lol @ nerfing eladwen

[Mr Evil]

lets start that i play this game like 4 days now... randomly when i srated i choose human mage so i am stuck with it... and i made a nice wining rampage after read about how to make a competitive eladwin deck.

But Darkclaw Lone Wolf owned eladwin SOOOOO much... the game is going to change dramatically with any new cards added... if other decks have lets say 30% chance to win a good eladwin player lets say that eladwin has 5% chanc to win a darkclaw lone wolf deck...

plus there are still no weapons in the game... this will change things dramatically... of cource the mages look stronger when warriors-hunters dont have weapons? i mean its simpel logic...

I'm totally disagree with you, and Kyle better makes Darkclaw stronger.
You were wrong when thinking Darkclaw have 95% chance to win Eladwen
Wonder Why? Because not just Eladwen can win Darkclaw easily.
Every Human heroes does if they keep "Aeon stormcaller", "Reinforced Armor", "Dirk Saber", and "Retreat" in their deck and use them at the right time.
I play human hunter and Eladwen. Believe me, Darkclaw never be a problem with me.

So, If Darkclaw can't win Eladwen, Who can?

P/S: Sr for my bad English.

[HPAnigma]

you missed the point ... the point isnt about how it looks now to some ppl... eladwen playyers see darkclaw as imba... other see as eladwen or some cards that can be used by MAGES!

the point is the other classes MISS SOME BASIC CARD STILL!!

so on the update without nerfing anything u will see ALL classes stronger, in comparison with mages. Why? because hthey are weapon depedent!!!

so everyone here takes the good card of mages say they are imba... when they should be looking on the missing parts!

yes if the things stay as it is mages seam to be stronger than most other classes and have serius issues only vs darkclaw...

a good way to balance things is to add new cards (good cards) to other ppl not start NERFING existed cards! that would be a disaster to all the ppl they paid for them anyway...

[XLegion]

It already is mandatory in ALL Mage decks as I said. So you are against fairness? Why would it "kill most decks" by just being available to all? That to me doesn't make sense.

MAGE DECKS being the key words there. if it is made into a neutral card, then ALL DECKS not just MAGE DECKS would need to have it in their decks or are at instant disadvantage. Most high ranked (non Eladwen-portal) decks have all 30 cards specifically planned out with a specific purpose in mind. Throw the necessity to have to have portal in their deck and that's at minimum 2 cards they need to remove to still be competitive. That's what I meant by "kill most deck(s)". I am not against fairness, I'm all for it. But changing a super powerful card like portal into something any deck at all can use (HAS to use to be competitive) is just plain stupid for any tactical game, because it then becomes: "Who can get out portal the fastest is going to win" - as is common in a lot of Eladwen/Eladwen matches now.

[Sorter]

MAGE DECKS being the key words there. if it is made into a neutral card, then ALL DECKS not just MAGE DECKS would need to have it in their decks or are at instant disadvantage. Most high ranked (non Eladwen-portal) decks have all 30 cards specifically planned out with a specific purpose in mind. Throw the necessity to have to have portal in their deck and that's at minimum 2 cards they need to remove to still be competitive. That's what I meant by "kill most deck(s)". I am not against fairness, I'm all for it. But changing a super powerful card like portal into something any deck at all can use (HAS to use to be competitive) is just plain stupid for any tactical game, because it then becomes: "Who can get out portal the fastest is going to win" - as is common in a lot of Eladwen/Eladwen matches now.

Is this not the case for when non-Mages play mages? Once portal and research are down it is pretty much GG. Also I don't see how 1st: they would "need to remove" cards "to still be competitive" when they could add them and still play with 32 cards and 2nd: why players would not want to run said cards if they could. I still don't get your point but w/e. It is your opinion and you have a right to it.

[revZloco]

Eladwing versus darkclaw is 50-50 in my opinion. It is on the skill of the respected player to win or lose against suchs games. I have seen darkclaws that don't know how to play what and when and darkclaws that you know that they will humiliate you and that is the fun side of the game. To try and beat everyone while you depend on your skill.

I agree 100%.

I read Supermof's post and thought the same thing. He is obviously a top-notch player and doesn't make many mistakes and the Darkclaw he played did. Savvy play has a LOT to do with it.

[revZloco]

If portal is made into a neutral card than it would kill most decks because if you DIDN'T have it, then you really could not compete. In Short, making portal neutral is a horrible idea. I also think that nerfing Eladwen is also a bad idea, as even though it does seem a tad over powered, it's not a game changer in and of itself. But combined with portal, it is.

I agree with this completely as well. I believe there are two ways to balance this ridiculous combo (Portal+Anything), either you nerf Portal so that (like Rabid Bite) it becomes a 2-3 turn finite ability. Or you begin to counter balance the other classes with things that counter Portal. Nerfing Eladwen is NOT the answer (and I'm one of the biggest Mage-Portal-Haters out here).

