PDA

View Full Version : Blood is too strong (dat advantage) my thoughts...



havocattack
02-09-2014, 10:48 PM
G'day ladies and gentleman,

Please note, these are just my opinions and are based around my experiences playing the Alpha...

In the current pool of set 1 cards, I have found blood to be a bit too powerful (a lot of people I have talked to also agree), this may change when we have all the cards but I do not think it will enough.

The main reason I feel blood is too strong at the moment is it has a sh*t ton of cards that give advantage and not only that, those cards are great cards by themselves. If you take a look at all the other shards, there is hardly anything that compares to blood and some that do are situational (Gawaine). Squirrel Titan is a good one... Not much else :/

Cards that give advantage in blood (haven't included all):

Extinction - Several for 1
Xentoth's Inquisitor - Several for 1 with Ruby Gem especially.
Corpse Fly - 2 for 1
Rot Caster - 2 for 1
Atrophy - 2 for 1
Misfortune - 2 for 1
Nec Sac - 3 for 2
Shadowgrove Witch - 2 for 1, situational
Sorrow - Several for 1, situational
Relentless Corruption - Advantage over time
Inquisition - Not advantage but very strong early removal
Uruunaz - 2 for 1 (maybe more)

Some of these cards are fine but when you look at blood as a whole, there is way too many cards that give you immediate advantage (board presence + removal so gud). Cards that I feel are currently fine from the above list are; Rot Caster, Atrophy, Sorrow, Nec Sac, Shadowgrove Witch, Relentless, Uruunaz, Misfortune, Inquisition. However, with the 3 cards I mention below, it just pushes blood over the top in terms of quality.

The main culprits that I feel could probably use a tweak are: Corpse Fly, Inquisitor, Extinction (maybe ok).

Corpse Fly - A great card, removal from hand + a potential damage dealer (evasion ftw) or the ability to trade with threats (pony)
Change idea: I think a simple change of it being a 1/2 instead of a 2/1 would fit better.

Inquisitor - Way too strong at the moment, throw in the Prime Ruby gem and this guys is nuts
Change idea: Most people I've talked to suggest it being Minor Socket instead of Major... I somewhat agree but there is many options... I feel it definitely needs a tweak tho. (prime ruby gem should be 2 threshold too :P)

Extinction - Best removal in the game :)
Change idea: If the 2 cards above were tweaked, this would probably be fine staying as is. It could also be ok as 5 cost, but I also had another idea... Make it so it kills everything as it currently does, EXCEPT 1 cost or lower troops (flavor text - Only the roaches survive >_>)

Again, I am just stating my opinions and ideas from the top of my head. Currently, it's very hard to not just run blood in all decks as it offers so much... It can deal with everything by itself but the main problem I see it is the amount of advantage it offers.

At the moment, if you are running a creature deck that isn't super fast and you're against blood, more often than not you're gonna have a bad time :P

So, I would like people to post their thoughts and opinions, please no trolling etc. Lets stick to a mature and thoughtful discussion.

Cheers

HAVOC

P.S - Replicator's Gambit = Much fun :D

FlyingMeatchip
02-10-2014, 12:54 AM
Inquisitor w/ red gem would be fine if it would be a 2 damage burn spell at a target creature. Uranaaz should get the creature when damage to opponent happens. My other issue with inquisitor w/ red gem is the target random that even states target first and totally bypasses spellshield. Whether it is a random effect or not it says target....it shouldn't effect spellshield. Flying discard seems just fine and extinction is fine, both have equivalents in MTG.

havocattack
02-10-2014, 01:11 AM
I also had the same idea for the ruby gem, 2 dmg to target creature would work nice imo and would be fine at 1 threshold too

FlyingMeatchip
02-10-2014, 01:21 AM
I think Uranaaz is a bit OP because of the control/discard already heavily used in blood.

taron
02-10-2014, 02:41 AM
Agree with most of the stuff listed there, except Extinction, coming from a long time of playing MTG, there have always been 4 cost board wipes and they have not hurt the game in any significant fashion, but rather encourage smarter plays from the opponents rather than just vomiting creatures all over the board.

I think the change you guys are suggesting for the Prime ruby would be the fastest and easiest way to bring the inquisitor into line, make it a set amount of damage rather than a scaled one and he becomes a solid bit of increasing cost removal ;)

Kroan
02-10-2014, 02:42 AM
I think you're missing the point of extinction. A) You can play around it and B) it affects both sides. Not playing anything to get more advantage out of your extinction is a disadvantage. Having a wrath effect at 4 is necessary for a healthy format. It's also one of the only ways to keep spellshield decks in check.

I also disagree with you when it comes to the Corpse Fly. He's a fine in early game, good in mid-game and "playable" in lategame. The fact that you bring up another card that is a 3/2 lifedrain, steadfast flying for the same cost, because he trades with it only further supports the point that he's actually needed.

I agree with the inquisitor being a bit too much though. I wouldn't mind seeing him going to 4 and/or having actually 3 blood threshold instead of 2. Or make him a 2/2 for 3.

