Here, I'll put it plainly: nerf the card to 6 mana.
Wow, that was difficult, wasn't it? I bet people at team 5 could never get to such a revolutionary resolution to a problem caused by a card being overpowered (more overplayed than overpowered in quite a few instances, but the point still stands). That by itself would have literally destroyed all decks in wild because now 6 mana is your minimum for the combo IF you discount the stealer twice (big fat if) and by the usual turn you can play it (i.e. turn 8) you're dead to pretty much everything in wild, and if you're not you've been illucia'd, dirty ratted, whatever else.
Now, if you're seriously suggesting that team 5 had no idea how to solve a problem they themselves created (you have a penchant for pointlessly overdramatising everything, don't you? Who on earth would create problems with cards created if not the team that creates them?) when they could have applied the same solution that has always been used for nerfs (i.e. mana change)...well, you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, dear lad.
The point, once again, is not that they couldn't think of a solution omg the world will die run around waving arms, the point is pretty clearly that they wanted to try something different than what they usually do. You can kind of tell that they did it on purpose because the card sees, quite literally, no play in standard. It wouldn't have been any skin off their noses to nerf it to 6 mana and no one playing standard would have batted a single eye at that. So why did they decide to, instead, act in an unprecedented way? Your guess is as good as mine but while they've messed with card power etc so many times, I tend to think that a team that already knows the cards coming out for the next year knows a smidge more about how they interact with stealer of souls.
Or maybe they're just tired of having to nerf cards when they're only problems in wild. You might as well say "but it's their job to design cards so that they work in both modes (duels too...I suppose?) and I agree with that, but the kneejerk reaction of the first ever ban certainly seems like a "man, we're tired of cards we like having to be nerfed because of wild". I agree that it also sets a rather dangerous precedent that is likely to be reiterated upon in the future. It also opened the floodgates to a number of people who not only don't get what a ban is but they just want cards they don't like to be banned.
Just please don't say "oh, they were incapable of fixing their mistake to hide their shaaaaaaaaaaaame uhhuhuhuhuhuh" because seriously, any schmuck who'd read patch notes once in his life would have been able to fixthis mistake. And by making team 5 sound like toddlers you pretty shamelessly decide to gloss over the actual intricacies tied to this decision.
And I pretty much play wild only so I personally would rather wild had all the cards without this banning nonsense but might as well sit back and see what's next.
Obviously changing the mana cost would also have been a clumsy and lazy solution to a problem, which I insist, they themselves have created due to their own stupidity (and it is not the first time).
So what would have been the ideal solution? Well, the ideal thing would be for them to think and test the consequences of a new card before publishing it, but since that seems to be impossible for a small indie company, I will propose a more suitable solution.
If I were a developer of the game, I wouldn't change the concept of immunity (which is quite obvious and self-explanatory) not even this specific card, because that would be a mere band-aid that would only serve to hide the real problem.
Make no mistake, the problem with this card is the same as always: the cost cheating problem. We must avoid trivializing the cost of cards, either in mana or health, as in this case.
The concept of PAYING in health instead of mana is interesting, especially in the thematic philosophy of warlocks. But paying means paying, if you don't give what is asked of you, you get nothing.
If you are immune and CANNOT lose health, then it should be impossible to make any health payments, therefore it is as when you have no mana to pay and therefore cannot play any more cards. Remember that the game already prevents you from playing cards for life if you don't have enough life to pay the cost! There is already a precedent.
Taking damage would be a different thing, since an immunity would prevent it, but if in the upper left corner of a card where its mana cost is usually shown inside a blue gem, there is now a drop of blood, that means that you have to give health as payment for playing it...
Practical example: imagine that a card is published whose text reads: "Battlecry: During the next turn, your opponent cannot spend mana". Then, even if your opponent has 10 mana crystals, or even if he has ways to recharge them, he could only play cards whose mana cost is zero on that turn, because he could not consume mana no matter how much he had.
I hope that it has been clear. Honestly, it would be the most elegant solution, and also, it would not only solve the problem of this card but it would have corrected the underlying problem at its roots, that is, it would have fixed the problem forever, even for future cards, as it would not be a simple patch or temporary solution.
They haven't banished the card though, it's effect is most likely relevant to standard, which is why they haven't changed or nerfed it. They've said they will alter the card when it rotates, it's just a temporary ban essentially.
What you're asking with Reno is basically what? To delete the card? Wild is the only place it can be used so if they ban it, the card just dies. So it isn't a precedent in the way you're perceiving it, it's a precedent in that if there's a card in standard that they want to work as described but is a problem in wild, then they might ban that card until rotation, at which point they change it so it isn't a problem in the same way.
Having heard the explanation for why Stealer of Souls was "banned" while other cards are "nerfed", I agree completely. Thank you for the explanation.
Reno should not be banned, but would recommend it get nerfed to remove the ability to reset, arguably, the most important parameter in the game, HP, back to Turn 0. My suggestion would be to take it down to 4 mana, and assuming it keeps the deck restriction, give it a battlecry that restores 10 health to hero plus one of the following: (a) give hero stealth for 1 turn, (b) give hero can't be targeted by spells or hero powers, (c) taunt, or (d) taunt + divine shield. As many point out, slower decks struggle and benefit from strong stabilization tools. I think this would allow the card to fulfill that role, without breaking one of the parameters of the game.For whatever it's worth, I would also love to see the following cards changed that, in my opinion, break key parameters of the game: Mechathun, Nozdormu the Timeless, and Celestial Alignment.
This type of thing feels like it belongs in Tavern Brawl, not in a constructed format, where games should stick to the key parameters: 30 card decks, 30 HP, Mana starts at 1, adds 1 per turn, maxing at 10.
Hoping they don't continue exploring ways to stretch those parameters. Like don't make a card that will restore your deck to its original 30 cards, that would reset that parameter back to Turn 0. That's dumb.
Perhaps they should consider a "Big Brain" format or something, 60 HP, 60 card decks, mana maxes at 15. Would be a different game, but may be fun for those who consider aggressive decks stupid and brainless, and prefer a longer more involved format.
For whatever it matters, I mostly play this game on a mobile phone while I'm taking a dump or just have 10 minutes to kill here or there. I play a wide variety of decks. In wild, this includes aggressive ones like a homebrew Stealth Rogue or a janky version of Secret Mage (I lack a lot of the cards to the netdeck), mid-range decks like Soul Demon Hunter or a homebrew Deathrattle Hunter, and have some terrible control decks I play every once in a while for Priest, Warlock and Warrior. I'm a decent but not great player, my legend ranks are around 500 in Wild and 8,000 in Standard. From what I understand, being 500 in Wild isn't impressive like it might be in Standard? The ranks don't mean much to me, but seem to for some commenters on this board.
I'd agree with the comments that, in general, aggressive decks are over-tuned. In my opinion, both in Standard and Wild. Would suggest they remove the ability to discount mana costs below 1, for starters.