Shield Slam is fine. Maybe with shieldmaiden was a bit overpowered. This card is the only point to armor up. And some of decks need overpowered cards. Nerf would kill Control Warrior, in this aggro meta.
Come on, shield slam is pretty much a win more card. It is only ever cheap removal when the warrior is likely already on his way to a dominating victory. If you are keeping steady pressure on him, he can't build armor and has to play it with what he can generate (which is fair IMO since odds are if he is just playing it off of the armor he has built up already, he was on his way to victory with the rare exception of OTK decks).
You actually didn't take him up on it. He said same mana cost. Hex is 3, Shield slam is 1. Use other 1 mana removals/spells if you want to compare. I mean we aren't going to compare flamestrike to consecration now are we?
First of all you are wrong, because I was told to
Try to compare it to ANY other removal and its mana cost.
As I understand it he means ANY removal in the game and that the comparison should be done between the two cards calculating for the difference in mana between them. Finally from the game I know you usually need to spend at least 2 mana on armor for Shield Slam to be usable so it can be cast after you have invested at least 3 mana in it. Some people will say well you also get extra Armor, which is what makes it unfair (or something along those lines). This is where you are wrong, because having effects like these create what is known as 'class synergy'. If we had no class synergy then we would just have 9 generic classes where people would pick a random class to play with. Trust me you don't want that at all. Besides are we complaining for class synergy now? Well how about Thing from Below? Isn't this a 0 mana 5/5 with taunt 'OP'? Should we nerf that too because it allows Shaman to have some synergy with totems? As far as I am concerned the answer is no.
I would still like to see Shield Slam at 1 mana cost however, I would like to see the warrior "spend" his armor when playing shield slam. So when shield slam is played on a minion with 4 health remaining, the warrior loses 4 armor. It would still be a good card but it will prevent the 60 armor crap.
Lol how often does it happen that you get to 60 armor these days? This only happens in control vs control matches and even in those warrior loses most of the time since it is built to handle aggressive decks. Besides if you are at 60+ armor what is the difference 4 armor will make? Let's not forget Justicar Trueheart will rotate out with the next Standard (in about 6 months) so Shield Slam will be even less powerful. Against aggro decks is where your changes are significant, because in those matches you need to survive as long as possible to then stabilize and lock out the game through Armor your opponent can't go through. The change you propose would weaken the Control Warrior's matchups a lot (against aggressive decks, which if you haven't noticed don't need any more help right now).
Jesus, some people are just never happy. How about we just nerf everything until every deck is 30 wisps?
And be able to always play your whole hand to refill your board? No dead or situational cards at all?? No! That's way too overpowered. Come to think of it... Wisp OP. Nerf?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you say LUL in Twitch chat you are a moron. If you do it outside of Twitch - even more so!
This is why I say that shield slam is just a win more move:
Shield slam is reliable at getting out 2-6 damage, but anything beyond that means you did so poorly during the match that you haven't been able to do any face damage in a turn or two and the warrior is controlling the board. Realistically once the warrior has the board controlled enough to keep you from putting out hordes that can survive a round or two, the warrior has you in his sights ready to fire his coup'de'gras and finish you off. There are so many ways to dish out big damage on any class that can buff that combined with a warrior's board control, you just aren't going to push past that unless you have direct damage spells or a few good board wipes in your deck (which is warrior's weakness since they can't rebuild easily as control, and they don't have a way to take back control from a lopsided board as agro, you have to really work at some creative solutions to get past those issues like Malygos + Whirlwind for a turn 10 6 damage across the board (and preferably holding an inner rage for killing off a big minion that survives with another 6 damage (which is enough to get you past any unbuffed minion in standard).
Outside of a situation where the game is most likely lost to you anyway, all shield slam will do is ping one character for 2 damage or so (and typically the warrior has better spells for those situations, and I generally only run 1 shield slam in a Warrior Control deck for that reason. That alone is 3 mana, and if they want to do any more than that then they need to expend 2 cards to pull it off (slam/shield block, or Slam/Shieldmaiden). I fail to see how this is any different than hunter's mark, equality, polymorph (which is instant removal, thus the cost difference, it ignores health), or most classes early game removal (except for maybe Priest and Druid, as their early game removal sucks ass, though they both get much much better later on).
