Which Lost Lands cards need a nerf/buff/rejig in your opinion?

[Nik]

The problem with Sosilo is that it should just aim to make discard mechanics easier to play by attacking its main weakness (getting empty handed and ending your deck too fast). The second is approached by General of Unaxio, but the first is approached by the location as a draw engine with makes Sosilo too strong and dependant of it.
A solution might be to draw 1 card inmediately after discarding abilities, that way it is not a draw engine but a cantrip (much like CoF works), and getting the cantrip inmediately helps you not get out of fuel so easily and make better planning of your moves (getting the draw at the end of the turn makes it more luck based).
The non-controller ability could be kept the same with 1SE cost but it might be now a bit too strong. Maybe just make the selected card shuffled back to the deck instead of discarded be the solution.

[Mananexus]

Nerf brutalis!!!!!!!!

I know the nerfing is stressful and sometimes overdone, but Sosilo in combination with his little brother MoA has to get some rework.

The turn you have Sosilo you will almost always draw 4 cards from it when you use it and look at how easy you can setup:

T1 MoA (if you haven't got Solilo) or nothing
T2 GCoK, (or other draw-engine in other decks) Bad Santa or Glimmer of Hope to dig for Solsilo
T3 ...you will probably have Solsilo and get your things started with Sabreen, Bannerman, MoA, Cape etc.

or

T1 Nothing
T2 MoA (if you have Sosilo)
T3 Bannerman, Sabreen, Cape and you can disable the opponents ally
T4 Sosilo and make your 4 draws...

So the turn you activate Sosilo you will draw 4 cards almost always. So even if your opponent is packing 2-4 Sinkholes you will already have a lot of draw done. Also the setup is so easy...and your opponent probably haven't got the chance to draw into his counters that fast. If he has no counter you have almost infinit draw that is really fast (4 cards are easy to get with it) plus your other draw engines.

I think the combination of MoA and Sosilo is what makes it so good that a deck can climb to almost 400 (with the good player who is using it). So you have to keep both cards in mind when changing something. Most people say "just make draw on Sosilo to a maximum of 4", but that would lead us into the same position. Giving it a draw cap of 2 would totally kill it. So we have to find a different way and that is probably to nerf MoA as well (e.g. make it 2cc and/or an Item instead of an ability that can get discarded as well).

Give me some arguments against it and we can discuss. I have given you my point of view.

Let's see what happens and I hope that Gondorian will find a good solution for the Sosilo + MoA interaction.

[Gondorian]

Thanks for all this good feedback.

In light of all the Sosilo talk, I would be particularly interested to hear from people who think they have decks that comfortably handle Sosilo decks when they face them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[streetsahead]

From what I hear, solo Gwen.

But I will say, I see an awful lot of top 100 ranked players using sosilo decks, and the 1st top gwen is ranked 35.

This is simple math man, people can't have access to a combo deck that can lock down an opposing ally every turn, and draw 2-6 cards a turn, while getting benefits in addition to those things.

[shadowphnx]

There are a lot of different versions of Sosilo decks out there. So I highly doubt any singular deck could comfortably handle all of them.
As someone already mentioned, Sosilo decks are also really common and it hurts the quality of the meta. (Kind of like the flood of Garina decks that came out after that location's initial release).

Part of the problem is that Templar already has a lot of really good cards. Sabreen is arguably the most powerful 3 drop in the game (and with Sosilo it only gets worse). Unaxio Bannerman and Moment of Acquiescence are also really good.

Possible way to balance Sosilo: The opposing ability should require the opponent to discard *all* abilities from the opponent's hand.

But on to Gondorian's question as to how to tech against Sosilo decks (as opposed to which decks beat Sosilo):

Option 1: Bad Santa. If your opponent has a full hand, then it allows you to draw 3 cards for 2 resources.
This is not ideal, but at least you sort of can keep up with Sosilo. Though this is not fair by any means and is only somewhat doable if you managed to last sufficiently long in the game.

Option 2: Run Locations or Location tech. This is also not such a great counter as your opponent could just play another Sosilo

Option 3: Rush or Stealth decks might have a chance but certainly not an advantage over Sosilo decks.

Thanks for all this good feedback.

In light of all the Sosilo talk, I would be particularly interested to hear from people who think they have decks that comfortably handle Sosilo decks when they face them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BlanketEffect]

Would Solsilo become absolutely worthless if the cards it provided capped at the first two? I mean, sure, it's not ungodly ridiculous then, but it is still a 2:1 card advantage. Or maybe, "Draw two cards for each card you discarded this turn, up to a maximum of three cards." Like, you can pitch 1 and draw 2 or you can pitch 2 and draw 3, but no more beyond that.

Would a dynamic in this spirit not stimy the ridiculously absurd drawing power that is this card?

[shadowphnx]

Would Solsilo become absolutely worthless if the cards it provided capped at the first two? I mean, sure, it's not ungodly ridiculous then, but it is still a 2:1 card advantage. Or maybe, "Draw two cards for each card you discarded this turn, up to a maximum of three cards." Like, you can pitch 1 and draw 2 or you can pitch 2 and draw 3, but no more beyond that.

Would a dynamic in this spirit not stimy the ridiculously absurd drawing power that is this card?

