The text of Mageseeker Investigator is ambiguous. "Cast" is intended as past tense here, which is fine, but it could be taken to mean "if you cast a spell later."
Obviously, if you give it some thought, it would be very strange if it worked that way, but new players aren't known for giving anything any thought.
This can all be cleared up if they just change it to: "If you have cast a spell ..."
"Deal 4 damage to a unit. If that unit dies, deal excess damage to the enemy Nexus"
Sorry if this sounds nitpicky, but I'd like to point out that "If that unit dies" is a problematic way of wording it; after all, the excess damage applies to the nexus in full if the unit is removed (e.g. recalled) by other means before Final Spark resolves.
In general, however, I think your idea is sound.
I respect the intent, but the proposed change does nothing to circumvent the perceived problem with fizzle (a perception I still do not share).
At issue is the fact that, upon Karma's second casting of the spell, there is no unit at all. At that point, you're not talking about "excess damage"; you're talking about all the damage, from a targeted spell that lacks a target.
Accepting a novel definition of Overwhelm fixes this, but "if that unit dies/is removed" does not, because the unit is already gone before the spell is cast, and this wording says nothing about not fizzling when the spell lacks a target.
If one honestly accepts fizzle consistency as a problem here, one cannot honestly accept this wording as a solution. The real solution to that "problem" would be a much wordier card requiring a far pickier level of rules detail than any card should ever have.
Quote From meisterz39To your second point, don't think it's really possible to just let Runeterra be Runeterra. It exists in a highly saturated CCG marketplace, with lots of people coming to it after years of playing games like Hearthstone and MTG. These kinds of preconceived understandings and comparisons exist for a reason, and I think Riot knows they're operating within them. In fact, I think they said they were highly inspired by those games, and so these comparisons are in many ways built in.
But that raises the question of keywords that are already inconsistent across different games. Is there a consensus about which is the "master" game, whose template other games are expected to follow? You might be tempted to say that should obviously be Magic, but there are plenty of players who have never played that, particularly in the PC and mobile markets.
I don't mind the interaction (and have defended similar in the past), BUT ... because so many of these weird corner cases keep throwing people, I think there should be an in-game tip somewhere that "Zero damage still counts as damage." Maybe even part of a tutorial?
I think there's a real problem here with respect to the Overwhelm keyword. It's clearly intended to match the Trample keyword in MTG,
That's actually a pretty big assumption, considering how many other aspects of the game fail to map exactly to their Magic or Hearthstone counterparts. Maybe it's better to just let Runeterra be Runeterra and discard expectations that are based on other games.
In the end, once you know how Final Spark works, you're not likely to forget it, so maybe this isn't a great hill to die on? I don't think we're likely to see a lot of Overwhelm spells in the future, so it's probably a moot point.
I can see a case for making Relentless Pursuit a Slow spell, but the mana cost is fine as is.
For Elusives, they should just make it part of the keyword that Elusive units can block (and be blocked by) other Elusives only.
I considered that one too, but it does nerf some cards that are completely fine otherwise for no reason (such as The Empyrean, who is pretty expensive and would be completely pointless if he only ever acted as a mediocre beater, same goes for other stuff like Silverwing Vanguard, etc.) I'd rather keep it limited to the early-game elusives that promote aggressive strategies.
So give those cards a little buff, or lower their cost. I don't really care for The Empyrean being just a big elusive thing that's otherwise vanilla. It needs an ability anyway. And did you mean Silverwing ScoutBADCARDNAME? Just give it Challenger!
I don'T get triple Glimpse Beyond when you barely even run any tokens that you would want to sacrifice at any point
It's worth playing anytime your opponent is getting a free kill, whether that be by a damage spell, or a frostbitten unit about to die in combat, or simply when you have to chump block for some reason.
This is the way Shadow Isles draws cards, and it's a lot better than not drawing cards.
Because it's currently the only burn spell in the game with Overwhelm, I don't think it's correct to say the interaction is wrong. It just proves that Overwhelm takes precedence over fizzle, that's all. It's not like the fizzle rules are written down anywhere. If they were written down, they might say, "If a spell's target no longer exists when it's time for the spell to resolve, the spell will fizzle unless it has Overwhelm, in which case it will affect the enemy Nexus if possible."
As long as any future Overwhelm burn spells behave the same, it's totally fine.
Regarding The Rekindler, I don't think it would be appropriate to nerf it unless you can come up with a couple of other decks where it's truly oppressive.
If Hecarim is pretty much the only time Rekindler is a problem, that points to the real problem being Hecarim. In fact, Rekindler could make a good canary in the coal mine for detecting troublesome Champions in general.
I've been trying desperately to dream up a way to combo Darius -> The Rekindler -> The Harrowing into a board full of 10 attack overwhelms, but I just can't do it.
Surely you can get at least two or three?
The problem with Hecarim is that you need only two to create a full board of attackers with extremely high Power.
For Darius, Dawn and Dusk is the more common way to close out a game.
Regarding The Rekindler, I don't think it would be appropriate to nerf it unless you can come up with a couple of other decks where it's truly oppressive.
If Hecarim is pretty much the only time Rekindler is a problem, that points to the real problem being Hecarim. In fact, Rekindler could make a good canary in the coal mine for detecting troublesome Champions in general.
I don't think that's a good barometer, personally, because all you'd be identifying is champions that give a lot of value/inevitability. The only reason Trynd isn't being played alongside Rekindler is Freljord's late game push got nerfed badly after closed beta.
Judging new champions by merit of 'does this make Rekindler broken' basically means new champions stick to 5 mana or below and are either stat-sticks or understatted value, tbh.
