I shouldn't have even mentioned Quest Mage in the OP, because that's not why I made the thread. I've been thinking about the symmetry of game design and why Taunt was awesome, so I made a thread exploring the idea that the game would improve if there was a spell equivalent. Quest Mage is just the ultimate example of quests gone wild, and I realized that all of the anti-spell cards are gimmick legendary ones. There should be common neutral cards that hinder spells, that's all.
Are we playing the same game? so what you're saying is, that you think that non-minion cards have an too high impact in curvestone?! seriously? Maybe it would be a better idea to create a new play mode where only minions are allowed so that people like you don't get frustrated when they can't win every game even though they have more minions on the board.
Can you exaggerate more? I'd say about 70% of "non-minion" cards would be totally unaffected by this.
Well that's just it. They don't care about your board they are a freeze mage variant which uses cards such as Blizzard and Frost Nova which aren't targeted to stall along with a doomsayer to clear. Then go for the combo which doesn't need to worry about you're board either.
Your reply and the next guy's are pretty much the same, so I'll reply after his...
They can't Fireball, Polymorph (all generated from random effects if they have them, mind you) etc. your big dudes if you have spell taunt, sure. The thing that you clearly don't understand is that by the time you have "bid dudes" on the board, a quest, or freeze, mage doesn't really care about removing them anyway. The tempo loss of playing your "spell taunt" is going to gain the mage more on average than they would lose making it slightly more annoying to control the board. It's clear that you don't have the slighest clue about how quest mage works, at least have the self-perception to realize it.
First of all, this idea is good regardless of Quest Mage, just from a game design perspective it would have the same benefit as normal Taunt currently does. Secondly, you may have never played against Quest Mage, but it has this thing where you're supposed to play spells that DID NOT start in your deck. So yes, while the deck itself does not emphasize single-target removal spells, it certainly does USE THEM if you've actually played the game. One of the biggest reasons why Quest Mage works at all is because they are always discovering single-target removal spells. No, it's not guaranteed and there are plenty of spells that don't target single minions, but guess what? That's the point.
My suggestion is for a single new ability which would be fair, not broken, and simply push the game in a better direction, just like how Taunt has made Un'Goro much better than the previous expansions. Obsess over that one utterly broken deck if you want to, but the idea is about more than just that.
Another mage card. The whole point of this thread's suggestion is that this would be a NEUTRAL COMMON type of card similar to Taunt, so that everybody can build decks with some single-target spell mitigation.
It's funny that you should mention quest mage as the target of this terrible idea. Not only is quest mage a bad archetype, but this idea does literally nothing to disrupt their OTK. What exactly is a "spell taunt" going to do against infinite fireballs? Good job OP. Yes, Kappa.
You don't realize how Quest Mage works obviously.
You don't explain why it would be "terrible".
In order for Quest Mage to function, the need to be able to control the board using spells. But if you have Spell Taunt, they'll be wasting their spells on those guys instead of destroying the really good cards in your deck... the same way Taunt has always worked for minions. You could build a much better board against any spell Mage if you knew they couldn't hit your best dudes with Polymorph, Fireball, Frostbolt, etc.
Use your brain, friend.
You wanted anti-spell tech, those and other cards are just that. Especially Loatheb is brutal against anything relying on spell-combos. A similar card should always be in standard imo.
I like other anti-spell mechanics much better than spell-taunt. The wording sounds clunky, something like "all spells must target this minion?" What about non-target spells? Secrets? And how do you balance it? It would probably need to be so weak that is useless vs anything relying on minion tempo.
1. The game was fine - with or without Journey to Un'goro. But like any cardgame it only gets better the more cards there are to pick from so naturally it got better but not because of your own biased opinions... because it was already fine with MSoG and ... as stated, more cards = better.
2. There is 'spell taunts'; Animated Armor, threats like Ysera or Frothing Berserker. Cards that require responses or impacts on how you have to play will always be cards that are targeted by spells.
