Ben Brode Explains the Reasoning for the Naga Sea Witch Rule Change
Ben Brode was on reddit today responding to an inquiry on Naga Sea Witch and her recent undocumented change.
- It was a mistake that the change wasn't in the patch notes for 9.0.
- If Naga Sea Witch is too powerful, she will probably be nerfed.
- The initial conversation began with the interaction between Bright-Eyed Scout and Second-Rate Bruiser.
- Due to not thinking that combo was correct, they reevaluated how cost-setting and cost-adjusting auras worked.
- Changing it made the rules overall easier to understand.
- They were initially concerned with the power level of the card, but it isn't a high win-rate right now.
Check out the full text below. There's a lot of great insight into the change that is better read in full.
Quote from Ben BrodeIf you're talking about Naga Sea Witch, it was definitely intentional, and definitely a mistake that it missed the patch notes.
The thing that got us talking about the issue was the interaction between Bright-Eyed Scout and Second-Rate Bruiser.
Generally when things "set" a value (think Aldor Peacekeeper), it becomes the new baseline. Any "auras" that affect that value apply after the effect that is applying the new baseline. Think about a minion next to a Dire Wolf Alpha. If you Aldor Peacekeeper that minion, his new Attack will be 2, not 1. It's because the Aura applies after the "set" power. This hasn't always worked correctly in the past, but if you Aldor a Small-Time Buccaneer who is being buffed by his power - his power is an Aura, and so the resulting minion would have 3 Attack.
We think the Bright-Eyed Scout + Second-Rate Bruiser interaction wasn't correct, and it caused us to re-evaluate Cost-Setting and how it interacted with Cost-Adjusting Auras.
Here's the discussion the engineers and designers had regarding Sea Witch:
The Naga Sea Witch interaction can work out in one of two ways:
If you draw a Second-Rate Bruiser while Naga Sea Witch is already in play, Second-Rate Bruiser’s cost will be reduced by 2 if your opponent has 3 or more minions.
If you have a Second-Rate Bruiser already in hand and play a Naga Sea Witch, that Bruiser will always cost 5, no matter how many minions your opponent has. If it gets a Thaurissan tick, it goes down to 4. If the Naga Sea Witch leaves play, Second-Rate Bruiser’s cost will be reduced by 2 if your opponent has 3 or more minions, while keeping the Thaurissan tick making it cost 1 less – leaving it with a cost of either 4 or 2.
This distinction happens because in the first case, Naga Sea Witch’s timestamp will be earlier than SRB’s, so SRB applies last. In the second case, SRB’s modifier has an earlier timestamp, so Naga Sea Witch applies last.
Why this feels wrong: We have a very clear precedent that card text modifiers apply last, after any external stat-setting effect occurs.
Tar Creeper, Tar Lurker, Tar Lord, Lightspawn, Cogmaster, Old Murk-Eye, Goblin Sapper - All of these cards give themselves a modifier that alters one of their own stats. If you play a stat-setting effect on one of them, their text still applies. The Tar minions will always get their attack bonus, even after being affected by Crystal Core, Aldor Peacekeeper, Sunkeeper Tarim, Dinosize or any other effect.
The proposal is this: Cards that modify their own cost should work in this exact same way. Second-Rate Bruiser’s ability is in the same category as Tar Creeper’s ability – it modifies one of its stats when a condition is met. This would standardize their behavior, making them on the whole feel more intuitive and consistent, as well as making our lives easier by making the rules more predictable.
If Naga Sea Witch is in play: Cards in hand cost 5, then their text is applied.
If Aviana is in play: Cards in hand cost 1, then their text is applied.
If Aviana, Naga Sea Witch, Pint-Sized Summoner, Summoning Portal and Mana Wraith are in play: Cards in play apply their effects in the order that they came into play, then each card in hand applies its own text last.
If I draw a Molten Giant with Bright-Eyed Scout: Molten Giant’s cost is 5, minus the damage I’ve taken. If I’m at 25 health, it costs 0.
If I draw a Molten Giant with Bright-Eyed Scout while Aviana is in play: Aviana applies, making Molten Giant cost 1. Bright-Eyed Scout’s enchantment then applies, making Molten Giant cost 5. Finally, Molten Giant’s text applies, making it cost 5 minus HealthLost.
We made the change because we think these rules are easier to understand because they're more consistent with other parts of the game, not because we wanted to buff Naga Sea Witch. We were worried about it's power level and have been watching the play/win reports in Wild. Right now it's not one of the best decks, but it could grow in winrate as players get more practice. If it does become a big problem, we'd probably nerf Naga Sea Witch, rather than reverting the rules change.
This is an excellent explanation that should settle the "intentional or not" issue completely. It also makes a lot of sense, so thank you for sharing and clarifying!