As a final note; the point of the game is not having the biggest card advantage, but to kill your opponent. Listing "Misfortune" as a 2-1 in your list of cards? Really?

havocattack
02-10-2014, 02:50 AM
I also disagree with you when it comes to the Corpse Fly. He's a fine in early game, good in mid-game and "playable" in lategame. The fact that you bring up another card that is a 3/2 lifedrain, steadfast flying for the same cost, because he trades with it only further supports the point that he's actually needed.

Actually needed? Blood already has tons of ways to deal with troops, the fact a corpse fly can trade with a pony but also make them lose a card from hand is where blood once again comes out ahead...

Xenavire
02-10-2014, 06:28 AM
Corpse fly is situational, and frankly only good as an early drop (being nearly a dead draw later). It is a good card, but not OP.

Extinction has been mentioned, and it was at one time a 5 cost - it needs to stay 4 cost because decks can overrun turn 4/5 fairly consistantly, and it is the only way to deal with spellshield.

Inquisitor... Tough, but there isn't much to change here. It is very situational when it comes to gems (use come into play effects for maximum profit) and it is fragile - not hard to burn it or murder it, and then it costs 5+. You can't reduce it's attack without nerfing it horribly, and increasing the cost is just as bad. Make it a minor slot and it is basically a shamed gladiator. It just needs to be left alone - it is hardly the strongest socketed card.

Freebird_Falcon
02-10-2014, 07:55 AM
I'd actually like to see Inquisition have some sort of limiter on it (only troops, or only troops costing 4 and over, or 3 and under, etc). Hand reveal + remove any except resource is beast for only 2.

RobHaven
02-10-2014, 08:00 AM
Just wait until they reveal the Hymn to TorMoooof. It only costs two and the opponent has to discard two cards at random. Devastating.

Danielius
02-10-2014, 12:25 PM
While I don't have an opinion about whether Blood cards should be nerfed, here's one more idea on how cards could be nerfed:

"When you play this card, permanently add +1 to the cost of each [this card] you own in all zones."

And/or the cost could increase faster (+2 to cost increase per one card played) or slower (+1 to cost increase per two cards played).

DackFayden
02-10-2014, 12:30 PM
While I don't have an opinion about whether Blood cards should be nerfed, here's one more idea on how cards could be nerfed:

"When you play this card, permanently add +1 to the cost of each [this card] you own in all zones."

And/or the cost could increase faster (+2 to cost increase per one card played) or slower (+1 to cost increase per two cards played).

Great idea. Really takes advantage of the digital medium. Although I'm not sure how much it hamper blood/x control, since blood/x already makes the game progress slowly

infam0usne0
02-10-2014, 12:38 PM
Many of the problems with inquisitor i feel come from the changes to stack resolution, there were answers to the inquisitor but all of them no longer work as they should due to the non targeting abilities no longer going on the stack. Before you could mutate before it resolved, or throw down an atrophy before it resolved, even buff your own troop before it resolved, you can no longer do this.
Honestly cards like atrophy and mutate really have no place any more, they had a niche before but now there really isn't much you can do with them, most of the played cards are cards that have the same attack and defence or very close. Any of the troops that these cards would really hurt just don't care about them any more.
Just another example of why this stack change backs you into a corner when it comes to certain plays or certain cards being viable at all. I don't want to be sitting there thinking wow i wouldn't have lost if i could have played this card before that resolved, or i could have won if i played this card before that resolved, i want to be able to actually do those things.
There shouldn't be soo many cards that are 100% advantage if it's not countered there should always be an answer somewhere.

Extinction i think will be pretty vital once eye of creation hits the game at it's current cost. I still think there should be outs to it though outside of counter, like a cheap diamond "all creatures you control are invincible this turn"

Really there are no other cards in blood that when they are played a clench my teeth and wish they weren't there, but the combination of them sometimes is a little overwhelming.
It's frustrating to play a troop deck to get wiped but it is a part of the game and you can play around it and if they need it and don't have it that's another thing entirely.

Really the inquisitor is ok by himself, i think you just need to be careful about what gems are created. I know they have a theme going with the whole "in to play effect is one threshold, on hit effect is two threshold" but i really see no reason to tip the balance just for the sake of a running theme, the ruby gems would be much better suited to the game if they switched the thresholds on them. Same with the diamond minor gems really, swiftstrike is a superior keyword compared to lifedrain and should be the higher threshold.

Tinfoil
02-11-2014, 08:46 PM
My thoughts...
The inquisitor is a very good card - but it is hard to judge it fairly, with so few of the gems implemented.


I think the main problem is extinction. An "extinction-like" effect is definitely needed, but it feels too strong because it is not situational and there is (almost) no defense against it. Some suggestions as how to balance things out:

- Destroy all non-artifact troops (then perhaps murder should be changed back the its previous version)
- Destroy all troops. Loose one life for each of the opponent creatures destroyed this way, gain one life for each of your own creatures destroyed this way
- Having more troops with abilities like "undying" or "regenerate" from MtG
- Destroy all troops. Opponent draw one card for each of his troops destroyed this way (thematically weird)
- increase threshold to 3 Blood (not sure about this)

So, make it more situational, increase the "cost" (not resource cost) of the spell, or have more troop-abilities that will balance its effect.