Change to Rapacious Vermin/Sorcere of Endia

[Demnchi]

I tend to agree with Kylt on this one. I've even said similar things in the past. I really do think these two cards limit what can be done with decks that use specific items/abilities as a win condition. Not to say that there shouldn't be ways to deal with these kinds of decks, its just that these two are far too efficient at it, Vermin more so. Even decks that aren't focused around their targets for a win condition still often trigger their condition easily. I have a Logan deck that pretty much isn't viable at all because BF + Weapon + even 1 CB is enough for their condition to trigger. While any of those being destroyed is always going to be a blow to my chances at winning, it shouldn't also produce such good bodies as well. That's not even to mention how powerful they would be against combo decks (if any of them could get off the ground in the first place, R.I.P Mimicing Echo T.T) which already have trouble working well in this game regardless.

Really, they just cost too little compared to their payout. The condition is really easy to meet and they are easily followed up with other cards, especially Vermin since he only costs 2. Playing a 3 drop (with roughly 3/4 in stats) and a 1/5 that destroys an item/ability for 5cc sounds like a steal to me. Vermin is just too fast and versatile because of that very low cost. Sorcer of Endia is at least much harder to follow up with and is a bit more of a committed play in comparison to Vermin. Not to say SoE shouldn't be looked at too, but I really feel the issue is far more with Vermin imo.

Do I think they will destroy the entirety of the future of the these decks if left unchecked? No, of course not. But I believe that they do have a negative impact and its most certainly worth exploring possible options to open up the game to more types of decks overall.

[Buqs]

Sorcerer:

When Sorcerer of Endia is summoned while an opposing player controls at least 3 items and/or abilities, a random item or ability controlled by that player is destroyed.


Vermin:

Sustain: 1HP. When Rapacious Vermin is summoned while an opposing player controls at least 3 items and/or abilities, the item or ability with the lowest cost controlled by that player is destroyed.

[SEF Mango]

I think you still misunderstood this. This is not a simple discussion like "item/ability decks can cope with vermin on the current balance therefore no need for change". You are arguing on the ground of the current state of the game. But this not about balancing based on what we have now.

Vermin and Sorcerer's value goes very high when there are targets to destroy. In other words, they are "undercosted when condition is met". And, as you say, there are decks with items and abilities even though vermin/sorcerers are around, and these decks can still win against them.

The game with Vermin/Sorcerer currently is;

A) Decks that carry 2 items/abilities or less.

B) All items and abilities must be really good and you can get value from it even if destroyed.


However, this leaves out

A') Decks that carry 3 items/abilities or more. (Complement of A)

B') Niche cards and all other items/abilities in the game. (Complement of B)

A' and B' are rejected because of Vermin/Sorcerer.


What you are saying is based on A and B. You may be right on this or not. But what I'm talking about is A' and B', which you don't cover.


In my opinion, nerfing these two will definitely encourage A' and B' which will bring more variety and diversity as well as rooms for creativity. On top of that, we are getting more new cards. So why limit deck building?


P.S. By items and abilities, I mean those cards that stick to the board for a while or permanently (Grave resistance or IGG). Those are the targets for vermin and sorcerer. Cards like Hit list and Gambit are not included. Just in case.

I do agree with you. However, my concern is with facing more stall decks. In all this discussion we did not touch on how more items may mean more variety but it also means more tools for Moon Staller. Remember when we were happy that we received tools to deal with these decks only to learn that they came with more tools to make them an even bigger nuisance? Stallers, will be more prevalent now that they are safer than before with the nerf to these allies. I feel that this is the case more so than cool new deck archetypes. Moon Staller is easier to construct, play and would be more enticing with lessened vulnerabilities.

That is the outcome that I see. That is why even though I agree with your overall premise, I cannot ever truly be in your corner on this. I have played this game for many years, as have you, and like that I now have options to deal with Stall decks that I did not have in the past. Nobody likes to play against these decks. They are an auto loss for some decks even today. Would be more so if you took away the tools we have to deal with them.

