I know it's been discussed in lots of other threads because of the popularity of hunters, their secret deck, and the fact that they are the only ones who have secret removal. The purpose of me creating this thread is simply to compile all those thoughts into one go to thread.
That being said, let's hear your thoughts guys.... should Blizzard create a neutral class card to interact with secrets directly or no?
I think the neatest way to implement this would be on a minion. Maybe like a 2-mana 2/2, Battlecry: Destroy all secrets. There aren't neutral spells anyway.
I would like to see neutral card like that, destroy all secrets probably would be too OP for neutral card. Return all secrets to hand or destroy one random secret would be better.
Why should it be possible to counter Explosive trap but not Consecration? What sense does that make?
Wait, you mean counter play? Like you having to bait the card with a freezing trap or snipe first before you can use your explosive trap to clear the board? Besides it could also see play against Mages and the new agro Pally that's about to become relevant due to their new Naxx card.
I agree all secrets would be too strong, and I think just returning them to the hand has very minimal impact. I like the idea of destroying one random secret though. That seems to introduce counter play without completely killing secrets as cards.
Why should it be possible to counter Explosive trap but not Consecration? What sense does that make?
Wait, you mean counter play? Like you having to bait the card with a freezing trap or snipe first before you can use your explosive trap to clear the board? Besides it could also see play against Mages and the new agro Pally that's about to become relevant due to their new Naxx card.
No, he means the mage secret Counterspell, which is how Consecration would have to be countered.
Hrm... nah, that would be too OP as well, Tarcist. It would allow both players to evolve their play around those secrets revealed, or give a highly unfair advantage to one player. Honestly, the "destroy a random secret" card would be best. It allows for the possibility of backfire, therefore keeping it less OP than other suggestions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-Must not all things at the last be swallowed up in death. ~Plato
But we should consider that most of the times there is only one secret on the board from the character.So the random term would be of no use.I think the only way of giving this battlecry (destroy a random enemy secret) would be only if the minion would cost 4 or 5 mana at least.
Huh, yet, Huntards get a 1 cost secret removal? Cooome oooon. That is so ridiculously uber. Sorry, not just secret removal for 1, but also stealth removal... oh yeah, and cycle. Blah. I think they can do a random secret removal and make it work as a 1 or 2 drop. Fair is fair if you ask me, and huntards already have enough OP as it is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-Must not all things at the last be swallowed up in death. ~Plato
On the other hand Flare is a card that against a non-secret deck doesnt pay its value.How many times you played against a non secret deck and after drawing Flare you thought: "I wish i had an Arcane Shot instead"?I mean its op in some occasions and in others is just not worth its value.
Not worth it's value? At worst, it's 1 mana draw a card, the next closest thing to that would be novice engineer, which costs two mana and also gives a 1-1 minion on the board. So for one extra mana you get a 1-1 minion. To me that demonstrates the card, is at it's worst valued appropriately with potential for much more.
As far the neutral secret removal, I think a 3 mana 3-3 would be reasonable with the battlecry destroy one random secret.
Why should it be possible to counter Explosive trap but not Consecration? What sense does that make?
I actually understand llikemobo's point of view as Explosive trap is just a delayed AOE.,
but it's actually more than that,
imagine if there was a enemy minion that when played, you don't know it's attack or life, the only way to know is to attack it, now that wouldn't be the same as a normal minion in which you can calculate and plan you turn.
Don't destroy a secret, steal it for your own use. This card would steal an enemy secret and put it into play under your control. But, spell or minion? And how to make the text more descriptive. I'd want it to steal an active secret that's in play, not a card in the opponent's deck.
I don't think it would be over powered to have it destroy all secrets... I mean like stated for one mana hunter can destroy all secrets.. Undo stealth and draw a card... A minion that did all wouldn't even b that good
Fleet Footed Assasin is a odd one and need rework i think, cuz there are secrets that aren't triggered by attacking, so this card just seems wrong to me. Raging Elekk would be awesome if it wasn't a beast ( hunter synergy :<, avoid that ). Scout is awesome, just make it 3 mana, cuz 2 is just too solid pick. Watch Tower is interesting idea but description could be better.
I know it's been discussed in lots of other threads because of the popularity of hunters, their secret deck, and the fact that they are the only ones who have secret removal. The purpose of me creating this thread is simply to compile all those thoughts into one go to thread.