Obviously it's not the only measure -- just one of many. Why do people insist on jumping to logical extremes?
But ... but ... if you admit Kalista is garbage (and she definitely is), why not just put in literally any other Champion, or even a strong follower, instead of trying to make her work?
In fact, Rekindler could make a good canary in the coal mine for detecting troublesome Champions in general.
This is a pretty shocking suggestion. Leaving a card in the game as a "canary in the coal mine" is a disastrous way to design a game. This design philosophy basically means that every time the balance team screws up in a way that interacts with that card (in this example, makes a broken Champion), the resulting problematic metagame is worse than it needs to be.
If this were Hearthstone, I'd be inclined to agree, because those guys have no qualms about letting a bad meta fester for months at a time.
But Riot is committed to biweekly patches, so by the time a broken card surfaces and becomes truly oppressive, it's probably only another week at most before it's corrected.
Anyone have any suggestions for changes to make to this? I'm super up-in-the-air with adding more followers or not since the Chain Vests and Radiant Strike's are SO good for early game field control.
Dawnspeakers is an odd choice for a deck so light on minions. Maybe instead you should have a couple of Elusives since you don't have a ton of ways to deal with those.
Yea, more card wording!
The text of Mageseeker Investigator is ambiguous. "Cast" is intended as past tense here, which is fine, but it could be taken to mean "if you cast a spell later."
Obviously, if you give it some thought, it would be very strange if it worked that way, but new players aren't known for giving anything any thought.
This can all be cleared up if they just change it to: "If you have cast a spell ..."
I respect the intent, but the proposed change does nothing to circumvent the perceived problem with fizzle (a perception I still do not share).
At issue is the fact that, upon Karma's second casting of the spell, there is no unit at all. At that point, you're not talking about "excess damage"; you're talking about all the damage, from a targeted spell that lacks a target.
Accepting a novel definition of Overwhelm fixes this, but "if that unit dies/is removed" does not, because the unit is already gone before the spell is cast, and this wording says nothing about not fizzling when the spell lacks a target.
If one honestly accepts fizzle consistency as a problem here, one cannot honestly accept this wording as a solution. The real solution to that "problem" would be a much wordier card requiring a far pickier level of rules detail than any card should ever have.
But that raises the question of keywords that are already inconsistent across different games. Is there a consensus about which is the "master" game, whose template other games are expected to follow? You might be tempted to say that should obviously be Magic, but there are plenty of players who have never played that, particularly in the PC and mobile markets.
I don't mind the interaction (and have defended similar in the past), BUT ... because so many of these weird corner cases keep throwing people, I think there should be an in-game tip somewhere that "Zero damage still counts as damage." Maybe even part of a tutorial?
Also note that there have been a couple of reasonably successful decks with no Champions at all. It's not easy to make such a deck, but it's possible.
That's actually a pretty big assumption, considering how many other aspects of the game fail to map exactly to their Magic or Hearthstone counterparts. Maybe it's better to just let Runeterra be Runeterra and discard expectations that are based on other games.
In the end, once you know how Final Spark works, you're not likely to forget it, so maybe this isn't a great hill to die on? I don't think we're likely to see a lot of Overwhelm spells in the future, so it's probably a moot point.
So give those cards a little buff, or lower their cost. I don't really care for The Empyrean being just a big elusive thing that's otherwise vanilla. It needs an ability anyway. And did you mean Silverwing ScoutBADCARDNAME? Just give it Challenger!
It's worth playing anytime your opponent is getting a free kill, whether that be by a damage spell, or a frostbitten unit about to die in combat, or simply when you have to chump block for some reason.
This is the way Shadow Isles draws cards, and it's a lot better than not drawing cards.
Because it's currently the only burn spell in the game with Overwhelm, I don't think it's correct to say the interaction is wrong. It just proves that Overwhelm takes precedence over fizzle, that's all. It's not like the fizzle rules are written down anywhere. If they were written down, they might say, "If a spell's target no longer exists when it's time for the spell to resolve, the spell will fizzle unless it has Overwhelm, in which case it will affect the enemy Nexus if possible."
As long as any future Overwhelm burn spells behave the same, it's totally fine.
Yeah, if that is happening, it's definitely a bug because that is not at all what's written on the card.
If he's working as intended, the wording is absolutely wrong, not just unclear.
I can see a case for making Relentless Pursuit a Slow spell, but the mana cost is fine as is.
For Elusives, they should just make it part of the keyword that Elusive units can block (and be blocked by) other Elusives only.
Surely you can get at least two or three?
The problem with Hecarim is that you need only two to create a full board of attackers with extremely high Power.
For Darius, Dawn and Dusk is the more common way to close out a game.
Yeah, it's been said many times over the years that other card games are run by apathetic idiots ... Riot is actually proving it.
Obviously it's not the only measure -- just one of many. Why do people insist on jumping to logical extremes?
But ... but ... if you admit Kalista is garbage (and she definitely is), why not just put in literally any other Champion, or even a strong follower, instead of trying to make her work?
It's the Ez-nuks list for those who don't trust elnuks.
Love the idea -- how's it performing?
If this were Hearthstone, I'd be inclined to agree, because those guys have no qualms about letting a bad meta fester for months at a time.
But Riot is committed to biweekly patches, so by the time a broken card surfaces and becomes truly oppressive, it's probably only another week at most before it's corrected.
Dawnspeakers is an odd choice for a deck so light on minions. Maybe instead you should have a couple of Elusives since you don't have a ton of ways to deal with those.
I wouldn't say "no one": https://youtu.be/aIhsxeMqppk
It does feel great to benefit from the deaths of your own units, and it can be super frustrating to play against.