Proposed balance changes for 1.29

[mightyfrog]

Let's try first by releasing some attachment removals. Jericho version 1.27 was doing very well against warriors because of that, there's no reason why other heroes can not do the same.
And also, because it has not been repeated for at least 12 hours : Nerf Logan !

[TripleHBK]

Let's try first by releasing some attachment removals. Jericho version 1.27 was doing very well against warriors because of that, there's no reason why other heroes can not do the same.

This. And DD counters.

And also, because it has not been repeated for at least 12 hours : Nerf Logan !

Lol, yeah you're probably right!
Let me review my previous post:

"What we need is that the other ones get good abilities/cards to step forward and become a real threat for them. But before, that big bad Logan boy out there should be regulated a bit..."

[Ringel]

I'm not totally against nerfs, since Shadow Era skips any sort of intense play test before releasing cards (the time when nerfs normally happen-- lots of nerfs), but yeah, these suggestions go too far.

Why you should minimize nerfs:
1) More than any other card change, nerfs make players unhappy
2) The set isn't released yet, so we don't know how powerful heroes will ultimately get-- put off nerfing until then.

[sweetgab]

Actually, I like these changes a lot. Althought I don't agree with every single one of them, but I wish this was a message from the devs instead of just a "proposal".

[razcrux]

Added slight change to dual-wield as well, removing +1 to recovered weapon bonus. As it stands right now you can get a +1 when you cast dual wield, then bring back the weapon with a +1 and put another dual-wield on it giving you +2 base... that's either a bug or you are now supposedly wielding 3 weapons.

[MistahBoweh]

It's not a bug, brah. But I love how the OP added in some extra cards to try and hide the message of NERF WARRIORS RARAGHRWARGHARG

Also, imo darkclaw is fine if ability states that the damage shield wears off at eot, not end of opponent's turn. It fits the flavor better as well, I believe I posted this somewhere else before a while back.

[razcrux]

Let's try first by releasing some attachment removals. Jerichoicon version 1.27 was doing very well against warriors because of that, there's no reason why other heroes can not do the same.

I'm not apposed to new cards balancing old ones, but sometimes a hero or card is just so powerful that any attempt to balance it with another becomes an arms race with very hard counters. The game will be more balanced between all the heros if the counters are not extreme but rather strong. So there should be many "strong" counters, not "auto-kill" counters.

So for anti-attachment cards: perhaps, but the counter has to be a hard one. The reason why Jericho was a strong counter is because it could effectively block every single attachment card. Warriors use BF, CB, Enrage and Rampage; and possibly also Warrior Protection and others. That's a lot of attachment cards. Even with every single attachment card being blocked, warrior *still* has a chance to win against the old Jericho, albeit probably less than 50/50. If you want to counter-warriors you need to be able to counter attachments, for equal or less cost than warrior is producing new attachments. So this would mean that you needed a card that says:

If CB and BF cost only 2, then your card has to cost 1 or 2; if it costs 2 then your counter is utterly passive as you don't reverse the initiative:
If the counter is to flip the initiative, it has to be 1 cost or have some other side-benefits:

1 Cost - remove attached effect. And it would need to be neutral. That would be a useful card, but really, do we want to make attachment removal suddenly so easy for everyone to perform? This ruins a lot of attachment-based card options for future expansions/heros. As the expression goes: It makes more sense to remove the gun than to wear a bullet proof vest.

Side effect based:
4 cost - remove all attached effects from all cards on both sides.
or
3 cost - remove attached effect, draw a card.

If CB and BF are changed to 3 cost, these cards would still be excellent. Imagine if hunters were given a 3-cost cripple blow card, would it be auto include? You bet, probably 2 to 4 copies in your deck. At 3-cost it makes the destroy-attachment card no longer forced to cost 1 point, so it can instead cost 2 or even 3 points. I can assure you that if I played warrior and CB, BF and SB all costed 1 more I would *still* include multiple copies of these cards. If you think things will improve with the 10 new weapons coming, you are wrong as half of them are 3-cost weapons which will only compound the current issues.

No mater what the anti-attachment card is, you still have the problem that you can only have 4 copies in your deck, and that new attachments for warrior are cheap and numerous.

You would need a weapon or some permanent effects:
Aura Smiter
Neutral
2 ability
Attached to target weapon
Enemies damaged by the Aura Smiter remove all attached effects.

3 cost
Neutral Item
1: destroy target attachment.

4 cost
Shadow Ally
3-3
1 shadow energy: remove all attached cards from self, and gain a permanent +1/+1

4 cost
Human Ally
2-4
This card may not be targeted by spells and effects from your opponent [but it can still be attacked].

2 cost
Shadow Ability
Target ally removes all previous attachments [except this one] and gains a permanent +1 attack.

2 cost
Human Ability
Remove all attached effects [except this one] from target ally. Ally gains +1 health.

etc...

Will the dev team add 4 or more anti-attachment cards in the final 200 card set? It's possible, if they do so, then perhaps it can stay the way it is, but nearly all 4 of those cards will be purely anti-warrior since no other class uses that many attachments. It would make more sense to try and balance the core-set to itself rather than having to spend the remaining cards all to balance counter the currently OP hero's. This would give more creative freedom to the designers to pick interesting cards for the last ones instead of having to reserve all the last slots on pure counters.

But yes, I do think we all need direct damage and attachment-card counters, don't get me wrong, it's just that the existing cards also need some minor adjustments.

No one has really commented on my hero changes, which are, in my opinion, just as important, if not more important than the proposed other card changes.

[mightyfrog]

My opinion about your changes :
- I agree with IGG, Logan, Gwen, Eladwen, Amber, Dual Wield and blood frenzy and half agree with mugged (for this cost, one more damage would be good). And i think you're going too far for the rest.

First, the one that everyone complains about : Majiya. Her ability is useless against allyless decks, so are the ones of Logan, Boris, Victor, Eladwen (if the proposed reverse back is accepted)... so if we change her, why not changing all of them ? Majiya is fine as she is in my opinion.
Second, retreat and crippling blow are not destructions so they should stay cheap. Also destroy arms and Jeweller dream are fine as they are too.
I also think darkclaw is fine as he is now, the problem is shadow font. If we modified it with something like "3cc : both heroes gain 3 SE" a lot of things would change. I don't see the bigger picture and maybe this idea is completely stupid but it's worth trying.

For the attachment removals, i don't see why anyone should carry millions of them. At the moment, warriors have a very easy game because they can play one bf and throw the rest as resources. They never have more than one or two enrage in their deck and they can cripple your allies and not worry too much about it. Having attachment removals, even just a few will force them to make some difficult decisions, lose some tempo and will greatly balance the game. Wulvens and hunters use a lot of attachments too so these counters will be helpful in a lot of situations.

Direct damage counter is badly needed too, just to add some more strategy to this game.

[Dima]

Decrease KP durability from 5 to 4

[Kingsider]

Why you should minimize nerfs:
1) More than any other card change, nerfs make players unhappy

Am yet to see a nerf that would have made me unhappy.