3. Faerie Dragon is a mighty fine example of a stellar card.
4. Minions in Hearthstone are way stronger than what spells are due to the nature of repeatable damage sources that are very difficult to get rid of. A good comparison is that of Fireball and Twilight Guardian; Fireball deals its damage once and then its done and Twilight Guardian deals the same amount of damage as long as it attacked twice, attacked once and was then attacked itself or was attacked twice.
5. If you still think me wrong then just ask for more cards like Burgly Bully.
I don't think there's a lot more to really say that others haven't said already at this point.-
Edit: 6. Since you were talking so much 'It wouldn't help in the current meta'... please fuck off with this attitude. That's the reason why Golakka Crawler was made and as I have very fiercely and will continue to call this the litterally worst card in the Hearthstone's entire history and genuinely deserves to be removed in its current form... Yah', cards aren't supposed to 'Be good in the current meta'; injections of cards should allow for people to build new decks that challenge what's good and what isn't.
Example: Fire Fly and Igneous Elemental are two cards that made an almost working paladin archetype (namely handbuffing) go from 'meh' to 'legend material'. That's what cards are supposed to do, not kill entire tribes because of ... let's just say 'passionate fools that shouldn't be allowed to speak' to put it nicely. So please fuck off with this attitude of yers'.
1. card games do not get better with more cards, there is a sweet spot of cards that allows for the most variety and fun if there is too much synergy for one deck it becomes op, as of current I feal no one takes wild as a competitive format but once they do all the "fun" of playing wild will go away with hyper powerful decks that leave no room for improvement or personal changes.
2. so? why can't it be a key word? also, you could say the same thing about any card that people will remove with minions.
3. point there is off topic
4. spells are more powerful because they don't have taunts (and there taunt cards would be premium) and their effect is instant.
5. my god did you read any of the thread? people already talked about Burgly Bully and the op said that's not what he is talking about.
They can't Fireball, Polymorph (all generated from random effects if they have them, mind you) etc. your big dudes if you have spell taunt, sure. The thing that you clearly don't understand is that by the time you have "bid dudes" on the board, a quest, or freeze, mage doesn't really care about removing them anyway. The tempo loss of playing your "spell taunt" is going to gain the mage more on average than they would lose making it slightly more annoying to control the board. It's clear that you don't have the slighest clue about how quest mage works, at least have the self-perception to realize it.
First of all, this idea is good regardless of Quest Mage, just from a game design perspective it would have the same benefit as normal Taunt currently does. Secondly, you may have never played against Quest Mage, but it has this thing where you're supposed to play spells that DID NOT start in your deck. So yes, while the deck itself does not emphasize single-target removal spells, it certainly does USE THEM if you've actually played the game. One of the biggest reasons why Quest Mage works at all is because they are always discovering single-target removal spells. No, it's not guaranteed and there are plenty of spells that don't target single minions, but guess what? That's the point.
My suggestion is for a single new ability which would be fair, not broken, and simply push the game in a better direction, just like how Taunt has made Un'Goro much better than the previous expansions. Obsess over that one utterly broken deck if you want to, but the idea is about more than just that.
You don't even really have an idea in the first place. You have general thoughts about what you want out of a card, but don't have a clue what it is or how to balance it.
I said it already, but I'll say it again: Quest mage doesn't care about your spell taunt. I got a Polymorph out of Cabalist's Tome, fine I'll poly your spell taunt because that's the only target. If you're playing a spell taunt, you're playing control, I usually don't have to concern myself with single target removal anyway, I just want to get rid of my clunky spell. The effect you're after is probably worth around 1,5-2 mana, so you're playing something like a 6 mana 5/5. Fantastic, I don't need to worry about a 6 drop then. I can either kill your spell taunt that you wasted mana on, or I can ignore it completely because I have freeze effects. Against a control deck you wouldn't pick single target removal from Primordial Glyph unless the board demanded it or it was your only choice, so that point is irrelevant more or less.
