Hearthpwn

"Enemy spells do 2 less damage"

Interesting idea. Although it's not a Spell Taunt, it would have a very similar effect. Shadow Word: Pain and Shadow Word: Death would still be effective, and so would Hex, Polymorph, and other hard removal spells. But it would be a nice start to making the spell game more multi-faceted than it currently is

Obviously if you were going to add preparation you would need to design cards accordingly, by making the preparing spells cost less, do more, etc. Changing the existing cards would never happen but I don't think having an immediate effect is such a sacred cow.

A battlecry that makes spells cost more would be good, but I don't really like the idea of it screwing over buffs, card draw, and non-damage spells. That's why I like the idea of a minion that specifically mitigates damage spells and not others.

Quote from Xaos73 >>

What about a relatively cheap minion that makes all spells cost (1) or (2) more as long as it is on the board?  Kind of like Nerub'ar Weblord, but for spells.  It is more balanced than Loatheb because it applies to both players.  It would make it hard for your opponent to combo lots of spells together until they kill this minion.

I actually agree with everything OP said, except that I suspect Lakki Sacrifice simply isn't being played correctly. But I don't play it myself so I don't know. Very good thread.

Quote from NightCrawl3er >>

 

If you really "hate" some decks, don't incentivize the people playing it by giving them free wins 

Quote from gabugga >>

You must not be a very good player since there are things you need to watch for during your opponents turn. Good players constantly keep an eye on their opponents hand to see cards they've kept, which cards they play, so you get a sense of what they are holding. It's important whether someone uses a top deck, whether someone uses a card produced by another card, and so on.

If my opponent kept a card on the left for 9 turns, that narrows down what that card could be tremendously. And that's just one example.

I'm glad to see there are some people who understand that the idea has potential. Obviously these kinds of things would need to be adjusted before it could be put in the game, but it's a reasonable concept that wouldn't break the game at all.

Already decent attempts at similare effects like Wee Spellstopper and Animated Armor have proven far too weak for constructed.

Those are both mage cards. Perhaps you don't understand the basic idea of what I'm suggesting: the cards I'm talking about would have to be common neutral cards. That's how you affect the meta and give new functions a chance to make a difference. As for being weak, guess what? That's what balance is for. Just look at the Tar Creeper, which is an overpowered Taunt minion in a way, designed to push taunt as viable. It worked, and the game benefited. The only mechanics that negatively affect the game when they're overpowered are aggro, spells, and snowballing effects.

So the discussion has gone from it being...

1. Redundant because there's so many cards already doing it
2. Totally broken and overpowered
3. Useless

Sounds like typical theorycrafting on a discussion board.

It takes me 2 seconds to click back to the game, and I hear what's happening in the background. I hate Quest Rogue and boring decks, and I've been playing priest, hunter, druid, paladin meme decks basically. It's the opponents turn that I find boring, since everyone plays the same decks

I said while your opponent plays. What am I supposed to do, interrupt the middle of his turn and start busting out cards?

You're doing literally nothing half the time when you play Hearthstone. Or if your opponent is slow, you're doing nothing 80% of the time.

I've found that the only way I can play Hearthstone without getting bored or frustrated is if I have the game in windowed mode and do other things in the meantime. For example, I'm playing the game as I make this post. Other times I watch YouTube or Twitch.

Quote from LordPikachuStarscream >>

As soon as I saw the title I knew that this post was gonna bring up Quest Mage as the reason why we need spell taunt. But why? Spell taunt is useless against both forms of OTK Quest Mage. 

Quote from OverholtNA >>

I concede on turn one when I play a quest rogue in casual. It's just a frustrating waste of time if you're playing any experimental, moderately slow deck. And I'll sometimes concede a ranked Hunter game if my opponent stabilizes and my hand is basically empty.

Quote from civelli >>

why would i not concede if i have a slow start vs quest warr/rog and they complete their quest early its just impossible for most decks if you arent close to kill by then that you will ever get

Quote from Shrm >>

Imagine this situation with this "wonderful" idea of yours. Shaman plays Flamewreathed Faceless, drops this "Pearl Golem" of yours and Goldshire Footman. How can you remove the 7/7 if you don't have loads of minions already on board (which is never the case)?Yes, exactly. You can't. Wasting aoe removal on a single threat is not worth it so its not a real option either.

 

Quote from craigrs84 >>

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

Quote from Ogobum >>

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.

 

Quote from Shrm >>

I don't like the idea in general, not being able to cast a spell/s on certain minion/s would cause some serious issues with all the already existing cards/mechanics. How would aoe spells work? There are too big of threats that can be only answered by cards like Siphon Soul and Sap that not being able to do this would break the game.