Hearthpwn

There are two Armor hero powers (Warrior, Druid), one Mage Armor card, and Sir Finley. So roughly 3 classes overall, counting Ice Barrier and Finley as a fraction of a class each.

There are three classes with Secrets, and we get neutral cards to hard counter those. So the argument that an anti-Armor neutral would be too narrow MUST take the position that the existing anti-Secret cards are bad design, because it's hypocritical otherwise.

I would never take such a position.

I personally think there SHOULD be, at any one time, both one neutral anti-Armor Battlecry minion, and one class anti-Armor spell. However, it's important that these cards are designed to be weak in a metagame which isn't dominated by Warrior and/or Druid. So like Eater of Secrets and Flare, basically.

Some otk decks too unfair against non-warrior control. Its good to have more armor in the ladder for more "fun and interactive" game experience.

Quote from WhatAChamp >>

 Now the warrior will know how every single freeze mage and OTK shaman feels when they get matched up against a warrior. 

Quote from Ophion >>

   I can agree that it shouldn't be an unwinnable matchup, Zoo still has a chance against Freeze Mage, but it should always be extremely difficult.

The only thing with this statement is that zoo has ways to tech against freeze mage if it really bothers them. They can use Eater of Secrets to help deal with Ice Block and Ice Barrier. In Wild, they can use Wailing Soul to "unfreeze" their minions for a kill (I would like to see something like this added to standard as well!). I would rather tech cards be in place that allow you to adjust your matchup than to resign to knowing you probably won't beat a deck. When secret pally was big, I ran Blood Knight and Flare to significantly help my pally matchup. Both of those cards aren't terribly useful against other classes but countered secret pally really well.

 This is why I think more classes (except Warrior) should be given more viable anti-OTK tools, and at the same time OTK should get some buffs. This would put OTK vs non-warrior classes at the same spot as it is today, but make warrior relatively weaker in the matchup.

Amen! Give warrior anti-OTK tools. Mind you they already have the best anti-OTK tool in their kit through the armor stacking mechanic. I don't want OTK to be able to just facemelt warriors with some broken card. But I would like to be able to stand a fighting chance if I choose to make some sacrifices in my other matchups. But Blizz should also give tech to warriors to counter it. Maybe something like "half all the damage you take from spells" attached to a minion or on a spell that has a couple turn duration. I think warriors in turn should have an option to add cards to counter OTK instead of just hard countering it by default.

Not playing Shield Block because your opponent might remove the armor, that's sort of like asking a Face Shaman to not waste cards on face damage because a Warlock could have Reno Jackson.

That's EXACTLY what I'm getting at! A smart face shaman would be careful with how much burn he drops and deserves to get screwed if he overdoes it and plays into Reno. And he should get rewarded if the opponent doesn't have Reno. Similarly, there's currently no real downside to armoring up (except for Battle Rage activation and Mortal Strike + Revenge) so a warrior doesn't have to put thought into whether he should save his Shield Block for after a tech card or use it when most convenient. I want that extra thought to have to be put into these decisions. The tech card shouldn't be an autoinclude in decks so most matchups will not have these issues, but the occasional matchup will force the warrior to think a bit more.

Quote from Major_rus >>

Quote from Nibelunglied >>

well there are cards that can eat secrets, i don't see the reason why there shouldn't be a card that eats armor as well 

 Blizzard said, that they will never make a card, that counters one class. They will counter weapons and secrets, but never armor.

And armor don't even need any nerf.