Hunters gambit change

[Gondorian]

BTW, I didn't say I want the change in the OP.

I'm just admitting that Hunter's Gambit is undercosted and overpowered.

And I'm not saying remove Hunter's Gambit from the game either. Heck, no, I don't want that.

And I am saying that other Hunter cards could be improved if a changed Gambit hurts some hunters too much.

But we need to start on some level of agreement and go from there. I thought agreeing on it being undercosted and overpowered was the right place and I've outlined the very high value it gives compared to other draw-based cards with some theory behind it. How about let's discuss from there?

[AmberFade]

I think you misunderstand.

I was just entertaining your assumption that they were unplayable without it (they are not, as I covered already) in an attempt to reason with you via a different route. I failed on that, obviously.

K I misunderstood in that case.

The thing is there is a line between objectively worse and unplayable. Not even the majority of trashtier heroes are unplayable, hell I made it high with Ter Adun in the past using ravager build. The issue is rather how much worse will it make them compared to now and how will it affect the meta.

And like you could see after the Shuriken/Vermin/SoE/Victor nerfs decks dont exist in a vacuum. If you make hunters worse their natural enemies will get indirectly buffed. Thats the thing no one takes into consideration when proposing nerfs, the only things looked at are theorhetical concepts and what cards could come back again due to such nerfs.

Shuriken/Vic nerfs made Garena and Homunculus decks hugely popular.
Vermin/SoE nerfs made stall more popular.

Im certain nerfing hunters for no apparent reason will have similar fallout as those changes since they are an important counter to things like rush mages. Im personally against any unnecessary changes to well working cards unless it is the primary reason a certain deck dominates the meta in an unhealthy way like the prenerf Sosilo and Wulven Tactician did.

[Gondorian]

I think it all boils down to what criteria you take up. As you have recently confirmed you have even more come to notice that draw plays such a key role in SE. Players don t look on the cards through criteria you ve mentioned. I d say the way average player looks at draw cards is how effectively, how many, and on what moments they bring him cards to play. And this is where all the differences in opinion between you and players speaking here are born. You have nicely put forward your designing draw cards criteria here. But for average player Blood Frenzy just means twice many cards to play and sac since moment it s put on for a remote risk of dying faster (for which you ve got heal, should you need it), while Hunter Gambit means that you ll ONLY draw 1 card extra for 3 cc for 1 time, IF you manage to kill the ally and you got scarce other possibilities as hunter to heighten that number AND work towards killing some ally quite effectively. For Hunter players who struggle with draw in general the draw part is of most concern. So the both criteria are VASTLY different. Player one is like "what tangibly I actually got in my hand" while your designer one accounts for many "potential" benefits and features on a theoretic scope of things, lol. Hope with this in mind you all communicate better.

Well now you've opened up the can of worms more!

You are right that BF or IGG can sit there all game, so you used one card then it's all production from there, whereas each use of Gambit to get 2 cards (and an answer) requires another copy of it. So for pure card draw with no kind of tech coming at you, it sounds like BF/IGG are the kings.

But your opponent can blow up your BF or your IGG. With Gambit, you just play it and get the benefit right there. You got through 2 more cards from your deck right there and have 2 more in your hand. All the top players blow up draw engines ASAP because they are so important to their opponent, but people don't blow up Gambit - because it draws when it is destroyed anyway) or often simply because it is gone before their turn.

Side note: I think it's great that these are not so easily comparable to each other because it shows off different pros and cons of classes and styles. I like that Gambit comes out of nowhere and helps kill an ally and draws - that's just like a hunter should be doing. I just don't know if it should be 2 cards. Seems OP at 3cc and with the -1HP/-2HP effect as well.

[Gondorian]

K I misunderstood in that case.

The thing is there is a line between objectively worse and unplayable. Not even the majority of trashtier heroes are unplayable, hell I made it high with Ter Adun in the past using ravager build. The issue is rather how much worse will it make them compared to now and how will it affect the meta.

And like you could see after the Shuriken/Vermin/SoE/Victor nerfs decks dont exist in a vacuum. If you make hunters worse their natural enemies will get indirectly buffed. Thats the thing no one takes into consideration when proposing nerfs, the only things looked at are theorhetical concepts and what cards could come back again due to such nerfs.

Shuriken/Vic nerfs made Garena and Homunculus decks hugely popular.
Vermin/SoE nerfs made stall more popular.

