actually serve to limit how much someone could spend on the game. Players could just buy the max wildcards each week, then save them up to buy the entire next expansion when it released. The wildcard cap only limits how fast newer players can buy cards, so it fails at its job and only causes frustration and harms new players. Riot could have done something like limit how many wildcards you can purchase over the course of an expansion or something, but they ultimately decided to allow players to decide for themselves how much they want to spend. Because you can get the entire expansion just through playing the game, wildcards serve to hasten Progression in LoR, instead of being the only way to play the expansion, like in HS. Overall, I thought you brought up some good points, but Riot’s monetization scheme is not exploitative, and HS could learn a lot from them, if Blizzard ever decided to try to build and retain a fan base instead of seeking short term profit.
In terms of playing against Ruination, the best thing to do is to force your opponent to play Ruination by threatening lethal while still keeping some powerful units in hand. Since most SI decks will run a maximum of 1, maybe 2 Ruinations, once you've managed to bait out one you should be able to develop the board again and kill them without being punished. Open-attacking without playing a unit on your attack turn is also good if you suspect a ruination. You can also play a deck that wins through methods other than units, such as an Ezreal-Karma deck or Corina Control. You could also play shadow isles decks that run cards like Ledros that aren't punished by Ruination.
This would make the game slightly more balanced, but I think it would make a lot of champions too consistent