Hearthpwn

Quote from WhatAChamp >>

 

Quote from Macinstosh >>

There aren't enough armor-based cards across all of the classes to justify armor removal cards. 

 There aren't enough demon-based cards across all classes to justify Light's Champion yet it was still printed. Armor is a dominant strategy for countering OTK decks. Since an entire archetype could be benefited by a tech card, I see plenty of justification for it.

 

Just a thought. 

8 mana, Neutral Legendary, 1/6 Taunt. 

Destroy your opponent's armor at end of turn.
Your opponent takes two turns.   

Extreme, yes. But destroying all armor is pretty extreme as well. 

I think there are plenty of ways to make cards that don't just say "remove all your opponent's armor". A card that just flat out did that would be too powerful. However, cards that got buffs if your opponent has any armor is probably the best way to do it. Something like a 5 cost 4/6 minion that gets +4 attack if your opponent has armor. They could make minions or spells that are lightning/electricity themed that do extra damage if the defender or target has armor. There could be armor ignoring minions, like vampires or something, that when they deal damage they only deal it to health and not armor.

So there's a lot of creative ways they could make armor punishing cards that are fair and would be effective, rather than just having cards that say "remove all the armor". Because there's no fun or interactivity in that. ;)

Quote from banstylejbo >>

I think there are plenty of ways to make cards that don't just say "remove all your opponent's armor". A card that just flat out did that would be too powerful. However, cards that got buffs if your opponent has any armor is probably the best way to do it. Something like a 5 cost 4/6 minion that gets +4 attack if your opponent has armor. They could make minions or spells that are lightning/electricity themed that do extra damage if the defender or target has armor. There could be armor ignoring minions, like vampires or something, that when they deal damage they only deal it to health and not armor.

So there's a lot of creative ways they could make armor punishing cards that are fair and would be effective, rather than just having cards that say "remove all the armor". Because there's no fun or interactivity in that. ;)

 

 

Rogue Secret

Expose Armor: When an armored opponent attacks, destroy all their armor, and activate  Combo cards next turn.

Probably weak, but Druids and Warriors can play around it, but then have to give up attacking.

Or

Armorstrasza:  9/9/9, battlecry: Set a players armor to 15.

What about something like this?

Maybe a neutral minion with battlecry: On your opponent’s next turn, when they would gain armor, they gain half that amount (rounded down) instead.

I don't want to sound like an ass, but the only decks that have a major problem with armor gain (that wouldn't have the same issue with healing) are OTK/late game control decks. So to everyone inventing all these armor interaction cards, while your ideas may be cool/fun, there is realistically no class that would use them because armor is uncommon enough that it is an inherent downside to include any armor tech card in your deck unless armor is literally the reason you lose your matchup every time. For that reason, I strongly believe that the only reasonable tech card is one that flat out removes at least half of an opponent's armor (I personally believe it should be all of it) or sets it to a specific value. Now, whether this tech card comes about through a battlecry, deathrattle, trigger condition (like dragons, Mimiron's Head or DK pally), multiple turn play (like Rin), or any other way it really doesn't matter as long as it's balanced. I've said it multiple times and I'll say it again: with Pally DK's effect in the game, anything is now reasonable and no card effect should be considered too strong as long as it is balanced properly.

I have yet to hear a proper counter-argument against this as people either get emotional and go back to saying "that effect is too unfair/strong/specific/useless" despite us having several cards that very specifically target classes/archetypes/other cards and the fact that balancing solves any strength issue, or they dismiss the issue by saying "that's just how it is" and that in their opinion, the OTK archetype should fundamentally modify how it works (essentially playing a different archetype altogether) instead of allowing for tech options. I'm finding myself frustrated at responding to the exact same concerns in the exact same way since they belittle the valid arguments I have made and attempt to turn the discussion into something other than what it was intended.

The only thing I've heard so far that makes some sense as to why this shouldn't be allowed in the game is the disagreement as to what should be available as a tech card. I'm in the camp of "make tons of tech cards even if many of them see very little play" because I believe it makes the game far smarter and rewards proper deckbuilding and meta reading over just copying the top deck. I think even specific tech cards (like Geist with Jade Idol, Blood Knight with divine shield or Light's Champion with demons) are smart and wouldn't mind having far more of these (destroy all stealth minions, deal damage to an opponent equal to the number of spells they have played this game, revert your opponent's hero power back to its original state, etc). Others believe tech cards should have very few downsides and should be minor boost safe includes in a meta that may occasionally run the deck that it helps against. That's a fair stance to hold but I think it severely dumbs down the game. I mean, people complained about aggro secret mage while refusing to include Eater because it was "a shitty card" despite being entirely game-breaking against one specific class. If we're only going to accept tech cards like Golakka Crawler when 3/4 decks have pirates and old BGH when every deck ran Dr. 7, then we're not really teching anymore. We're just choosing staple meta cards with virtually no downside. I'm a firm believer that including a tech card should slightly hurt several matchups while greatly strengthening one or two. If this is the disagreement we're having though, it ends up just being a matter of opinion.

How about this.

Why tho? Armor isnt a problem in any way, except it counters OTK decks (and not even all of them) which is completely reasonable.

Why tho? Armor isnt a problem in any way, except it counters OTK decks (and not even all of them) which is completely reasonable.

So I didn't read through all the comments, but just skimmed them to see if anyone else thought of what I did. It seems like @Likafoss beat me to it. @Funology90 and @Tharinroderel also had similar ideas.