That being said, let's hear your thoughts guys.... should Blizzard create a neutral class card to interact with secrets directly or no?
Interesting idea. It fits in with their "no nerfs, new cards" mentality. Any idea's on the card itself? Effect, cost, etc.
I think the neatest way to implement this would be on a minion. Maybe like a 2-mana 2/2, Battlecry: Destroy all secrets. There aren't neutral spells anyway.
Edit: Had some fun with this...
Why should it be possible to counter Explosive trap but not Consecration? What sense does that make?
I would like to see neutral card like that, destroy all secrets probably would be too OP for neutral card. Return all secrets to hand or destroy one random secret would be better.
"Dark Lady watch over you."
Wait, you mean counter play? Like you having to bait the card with a freezing trap or snipe first before you can use your explosive trap to clear the board? Besides it could also see play against Mages and the new agro Pally that's about to become relevant due to their new Naxx card.
I agree all secrets would be too strong, and I think just returning them to the hand has very minimal impact. I like the idea of destroying one random secret though. That seems to introduce counter play without completely killing secrets as cards.
No, he means the mage secret Counterspell, which is how Consecration would have to be countered.
Hrm... nah, that would be too OP as well, Tarcist. It would allow both players to evolve their play around those secrets revealed, or give a highly unfair advantage to one player. Honestly, the "destroy a random secret" card would be best. It allows for the possibility of backfire, therefore keeping it less OP than other suggestions.
-Must not all things at the last be swallowed up in death. ~Plato
But we should consider that most of the times there is only one secret on the board from the character.So the random term would be of no use.I think the only way of giving this battlecry (destroy a random enemy secret) would be only if the minion would cost 4 or 5 mana at least.
Huh, yet, Huntards get a 1 cost secret removal? Cooome oooon. That is so ridiculously uber. Sorry, not just secret removal for 1, but also stealth removal... oh yeah, and cycle. Blah. I think they can do a random secret removal and make it work as a 1 or 2 drop. Fair is fair if you ask me, and huntards already have enough OP as it is.
-Must not all things at the last be swallowed up in death. ~Plato
On the other hand Flare is a card that against a non-secret deck doesnt pay its value.How many times you played against a non secret deck and after drawing Flare you thought: "I wish i had an Arcane Shot instead"?I mean its op in some occasions and in others is just not worth its value.
Not worth it's value? At worst, it's 1 mana draw a card, the next closest thing to that would be novice engineer, which costs two mana and also gives a 1-1 minion on the board. So for one extra mana you get a 1-1 minion. To me that demonstrates the card, is at it's worst valued appropriately with potential for much more.
As far the neutral secret removal, I think a 3 mana 3-3 would be reasonable with the battlecry destroy one random secret.
I actually understand llikemobo's point of view as Explosive trap is just a delayed AOE.,
but it's actually more than that,
imagine if there was a enemy minion that when played, you don't know it's attack or life, the only way to know is to attack it, now that wouldn't be the same as a normal minion in which you can calculate and plan you turn.
----------------------------------
Result of my idea :<
"Dark Lady watch over you."
Or here is another mechanic.
Don't destroy a secret, steal it for your own use. This card would steal an enemy secret and put it into play under your control.
But, spell or minion? And how to make the text more descriptive. I'd want it to steal an active secret that's in play, not a card in the opponent's deck.
or
I really like the concept of both cards. However tempest8008, yours looks more like a Rogue class card with the title and artwork.
I don't think it would be over powered to have it destroy all secrets... I mean like stated for one mana hunter can destroy all secrets.. Undo stealth and draw a card... A minion that did all wouldn't even b that good
I was thinking the exact same thing as I was putting it together, it all just seemed to fit though.
Now I'm going through the lore looking for a spell steal graphic that's appropriate...
Fleet Footed Assasin is a odd one and need rework i think, cuz there are secrets that aren't triggered by attacking, so this card just seems wrong to me. Raging Elekk would be awesome if it wasn't a beast ( hunter synergy :<, avoid that ). Scout is awesome, just make it 3 mana, cuz 2 is just too solid pick. Watch Tower is interesting idea but description could be better.
"Dark Lady watch over you."