[Shadaba]

In all this discussion we did not touch on how more items may mean more variety but it also means more tools for Moon Staller.

I'm sorry, but I'm confused. It seems you equate staller decks with decks with many items. If that is true, and you don't like playing against staller decks, then of course you would not support anything that might lead to more item-based decks.

However, I think your premise is flawed. It is quite easy to nerf specific decks, such as Millstalker and Moonstaller, without necessarily nerfing all item-heavy decks. For instance, there could be more allies or weapons that ignore stealth, such as Grundler's Double. We could even be more specific, for instance by creating allies that ignore stealth only when attacking the hero.

I personally rather enjoy playing solo decks, and I enjoy building and playing non-conventional decks. I think these categories have both been nerfed a bit over the years, probably to counteract staller decks, but - in my opinion - at the cost of having less competitive creativity. (I dislike tribes for a similar reason, btw, because they tend to force you to combine certain specific sets of cards and thereby allow less interesting creative competitive builds.)

[SEF Mango]

I'm sorry, but I'm confused. It seems you equate staller decks with decks with many items.

Ummm... of course I am equating the two. Crescendo, Aldmor Accelerator, Loom of fate, Baazar, Evil Ascendant... I mean, what are you even talking about? I'm confused as to why you are confused. I could be using the incorrect terminology. Mill is the right terminology I'm guessing? However, stall decks still utilize multiple items/abilities to achieve victory so I see no difference.

However, I think your premise is flawed. It is quite easy to nerf specific decks, such as Millstalker and Moonstaller, without necessarily nerfing all item-heavy decks. For instance, there could be more allies or weapons that ignore stealth, such as Grundler's Double. We could even be more specific, for instance by creating allies that ignore stealth only when attacking the hero.

This is just wrong. Easy to nerf Millstalker? It's been years and has not happened. You have ONE weapon that ignores stealth. ONE ally that Ignores Stealth. A few abilities that negate stealth but... Nowhere to Hide... really? Why would you waste the space? Ground shift is legitimate. Few allies that negate stealth when attacking do nothing to even the playing field against 5+ items abilities on board. Especially when allies can be so easily removed. Ythan can bypass stealth but ONCE every three turns.

I personally rather enjoy playing solo decks, and I enjoy building and playing non-conventional decks. I think these categories have both been nerfed a bit over the years, probably to counteract staller decks, but - in my opinion - at the cost of having less competitive creativity.

Firstly, these decks have not been "Nerfed." You just can't win as easily as you could in the past. That is called balancing, not nerfing. You still run into solo and stall decks up the ladder, Especially Moonstalker.

[Kylt]

I like playing against stall decks more than playing against fat vic. This is personal preference. You can't speak like your opinion is everybody's opinion.

Also, having been failed (so you say) to nerf millstalker doesn't mean we can't in the future without vermin and sorcerer.

Yes nerfing these two might lead to more stall decks. But there are people who like to play those decks, and enjoy playing against them. And if something is truly NPE to everyone, then DT will find a way to make it unpopular.

There are aggressive item ability heavy decks too. Decks like mill prax aiming for AHiL win, Aldmors with artefacts, any shadow warrior decks, but especially Vess, and innovative decks we are yet to see. Vermin and Sorcerer weakens everything altogether.

For me, these two look like a lazy solution to something that looks like NPE but no one really knows if it's truly NPE.

[SEF Mango]

i speak for myself and the chatter I was reading on the release of SF.

Mill Stalker has not been nerfed. Just because it is harder to win due to new obstacles does not constitute a nerf.

I have lost to Mill Stalker even with drawing multiple Vermin. They came too late and weren't enough. I have dispatched Mill Stalker because I drew them both early and locked him down. Vermin and Sorcerer are a bane to these decks and to other item/ability heavy decks, but they are two cards. You have to still draw these cards for them to have effect. It's just as likely that you will have your setup constructed before either of these cards hit the field.

