An update from the Hearthstone team this afternoon has given us the first-ever banned card in the Wild format - Stealer of Souls.
This is quite unexpected news. Although players have been complaining about the card since its introduction in the Wailing Caverns set since it sees nasty combos with Mal'Ganis and Violet Illusionist, when bad interactions between cards occur, the first step Blizzard has taken in the past is to nerf the card. Seeing as how this card can't be nerfed without an overhaul to how the effect works, removing the flavor, Blizzard has gone the route of Wizards of the Coast and Magic the Gathering and simply removed the card from the format.
The card should be removed from Wild next week with a patch on Wednesday. Dust refunds will be available after the patch goes live and we'll get patch notes for the change on Tuesday, June 15. No other balance changes that will affect the Masters Tour Dalaran event are planned as per the Hearthstone Esports team.
Hearthstone's Alec has confirmed that the current plan for when the card rotates in 2023 is to make a change and remove the ban. If they decide to make adjustments to card before then, we can expect Blizzard to reconsider the ban.
Quote From @PlayHearthstone We’ll be banning Stealer of Souls in Wild in a small update next week. Stealer of Souls will still be playable in other formats, and will be eligible for a full dust refund for two weeks after this change goes live.
The patch note for this change will be shared on Tuesday, and the patch itself is expected to go live on Wednesday.
Current plan is to adjust the card at that point in time and remove the ban. If any adjustments happen to Stealer of Souls before that (ex/ a standard nerf) we'll also re-evaluate its inclusion in Wild. (Alec)
FYI - there will be no balance changes that affect Masters Tour Dalaran before the event, (HSEsports)
Comments
So what about all other self harming mechanics? Life tap, the whole bunch of warlock cards, ... Were do you draw the line and why? Attacking with weapons? Just because the one says „cost“ and the other says deal x damage, doesn’t really change the logic behind paying with health for a benefit.
Your idea isn’t bad but I don’t think it would be an elegant solution either.
This way, they keep the old things and just scrap a new card - as if it never was printed, no harm done.
You‘re right that immune is a problematic key word in the sense that it‘s an absolut. It‘s similar to 0-cost cards in that regard. These things are bound to brake the game one way or the other.
There is no reason to affect any other mechanics other then blood magic. CosmX's idea is perfectly logical and in line with something like MtG. Mana is part of the cost. Unless the cost is reduced to 0, you can't just skip it. If you're immune, you can't pay the health required so you can't play the card. I mean the game already prevents you from playing cards for life if you don't have enough life to pay the cost. why should it allow you to play cards for health if your health is completely immovable.
Alternatively, Immune could only affect damage (minion attacks, weapon swings/backswings) not payment of life. In MtG this is differentiated as "damage" and "lose life", damage can be prevented, loss of life cannot. Hard to say whether HS has the systems to implement that.
I really don't like this approach because it's overly heavy-handed. Simply removing problematic cards - sweeping them under the rug - may fix the situation, but at the cost of the card itself. I don't want to see it go. I don't want to wait 2 years for Barrens to rotate out to see the card again. It's an unfun desing philosophy. It violates the core principle of the format:
"Wild is exactly that, WILD! Any cards can be used!"
There is another way. A way that has been proven to be effective: nerfing the card. Think about some "problematic" decks of the past: Naga Sea Witch Warlock, Darkest Hour Warlock, Aviana Kun Druid, Flamewaker Mage. They were all fixed with a simple mana cost increase to their main combo card. They disappeared completely from the meta after that, but the cards still remained. People could still play them in off-meta builds. Why they decided that they do not want to use this method I cannot understand.
Stealer of Souls sees 0 play in Standard anyways. Nerfing it to 6 mana wouldn't make any difference in that format, but it would "save" Wild.
I could support Wild-only nerfs as well.