But even with the draw cap, the location represents a power creep. Even drawing 2 cards at 0 cost seems like a scary precedent. I feel like there is a huge struggle at trying to design locations that are competitive in a deck but also balanced, (they cost nothing, and they usually provide some benefit to the other player; Sosilo's 'benefit' to the other player is laughably negligible compared to the benefit given to the player who controls the location).

[Buqs]

Thanks for all this good feedback.

In light of all the Sosilo talk, I would be particularly interested to hear from people who think they have decks that comfortably handle Sosilo decks when they face them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I've been running Twilight Boris which seems to do fairly well against a variety of decks. Boris is generally able to help control the board with his ability coupled with additional control assistance from Twi Ritualist (can target, allies, items and abilities), as well as Crippling Blow and Demetryo. Its ok if the Twi die because that's what they were created to do, and can get chain revival from Eidolon and Avatar, as well as boost Champion. Extra survival comes from Lifebringer, Orphic and KP. Troll is an excellent complimentary ally.

Boris
Twi Lifebringer 3
Twi Ritualist 4
Demetryo 2
Twi Orphic 4
Eternal Troll 3
Twi Champion 3
Twi Avatar 3
Spirit of Devotion 2
Crippling Blow 4
Blood Frenzy 4
Twi Eidolon 4
Kings Pride 2
Twi Location 2
Total 41

To handle Templar discard decks I usually just focus on setting up my draw and focusing on taking out my opponents draw, not so much the discard outlets because this could lead to hand starvation which plays favorably to my deck with survival and swarm potential great for late game. That being said I still think a draw cap is a reasonable solution.

[d31m]

I think Locations in general need a rework, their mechanics are kinda clunky - either too heavily weighted in favour of the deck playing the Location, or the opposing effect rendering certain Locations wallpaper for the decks they are intended for. I see there to be scope for rejigging the whole concept.

I think that Lands could have a passive effect that are always on providing a general effect on play, plus a single open-ended ability that can be activated by both players. The turn requirement could be removed in favour of other requirements, such as controlling a certain number of allies/items/attachments/weapons/armour etc.

Anmor: Garina Road is a step in the right direction. Instead of having an effect for each player, have a single Passive effect: "Allies with cost 4 or greater cost 1 less resource". Remove the secondary ability all-together; the SE ability can be used by both players "2SE: If you control no allies, seek an ally with cost 4 or greater." The requirement to play could be something like having an ally with cost 4 or greater in play, which means the restriction maintains relevance beyond turn 4.


Other examples could be:

Racksul: Warped Desert
Passive ability: "Each time a Hero or Ally attacks or activates an ability, they take 1 damage (or lose 1 life)."
Activated ability: "1 SE: Target Hero or Ally heals 1 life".
Requirement to play: Control an Ally.

The more you do in the desert, the more it drains you (except the Sandworm (yes, and Gargoyle et al)), until you find the Oasis. And the requirement means that solo decks can't abuse it.

-----
Irum: Lightning Quarry
Passive: "Once per turn, when your Hero inflicts electrical damage, it gains 1 SE".
Activated: "2 SE: All allies take 1 damage".
Requirement: Ally with lightning attack.

The best use for Lightning Quarry at the moment is in a deck with no allies - there is just no drawback (making this deck work is a different thing all together). In its current form is pretty much designed for Nish anyways, but being shuffled makes it beside the point - lands should be terrain that effects the way a battle plays out in the long term. This change is probably too narrow - making it pretty much a mage-only location - but it's just an idea to provoke thought.

-----
Ravenscrest: Valley of Secrets
Passive: "When you summon a support ability, draw a card and renew 1 resource."
Activated: "3SE: Seek an ability."
Requirement: A support ability in play.

This card is on the right track as well, but open both effects up to both players and add a little to the cost.

-----
Rankett: Proving Grounds
Passive: "If an ally gains base attack or health this turn, (do something, like drawing a card etc.)."
Activated: "2SE: all Allies are reduced by 1 health."
Requirement: An Ally with > 3 attack.

Why is this currently a Shadow Land when Homunculi are a Neutral faction? I thought a proving ground would be more appropriate for Wulven... Not really a mechanical concern, but anyways..


...and finally:

Solsilo: Brother's Landing
Passive: "At the end of each turn, draw a card for each card that you have discarded this turn."
Activated: "2SE: Each player discards a card at random from their hand."
Requirement: Having discarded a card from hand this turn. Or something.

This card is bonkers in it's current form and is warping the current meta for Human players to the 1 type of deck. I've spec'ed a bunch of games with different Human Heroes all using the same engine - the hallmark that something is broken (could be that it's Justicar's Cloak). Limit the draw so it is on a 1-for-1 basis for a start. And make it trigger off of generic discard instead of abilities/locations, opening it up for other factions (like Homunculi that also discard cards and need the draw - more than Templar IMO).


Anyways, just some ideas that I think would open the mechanics of the currently narrow domain for Locations. Would probably require a great deal of recoding now that I think of it...

[tolerance]

The turn requirement could be removed in favour of other requirements, such as controlling a certain number of allies/items/attachments/weapons/armour etc.

interesting idea.. these pre-requisition can be regarded as 'cost' to play locations instead