I suppose a clever player could try and set up a 3 round combo starting on turn 3 or so to finish up with shieldmaiden+Shield slam on turn 6 to pull off up to (turn 4 Armorsmith + Hero Power for 2, Turn 5 A: Bash the Armorsmith and run it into an enemy for 6 and then hero power to 8 Turn 5B you can combo the armorsmith with inner rage/and run it into an opponent (not to mention any extra minions attack first for extra armor) for 4 + shield block for 9 + and hero power for 11 Turn 5C blood to ichor for 3 + whirlwind for 5 + shield block for 10 + run armorsmith into enemy for 11, Turn 6 Shieldmaiden for 13/16/16 + shield slam for total. I highly doubt that any good player would let them build up like that though once they see the pattern, and you can't attack face, plus how many cards did you burn on top of around 1mana per damage over several turns that could have been played much more efficiently).
So really shield slam is the least of the reasons for warrior being so good. If I was to attribute anything to the warrior's viability it would be the fact that every mechanic they have can work in concert to create a deck able to take advantage of any play you have to make (such as dropping an armorsmith before doing commanding shout, Adept, and pyro combo for an extra 3 damage per card drawn at minimum, and double points if you can drop a raging berzerker before hand. Or the way they can utilize pings to duplicate patrons and slap one back in hand with a brewmaster to ensure they can always bring their army back. Even with the Dragon Warrior the mechanics all work in unison (such as with charge, inner rage, and rampage on a dragonkin sorcerer to make a 3/5 a 13/10 with charge. I've even been known to hit the sorcerer with things like blood of ichor and slam to get a bit of extra benefit from cards like armorsmith or berzerker with BOI or draw a card and give Dragonkin Sorc an extra attack at the cost of 1 health). Even cards that don't really make sense on a warrior can still work out well in some situations (like I really enjoy running a malygos in my warrior deck for some extra group removal when combined with whirlwind).
The warrior's combos are only limited by the imagination of the person making the deck and how well you can come up with combinations on the fly as you need to adjust to the cards you draw to truly take advantage of them to the fullest instead of always waiting around for a particular combo to happen into your hand.
I understand your point barbzilla but removal is not win more . Shield slam trades one for one . It helps stabilize . It is not a card that becomes useful once you are already winning, it gets you there . I cant find any removal in any card game that would be labeled as a win more card
I understand your point barbzilla but removal is not win more . Shield slam trades one for one . It helps stabilize . It is not a card that becomes useful once you are already winning, it gets you there . I cant find any removal in any card game that would be labeled as a win more card
I think I didn't make my point well enough. It is still useful when you aren't winning, but it only becomes powerful (like people were complaining about) is when you are already winning.
In this case I agree with you in the sense that it feels poweful to kill a ragnaros with a 1 mana spell .
It still makes no sense for people to complain . The card is well designed and like someone said earlier it synergizes with the class , kind of like Thing from below .
People who wants to see this nerf I guess want an aggro only meta .
I would still like to see Shield Slam at 1 mana cost however, I would like to see the warrior "spend" his armor when playing shield slam. So when shield slam is played on a minion with 4 health remaining, the warrior loses 4 armor. It would still be a good card but it will prevent the 60 armor crap.
Lets look at the logic of this:
If you hit someone with a shield in real life; is it going to break? no. Unless its shitty.
SO why all of a sudden should your shield instabreak if you whack someone with it?
You seriously want to compare HS with real life ? xD and I didn't say ''instabreak''. If you have 12 armor and shield slam a minion with 4 health,you still have 8 armor left.
Execute and Slam is a bit OP. But I dont think "+1 mana" means anything.
Execute is conditional hard removal. Like Shadow Word: Death. Condition for ShwD - Atack, Condition for Execute - Damaged. Look at Ysera and say, what will you choose. So nerfing Execute will means anything if it is made for 3 mana.