Pretty much the only reason quest mage can even function is becuase they can discover stall, not single target removal. Frost Nova, Blizzard, Ice Block etc.
I've played the deck and I've played over 500 games of freeze mage (yes, I've gotten legend with it). I know what I'm talking about, and you clearly don't. And for the record, the deck is actually bad, not broken. It's so easy to counter that it's ridiculous.
I would not be surprised to see the spellbender mechanic eventually find it's way to other minions in HS. It just makes sense, and it's a mechanic that already exists.
Help me out, I can't think of one situation where that would be a useful ability to have.
There's a card in Shadowverse that says "If this follower can be targeted by enemy spells and effects, then your other allied followers can't be targeted." It pretty much does nothing because it just dies in combat or gets ignored if you're losing and gets AoEed if you're winning.
Depending on the mana cost of said minion, you could drop it along side a threat minion and make removing the threat difficult or awkward.
Help me out, I can't think of one situation where that would be a useful ability to have.
There's a card in Shadowverse that says "If this follower can be targeted by enemy spells and effects, then your other allied followers can't be targeted." It pretty much does nothing because it just dies in combat or gets ignored if you're losing and gets AoEed if you're winning.
Depending on the mana cost of said minion, you could drop it along side a threat minion and make removing the threat difficult or awkward.
I think it pretty much needs to be something like a 6 mana card. Unless it's a legendary, which I don't really see a reason for, the effect has to cost at least 1,5 mana. As a 4 mana, or less, card the body is just going to be too weak. At 7 or more mana, the effect is not impactful enough to warrant spending your entire turn on it.
I can see a card like that being used pretty much the same way loatheb was used. Except it would a much worse card than loatheb because it wouldn't protect against AoE, among other things.
Edit: Point being, you wouldn't really be able to drop it with a minion that's worthwhile to protect. Not on the same turn at least.
Help me out, I can't think of one situation where that would be a useful ability to have.
There's a card in Shadowverse that says "If this follower can be targeted by enemy spells and effects, then your other allied followers can't be targeted." It pretty much does nothing because it just dies in combat or gets ignored if you're losing and gets AoEed if you're winning.
Depending on the mana cost of said minion, you could drop it along side a threat minion and make removing the threat difficult or awkward.
I think it pretty much needs to be something like a 6 mana card. Unless it's a legendary, which I don't really see a reason for, the effect has to cost at least 1,5 mana. As a 4 mana, or less, card the body is just going to be too weak. At 7 or more mana, the effect is not impactful enough to warrant spending your entire turn on it.
I can see a card like that being used pretty much the same way loatheb was used. Except it would a much worse card than loatheb because it wouldn't protect against AoE, among other things.
Edit: Point being, you wouldn't really be able to drop it with a minion that's worthwhile to protect. Not on the same turn at least.
Well in that case the minion you designed is probably worthless and unplayable.
I don't see what all the hostility on this thread is about. It's a legitimate suggestion to have something like keyword Arcane Attraction, which would be shorthand for:
"If an opponent would cast a spell that targets a character, he/she must target an enemy minion with Arcane Attraction instead".
This would include not just directly targeted kill/damage spells directed at your friendly minions and burn directed at your face, but also opponent's friendly buff spells. I worded it kind of funky because I don't think the intent was that if you have your own Arcane Attraction minion in play you MUST target it yourself, thus the opponent/enemy minion language.
I could see fear with something like adapt giving that minion the "can't be target of spells or hero abilities" effect being fairly busted, but they'd still be subject to "Battlecry: Silence" and good ol' fashioned combat damage. Also, the taunt would not affect non-targeted spells like HallucinationTwisting Nether or Flamestrike.
I do think there is some design space for a spell damage reduction minion, or spell cost increase minion. Loatheb is a well-designed card and the fact that it was an auto-include is a reflection of exactly what the OP is talking about. I didn't like that it was a battlecry - if the effect is attached to a living minion, then the interactivity is preserved.