There were still top 100 rated Mill Stalkers last season. That wasn't an accident. It is still very effective.

The issue is that control decks can run unchecked without these cards in existence. Especially with the multiple tools at their disposal now. MY opinion is that this is a bigger problem than more decks being held up because they are worried about these two allies.

Think developers felt the same since they created these cards. Did they do so from only their eyes or was it influenced by the players? I feel more would agree to detesting a match against millStalker than Fat Vic. Only issue with Vic is that many are playing it now because of WC. So it gets boring.

I still feel that people will develop their deck ideas regardless of these cards. They know that the deck will have a weakness but which one doesn't? They will play these decks knowing those allies are out there but that many popular heroes typically do not run them. Amber, Serena, Vic, Mages, and Zaladar for example. Sure, Elementalis may destroy you with 4 of them but what other hero can afford to run 4 Vermin effectively? Same with Sorcerer. If they run it, who runs more than 2? You wouldn't waste more than 2 slots on a card that may be a 4CC 4/4 ally with no abilities in a majority of your matches.

[Umbra7]

This is just wrong. Easy to nerf Millstalker? It's been years and has not happened. decks up the ladder.

Moonstalker is literally the easiest hero to tech against. Sure, nowhere to hide is hard to justify deck space, but it nearly completely destroys the stall variant of moonstalker you're referring to. Unless he manages to draw his regeneration in that 80-120 card deck, then it's nearly an automatic loss. Moreover, a well placed groundshift can be lethal against a moonstalker, as well as many other decks. Shadow also have access to shadow spawn, which is useful in many match-up and can seal a game against moons, and nocturnal advantage, which can still be used well against other match-ups (1 extra damage can go a long way in clearing a board). Against moonstalkers items? Dawn raid is much more efficient at taking down millstalkers draw than vermin of endia. Against fat decks, taking out their draw is a really efficient means to destroy them. Moreover, widespread decay is very much a victory condition against him.

It's not that the tools to destroy millstalker aren't provided to us. It's not an effective deck at all, and is very very easy to tech against, it's just that people don't use the other tools provided. Even when the other tools work really well in many other matchups. Moonstalker makes it to higher ratings because
1) a lot of people rage quit early by the mere sight of 80-120 card moonstalkers (they don't even have to be mill. I have people rage quit against my 80 card undead moonstalker before they even see what my deck consists of).

And 2) most people won't include the extremely easy tech cards into their deck. Even a single groundshift, shadow spawn, nocturnal advantage, etc. Can win you the game. But millstalker counts on most decks having none of those

[Umbra7]

I liked buqs idea. But I also like the idea of the allies not sticking to the board. Artful squire has his conditions for destroying an item too, it has to be below 4cc, and he's killed afterwards. Sure rapacious sorcerer may have a harder time procing, but in return, they have a much higher range of things to target. They can destroy attachments, artifacts, support abilities, weapons, anything. And it doesn't matter what they cost either. 7cc armor, rothems vissage? Destroyed with 2cc, AND they have an ally. Seems like a fair trade right? If they have that potential, why are they also sticking to the board.

[SEF Mango]

I liked buqs idea. But I also like the idea of the allies not sticking to the board. Artful squire has his conditions for destroying an item too, it has to be below 4cc, and he's killed afterwards. Sure rapacious sorcerer may have a harder time procing, but in return, they have a much higher range of things to target. They can destroy attachments, artifacts, support abilities, weapons, anything. And it doesn't matter what they cost either

That is exactly why I brought up to have allies function like Artful Squire. Much like how Wulven has moved to make the "seek" command a universal activation cost of 2:SE, make the universal cost of allies that destroy upon summoning that they die afterwards. I think that is fair and makes sense with the precedent already set by Artful Squire.