Im certain nerfing hunters for no apparent reason will have similar fallout as those changes since they are an important counter to things like rush mages. Im personally against any unnecessary changes to well working cards unless it is the primary reason a certain deck dominates the meta in an unhealthy way like the prenerf Sosilo and Wulven Tactician did.

What I take from that is that you are saying it's a risk to shake it up now because we don't know what will come up or fall down. But also you have strong view it takes all hunters down a huge notch unless it still draws 2 cards.

I don't think we need to agree on the latter, as the former has convinced me for a long time not to take off the 2 card draw. There's no reason to do it right now after 3 years either. I don't know what InsanoMango was thinking.

[LeonTheBarbarian]

Well now you've opened up the can of worms more!

You are right that BF or IGG can sit there all game, so you used one card then it's all production from there, whereas each use of Gambit to get 2 cards (and an answer) requires another copy of it. So for pure card draw with no kind of tech coming at you, it sounds like BF/IGG are the kings.

But your opponent can blow up your BF or your IGG. With Gambit, you just play it and get the benefit right there. You got through 2 more cards from your deck right there and have 2 more in your hand. All the top players blow up draw engines ASAP because they are so important to their opponent, but people don't blow up Gambit - because it draws when it is destroyed anyway) or often simply because it is gone before their turn.

Side note: I think it's great that these are not so easily comparable to each other because it shows off different pros and cons of classes and styles. I like that Gambit comes out of nowhere and helps kill an ally and draws - that's just like a hunter should be doing. I just don't know if it should be 2 cards. Seems OP at 3cc and with the -1HP/-2HP effect as well.

Yes but truth also is this player reasoning goes even deeper ofc (not saying yours doesn t but comes from different standpoint so to speak). So a privilidged draw-engine player thinks further: "All in all Bf or IGG not that easy to destroy, opponent usually wastes 1 whole turn for that. If I m Rogue I can perhaps provide Lily to get it back not long after it s gone or just cast next copy (more like Bf thinking - that my great extra draw should ve already brought along), with Gods help (if Bf worked for 2-3 turns) and enough Stop Thief inbetween, I may even be doing that in 1 turn at 7-8 res" . While other hunter than Vic might be thinking "Ok, so I just reduced this Armored Sandworm by 2 but how on earth am I gonna kill it now to get the draw I need, cause those 2 cards left at hand and not enough cc left don't yet allow me to do that"

[BlastMan]

Gondorian, why do you keep saying gambit is under cost and overpowered?

you usually ignore my posts when i put numbers in (as i already did in this thread) so let me try again. this is using pre nerf, non exile gambit.


everything has a cost and everything is a cost. the card itself is a cost.

- gambit's cost: 3cc and loss of a card to help kill a 1 or 2 health ally with the added benefit of replacing gambit and drawing 1 card. gambit goes to grave, its done.

- blood frenzy: 3cc and loss of a card and 1 damage each turn to continuously draw 1 card. doesnt go to grave and stays in play to draw more cards so one time cc cost.



- to recycle gambit, you need to spend 4se and 3cc to cast it. and still its just 1 card to replace gambit and 1 card drawn. thats a huge cost. its a huge cost to kill just one ally. together, it made it ok.


but here is the big point: the only effect the exile nerf made was it made 40 card victors a lot less effective and drop down to maybe tier 2 (and lower for some builds) and allowed other, more hated decks, to flourish. so how was this a good nerf for the game regardless of whether you think it is under cost and overpowered? we lost more victor builds than we gained in those hated decks i think. could be wrong on that point.

any further change and why would it be used? poison arrow does a better job.

[Nik]

If the problem is getting Hunter's Gambit to the graveyard to help small deck Victors, without overpowering heavy based Victors, how about:

Hunter's Gambit. 3cc
Attach to target opposing ally. That ally has -2 health. When Hunter's Gambit is destroyed, draw 2 cards and Hunter's Gambit is placed on the bottom of its owner's graveyard.

That way you can´t constantly recycle Hunter's Gambit unless it´s basically the only hunter card you´re using, which is much more limiting in big decks.

[Gondorian]

Gondorian, why do you keep saying gambit is under cost and overpowered?

you usually ignore my posts when i put numbers in (as i already did in this thread) so let me try again. this is using pre nerf, non exile gambit.


everything has a cost and everything is a cost. the card itself is a cost.

- gambit's cost: 3cc and loss of a card to help kill a 1 or 2 health ally with the added benefit of replacing gambit and drawing 1 card. gambit goes to grave, its done.