I do think there is some design space for a spell damage reduction minion, or spell cost increase minion. Loatheb is a well-designed card and the fact that it was an auto-include is a reflection of exactly what the OP is talking about. I didn't like that it was a battlecry - if the effect is attached to a living minion, then the interactivity is preserved.
The problem with static effects like that is they often don't work or they'd be too imbalanced unless they were reciprocal. That's why a card like Mana Wraith never became a thing even though I think a resource deprivation type deck could work given a little support.
The funny part about this whole thread is that the Mage quest isn't nearly as good as the straight face burn mage decks that are popping up. In fact the Hemet one has a very high win rate regardless of drawing Hemet.
If you are worried about being burned the counter is add more healing to your deck. The current meta is showing very little healing so hard face/burn decks are doing very well. If the meta swings toward a little more healing and less speed the burn decks will suffer greatly and get pushed out.
1. card games do not get better with more cards, there is a sweet spot of cards that allows for the most variety and fun if there is too much synergy for one deck it becomes op, as of current I feal no one takes wild as a competitive format but once they do all the "fun" of playing wild will go away with hyper powerful decks that leave no room for improvement or personal changes.
2. so? why can't it be a key word? also, you could say the same thing about any card that people will remove with minions.
3. point there is off topic
4. spells are more powerful because they don't have taunts (and there taunt cards would be premium) and their effect is instant.
5. my god did you read any of the thread? people already talked about Burgly Bully and the op said that's not what he is talking about.
1. Cardgames do get better with additional cards no matter what they are. To reach the amount of cards necessary to overwhelm the game requires a very lackluster development team that basically just reprints the same cards but with different names repeatedly. And even in those cases, even such sets that offer absolutely nothing new is quite often seen with a great deal of appreciation; look towards any of Magic the Gatherings modern-boxes or Modern Legends-sets and you'll see a very nice reception.
Of course if you add in a rotional system then adding even more cards is even better because with time the system the cards rotate into will become more and more exotic and exciting. That's why Wild is not all that exciting as of yet, but its getting there certainly.
2. Sure. It can be a keyword. What would it entail? That you can't toss spells at your opponent for a turn? Loatheb.
That it is a minion that absorbs the damage? Bolf Ramshield.
The entire point of spells is that they aren't directly affected by minions. That's their entire schtick and if one doesn't like that ... then Hearthstone, alongside the likes of Pokémon, is a horrendous game to play. Because that's mostly the selling point. So sure... add a keyword that does what exactly? Which one of the 3-4 examples that I gave does the OP want?
3. No its not. You want a minion that affects how spells are cast well... it may not be a taunt but this is the closest thing of a keyword the OP will find as that's what he's looking for or he's looking for Loatheb. I didn't quite get what he was asking for as he seemingly wanted a spell-taunt even tho' that's entirely redundant and quite far from what Hearthstone seemingly is willing to offer.
4. Yes and once again, spells HAVE TO BE as strong as they are because of how minions work in Hearthstone. There isn't a great deal of mobility to spells so they require a direct impact that rivals that of whatever else is competing on that same manacost. That means minions for the most part. The strength of a spell in Hearthstone is its direct impact because of the insane stickingpower of minions in Hearthstone.
5. No I read the OP's post and I didn't see much reason to go any further in-depth into that whole mess so I responded to the OP's original point he tried to make. If he doesn't want minions to interact with spells (see Burgly Bully or any of the troggs from GvG for an example) ... then I don't understand what he's looking for. Mostly due to that he's also, in his original post, shit-talking litterally the saving grace and iconic card he was looking for namely Spellbender.
I did not read anymore of the thread than a few folks that I respect here and there on these forums for the OP doesn't seem to know themselves what they are asking for.
6. Yes. It does. Your point is? Its not a decision to include Golakka Crawler as at worst you get a decent 2 mana minion and in many decks the beast tag makes it still a mighty fine and actually quite impressive card. See beast druid, see midrange hunter, see any deck that runs The Curator in it... Hungry Crab is a decision however due to that it requires a meta of murlocs to be relevant.