It looks like Dragon's Breath doesn't follow these new rules though. Here's a video documenting that with Naga Sea Witch in play, Dragon's Breath in hand does not reduce its cost by one every time a minion dies, even though Volcanic Drake does: https://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/6yj2o9/new_bug_with_naga_sea_witch_and_dragons_breath/
Is this something that should happen, or a case that was missed in the last update?
It's a bug. Should be fixed in an upcoming patch (though the fix will miss 9.1.) (Source)
You totally missed it indeed! ;D
Man, there is this new thing called SARCASM that all thecool guys are doing right now! Try it, it's cool
Timmy is 20,
Timmy brings standard decks to wild, and get his ass handed to him,
Timmy is sooo fairplay,
Be like Timmy! XD
Why does everyone think this deck is overpowered? It's only good if they get the absolute nuts, which is Naga Sea Witch with at least 2 giants by turn 5. It's a highroll deck very similar to Big Priest in Standard, where a Barnes on turn 4 often means you lose.
Is it fun and interactive to play against? No. Is it broken? Absolutely not.
That's my argument for why they should keep it the way it is. It gave birth to a brand new archetype for at least 3 classes (Druid, Hunter, Warlock) and I really enjoy the added variety, even if they aren't always fun to lose to.
So what? Then it's your opponents turn and it will be turn 6 for him or turn 5 with coin. Anyway he has 6 Mana avaible (if he not wasted the coin) and can clear the board with Lightbomb, Equality + Pyro/Con, Doomsayer + Frost Nova, Brawl (only one giant left should not kill a Control Warrior on turn 5), 8 attack minion + Shadowflame...
You don't WIN on turn 5, you play minions and go ALL IN. The opponent then has opportunities to remove all your minions, effectively killing your game plan. They don't necessarily need the hard removal or mass board wipes, taunt minions put a damper on it as well. Also, it's a (minimum) 3 card combo, which doesn't always happen in your hand on turn 5.
I think people are seriously overestimating the amount of times this combo happens by turn 5. You've drawn only about 1/3 of your deck by then, so the chances of having Naga, 2 playable giants, and be in a good enough position to play it without losing anyway seems very difficult. My experience with murloc paladin (far stronger than secret) is that is crushes giant druid because they can't kill your murlocs.
The thing is by "buffing" the effect of this card after so long they punished players that chose to disenchant her. I had two copies of the card but I was in need of the dust so I went ahead and disenchanted her. I never played the card before the change because it's usage made for clunky turns. Now it forms part of one of the strongest decks to run in wild and I have to spent half a legendary's cost in dust to try her out.
As with nerfs in which players get to disenchant for full dust value, some form of compensation should be made for this "mistake", especially since it wasn't mentioned in any patch notes. Let players that had her in possession craft her for less or give us an amount of dust that is within reason that can be used only in crafting her(or simply just an amount of dust).
When changes like these take place and are publicly admitted as being mistakes, focus should be given to what the player base might think of this event. I wouldn't have noticed this change had it not been mentioned in these forums before the announcement. When I first saw the subject pointing out to this "stealth" patch update it seemed like a very shady thing to do. We already have a bunch of people accusing the game of being pay to win. You don't want them to think that "Hey, they waited for so long to make the change to this card so after it took effect and a huge amount of players had already disenchanted her they will have to spent dust again(getting -600 net dust) on her if they want to try her out in wild. Way to go Blizzard! Another smart way of drawing from players' resources from a game that is all too demanding especially from free to play players"
So what do you learn from this: Never disenchant Adventure cards. You know, that Blizz sometime change cards, so you have to guess, what card could be changed sometime. You guessed wrong, bad luck, but no reason to complain.
I agree with you. But I'm afraid to complain about any buffs because they happen so rarely that I don't want to discourage it any further.
This is the real cancer of this game. No, not the giants or golems or whatever, it's Ben Brode and Mike Donais, the guys who have no clue what they're doing with their game.
This is just rude and ignorant. They make mistakes, but they have created a game that many of us enjoy playing every day.
I agree with cluelesspug. You might not agree with all changes and they do make mistakes but they come across as guys who care about the game and put a lot of thought into how things should behave. With all the cards and effects in the game it's not an easy job to keep it all balanced.
You enjoy to play it everyday? Another jade druid player I guess. You're ruining the game just like Ben and Mike, you're also part of the problem.
"BLIZZ PLZ MAKE JADE HATE"
*Makes interaction that obliterates Jade Druid*
"OMG NERF"
just faced a fucking hunter of all things playing this stuff
this is getting ridiculous, seriously
This combo is only played on the low ranks. I played 20 games today in WIld from 8 to 6: Not even one Naga-Giant deck. Yesterday I exactly played 50 games in Wild on rank 7-9. I faced only one Naga-Giant-Hunter and even beaten him with a Beast-Druid.
Hunter is arguably the best at the giants with Tracking and Stitched Tracker getting them out consistently.
You could say that they make the game rules less messy this way. As we deserve. If the naga is too powerful, they will nerf it. As I understand, the rules should work as they do now, that is logical.