But I actually had this idea a long time ago, like maybe almost a year ago. My idea would be something like a 5 mana 2/5 minion with text that says "Does triple damage against hero's with armor" (name - Armor Piercer?)

While it is similar to @Likafoss idea, I think the triple damage makes it more useful as a tech card and worse in other cases. 5 mana for a 2/5 minion is pretty awful normally, and 6 dmg for a 5 mana minion isn't great either. However, it could also make some interesting plays since if you are able to buff it, you can do some insane damage against your opponent if they have even 1 armor.

Of course you could balance the stats however way you want, but I think triple damage does a better job separating the card for tech purposes than double damage.

EDIT: another thing to consider is if the text says it does triple damage against period or, as @Likafoss had it, only when attacking. It would be a subtle difference, but the prior would mean that it would do extra damage if it was attacked by the enemy hero, making it more difficult for classes with weapons or the druid hero power.

Quote from WhatAChamp >>

I don't want to sound like an ass, but the only decks that have a major problem with armor gain (that wouldn't have the same issue with healing) are OTK/late game control decks. So to everyone inventing all these armor interaction cards, while your ideas may be cool/fun, there is realistically no class that would use them because armor is uncommon enough that it is an inherent downside to include any armor tech card in your deck unless armor is literally the reason you lose your matchup every time. For that reason, I strongly believe that the only reasonable tech card is one that flat out removes at least half of an opponent's armor (I personally believe it should be all of it) or sets it to a specific value. Now, whether this tech card comes about through a battlecry, deathrattle, trigger condition (like dragons, Mimiron's Head or DK pally), multiple turn play (like Rin), or any other way it really doesn't matter as long as it's balanced. I've said it multiple times and I'll say it again: with Pally DK's effect in the game, anything is now reasonable and no card effect should be considered too strong as long as it is balanced properly.

I have yet to hear a proper counter-argument against this as people either get emotional and go back to saying "that effect is too unfair/strong/specific/useless" despite us having several cards that very specifically target classes/archetypes/other cards and the fact that balancing solves any strength issue, or they dismiss the issue by saying "that's just how it is" and that in their opinion, the OTK archetype should fundamentally modify how it works (essentially playing a different archetype altogether) instead of allowing for tech options. I'm finding myself frustrated at responding to the exact same concerns in the exact same way since they belittle the valid arguments I have made and attempt to turn the discussion into something other than what it was intended.

The only thing I've heard so far that makes some sense as to why this shouldn't be allowed in the game is the disagreement as to what should be available as a tech card. I'm in the camp of "make tons of tech cards even if many of them see very little play" because I believe it makes the game far smarter and rewards proper deckbuilding and meta reading over just copying the top deck. I think even specific tech cards (like Geist with Jade Idol, Blood Knight with divine shield or Light's Champion with demons) are smart and wouldn't mind having far more of these (destroy all stealth minions, deal damage to an opponent equal to the number of spells they have played this game, revert your opponent's hero power back to its original state, etc). Others believe tech cards should have very few downsides and should be minor boost safe includes in a meta that may occasionally run the deck that it helps against. That's a fair stance to hold but I think it severely dumbs down the game. I mean, people complained about aggro secret mage while refusing to include Eater because it was "a shitty card" despite being entirely game-breaking against one specific class. If we're only going to accept tech cards like Golakka Crawler when 3/4 decks have pirates and old BGH when every deck ran Dr. 7, then we're not really teching anymore. We're just choosing staple meta cards with virtually no downside. I'm a firm believer that including a tech card should slightly hurt several matchups while greatly strengthening one or two. If this is the disagreement we're having though, it ends up just being a matter of opinion.

While I don't dispute that there should be ways to punish classes that gain loads of armor, I think making super focused hate cards is not the best way to go about it. Armor gain is prevalent enough that a card similar to Spellbreaker or Acidic Swamp Ooze would be a great template for an armor gain punisher card (speaking in terms of stats, not saying it should have a battlecry of "remove all the armor"). For example, Spellbreaker is really good when it has expensive targets to silence, but otherwise it is a 4 mana 4/3 that does nothing else. So while it is not a great play if you have no good silence targets, it's still a passable card on rate. Not amazing, but not totally embarrassing to play. So if they can make cards which aren't totally useless when you have no target, then I think a lot of decks could go to that to shore up a weakness, while conceding that they have to run an OK, but unimpressive minion when matched up against other decks when they could probably use that slot on a better minion otherwise.

Quote from FtGreat1 >>

 

And don’t tell the paladin dk story again, because it’s a combo. If you make a 4 cards combo that removes all your opponents armor then it would be more acceptable.

 

Quote from SunbleachedAngel >>

Why tho? Armor isnt a problem in any way, except it counters OTK decks (and not even all of them) which is completely reasonable.

I've thought about this as well, but it could probably be balanced around some vanilla statted minion that deals double damage to armor. Something like a 4 mana 5/5 "Armor-piercer" or a mallet weapon that deals double damage to armor (since that was the purpose of a maul back in the day). 

Armor removal?

Instead I’d say a legendary neutral minion whose damage bypasses armor.  Or a spell that makes a minion’s attack bypass armor.  Or a legendary whose effect while on board is to double all damage done to armor by all damage sources (or just minions or whatever). 

But single card removal is too much.   Maybe something like a 0 mana spell whose effect is: Spend all of your mana.  Remove twice that amount of armor from your opponent.

Full removal would be too strong, but Im up for a 5 mana 5/5 that removes 10 armor. Just like the big ooze removes the weapon.