Same for Slam. If nerf - "Lose armor equal to dealt damage".
Shield slam will never get a nerf . The card is 100% fine . Losing armor for using it would make it such a terrible card lol . Seriously you guys are proposing single target removal that cost life ? Wow I have seen it all on these boards
If you want to go real life, with 30 Armor you can't lift even a Fiery War Axe.
Not really. If you think about it, 30 armor essentially doubles your life expectancy on the battlefield (if we are trying to convert hearthstone mechanics into real life). That would be the equivalent of something like chain armor with a breast plate. It basically makes it a bit more than twice as hard to kill you (as an example with no armor (aka 30 health) you can be killed by a quick thrust with any pointed weapon to a vital organ or major vein or artery, with chain armor + Breastplate you are protected from single hit kills (for most weapons a common medieval soldier would use) and require a previous hit to either bypass, weaken, or remove the armor from the place you wish to attack.
A person in decent shape could easily wear full plate and carry either a claymore (massive sword meant for hacking/beheading) or even a tower shield and spear. The life expectancy of a medieval soldier (or more likely officer or knight, since most common soldiers couldn't afford full plate armor if they saved for years) wearing full plate is almost unstoppable in a melee fight (though still pretty vulnerable to crossbows (which were specifically designed to bypass armor, and started the move from heavily armored troops to light armor, then no armor, and not back to light armor of a different type, but that is getting into the evolution of weapons vs defensive options).
If you want to go real life, with 30 Armor you can't lift even a Fiery War Axe.
Not really. If you think about it, 30 armor essentially doubles your life expectancy on the battlefield (if we are trying to convert hearthstone mechanics into real life). That would be the equivalent of something like chain armor with a breast plate. It basically makes it a bit more than twice as hard to kill you (as an example with no armor (aka 30 health) you can be killed by a quick thrust with any pointed weapon to a vital organ or major vein or artery, with chain armor + Breastplate you are protected from single hit kills (for most weapons a common medieval soldier would use) and require a previous hit to either bypass, weaken, or remove the armor from the place you wish to attack.
A person in decent shape could easily wear full plate and carry either a claymore (massive sword meant for hacking/beheading) or even a tower shield and spear. The life expectancy of a medieval soldier (or more likely officer or knight, since most common soldiers couldn't afford full plate armor if they saved for years) wearing full plate is almost unstoppable in a melee fight (though still pretty vulnerable to crossbows (which were specifically designed to bypass armor, and started the move from heavily armored troops to light armor, then no armor, and not back to light armor of a different type, but that is getting into the evolution of weapons vs defensive options).
When you put it like that,it makes you right,but we can't compare it to a game....still....Let's see how the warrior shifts with this new execute nerf.
If you want to go real life, with 30 Armor you can't lift even a Fiery War Axe.
Not really. If you think about it, 30 armor essentially doubles your life expectancy on the battlefield (if we are trying to convert hearthstone mechanics into real life). That would be the equivalent of something like chain armor with a breast plate. It basically makes it a bit more than twice as hard to kill you (as an example with no armor (aka 30 health) you can be killed by a quick thrust with any pointed weapon to a vital organ or major vein or artery, with chain armor + Breastplate you are protected from single hit kills (for most weapons a common medieval soldier would use) and require a previous hit to either bypass, weaken, or remove the armor from the place you wish to attack.
A person in decent shape could easily wear full plate and carry either a claymore (massive sword meant for hacking/beheading) or even a tower shield and spear. The life expectancy of a medieval soldier (or more likely officer or knight, since most common soldiers couldn't afford full plate armor if they saved for years) wearing full plate is almost unstoppable in a melee fight (though still pretty vulnerable to crossbows (which were specifically designed to bypass armor, and started the move from heavily armored troops to light armor, then no armor, and not back to light armor of a different type, but that is getting into the evolution of weapons vs defensive options).
When you put it like that,it makes you right,but we can't compare it to a game....still....Let's see how the warrior shifts with this new execute nerf.