- blood frenzy: 3cc and loss of a card and 1 damage each turn to continuously draw 1 card. doesnt go to grave and stays in play to draw more cards so one time cc cost.



- to recycle gambit, you need to spend 4se and 3cc to cast it. and still its just 1 card to replace gambit and 1 card drawn. thats a huge cost. its a huge cost to kill just one ally. together, it made it ok.


but here is the big point: the only effect the exile nerf made was it made 40 card victors a lot less effective and drop down to maybe tier 2 (and lower for some builds) and allowed other, more hated decks, to flourish. so how was this a good nerf for the game regardless of whether you think it is under cost and overpowered? we lost more victor builds than we gained in those hated decks i think. could be wrong on that point.

any further change and why would it be used? poison arrow does a better job.

I'd be keen to not exile it but he can't keep going round and round getting 2 cards every use of his ability. And still I believe that 3cc for all it does is too much value and drawing 2 cards is a big deal. Most cards don't replace themselves at all. They are gone. Some cards cantrip, which has already shown itself to be very powerful in this game. This card replaces itself and adds another for you! Too good when it is an answer as well.


Consider a typical start of game and compare BF and Gambit, assuming we played a solid 2-drop like Masked Bandit or Layarian Knight or Feasterling ...


T3 Warrior: Play BF and summon nothing else. All tempo lost for that turn. Hope our ally can kill something on the board, but it's gonna struggle. Even with Feasterling, the best we can hope is do 3 damage but if opponent played a 4HP or 5HP then we are screwed.
vs
T3 Hunter: If we have an ally out, then attack with that and play Gambit to kill an ally and draw 2 cards. If we had Feasterling, we can kill a 5HP ally, so only Caged Savage would live. Most people don't run Vermin as their main 2-drop so any 2-attack ally + Gambit will do.

T4 Warrior: Take 1 damage and draw 1 card. Spend the 4cc how you like. If we still have an ally around (which we wouldn't if facing a Hunter with Gambit as above) attack with it, I guess.
vs
T4 Hunter: Use our ally that survived thanks to killing off previous one and play Gambit again to kill another ally and draw 2 more cards.

So at this point, the Gambit user has managed to kill off two allies and draw 4 cards so far, but did summon 1 extra from hand. The BF user has drawn 1 extra card (compared to not having BF). The Gambit user has seen 3 more cards from their deck than the BF user and has +2 cards in hand compared to them and also wiped the BF board.

If we consider the heroes that might be in action, then Banebow can have done 2 ability damage across two targets by T4 even if he went first. Baduruu can bring out a 7cc weapon on T4 going second.


There are other scenarios you can paint, of course, but I think this illustrates something pretty major. And we all know early turns are very important in SE. I believe this is a big part of why Banebow and Baduruu do so well right now. Too well.

[Gondorian]

If the problem is getting Hunter's Gambit to the graveyard to help small deck Victors, without overpowering heavy based Victors, how about:

Hunter's Gambit. 3cc
Attach to target opposing ally. That ally has -2 health. When Hunter's Gambit is destroyed, draw 2 cards and Hunter's Gambit is placed on the bottom of its owner's graveyard.

That way you can´t constantly recycle Hunter's Gambit unless it´s basically the only hunter card you´re using, which is much more limiting in big decks.

It's pretty nice and could work. The problem is that, when you do things like this, some people will choose to just severely limit the hunter cards they play to take advantage of the OP card draw available. You then get very very limited deck diversity within Victor builds. Maybe no cards are worth running to screw with the card draw of Gambit which is, as we know, the most important advantage to be seeking in the game, so we can't ever get Victor to run any other cards unless me make ones even more overpowered.

Gambit could shuffle back into the deck, so then he could seek it again from there with General and carry on. That might be OK.

BUT STILL: 3cc for 2 card draw and -1HP/-2HP is undercosted and overpowered. I have been OK with Gambit being the Hunter signature card all this time, but I really think it has made all the hunters too consistent and fluid. Card advantage is so important in SE and I've outlined example above comparing to BF to try to show with actual numbers how much better it is than BF for the early game.

If anyone has time, they could do similar for other card draw (e.g. IGG, Tome of Knowledge, Amulet of Conjuring, Blood Moon). I have some more features I want to get into 3.52 before it's finalised, so I should really be working on them now!

[Dktrinolcour]

My only issue is gambit is primary draw for all hunters taking away the 2 card draw would hurt bit too much 2cc-1-1 Would be the only one that seems fair wrath of the forest would make 3 other classes pretty much auto loss