0 play in standard, and gosh, it's been out a whole few weeks, let's nuke it! Format bans are a good thing if you actually want balance, and it could wind up bringing about more options in the future/
The fact that it sees 0 play right now is no reason to argue that it’s standard implications don’t matter.
For once, it still can be generated and for the other, it has 5 expansions ahead to find a deck.
I don’t understand why nerfing it into oblivion is better than banning it. And there definitely is no argument in finding his sweet spot for the wild meta when hundreds of other cards never see play.
This way, they got rid of a broken interaction people complained about since release with almost zero downside
Oooooh... interesting
You know, I'm fine with the way they've handled this.
But they've opened the floodgates to a lot of people complaining to ban whatever card they want banned.
which is just the same as calling for every card to be nerfed so what's the difference?
This is actually the best solution and I'm glad they went for it instead of just ruining a card just because of Wild.
They dont have to ruin it for standard becasue wild, if they wanted to that is.
They Could make it be different between different game modes;
Or do a pretty reasonable nerf that keeps the card usable and not a warsong style nuke from orbit nerf.
and what for? The only way to change it for Wild is to completely destroy it anyways, rendering it basically unplayable. You cannot "reasonably" nerf a card like this outside of reworking it, at which point you've effectively "banned" it anyways.
They literally said that once it actually rotates to Wild they'll end up changing it, so there is really no point in frontloading that change when the card itself will most likely end up non-existant anyways.
well i dont see point in waiting for 2years when could just do it now.
And its not like would be crazy hard to come up with someway to change stealer
because in 2 years they have a better understanding of the current situation of the Wild format and can design it around other cards existing at the same time.
Would be pretty silly if they had to rework it twice.
It was always just going to be a matter of time before we start seeing stuff like this. Its already known that team5 doesn't really overthink what a card can do in wild when designing stuff for standard so theoretically interesting cards like this will almost always break a system, requiring a quick response. Well I guess this would be the standard procedure now; don't need to think about it just ban that arse.
Though lets be honest here, everyone saw this on day 1 and knew immediately it was going to be broken. How is it possible team5 couldn't see this coming?
It's probably similar to the hysteria desaster earlier this year. They knew that such a deck would exist, but weren't sure about how powerfull/consistend it would be.
I feel like they might have considered Violet Illusionist but completely blanked on Plot Twist (not that I blame them)
Probably the other way around. Someone must have blurted "But what if they play some draw option and that will draw another draw option for free, etc." and the dev team must have went "But then they would just kill themselves", while Violet Illusionist rubs her hands eavesdropping on that conversation in some shadowy corner.
I don't know, I feel like the first thing they would have checked for was "immune", but then they forgot that there's a card that can draw up to 8 cards while also shuffling all your combo pieces back to be readjusted.
Like...I reallly don't think they wouldn't have bothered to just type "immune" in the collection search bar. Not to mention that they certainly would have remembered Mal'ganis and the fact that there are convenient ways to tutor him.
I agree this was bound to happen. If not with this card, then with the next. There are just to many possible things that can break the game easily.
As for why they didn't see it? lets be real they don't care to much about wild
Lazy, sloppy solution. If the card is a problem, don't just close your eyes and pretend the issue isn't there. This sets the precedent of just kicking problematic cans down the road instead of taking the time to fix your mistakes.
The problem is, the card isn't the problem. Wild is the problem. You have so many cards there, there will be a stupid interaction every other patch at this point. And I believe that blizzard should not nerf cards that are fine in Standard just so Wild doesn't'become a shitfest. Because honestly that would mean nerfing a lot of cards to satisfy a smaller play base. Hence banning is the best solution. And lets be real. If its nerfed into oblivion, the card might aswell have been banned in wild anyway, because it won't see play.
Edit: lets face it, you are incredibly shortsighted if you believe that nerfing a card for wild thats fine is standard is a good idea. Since a lot more people play standard than wild. Its not lazy either, its the right move otherwise you are just trying to fix a system with celotape.