Let me put it like this: Golakka Crawler could've been a nice card if it had been... 6.1: 1 mana 6.2: 1/2 statline 6.3: The effect "Destroy an opposing pirate"
As it stands, the OP is prasing the card because it does the same thing that Big Game Hunter did for litterally years namely stifles any chance for interesting 7+ attack minions to exist. The only proof I need to mention is this: with the release of Whispers of the Old Gods, cards like Prophet Velen started to see experimentation and cards like Varian Wrynn for a small amount of time were considered a broken-ass card.
1: card games will get worst the more cards they have, look at people's favorite metas on these forms so far:
Beta
Wotog
Ungr
these are the three points in the game with the least cards, and lowest power level, as you make more cards deck power goes up and people get unhappy.
2: Take taunt and replace minion with enemy spells
3: OK I'm on a tablet and will skip this one because I forget what it's about
4: there direct impact with no way to mess with them is there power minoins only work instantly with battle crys or charge. You also argue that removal shouldn't target legendary minoins because there can only be one of them in your deck
5: well then you wouldn't know about the op countering your argument before you made it.
6: so?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
playing wild
~nomad
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What do you want it's a Bolf Ramshield but with this text
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide
playing wild
~nomad
I would not be surprised to see the spellbender mechanic eventually find it's way to other minions in HS. It just makes sense, and it's a mechanic that already exists.
I don't see what all the hostility on this thread is about. It's a legitimate suggestion to have something like keyword Arcane Attraction, which would be shorthand for:
"If an opponent would cast a spell that targets a character, he/she must target an enemy minion with Arcane Attraction instead".
This would include not just directly targeted kill/damage spells directed at your friendly minions and burn directed at your face, but also opponent's friendly buff spells. I worded it kind of funky because I don't think the intent was that if you have your own Arcane Attraction minion in play you MUST target it yourself, thus the opponent/enemy minion language.
I could see fear with something like adapt giving that minion the "can't be target of spells or hero abilities" effect being fairly busted, but they'd still be subject to "Battlecry: Silence" and good ol' fashioned combat damage. Also, the taunt would not affect non-targeted spells like Hallucination Twisting Nether or Flamestrike.
Balancing busted cards version 1.0.
In eternal card game, there is an ability called aegis, that peotect frome the 1st spell/effect cast on a creature or face.
Maybe that could be good in hearthstone, but anyway spells are not a problem.
There is no cancer deck in hearthstone ! You are the Cancer !
Ragnaros lightlord is a pretty good spell taunt if you like paladin
Isn't that sort of the whole point of spells tho? (That they can ignore taunts)
If they implement spell taunts then there's not much difference between a spell and a weapon
Hearthpwn: "THIS GAME ISN'T INTERACTIVE"
OP: "Here's an interesting way you could disrupt and interact with your opponent's turn."
Hearthpwn: "YOU CAN'T INTERACT WITH MY SPELLS! THAT'S CHEAT!"
I do think there is some design space for a spell damage reduction minion, or spell cost increase minion. Loatheb is a well-designed card and the fact that it was an auto-include is a reflection of exactly what the OP is talking about. I didn't like that it was a battlecry - if the effect is attached to a living minion, then the interactivity is preserved.
Free to try and find a game, dealing cards for sorrow, cards for pain.
Balancing busted cards version 1.0.
For mage in Wild have what you asking for:
If a neutral version of this exists can be an interesting tech.
The funny part about this whole thread is that the Mage quest isn't nearly as good as the straight face burn mage decks that are popping up. In fact the Hemet one has a very high win rate regardless of drawing Hemet.
If you are worried about being burned the counter is add more healing to your deck. The current meta is showing very little healing so hard face/burn decks are doing very well. If the meta swings toward a little more healing and less speed the burn decks will suffer greatly and get pushed out.
playing wild
~nomad