I totally agree, comparing game mechanics and real world physics is damn near impossible unless you are talking about something like a FPS or Sports game. The fact is, I actually screwed up in my explanation too, it would be closer to layered Scale armor (a step or two above the Chain + B-Plate).
Anyway, I don't think the execute nerf is going to hurt Warrior decks too badly. At the very least not nearly as bad as the charge nerf will. The silly charge nerf is affecting a number of warrior decks other than just the OHK raging worgen deck (which really the issue with that deck is the R-Worgen, not the charge buff, that just allowed warriors to utilize it a bit better than other classes). Personally it affects my Boost the Troops deck majorly. That deck is designed around using minions that get extra effect from targeted buff effects or gain empathetic effects from the other minions that get buffed (Like Dragonkin Sorcerer and Djinni of Zephyrs[card] or the ever fun [card]Eydis Darkbane) Charge nerf makes that 3 mana for a 1-2 mana on character effect, meaning that it is now more efficient to just run charge minions to buff instead of picking either the right minion for the job (like Magnataur Alpha or the best minion in hand during an emergency situation.
Still though, (I seriously doubt that any of the nerfs will make warrior unplayable, or even drop them to the level Priest is right now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Mana cost would not matter that much since control warrior floats a lot of mana anyway.
I believe the card should read:
"deal 1 damage to a minion for each Armour you have and. You lose Armour equal to that minion's attack. "
Only than it would be a truly balanced and not an auto include in every control warrior list.
Shield Slam is fine. Maybe with shieldmaiden was a bit overpowered. This card is the only point to armor up. And some of decks need overpowered cards. Nerf would kill Control Warrior, in this aggro meta.
Come on, shield slam is pretty much a win more card. It is only ever cheap removal when the warrior is likely already on his way to a dominating victory. If you are keeping steady pressure on him, he can't build armor and has to play it with what he can generate (which is fair IMO since odds are if he is just playing it off of the armor he has built up already, he was on his way to victory with the rare exception of OTK decks).
As I understand it he means ANY removal in the game and that the comparison should be done between the two cards calculating for the difference in mana between them. Finally from the game I know you usually need to spend at least 2 mana on armor for Shield Slam to be usable so it can be cast after you have invested at least 3 mana in it. Some people will say well you also get extra Armor, which is what makes it unfair (or something along those lines). This is where you are wrong, because having effects like these create what is known as 'class synergy'. If we had no class synergy then we would just have 9 generic classes where people would pick a random class to play with. Trust me you don't want that at all. Besides are we complaining for class synergy now? Well how about Thing from Below? Isn't this a 0 mana 5/5 with taunt 'OP'? Should we nerf that too because it allows Shaman to have some synergy with totems? As far as I am concerned the answer is no.
Change it to: Forbidden ( Concede ) Slam : Deal damage to a character twice the Armor you have. Lose all your armor. Sounds perfectly balanced to me.
Jesus, some people are just never happy. How about we just nerf everything until every deck is 30 wisps?
If you say LUL in Twitch chat you are a moron. If you do it outside of Twitch - even more so!
This is why I say that shield slam is just a win more move:
Shield slam is reliable at getting out 2-6 damage, but anything beyond that means you did so poorly during the match that you haven't been able to do any face damage in a turn or two and the warrior is controlling the board. Realistically once the warrior has the board controlled enough to keep you from putting out hordes that can survive a round or two, the warrior has you in his sights ready to fire his coup'de'gras and finish you off. There are so many ways to dish out big damage on any class that can buff that combined with a warrior's board control, you just aren't going to push past that unless you have direct damage spells or a few good board wipes in your deck (which is warrior's weakness since they can't rebuild easily as control, and they don't have a way to take back control from a lopsided board as agro, you have to really work at some creative solutions to get past those issues like Malygos + Whirlwind for a turn 10 6 damage across the board (and preferably holding an inner rage for killing off a big minion that survives with another 6 damage (which is enough to get you past any unbuffed minion in standard).