[XLegion]

Is this not the case for when non-Mages play mages? Once portal and research are down it is pretty much GG. Also I don't see how 1st: they would "need to remove" cards "to still be competitive" when they could add them and still play with 32 cards and 2nd: why players would not want to run said cards if they could. I still don't get your point but w/e. It is your opinion and you have a right to it.

I respect your maturity, it is something that is becoming increasingly rare these days. I sometimes push my views onto others and for that I apologize.
While i'm not in the top 20, I have played a few of the top 20 people and have won approx. 1/2 the games i've played with them. Allow me to give a hint or 2 (by all means you don't have to listen if you don't want to).
The fewer cards one has in their decks, the faster they get to the cards they need/want to play. In order for someone to get the cards that can potentially change the tempo of the game (who gets to play first) one would need more than 1 card in order to increase the chances of getting it in the first few turns-thus at least 2 of the chosen card. While 32 cards may not seem like that much of a difference, a single turn can make or break a match-especially since the default is 1 card drawn per turn.
I would encourage you to observe some of the matches that occur between high ranking players, you will notice a trend in one of 2 ways. Either 1) most decks use 30 cards. or 2)Most decks have sets of 3 to 4 of some cards and 0 of others. This is because they eliminate the cards that have limited use or would use as sacrifice material, again because they want to get the cards they need/want as soon as possible.
In the case of portal, Eladwen/Nishaven decks usually emplore 2 to 3 of this card since by turn 4 they want to have it in their hands to gain the tempo advantage.
You are correct in your statement of when research and portal are out it's pretty much over. Which is exactly why most mage decks have both (usually at least 2 of each card). Since I have both observed and played Elawden/Eladwen matches, it quite often comes down to who gets to cast portal first. If portal is deemed a neutral card (meaning ALL decks can use it) the tempo would once again be determined by who gets to cast it first. In the case of non-mage decks vs. mage decks, the non-mage decks ARE at a disadvantage due to not being able to cast portal. If they ARE however able to cast it, the matches would in theory become more even; however if they simply add 2 portal cards to their deck, then they have a chance (however small it may be) to be 1 to 2 card draws behind the mage decks who wouldn't need to change their decks at all. If they substitute 2 of their current cards for the portal cards, they are then at a disadvantage due to the mages spell casting abilities-which usually target 2 or more allies. Hero's such as Zaladar can make this more even, but it is normally weak ally cards that will be substituted in favor of powerful cards (such as portal) meaning most hero's also lose the damage per turn advantage they would have by having more allies in their decks and on the board.
All of this comes down to a very small percentage of chances, but again, 1 turn can either make or break a battle. Once the update happens and weapons/armor are introduced, this may not matter at all. If all decks can use portal however, the turn advantage would go to whoever can cast it first. meaning the 30 card strategy would either A)become a 32 card strategy where 30 card decks would have a 1-2 turn potential advantage. or B)become more of weapon/spell based strategy than an ally strategy, making the use of portal meaningless (or close to it).
Once again, I apologize if I came across as condescending, that was never my intent. I merely intended to point out that as long as portal remains ongoing, whoever has it in their decks AND plays it first will have the advantage-no matter who the Hero's are-except that the 30 card portal strategy will always have the advantage towards mage decks since they have multiple target spells as well.

*This is for v1.23 and will probably become meaningless when v1.24 comes out.

[Sorter]

Thank you for your confidence in me. I do realize the odds decrease, however slight, if players use 32 cards but, at least in my hunter case, sole already run over 30 anyway. To that point I think 30 is too small. Dunno about other TCGs but 40 is the standard in mtg for what we call draft decks, and it works. Of course in that count we add lands sl if u remove those, usually 15-17, you get what, around 23-25 cards? That is even greater chance, assuming mtg played only its spells. But it wouldn't work. Yes, the raising to 40 would slow all decks, especially Eladwens, but that also is part of the bigger picture, among other things like all allies having first strike, which IMO is totally bs, but that's just me.

[Ball Lightning]

a good way to balance things is to add new cards (good cards) to other ppl not start NERFING existed cards! that would be a disaster to all the ppl they paid for them anyway...

I think that's a very good point. If no one paid to "own" any of the stronger cards, then nerfing them would be fine, but people paid money to own that card with those specs. To alter the value of a card after it's been paid for would suck and I wouldn't pay for another card again.

[Sorter]

I think that's a very good point. If no one paid to "own" any of the stronger cards, then nerfing them would be fine, but people paid money to own that card with those specs. To alter the value of a card after it's been paid for would suck and I wouldn't pay for another card again.

NOT trying to ruin something good that is SE but I do not see the point of spending money on BETA. Of course it sux if u bought cards just to get them nerfed, but do not forget this is incomplete and will need some balancing so some nerfing will be necessary. Or they could stop designing the cards borken. This is actually how mtg started. Look at moxes. WTF free mana and abusable with artifact manipulators.