Outside of a situation where the game is most likely lost to you anyway, all shield slam will do is ping one character for 2 damage or so (and typically the warrior has better spells for those situations, and I generally only run 1 shield slam in a Warrior Control deck for that reason. That alone is 3 mana, and if they want to do any more than that then they need to expend 2 cards to pull it off (slam/shield block, or Slam/Shieldmaiden). I fail to see how this is any different than hunter's mark, equality, polymorph (which is instant removal, thus the cost difference, it ignores health), or most classes early game removal (except for maybe Priest and Druid, as their early game removal sucks ass, though they both get much much better later on).
I suppose a clever player could try and set up a 3 round combo starting on turn 3 or so to finish up with shieldmaiden+Shield slam on turn 6 to pull off up to (turn 4 Armorsmith + Hero Power for 2, Turn 5 A: Bash the Armorsmith and run it into an enemy for 6 and then hero power to 8 Turn 5B you can combo the armorsmith with inner rage/and run it into an opponent (not to mention any extra minions attack first for extra armor) for 4 + shield block for 9 + and hero power for 11 Turn 5C blood to ichor for 3 + whirlwind for 5 + shield block for 10 + run armorsmith into enemy for 11, Turn 6 Shieldmaiden for 13/16/16 + shield slam for total. I highly doubt that any good player would let them build up like that though once they see the pattern, and you can't attack face, plus how many cards did you burn on top of around 1mana per damage over several turns that could have been played much more efficiently).
So really shield slam is the least of the reasons for warrior being so good. If I was to attribute anything to the warrior's viability it would be the fact that every mechanic they have can work in concert to create a deck able to take advantage of any play you have to make (such as dropping an armorsmith before doing commanding shout, Adept, and pyro combo for an extra 3 damage per card drawn at minimum, and double points if you can drop a raging berzerker before hand. Or the way they can utilize pings to duplicate patrons and slap one back in hand with a brewmaster to ensure they can always bring their army back. Even with the Dragon Warrior the mechanics all work in unison (such as with charge, inner rage, and rampage on a dragonkin sorcerer to make a 3/5 a 13/10 with charge. I've even been known to hit the sorcerer with things like blood of ichor and slam to get a bit of extra benefit from cards like armorsmith or berzerker with BOI or draw a card and give Dragonkin Sorc an extra attack at the cost of 1 health). Even cards that don't really make sense on a warrior can still work out well in some situations (like I really enjoy running a malygos in my warrior deck for some extra group removal when combined with whirlwind).
The warrior's combos are only limited by the imagination of the person making the deck and how well you can come up with combinations on the fly as you need to adjust to the cards you draw to truly take advantage of them to the fullest instead of always waiting around for a particular combo to happen into your hand.
I understand your point barbzilla but removal is not win more . Shield slam trades one for one . It helps stabilize . It is not a card that becomes useful once you are already winning, it gets you there . I cant find any removal in any card game that would be labeled as a win more card
So today Shield Slam is OP, omfg...
Maybe it is I that did not understand .
In this case I agree with you in the sense that it feels poweful to kill a ragnaros with a 1 mana spell .
It still makes no sense for people to complain . The card is well designed and like someone said earlier it synergizes with the class , kind of like Thing from below .
People who wants to see this nerf I guess want an aggro only meta .
The Might of Dalaran has Arrived!
You seriously want to compare HS with real life ? xD
and I didn't say ''instabreak''. If you have 12 armor and shield slam a minion with 4 health,you still have 8 armor left.
Execute and Slam is a bit OP.
But I dont think "+1 mana" means anything.
Execute is conditional hard removal. Like Shadow Word: Death.
Condition for ShwD - Atack, Condition for Execute - Damaged. Look at Ysera and say, what will you choose.
So nerfing Execute will means anything if it is made for 3 mana.
Same for Slam.
If nerf - "Lose armor equal to dealt damage".
Shield slam will never get a nerf . The card is 100% fine . Losing armor for using it would make it such a terrible card lol . Seriously you guys are proposing single target removal that cost life ? Wow I have seen it all on these boards